Softpanorama

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

Deep State Bulletin, 2016

 The Deep State 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015

Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Putting War Crimes on the Menu

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

Torture is a case in point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The logic of the Red Queen.

Through the Looking Glass

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

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

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

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

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

Failure by Any Measure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran. ..."
"... Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington. ..."
"... Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. ..."
"... Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse. ..."
"... Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.) ..."
"... Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress? ..."
"... Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies. ..."
Oct 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

Fran Macadam , October 20, 2017 at 3:08 pm GMT

A credible reading of the diverse facts, Mike.
Kirk Elarbee , October 20, 2017 at 8:27 pm GMT
Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/10/everyone-hacked-everyone-hacked-everyone-spy-spin-fuels-anti-kaspersky-campaign.html

utu , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 5:18 am GMT
Again Mike Whitney does not get it. Though in the first part of the article I thought he would. He was almost getting there. The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.

Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope.

Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer.

Pamela Geller: Thank You, Larry David

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/10/19/pamela-geller-thank-larry-david/

anon , Disclaimer Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 5:54 am GMT
OK.

The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway.

No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way

The one thing I am not positive about. If the elite really believe that Russia is a threat, then Americans have done psych ops on themselves.

The US was only interested in Ukraine because it was there. Next in line on a map. The rather shocking disinterest in investing money -- on both sides -- is inexplicable if it was really important. Most of it would be a waste -- but still. The US stupidly spent $5 billion on something -- getting duped by politicians and got theoretical regime change, but it was hell to pry even $1 billion for real economic aid.

ThereisaGod , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 6:37 am GMT
" ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people."

All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests.

jilles dykstra , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 6:46 am GMT
I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA, 1492 to the Present. A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops.
Logan , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 11:16 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

You should be aware that Zinn's book is not, IMO, an honest attempt at writing history. It is conscious propaganda intended to make Americans believe exactly what you are taking from it.

DESERT FOX , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT
The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter.

Until that fact changes Americans will continue to fight and die for Israel.

TG , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 2:03 pm GMT
"The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result "

But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world.

I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter!

Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them.

Anonymous , Disclaimer Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT
Whitney is another author who declares the "Russians did it" narrative a psyop. He then devotes entire columns to the psyop, "naww Russia didn't do it". There could be plenty to write about – recent laws that do undercut liberty, but no, the Washington Post needs fake opposition to its fake news so you have guys like Whitney in the less-mainstream fake news media.

So Brennan wanted revenge? Well that's simple enough to understand, without being too stupid. But Whitney's whopper of a lie is what you're supposed to unquestionably believe. The US has "rival political parties". Did you miss it?

Jake , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 2:32 pm GMT
The US is doing nothing more than acting as the British Empire 2.0. WASP culture was born of a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. That meant that the WASP Elites of every are pro-Jewish, especially in order to wage war, physical and/or cultural, against the vast majority of white Christians they rule.

By the early 19th century, The Brit Empire's Elites also had a strong, and growing, dose of pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic philoSemitism. Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.

So, by the time of Victoria's high reign, the Brit WASP Elites were a strange brew of hardcoree pro-Jewish and hardcore pro-Arabic/islamic. The US foreign policy of today is an attempt to put those two together and force it on everyone and make it work.

The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself.

Logan , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT
@Grandpa Charlie

Fair enough. I didn't know that about the foreword. If accurate, that's a reasonable approach for a book.

Here's the problem.

Back when O. Cromwell was the dictator of England, he retained an artist to paint him. The custom of the time was for artists to "clean up" their subjects, in a primitive form of photoshopping.

OC being a religious fanatic, he informed the artist he wished to be portrayed as God had made him, "warts and all." (Ollie had a bunch of unattractive facial warts.) Or the artist wouldn't be paid.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/nov/08/cromwell-portraitist-samuel-cooper-exhibition

Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so.

All I am asking is that American (and other) history be written "warts and all." The triumphalist version is true, largely, and so is the Zinn version. Gone With the Wind and Roots both portray certain aspects of the pre-war south fairly accurately..

America has been, and is, both evil and good. As is/was true of every human institution and government in history. Personally, I believe America, net/net, has been one of the greatest forces for human good ever. But nobody will realize that if only the negative side of American history is taught.

Wally , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:16 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

Hasbarist 'Kenny', you said:

"There must be something really dirty in Russigate that hasn't yet come out to generate this level of panic."

You continue to claim what you cannot prove.

But then you are a Jews First Zionist.

Russia-Gate Jumps the Shark
Russia-gate has jumped the shark with laughable new claims about a tiny number of "Russia-linked" social media ads, but the US mainstream media is determined to keep a straight face

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/10/robert-parry/jumping-the-shark/

Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet?

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/

+ review of other frauds

Logan , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT
@Jake

Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.

Thanks for the laugh. During the 19th century, the Sauds were toothless, dirt-poor hicks from the deep desert of zero importance on the world stage.

The Brits were not Saudi proponents, in fact promoting the Husseins of Hejaz, the guys Lawrence of Arabia worked with. The Husseins, the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of Hejaz, were the hereditary enemies of the Sauds of Nejd.

After WWI, the Brits installed Husseins as rulers of both Transjordan and Iraq, which with the Hejaz meant the Sauds were pretty much surrounded. The Sauds conquered the Hejaz in 1924, despite lukewarm British support for the Hejaz.

Nobody in the world cared much about the Saudis one way or another until massive oil fields were discovered, by Americans not Brits, starting in 1938. There was no reason they should. Prior to that Saudi prominence in world affairs was about equal to that of Chad today, and for much the same reason. Chad (and Saudi Arabia) had nothing anybody else wanted.

Grandpa Charlie , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

'Putin stopped talking about the "Lisbon to Vladivostok" free trade area long ago" -- Michael Kenney

Putin was simply trying to sell Russia's application for EU membership with the catch-phrase "Lisbon to Vladivostok". He continued that until the issue was triply mooted (1) by implosion of EU growth and boosterism, (2) by NATO's aggressive stance, in effect taken by NATO in Ukraine events and in the Baltics, and, (3) Russia's alliance with China.

It is surely still true that Russians think of themselves, categorically, as Europeans. OTOH, we can easily imagine that Russians in Vladivostok look at things differently than do Russians in St. Petersburg. Then again, Vladivostok only goes back about a century and a half.

Seamus Padraig , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:39 pm GMT
@utu

Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration.

I generally agree with your comment, but that part strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration. While relations with Russia certainly haven't improved, how have they really worsened? The second round of sanctions that Trump reluctantly approved have yet to be implemented by Europe, which was the goal. And apart from that, what of substance has changed?

Seamus Padraig , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:45 pm GMT
@Grandpa Charlie

That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era.

Ludwig Watzal , Website Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT
It's not surprising that 57 percent of the American people believe in Russian meddling. Didn't two-thirds of the same crowd believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, too? The American public is being brainwashed 24 hours a day all year long.

The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it.

This disinformation campaign might be the prelude to an upcoming war.
Right now, the US is run by jerks and idiots. Watch the video.

anonymous , Disclaimer Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT
Only dumb people does not know that TRUMP IS NETANYAHU'S PUPPET.

The fifth column zionist jews are running the albino stooge and foreign policy in the Middle East to expand Israel's interest against American interest that is TREASON. One of these FIFTH COLUMNISTS is Jared Kushner. He should be arrested.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/donald-trumps-likudist-campaign-against-iran/5614264

[The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.

Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.

Bolton spoke with Trump by phone on Thursday about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it would be "terminated" if there was any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling Trump from Las Vegas, where he'd been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third major figure behind Trump's shift towards Israeli issues. Adelson is a Likud supporter who has long been a close friend of Netanyahu's and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel Hayomto support Netanyahu's campaigns. He was Trump's main campaign contributor in 2016, donating $100 million. Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in Washington -- especially with regard to Iran.]

Miro23 , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 4:56 pm GMT
A great article with some excellent points:

Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington.

American dominance is very much tied to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency, and the rest of the world no longer want to fund this bankrupt, warlike state – particularly the Chinese.

First, it confirms that the US did not want to see the jihadist extremists defeated by Russia. These mainly-Sunni militias served as Washington's proxy-army conducting an ambitious regime change operation which coincided with US strategic ambitions.

The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.

Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say.

They are given the political line and they broadcast it.

The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people. That can only lead to trouble.

At some point Americans are going to get a "War on Domestic Terror" cheered along by the media. More or less the arrest and incarceration of any opposition following the Soviet Bolshevik model.

CanSpeccy , Website Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 5:11 pm GMT
@utu

On the plus side, everyone now knows that the Anglo-US media from the NY Times to the Economist, from WaPo to the Gruniard, and from the BBC to CNN, the CBC and Weinstein's Hollywood are a worthless bunch of depraved lying bastards.

Thales the Milesian , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 5:53 pm GMT
Brennan did this, CIA did that .

So what are you going to do about all this?

Continue to whine?

Continue to keep your head stuck in your ass?

So then continue with your blah, blah, blah, and eat sh*t.

You, disgusting self-elected democratic people/institutions!!!

AB_Anonymous , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 5:59 pm GMT
Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse.

The thing is, no matter how thick the mental cages are, and how carefully they are maintained by the daily massive injections of "certified" truth (via MSM), along with neutralizing or compromising of "troublemakers", the presence of multiple alternative sources in the age of Internet makes people to slip out of these cages one by one, and as the last events show – with acceleration.

It means that there's a fast approaching tipping point after which it'd be impossible for those in power both to keep a nice "civilized" face and to control the "cage-free" population. So, no matter how the next war will be called, it will be the war against the free Internet and free people. That's probably why N. Korean leader has no fear to start one.

Art , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 6:18 pm GMT
An aside:

All government secrecy is a curse on mankind. Trump is releasing the JFK murder files to the public. Kudos! Let us hope he will follow up with a full 9/11 investigation.

Think Peace -- Art

Mr. Anon , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 7:07 pm GMT
@utu

The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.

Good point. That was probably one of the objectives (and from the point of view of the deep-state, perhaps the most important objective) of the "Russia hacked our democracy" narrative, in addition to the general deligitimization of the Trump administration.

Art , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 7:11 pm GMT
And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and CIA-trained.

Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.)

Are committees of six congressman and six senators, who meet in secret, just avoiding the grave constitutional questions of war? We the People cannot even interrogate these politicians. (These politicians make big money in the secrecy swamp when they leave office.)

Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress?

Spying is one thing – covert action is another – covert is wrong – it goes against world order. Every year after 9/11 they say things are worse – give them more money more power and they will make things safe. That is BS!

9/11 has opened the flood gates to the US government attacking at will, the various peoples of this Earth. That is NOT our prerogative.

We are being exceptionally arrogant.

Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies.

Think Peace -- Art

Rurik , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 7:12 pm GMT
@Ben10

right at 1:47

when he says 'we can't move on as a country'

his butt hurt is so ruefully obvious, that I couldn't help notice a wry smile on my face

that bitch spent millions on the war sow, and now all that mullah won't even wipe his butt hurt

when I see ((guys)) like this raging their inner crybaby angst, I feel really, really good about President Trump

MAGA bitches!

Mr. Anon , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 7:15 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA

A Peoples History of the USA? Which Peoples?

Tradecraft46 , Next New Comment October 21, 2017 at 8:04 pm GMT
I am SAIS 70 so know the drill and the article is on point.

Here is the dealio. Most reporters are dim and have no experience, and it is real easy to lead them by the nose with promises of better in the future.

[Mar 29, 2019] America is a banana republic! FBI chief agrees with CIA on Russia alleged election help for Trump

Comey was a part of the coup -- a color revolution against Trump with Bremmen (possibly assigned by Obama) pulling the strings. That's right. This is a banana republic with nukes.
Notable quotes:
"... "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it. ..."
"... Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election ..."
www.sott.net
Reprinted from RT

FBI and National Intelligence chiefs both agree with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential elections partly in an effort to help Donald Trump win the White House, US media report.

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are both convinced that Russia was behind cyberattacks that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta, The Washington Post and reported Friday, citing a message sent by CIA Director John Brennan to his employees.

"Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it.

"The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI," it continued.

Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election to help Trump win, calling info "fuzzy and ambiguous"

... ... ...

[Feb 25, 2018] Why Republican Elites are Threatened

This is almost two year old discussion. Still relevant...
Notable quotes:
"... Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ... ..."
"... I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart. I am not pleased at all, however, that people are still being led to believe that there are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare. ... ..."
"... And the next GOP President will immediately give away those hard earned surpluses generated by President Clinton or Sanders to their plutocratic donors - just as W did. ..."
"... The collapse and subsequent economic rape of the USSR region in 1991-1998 was a huge stimulus for the US economy. Something like 300 millions of new customers overnight for many products and huge expansion of the dollar zone, which partially compensates for the loss of EU to euro. ..."
"... Actually, Bill Clinton put a solid fundament for subsequent deterioration relations with Russia. His semi-successful attempt to colonize Russia (under Yeltsin Russia was a semi-colony and definitely a vassal state of the USA) backfired. ..."
"... Now the teeth of dragon planted by Slick Bill (of Kosovo war fame) are visible in full glory. Russian elite no longer trusts the US elite and feels threatened. ..."
"... Series of female sociopath (or borderline personalities) in the role of Secretaries of State did not help either. The last one, "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary and her protégé Victoria Nuland (which actually was a close associate of Dick Cheney http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/11/president_cheney.html ) are actually replay of unforgettable Madeleine Albright with her famous a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."[ ..."
"... "Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ..." ..."
"... I think you have identified the potential roots of a movement. The unwrapping and critical analysis of the demagoguery that has defined the lives of the baby boom generation. The quote below from Dan Baum's Harper's article, Legalize It All", seems particularly poignant: ..."
"... Much Republican elites would love to raise sales taxes, payroll taxes, or any tax that the "little people" pay. This would allow them to cut taxes for rich people even more. This is their game. Take from the poor and give to the rich. DOOH NIBOR economics! ..."
"... Excellent piece, but I would point out that the GOP would likely sacrifice their own mothers for upper class tax cuts. ..."
"... Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that the GOP *leadership* is vehemently opposed to Trump, because he threatens their authority, but the rank-and-file seem to be pretty happy with him. ..."
"... The idea seems to be that Trump, if elected, will obviously 'reconstitute' the GOP, re-making it totally, casting out old people, bringing in New Blood. ..."
"... This would be 'yuuugely' more cataclysmic than what happened between Teddy Roosevelt and the anti-progressives of the GOP back in 1912. ..."
"... [I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart.] ..."
Mar 22, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
New Column:
Why Republican Elites are Threatened, by Mark Thoma : ... Donald Trump's tax plan will result in a fall in revenue of 9.5 trillion dollars over the next ten years, yet somehow he will fulfill his promise to protect Social Security and Medicare and balance the budget? When push comes to shove (or worse – this is Trump after all), who do you think he will protect, social insurance programs the working class relies upon for economic security or his own and his party's wealthy interests? Ted Cruz has proposed an 8.6 trillion dollar tax cut. How, exactly, will that be financed without large cuts to social insurance programs or huge increases in the budget deficit?

Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ...

I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart. I am not pleased at all, however, that people are still being led to believe that there are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare. ...

Posted by Mark Thoma on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 05:24 AM in Economics , Politics , Social Insurance | Permalink Comments (41)

New Deal democrat -> pgl...
And the next GOP President will immediately give away those hard earned surpluses generated by President Clinton or Sanders to their plutocratic donors - just as W did.

Hence my support for a *countercyclical* Balanced Budget Amendment.

Peter K. -> New Deal democrat...
My point was that Sanders or Clinton would be getting the surprise surpluses as W. did.

My hope is that Clinton would do the right thing, but I wouldn't bet money on it. I could see her do tax cuts for corporations and finance. Summers recently had a piece arguing for tax cuts as incentives for private investment.

sanjait -> Peter K....
If we consider that there is probably some pent up business investment demand that could drive above average productivity growth for a few years ... then it plausibly is possible for the country to achieve late 90s style growth.
likbez -> Peter K....

The collapse and subsequent economic rape of the USSR region in 1991-1998 was a huge stimulus for the US economy. Something like 300 millions of new customers overnight for many products and huge expansion of the dollar zone, which partially compensates for the loss of EU to euro.

Even if we count just the cash absorbed by the region, it will be a major economic stimulus. All-it-all it was Bernanke size if we add buying assets for pennies on the dollar.

Actually, Bill Clinton put a solid fundament for subsequent deterioration relations with Russia. His semi-successful attempt to colonize Russia (under Yeltsin Russia was a semi-colony and definitely a vassal state of the USA) backfired.

Now the teeth of dragon planted by Slick Bill (of Kosovo war fame) are visible in full glory. Russian elite no longer trusts the US elite and feels threatened.

Series of female sociopath (or borderline personalities) in the role of Secretaries of State did not help either. The last one, "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary and her protégé Victoria Nuland (which actually was a close associate of Dick Cheney http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/11/president_cheney.html ) are actually replay of unforgettable Madeleine Albright with her famous a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."[

pgl :
All well said! The notion that Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump lie a lot is as established as the fact that the earth is not flat.
Jerry Brown -> pgl...
True that!
Paul Mathis :
"[T]here are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare."

As every legitimate economist knows, stimulus spending to increase the GDP growth rate would raise tax revenues without raising tax rates. This phenomenon is well-known to Keynesians and has been demonstrated many times.

Thanks to the disinformation campaign run by Republicans, however, stimulus spending has been taken off the table of economic choices except in China where minimum GDP growth is 6.5%. China is "killing us" economically because we are stupid.

Jerry Brown -> Paul Mathis...
Instead, the Trumps and Cruzes and Ryans believe in giant tax cuts for the very wealthy. This might provide a weak stimulus for the economy, but it is a very poor way to go about it. More likely in my mind is that it would lead to increased pressure to cut government spending on things that actually do help the economy.
Paul Mathis -> Jerry Brown...
Tax cuts for the wealthy do not increase demand. Trickle down is a false economic doctrine that exacerbates inequality and therefore reduces demand. Keynes established this principle decades ago but his wisdom has been ignored.
pgl -> Paul Mathis...
You'll love this bit of honesty from right wing Joe Scarborough:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/03/08/joe-scarborough-admits-that-trickle-down-economics-is-a-total-republican-lie-video/

But the 1981 tax cuts did increase shopping on Rodeo Drive.

mulp -> pgl...
Job losses began the month Reagan signed the tax cuts. Job creation began the month Reagan hiked taxes to pay workers to fix the roads and bridges. Reagan and his job killing tax cuts caused the recession, not the Fed and monetary policy. Monetary policy was steady from 1980 to 1983.

Reagan's tax cuts struck fear into would be lenders. How much debt was the government going to need if it intentionally cuts it's incomes? On the other hand, if the government stops spending, that's millions of workers who will be forced to stop spending.

For Nixon, the Fed monetized the smaller deficits from repealling the war tax surcharge that balanced the budget in 1969. Just as the Fed monetized all government debt once FDR and his bankers took over, especially Eccles at the Fed.

But Volcker was not going to monetize the debt caused by Reagan's adoption of intentional deficit spending.

But even Reagan eventually understood what FDR did: gdp growth requires workers getting paid more, and government can take the money from people who have it but won't spend it paying workers, but tax and spend, and create jobs.

If only economists today understood it, and called for tax and spend to create jobs to grow gdp.

anne :
Really nice essay.
Mr. Bill :
"Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ..."

I think you have identified the potential roots of a movement. The unwrapping and critical analysis of the demagoguery that has defined the lives of the baby boom generation. The quote below from Dan Baum's Harper's article, Legalize It All", seems particularly poignant:

"At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. "You want to know what this was really all about?" he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

BobZ :
I'm pretty sure that the Trumpists would be thrilled to raise taxes...on someone else. It's only the elites that are interested in lowering taxes on the rich. Trump's followers don't care.

I'm also pretty sure that Trump will turn on the donor class rather than reduce anything for his own base - but I could be wrong.

pgl -> BobZ ...
Much Republican elites would love to raise sales taxes, payroll taxes, or any tax that the "little people" pay. This would allow them to cut taxes for rich people even more. This is their game. Take from the poor and give to the rich. DOOH NIBOR economics!
pgl -> BobZ ...
Krugman for almost 12 years ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/01/opinion/dooh-nibor-economics.html?_r=0

JohnH :
All this liberal hand wringing about Trump's tax plan. Yet when Bernie introduces a major tax plan, it doesn't get noticed!!! Not a single 'attaboy' from these supposedly liberal economists.

"With the most progressive tax policy of any candidate, Sanders would dramatically increase taxes for the very wealthy and high-income earners (as well as moderate increases for the middle- and upper-middle classes) in order to pay for key planks of his social agenda including tuition-free public college, a Medicare for All healthcare program, massive infrastructure spending, and paid family leave for all workers."
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/21/tax-plan-sanders-beats-both-clinton-and-trump-double-digits


"Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposes significant increases in federal income, payroll, business, and estate taxes, and new excise taxes on financial transactions and carbon. New revenues would pay for universal health care, education, family leave, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, and more. TPC estimates the tax proposals would raise $15.3 trillion over the next decade. All income groups would pay some additional tax, but most would come from high-income households, particularly those with the very highest income. His proposals would raise taxes on work, saving, and investment, in some cases to rates well beyond recent historical experience in the US."
http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000639-an-analysis-of-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-proposals.pdf

As I've said many times, most 'liberal' economists simply to not want increased taxes to be put on the table as a viable alternative for funding stimulus. Else, why would they go silent when a major candidate makes such an economically significant proposal? Why is it that they are eager to promote ever more debt but refuse to support more taxes?

pgl -> JohnH...
You are pushing this which is fine. But

"Yet when Bernie introduces a major tax plan, it doesn't get noticed!!"

I noticed this a long time ago. And I applauded Bernie's proposal. I guess I have to resign as a "liberal economist".

JohnH -> pgl...
Now pgl claims to have supported Bernie's tax plan...when all he said did was to acknowledge that I cited a credible source!
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2016/02/bernie_sanders_health_care_tax_plan_would_raise_13_trillion_yet_increase_after-tax_incomes_for_all_i.php#.VvFotY-cHcs

Question is, why are all those 'liberal' economists running from Bernie's progressive tax plan like the plague?

pgl -> JohnH...
I have supported tax increases on the rich many times. Pay attention. Also - read the latest column from Mark Thoma which is what this thread is supposed to be about. I guess Mark must not be a liberal economists either. DUH!
Eric377 -> JohnH...
Because they can always run back to something like it if a Democrat is elected, but not so if Trump or Cruz are and they have convinced themselves that supporting Sanders is a big risk of getting a Republican. And they are right about that.
JohnH -> Eric377...
LOL!!! Democrats will NOT endorse support anything like Bernie's tax pan EVER! Just like 'liberal" economists will never endorse it either...in fact, they have every opportunity to endorse it now but refuse to even talk about it, apparently hoping it will just go away.
mulp -> JohnH...
But the real benefit of high tax rates on people with lots of money is they will work really hard to not pay taxes by investing in new capital assets even if the bean counters think building more assets will only slash returns on capital.

The result is no increase in tax revenue, but lots of jobs created if the tax dodges are designed to create jobs.

The best example is a carbon tax. The correct carbon tax schedule of increases will raise virtually no tax revenue, but will result in trillions of dollars in labor costs building productive capital, which will ironically make the rich far wealthier.

But if millions of people are employed for a lifetime and the burning of fossil fuels ends, only Bernie will be angry that those responsible end up worth hundreds of billions, or maybe become trillionaires. Their businesses will not be profitable, just like Amazon, Tesla, SpaceX are worth tens of billions but are unprofitable.

pgl :
GOP elite Peter Schiff babbling even worse lies than our excellent host has documented:

http://realcrash2016.com/peter-schiff-social-security-could-implode-in-2016/?code=466832/&utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral

pgl -> pgl...
Schiff is saying Soc. Sec. will go bankrupt this year. He also predicted hyperinflation and gold at $5000 an ounce:

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/02/13/gold-at-5000-and-beyond-peter-schiff-sticks-to-his-call/

Benedict@Large -> pgl...
Every year Schiff predicts a recession. Once every 6-8 years, he's right. Schiff then claims he's predicted every recession for the last three dozen years. Everyone is amazed. "How does he do it?" the crowd gasps.

Why does anyone even mention Schiff? He's a grifter with an angle to part rich people from their money. Nothing more.

pgl :
From the day job - filed under fun with Microsoft Excel. Math nerds will get this right away. I'm reading a report from some expert witness that claims some loan guarantee is worth only 22 basis points when my client has charged 55 basis points. Think of x = 1.005 and take the natural log. Yes, the right answer is 50 basis points. This clown uses Excel and types in log(x).

OK - I hate Microsoft Excel as it took me a while. But the log function assumes base 10. The correct syntax is ln(x).

Somehow I think the right wing elite will start doing similar things in their Soc. Sec. analyzes.

William -> pgl...
Somehow, I think the right wing elite don't know the difference between a basis point and a percentage point, let alone between a base 10 or a base e logarithm.
pgl -> William...
I know Stephen Moore certainly does not know the difference!
DrDick :
Excellent piece, but I would point out that the GOP would likely sacrifice their own mothers for upper class tax cuts.
pgl :
Politics down under (New Zealand). The Green Party is campaigning on transfer pricing enforcement in order to make the multinationals pay their fair share of taxes:

https://www.greens.org.nz/news/press-release/govt-warned-multinational-tax-rort-2013

We need more of this in the US!

Fred C. Dobbs :
Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that the GOP *leadership* is vehemently opposed to Trump, because he threatens their authority, but the rank-and-file seem to be pretty happy with him.
pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs...
I was tired and fell asleep by 9PM missing Rachel's show. Thanks for filling me in. She's awesome!
Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl...
The idea seems to be that Trump, if elected, will obviously 'reconstitute' the GOP, re-making it totally, casting out old people, bringing in New Blood.

This would be 'yuuugely' more cataclysmic than what happened between Teddy Roosevelt and the anti-progressives of the GOP back in 1912.

eudaimonia :
[I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart.]

I disagree here. I don't see Trump as exposing the Republican economic agenda to be a fraud. Instead, Trump is exposing that the main driver in conservatism is not policy, but racism.

The Republican base is not "waking up" per say, but Trump rather erased away the policy veneer and has shown the heart of the conservative base.

For decades, the RW economic and social agenda was based off of racism and bigotry - fictional Cadillac mothers, how blacks just vote Democrat since they are lazy, increased voting restrictions for a non-problem, Willie Horton, opposing the CRA in the name of "freedom" and states' rights, etc.

The argument now has simply shifted away from slashing taxes on white rich males since it creates an underclass of dependent minorities, to blaming Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, etc.

If you look at the heart of Trump supporters, they are high school dropouts who have also dropped out of the labor force since they were dependent on the old economy, live in mobile houses and have not moved around much, with a history of voting for segregationists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/upshot/the-geography-of-Trump_vs_deep_state.html?_r=0

As their economy breaks down around them, like it has in various parts of the country, we are seeing the same social ills emerge - suicide, drug use, depression, rise of divorce, etc.

What Trump has shown them is that it is not their fault. It is not the fault of policy. It is not the fault of globalization. It is not the fault of technological change. It is the fault of the Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, etc.

The core of conservatism is still there: racism, and Trump has simply shown this. Conservatism is not about policy, but an emotional reactionary ideology based on fear and ignorance that looks for minorities to be scapegoats.

pgl :
US Supreme Court splits 4-4 in Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-22/u-s-supreme-court-splits-4-4-for-first-time-since-scalia-death?cmpid=yhoo.headline

Appeals Court had ruled in favor of the bank so the bank prevails. OK - we know Scalia would have voted in favor of the bank but now the standard is how would have Garland ruled. The Senate needs to act on his nomination.

sanjait :
Maybe the simplest way to dissect it is to note that the GOP has been running multiple overlapping cons. They tell the base that tax cuts will improve their lives, and then passes tax cuts that go mostly to the rich.

They tell the base that regulations are killing jobs, and then block or remove any government protection or program that makes the country livable so some industrialist can avoid having to deal with externalities. They tell the base that "those people" are taking their stuff, and then shred the safety net that helps almost everyone except the rich.

What Trump has done is expose how these cons don't really fit together logically, but he hasn't really gone strongly against any of them. He's been on both sides of the first two, and tripled down on the third.

[Feb 25, 2018] The State of American Politics

Notable quotes:
"... We don't lock ourselves in an echo chamber, where we take comfort in the dogmas and opinions we already hold. ..."
"... Republicans like to say that massive growth followed the Reagan tax cut. But average real GDP growth during Reagan's eight years in the White House was only slightly above the rate of the previous eight years: 3.4 percent per year vs. 2.9 percent. The average unemployment rate was actually higher under Reagan than it was during the previous eight years: 7.5 percent vs. 6.6 percent. ... ..."
"... In his first economic text Greg Mankiw (pre Bush Kool Aid) laid this out nicely. Inward shift of the national savings schedule, higher real interest rates, and the crowding-out of investment. Which lowers long-term growth in the standard Solow model. QED! ..."
"... Responding to the increasingly inane behavior of the two parties, Robert Reich envisions a third party win in 2020: http://robertreich.org/post/141437490885 ..."
"... Bratton is the best police commissioner in the nation! My only regret is that the NYPD did not arrest Cruz and toss him in jail for a few days. ..."
"... (i) It implies that high taxation was responsible for the stagnant economy. Therefore, reducing taxes would unleash growth. The early 80's recessions was not caused by high taxation and growth was just as strong before. ..."
"... (ii) Reagan actually passed a significant tax increase in 1982; TERFA. Some have actually called it the largest peacetime tax increase in history. ..."
"... (iii) Supply-siders completely ignore interest rates. The federal funds rate fell from 19% in July 1981 to 8.5% in February 1983. That looks like good ol' fashion Keynesianism at work. ..."
Mar 23, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
Paul Ryan, in a speech on the state of American politics, says :
We don't lock ourselves in an echo chamber, where we take comfort in the dogmas and opinions we already hold.

Followed by:

... in 1981 the Kemp-Roth bill was signed into law, lowering tax rates, spurring growth, and putting millions of Americans back to work.

Bruce Bartlett :

... I was the staff economist for Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) in 1977, and it was my job to draft what came to be the Kemp-Roth tax bill, which Reagan endorsed in 1980 and enacted the following year. ...

Republicans like to say that massive growth followed the Reagan tax cut. But average real GDP growth during Reagan's eight years in the White House was only slightly above the rate of the previous eight years: 3.4 percent per year vs. 2.9 percent. The average unemployment rate was actually higher under Reagan than it was during the previous eight years: 7.5 percent vs. 6.6 percent. ...

PAUL MATHIS :
Lyin' Ryan

"In 1981 the Kemp-Roth bill was signed into law, lowering tax rates, spurring growth, and putting millions of Americans back to work."

In 1981 real GDP increased 2.6%, but in 1982 it was NEGATIVE 1.9%.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/A191RL1A225NBEA

In 1981 the unemployment rate was 7.6% but by 1982 it was 9.7%.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNRATE

So the tax cuts reduced growth and increased unemployment. Those are FACTS

PAUL MATHIS -> pgl...

The Question Was the Effect of the 1981 Tax Cuts

Ryan says they were positive for growth and jobs. They were not based on the ensuing facts.

Obviously many other things were happening but Ryan made a clear statement that was a lie and that needs to be called out.

pgl -> PAUL MATHIS...
In his first economic text Greg Mankiw (pre Bush Kool Aid) laid this out nicely. Inward shift of the national savings schedule, higher real interest rates, and the crowding-out of investment. Which lowers long-term growth in the standard Solow model. QED!

JohnH :

Responding to the increasingly inane behavior of the two parties, Robert Reich envisions a third party win in 2020: http://robertreich.org/post/141437490885

"Politics abhors a vacuum. In 2019, the People's Party filled it.

Its platform called for getting big money out of politics, ending "crony capitalism," abolishing corporate welfare, stopping the revolving door between government and the private sector, and busting up the big Wall Street banks and corporate monopolies.

The People's Party also pledged to revoke the Trans Pacific Partnership, hike taxes on the rich to pay for a wage subsidy (a vastly expanded Earned Income Tax Credit) for everyone earning below the median, and raise taxes on corporations that outsource jobs abroad or pay their executives more than 100 times the pay of typical Americans.

Americans rallied to the cause. Millions who called themselves conservatives and Tea Partiers joined with millions who called themselves liberals and progressives against a political establishment that had shown itself incapable of hearing what they had been demanding for years."

Will Democrats and Republicans becoming out of touch with voters and illegitimate representatives of the will of the people, it's time to register your disgust--vote third party!
[Not voting only communicates apathy, which is fine with the elites.]

Ben Groves :

Boomers were driving up the labor force, driving up unemployment.

If you want to be clear, this happened to Jimmy Carter in the late 70's when that expansion was peaking.

The bigger the growth rate of total population, the faster GDP must grow.........and vice versa. Why do you think the classical liberals hated Malthus so much?

pgl :
Bruce may be right here but this includes business cycle effects:

"Republicans like to say that massive growth followed the Reagan tax cut. But average real GDP growth during Reagan's eight years in the White House was only slightly above the rate of the previous eight years: 3.4 percent per year vs. 2.9 percent."

Using the typical measure of potential output, we can do this on the terms that supply-siders preach. Long-term growth. This growth was around 3.5% before 1981. It was also 3.5% after 1992. But during the Reagan-Bush41 years, it was only 3%. You see - this tax cut raised real interest rates and crowded out investment.

Paul Ryan wants to pretend he's a smart guy. If he is - then he knows this. Which means he is lying to us.

pgl :

Oh goodie! Ted Cruz attacks my mayor!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ted-cruz-slams-de-blasio-reaction-muslim-monitoring-idea-article-1.2574540

Yesterday when Brussels was attacked – my police department went into action to insure my subway rides were safe. My mayor took a subway ride to Times Square which showed courage. So what does the slime ball Cruz do?

'Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz swooped into Manhattan Wednesday and promptly hit Mayor de Blasio below the belt when he said cops who turned their backs on him were speaking for all Americans." When heroes of NYPD stood up and turned their backs on Mayor de Blasio, they spoke not just for the men and women of New York, but for Americans all across this nation," said Cruz at the GOP Party & Women's National Republican Club in Midtown.'

There has been tension as our police have to patrol as we march against how the police that murdered Eric Garner got off from prosecution. And then the horror of two of them murdered in cold blood by some crazed person from Baltimore. A few cops did turn their backs as the mayor honored these two brave cops. Most of the NYPD, however, was appalled at this garbage. Had I known Cruz was coming here to insult my city – I would have been there protesting. But my mayor handled this the right way:

'De Blasio and NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton were two of the most vocal critics, with Bratton saying it was so out of line it showed why he'd never win the White House race. He doesn't know the hell what he is talking about, to be frank with you," Bratton said. "While he's running around here, he probably has some Muslim officers guarding him." Later, during an radio interview, Bratton went after the Texas senator again on the monitoring." He is maligning a whole population group. A religion. That's not the American way," Bratton said on "The John Gambling Show" on AM970. "Mr. Cruz showed his naivete of the police department. I don't recall Mr. Cruz in uniform at any time fighting for his country. This election campaign is painting everyone with the broad brush. We focus on people committing the crime the disorder, not the population."'

Bratton is the best police commissioner in the nation! My only regret is that the NYPD did not arrest Cruz and toss him in jail for a few days.

eudaimonia :
Except the tax cut story does not hold up for a couple of reason.

(i) It implies that high taxation was responsible for the stagnant economy. Therefore, reducing taxes would unleash growth. The early 80's recessions was not caused by high taxation and growth was just as strong before.

(ii) Reagan actually passed a significant tax increase in 1982; TERFA. Some have actually called it the largest peacetime tax increase in history.

(iii) Supply-siders completely ignore interest rates. The federal funds rate fell from 19% in July 1981 to 8.5% in February 1983. That looks like good ol' fashion Keynesianism at work.

It is simply a comfortable story that conservatives tell themselves in order to validate slashing taxes on the rich, cut discretionary non-military spending, and explode military spending and our deficits.

However, like in an echo-chamber for 3-4 decades, they will not come to terms with this.

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

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

Submitted by Karen Kwiatkowski via LewRockwell.com,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4:00 AM October 6, 2011

Kitchen Table, USA

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

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

A. FEDERAL RESERVE

1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately

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

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

4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels

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

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

7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years

B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT

1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately

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

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

4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels

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

7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years

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

A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING

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

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

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

B. PENSION FUNDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir Richard Wharton: They don't last long.

rlouis Aug 20, 2016 7:47 PM

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

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

[Dec 01, 2017] Elite needs a kill switch for their front men and women

marknesop.wordpress.com
Patient Observer , July 23, 2016 at 7:07 pm
An interesting article on John McCain. I disagree with the contention that McCain hid knowledge that many American POWs were left behind (undoubtedly some voluntarily choose to remain behind but not hundreds ). However, the article touched on some ideas that rang true:

Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.

An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky.

One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.

The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women).

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-when-tokyo-rose-ran-for-president/

Cortes , July 24, 2016 at 11:16 am

Seems to be a series of pieces dealing with Vietnam POWs: the following linked item was interesting and provided a plausible explanation: that the US failed to pay up agreed on reparations…

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-relying-upon-maoist-professors-of-cultural-studies/

marknesop , July 24, 2016 at 12:29 pm
Remarkable and shocking. Wheels within wheels – this is the first time I have ever seen McCain's father connected with the infamous Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Cortes , July 25, 2016 at 9:08 am
Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. The conclusion regarding aspiring untenured historians is quite downbeat:

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-will-there-be-a-spotlight-sequel-to-the-killing-fields/

marknesop , July 25, 2016 at 10:40 am
Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the Cover-Up.

yalensis , July 25, 2016 at 3:40 pm

So, McCain was Hanoi Jack broadcasting from the Hanoi Hilton?

[Nov 08, 2017] Harvey Weinstein's Stasi by Rod Dreher

Notable quotes:
"... Perhaps men and women who enter into service in a national military or intelligence agency should be required to sign a life-time oath NOT to accept employment in any investigative or paramilitary outfit in the private sector, enforceable by a life prison sentence? ..."
"... The two are by and large antithetical. Now the weakness of socialism, to date, is that without a sense of community and ethics, it looks an awful lot like monopoly capitalism. Fidel Castro understood that, but his error was thinking he could inculcate community and ethics by decree (and if necessary force). ..."
"... There are all kinds of reasons why Harvey W. was not outed earlier, some having to do with the culture at large, some having to do with the extreme insecurity of anyone in show business. But I am a little uneasy with the frenzy of accusations across the country that have followed. Some have got to be opportunistic rather than real. ..."
"... Anybody who goes to the show right now, knowing what we know or will eventually discover – Weinstein is just the tip of the iceberg – is simply subsidizing evil. ..."
"... Anybody who's lived in Hollywood, knows that the lure of fame is such that any compromise will be acceded to as the cost of obtaining it. Of course, those who prostituted themselves and violated their consciences, won't mind getting revenge if the opportunity someday arises. ..."
"... What David Boies did was just about the worse thing a lawyer can do which is to betray a client. Not even a former client, a current one, and not by accident either. This was intentional betrayal made with a sober mind. This Harvey guy is so important to him that Boies has basically thrown away his integrity, hopefully his law license, and his reputation forever just to stop some rumors. ..."
"... The Mossad (or "ex-Mossad") angle brings in the hint of state action on behalf of individuals. Groups like that one do not work for everyone, and how do we know if those agents really are "ex-" or not. ..."
Nov 07, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Here's more reporting by Ronan Farrow that suggests a good reason why people were afraid to speak out about Harvey Weinstein's sexual assaults:

In the fall of 2016, Harvey Weinstein set out to suppress allegations that he had sexually harassed or assaulted numerous women. He began to hire private security agencies to collect information on the women and the journalists trying to expose the allegations. According to dozens of pages of documents, and seven people directly involved in the effort, the firms that Weinstein hired included Kroll, which is one of the world's largest corporate-intelligence companies, and Black Cube, an enterprise run largely by former officers of Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies. Black Cube, which has branches in Tel Aviv, London, and Paris, offers its clients the skills of operatives "highly experienced and trained in Israel's elite military and governmental intelligence units," according to its literature.

Two private investigators from Black Cube, using false identities, met with the actress Rose McGowan, who eventually publicly accused Weinstein of rape, to extract information from her. One of the investigators pretended to be a women's-rights advocate and secretly recorded at least four meetings with McGowan. The same operative, using a different false identity and implying that she had an allegation against Weinstein, met twice with a journalist to find out which women were talking to the press. In other cases, journalists directed by Weinstein or the private investigators interviewed women and reported back the details.

The explicit goal of the investigations, laid out in one contract with Black Cube, signed in July, was to stop the publication of the abuse allegations against Weinstein that eventually emerged in the New York Times and The New Yorker . Over the course of a year, Weinstein had the agencies "target," or collect information on, dozens of individuals, and compile psychological profiles that sometimes focussed on their personal or sexual histories. Weinstein monitored the progress of the investigations personally. He also enlisted former employees from his film enterprises to join in the effort, collecting names and placing calls that, according to some sources who received them, felt intimidating.

Weinstein's lawyer, the cream-of-the-croppy David Boies, knew a lot about this. Farrow also reports about how Weinstein allegedly conspired with the owner of the National Enquirer to dig up dirt on those who accused him.

Read the whole thing.

Harvey Weinstein is a monster. After reading this piece, it is easier to understand why people stayed quiet about his behavior.

Centralist ,, November 7, 2017 at 10:22 am

The sins of capitalism without ethics and a man without ethics, in perfect harmony.

The joke that this brings to mind is "What is the worst thing for capitalism?" "A pure capitalist". To have a good capitalist system you need sense of community and ethics to guide them. The sense of only "I" is the greatest cause of such abuse. Sadly though this is more in line with a return to old power politics of city states that use to dominate the Italy, Greece, and the Mideast. While often apart of larger empires with their own security forces individual wealth magnates and nobles had their own private forces to keep the rift raft in check because of legal grey area and coupled with official leadership to weak or to in the pocket of the rich to do anything about it.

The further forward we go, the more we go back. I think Mr. Dreher and interesting idea for a novel from you would be a Benedict Option Society in a cyberpunk post nation-state world. Just an idea.

Siarlys Jenkins , says: November 7, 2017 at 10:43 am
The monstrosity is hardly unique to Weinstein. After all, Black Cube must have quite a few other well-heeled clients with similar needs or it wouldn't be in business on several continents. That seems to be more of a threat to peace and freedom and democracy and liberty and public morality than one man's particular sins, or his desires to cover them up.

Perhaps men and women who enter into service in a national military or intelligence agency should be required to sign a life-time oath NOT to accept employment in any investigative or paramilitary outfit in the private sector, enforceable by a life prison sentence?

To have a good capitalist system you need sense of community and ethics to guide them.

The two are by and large antithetical. Now the weakness of socialism, to date, is that without a sense of community and ethics, it looks an awful lot like monopoly capitalism. Fidel Castro understood that, but his error was thinking he could inculcate community and ethics by decree (and if necessary force).

TR , says: November 7, 2017 at 10:53 am
I suggest opening the TAC link to Joseph Epstein's take-down of Leon Wieseltier in the Weekly Standard. A masterpiece.

There are all kinds of reasons why Harvey W. was not outed earlier, some having to do with the culture at large, some having to do with the extreme insecurity of anyone in show business. But I am a little uneasy with the frenzy of accusations across the country that have followed. Some have got to be opportunistic rather than real.

For those interested in tales of the cssting couch of old, check out the life of Harry Cohn, the longtime head of Columbia Pictures.

Potato , says: November 7, 2017 at 11:05 am
I am concerned about the part in all this played by attorney David Boies, and I think the Bar should initiate an investigation into his involvement. This falls seriously short of the ethical behavior we expect of people who are, after all, officers of the Court.

I also believe that any claim of attorney-client privilege as to these materials, in a situation where Boies is claiming that he and his firm did not direct the investigative agencies involved and did not know much about their findings, is farcical, and would never have held up in court. Assuming that he is telling the truth about this ignorance of his, Mr. Boies should surely have known that a claim of privilege would not hold up, and should so have advised his client at the beginning of this entire transaction.

Or, alternatively, he is lying his head off about how much he knew, which is worse.

David Boies is now very understandably backing quickly away from this whole situation, but I believe that it may be too late for him to be in the clear.

One wonders, or I do, why Mr. Boies consented to be involved in the first place. Surely he personally and his firm both have plenty of money, so financial desperation cannot play a part. Is a man in his position so blinded by Fame and Fortune that his good judgment was compromised to this degree? He seems to be at least marginally good, at this late date, at naming all the reasons this was a bad idea for him. One wonders why all this did not occur to him sooner.

Another possibility is that Weinstein or someone closely connected to Weinstein "has the goods" on Mr. Boies, and was able to in effect blackmail him. Weinstein and his associates seem uncommonly good at that.

Or, I wonder, is it just One Of Those Things? You do things, then you do something that is a tiny bit questionable (but hugely profitable), and then the next thing is a tiny bit more questionable until, without really thinking about it, you find yourself in the position David Boies is now in, or worse, in commission of a felony. This kind of thing happens all the time, sadly, when someone like Boies has a moral compass which is a bit out of adjustment.

Jason , says: November 7, 2017 at 11:23 am
Anybody who goes to the show right now, knowing what we know or will eventually discover – Weinstein is just the tip of the iceberg – is simply subsidizing evil.
charles cosimano , says: November 7, 2017 at 11:43 am
Seems he did everything right except the execution. He never would have made it in the mafia.
Sam M , says: November 7, 2017 at 11:54 am
"After reading this piece, it is easier to understand why people stayed quiet about his behavior."

But also easier to believe that, "I didn't know."

This matters. It's one thing for a young aspiring starlet getting off a bus in Hollywood with $20 in her pocket to fall in line. But it's quite another for multi-millionaire power brokers who worked with Weinstein to sit back and watch him abuse one such aspiring starlet after another for 20 years.

There were plenty of producers and actors and directors who knew plenty and never raised a finger, despite having the financial and professional wherewithal to take that risk.

Captain P , says: November 7, 2017 at 1:07 pm
Potato

> I am concerned about the part in all this played by attorney David Boies, and I think the Bar should initiate an investigation into his involvement. This falls seriously short of the ethical behavior we expect of people who are, after all, officers of the Court.

Sounds like the NYT is going to be suing Boies for his unethical behavior:

"We learned today that the law firm of Boies Schiller and Flexner secretly worked to stop our reporting on Harvey Weinstein at the same time as the firm's lawyers were representing us in other matters," Eileen Murphy, a New York Times spokesperson, told TheWrap.

"We consider this intolerable conduct, a grave betrayal of trust, and a breach of the basic professional standards that all lawyers are required to observe," she continued. "It is inexcusable, and we will be pursuing appropriate remedies."

https://www.thewrap.com/new-york-times-david-boies-harvey-weinstein/

Fran Macadam , says: November 7, 2017 at 1:08 pm
Anybody who's lived in Hollywood, knows that the lure of fame is such that any compromise will be acceded to as the cost of obtaining it. Of course, those who prostituted themselves and violated their consciences, won't mind getting revenge if the opportunity someday arises.

And whatever happens on casting couches, is simply the behind the scenes sideplay of the same things acted out onscreen.

In a way, it's consensual if that is the bargain you agreed with yourself to make to get what you wanted.

We've already determined what you are, now we're just negotiating about the price.

theMann , says: November 7, 2017 at 1:30 pm
Weinstein is stone cold via RICO on extortion, multiple times. Any prosecutor worth his salt (very few of them actually, but another subject) can and should start rolling out the counts. All the people covering up for him, launch discovery and see just how far their accessory goes, also prosecutable under RICO.

hum .Hollywood. Lets all hold our breath until it happens.

ludo , says: November 7, 2017 at 1:47 pm
At least he didn't have anybody disappeared, unlike routinely happens in Mexico and so many other increasingly neo-medieval places in the world, so credit for that.
pitchfork , says: November 7, 2017 at 2:02 pm
"The monstrosity is hardly unique to Weinstein. After all, Black Cube must have quite a few other well-heeled clients with similar needs or it wouldn't be in business on several continents. That seems to be more of a threat to peace and freedom and democracy and liberty and public morality than one man's particular sins, or his desires to cover them up."

Indeed. And a common tactic seems to be to run everything through a law firm, thereby putting it all under attorney-client privilege. The cyber-security team that Bank of America hired to take down Glenn Greenwald a few years back was apparently organized through Hunton and Williams. At the DOJ's suggestion, no less.

https://wikileaks.org/hbgary-emails/emailid/13730

And this kind of thing isn't confined to media moguls and banks, either. When I was a PhD student I was involved in organizing against certain development plans at my university. On one of the emails between myself, other organizers, and the university vice president, the VP had copied some university employees that had nothing apparent to do with the issue we were protesting. When I researched who _they_ were, one of them had just been hired away from Booz Allen Hamilton. Later on, after the protests were over (we lost, by the way), an insider in the administration told me directly, in great detail, that I, my wife, and other organizers had been carefully watched the whole time. Lucky for me, I'm a good boy with a squeaky clean past, but that's how this university VP rolled.

Lllurker , says: November 7, 2017 at 2:19 pm
Shades of Roger Ailes. One more story that shows how ignorant some of us who live out our lives in flyover country can be about this sort of thing. Until the Roger Ailes thing broke I pretty much assumed that hiring "security firms" of this nature was something that just took place in spy novels and westerns.

I wonder if these hired guns who stalk and intimidate people for a living are ever convicted of crimes like stalking and intimidating.

Countme-a-Demon , says: November 7, 2017 at 2:20 pm
Odd that the title of the article reads "Harvey Weinstein's Stasi", when "Harvey Weinstein's Mossad" was right there for the picking. Is Mossad a different kind of Stasi? Those agents should be arrested and charged as well. Then deported, if ICE isn't too overworked.
JCM , says: November 7, 2017 at 3:20 pm
I wonder why Mr. Weinstein didn't save himself the trouble and hooked himself up with A-list call girls. I can't imagine that a sense of morality would have kept him from consorting with prostitutes. He would have saved himself a word of trouble and money if he had been inclined to pay for services from the outset. Perhaps, he felt the need to denigrate the women that he so callously approached. Not a nice man, this Mr. Weinstein.
Potato , says: November 7, 2017 at 3:49 pm
a common tactic seems to be to run everything through a law firm, thereby putting it all under attorney-client privilege.

Allegedly. Actually you have to do more than just get a lawyer involved somehow, or other in some capacity or other, to invoke the privilege. I haven't researched this transaction specifically, but it sounds to me like the assertion of privilege in this Weinstein business would have had more holes in it than a colander.

Sounds like the NYT is going to be suing Boies for his unethical behavior:

"We learned today that the law firm of Boies Schiller and Flexner secretly worked to stop our reporting on Harvey Weinstein at the same time as the firm's lawyers were representing us in other matters," Eileen Murphy, a New York Times spokesperson, told TheWrap. "We consider this intolerable conduct, a grave betrayal of trust, and a breach of the basic professional standards that all lawyers are required to observe," she continued. "It is inexcusable, and we will be pursuing appropriate remedies."

Good, they have it coming. Among everything else that was wrong with it, this business was a very serious conflict of interest, and worse, Boies was well aware of the conflict at the time. (Actually the Bar will whap you good for conflicts of interest whether you were aware of them or not, taking the position that attorneys are supposed to keep track of such things. But doing it knowingly is worse.)

More cause for head-shaking. Why why why did David Boies consent to become involved?? What did these people have to threaten him with, if that's what happened?

xx

As an irrelevancy, may I say yet again that Harvey Weinstein is one of the most physically unattractive men I have ever seen or seen pictures of. To call him a "pig" is an insult to pigs everywhere.

Dan Green , says: November 7, 2017 at 4:35 pm
Hooray for Hollywood, is anybody really surprised what goes on in that fantasy world?
cka2nd , says: November 7, 2017 at 4:38 pm
TR "But I am a little uneasy with the frenzy of accusations across the country that have followed. Some have got to be opportunistic rather than real."

I agree, some are. Corey Haim's mom is calling out Corey Feldman for trying to raise a millions of dollars for some documentary instead of just naming the names of those he claims abused him and her son, who she says was abused by just one person, not the hordes Feldman alleges.

By the way, I'm with Luke and Conewago on being careful about using the dehumanizing term "monster."

Our Thing , says: November 7, 2017 at 8:42 pm
"After all, Black Cube must have quite a few other well-heeled clients with similar needs or it wouldn't be in business on several continents. "

Anybody who hires a company called "Black Cube" deserves whatever bad things happen to them. And what stupid ex-Mossad hack chose the name? I can't imagine one better calculated to call forth an all-out international investigation. I mean, why not just call it SPECTRE and have done with it?

Philly guy , says: November 7, 2017 at 10:29 pm
Am pretty sure Uncle Chuckie said something about Weinstein's henchmen on a previous thread. In 2017 this must be outsourced i.e. Black cube. The words "private" and "security" when used together, make me cringe.
Ben H , says: November 7, 2017 at 10:41 pm
This story just gets more and more extraordinary.
Elijah , says: November 8, 2017 at 7:33 am
"Why why why did David Boies consent to become involved?? What did these people have to threaten him with, if that's what happened?"

You really have to wonder if the lure of Weinstein's fund-raising prowess was that strong or if he was investigating and blackmailing hundreds of people all over the nation.

The more you read about this wretched Weinstein, the less outlandish the conspiracy theories sound.

[Nov 01, 2017] The Political Organization Men

Notable quotes:
"... The Organization Man ..."
"... What Whyte ran across was the sub-culture of the workplace as followed by those who set themselves upon a "career path" within a specific organization. The stereotypical examples are those, to quote Whyte , "who have left home spiritually as well as physically, to take the vows of organization life. [They adopt an ethic that] rationalizes the organization's demand for fealty and gives those who offer it wholeheartedly a sense of dedication." ..."
"... Today, some private-sector organizations have moved away from the most extreme demands of such conformity, but some other career lines have not, two examples being the military and career party politics. ..."
"... The Power Elite ..."
"... The Organization Man. ..."
"... hose who make their careers within these entities, especially the military and the government, are ideologically conditioned to identify their well-being with the specific goals of their chosen organizations. That means they must bind themselves not only to the goals, but also to the ethics of their workplace. ..."
"... Those who balk are eventually punished and cast out of the organizations. Those who guide these organizations, and essentially decide how rules and ethics will be interpreted and applied, are Mills's "power elite." ..."
"... It may come as a surprise to the reader that party politics as practiced by many of the Western democracies is quite similar. The "power elites" who reside at the top of the so-called greasy pole, holding positions as the head of ruling and contesting parties, are likely to demand the same sort of obedience to orders as any military officer. ..."
"... Rafe explained it this way ..."
"... Leaders of political parties can control their organizations in dictatorial fashion. They have power to reward or punish their party's cohorts in a fashion that can make or break careers. For instance, they control the dispersal of party funds from monies for elections right down to one's office budget; they determine whether a candidate will have to face a primary challenge; they make all committee assignments; they can promote and demote within the party ranks. ..."
"... As Rafe Mair observed, the possibilities for both reward and punishment are almost endless. In this way elected officials become bound to the diktats of their party's leaders. They cannot normally vote their conscience or reliably represent their constituency unless doing so coincides with the desires of their party's leadership. ..."
"... Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America's National Interest ..."
"... America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood ..."
"... This is an excellent summary of the basis in mentality of what is factually a 21st century version of a fascist regime. Even though two political parties and the shell forms of republican government may exist, the reality is that the parties are factions and the way things operate is via conformity and loyalty to an authoritarian power structure. ..."
Nov 01, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Many working-class Americans voted for Donald Trump believing he would address their needs, not those of rich Republicans. But all pols, it seems, end up conforming to their political group's priorities, as Lawrence Davidson explains.

By Lawrence Davidson

In 1956, William H. Whyte published a book entitled The Organization Man about America's societal changes in the post-World War II economy. Basing his findings on a large number of interviews with CEOs of major American corporations, Whyte concluded that, within the context of modern organizational structure, American "rugged individualism" had given way to a "collectivist ethic." Economic success and individual recognition were now pursued within an institutional structure – that is, by "serving the organization."

Whyte's book was widely read and praised, yet his thesis was not as novel as it seemed. "Rugged individualism," to the extent that it existed, was (and is) the exception for human behavior and not the rule. We have evolved to be group-oriented animals and not lone wolves. This means that the vast majority of us (and certainly not just Americans) live our lives according to established cultural conventions. These operate on many levels – not just national patriotism or the customs of family life.

What Whyte ran across was the sub-culture of the workplace as followed by those who set themselves upon a "career path" within a specific organization. The stereotypical examples are those, to quote Whyte , "who have left home spiritually as well as physically, to take the vows of organization life. [They adopt an ethic that] rationalizes the organization's demand for fealty and gives those who offer it wholeheartedly a sense of dedication."

Today, some private-sector organizations have moved away from the most extreme demands of such conformity, but some other career lines have not, two examples being the military and career party politics.

For insight in this we can turn to the sociologist C. Wright Mills , whose famous book The Power Elite was published the same year as Whyte's The Organization Man. Mills's work narrows the world's ruling bureaucracies to government, military and top economic corporations. T hose who make their careers within these entities, especially the military and the government, are ideologically conditioned to identify their well-being with the specific goals of their chosen organizations. That means they must bind themselves not only to the goals, but also to the ethics of their workplace.

Those who balk are eventually punished and cast out of the organizations. Those who guide these organizations, and essentially decide how rules and ethics will be interpreted and applied, are Mills's "power elite."

How this works out in the military is pretty obvious. There is a long tradition of dedication to duty. At the core of this dedication is a rigid following of orders given by superiors. This tradition is upheld even if it is suspected that one's superior is incompetent.

It may come as a surprise to the reader that party politics as practiced by many of the Western democracies is quite similar. The "power elites" who reside at the top of the so-called greasy pole, holding positions as the head of ruling and contesting parties, are likely to demand the same sort of obedience to orders as any military officer.

The Organization Man or Woman in Politics

Running for and holding office in countries like the United States and Canada often requires one to "take the vows of organization life." Does this support democracy or erode it? Here is one prescient answer: the way we have structured our party politics has given us "an appalling political system which is a step-by-step denial of democracy and a solid foundation for a 'soft' dictatorship."

One of the elegant rooms at President Trump's Mar-a-Lago club. (Photo from maralagoclub.com)

Those are the words of the late Rafe Mair , a Canadian politician, broadcaster, author and a good friend of this writer. Rafe spent years in Canadian politics, particularly in his home province of British Columbia, and his experience led him to the conclusion expressed above. How does this translate into practice?

Rafe explained it this way : "In a parliamentary [or other form of representative] democracy the voter transfers his rights to his member of parliament [congressperson, senator or state legislator] to exercise on his behalf – the trouble is, by running for his political party the [elected person, in turn, is led to] assign your [the voter's] rights to the [party] leader for his exclusive use!"

There is no law that makes the elected official do this. However, the inducements to do so are very powerful.

Leaders of political parties can control their organizations in dictatorial fashion. They have power to reward or punish their party's cohorts in a fashion that can make or break careers. For instance, they control the dispersal of party funds from monies for elections right down to one's office budget; they determine whether a candidate will have to face a primary challenge; they make all committee assignments; they can promote and demote within the party ranks.

As Rafe Mair observed, the possibilities for both reward and punishment are almost endless. In this way elected officials become bound to the diktats of their party's leaders. They cannot normally vote their conscience or reliably represent their constituency unless doing so coincides with the desires of their party's leadership.

... ... ...

Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America's National Interest ; America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood ; and Islamic Fundamentalism . He blogs at www.tothepointanalyses.com .

Stephen J. , October 30, 2017 at 9:19 am

I believe we are prisoners of a corrupted "democracy."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
July 13, 2017
The Prisoners of "Democracy"

Screwing the masses was the forte of the political establishment. It did not really matter which political party was in power, or what name it went under, they all had one ruling instinct, tax, tax, and more taxes. These rapacious politicians had an endless appetite for taxes, and also an appetite for giving themselves huge raises, pension plans, expenses, and all kinds of entitlements. In fact one of them famously said, "He was entitled to his entitlements." Public office was a path to more, and more largesse all paid for by the compulsory taxes of the masses that were the prisoners of "democracy."
[more info on this at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html

Sam F , October 30, 2017 at 11:42 am

Yes, our ertswhile democracy has been completely corrupted. Thanks to Lawrence Davidson, William Whyte, C. Wright Mills, and Rafe Mair for this consideration of the systemic corruption of political parties. The diseases of conformity within party organizations are a nearly inherent problem of democracy.

The improper influence which determines the policies conformed to by parties is the central problem, and stems largely from influence of the economic Power Elite, directing the policies to which the Organization Man must be obedient to be chosen. This distortion can be eliminated by Amendments to the Constitution to restrict funding of mass media and elections to limited individual contributions.

Our problem is that we cannot make such reforms because those tools of democracy are already controlled by oligarchy, which never yields power but to superior force. Talk of justice and peace is not in their language of might makes right, and has no effect whatsoever. They yielded to the 1964 Civil Rights Act only because their fear of riots in the streets led them to pretend that MLK et al had been persuasive.

The foreign wars may be stopped by the defeat, isolation, and embargo of the US by foreign powers. But within the US, the full price of democracy must again be paid the People of the US. The oligarchy must be defeated by superior force: only those who deny enforcement to oligarchy and terrify the rich will bring them to yield any power. That is likely to await more severe recessions and inequities caused by the selfish and irresponsible rich.

mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:42 pm

You are exactly right Sam F. Unfortunately time is quickly running out for our corrupt "civilization." The time to cultivate and practice wisdom has passed. The sad truth is that our goose is cooked; there will be no cavalry showing up to save us. We are now "eating our karma" and will reap our just deserts. Not because I or anyone say so, but because implacable laws of nature will now play out. Dominant intellectual species occupy a precarious position in planetary evolution, and we are on the verge of a great fall – and all the King's horses and all the King's men will not be able to put our extincting species together again ..

Sam F , October 30, 2017 at 4:11 pm

Your reply touches a responsive chord, in that humanity seems to have made so little permanent progress in its million years or so, mostly in its last few hundred years, an insignificant fraction of planetary history. But the history and literature of temporary progress lost is significant as the repository of ideas for future democracies, at those rare moments when they are designed.

Our diseased society is but one tree in the forest of democracies. The US is or will be like the apparently healthy tree that took down my power lines last night, a pretty red oak with brilliant autumn leaves, but sideways now and blocking the road. But like the leaves on that tree, we can see the problem and still hope to be as happy as this year's leaves on healthier trees.

As in what I like to call the universal mind of humanity, individuals may have foresight and thoughts beyond their apparent functions, which survive in that greater mind of their thoughts recorded or just passed along, and in that way their learning is not in vain.

Drew Hunkins , October 30, 2017 at 10:34 am

Trump did nix out the TPP and did desire a rapprochement of sorts with Moscow. He also regularly asserted that he wanted to re-build American manufacturing in the heartland and wanted to rein in Washington's footprint across the globe. Of course Trump ultimately capitulated to the militarist Russophobes. One can only put so much stock in campaign pronouncements, but he did come off as less bellicose than Killary, that was clear to any fair minded observer.

Trump's also been a nightmare as it comes to workers' rights in general, consumer and environmental protections and fair taxation as it relates to regressive vs progressive rates. He was also an Islamophobe when it comes to Iran and fell right in line with Adelson and the other ZIonist psychopaths.

The most welcoming aspect of Trump was his desire to make peace with Russia, this has been completely sabotaged by the deep state militarists. This is the reason the Corkers, Flakes and much of the establishment mass media browbeat and attack him relentlessly. Most of them ignore what he actually should be admonished for opting for nuclear brinkmanship instead.

exiled off mainstreet , October 30, 2017 at 11:25 am

This is the best description I have seen about Trump's role.

Bob Van Noy , October 30, 2017 at 10:37 am

Thank you CN and Lawrence Davidson for what I think is a accurate explanation of the failure of our Democracy. I especially like the reference to C. Wright Mills who is a heroic character for me. I think Mr. Mill's book on the Power Elite was prescient, as was his thinking in general. He published a little known book "Listen, Yankee" (1960) that was very insightful about the then current Cuban Revolution. It seems in retrospect that there was plenty of warning at the time for America to wake up to the goals of Big Government and Big Business but it was either successfully repressed or ignored by those who might have made a difference, like Labor. At any rate, C. Wright Mills died too early, because he seemed uniquely suited to make a difference. His writing remains current, I'll add a link.

http://www.cwrightmills.org

mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:47 pm

I am a big CW Mills fan too. We have had many warnings – now we are going to experience the fate of those who ignore wisdom.

tina , October 30, 2017 at 10:31 pm

Hey, college UWM 1984- 1987 Mass Comm, I did not graduate , but we studied Mills, Lewis Mumford, and my favorite, Marshall McLuhan. Also, first time I was introduced to Todd Gitlin and IF Stone. While I did not pursue a life in journalism, I so appreciate all those who did the hard work. I still have all my college required reading books from these people, it is like a set of encyclopedias, only better. And better than the internet. Keep up the work CN , I am not that talented, but what you do is important.

BobH , October 30, 2017 at 12:04 pm

First, let me commend Lawrence Davidson for his selection of two of the most insightful writers of the sixties to use as a springboard for his perceptive essay. A third(John Kenneth Galbraith) would complete a trilogy of the brilliant academic social analysis of that time. Galbraith's masterpiece(The Affluent Society) examined the influence of the heavy emphasis corporate advertising had on American culture and concluded that the economic/social structure was disproportionately skewed toward GDP(gross domestic product) at the expense of educational investment. This was in direct contrast with the popular novels and essays of Ayn Rand, the goddess of greed whose spurious philosophy had come to epitomize the mindset that continues to plague the globe with the neoliberal ideals that have been reinvented under many names over time; i.e. laissez faire, trickle down,the Laffer curve, free market economics and monetarism.

Zachary Smith , October 30, 2017 at 12:17 pm

Usually such claims are themselves no more than campaign hot air. However, in their ignorance, voters may well respond to such hot air, and the result can be a jump from the proverbial frying pan into the fire. U.S. voters seem to have taken just such a leap when they elected Donald Trump president.

Nowhere in this essay are either of the terms "Hillary" or "Clinton" mentioned. U.S. voters had the choice of a known evil on the "D" side of the ballot, or another person well understood to be a shallow, self-centered, rich *****. They were going to end up with an unqualified person either way the voting went. Quite possibly the nod went to Trump because 1) his promises were surely more believable than those of Clinton and 2) Trump wasn't yet the known destroyer of entire nations.

Describing the predicament of the voters as "ignorance" just isn't fair when looking at the overall picture.

mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:50 pm

Yes. Voters were put in a no win situation. That's why I did not participate in the "show" election.

Realist , October 31, 2017 at 4:33 am

What were Obama's reasons for failing to take a stand, once elected, on all the promises he made during his campaigns? He mostly gave away the store to the other side, and insulted his supporters while doing so. Talk about progressives not getting a "win" even after carrying the elections. Two terms earlier, the media called the contest one of two "moderates" between Bush and Gore. If that was "moderation" practiced by Dubya, I need a new dictionary. Most recent elections have been pointless, especially when the Supreme Court doesn't allow a complete recount of the votes. In a field of 13(!) primary candidates last year, the GOP could not provide one quality individual. The Dems cheated to make sure the worst possible of theirs would get the nomination. I see nothing but mental and moral midgets again on the horizon for 2020. I don't expect Trump to seek re-election. He will have had a bellyful should he even survive.

Stephen J. , October 30, 2017 at 12:23 pm

I believe what has happened to all of us is: "The Imposition of a New World Order." This plan has been helped by puppet politicians. Therefore the question must be asked: "Is There An Open Conspiracy to Control the World'?
[More info on this at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2014/12/is-there-open-conspiracy-to-control.html

john wilson , October 30, 2017 at 1:00 pm

Stephen: why do you ask the question to which you already know the answer? Yes, we're all screwed and have been for years. The bankers already control the world and the military make sure its stays that way.

Stephen J. , October 30, 2017 at 1:44 pm

Very true john wilson. Questions beget answers and information.
cheers Stephen J.

mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:52 pm

It's like the Purloined Letter by Poe – the truth of our enslavement is so obvious, that only the deeply brainwashed can fail to see it.

Zachary Smith , October 30, 2017 at 12:48 pm

The parts of The Organization Man I found most interesting were the chapters about "Testing The Organization Man". The companies were deliberately selecting for people we currently label Corporate Psychopaths. Whyte suggested memorizing some "attitudes" before taking one of the tests. Among them:

I loved my father and my mother, but my father a little bit more
I like things pretty much the way they are
I never worry much about anything
I don't care for books or music much
I love my wife and children
I don't let them get in the way of company work

You can substitute any number of things that you won't allow to get in the way of company work .

Ecology. Laws. Regulations. Integrity. Religion.

"Screw planet Earth. Exxon comes first!" Or "screw Jesus and the horse he rode in on. We need to cut taxes and balance the budget. People are poor because they're too lazy to get a job."

mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:53 pm

Good points. Brainwashing in action revealed.

john wilson , October 30, 2017 at 12:55 pm

Democracy is another word for consensual slavery. In a communist system or a dictatorship etc you are told you are a slave because you have no voice or choice. In a democracy you do have a choice and its between one salve master and another. If you vote Democrat you are just as much a slave to the system as you are if you vote Republican. The possibility of a third choice which might just free you from your chains, is a fantasy and only there as window dressing to give democracy some credibility. The term for this dilemma is called being TOTALLY SCREWED!!

mike k , October 30, 2017 at 3:55 pm

Amen John. You got it right brother.

exiled off mainstreet , October 31, 2017 at 11:01 am

This is an excellent summary of the basis in mentality of what is factually a 21st century version of a fascist regime. Even though two political parties and the shell forms of republican government may exist, the reality is that the parties are factions and the way things operate is via conformity and loyalty to an authoritarian power structure.

[Nov 01, 2017] How the US Aristocracy Deceive the US Public

Notable quotes:
"... Another year has passed with no one from a Wall Street bank going to jail for the criminal behavior everyone knows helped cause the financial crisis. Fines against Wall Street banks are reaching $100 billion, but all will be paid by stockholders. Bank CEOs and managers pay no fines and face no prison. ..."
"... There has been no reform -- zilch, nada -- of the credit-rating agencies. They are right back rating securities from issuers who pay them for their ratings. ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq ..."
"... the betrayal of the Sunnis by the Baghdad government the Americans left behind has been crucial to recruiting by the self-­proclaimed caliphate. Many of those who had helped crush Al Qaeda in Iraq eight years ago have concluded that no one except ISIS will protect them from Suleimani's fighters and flunkies. ..."
"... To counter Iran in Iraq and prevent the alienation that created ISIS would have required a better ambassador than Hill and a more attentive State Department than the one run by Hillary Clinton. It would have required, perhaps, a thousand Emma Skys. But there was only one of those. And it would have meant many more years of enormous involvement on the ground, but the American people had no taste for that. ..."
Nov 01, 2017 | www.strategic-culture.org

The progressive former Democratic US Senator Ted Kaufman wrote at Forbes , on 22 July 2014

Another year has passed with no one from a Wall Street bank going to jail for the criminal behavior everyone knows helped cause the financial crisis. Fines against Wall Street banks are reaching $100 billion, but all will be paid by stockholders. Bank CEOs and managers pay no fines and face no prison.

There has been no reform -- zilch, nada -- of the credit-rating agencies. They are right back rating securities from issuers who pay them for their ratings.

If you still can't trust the credit-rating on a bond, and if Wall Street's bigs still stand immune from the law even after the 2008 crash they had played a huge role to cause, then in what way can the US Government itself be called a 'democracy'?

Kaufman tries to get the American public interested in overcoming the US Government's profound top-level corruption, but few US politicians join with him on that, because only few American voters understand that a corrupt government (especially one that's corrupt at the very top) cannot even possibly be a democratic government.

However, America's aristocracy are even more corrupt than Wall Street itself is, and they control Wall Street, behind the scenes. And their 'news'media are under strict control to portray America as being still a democratic country that somehow lives up to its anti-aristocratic and anti-imperialistic Founders' intentions and Constitution. Maybe all that remains of those Founders' intentions today is that Britain's aristocracy no longer rules America -- but America's aristocracy now does, instead. And, this isn't much, if any, of an improvement.

Although the US aristocracy -- America's billionaires and centi-millionaires -- are the principals, and Wall Street are only their financial representatives (rather t than the aristocracy itself), Wall Street was blamed by liberals for the 2008 economic crash; and, of course, Wall Street did do lots of dirty work deceiving outside investors and many home buyers and others in order to extract from the public (including those much smaller investors) the hundreds of billions of dollars that the US aristocracy and its big-finance agents drew in pay and bonuses and other ways, from these economic extractions. But the aristocrats themselves emerged unscathed, even in their reputations, and were mainly financially enriched by the scams, which had been set-up by Wall Street in order to enrich the investment-insiders (the aristocrats themselves) at the expense of investment-outsiders, and of the public-at-large. Conservatives blamed the Government for the crash (as if the Government didn't represent only the aristocracy , but instead represented the American public). However, liberals blamed Wall Street (the financial agents of America's aristocracy). And, nobody blamed the aristocracy itself.

America's entire political system, the liberal and the conservative politicians and press, thus hid, from the public, the role that the principals, the aristocrats themselves, had played, demanding these crimes from and by their agents. In other words: the top people who had caused the 2008 crash, didn't only -- and all of them did -- avoid prison entirely, but the worst that some of them suffered, was only that the financial firms that some of them had headed, became hit by wrist-slap fines, and that some of their lower-level employees who had actually executed or carried out the scams are being prosecuted and might someday be fined or even sent to prison . But neither the aristocrats nor their financial agents who run Wall Street were punished, either by the law, nor by their personal reputations. They still are treated in their 'news'media as sages and 'philanthropists', instead of as the nation's most-successful organized gangsters.

US President Barack Obama himself protected the top Wall Street people, but, because he was a liberal -- i.e., a conservative who is hypocritical enough to damn conservatism in public; or, in other words, a conservative who misrepresents what he is -- he publicly condemned, in vague terms, "the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis" , even while he had his Administration prosecute none of them , and even while he assured Wall Street's top people privately "I'm protecting you." Obama had told the Wall Street bigs, near the start of his regime, on 27 March 2009, in private, inside the White House: "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. I'm not out there to go after you. I'm protecting you. I'm going to shield you." And that's what he did. To him, the public were just "pitchforks," like the KKK bigots who had chased Blacks with pitchforks and lynched them during the early 20th Century were. The heads of Wall Street firms that were being bailed-out by US taxpayers were persecuted victims of the public, in that US President's eyes. To them, the public are merely a mob.

And, on 20 September 2016, Dave Johnson of the Campaign for America's Future, headlined "Banks Used Low Wages, Job Insecurity To Force Employees To Commit Fraud" ; so, there was no way that the employees could keep their jobs except to do the crimes that they were being virtually forced by their bosses to do. The criminality was actually at the very top -- even above where Obama had promised "I'm protecting you," which was directed instead only to the Wall Street bigs, and not to the billionaires they served. And even those people mainly weren't billionaires at all; they were mainly just top financial agents for the billionaires, grasping to join the aristocracy. Obama, like they, represented the billionaires, though as a politician; and, so, he talked publicly against some of these agents, basically against Republican ones, in order to keep the votes of Democrats -- he just kept suckering the liberals, the Democratic Party of the US aristocracy's voters.

The aristocracy's 'news'media present the storyline that the billionaires and centi-millionaires were merely among the many victims of the scams that had produced the 2008 crash; but there is a problem with that storyline: the Government bailed-out those giant investors, because those were overwhelmingly the investors in "Strategically Important Financial Institutions" -- not in medium and small-sized ones, not in merely community banks, but in the giant banks and insurers.

These mega-investors were the controlling interests in America's international corporations. They consequently controlled US Government politics and political fundraising.

Cheated investors, and illegally foreclosed home-owners, were nominally protected in the laws, but even the federal Government's own studies of actual results showed that almost all of these people, the real direct victims, were simply being ignored -- even while Wall Street and its mega-investors got bailed-out by taxpayers .

The entire system, both private and public, was thus controlled by the aristocracy; and, so, even now a decade after the crash, the responsible aristocrats remain at the very top, both financially and in terms of prestige, and the statutes-of-limitations on possible prosecutions of decisions they had made which had actually produced the crash, have expired, so that these individuals can't be prosecuted, not even if an honest person were elected to the White House and were to become supported by an honest Congress. "Equal Justice Under Law" -- this certainly isn't that, nor anything close to it. In fact, America has the world's highest percentage of its population in prison of any country, but aristocrats never end up there unless the aristocrat is a drug-kingpin, and even those are rarely prosecuted, even though their underlings are. And, how can such a nation as this, be called a "democracy"? But it's not only a dictatorship ; it is an imperial one: Obama himself said many times, such as on 28 May 2014 , "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation," which means that every other nation was "dispensable" to him; and, any foreign aristocracy -- and any democracy (if such any longer exists) -- will therefore be either a vassal-nation, or else "the enemy," and thus be destroyed, at the sole discretion of America's (and its allied) aristocracies.

For example, to George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein was "the enemy" and Iraq was "dispensable" (to use Obama's term); and, to Obama, Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad, and Viktor Yanukovych, were "enemies," and those nations also were "dispensable." During earlier eras, Mohammed Mosaddegh, and Jacobo Arbenz, and Salvador Allende, were "enemies," whose governments were, in their own times, "dispensable," and so the US aristocracy replaced them by US-Government-selected tyrants. (Assad, however, was able to stay in power, not only because he had the support of the majority of Syrians, but because Russia decided to protect Syria's national sovereignty -- to make its firm stand, there, not allow that ally, too, to fall by means of an American invasion, as Ukraine had fallen by means of an American coup in 2014.) Trump seems to think that Iran and North Korea are especially "dispensable" (again, using Obama's term).

Trump came to power promising opposition against the US aristocracy; but, instead, he's on the attack against Obama's least-bad policies, while trying to out-do Obama's worst policies (such as by his cancelling the Iran deal, and by his trying to destroy Obamacare and the Paris Climate Agreement). If Obama turned out to be a Democratic George W. Bush, then perhaps Trump will turn out to be a Republican Barack Obama, and this will be the 'bipartisanship' that US voters say they want. But the polls don't show that America's electorate actually want the type of 'bipartisanship' that the US aristocracy are delivering, via the nonstop neoconservatism of Bush, and then of Obama, and then (perhaps too) of Trump. The aristocracy are neoconservative (or "imperialistic," to employ the Continental term for it); and, though the public don't even know what that means, bipartisan neoconservatism always bring on yet more invasions and wars, which lower the welfare of the public, even while the welfare of the aristocrats goes up from it. The public just don't know this.

A good example, recently, of how the US aristocracy deceive the US public, to accept such a barbaric Government (a neoconservative regime) is the uniform neoconservatism of both the Democratic and the Republican Parties, and of their respective 'news'media, this uniform neoconservatism that's being reflected by the almost simultaneous publication in the Establishment's own Foreign Affairs (from the Council on Foreign Relations), and from the British Guardian that's now controlled by George Soros and US and-affiliated international corporations, and also from the US military-industrial complex's bipartisan neoconservative propaganda-organ The Atlantic , and also from the neoconservative Vox online 'news'-site . In all of these 'news'media, almost on the very same day, are being published articles by, and interviews of, Ms. Emma Sky, a thoroughly undistinguished and undistinguishable neoconservative "intellectual" (CFR, Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Officer of the British Empire, etc.), who, with no demonstrated outstanding abilities, but only with the hypocrisy and callousness that aristocrats tend to seek out in those whom they select to execute their dirty-work, graduated from an elite college and then (without needing to obtain any higher academic or other degree, and with no record of personal achievement at anything) went virtually straight into advising governments and serving as the US invading and occupying General David Petraeus 's (the US torture-meister 's) right-hand political advisor in Iraq, with the title of "Governorate Co-ordinator of Kirkuk for the Coalition Provisional Authority, 2003-2004" , and, then, ultimately, as "advisor to the Commanding General of US Forces in Iraq from 2007-2010," before bec oming widely published in the US empire's various 'news'media, with not only these hypocritical articles from her that were linked-to at those four publications, but also books, all of them being standard discreet neoconservative fare, 'compassionately' gung-ho on the US empire, and especially rabid against Iran, because Iranians in 1953 had voted for Mohammed Mosaddegh as Prime Minister, who promptly passed a land-reform act, and nationalized the UK aristocracy's Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, after which the US CIA engineered a coup overthrowing him, grabbing Iran's oil, and establishing in Iran the Pahlevi Shah's brutal dictatorship with torture-chambers, which dictatorship Ms. Sky evidently wants restored in some form to Iran, perhaps as punishment to the Iranian people, for having stood up against the American invaders and occupiers, in 1953. Such people are PR agents, not really journalists or historians -- of anything. But, apparently, readers find their misrepresentations to be tolerable; so, at least her propaganda isn't amateurish. If only readers would just ask themselves the type of question that the victims of these invasions might likely ask, then the true character of such writers would become horrendously and immediately clear: "What right do you have to be invading and occupying our land?"

No one can understand the reality on the basis of the West's honored 'historians' and 'journalists', because they're propagandists for the imperial system, which used to be British but now is American. The neoconservative New York Times Sunday Book Review section published, on 12 July 2015, a review from the neoconservative Christopher Dickey, the Foreign Editor of the neoconservative The Daily Beast 'news'-site, of the neoconservative Emma Sky's book The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq . He presented Iran as being America's enemy-in-chief, and presented especially "Qassim Suleimani, the head of Iran's Quds Force, the section of the Revolutionary Guards responsible for covert and overt operations in Lebanon, Syria and, above all, Iraq" as being America's enemy; and he wrote that:

the betrayal of the Sunnis by the Baghdad government the Americans left behind has been crucial to recruiting by the self-­proclaimed caliphate. Many of those who had helped crush Al Qaeda in Iraq eight years ago have concluded that no one except ISIS will protect them from Suleimani's fighters and flunkies.

To counter Iran in Iraq and prevent the alienation that created ISIS would have required a better ambassador than Hill and a more attentive State Department than the one run by Hillary Clinton. It would have required, perhaps, a thousand Emma Skys. But there was only one of those. And it would have meant many more years of enormous involvement on the ground, but the American people had no taste for that.

... ... ...

[Oct 24, 2017] House Launches Probe Into Comeys Handling Of Clinton Email Investigation

The neoliberal "the new class" to which Clintons belong like nomenklatura in the USSR are above the law.
Notable quotes:
"... After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced moments ago a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. ..."
"... Oh goody, Trey Gowdy doing another investigation. Isn't he 0 for many on his investigations. 0 as in zero, nada, nill, squat, zippo. He is another political empty suit with a bad haircut. ..."
"... Well said. The Clinton network leads to the real money in this game. Any real investigation would expose many of the primary players. It would also expose the network for what it is, that being a mechanism to scam both the American people and the people of the world. ..."
"... Perhaps a real investigation will now only be done from outside the system (as the U.S. political system seems utterly incapable of investigating or policing itself). ..."
"... You're probably right, but there's a chance this whole thing could go sidewise on Hillary in a hurry, Weinstein-style. ..."
"... We already know Honest Hill'rey's other IT guy (Bryan Pagliano) ignored subpoenas from congress...twice. ..."
"... Another classic case of "the Boy that cried wolf" for the Trumpettes to believe justice is coming to the Clintons. The House Judiciary and Oversight committees, will turn up nothing, apart from some procedural mistakes. A complete waste of time and tax payer money. Only the Goldfish will be happy over another charade. Killary is immune from normal laws. ..."
"... Potemkin Justice. Not a damn thing will come of it unless they find that one of Hillary's aides parked in a handicapped spot. ..."
"... The TV showed me Trump saying, "She's been through enough" and "They're good people" when referring to Hillary and Bill Clinton. ..."
"... Stopped reading at "they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status." ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Hillary's former IT consultant Paul Combetta who admitted to deleting Hillary's emails despite the existence of a Congressional subpoena, it seems as though James Comey has just had his very own "oh shit" moment.

After months of inexplicable delays, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), announced moments ago a joint investigation into how the Justice Department handled last year's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server.

Among other things, Goodlatte and Gowdy said that the FBI must answer for why it chose to provide public updates in the Clinton investigation but not in the Trump investigation and why the FBI decided to " appropriate full decision making in respect to charging or not charging Secretary Clinton," a power typically left to the DOJ.

"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic and our fellow citizens must have confidence in its objectivity, independence, and evenhandedness. The law is the most equalizing force in this country. No entity or individual is exempt from oversight.

"Decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016 have led to a host of outstanding questions that must be answered. These include, but are not limited to:

???? #BREAKING : @RepGoodlatte & @TGowdySC to investigate #DOJ decisions made in 2016 to ensure transparency and accountability at the agency. pic.twitter.com/EOm4pnHbTG

-- House Judiciary ? (@HouseJudiciary) October 24, 2017

Of course, this comes just one day after Comey revealed his secret Twitter account which led the internet to wildly speculate that he may be running for a political office...which, these days, being under investigation by multiple Congressional committees might just mean he has a good shot.

Finally, we leave you with one artist's depiction of how the Comey 'investigation' of Hillary's email scandal played out...

AlaricBalth -> Creepy_Azz_Crackaah , Oct 24, 2017 1:03 PM

"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic..."

Spewed coffee after reading this quote.

Ghost of PartysOver -> AlaricBalth , Oct 24, 2017 1:10 PM

Oh goody, Trey Gowdy doing another investigation. Isn't he 0 for many on his investigations. 0 as in zero, nada, nill, squat, zippo. He is another political empty suit with a bad haircut.

nope-1004 -> Ghost of PartysOver , Oct 24, 2017 1:12 PM

LAMP POST!

Live stream for all to witness.

macholatte -> nope-1004 , Oct 24, 2017 1:17 PM

It's nice publicity to hear that the Congress is "investigating". It's NOT nice to know that the DOJ is doing nothing. Probably 50 top level people at the FBI need to be fired as well as another 50 at DOJ to get the ball rolling toward a Grand Jury. Until then, it's all eyewash and BULLSHIT!

Thought Processor -> Chupacabra-322 , Oct 24, 2017 2:11 PM

Well said. The Clinton network leads to the real money in this game. Any real investigation would expose many of the primary players. It would also expose the network for what it is, that being a mechanism to scam both the American people and the people of the world.

Perhaps a real investigation will now only be done from outside the system (as the U.S. political system seems utterly incapable of investigating or policing itself). Though in time all information will surface, as good players leak the info of the bad players into the open. Which of course is why the corrupt players go after the leakers, as it is one key way they can be taken down. Also remember that they need the good players in any organization to be used as cover (as those not in the know can be used to work on legit projects). Once the good players catch on to the ruse and corruption it is, beyond a certain tipping point, all over, as the leaked information goes from drop to flood. There will simply be no way to deny it.

Ikiru -> Creepy_Azz_Crackaah , Oct 24, 2017 2:02 PM

You're probably right, but there's a chance this whole thing could go sidewise on Hillary in a hurry, Weinstein-style. If the criminal stench surrounding her gets strong enough, the rats will begin to jump ship. People will stop taking orders and doing her dirty work. She's wounded right now, if there was ever a time to finish her, it would be now. Where the fuck is the big-talking Jeff Sessions? I think they got to him--he even LOOKS scared shitless.

jimmy c korn -> Richard Chesler , Oct 24, 2017 1:28 PM

a blind-folded woman with a hand in their pockets.

chunga -> Max Cynical , Oct 24, 2017 1:00 PM

It's just not possible to have any respect for these politician people.

We already know Honest Hill'rey's other IT guy (Bryan Pagliano) ignored subpoenas from congress...twice. Remember Chaffetz "subpoenas are not suggestions"? Yeah, well they are. Chaffetz turned around and sent a letter about this to "attorney general" jeff sessions and he's done exactly shit about about it. (Look it up, that's a true story)

Then we've got president maverick outsider simply ignoring Julian Assange and Wikileaks while he squeals daily about fake news. Wikileaks has exposed more fraud than Congress ever has.

shovelhead -> DirtySanchez , Oct 24, 2017 12:57 PM

First we need to get a US Attorney. Our last one seems to have gone AWOL.

DirtySanchez -> shovelhead , Oct 24, 2017 1:05 PM

Sessions is the Attorney General. Give the man some credit. He recused himself from the Russia/Trump collusion, and this decision may very well save the republic.

If Sessions was actively involved, half the nation would never accept the findings, no matter the outcome. With Sessions voluntarily sidelined, the truth will eventually expose the criminal conspirators; all the way to the top.

Wikileaks and Assange have documented proof of criminal behavior from Obama, Lynch, Holder, Hillary, W. Bush, and more. This will be the biggest scandal to hit the world stage. Ever.

waterwitch -> DirtySanchez , Oct 24, 2017 1:18 PM

Bigger than the Awan Spy ring in Congress?

IronForge , Oct 24, 2017 12:36 PM

About Fracking Time. Toss that Evidence Eraser into Black Sites hot during the Summer and Cold during the Winter Months.

To Hell In A Ha... , Oct 24, 2017 12:40 PM

lol Another classic case of "the Boy that cried wolf" for the Trumpettes to believe justice is coming to the Clintons. The House Judiciary and Oversight committees, will turn up nothing, apart from some procedural mistakes. A complete waste of time and tax payer money. Only the Goldfish will be happy over another charade. Killary is immune from normal laws.

E.F. Mutton , Oct 24, 2017 12:37 PM

Potemkin Justice. Not a damn thing will come of it unless they find that one of Hillary's aides parked in a handicapped spot.

ToSoft4Truth , Oct 24, 2017 12:38 PM

The TV said Comey will be running for president in 2020.

Akzed -> ToSoft4Truth , Oct 24, 2017 12:39 PM

Well then it must be true.

ToSoft4Truth -> Akzed , Oct 24, 2017 12:51 PM

The TV showed me Trump saying, "She's been through enough" and "They're good people" when referring to Hillary and Bill Clinton. Holograms?

E.F. Mutton -> Gerry Fletcher , Oct 24, 2017 12:57 PM

The Blind Justice Lady is real, she just has a .45 at the back of her head held by Hillary. And don't even ask where Bill's finger is

mc888 -> BigWillyStyle887 , Oct 24, 2017 1:24 PM

Congress can't do shit without DOJ and FBI, which are both compromised and corrupt to the core.

That should have been Sessions' first order of business.

He can still get it rolling by firing Rosenstein and replacing him with someone that will do the job.They can strike down the Comey immunity deals and arrest people for violating Congressional subpeona.

They can also assemble a Grand Jury to indict Rosenstein and Mueller for the Russian collusion conspiracy to commit Espionage and Sabotage of our National Security resources. Half of Mueller's staff will then be indicted, along with Clinton, Obama, Lynch, Holder, and Comey.

Replacement of Rosenstein is the crucial first step.

Dead Indiana Sky , Oct 24, 2017 12:43 PM

Stopped reading at "they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status."

[Oct 16, 2017] Governing is complicated as laws and policies affect a diverse spectrum of people and situations. The average person, in my experience, is not inclined to spend the time necessary to understand good laws/policy in a complex society. The one safety check on mob rule is that most people don't become politically active until their situation is relatively dire

Highly recommended!
Republic is the policies system where leaders are obliged to leave after their maximum allowed term in office or if they lose the election (as opposed to the monarchy). the question who really select the rulers remain open, and in most cases people are not gven the right to do so -- the elite preselect candidates for which common people can vote in general elections.
Democracy is more then that -- it is unrealistic, utopian dream of direct rule of people, without intermediation of the elite. As such it is mostly a propaganda trick. Still be can strive for more fair representation by the elite. The key question here are the mechanisms of the filtration and the rotation of the elite as well as providing a channel for people from lower strata to enter the elite. Right now universities are still serving as a path to upward mobility but this channel is more and more blocked.
For example the US Senate is an example of almost life appointment to political position. Putting the limit on the time one can a senator might improve the situation, but it created the problem of short-termism. But taking into account to what extent senators are controlled by MIC and various other powerful lobbies it might not matter much. "It has been studied, and the fact is that members of the American Senate spend about two-thirds of their time raising money."
The class who holds economic power always also hold political power.
Notable quotes:
"... Democracy is a compromise, but it is one that virtually no one argues against. At least leaders are obliged to leave periodically. Churchill had it right when called democracy the worst form of government except for all the others. ..."
"... So, no thanks, I prefer representative democracy where I leave governance to a representative who I can vote for or against. I don't want to ever be involved in politics and hence I don't want decision left to groups of "community activists" of which i suspect you'd be quite happy to be part of. ..."
"... Trump is no Caesar but a Cataline. Just a sad sideshow in the slow implosion of Pax Americana. ..."
"... I'm sorry, but this is just not possible, at least not without something close to a revolution. In every Western country we like to call a democracy, the truth is that they have only an elaborate stage set of democracy. I prefer the term "plutocrat" to "oligarch," but whatever word you choose to use, the facts of society are the same. ..."
"... Power, no matter how it is granted, is power. And money is power, serious power. We can see this in a thousand aspects of our societies from the long-term success of someone like Harvey Weinstein in business to the many powerful lobbies which determine the direction of national policy. ..."
"... In the United States, the last national election was between a multi-billionaire and the best financed candidate in history, a woman who burnt through somewhere between $1.2 billion and $1.8 billion to lose. ..."
"... It has been studied, and the fact is that members of the American Senate spend about two-thirds of their time raising money. The American House of Representatives actually has call rooms were Representatives spend time every week raising money. And when I say "raising money" I don't mean the contributions which come from the likes of you or me. I mean big money from big sources of money, the only ones who really count. ..."
"... Something is out of balance in Washington. Corporations now spend about $2.6 billion a year on reported lobbying expenditures -- more than the $2 billion we spend to fund the House ($1.18 billion) and Senate ($860 million). It's a gap that has been widening since corporate lobbying began to regularly exceed the combined House-Senate budget in the early 2000s. ..."
"... Today, the biggest companies have upwards of 100 lobbyists representing them, allowing them to be everywhere, all the time. For every dollar spent on lobbying by labor unions and public-interest groups together, large corporations and their associations now spend $34. Of the 100 organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 consistently represent business. ..."
"... Above analysis needs to be translated into common everyday analogies. Such as Governments are gangs selling crack and guns and form co-ops with other gangs to stop killing each other. Leaders are psychopaths who kill anyone who calls them a bitch. ..."
"... Revolutions usually occur because of economic difficulties. As long as life is relatively stable/acceptable, most people will not challenge the status quo. Their voting (if they vote at all) is reflexive/rote. ..."
"... People will only rise up if you take away the minimum level of life for too many people. Many people are happy with the minimum. The left are deluded in they think they can gather together a lot of political protests for a life above the minimum. Many people are happy if they are simply getting by. You only have a problem when too many people are not getting by. ..."
"... I don't like an oligarchy but I'm just not sure where this pushback will come from. Many people are destined to be the bottom of whatever system is in place. ..."
"... We're delivered the illusion of democracy but look how quickly trump has been owned and is now going OTT in doing the bidding of the elites. ..."
"... People that are poor and oppressed CAN'T complain. That is the whole point of living in a dictatorship. ..."
"... Last November, a decent sized percentage of the American electorate appears to have voted for a 'politician' who they perceived to be the outsider. Presumably, their view was that there was little to differentiate between traditional republicans and democrats. ..."
"... Thank you for a wonderful article. Does the assumption "Oligarchy bad- Democracy good" really stand up to scrutiny in all cases? Democracy has had its failures, and some benign dictators have done very well for their people. ..."
"... Words and Technologies lead to abuse by rouge states like USA NSA and UK GCHQ spying on all citizens, Bannon type nonsense like racism is populism, white supremacy is judeo-christan values and racist Corporations like Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica pushing racist platforms like Trump and Brexit. Same Hypocrites are outraged when Russia and Iran infiltrate them back. Drone tech preceded 911 and preceded Bush war in Iraq and Afghanistan, (but were used on the sly). Now illegal wars are conducted using drones illegally claiming there is no law for drone wars. Spy Agencies and Internet censors have Sundays off. ..."
"... Understanding the connection between wealth and power shouldn't be all that difficult. Really. More wealth = more political power, always has. Waiting for the oligarchy to rot from within isn't what i would call a viable plan. Not when there is a far better and far more sure way to get the job done. Start with capping wealth accumulation. No one has a right to unlimited wealth accumulation. Allowing it leads to oligarchies and the death of democracies, as this article points out. ..."
"... When George Bush Junior followed his father into the White House and became the President he demonstrated that political power remains in the hands of a few and the system is rigged. It doesn't require academics to write comparisons to Greek culture to tell us the dice is always loaded. ..."
"... The USA is clearly a warlord power in how it behaves around the world, and anyone that sees the power of the militarised police, from Kent state to Black Lives, should recognise aspects of the Mafia type power. ..."
"... The point is not that the laws are used by Oligarchs, but that the constitution and system of laws one has brings forth olicharchs. Europe has laws, but the countries there are largely social democracies rather than imperialist presidencies. ..."
"... One of the finest reviews written in decades about a topic of supreme importance. Police and military officials are the brute arms and legs of the oligarchic elites. The coming attack on North Korea and Iran is the elite capturing new markets for their banking industry and manufacturing. Goldman Sachs and the investment banks are chomping at the bit for entre into southwest and east Asia. ..."
"... The article assumes that oligarchy is inherently bad. Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and Victorian England where all democratically sanctioned oligarchies. They where also the most successful cultures of their day. Perhaps a democratically sanctioned oligarchy is the most successful system of governance in large populations. ..."
"... Having been poor, I can't see the poor doing a better job of running the world. These articles never propose any workable solution to what we have now. Maybe the middle class could run things. Let's have a middle class revolution. That's more workable than 'power to the poor' which would end terribly. ..."
"... Their most effective power play is the perpetual game of economical musical chairs. The chairs are your living wage. Each round the masters take out their profit, removing one (or more) of the chairs from the next round. Now you have the choice of a death match with your neighbors for the remaining chairs or currying favour with the masters for the removed chair. ..."
"... Don't forget the role of the corporations and their associated 'think tanks'. In reality the USA is a corporatocracy as nicely pointed out by Bruce E. Levine in The Blog of the HUFFPOST in 2011. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-e-levine/the-myth-of-us-democracy-corporatocracy_b_836573.html ..."
"... "...in today's meritocratic era." This description is a myth put about by the oligarchs to justify their economic and political power. ..."
"... The UK had a brief glimpse of Democracy, sometime between the mid 1940's and the late 1970's. ..."
"... If you are thinking of the old Warsaw Pact countries, that was certainly an oligarchy based on party membership. ..."
"... Perhaps all political systems will tend towards oligarchy over time, as the people with the wherewithal learn how to make the system work for them and theirs. Anarchy cannot be the solution, but what is ...? ..."
"... So an oligarchy hiding behind a sham democracy is the best we can hope for? ..."
"... In a system where we economic power buys political power democracy will remain a myth or at best an illusion and as the author rightly points out a catastrophic event at the level of the depression or world war is needed to begin anew. I for one am not hoping for either ..."
"... So when the people take control and their populist leaders take charge and all their lots become better, don't they become the very oligarchs they despise? ..."
"... With this typology behind him, Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy. To use the language of recent political campaigns, our oligarchs try to rig the system to defend their wealth. They focus on lowering taxes and on reducing regulations that protect workers and citizens from corporate wrongdoing. ..."
"... Industrialization will prevent any meaningful revolution so without serious changes in who is winning elections for a sustained time oligarchy in the US is here to stay. Mechanized war means control of assets rather than numerical superiority is the key to conflict and despite the millions of rifles and assault weapons out there they wont do much against drone bombers and drone tanks. ..."
"... I was heartened by the idea that the oligarchy must necessarily rot from within as a result of its own cronyism. Much like the insider-dealing, back-stabbing, and incompetence of the present clique. ..."
"... 'The question is whether democracy will emerge from oligarchic breakdown – or whether the oligarchs will just strengthen their grasp on the levers of government.' - judging by evidence from time immemorial my money is definitely on the oligarchs. ..."
"... The combination of political and economic power is discussed in Plato's Republic. Either book 4 or 5. Whilst not a replacement for modern treatment, it is vital reading if you want to avoid the limitations of single perspectives. ..."
"... To understand the significance of psyops and infowar against the public, you should also look at Tacitus' book on Corrupt Eloquence. Again, not a replacement but a way of seeing the broader picture. ..."
"... The article starts with an assumption that is wrong. It seems to suggest that America can't become an oligarchy without the will of the people. That ignores the fact that America's electoral system attracts oligarchs or at least people who are happy to be puppets of oligarch to the top job. ..."
"... Surveillance, drones, a purchased media, a mercenary govt, an internet with too much democracy and thus too many hairsplitting doctrinal differences, and increasingly effective killing devices, means the international corporate oligarchs have been in control for some time and will be for awhile more ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com

FREDBUDTZ -> DocAdam , 15 Oct 2017 08:49

Yes, but the fundamental issue has always been, how do you chose the oligarch and how do you get rid of one who is clearly badly failing or abusing power?

Democracy is a compromise, but it is one that virtually no one argues against. At least leaders are obliged to leave periodically. Churchill had it right when called democracy the worst form of government except for all the others.

Oligarchy clearly serves some developing countries well, always assuming the oligarchs are people dedicated to doing their best for the country as a whole. And they do do that sometimes.

Yet, we have supported nonsense like killing a Gadaffi, who gave his people good government and peace, and pitching Libya into chaos.

All in the dishonest name of democracy from our dishonest "democratic" politicians.

Look at Israel, always slapping itself on the back as the Mideast's "only democracy," while it consorts happily with kings and tyrants in its neighborhood and continues to hold millions of people in occupation against their will.

DirDigIns -> jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 08:46

What's your definition then?

Representative democracy. Not democracy by the crowd. Not eternal referenda. Not local "community" groups holding a lot of power. This is simply the tyranny of small groups of ideological left and ring wing extremists who will sit for 4 hours on a wet Tuesday evening in some hall somewhere to get their way, knowing that most normal people have better things to do with their lives.

It is the way of socialist workers and the like at University with their endless union meetings and motions, hoping to sneak through some crap the "represents" the student body of thousands on the basis of less than 100 votes. When challenged as to legitimacy the response is always "no one is prevented from getting involved".

That I suspect is your type of democracy, as it certainly is Corbyn's.

So, no thanks, I prefer representative democracy where I leave governance to a representative who I can vote for or against. I don't want to ever be involved in politics and hence I don't want decision left to groups of "community activists" of which i suspect you'd be quite happy to be part of.

zippy200 , 15 Oct 2017 08:44
Marxism 101. Trouble is liberals on the one hand bang on about proletariat solidarity, yet on the other, peddle identity politics and turn a blind eye at increasingly fragmented communities. And when the modern oligarchs come out and play they scratch their heads and blame "the stupid".
DirDigIns -> ID059068 , 15 Oct 2017 08:40
Your comment is the equivalent of the reply one normally gets from lefties btl if you say you don't want to be paying more tax i.e. "go to Somalia".

The nuance that there may be something between high tax and low tax is lost on them.

In your case, the idea that having what Beveridge proposed originally as a "safety net" of state provision rather than a lifestyle choice of full coverage of everything is lost on you, hence you suggest the choice is a binary everything or nothing.

Yours is the ignorance of the socialist and yes, a lack of personal freedom in your thinking that I'd reject every time.

W.a. Thomaston , 15 Oct 2017 08:37
The first rule of oligarchic fight club: You do not talk about oligarchic fight club! Or apparently Republics? From the little golden book of how to overthrow oligarchs by overthrown oligarchs (*Minion Free Edition)
Amanzim -> JosephCamilleri , 15 Oct 2017 08:37
India has democracy, but it is suppressing Kashmiris who want to be independent. In the last decade more than 30000 people have been killed by Indian army. Why? Because they want freedom.
Koen Van Vugt -> aeris2001x2 , 15 Oct 2017 08:36
Trump is no Caesar but a Cataline. Just a sad sideshow in the slow implosion of Pax Americana.
awilson5280 -> amwink , 15 Oct 2017 08:36
Sparta used slave labor for its agricultural needs, freeing its people to train and form the backbone of its militaristic society.

I agree that the best system for managing human affairs remains an open question. Locke and Hobbes are not done debating, and Churchill's attribution that democracy is the worst system of governance aside from everything else we've tried bears consideration as well. (If you want to discard democracy, it only seems fair that you present a viable, well thought-out replacement.)

FREDBUDTZ , 15 Oct 2017 08:36
"How the oligarchy wins..." "... two recent books can teach us about defending democracy from oligarchs'

I'm sorry, but this is just not possible, at least not without something close to a revolution. In every Western country we like to call a democracy, the truth is that they have only an elaborate stage set of democracy. I prefer the term "plutocrat" to "oligarch," but whatever word you choose to use, the facts of society are the same.

Power, no matter how it is granted, is power. And money is power, serious power. We can see this in a thousand aspects of our societies from the long-term success of someone like Harvey Weinstein in business to the many powerful lobbies which determine the direction of national policy.

In the United States, the last national election was between a multi-billionaire and the best financed candidate in history, a woman who burnt through somewhere between $1.2 billion and $1.8 billion to lose.

It has been studied, and the fact is that members of the American Senate spend about two-thirds of their time raising money. The American House of Representatives actually has call rooms were Representatives spend time every week raising money. And when I say "raising money" I don't mean the contributions which come from the likes of you or me. I mean big money from big sources of money, the only ones who really count.

Look at a phenomenon like Macron in France. He came from nowhere and seems to have very limited talents, yet the plutocratic interests who backed him managed to grab the French Presidency. Former French President Sarkozy, a man who proved mostly ineffective, took huge sums from General Gaddafi to the richest woman in France, a woman rumored to not have been even fully competent at the time.

Not only are the contributors of big money - both individuals and lobby groups - at the center of Western politics, but our very institutions are constructed to accommodate leadership which does not reflect the views of a majority. This is done in many structural ways from district gerrymandering to the nature of the "first past the post" ballots we use.

Look at Britain's most utterly incompetent modern politician, David Cameron, the man who single-handedly created the entire Brexit mess plus engaged in a terrible lot of dishonest and brutal behavior in the Middle East. He was never popular and ruled with something over 35% of the vote. Britain's institutions accommodated that.

In Canada, Stephen Harper, the man most Canadians likely regard as the shabbiest ever to rule the country, managed to do terrible things with about 39% of the vote.

And everywhere, people don't vote for war, interests do, rich interests.

timiengels , 15 Oct 2017 08:34
We desperately need a revolution.....and to hang these oligarchs from the nearest yardarm or lamppost. Where is our Robspierre?
Boghaunter -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 08:34
Economist Ha Joon Chang wrote about the meteoric economic rise of South Korea. He talked about how governmental policy chose areas to heavily subsidize (like educating engineers) to stimulate growth. They were successful but Chang also talks about the "losers" left behind.

If we only look at economics and if we assume economic growth is always a positive with no downside (slums, environmental degradation, authoritarian oppression, rulers passing laws to protect their privilege, etc.), than your premise looks sound.

choowy , 15 Oct 2017 08:33
'...displays of wealth that might spark *envy'. Interesting article otherwise
ClaudiaRain01 -> Boghaunter , 15 Oct 2017 08:33
I think being dire is an important key. Maybe it is dire in Britain for many people now. It isn't here, in Australia, just yet although people are going backwards.

The other issue is a lack of political literacy. You have to convince people they need a revolution. Many people are poor because understanding things like politics and society is not their strong point.

You may have a large group of people who are prime to vote for socialism but you'd have to explain to them why and convince them not just take it as a given they will. You may have an overwhelming amount of people who would benefit from socialism and you could win the revolution then they'd do something dumb like vote for Trump or Pauline Hanson. It is not a given that having victorious numbers of struggling people means socialism will be voted for.

Fibonaccisequins , 15 Oct 2017 08:32
Something is out of balance in Washington. Corporations now spend about $2.6 billion a year on reported lobbying expenditures -- more than the $2 billion we spend to fund the House ($1.18 billion) and Senate ($860 million). It's a gap that has been widening since corporate lobbying began to regularly exceed the combined House-Senate budget in the early 2000s.

Today, the biggest companies have upwards of 100 lobbyists representing them, allowing them to be everywhere, all the time. For every dollar spent on lobbying by labor unions and public-interest groups together, large corporations and their associations now spend $34. Of the 100 organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 consistently represent business.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/

TheResult , 15 Oct 2017 08:29
Above analysis needs to be translated into common everyday analogies. Such as Governments are gangs selling crack and guns and form co-ops with other gangs to stop killing each other. Leaders are psychopaths who kill anyone who calls them a bitch.
barciad -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 08:29
You say that, but wind the clock back 80 years and they were saying the same things about tanks and airplanes. Modern day, 'urbanised feudalism' with the petrol engine instead of horses. Otherwise known as Fascism. Didn't quite work out did it...
Elgrecoandros -> jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 08:29
I don't think Jeremy Corbyn should be punished for having different political opinions to me, nor do I want Jacob Rees-Mogg punished because his opinions differ from mine, whereas you were calling for the latter to be punished for his political views.

For most people the options for dealing with those of a different political opinion are not either 1) imprisonment or 2) confiscation of property/forced labour. Those are extremist positions.

Boghaunter -> ClaudiaRain01 , 15 Oct 2017 08:27
I find truth in your words. I used to understand the fear of "mob rule", which democracy seemed vulnerable to. Governing is complicated and, ideally, is broad-minded as laws and policies affect a diverse spectrum of people and situations. The average person, in my experience, is not inclined to spend the time necessary to understand good laws/policy in a complex society. The one safety check on mob rule is that most people don't become politically active until their situation is relatively dire.

Revolutions usually occur because of economic difficulties. As long as life is relatively stable/acceptable, most people will not challenge the status quo. Their voting (if they vote at all) is reflexive/rote.

Most of the time, democracies are fundamentally guided by people who have a deeper interest in governance. As long as the engaged populace takes reasonable account of society as a whole, there will be no upheavals. When the scales tip too far we get an "acting out" that is unrestrained and chaotic and understandable.

This is simplistic and not meant to be absolute. Just an observation.

ClaudiaRain01 -> imperium3 , 15 Oct 2017 08:25
People will only rise up if you take away the minimum level of life for too many people. Many people are happy with the minimum. The left are deluded in they think they can gather together a lot of political protests for a life above the minimum. Many people are happy if they are simply getting by. You only have a problem when too many people are not getting by.
ClaudiaRain01 -> JosephCamilleri , 15 Oct 2017 08:22
In Australia plenty of people choose to live off the minimum wage. Many choose not to work full time. The state picks up after them with health care and income top ups. They are highly unlikely to make an effort to overthrow the oligarchy or the plutocracy. Why bother when you can work 30 hours a week at an easy job and get along just fine in life.

I don't like an oligarchy but I'm just not sure where this pushback will come from. Many people are destined to be the bottom of whatever system is in place.

Fibonaccisequins , 15 Oct 2017 08:20
In the UK we have circa 1200 quangos controlling our lives, and look how the tories have recently abused select committee appointments. In the USA they have organisations such as the council on foreign relations which wields huge power across all areas of policy, combined with the intricacies of all the mechanisms it prevents democracy from taking shape. We're delivered the illusion of democracy but look how quickly trump has been owned and is now going OTT in doing the bidding of the elites.
amwink , 15 Oct 2017 08:19
By "Greece" I suspect this article means "Athens". Sparta had a different system and was not subjected to these issues. In fact, that system was superior in many ways, but apparently all has to be judged according to the rule that democracy would be the best.
MattSpanner , 15 Oct 2017 08:16
Classical Greece's economy ran on slave labour. Something Tories hanker after with austerity, zero-hours contracts and non-existent job security.
aeris2001x2 , 15 Oct 2017 08:16
Or one from the elite arises and takes power and skips democracy and devolves the US straight to tyranny, as also forewarned by the classics. Its a good job Trump never got in last year...oh fuck
JosephCamilleri -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 08:15
People that are poor and oppressed CAN'T complain. That is the whole point of living in a dictatorship. Should you be interested in the truth of what is happening in that empire, just navigate different news sites.

Authorities in Xinjiang Extend Uyghur Persecution to Region's Ethnic Kyrgyz (RFA)
Justice for Some, Notoriety for Others: Public Law Enforcement in China (DH)
Xinjiang Seethes Under Chinese Crackdown (NYT)
Clashes as Ethnic Evenk Herders Protest China's Grazing Ban in Inner Mongolia (RFA)
Chinese Dissident 'Utterly Destroyed' in Detention (FB)
China executed 2,400 people in 2013: report (AJ)
Chinese Dissident Calls on China to Stop Persecuting His Family (VOA)

SimonGKelly -> Churchman72 , 15 Oct 2017 08:12
China is indeed a good example.

What about the GOP and the Democratic parties as competing oligopolies? Last November, a decent sized percentage of the American electorate appears to have voted for a 'politician' who they perceived to be the outsider. Presumably, their view was that there was little to differentiate between traditional republicans and democrats.

Stateless1 , 15 Oct 2017 08:12
Gerrymandering helps get the result you want.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/pbox.php?url=http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/05/crimes-against-geography.png&w=1484&op=resize&opt=1&filter=antialias&t=20170517
shtove -> Slo27 , 15 Oct 2017 08:09
Once you use the concept of class you out yourself as the oligarch's willing executioner. There's no proof that democracy can't adapt and survive, yet a catastrophist will insist it's so.
imperium3 -> ClaudiaRain01 , 15 Oct 2017 08:08

They aspire to be like the top? No, they don't. No revolution is coming because plenty on the bottom are fine if they are just getting along in life. Aspiring to be like the top would involve too much hard work for many.

If you push the bottom too far you just end up with a correction at the next election, that's it.

And yet the Bourbons do not still rule France, neither the Romanovs nor the Bolsheviks rule Russia, and the once-mighty Habsburgs are a distant memory.

Of course, the reason our democracies are not supposed to go the same way is that the populace can change things themselves through elections rather than having to rise up and overthrow the whole system. But what happens when the electoral system fails? What happens if, no matter how the electorate votes, the political class thumbs its nose at them and carries on as usual?

To take the most obvious example of democratic failure - the US - where will the American electorate go after Trump? Can we seriously expect the same people who voted for him, and undoubtedly did not get what they wanted, to flock to support some business-as-usual Democrat or oily Republican?

ConBrio , 15 Oct 2017 08:07

Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy. To use the language of recent political campaigns, our oligarchs try to rig the system to defend their wealth. They focus on lowering taxes and on reducing regulations that protect workers and citizens from corporate wrongdoing.

If there's ever been a country not ruled by oligarchy I'd like to see it.

The United States vacillates between a sly oligarchy of the Left who use the dole as its virtue signaling to garner votes, and the Right whose use of government for self aggrandizement is more obvious.

Indeed, any notion that the genetic impulse to self aggrandizement will change is spurious.

As such, the only and imperfect defense, is to limit government power thus reducing the oligarchs' potential for self dealing and, more importantly, requiring frequent elections which although in the long run don't eliminate the problem, tend to engender compromise and periodic shifts in power from one faction to another.

James Madison's article No. 10 of The Federalist elucidates the principles. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.aspof

Churchman72 -> SimonGKelly , 15 Oct 2017 08:01
I think today's China is a good example of what a modern oligarchy looks like- a Party structure that provides privilege through membership, but no clearly definable ideology other than consolidating power and projecting it. It is ironic that a supposedly socialist country devotes so much energy into preventing labour from organising into unions and has such massive inequality.

Russia on the other hand is a sham democracy where the structure of democracy is in place, but thoroughly eviscerated so that it exists only to confer legitimacy on the oligarchy (with Putin and his inner circle at the core). If Putin was to die suddenly (or become incapacitated) there may be a real world example of oligarchical collapse as rival factions try to occupy the vacant centre of power. It could very well create a space in which genuine grassroots democracy could grow, but equally it could tear the country apart.

Neither country has a history of democracy, and the rule of law isn't anywhere near as strong as in liberal western democracies, and is easily subverted. Russia particularly has a culture of political coups, as the country relies on unequal power distribution to function, making separatist movements a very real threat.

JosephCamilleri -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 07:58
They are complaining, but you can't hear them, because they are oppressed and colonized and disenfranchised. In the country, in inner Mongolia, in Turkestan, and in Tibet, and when they want to claim their rights and their family gets persecuted for a few generations. And if anyone talks about it, the Communist party threatens to not trade with you.
imperium3 -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 07:58
Precisely. In a world where a handful of people could control a whole army, who's to stop that handful from assuming total control over the rest of us?

I'm not even sure there's much that can be done to stop it, since the nations that refuse to embrace new military technology tend to get defeated by other nations that have no such qualms.

EquilibriaJones -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 07:57
Successful until people start missing 3 meals. Then the pitchforks come out.
jessthecrip -> Elgrecoandros , 15 Oct 2017 07:57
I was responding to a poster who called for imprisonment for those concerned. Do you think imprisonment would be more democratic?
DocAdam , 15 Oct 2017 07:55
Thank you for a wonderful article. Does the assumption "Oligarchy bad- Democracy good" really stand up to scrutiny in all cases? Democracy has had its failures, and some benign dictators have done very well for their people.
ID059068 -> DirDigIns , 15 Oct 2017 07:54
I sincerely wish you to have the same freedom to 'live freely and succeed or fail due to their own personal talents' as my grandparents had in the 20s and 30s.

That is, the freedom to be unemployed without help for years (but with the freedom to grow what food they could in the back yard of a slum in an industrial city). The freedom to see some of their children die because there was no treatment if you were diabetic and poor. The freedom to send your 13 year old son to work with a broken foot (stamped on by one of the cart-horses he tended) because he was the only earner. The freedom to work hungry for two days until payday because bills had been paid (rent, coal) and there was no money... I could go on and on. I really hope you get to enjoy all this freedom. And please do emjoy it without a murmur of complaint because being helped by all your neighbours that make up 'the state' isn't freedom, is it?

JosephCamilleri -> ClaudiaRain01 , 15 Oct 2017 07:54
Who is 'we'? It depends where you were born.
JosephCamilleri -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 07:52
Both Greece and Rome went through quire a few multiple systems in multiple situations. It does not make sense to say they are singular political types at all.
Elgrecoandros -> jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 07:51
Considering that in another thread you called on forced labour and confiscation of private property for those you disagreed with politically, your version of 'proper democracy' would have been called 'τυραννία' by the Ancient Greeks.
ClaudiaRain01 -> Swoll Man , 15 Oct 2017 07:50
No, working with poor people convinced me socialism is no better. I'm not inclined to work hard and have to support people who choose to work part time and collect benefits part time as a lifestyle choice.
imperium3 -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 07:50
Successful for whom? All of those were extremely unequal societies. The spoils of the Roman and British Empires mostly went to enrich the oligarchs while the vast majority of the population laboured in poverty.

The majority was only able to prosper once the power of the oligarchs was broken, either from above (the early Roman emperors tore the old senatorial class to pieces) or from below (gradual democratic and labour reforms in Britain conceded for fear of a potential revolution).

TheWindsOfWinter93 -> GagaInGreenacres , 15 Oct 2017 07:45
That would work fine before the age of automation now where humans are taken out of the job scope entirely. Then it becomes a lot harder to justify on a philosophical, ethical and moral level the logic of giving money to people for doing nothing (because there's nothing left for them to do).

You're talking about a fundamental change in the mentality that we reap what we sow, that our efforts directly correspond to the rewards and resources we gain at the end of it. I don't think that's possible. Neither is it desirable.

unclestinky , 15 Oct 2017 07:44

two World Wars and a Great Depression largely wiped out the holdings of the extremely wealthy

There was also a couple of generations trained under arms and seasoned under fire. There was a mixing of classes unlike any other and enough people who would not put up with a return to the status quo.
TheWindsOfWinter93 -> twilightegal , 15 Oct 2017 07:43
A world war is entirely necessary. To assume that peace is inherently good for humanity as a whole in terms of population numbers, technological advancements, or political stability is ridiculous in my honest opinion. Peace represents stagnation. It relies too much on ever-convoluted webs of interdependence (like that Concert of Europe before WWI, once declared as peace for its time).

The American revolutionaries had it right when they said that the tree of liberty regularly requires the blood of tyrants and patriots to continue flourishing.

TheResult , 15 Oct 2017 07:41
Big Words usages up above

Words and Technologies lead to abuse by rouge states like USA NSA and UK GCHQ spying on all citizens, Bannon type nonsense like racism is populism, white supremacy is judeo-christan values and racist Corporations like Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica pushing racist platforms like Trump and Brexit. Same Hypocrites are outraged when Russia and Iran infiltrate them back. Drone tech preceded 911 and preceded Bush war in Iraq and Afghanistan, (but were used on the sly). Now illegal wars are conducted using drones illegally claiming there is no law for drone wars. Spy Agencies and Internet censors have Sundays off.

TheWindsOfWinter93 -> barciad , 15 Oct 2017 07:41
Interesting idea. So the core of a nation's military power decides what politics makes it up (dependent on who's got the most access to the power to kill). In that case the automation of war for drones and robots cannot be anything but bad news: they are the new cavalry, affordable only by the very rich and powerful and so awesome in destructive power at almost no human cost if they are destroyed that they would make the perfect enforcers for a strict feudal order.
apacheman , 15 Oct 2017 07:39
Understanding the connection between wealth and power shouldn't be all that difficult. Really. More wealth = more political power, always has. Waiting for the oligarchy to rot from within isn't what i would call a viable plan. Not when there is a far better and far more sure way to get the job done. Start with capping wealth accumulation. No one has a right to unlimited wealth accumulation. Allowing it leads to oligarchies and the death of democracies, as this article points out.

Set the cap at a reasonably high figure to reward hard work, innovation, etc. Somewhere around $5B should work. Why $5 billion? Because of the ~2K billionaires in the world, most, like 80-85% or so, have less than that amount, and it becomes a break point within the oligarchy, dividing their unity. Think of the egos involved: many of those with $1-5B would relish seeing the 200+ hyper rich brought within striking distance of equality on their level.

Second, agree with the politicians that taxpayers know best how to spend their money.

Change the budget process so that the politicians pass the budget, but the people decide whether or not to fund it. Establish dedicated tax payment centers so when tax time rolls around, the proposed budget is available for the citizenry to examine.

Then allow the taxpayer to fund those parts they agree are necessary and make sense, by establishing discrete step amounts scaled to the size of the tax bill, e.g., say your tax bill came to 1582 whatevers, dollars, pounds, etc. At that size your increment might be 25 or 50, let's say 50 for argument's sake.

That means our taxpayer could fund up to 31 different parts of the budget. To ensure that the money gets spread around, we can limit the number of allocations to any given part to 3 or 4, and close a choice when its budget request is met. Anything left over that doesn't meet the minimum step level would go into the general fund for the politicians to allocate, either topping off programs that didn't quite get their budget requests filled or funding something that didn't get sufficient funds from the public to be viable.

Now here's were you can get voluntary revenue enhancement: allow the taxpayer to top off the leftover amount for the privilege of allocating it themselves rather than surrendering it to politicians' control. That amount wouldn't be applied against future taxes, it is payment-for-privilege. In our example the taxpayer could add 18 to the leftover 32, a choice many would make.

Third, bring voting into the modern era: use those handy tax payment centers both to vote in local, state, and national elections (while changing the voting period from a day to a week) and to provide feedback to politicians. Whenever anything controversial comes up, like healthcare or bailouts or war, allow the citizenry to override their representative's choice of vote if a majority of voters choose to vote the other way on that particular matter.

Fourth, establish mental standards for running for political office. Test would-be candidates to determine whether or not they are sociopaths. I'd prefer to not allow such people to hold political offices or appointments, but would accept just identifying them so voters know what they will get.

Taken together, those steps would ensure that democracy is strong and safe from co-option by oligarchs, both directly and indirectly by providing a genuine incentive to pay attention to issues.

TheWindsOfWinter93 -> Slo27 , 15 Oct 2017 07:36
Indeed you're right. And to be fair, why should he? The world's spent long enough whining on about great powers like the US trying to foist their ideas of a better world by their own rules and standards on everyone else (democracy spreading anyone?), so if we are to truly put words to action then an isolationist US allowing for other powers to fill the vacuum and return the world to multipolarity cannot be seen as anything other than a good thing.
TheWindsOfWinter93 -> JosephCamilleri , 15 Oct 2017 07:34
That doesn't sound very much like China here which is used as an example of a dictatorship (more de-facto than de-jure since the Chinese president and premier only has the absolute writ of God for ten years).

Apart from those in Hong Kong, there really isn't much of anyone in China's domestic population complaining about being oppressed, unfree, colonised, or unable to become who they can be.

barciad -> N1LiberalElitist , 15 Oct 2017 07:31
It really some downs to how you define the term 'Liberal'. Socially Liberal? Economically Liberal? The latter being a modern euphemism for being about as reactionary as it gets.
philipl -> ValuedCustomer , 15 Oct 2017 07:28
But that is breaking down as middle class benefits (pensions etc.) begin to disappear. There is a growing awareness , I think, that inequality is becoming extreme between the very rich and everyone else. Good article, anyway.
JosephCamilleri -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 07:28
People in dictatorships are oppressed, unfree, colonised, and unable to become who they could be. Most people want to be more than just alive.
DirDigIns -> WhatTheTruth , 15 Oct 2017 07:27
I'd rather describe it as socialism giving everybody endless free stuff, hence we get more and more reliant on the state and those who wish to live freely and succeed or fail due to their own personal talents see the idea of personal responsibility denuded everywhere.

Socialists seem to think "freedom" is achieved by having the state always there in everything to back you up, to a lot of the rest of us that is most definitely not freedom at all.

mrpukpuk , 15 Oct 2017 07:26
We are all well divided. So the oligarchy is safe.
Russell Sanders , 15 Oct 2017 07:24
When George Bush Junior followed his father into the White House and became the President he demonstrated that political power remains in the hands of a few and the system is rigged. It doesn't require academics to write comparisons to Greek culture to tell us the dice is always loaded.
JosephCamilleri -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 07:23
That would depend on the quality and sophistication of the constitution. Social multi-party representative democracies with a house of review don't decay like executive presidencies do.
JosephCamilleri , 15 Oct 2017 07:19

"In civil oligarchies, governance is collective and enforced through laws, rather than by arms. Democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of 'oligarchic breakdown.' With this typology behind him, Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy."

Two things.

1. The USA is clearly a warlord power in how it behaves around the world, and anyone that sees the power of the militarised police, from Kent state to Black Lives, should recognise aspects of the Mafia type power.

2. The point is not that the laws are used by Oligarchs, but that the constitution and system of laws one has brings forth olicharchs. Europe has laws, but the countries there are largely social democracies rather than imperialist presidencies.

Also, I don't think anyone interested in politics does not understand that material economical structure is the basis, and ideology is just the result or sales pitch.

Dan2017 -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 07:18
Unfortunately, your view is one that is becoming more prevalent, on the left and right. All about ensuring that the correct thinking people are not held back by the plebs. Ti that effect they accuse them of false consciousness by one half and being anti-business by the other.
FranklinDRoosevelt , 15 Oct 2017 07:17
One of the finest reviews written in decades about a topic of supreme importance. Police and military officials are the brute arms and legs of the oligarchic elites. The coming attack on North Korea and Iran is the elite capturing new markets for their banking industry and manufacturing. Goldman Sachs and the investment banks are chomping at the bit for entre into southwest and east Asia. Articles and reviews like this one is WHY I HAVE READ THE GUARDIAN FOR DECADES.
GagaInGreenacres -> TragicomedyBeholder , 15 Oct 2017 07:16
The government need not favour the down trodden, it need only offer a job at a living wage to anyone willing to contribute to their community. This would make us all equal enough.
Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 07:15
The article assumes that oligarchy is inherently bad. Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and Victorian England where all democratically sanctioned oligarchies. They where also the most successful cultures of their day. Perhaps a democratically sanctioned oligarchy is the most successful system of governance in large populations.
ClaudiaRain01 -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 07:15
They aspire to be like the top? No, they don't. No revolution is coming because plenty on the bottom are fine if they are just getting along in life. Aspiring to be like the top would involve too much hard work for many.

If you push the bottom too far you just end up with a correction at the next election, that's it.

ClaudiaRain01 , 15 Oct 2017 07:13
Having been poor, I can't see the poor doing a better job of running the world. These articles never propose any workable solution to what we have now. Maybe the middle class could run things. Let's have a middle class revolution. That's more workable than 'power to the poor' which would end terribly.
qvideh -> YurekandTina Kulski , 15 Oct 2017 07:11
Plutocracy!
GagaInGreenacres , 15 Oct 2017 07:11
Their most effective power play is the perpetual game of economical musical chairs. The chairs are your living wage. Each round the masters take out their profit, removing one (or more) of the chairs from the next round. Now you have the choice of a death match with your neighbors for the remaining chairs or currying favour with the masters for the removed chair.

The masters need only cut out some unpopular group and tell some convenient story about how they brought it on themselves in order to get your support.

The only way for democracy to thrive is for the community to supply a new a chair for every one taken by the masters, as was done in the post war period up till the mid seventies. Since then it has been economic musical chairs with austerity, budget constraints and irreducible unemployment as far as they eye can see.

Slo27 -> Amanzim , 15 Oct 2017 07:09
Isolationist Trump still intends to rule the world, he just does not want to get involved in making it better.
Slo27 -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 07:07

don't they become the very oligarchs they despise?

In America, they actually chose an oligarch to battle the oligarch, and somehow that is not how it is panning out.
YurekandTina Kulski , 15 Oct 2017 07:06
Don't forget the role of the corporations and their associated 'think tanks'. In reality the USA is a corporatocracy as nicely pointed out by Bruce E. Levine in The Blog of the HUFFPOST in 2011. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-e-levine/the-myth-of-us-democracy-corporatocracy_b_836573.html
Redredemptionist , 15 Oct 2017 07:06
"...in today's meritocratic era." This description is a myth put about by the oligarchs to justify their economic and political power.
Slo27 , 15 Oct 2017 07:05
And yet, the American voters brought in Trump the oligarch, and tasked him with destroying the institutions that perpetuate oligarchy.

Democracy will be destroyed through utter stupidity of the lower classes. They can easily be egged to see an enemy in their fellow citizens and turn to oligarchs for protection. Specifically, in the US, the white majority wants Trump to prevent a transition into whites becoming the largest minority, instead of the majority. These are their expectations and they are prepared to tolerate any outrage as long as they think he is working towards that goal.

Gunsarecivilrights -> WhatTheTruth , 15 Oct 2017 07:05
Rights and socialism do not belong in the same sentence. Are you drunk?
barciad , 15 Oct 2017 07:03
The UK had a brief glimpse of Democracy, sometime between the mid 1940's and the late 1970's. I should also add that Aristotle included a third factor. The size and nature of ones armed forces:-
  1. If the core was cavalry, then it would be a feudal monarchy (Macedon, Persia)
  2. If it was elite heavy infantry, then it would be an oligarchy (Sparta, Rome)
  3. If it was through either mass light infantry or naval based, then it would be a Democracy (Athens)

Now consider the UK after 1945, you have a this huge 'citizen's army' that has been out in field (one way or another) for over half a decade. Add onto that the huge losses of wealth and (more importantly) the alliances that were forced upon us. There could be nothing but an effective mass popular Democracy in this country. And for the first time in its history.

But alas, the Oligarchs bided their time and when the first sign of crisis came along, the struck. The 1970's for fucks sake, which were nothing compared to the cataclysms between 1914-1914, that same said Oligarchs created. Yet you would not think it the way those people bang on about it. Thus now, we have the 2010's, a decade that we will be warning our children about.

With the subheading 'What happens when you forget the lessons of history'.

SimonGKelly -> WhatTheTruth , 15 Oct 2017 06:59
If you are thinking of the old Warsaw Pact countries, that was certainly an oligarchy based on party membership.

However, how far are we from that in a system which guarantees that only one of two parties will end up in power? A glance across the pond shows how that is simply another form of oligarchy generating a hereditary establishment. That was HC's biggest problem.

Perhaps all political systems will tend towards oligarchy over time, as the people with the wherewithal learn how to make the system work for them and theirs. Anarchy cannot be the solution, but what is ...?

Redredemptionist -> TragicomedyBeholder , 15 Oct 2017 06:54
So an oligarchy hiding behind a sham democracy is the best we can hope for?
TheWindsOfWinter93 -> Amanzim , 15 Oct 2017 06:53
Who cares about whether democracy or dictatorship is better. As long as the people get richer and safer and happier with their lot in life, that's all that matters. Humans don't nearly live long enough to care more than just staying alive and bettering our own lot in life.
twilightegal , 15 Oct 2017 06:51
In a system where we economic power buys political power democracy will remain a myth or at best an illusion and as the author rightly points out a catastrophic event at the level of the depression or world war is needed to begin anew. I for one am not hoping for either
NotSoLittleMouse , 15 Oct 2017 06:49
There is also an economic minimum the population needs to be at. Dividing the classes only goes so far.

There's an argument on the oligarch needing the masses to finance their wealth, especially through utilities and monopolies (privately run NHS by token choice of companies), but it almost like the oligarchs don't need the masses anymore and can defend their wealth via stock exchange and governmental debts.

I would say that the biggest reason for the success of the oligarchs is making security, defined and framed by them, more important for the mass than freedom.

TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 06:49
So when the people take control and their populist leaders take charge and all their lots become better, don't they become the very oligarchs they despise?

What seems to be missing is recognizing the fact that very often in human society those on the bottom aspire to be like the top, even if they disagree with their personalities they don't disagree with their idea of prosperity and power. So it's going to be endlessly cyclical. The people take power and become oligarchs in their own right. Then someone has to take over on the bottom and then it all starts again.

redleader , 15 Oct 2017 06:48

With this typology behind him, Winters declares that America is already a civil oligarchy. To use the language of recent political campaigns, our oligarchs try to rig the system to defend their wealth. They focus on lowering taxes and on reducing regulations that protect workers and citizens from corporate wrongdoing.

Aristotle would have argued that countries are oligarchies when they have oligarchical constitutions.

Amanzim , 15 Oct 2017 06:47
Democracy works much better when all have economic prosperity. It should also look after the minorities by giving them equal rights and opportunities. I see democracy in India and look up to how it has remained a free country. But there are more than 300 million people in India who are so poor that they cannot afford much in life, most of them live on roads. China on the other hand is a dictatorship, but has reduced poverty of more than 400 million people in the last few decades. Which path should others follow?

America under Trump is making the country isolationist. As Economist wrote so well: "The world does not want an isolationist United States or a dictatorship in China. Alas, it may get both."

Andy Roberts , 15 Oct 2017 06:43
Industrialization will prevent any meaningful revolution so without serious changes in who is winning elections for a sustained time oligarchy in the US is here to stay. Mechanized war means control of assets rather than numerical superiority is the key to conflict and despite the millions of rifles and assault weapons out there they wont do much against drone bombers and drone tanks.
kizbot , 15 Oct 2017 06:41
in Greece the oligarchs rule through corruption. Everyone is tainted so the system cannot be overthrown without going down with it.
mill1806 , 15 Oct 2017 06:40
I was heartened by the idea that the oligarchy must necessarily rot from within as a result of its own cronyism. Much like the insider-dealing, back-stabbing, and incompetence of the present clique.
Keith Fraser -> TragicomedyBeholder , 15 Oct 2017 06:37
Not all measures aimed at improving equality involve giving extra privileges to currently disadvantaged groups - one can remove privileges/other advantages from groups which are doing more than OK, like curtailing legal tax-dodges which are only of use/available to the very wealthy. One can also remove barriers which (deliberately or not) impact people unequally, such as voter-suppression tricks.

This set of images is a very simplistic but helpful way of explaining the difference between different ways to deal with inequality:

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*owl5RUCkVYPzZi9tuyC54Q.jpeg

N1LiberalElitist -> ValuedCustomer , 15 Oct 2017 06:37
If you think that's "contemporary bourgeois liberal strategy" then the oligarchs are winning. They've told you the woes of the world are all the fault of the liberal middle classes, and you've believed them.
abugaafar , 15 Oct 2017 06:35

The question is whether democracy will emerge from oligarchic breakdown

or demagoguery.

Nada89 , 15 Oct 2017 06:33
'The question is whether democracy will emerge from oligarchic breakdown – or whether the oligarchs will just strengthen their grasp on the levers of government.' - judging by evidence from time immemorial my money is definitely on the oligarchs.
jazzdrum , 15 Oct 2017 06:32
For me , this film says it all and clearly too. https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/everything-rich-man-trick /
imipak , 15 Oct 2017 06:30
The combination of political and economic power is discussed in Plato's Republic. Either book 4 or 5. Whilst not a replacement for modern treatment, it is vital reading if you want to avoid the limitations of single perspectives.

To understand the significance of psyops and infowar against the public, you should also look at Tacitus' book on Corrupt Eloquence. Again, not a replacement but a way of seeing the broader picture.

Remember, we wouldn't be in this mess if we had a clear picture, but we have a different perspective to these past writers. Philosophers and elephants. You've got to combine the visions and weight them correctly.

Hibernica , 15 Oct 2017 06:30
The article starts with an assumption that is wrong. It seems to suggest that America can't become an oligarchy without the will of the people. That ignores the fact that America's electoral system attracts oligarchs or at least people who are happy to be puppets of oligarch to the top job.

If Trump hadn't been elected Hillary Clinton would now be President. More intelligent certainly and less likely to destroy the country but still backed by countless very wealthy people who would have been expecting payback for their support.

So rather than ask how America can avoid becoming an oligarchy I'd be asking if there was ever a time when it wasn't an oligarchy.

ValuedCustomer -> ValuedCustomer , 15 Oct 2017 06:30
In fact the whole article is fantastic, I've been relying on instinct and Michels' (accurate but primitive) Iron Law of Oligarchy for this stuff.
WhatTheTruth , 15 Oct 2017 06:29
What about the oligarchy of Socialism where giving people too many rights neutralises everything to a standstill?
ValuedCustomer , 15 Oct 2017 06:25
While the ruling class must remain united for an oligarchy to remain in power, the people must also be divided so they cannot overthrow their oppressors. Oligarchs in ancient Greece thus used a combination of coercion and co-optation to keep democracy at bay. They gave rewards to informants and found pliable citizens to take positions in the government.

These collaborators legitimized the regime and gave oligarchs beachheads into the people. In addition, oligarchs controlled public spaces and livelihoods to prevent the people from organizing.

This is the clearest explanation of contemporary bourgeois liberal strategy I've ever seen.

Bravo!

SameTrip , 15 Oct 2017 06:23

The question is whether democracy will emerge from oligarchic breakdown – or whether the oligarchs will just strengthen their grasp on the levers of government.

Surveillance, drones, a purchased media, a mercenary govt, an internet with too much democracy and thus too many hairsplitting doctrinal differences, and increasingly effective killing devices, means the international corporate oligarchs have been in control for some time and will be for awhile more
Tenthred , 15 Oct 2017 06:23

democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece because of "oligarchic breakdown."

Yes, but I'm not sure I see why that is to do with institutional decay - except if that means that the arrangements for bribing, threatening and manipulating the populace break down, in which case it just pushes the query back to why that should happen.

Which brings us to consent and to capacity. If the state has the capacity to ensure that citizens do OK then it will gain their consent. If not, not.

So far so simple for the ancient Greeks. Not so simple for us, now, because one of the institutional structures controlled by the oligarchy is the one that manufactures and maintains consent.

That's why, if we have arrived at oligarchy, we will not escape as simply as the city states of ancient Greece - and perhaps cannot escape it at all.

Bransby -> Commem , 15 Oct 2017 06:21
When I was an ancient Greek I was fantastic. Since the financial crisis and austerity cuts I've found it hard to be as great as before
jessthecrip -> jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 06:21
Ooops - 'sew disunity in the ruling class'
jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 06:20
So those of us who want proper democracy need to try and sew in the ruling class, just as they have long encouraged disunity amongst us plebs, is that it? Perhaps one advantage (of few that I can see) of brexit is it's exposing significant disunity in the Tory party.
Commem , 15 Oct 2017 06:19
Nothing new then. Who said " I don't care who makes the decisions as long as I write the Agenda and the Minutes. Information control is key. We live in a Alice in Wonderland world of spin.
ethelbrose , 15 Oct 2017 06:17
If only we could shut off roads in cities to traffic we could be so much more powerful as a mob...
TragicomedyBeholder , 15 Oct 2017 06:16
Very interesting and informative. However...

one solution is creating a more economically equal society

If one were to look at this equality problem rationally and logically, then any government policy aimed at making people equal would actually amount to government treating people very unequally.

Sort of like because people are unequal they should be treated unequally in order to make them equal. So in this sense the very idea of social justice is either irrational or else meaningless.

Differences in vocation, gifts, interests, locations and aspirations contribute to making people unequal. Socialism is a provenly unworkable myth.

[Oct 16, 2017] C Wright Mills called the US state a plutocracy all fifty years ago

Notable quotes:
"... Indeed; smart, intelligent, "clever" folks in no way confers any degree of civility on their "vested" interests. Manipulation and control are suitably useful tools for their purposes. ..."
"... The media is not a major player in running the country, contrary to what much of the right has been brainwashed to believe. It's a tool of the elite. A hammer is also a very useful tool but it doesn't do much to determine what the carpenter builds. ..."
"... We convinced ourselves that our form of oligarchy was somehow "better" than other forms, when in fact, the end game was always the same..concentrating the power in as few hands as possible. Denial was the name of the game here in the US. ..."
"... They learned their lessons well after the 60's, the last time the people really raised up against the machine, so they have given us all the; junk food at a low cost, all the TV and mindless sexually charged entertainment, all the "debt wealth", a simple minded, unread, semi-literate, beer swilling fool could ever ask for. And we all gladly gobble it up and follow the crowd, for who wants to be on the outside looking in... ..."
"... There is always a ruling elite because power is the wellspring of all human actions. There is also a certain moral consciousness that many people argue is innate in human nature, and that consciousness is fairness. The fairness instinct survives where ordinary human sympathy may fail. Based upon this basic morality of fairness those of us who are willing to take risks in the interest of fairness need to prune and tend the ruling elites as soon as possible. We proles need to act together. ..."
"... Waiting for the oligarchy to rot from within isn't what i would call a viable plan. Not when there is a far better and far more sure way to get the job done. Start with capping wealth accumulation. ..."
"... With all the upheaval in today's politics, it's hard not to think that this moment is one in which the future of the political system might be more up for grabs than it has been in generations. ..."
"... Dominance of oligarchic political power, through neoliberalism, over the last four decades has effectively put such policies out of bounds. ..."
"... The last one I recall was an article by Kenan Malik on identity politics . For what exists in this country, the UK, I have previously used the term "oligarchy by profession" ... meaning a pool of the usually upper half of the middle class, or a group in whom that group is disproportionally represented, who not only likely have a select education but who go on to become part of certain professions - accountants, lawyers, journalists, bankers, doctors etc. ... and of course, politicians tend to be drawn from these. ..."
"... Apparently we're so distracted that we're also all genuinely shocked that Hollywood is rife with pedophilia and extreme sexual harassment as though it's some revelation that we didn't know already, but that's another conversation. ..."
"... If we're all so distracted then it's not difficult for our political 'representatives' -- I use that word very tentatively because they barely ever do -- to subject themselves to the oligarchs for a few scraps more than we have ourselves. ..."
"... Limiting govt still leaves economic power and the tendency towards monopoly untouched. ..."
"... Culture is the key, much more than any genetic impulse, which is practically meaningless and so explains nothing. ..."
"... As wealth defense is so important to oligarchs, there is a constant pressure to cheat and break the law. One solution therefore is to apply the law but also to construct legislation with specific principles in mind. If the point of tax legislation is to contribute your share towards the general good then those who avoid and evade tax would be guilty of a technical breach but also a breach of the principle. ..."
"... However our laws are skewed to allowing the wealthy to defend their wealth and so a party of the people is always needed. Always. ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com

cognitivedissonance1 , 15 Oct 2017 13:25

Nothing new here, C Wright Mills, the US state as a plutocracy , government by the few , said it all fifty years ago , especially the economic oligarchs

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/mills_critique.html

http://plutocratsandplutocracy.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/the-power-elite.html

imipak -> NoBets , 15 Oct 2017 13:21
I would again point to Plato. Those whose affluence exceeds the critical threshold stagnate. They have no need to work, no need to hold anything as valuable, they contribute nothing and take everything.

What is the point in being so rich? There's nothing you can gain from it, other than bank account pinball.

The purpose of being rich is to enable you. It is the only purpose. Once you are fully enabled, money has no value.

Those who are poor can't afford the tools to work well, the education/training needed, anything by which they could better themselves and be upwardly mobile.

There are some who are poor by choice. Voluntary hermits are common enough. They're not included in here because they're self-sufficient and have the tools they need so fall out of scope.

The middle band, where prone work the best, function the best, are mentally and physically the best, is very very big. Nothing stops you cramming society into there because they've plenty of room to stretch out.

But people always want to improve. No big. Make tax follow a curve, so that you always improve but the game gets harder not easier. Would you play a computer game where level 100 was easier than level 1? No, you'd find it boring. As long as it's a single curve, nobody gets penalized.

You now get to play forever, level billion is better than level million is better than level thousand, but it's asymptotic so infinite improvement never breaks outside the bounds.

"Asymptotic" is a word that meets your objection AND my rebuttal. You do not have to have either a constant, infinity or hard ceilings. Leave straight lines to geometers and enter the world of inflection points.

Viddyvideo , 15 Oct 2017 13:19
Elites exist the world over -- East, West, North and South. Question is how do we create a world where power is shared -- Plato and his Guardians perhaps or are we doomed to be ruled by elites until the end of time?
handygranny -> R Zwarich , 15 Oct 2017 13:14
Indeed; smart, intelligent, "clever" folks in no way confers any degree of civility on their "vested" interests. Manipulation and control are suitably useful tools for their purposes.
memo10 -> ashleyhk , 15 Oct 2017 13:11

Yet most of the media is resolutely "liberal" or leftist How do you explain that?

The media is not a major player in running the country, contrary to what much of the right has been brainwashed to believe. It's a tool of the elite. A hammer is also a very useful tool but it doesn't do much to determine what the carpenter builds.

RecantedYank -> mjmizera , 15 Oct 2017 13:09
Rapid is still quite right... We convinced ourselves that our form of oligarchy was somehow "better" than other forms, when in fact, the end game was always the same..concentrating the power in as few hands as possible. Denial was the name of the game here in the US.
CommanderMaxil -> Elgrecoandros , 15 Oct 2017 13:08
jessthecrip's comment was clearly not calling for JRM to be imprisoned or in any way punished for his views , but for his votes . Specifically his votes in the House of commons to support benefit cuts for disability claimants. Admittedly that a pretty extreme position from my point of view, but nonetheless you are misrepresentating what was said, whether deliberately or because you genuinely have not understood only you can know
Spudnik2 -> Gunsarecivilrights , 15 Oct 2017 13:05
More people should simply look up from time to time and quit living in fantasy books. The whole and real truth is not written in a book its all around you if you are willing to except what you see.
vinny59er , 15 Oct 2017 13:04
Form a government in same way we select juries. No entrenchment of the same old guard, no lobbyists,no elite, no vested interests.Just people like you,and you.People like your children.People like your parents.People like your neighbors
mjmizera -> RecantedYank , 15 Oct 2017 13:03
The industrial-military complex of the 50-70s didn't just disappear, but morphed into today's structures.
mjmizera -> voogdy , 15 Oct 2017 13:00
Not anymore, as conspiracy nuts are now serving their new masters, the altRight. They joined the enemy.
theseligsussex -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 12:59
Not really driven by the oligarch, more looted. And there's normally 1 greedy bugger, Sulla or Pompey, who has to have it all and upsets the apple cart, and then you get Augustus.
mjmizera -> ashleyhk , 15 Oct 2017 12:58
There is never the right far enough that one can't be to the left of.
mjmizera -> RecantedYank , 15 Oct 2017 12:55
All the good/bad labels lose their meaning without a qualifier - for whom.
winemaster2 , 15 Oct 2017 12:54
The US and it being a democracy, the word that is no where mentioned in the Constitution is one big hoax and the perpetuation of the same, where the missed people in this country are further conned by the elite and the rich. Then on top of it all we f or sure not practice what we preach. To that end our political system with two senators from each of 50 states m irrespective to the population is lot to be desired in terms of any real democratic process, let alone equality in representation. To add insult to injury, the US House of Representatives where Congressional Districts are gerrymandered just about every two years, is even worst. Just as the US Congress in which over 90% of the people have no confidence.
sejong -> ashleyhk , 15 Oct 2017 12:50
Yet most of the media is resolutely "liberal" or leftist How do you explain that?

Liberal MSM has been emasculated. It doesn't know it's dead. It doesn't move any needles. It just brays on in ineffective anti-Trump outrage and one identity politics issue after another.

Rightwing media is king in USA.

makingalist , 15 Oct 2017 12:47
One way they get away with it is by having their own separate education system. It's high time private schools were closed down.
handygranny -> ID3924525 , 15 Oct 2017 12:47
Who was it again who said he loves the undereducated and uninformed during the campaign season of 2016?
laerteg -> ValuedCustomer , 15 Oct 2017 12:44
Yes- the demonization of liberalism on the right and the turning away from liberalism on the left *has* paved the way for oligarchy.

Divide and conquer, as usual, is working.

Shrimpandgrits -> imperium3 , 15 Oct 2017 12:44
Slavery -- chattel slavery -- was an element.

Socialist, mass slavery was not.

Leon Sphinx , 15 Oct 2017 12:41
The House of Lords in the U.K. and the Senate in the US were originally there to prevent poor people - always the majority - from voting to take away wealth and lands from the rich. Basically, if such a vote was cast, the HoL and Senate - filled with the elites of society - had the power to block it.
ashleyhk , 15 Oct 2017 12:41
This is a fascinating dissection of how the "leftist/liberal" media was completely disrupted by Trump. It is a long read and quite difficult (so not likely to appeal to most of the knee-jerk commentators) but, whatever your politics it is well worth a look
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502 /
Laurence Bury , 15 Oct 2017 12:41
The human (and probably animal) world is made up of oligarchies that deal with each other. History has shown that only lone soldiers can upset established orders: Alexander, Napoleon, Lenin, Castro and Bin Laden come to mind.
laerteg -> Hibernica , 15 Oct 2017 12:40
I agree with the article's premise. We have allowed the oligarchs to consolidate power.

Why? Because Americans revere wealth and power. We have bought into the capitalist model hook, line, and sinker. We willingly elect candidates and sign on to policies that allow oligarchs to consolidate their power, increase their wealth and income inequality, pomote greed and selfishness, and undermine democracy - the power of the people.

We have been busy electing agents of oligarchy to Congress since 1980. Buying ino the "small government" con, the "taxes are theft" con, "the business is overregulated" con, the "corporations are the job creators" con and its twin the "government never created jobs" con, the anti-union con, etc, etc, etc.

Our political system would be a lot more representative of the people if the people would get off their butts and start participating in it. Our electoral ststem is open to anyone who wants to participate.

But who and how many participate any more?

When the people create a vacuum with their apathy and cynicism, the oligarchs fill it with their greed.

Oligarchs will always be attracted to power, no matter what system is in place. What's needed to minimize their ability to entrench themselves is vigilance in defending our institutions against corruption.

And vigilance is something that the American people seem to have less and less of every day.

Matt Quinn , 15 Oct 2017 12:40
Maximise aggregate happiness as John Nash suggested. Cooperation beats competition in almost every sphere. Uniting the 99% will happen after the 1% have brought civilisation to a standstill and a billion people starve.
vinny59er , 15 Oct 2017 12:38
The biggest impediment to true and real democracy is the existence of political parties.
RapidSloth -> RecantedYank , 15 Oct 2017 12:27
Denial is a powerful mental mechanism, that and also people tend to associate oligarchy with brutal, straight forwards autocratic rule.
US has a very sophisticated socio-political system that has isolated the elite and the common man through many filters rather than one solid brick wall - so people dont see it. This paired with large enough populations who are cretinous enough to actually vote for somebody like Trump or give a second term to the likes of G.W Bush makes fooling extremely easy.

There is also the tendency of treating laws like dogma and the constitution like the bible. A stark example of it is how they boast about freedom of speech. Everybody is keen to point out that one can publicly criticize politicians without fear of prosecution but nobody seems to notice how useless that speech is and how effectively the political elite shelters itself from negative opinion and is able to proceed against the public will. I find it quite fascinating.

RecantedYank , 15 Oct 2017 12:20
ALL oligarchies are bad...they just function from a different starting point.
In the US, we have an oligarchy based on wealth,who then uses their money to buy the political animals.
In Communist countries, you had a political oligarchy, who used their political powers to corner the wealth.
And in religious oligarchies you have a few selected "high priests" using religious fervor/special communication lines with whatever deity, to capture both wealth and politics.

None of these are preferable over the other as they all concentrate power into the hands of the few (1-2%), against the interests of the many.

virgenskamikazes , 15 Oct 2017 12:20
The fact is Western Democracy (democratic capitalism) is not and was never a true democracy.

Historians from at least 300 years from now, when studying our historical time, will state our system was capitalism, whose political system was plutocracy -- the rule of the capitalist class from behind the curtains, through puppet governors.

Sure, the same historians will, through archaeological evidence, state, correctly, that we called and considered ourselves to live in a democracy. But they will also find evidence that this claim was always contested by contemporaries. Emperor Augustus restored the façade of the Republic and called himself princeps instead of king, and, officially, Rome was still a Republic until the time of Marcus Aurelius to Diocletian (maybe the first emperor to openly consider himself a monarch) -- it doesn't fool today's historians, and it seems it didn't fool the Roman people also.

sejong , 15 Oct 2017 12:15
Oligarchy in USA is secure. For a generation, it has leveraged rightwing media to get unquestioning support from white America based on aggrieved truculence toward the liberal, the brown, and the black. And that was pre-Trump.

Now Trump rampages against the very symbol of the grievance: Obama.

It's midnight in the world's leading third world country

voogdy , 15 Oct 2017 12:10
Anyone who's been accusing united states of being an oligarchy so far was branded as a conspiracy nut. So does this article rehabilitates them and confirms their assertions?
j. von Hettlingen , 15 Oct 2017 12:07
In ancient Greece: "While the ruling class must remain united for an oligarchy to remain in power, the people must also be divided so they cannot overthrow their oppressors." Today the oligarchs aren't always united, because they see each other as rivals. But they have nothing against dividing and weakening the people in order to prevent them from rising up to "their oppressors."
Mass indoctrination is the answer. Oligarchs around the world seek to build up a media empire to brainwash a gullible public and sow discord in the society. The most notorious members of a civil oligarchy in the West are Silvio Berlusconi and Rupert Murdoch. Like oligarchs in ancient Greece, their modern counterparts need democratic support to legitimise their goals. And they support candidates in elections who will do their bidding once in office.
Oligarchy and plutocracy will continue to rule America, because the worship of money is a popular faith. As long as an individual is well off, he/she sees little incentive to help improve social equality. A revolution will only be possible if a critical mass is behind it.
PeterlooSunset -> maddiemot , 15 Oct 2017 12:06
The current US education system was put in place by the oligarch foundations of the Rockefellers, Carnegies and Guggenheims . It exists to keep the majority of the citizenry misinformed, thus docile workers and passive consumers.
ID3924525 -> 37Dionysos , 15 Oct 2017 12:05
Sounds about right - a least some, a very small minority, realise they're being suckered - the overwhelming majority die pig ignorant, whether they believe they've made it or live in a trailer park.
lasos2222 , 15 Oct 2017 12:03
it's very rare that an article in the Guardian doesn't have an obvious agenda. Simple click bait stuff. This article is different, and worthwhile reading. Excellent.
RecantedYank , 15 Oct 2017 12:02
I am only surprised that anyone would still be in the dark about whether or not the US is an oligarchy. It's been obvious now for at least the past three-four decades.
RapidSloth , 15 Oct 2017 12:01
If the general public opposes rule-by-economic-elites, yep sure... too elections held in the last two decades contradict that statement.
37Dionysos -> OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 12:01
Yep---for where very few have very much and most have nothing, you have a pressure-cooker. The property-police must indeed grow in number and brutality.
37Dionysos -> ID3924525 , 15 Oct 2017 11:58
And the other half of it is what Ben Franklin warned about, "the corruption of the people." The gangsters really sense and know how to play people against themselves---arousing appetites, appealing to short-term pleasure, to short-term feel-good thinking and acts, and to greed and lust for seemingly easy power. When you realize you're had, it's too late: "In every transaction, there's a sucker. If you're wondering who that is, it's you."
Feindbild -> PSmd , 15 Oct 2017 11:55
Yep sure. The 'big white kid' pritecting the brown kid does tend to be working class or middle class Jewish, and indeed, more likely to be socialist than liberal (in my experience).

I wouldn't limit credit for this kind of thing to any particular ethnicity. But I will say that most major successful reform 'crusades' of modern Western history were inspired by Christian ideals, and often led by Christian clergy, including the anti-slavery Abolition movement in 19th-century America, the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and '60s, and the anti-Communist revolutions in 1980's Eastern Central Europe. Even in the anti-Apartheid movement, the churches played a leading role, personified, of course, by Bishop Tutu.

MTorrespico -> OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 11:52
Correct, because that would be too easy . . . for 'Muricans, because Other people might benefit, and because it is too, too logical a solution for the Turd World USA.
37Dionysos , 15 Oct 2017 11:51
In the Oxford English Dictionary you find that "profit" and "advantage" are close cousins etymologically. Makes sense, since "profit" (the word for value you did not put into an exchange) creates "advantage"---and then you use advantages to give even less and take even more profit. Round and round she goes, and there's no bottom. "Advantage" of course is also inherently relative to somebody else's "DIS-advantage": hence our planet full of "disadvantaged" working people.
OldTrombone -> rg12345 , 15 Oct 2017 11:50
No, I think the Democrats are the ones most successful at diverting the people from their own power in favor of the banks. The Republicans are far less successful by their own control, instead benefitting only from luck such as Wasserman-Schultz denying Elizabeth Warren from her rightful place in the Oval Office. Sanders was the consolation candidate for Warren voters. Warren would have beaten Trump 50-nil.
MTorrespico -> Nash25 , 15 Oct 2017 11:50
Correct. Two equal evils from the same nest-egg, a political party with two right-wings. At the least, the public know why the First Nazi of Great America has an aura of flies.
name1 -> Skip Breitmeyer , 15 Oct 2017 11:46
Divisions or hijacking? I suspect the latter.
PeterlooSunset , 15 Oct 2017 11:39

a colleague of mine asked if America was really at risk of becoming an oligarchy. Our political system, he said, is a democracy. If the people don't want to be run by wealthy elites, we can just vote them out.

Thanks for the cracking joke. That was hilariously funny.

teamofrivals , 15 Oct 2017 11:38
There's a term on everything and a rhythm to all things and its an impertinence to think that any political system lasts forever for our security.
brianBT , 15 Oct 2017 11:34
full and transparent disclosure of all finical and gift transactions between elected official and anyone not in govt.. this include "payments" to family, friends their charities.. etc.. if you cant see the lie no one fight to have the laws and rules changed... additionally lobbyist must no longer be allowed to have the type of closed door access to our leaders.. all these conversations must be moderated or flat out banned and a new form of communication is developed.... put it this way I have never been able to get a meeting with my leading politician yet big business can at almost any time.. I'm glad this issues is being more openly discussed.. we need more of the same
ID3924525 -> ID3924525 , 15 Oct 2017 11:32
Karl Marx, in The Communist Manifesto , indentified this in his concept, "False Consciousness", and Orwell, taking Stalinism to exemplify it, points to the same in Animal Farm , though I bet they weren't the first, and hope they won't be the last.
OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 11:31
Machiavelli was right, when you need political favors to get to the top, then you will always owe the favor-givers when you get there. Machiavelli also said this:

Sortition works!

When the most powerful person has literally zero interest in the outcome, they will defer to moral utilitarianism every time. Ask Canada's John Ralton Saul "The Unconcious Civilization" and Australia's Ricky Muir from the Motoring Enthusiasts Party [seriously] who scuppered Aussie right-wingers from bringing US-style education-loans to rent-seek our economy to death.

laerteg , 15 Oct 2017 11:29
The problem is that today's so-called "populists" have been so propagandized into despising the liberalism that could fight the oligarchs, and buying into the very policies and philosophies that allow the oligarchs to consolidate their power (endless tax cuts, undermined government, deregulation, big money in politics, destruction of unions, etc, etc.) that they play right into their hands.

They've mistaken a demagogue for a man of the people and continue to cheer on the dismantling of the checks on oligarchy that our system provides.

This country is in a world of hurt and those who should be exercizing their democratic power to diminish the power of the oligarchs are busy dismantling it, thanks to decades of right wing media propaganda.

All I see is more oligarchy, more autoctacy, and less power to the people. We just keep sticking it to ourselves.

Elgrecoandros -> jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 11:28
I literally copy pasted the comments in order, how have I twisted anything?

The person complained about some reaction to Rees-Mogg for having different political views being over the top and you promptly justified their claim.

OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 11:25
Capitalist oligarchies = bad, right?

So... communism, then, right?

It's time for SORTITION

When anyone could instantly become president, then everyone has to be educated as much as possible. Right? Hey classical policy scholars, sortition worked in Ancient Greece too! As well as everywhere else ever since. Ever heard of court juries?

ID3924525 , 15 Oct 2017 11:22
Divide and rule - the oldest trick in the book, and incredibly easy, as long as people are kept ignorant by propaganda (currently known as The Media) and education.
rg12345 -> Rainborough , 15 Oct 2017 11:21
Many (most?) Of us do understand it, that's why we're opposed to Citizens United, whereas the Republicans are for it.
Nash25 , 15 Oct 2017 11:20
Hillary Clinton lost because the working class (correctly) perceived her to be a supporter of oligarchy in the USA. Her ties to Wall Street, corporate power, and the upper class were too obvious.

Yes, Trump fooled many voters into believing that he was populist, but their perception of Clinton was still accurate.

If the Democratic party leaders had chosen Sanders as their candidate, they would have won the election. But the "Democratic" party leaders (ironically) feared what he offered: real democracy.

jessthecrip -> Elgrecoandros , 15 Oct 2017 11:19
You are an expert twister and no mistake. I can only salute you
SoxMcCarthy -> TragicomedyBeholder , 15 Oct 2017 11:18
"The Bad Hayek emerged when he aimed to convert a wider public. Then, as often happens, he tended to overreach, and to suggest more than he had legitimately argued. The Road to Serfdom was a popular success but was not a good book. Leaving aside the irrelevant extremes, or even including them, it would be perverse to read the history, as of 1944 or as of now, as suggesting that the standard regulatory interventions in the economy have any inherent tendency to snowball into "serfdom." The correlations often run the other way. Sixty-five years later, Hayek's implicit prediction is a failure, rather like Marx's forecast of the coming "immiserization of the working class.""
fivefeetfour , 15 Oct 2017 11:18
Lenin has written that politics is a concentrated economy more than a century ago.
rg12345 -> OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 11:16
Do you think Democrats are the only ones trying to consolidate wealth and power? You must have missed the part about keeping people divided.
Lafcadio1944 , 15 Oct 2017 11:15
This of course is a simplified version and can't really touch on everything, however he glaringly leaves out the deliberate human suffering results from the oligarchy protecting its wealth and aggressively taking over ever more markets. Yes, of course, what today is called "alignment of interests" among the oligarchy is necessary but that alone is not enough they mus also be ruthless beyond that of others. Nothing stands in the way of profits nothing stands in the way of ever greater control. The oligarchy has decided that nature itself is just another obstacle profit making - there is no room for empathy in the world of the oligarchy poverty suffering from curable disease mutilation from bombs are acceptable external consequences to their obsessive accumulation of wealth.

The real reason the oligarchy wins is because they are willing to be ruthless in the extreme and society rewards ruthlessness and ridicules the empathetic.

Elgrecoandros -> jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 11:14
"Perhaps the OP was proposing prison for JRM for expressing a viewpoint..."

Nobody was proposing that, it was hyperbole from rjm2017.

Well it was hyperbole until your comment calling on punishment for those with different political views.

R Zwarich -> Kay Nixon , 15 Oct 2017 11:14
This may be true, they often seem so blinded by their raw greed that their powers of reason become dysfunctional. I don't think, however, that the stupid things they do to slake their greed means that they are stupid. When the chips are down, they are capable of bringing their considerable powers of reason to bear.

However stupid or smart they might be, we surely must realize that they have been at least smart enough to gain total ownership and control of all our mass media. They use this tool, the most powerful tool of social control that has ever existed, with consummate skill in pursuit of their agenda(s).

If you look at the overall content of our mass media, you can see an impressive level of 'mind' at work, 'behind the curtain'. This 'mind' is constantly manipulating our consciousness, using very highly sophisticated, highly skilled techniques.Their understanding of human psychology, and their ability to manipulate us using our most basic appetites and desires, is characterized by true genius, even ig that genius is diabolical in its designs.

'They' choose what movies get made. Which TV shows are produced. Which songs get airplay. Which social and political issues are sensationalized and which are buried.

Most of the citizens of our ostensible 'democracy' have been 'trained', just as any animals are trained to any behavior, to be 'consumers' rather than 'citizens'. We are well trained by an omnipresent mass media that assaults us constantly. In any direction that we turn our gaze, or our attention, 'they' are there, to direct our thoughts as they think serves their purposes.

I sure wouldn't sell these people's intelligence short. They may often do stupid things to serve their greed, but they did not acquire the power that they have through any lack of intelligence.

fragglerokk , 15 Oct 2017 11:13
what everyone seems to forget is that whilst ancient Greece was the cradle of democracy it was not only a slave state (whose slaves had no rights to vote) but that only an elite minority were eligible to vote themselves - power very much rested with the vested interests of the few.

I agree that societies are a reflection of the 'will' of the people these days, even if that will is ill informed, reactionary or, as seems to be the case, largely uninterested in voting. You get the governments you deserve and people in the West have become lazy, permanently distracted, often ignorant and usually in the grip of one addiction or another, thus allowing 'democracy' to be subverted. The media have had their role in this by allowing themselves to be manipulated and owned by vested interests, rarely reporting the truth and doing as they are told by various govt offices and departments. Uninformed people make poor decisions.

OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 11:13
What the Black Lives Matter movement is telling us is that the Oligarch's enforce their rules of 'law' precisely at the barrels of guns, and by the words of one man after one man, each with a uniform on and a camera off.
TheResult -> J.K. Stevens , 15 Oct 2017 11:13
National Anthems only make sense in context of International Games
Where 2 anthems are played out of respect for each other
Elgrecoandros -> Elgrecoandros , 15 Oct 2017 11:11
Further, you stated above that you were "...responding to a poster who called for imprisonment for those concerned", when in fact the quote shows they were complaining about people calling for imprisonment, not calling for it.

That shows you are twisting what was said, it is incredibly disingenuous of you.

Skip Breitmeyer -> sparkle5nov , 15 Oct 2017 11:09
It's the divisions of the left that allow Tory and Republican minority rule to prevail. In the US the divide is quite bitter between Hillary and Bernie wings of the Dems- at the moment I don't really see where reconciliation can emerge. And of course in Great Britain you actually have two major parties competing rather self-destructively for the available votes on the left. (As well as the mighty Greens...). Divided and conquered, indeed. And such a bloody cliche!
OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 11:06

Democracy is vulnerable to oligarchy because democrats focus so much on guaranteeing political equality that they overlook the indirect threat that emerges from economic inequality

And yet Marx doesn't rate a single mention in the entire article...

jessthecrip -> Elgrecoandros , 15 Oct 2017 11:06
No, even though you've quoted me you have misunderstood what was perfectly plain. I stated 'like everyone else who voted to cut even more from disabled people's benefits'. Perhaps the OP was proposing prison for JRM for expressing a viewpoint, but that was not and is not where I'm coming from.
OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 11:05

At its core, oligarchy involves concentrating economic power and using it for political purposes.

Here is the exact reason why the Democratic Party is lost now. The Clintons, Wasserman-Schultz, and their new Goldman Sachs alumni hero in New Jersey, and now Kamala Harris seeking the same money from the same bankers.

And who did Hillary blame? Bernie, of course.

PSmd -> Dark Angel , 15 Oct 2017 11:02
It's sort of worked against the right though. Take a look at the last election. Yes, the Tories got most votes, but they've pretty much lost all ethnic minorities, including asian professionals, hindus and sikhs. Why is this, especially when Labour moved to left and are now more socialist than left liberal?

Purely because the right has been subsumed by angry grievance mentality, or aggreived entitlement. The internet is awash by people who hate assertive blacks and asians, Dianne Abbott received half of all abuse of female MPs. And so.. the Labour pick up votes that Tories had gained under Cameron. If you are a prosperous hindu dentist or stockbroker, sure you might have shrugged off your parents labour voting tendencies and might be Tory. But also, you might be seeing this sort of stuff, the bile on the internet, the resentment expressed behind internet anonymity. And you might be thinking that deep down underneath that expensive suit of yours, you are your father and mother, a tentative, slightly frightened, cheaply dressed immigrant who has arrived as an outsider and are visibly aware that half the population likes you, but the other half doesn't.
And so you vote Labour.

Divisiveness actually divides the core group you are aiming to win. If you do white chauvinism, well, you end up unite everyone who is not white. Black, brown, yellow, all huddle together scared, back under the labour fold. And you end up dividing the whites into the patriotic and the 'self hating libtard'.

Elgrecoandros -> jessthecrip , 15 Oct 2017 11:01
The sequence of comments was...

Rjm2017

"Just read the language of many in here...apparent JRM should be banished and locked away. You don't need to look to far to find odeous beliefs."

Your reply to that:

"Not locked away. Prison is expensive for the taxpayer. Assets sequestered for the good of the commons and put to work cleaning - streets, hospitals, care homes - on workfare. Like everyone else who voted to cut even more from disabled people's benefits, causing what the UN has described as a 'catastrophe' for disabled people in this country"

My reply to you:

"You are advocating confiscation of private property and forced physical labour for people who hold different political views to you. Is Stalin a hero of yours?"


Yours is a call to punish people for holding different political views to you.

Yours is an extremist position and, like all extremists, you think it is justified.

barciad -> FrankLittle , 15 Oct 2017 10:57

e.g. Park Chung-hee sent thousands of homeless people to camps where they were used as slave labour, many were were tortured and executed.


Like I said, benignish. He took a third world basket case (which is what South Korea was up until his seizure of power) and set it on the way to becoming a first world economy.
Skip Breitmeyer -> BayardDC , 15 Oct 2017 10:56
One of the most interesting mini-discourses I've read anywhere. I would only add that the 'mob' currently in charge of the polity of the House is actually a minority that has gamed the system.
AladdinStardust -> Gunsarecivilrights , 15 Oct 2017 10:56
which is exactly what the author did when her ill health meant that she no longer had medical insurance. Ain't life a bitch?
OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 10:55

They also tried to keep ordinary people dependent on individual oligarchs for their economic survival, similar to how mob bosses in the movies have paternalistic relationships in their neighborhoods

Like Wine-stine? (Wine-stain?)

Rainborough , 15 Oct 2017 10:55
"Democracy is vulnerable to oligarchy because democrats focus so much on guaranteeing political equality that they overlook the indirect threat that emerges from economic inequality."

No democrat with two working brain cells to rub together could honestly suppose that great concentrations of wealth, which necessarily confer political power on the wealthy class, can fail to undermine democracy. A capitalist democracy is an oxymoron and a delusion.

ChesBay -> maddiemot , 15 Oct 2017 10:52
They admire the rich, and the lifestyles of the rich, although it is out of their reach.
They do not admire the wise, and the experienced.
They don't know who are their state and federal representatives.
They don't know the reason for the Civil War.
They don't know much about our history, our constitution, or anything about civics.
They don't know much about world history.
They don't read much, and are suspicious of education, and the properly educated.
They are easy marks for lies, and negative influence, because they never question.
They refuse to address, or even admit, their own irrational prejudices.
They don't vote, but they do plenty of complaining, and like to blame others for the problems of our nation.
AveAtqueCave , 15 Oct 2017 10:51
Good luck with that.
FrankLittle -> barciad , 15 Oct 2017 10:45
I do not think that benign or even benign(ish) suits the majority of the above e.g. Park Chung-hee sent thousands of homeless people to camps where they were used as slave labour, many were were tortured and executed.

Not sure how Carl Mannerheim gets to be on your list? He was appointed Military chief during the Finnish civil war and he was elected President of Finland

DammedOutraged , 15 Oct 2017 10:44
Oh you mean a bit like all those plebs going out and voting to wreck the EU oligarchy's vision as to whats best?
vastariner , 15 Oct 2017 10:44

At the same time, they sought to destroy monuments that were symbols of democratic success. Instead of public works projects, dedicated in the name of the people, they relied on what we can think of as philanthropy to sustain their power.


That was more because there was no income tax regime - something difficult to impose when there was no centralized collection from a single consistent professional government. So if the Athenian navy wanted a ship, it got a rich chap to pay for it. Rather than out of general taxation.

Athens got rich on levies it imposed on its allies by way of protection money, which eventually collapsed in acrimony, but that's a different story.

StephenR45 -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 10:43
You'll be first "over the top" then?
Alfandomega -> timiengels , 15 Oct 2017 10:41
Owen Jones ? ......a man of high minded principle and unblemished
virtue . Don't think he would object to a spot of terror........in defence
of his liberal principles , of course..
somebody_stopme , 15 Oct 2017 10:41
I guess we are seeing some of oligarchy break down. Many oligarchs support many socialist policies to avoid tension between classes. For eg: many rich support universal basic income and some even support single payer healthcare.
imperium3 -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 10:41

You make a good point but in my wide but less than comprehensive knowledge of rapid development often occurrs in periods of oligarchy.

All those mills that drove the industrial revolution, created by oligarchy.

All those armies and aqueducts that drove the Roman Empire, created by oligarchy.

All those libraries and universities that drove Greek learning, funded by the oligarchy.

The great library of Alexandria, oligarchy.

OK, I'll concede that. Which makes for an interesting perspective on things overall, actually. One can see the advantage of an oligarchy - wealth and power is concentrated in few enough hands to achieve great things, but not so few that, like in a monarchy or dictatorship, the leader must spend most time and effort on keeping their power. Whereas a more equal democracy lacks the capacity to make bold steps or drive through unpopular new ideas. But this also means the oligarchs have the power to grind down those underneath them, and therefore in order to enjoy the fruits of that development, the oligarchy needs to be destroyed.

In other words, oligarchies deliver growth, democracies deliver prosperity. I would certainly not like to live under an oligarchy (assuming I'm not an oligarch) but it would be beneficial for a country to have had one in the past.

Kay Nixon , 15 Oct 2017 10:40
I have come to the conclusion that the oligarchy which rules the world are complete imbeciles who haven't a clue that the whole Neoliberal system they built in the 1970's is collapsing and they are clueless on how to handle it. Just because they are wealthy and greedy doesn't mean they are intelligent.
J.K. Stevens -> TheResult , 15 Oct 2017 10:40
In order to prevent the protests from going out over the airwaves Fox (sports) in all their 'logic' started excluding broadcast of the Anthem. Early on I said I would not watch any of these sporting events with, as you say, these jingoistic displays going out and Fox has obliged me but I wont say thanks.
desertrat49 -> BayardDC , 15 Oct 2017 10:39
Yes....Nothing in current affairs would surprise the ancient political philosophers who were students of real human nature ...and real history!
yule620 , 15 Oct 2017 10:37
Understanding Greece is not something you associate comfort with.
desertrat49 -> DrPepperIsNotARealDr , 15 Oct 2017 10:36
It serves as a relieve valve...just as it did in Ancient Greece and Rome.
Obfusgator , 15 Oct 2017 10:36
It's very simple really. The law system makes a complete mockery of democracy and the judiciary is comprised of a bunch of laissez-faire twits.
desertrat49 -> TheResult , 15 Oct 2017 10:35
The last recourse of scoundrels is patriotism!...always been thus because it always works...see H.L. Mencken et. al. !
Postconventional -> SenseiTim , 15 Oct 2017 10:34
Britain isn't different. Oligarchy is built into our system of governance, e.g. royals and house of lords. We even have special oligarch schools where children are sent to be educated for leadership
desertrat49 -> zootsuitbeatnick , 15 Oct 2017 10:33
You do not think the pomp and circumstance of Oligarchs, Monarchs and Military Dictators is without purpose or effect, do you?
StephenR45 -> DolyGarcia , 15 Oct 2017 10:32
Ban Keeping up with the Kardashians.
Gunsarecivilrights -> ID059068 , 15 Oct 2017 10:31
Or in other words, "I can't take care of myself, so I demand the government take money from others and give it to me!"
maddiemot , 15 Oct 2017 10:31
"An informed citizenry is at the heart of a dynamic democracy." - Thomas Jefferson

We have Americans who don't know when the Civil War was fought, or even who won, but insist we must stand for the national anthem before a ballgame.
So much for 'the Land of the Free'.

EquilibriaJones -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 10:31
Saying life can only get better if we are all collectively greedy together is not a logical argument. Ask the polar bears.
StephenR45 -> davshev , 15 Oct 2017 10:30
It didn't start with Trump.
Gunsarecivilrights -> DirDigIns , 15 Oct 2017 10:30
More people need to read Atlas Shrugged.
desertrat49 -> MarmaladeMog , 15 Oct 2017 10:30
All of the wishful thinking is hugely naive.....they have not been studying the lessons of history.
J.K. Stevens -> OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 10:29
And in the older grades, they prescribe (hand out) adderall, CSN stimulants, like chiclets to help student study (cram) and with comprehensive test taking.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/why-are-so-many-college-a_b_8331958.html

desertrat49 -> DolyGarcia , 15 Oct 2017 10:28
This is the rub.....and the mob does not value education while the rulers value propaganda. Notice the close association between Autocratic and Oligarchic systems and religion, historical mythology and hyper-patriotism!
EquilibriaJones -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 10:28
Or that's the evil of it. Economic inequality rises until people die. Like homeless on the streets, starving food banks, grenfell tower, waiting on hospital beds instead of famine and pitchfork wars.
The idea is to progress and solve problems before they escalate to pitchfork wars. Praising grotesque inequality is not part of the solution, it's the cause of the problems.
desertrat49 -> Crusty Crab , 15 Oct 2017 10:25
H. L. Mencken is a must read on this!
Alfandomega -> Peter Martin , 15 Oct 2017 10:24
Very remote possibility . I think you'll find their over inflated salaries
weigh more heavily in the balance than their " principles ".
SenseiTim , 15 Oct 2017 10:24
This article should be required reading for all Americans. I am posting a link to Twitter and Facebook to get as many Yank eyeballs on it as possible.
desertrat49 -> Langsdorff , 15 Oct 2017 10:24
What emerges from Plutocracy is Oligarchy...what emerges from Oligarchy is Autocracy. Autocracy is one form or another is the natural state of human society....all the others are ephemeral systems...or systems that disguise the actual Oligarchy or Autocracy!
davshev , 15 Oct 2017 10:23
The biggest contributor to America's plutocracy is our abysmally uninformed electorate.
HL Mencken knew this nearly a century ago when he said:
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
desertrat49 , 15 Oct 2017 10:20
Just exactly when was it that "democracy defeated oligarchy in ancient Greece"?
What proportion of the population in Ancient Athens, for example, were actually citizens...and what proportion of those actually held the franchise?...I believe that you would find the numbers surprising!
Also ...when these (and other) writers speaks of Ancient Greece.....it is usually Athens that they are mythologizing....most the Ancient Greek world had little by way of representative government...let alone "Democracy"!
jessthecrip -> Elgrecoandros , 15 Oct 2017 10:18
No I wasn't. I already responded to you regarding this. To remind you, I said

when people in positions of power take £28 billion (at least) off one of the most powerless and already impoverished groups in our country (disabled people), resulting in hundreds of suicides, enormous suffering, worsened isolation, serious lack of care support, and thousands dying soon after being found 'fit to work' (a situation the UN has described as a 'catastrophe') then I think it perfectly reasonable to favour some punishment for those politicians who inflicted such suffering on their fellow citizens

I was not suggesting punishment for 'thought crime' or for expressing views, but for actions seriously damaging to our citizens.
OldTrombone , 15 Oct 2017 10:17
I have worked in several of the American rich's schools where they charge $30k per kid, families have 3-5 kids there, plus they donate another $30k per kid per year. These schools shame their $50k/year teachers into donating hundreds and thousands per year to their own schools in order to prompt further donations from parents, who expect the poor teachers to prove their fidelity to these rich kids by giving their own money to them. I have seen these schools' principals fire teachers who teach "how to change things". I have seen them promote teachers who teach absolutely nothing, because then the rich kids enjoy insulting and demeaning those teachers' weaknesses. I have heard rich $chool principals tell Harvard psychology lecturers that grade inflation is a marketplace necessity. I have seen rich principals tell school inspectors that the curriculum presented for verification is supplied by a currently-employed teacher (who was awfully bad at teaching) when in fact it was written and prepared by a teacher who had just been fired "for methodology problems"...

American rich schools are the sickest schools on earth, even sicker than British boarders, even sicker than other countries' orphanages.

davshev -> ID50611L , 15 Oct 2017 10:15
Yes, but we now have the consummate...emphasis on "con"...bullshit artist in the White House whose first order of business has been to discredit the media whenever it exposes him for what he truly is. Trump has thousands of people believing that any media story about him which is negative is "fake."
Sailor25 -> JosephCamilleri , 15 Oct 2017 10:14
Yes they did and in all those political systems there where rich bastards at the top making the decisions.

They may have been bastards but on balance they actually made some pretty good decisions.

RutherfordFHEA , 15 Oct 2017 10:13
In his book Culture Inc. , Herbert Schiller quoted a recent study on neoliberal deregulation in the US which began with the question:

"Is deregulation... a strategy on the part of corporations to re-appropriate the power lost to democratic reforms of the mid-20th century?"

Sailor25 -> Dan2017 , 15 Oct 2017 10:13
So you are in favour of populism?

I consider populism an important part of the process as it creates a balance for oligarchy.

I would consider that the greedy big picture thinking of oligarchy drives growth while the greedy small picture thinking of the plebs (of which I am one) tries to get that growth more equally distributed.

ID50611L -> debt2zero , 15 Oct 2017 10:12
Spot on
MoonMoth -> Tenthred , 15 Oct 2017 10:10
It is perhaps unlikely that a radical Athenian democrat from ancient Greece would recognise any current form of government as genuinely democratic.

The cleverest way to maintain a long term oligarchy in these enlightened times might be to have an elective one, only dressed up as something like say a 'parliamentary democracy'. Luckily no-one has come up with this idea yet.

Dark Angel , 15 Oct 2017 10:10
Exactly that is going on now - we have 'workers' and 'benefit scroungers', British against 'immigrants' who exactly are not immigrants as having legal rights to live in the UK (EU citizens), 'deserving' poor and 'undeserving' poor.
Divide and rule.
Without knowing the past, it is impossible to understand the true meaning of the present and the goals of the future.
It's so annoying that is has been so easy to manipulate with our society - Tories and UKIP say 'hate!' and people do as if they are trained animals - hate people on benefits, EU citizens, immigrants, asylum seekers, a conflict between Brexiters/Remainers...
Sailor25 -> Swoll Man , 15 Oct 2017 10:09
Laughing at the fact that you chose to write an insult rather than engage in debate.
barciad -> FrankLittle , 15 Oct 2017 10:08
Benign(ish) dictators of the 20th Century:-
Tito (Yugoslavia)
Carl Mannerheim (Finland)
Kemal Ataturk (Turkey)
Fidel Castro (Cuba)
Nasser (Egypt)
Park Chung-hee (South Korea)
Like I said, benign(ish). Each one the subject for a debate within themselves.
Sailor25 -> Boghaunter , 15 Oct 2017 10:07
There is always winners and losers but the worst loser in modern British society had a better standard of living than a winner of a century ago.

The key to human development is driving sustainable progress not worrying about who losses out today.

Of course there must be balance because morally we must consider who loses our today. The question is how much do we hamstring the children of tomorrow to help the losers of today.

Langsdorff , 15 Oct 2017 10:06
To war on the Oligarchs is to war on our own nature.
whitman100 , 15 Oct 2017 10:03
The super rich conservative oligarchy, currently running the UK, get away with it because enough of the British people vote against their own economic interest.

Parents, for example, effectively vote for the food to be taken from their children's mouths, converted to cash and given in tax cuts to the super rich conservative elite so they can send their children to £30k a year private schools.

Political economy and political science should be compulsory in primary and secondary school so that the ripping-off of the British people is made obvious through education and ended through democratic revolution.

GKB507 -> Giftshop , 15 Oct 2017 10:02
.. it's scary though.. automation will eliminate the economic support line for many, while companies like Google have eyes and ears in every household.
JamesKeye -> webapalooza , 15 Oct 2017 10:02
Definition of democracy: "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." You are presenting an anti-Democratic party talking point, not an enlightened understanding of subtle political differences. Of course, the intention was a democracy in the USA, as compromised as it was and is. What we are not, and never have been, is an absolute direct democracy -- a form of governance appropriate only to small communities.
dcroteau -> Hibernica , 15 Oct 2017 10:01
Considering that "the people" are not that much more enlightened than they were in ancient Greece, yes it is the will of the people that allowed the US to become an oligarchy.

Considering the voting turnout around 56%, that means that 44% decided that they didn't care whether or not their leader would be a good or a bad one.

That's more than 1 in 3 people who couldn't care less about the outcome of the elections.

So political apathy is the will of the people.

KK47 , 15 Oct 2017 10:00
Oligarchs would fund the creation of a new building or the beautification of a public space.

When I read this I think: why am I reminded of the words 'gentrification' and 'privately-owned public spaces'?

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/sep/26/its-really-shocking-uk-cities-refusing-to-reveal-extent-of-pseudo-public-space

Excerpt from the above link:
the spread of pseudo-public space in London – large squares, parks and thoroughfares that appear to be public but are actually owned and controlled by developers and their private backers

And I'm also reminded of Attlee's great words about the attitudes of oligarchs in general:

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/688837

Excerpt from the above link:
Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim. - Attlee

J.K. Stevens -> Peter Martin , 15 Oct 2017 10:00
I know that it's just geography but it appears that the 'left coast (west coast) teams (players))' are taking a leadership role in this struggle. Unlike other professional sports systems, the NFL players are at a disadvantage in terms of career length and working conditions (eg, head injuries). I believe they're going to need some outside help (in whatever form) to be successful which doesn't give me hope. There are a bunch of chicken s____ outfits and power players out there at present that, as an example, allowed (contributed) the Executive Branch takeover by a Russian backed interloper.
ID50611L -> Giftshop , 15 Oct 2017 09:58
agree 100%
Sailor25 -> imperium3 , 15 Oct 2017 09:58
You make a good point but in my wide but less than comprehensive knowledge of rapid development often occurrs in periods of oligarchy.

All those mills that drove the industrial revolution, created by oligarchy.

All those armies and aqueducts that drove the Roman Empire, created by oligarchy.

All those libraries and universities that drove Greek learning, funded by the oligarchy.

The great library of Alexandria, oligarchy.

I recognise that it takes a plebeian revolt now and again to get the wealth shared out fairly but the engine that drives the wealth so it can be shared often seem to be oligarchy.

sparkle5nov -> FE Lang , 15 Oct 2017 09:58
Agree! I've been saying for years; cheap fast food, cheap ale and cheap television have replaced religion as the opiate of the people.
ID50611L -> zootsuitbeatnick , 15 Oct 2017 09:57
Trump is using the toolbox created by the Bush & Obama administrations.
Crusty Crab , 15 Oct 2017 09:57
A free educated and honest press may be the answer to a true democracy ?
DolyGarcia -> Hector Hajnal , 15 Oct 2017 09:55
And how do you keep the people informed and educated when the oligarchs control the media?
ID50611L , 15 Oct 2017 09:54
how is it, then, that the wealthy control so much of government? ...consequence of a lap dog media who lick the ass rather than expose and speak the truth to power elites.
TheResult -> J.K. Stevens , 15 Oct 2017 09:53
Now is the right time to ban the National Anthem

Brainwashing jingoist nonsense is a bandwagon platform for wet farts

W.a. Thomaston , 15 Oct 2017 09:50
The captured author/minions have obviously not had full access to the reading room
*And the secret writings of
Part of a small cache of loose leaf scrolls smuggled out of Alexandria before the fire
Last entrusted to a small elite 13th century band of chainsaw wielding warrior...
Comedy writing nuns
Hector Hajnal , 15 Oct 2017 09:49
Is about education, oligarchy wins to ignorant people. In order to have a healthy democracy the people must be informed and educated other wise oligarchies groups will inundate everything with cheap adds, will manipulate and will win control, methinks
Id1649 -> Sailor25 , 15 Oct 2017 09:45
And all brought down when the elites forgot that they were only the top of a pyramid and that they ultimately relied on those below. We at the foot of the monolith can see that the oligarchs serve only themselves so no longer buy into their project. We see that it is one big club and we - unlike our political masters - ain't in it. So empires fall.
MarmaladeMog , 15 Oct 2017 09:45
Sitaraman's colleague sounds worryingly naive.
Sailor25 -> EquilibriaJones , 15 Oct 2017 09:44
True, perhaps that's the beauty of it.

The senators have to supply the bread and circuses the plebs want or out come the pitchforks.

webapalooza , 15 Oct 2017 09:44
The author demonstrates his ignorance of the American system of government. He uses the word "democracy" no less than 8 times, yet American is not a democracy and never has been a democracy. You will find no form of the word "democracy" in any of the founding documents. The Founding Fathers knew very well the dangers of democracies, and so they created the American government as a constitutional republic. Not once does the author mention that; I doubt he even knows what it means, let alone the difference.
NoBets -> imipak , 15 Oct 2017 09:43
If you're complaining because prices are (inevitably) regressive on the "poor" (however defined), what do you say to the obvious retort that this is indeed the main difference between being "poor", being comfortable, being affluent and being rich?

What is the point of working and earning if it isn't aimed at making oneself less "poor" or more affluent?

FrankieOwen -> TheResult , 15 Oct 2017 09:38
Dunno, doesnt appear that they do in the rough parts of Chicago.
furryandrew -> Commem , 15 Oct 2017 09:38
Or as Mayer Amschel Rothschild correctly summed up the situation in 1790 - "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws"

What this article fails to draw our attention to , and they never do, is that private banks CREATE 97% of our entire money supply (look up "fractional reserve banking"). Whilst that remains the case the "oligarchy" will always have firm control over the rest of us.

Peter Martin -> J.K. Stevens , 15 Oct 2017 09:36
Wonder what would happen if all players took a knee, if they all stood together then the owners would start to fret.
nhickman -> TheWindsOfWinter93 , 15 Oct 2017 09:32
There was a time when the deadliest military weapon was the longbow. It could only be handled by men who had been trained up since infancy.
It enabled the English to rout a numerically superior French force at Agincourt, 1415.
The notion that the early 15th century was a period of democratic government is an interesting reading of history.
zootsuitbeatnick , 15 Oct 2017 09:32
imo
In the US today, the oligarchy cannot win without an assist from a significant segment -- not necessarily a majority -- of the overall population.
9/11 taught us that many people are willing to give up freedoms for the myth of security.
The Trump presidency is teaching us that many people are willing to give up their voice -- democracy -- for the myth of returning to a perceived better way of life (group superiority over racial, gender, religious, etc equality) from some bygone era.
imo
Newmacfan , 15 Oct 2017 09:30
We are currently experiencing a destabalisation of our nation and fellow Western Nations by the dominant Western Nation to try to halt the failure of this vastly endebted bigger brother......how do we stop this?
J.K. Stevens , 15 Oct 2017 09:28
On this NFL Sunday it is not hard to imagine the secret meetings that owners and/or their representatives had to coalesce against Kaepernick's 'taking a knee' to stop this form of protest in its tracks as a oligarchical institution. On Tuesday, when Dallas Cowboys owner, Jerry Jones declared that any player taking a knee would not play today, the circle of the objective to chill dissent was complete.

And the plutocratic beat goes on.

TheLibrarianApe -> imperium3 , 15 Oct 2017 09:27
Top post.
DrPepperIsNotARealDr , 15 Oct 2017 09:26
Democracy was always like this. What is that famous quote, by Earl Grey or Sandwich or someone, in Parliament, about allowing peasants to have the vote? "I do this, not to weaken our power, but to preserve it"

Democracy in the UK and the US has always been a forum for the oligarchy to resolve their own disputes rather than rule for the people by the people. Brexit is an example, a referendum held essentially because of the split in conservative party.

FE Lang -> zippy200 , 15 Oct 2017 09:25
And conservatives are going to save us all from done minded feel good policies of the left, is that it?
Since the 80's American politics had swing do far to the right liberals are capitalists monied elites, but the right had an army of simple minded uneducated lemmings on thier side, people that will be against thier own personal interests because of 12th century religious horse spit or group think. Thier are more Right winners in State houses, leadership positions then ever before, they control the Congress, the courts, the Presidency and yet dolts like you still say the country is going in the wrong directions and listen to son misters tell you its the fault of the left. Somewhere in your reptilian brain you know this makes no sense, but you lack of depth, you inability to comprehend what you read or to shake free from the group think or right wing ideology will never let you understand that the bet people you vote in time after time are the very ones whom have sold your job to the Chinese, profited from your child's illnesses, war, chaos in some far off land.
Keeping voting Republicans, it's working out so well for you tailer, Nascar types...
BayardDC , 15 Oct 2017 09:21
The article obfuscates a distinction laid out by Aristotle, in The Politics: aristocracy - rule by the few, focused on the common good; and oligarchy - rule by the few (wealthy), focused on their selfish good. He argues that aristocracy, rule by the best, inevitably turns into oligarchy, rule by the wealthy. In Aristotle's three forms of government - rule by one, by few, by many - the three legitimate forms (monarchy, aristocracy, polity) degenerate into their evils twins (tyranny, oligarchy, democracy). For Aristotle, Democracy was not a legitimate form of government, but a corrupted form: mob rule, we might call it. The US Constitution deliberately set out to create a mixed form of government: monarchy (president); aristocracy (Senate and Supreme Court); polity (House of Reps.). From the beginning, Americans have focused on the potential for our "monarch" (president) to turn into a tyrant: Trump is the poster child for a single executive ruling on his own, selfish behalf. We have been less aware of the fact that the Senate has become a simple oligarchy, while the House has degenerated into a bastion of deputies chosen by what Aristotle would have called democracy, that is, a corrupted form of rule by the many. Aristotle's citizens - those who rule and are ruled in turn - can constitute about 10% of the population; in today's US that would mean 20+ million people actively and continuously involved in politics (i.e., not simply showing up every four years to mark a ballot). Millions of Americans have long done such things, and political life remains active at the local level in many areas. On the national level, the Tea Party has shown how this level of enhanced involvement can transform politics, and has further shown that a coherent, organized minority can demolish what we think of as democratic norms. They are about to elect a Senator in Alabama who has twice been removed as a judge on the state's Supreme Court (an elective body), for violations of judicial norms. Here in the US, all three forms of our original government - monarchy, aristocracy, polity - have degenerated into their evil twins. Yes, the wealthy 1% will always game the system in their favor, but until we restore each of the parts of our forma mixta, we can never reduce their advantages to a level consonant with a decent form of society. Under W Bush, the oligarchs got the tax rates (above all on capital gains) reduced to their 1929 levels. That legislation had a time limit, and Obama chose not to continue it: indeed, he raised capital gains rates a further 3.8% [making the rate 23.8% as against the 15% of Bush]. Now, the two greatest goals of the oligarchs are a return to the 15% rate and the abolition of the estate tax, so all of the fantastically rich Baby Boomers (say, Sec'y of Commerce Ross, net worth $2.5 billion) can leave their wealth unencumbered to their heirs, solidifying the oligarchy's control. The Tea Party, through all the yahoos now in the House, can focus on creationism, climate change denial, immigration, etc., while the oligarchs quietly change the tax system to perpetuate their dominance. Over here, we are already in fiscal year 2018 (started on Oct 1), so tax changes would really go into effect in 2019, that is, after the mid-term election. If Mnuchen and Co. get their changes to capital gains rates and other technical loopholes aimed at the 0.1% [sic], and eliminate the estate tax, we'll know that the oligarchs have eliminated any barriers to their collective dictatorship.
TheLibrarianApe -> Commem , 15 Oct 2017 09:20
This is a blindingly excellent article.

What's new is, like this article, we have the vocabulary to frame both the problem and the solution. Oligarchy is no longer inevitable and whilst the means of control are greater, the means for derogation are too and there are fewer oligarchs than plebs.

Its now easier to spot bad behaviour and harder to keep secrets. Oligarchs have to use force more often to hold into power and that tips their hand.

This article has left me (an avowed pessimist) feeling rather more optimistic.

BlueberryMuffin -> zippy200 , 15 Oct 2017 09:17
Liberalism is about freedom. Personal and economic. Not about "proletariat solidarity" and totalitarian Marxist regimes.
FE Lang -> GusDynamite , 15 Oct 2017 09:15
They learned their lessons well after the 60's, the last time the people really raised up against the machine, so they have given us all the; junk food at a low cost, all the TV and mindless sexually charged entertainment, all the "debt wealth", a simple minded, unread, semi-literate, beer swilling fool could ever ask for. And we all gladly gobble it up and follow the crowd, for who wants to be on the outside looking in...
Giftshop , 15 Oct 2017 09:12
There is always a ruling elite because power is the wellspring of all human actions. There is also a certain moral consciousness that many people argue is innate in human nature, and that consciousness is fairness. The fairness instinct survives where ordinary human sympathy may fail. Based upon this basic morality of fairness those of us who are willing to take risks in the interest of fairness need to prune and tend the ruling elites as soon as possible. We proles need to act together.

Democracy is not enough and besides democracy we also need reason, facts,and fighting spirit.

W.a. Thomaston -> awilson5280 , 15 Oct 2017 09:09
As the inventor of the "hydrodaktulopsychicharmonica" once said: " you have a Republic if you can keep it"
amwink -> awilson5280 , 15 Oct 2017 09:06
Sparta was more than just militarism, and slavery was also practised in Athens, as well as in Rome and quite much everywhere else in the ancient world.

Sparta did something that today's democracies have forgotten: it cared about protection of its citizens. That's the most elementary reason why a State exists, not to provide health or education.

Now, regarding a replacement, epistocracy has yet to be tried. And the same democracy, but with census suffrage, or via election of electors, who in turn elect the ones who will hold office, have worked quite well in many places, producing better politicians, less inclined to populism (take the Venetian Republic, for example).

logos00 -> apacheman , 15 Oct 2017 09:05

Waiting for the oligarchy to rot from within isn't what i would call a viable plan. Not when there is a far better and far more sure way to get the job done. Start with capping wealth accumulation.

One must have already broken, or at least sufficiently loosened, the oligarchic grip on politics to institute such a policy.

Here in the UK, things are the darkest they have been in my lifetime, including the Thatcher years, but we are in a moment of possibilities that can lead in opposite directions.

The author is surely right when he says

With all the upheaval in today's politics, it's hard not to think that this moment is one in which the future of the political system might be more up for grabs than it has been in generations.

Dominance of oligarchic political power, through neoliberalism, over the last four decades has effectively put such policies out of bounds.

We had a Labour government that won convincingly under Blair while declaring itself relaxed about the accumulation of great wealth.

richard160458 -> MattSpanner , 15 Oct 2017 09:05
And democracy failed after generations of poor decisions and war
richard160458 , 15 Oct 2017 09:02
Greece had a long period of decline at the hands of democracy. Plato wrote his Republic as a protest, and to put forward an alternative. Eventually the romans took control.

There are indeed parallels with today but given the external challenges I for one believe that western society will be overtaken by q new set of rules.

debt2zero , 15 Oct 2017 09:01
Very good, interesting article. You know, every now & then this paper, for all it's faults, serves up an article that is quite enlightened/ing.

The last one I recall was an article by Kenan Malik on identity politics . For what exists in this country, the UK, I have previously used the term "oligarchy by profession" ... meaning a pool of the usually upper half of the middle class, or a group in whom that group is disproportionally represented, who not only likely have a select education but who go on to become part of certain professions - accountants, lawyers, journalists, bankers, doctors etc. ... and of course, politicians tend to be drawn from these.

And revolving door arrangements is one of the ways this pool retains a certain cohesion, or as in the article "homogeneity in culture and values".

As for division, how many times have I read, "oh, we are so divided .. blah, blah", as though some journalists have an almost unconscious need to promote it.

Interesting article.

GusDynamite , 15 Oct 2017 09:00
Bit too late, really. Not to mention it's super easy to take what they want while we're all so distracted by arguing about who is the most racist misogynist, defending ourselves from the accusations or applauding comic book movies. Apparently we're so distracted that we're also all genuinely shocked that Hollywood is rife with pedophilia and extreme sexual harassment as though it's some revelation that we didn't know already, but that's another conversation.

If we're all so distracted then it's not difficult for our political 'representatives' -- I use that word very tentatively because they barely ever do -- to subject themselves to the oligarchs for a few scraps more than we have ourselves.

Maybe if we didn't bicker like kids we'd beat them.

PhilJoMar -> ConBrio , 15 Oct 2017 08:53
Either you've not read the article attentively enough or your bias is irremediable. Limiting govt still leaves economic power and the tendency towards monopoly untouched. The genetic impulse you mention is a spurious concept in itself. If there were such a genetic impulse we would not have seen such a change as the major advances of women in the last half century. Culture is the key, much more than any genetic impulse, which is practically meaningless and so explains nothing.

As wealth defense is so important to oligarchs, there is a constant pressure to cheat and break the law. One solution therefore is to apply the law but also to construct legislation with specific principles in mind. If the point of tax legislation is to contribute your share towards the general good then those who avoid and evade tax would be guilty of a technical breach but also a breach of the principle.

However our laws are skewed to allowing the wealthy to defend their wealth and so a party of the people is always needed. Always.

Lastly private schooling needs to be looked at. I mean FFS Eton has charitable status!

[Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class

Highly recommended!
Chris Hedges, who is doubtless a courageous journalist and an intelligent commentator, suggests that if we are to discuss the anti-Russia campaign realistically, as baseless in fact, and as contrived for an effect and to further/protect some particular interests, we can hardly avoid the question: Who or what interest is served by the anti-Russia campaign?
An interesting observation "The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out."
The other relevant observation is that there is no American left. It was destroyed as a political movement. The USA is a right wing country.
Notable quotes:
"... This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of color. ..."
"... It is the result of the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation, a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations. It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they have done to the country. ..."
"... The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our economy and our democratic institutions. ..."
"... Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater. ..."
"... These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes. ..."
"... The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and one the paper has never faced. ..."
"... The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself as the "left." ..."
"... Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left -- not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories, that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease. ..."
"... For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France. There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon. But here we almost have to begin from scratch. ..."
"... The corporate elites we have to overthrow already hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down. ..."
"... The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique. You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You won't get grants. ..."
"... The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison! ..."
"... Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these people: traitors. ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

Originally from: The elites "have no credibility left" by Chris Hedges

But the whole idea that the Russians swung the election to Trump is absurd. It's really premised on the unproven claim that Russia gave the Podesta emails to WikiLeaks, and the release of these emails turned tens, or hundreds of thousands, of Clinton supporters towards Trump. This doesn't make any sense. Either that, or, according to the director of national intelligence, RT America, where I have a show, got everyone to vote for the Green Party.

This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of color. It is the result of disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA that abolished good-paying union jobs and shipped them to places like Mexico, where workers without benefits are paid $3.00 an hour. It is the result of the explosion of a system of mass incarceration, begun by Bill Clinton with the 1994 omnibus crime bill, and the tripling and quadrupling of prison sentences. It is the result of the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation, a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations. It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they have done to the country.

Police forces have been turned into quasi-military entities that terrorize marginal communities, where people have been stripped of all of their rights and can be shot with impunity; in fact over three are killed a day. The state shoots and locks up poor people of color as a form of social control. They are quite willing to employ the same form of social control on any other segment of the population that becomes restive.

The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our economy and our democratic institutions.

Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. Without Wall Street money, they would not hold political power. The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater.

These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes.

... ... ...

DN: Let's come back to this question of the Russian hacking news story. You raised the ability to generate a story, which has absolutely no factual foundation, nothing but assertions by various intelligence agencies, presented as an assessment that is beyond question. What is your evaluation of this?

CH: The commercial broadcast networks, and that includes CNN and MSNBC, are not in the business of journalism. They hardly do any. Their celebrity correspondents are courtiers to the elite. They speculate about and amplify court gossip, which is all the accusations about Russia, and they repeat what they are told to repeat. They sacrifice journalism and truth for ratings and profit. These cable news shows are one of many revenue streams in a corporate structure. They compete against other revenue streams. The head of CNN, Jeff Zucker, who helped create the fictional persona of Donald Trump on "Celebrity Apprentice," has turned politics on CNN into a 24-hour reality show. All nuance, ambiguity, meaning and depth, along with verifiable fact, are sacrificed for salacious entertainment. Lying, racism, bigotry and conspiracy theories are given platforms and considered newsworthy, often espoused by people whose sole quality is that they are unhinged. It is news as burlesque.

I was on the investigative team at the New York Times during the lead-up to the Iraq War. I was based in Paris and covered Al Qaeda in Europe and the Middle East. Lewis Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and maybe somebody in an intelligence agency, would confirm whatever story the administration was attempting to pitch. Journalistic rules at the Times say you can't go with a one-source story. But if you have three or four supposedly independent sources confirming the same narrative, then you can go with it, which is how they did it. The paper did not break any rules taught at Columbia journalism school, but everything they wrote was a lie.

The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and one the paper has never faced.

DN: The CIA pitches the story, and then the Times gets the verification from those who pitch it to them.

CH: It's not always pitched. And not much of this came from the CIA The CIA wasn't buying the "weapons of mass destruction" hysteria.

DN: It goes the other way too?

CH: Sure. Because if you're trying to have access to a senior official, you'll constantly be putting in requests, and those officials will decide when they want to see you. And when they want to see you, it's usually because they have something to sell you.

DN: The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself as the "left."

CH: Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left -- not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories, that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease.

If you attempt to debate most of those on the supposedly left, they reduce discussion to this cartoonish vision of politics.

The serious left in this country was decimated. It started with the suppression of radical movements under Woodrow Wilson, then the "Red Scares" in the 1920s, when they virtually destroyed our labor movement and our radical press, and then all of the purges in the 1950s. For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France. There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon. But here we almost have to begin from scratch.

I've battled continuously with Antifa and the Black Bloc. I think they're kind of poster children for what I would consider phenomenal political immaturity. Resistance is not a form of personal catharsis. We are not fighting the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The corporate elites we have to overthrow already hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down.

So Trump's not the problem. But just that sentence alone is going to kill most discussions with people who consider themselves part of the left.

The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique. You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You won't get grants. The New York Times , if they review your book, will turn it over to a dutiful mandarin like George Packer to trash it -- as he did with my last book. The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison!

Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these people: traitors.

[Oct 11, 2017] Donald Trump is exposing the contradictions of the elite by David Callahan

That's neoliberal elite after all. Why the author expects them to be ashamed is unclear
Notable quotes:
"... Business practices aimed at boosting shareholder value – like outsourcing, offshoring, automation, union-busting, predatory lending, and a range of anti-competitive abuses – have undermined the security of large swaths of the country. In turn, a flood of business dollars for campaign donations and lobbying over decades has helped thwart effective government responses to rising pain on Main Street. ..."
"... History tells us that societies with extractive and self-serving upper classes tend to fall into decline – whereas societies with inclusive elites are more likely to thrive. With the rise of Trump, we're seeing what an unraveling of the social fabric looks like after decades in which nearly all the nation's income gains have flowed upwards to a tiny sliver of households. ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Since January, though, we've also seen a new level of rapaciousness by corporate interests in Washington DC that seem intent on extracting as much wealth as they can from wherever they can: consumers, investors, public lands, student borrowers, the tax code and even the war in Afghanistan.

Longtime watchers of the .01% won't be surprised by this bifurcated picture. For over two decades, an ever more educated wealthy elite has trumpeted its belief in tolerance, diversity, and meritocracy – even as it's also helped usher in record levels of inequality that have left many Americans feeling economically excluded and increasingly angry.

Trump's retrograde presidency has revealed the profound contradictions at the top of the US income ladder.

... ... ...

Corporate leaders have already been supportive of Trump's sweeping push to gut regulations in ways that would tilt the rules governing the economy more in favor of business and the wealthy. Social inclusion may be a growing public mantra of the far upper class. But economic extraction remains among its core operating principles.

... ... ...

Social inclusion is a public mantra of the upper class. But economic extraction remains a core operating principle

The answer is that many corporate and financial leaders were, and still are, a big part of the problem. These leaders have fostered the economic conditions that have thrown the values of tolerance and diversity on the defensive in America.

Business practices aimed at boosting shareholder value – like outsourcing, offshoring, automation, union-busting, predatory lending, and a range of anti-competitive abuses – have undermined the security of large swaths of the country. In turn, a flood of business dollars for campaign donations and lobbying over decades has helped thwart effective government responses to rising pain on Main Street.

... ... ...

History tells us that societies with extractive and self-serving upper classes tend to fall into decline – whereas societies with inclusive elites are more likely to thrive. With the rise of Trump, we're seeing what an unraveling of the social fabric looks like after decades in which nearly all the nation's income gains have flowed upwards to a tiny sliver of households.

Rarely has the American experiment – the notion of a country united by ideas rather than shared heritage – felt more fragile than it does right now. It's an ugly picture of division and resentment, but a predictable one given the economic trauma inflicted on millions of people over recent decades.

... ... ...

David Callahan is the author of The Givers: Wealth, Power, and Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age. He is the founder and editor of Inside Philanthropy

[Oct 11, 2017] Among the crises effecting the United States, the one effecting us most profoundly is the absence of any accountability for the crimes committed by our oligarchic class

Notable quotes:
"... his thinking that corporations, the mainstream media, and the academy can and do successfully "game" dissent by suppression, divide and conquer, co-optation, and so on, is spot on. ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

JackOH > , October 9, 2017 at 11:08 am GMT

I'm a moderate admirer of Chris Hedges, but he is really cooking in this interview. Too much to praise here, but his thinking that corporations, the mainstream media, and the academy can and do successfully "game" dissent by suppression, divide and conquer, co-optation, and so on, is spot on.

alexander > , October 9, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT

I think this was an excellent discussion, and I would like to thank you both for having it, and sharing it.

Among the crises effecting the United States, the one effecting us most profoundly is the absence of any accountability for the crimes committed by our oligarchic class.

Addressing this issue is ground zero for any meaningful change.

If there is no accountability for their crimes , there will be no change.

Certainly the greatest among these crimes was(is) defrauding the nation into " a war of aggression". which, being the supreme international crime, should be met with harsh prison sentences for all who promoted it.

It is important for everyone to recognize just how much damage these policies have done to the country, not just in terms of our collective morale or our constitutional mandates,not just in terms of our international standing on universal principles of legality and justice, but our long term economic solvency as a nation.

The "exceptionalism" of our "war of aggression" elites has completely devastated our nation's balance sheet.

Since 9-11, our national debt has grown by a mind numbing "fourteen and a half trillion dollars".. nearly quadrupling since 1999.

This unconscionable level of "overspending" is unprecedented in human history.

Not one lawmaker, not one primetime pundit, nor one editorialist (of any major newspaper), has a CLUE how to deal with it.

Aside from the root atrocity in visiting mass murder on millions of innocents who never attacked us (and never intended to) which is a horrible crime in and of itself,

There is the profound crisis , in situ , of potentially demanding that 320 million Americans PAY FOR THE WARS OUR ELITES LIED US INTO .

This is where the rubber meets the road for our "war of aggression-ists ", gentlemen.

This is the "unanimous space" of our entire country's population on the issue of "no taxation without representation".

WHOSE assets should be made forfeit to pay for these wars .The DECEIVERS or the DECEIVED ?

Ask "The People" ..and you will find your answer .very fast.

No wonder our "elites" are terrified to discuss this .

Absolutely terrified.

Anonymous > , Disclaimer October 10, 2017 at 4:10 am GMT

@alexander

No wonder our "elites" are terrified to discuss this .

They're not terrified–they know full well that they don't have to discuss it. Control of the flow of information eliminates any such necessity.

We're right now in the consolidation phase, during which the last few remaining pockets of dissent are thoroughly vilified, rooted out, made illegal and worse: unthinkable.

The idiotic grievance warriors whom–to his credit–Mr Hedges identifies as such, are the verbal equivalent of the violent criminal shock troops with which the elites afflict us. The 'identity politics' they champion are an extremely useful cudgel in the endless divide-and-conquer strategy.

jacques sheete > , October 11, 2017 at 11:20 am GMT

It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy.

That's cringe-worthy.

Transformation into an oligarchy? Transformation ??? I like Hedges' work, but such fundamental errors really taint what he sez.

The country was never transformed into an oligarchy; it began as one.

In fact, it was organized and functioned as a pluto-oligarchy right out of the box. In case anyone has the dimness to argue with me about it, all that shows is that you don't know JS about how the cornstitution was foisted on the rest of us by the plutoligarchs.

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for "

-Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782 . ME 2:163

The Elites "Have No Credibility Left"

Guess what, boys and girls Why did they have any to begin with?

Where do people get their faith? WakeTF up, already!! (Yes, I'm losing it. Because even a duumbshit goy like myself can see it. Where are all you bright bulb know-it-alls with all the flippin answers???)

jacques sheete > , October 11, 2017 at 11:35 am GMT

Newspapers are trapped in an old system of information they call "objectivity" and "balance," formulae designed to cater to the powerful and the wealthy and obscure the truth.

It's amazing that here we are, self-anointed geniuses and dumbos alike, puttering around in the 21st century, and someone feels the necessity to point that out. And he's right; it needs to be pointed out. Drummed into our skulls in fact.

Arrrgggghhhh!!! Jefferson again.:

Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.

Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 14 June 1807

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs29.html

More deja vu all over again and again. Note the date.:

"This is a story of a powerful and wealthy newspaper having enormous influence And never a day out of more than ten thousand days that this newspaper has not subtly and cunningly distort the news of the world in the interest of special privilege. "

Upton Sinclair, "The crimes of the "Times" : a test of newspaper decency," pamphlet, 1921

https://archive.org/stream/crimesofthetimes00sincrich/crimesofthetimes00sincrich

jacques sheete > , October 11, 2017 at 12:08 pm GMT

I find it most fascinating that none of what Hedges says is news, but even UR readers probably think it is. Here's an antidote to that idea.

The following quote is from Eugene Kelly who's excoriating government press releases but the criticism applies as well to the resulting press reports. I found the whole article striking.:

Any boob can deduce, a priori, what type of "news" is contained in this rubbish.

-Eugene A. Kelly, Distorting the News, The American Mercury, March 1935 , pp. 307-318

http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmMercury/

I'd like good evidence that the situation has improved since then. Good luck.

jacques sheete > , October 11, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

The Elites "Have No Credibility Left"

Who thinks they had any to begin with? The quote, below, is almost 2000 years old

Apollo, too, who pretends to be so clever, with his bow and his lyre and his medicine and his prophecies; those oracle-shops that he has opened at Delphi, and Clarus, and Dindyma, are a cheat; he takes good care to be on the safe side by giving ambiguous answers that no one can understand, and makes money out of it, for there are plenty of fools who like being imposed upon,–but sensible people know well enough that most of it is clap-trap

Leto. Oh, of course; my children are butchers and impostors. I know how you hate the sight of them.

-Lucian of Samosata, DIALOGUES OF THE GODS, XVI, ~150AD

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl1/wl124.htm

[Oct 05, 2017] How Billionaires become Billionaires - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... Billionaires in the commercial conglomerates, like Walmart, exploit workers by paying poverty wages and providing few, if any, benefits. Walmart earns $16 billion dollar a year in profits by paying its workers between $10 and $13 an hour and relying on state and federal assistance to provide services to the families of its impoverished workers through Medicaid and food stamps. ..."
"... Inequality is not a result of 'technology' and 'education'- contemporary euphemisms for the ruling class cult of superiority – as liberals and conservative economists and journalists like to claim. Inequalities are a result of low wages, based on big profits, financial swindles, multi-trillion dollar public handouts and multi-billion-dollar tax evasion. ..."
"... Workers pay disproportional taxes for education, health, social and public services and subsidies for billionaires ..."
"... First and foremost, billionaires and their political, legal and corporate associates dominate the political parties. They designate the leaders and key appointees, thus ensuring that budgets and policies will increase their profits, erode social benefits for the masses and weaken the political power of popular organizations ..."
"... As a result, wage and salary workers are less organized and less influential; they work longer and for less pay, suffer greater workplace insecurity and injuries – physical and mental – fall into decline and disability, drop out of the system, die earlier and poorer, and, in the process, provide unimaginable profits for the billionaire class ..."
"... The bulk of repatriated profits are directed to buy back stock to increase dividends for investors; they are not invested in the productive economy. Lower taxes and greater profits for conglomerates means more buy-outs and greater outflows to low wage countries. In real terms taxes are already less than half the headline rate and are a major factor heightening the concentration of income and power – both cause and effect. ..."
"... In other words, the capitalist class as a whole, globalist and domestic alike, pursues the same regressive policies, promoting inequalities while struggling over shares of the profits. One hundred and fifty million wage and salaried taxpayers are excluded from the political and social decisions that directly affect their income, employment, rates of taxation, and political representation. ..."
"... However, worker hostility and despair is directed against 'immigrants' and against the 'liberals' who have backed the import of cheap skilled and semi-skilled labor under the guise of 'freedom'. This 'politically correct' image of imported labor covers up a policy, which has served to lower wages, benefits and living standards for American workers, whether they are in technology, construction or production. ..."
"... The pro and anti-immigrant issue avoids the root cause for the economic exploitation and social degradation of the working class – the billionaire owners operating in alliance with the political elite. ..."
Oct 05, 2017 | www.unz.com

Billionaires in the commercial conglomerates, like Walmart, exploit workers by paying poverty wages and providing few, if any, benefits. Walmart earns $16 billion dollar a year in profits by paying its workers between $10 and $13 an hour and relying on state and federal assistance to provide services to the families of its impoverished workers through Medicaid and food stamps. Amazon plutocrat Jeff Bezos exploits workers by paying $12.50 an hour while he has accumulated over $80 billion dollars in profits. UPS CEO David Albany takes $11 million a year by exploiting workers at $11 an hour. Federal Express CEO, Fred Smith gets $16 million and pays workers $11 an hour.

Inequality is not a result of 'technology' and 'education'- contemporary euphemisms for the ruling class cult of superiority – as liberals and conservative economists and journalists like to claim. Inequalities are a result of low wages, based on big profits, financial swindles, multi-trillion dollar public handouts and multi-billion-dollar tax evasion. The ruling class has mastered the 'technology' of exploiting the state, through its pillage of the treasury, and the working class. Capitalist exploitation of low paid production workers provides additional billions for the 'philanthropic' billionaire family foundations to polish their public image – using another tax avoidance gimmick – self-glorifying 'donations'.

Workers pay disproportional taxes for education, health, social and public services and subsidies for billionaires.

Billionaires in the arms industry and security/mercenary conglomerates receive over $700 billion dollars from the federal budget, while over 100 million US workers lack adequate health care and their children are warehoused in deteriorating schools.

Workers and Bosses: Mortality Rates

Billionaires and multi-millionaires and their families enjoy longer and healthier lives than their workers. They have no need for health insurance policies or public hospitals. CEO's live on average ten years longer than a worker and enjoy twenty years more of healthy and pain-free lives.

Private, exclusive clinics and top medical care include the most advanced treatment and safe and proven medication which allow billionaires and their family members to live longer and healthier lives. The quality of their medical care and the qualifications of their medical providers present a stark contrast to the health care apartheid that characterizes the rest of the United States.

Workers are treated and mistreated by the health system: They have inadequate and often incompetent medical treatment, cursory examinations by inexperienced medical assistants and end up victims of the widespread over-prescription of highly addictive narcotics and other medications. Over-prescription of narcotics by incompetent 'providers' has significantly contributed to the rise in premature deaths among workers, spiraling cases of opiate overdose, disability due to addiction and descent into poverty and homelessness. These irresponsible practices have made additional billions of dollars in profits for the insurance corporate elite, who can cut their pensions and health care liabilities as injured, disabled and addicted workers drop out of the system or die.

The shortened life expectancy for workers and their family members is celebrated on Wall Street and in the financial press. Over 560,000 workers were killed by opioids between 1999-2015 contributing to the decline in life expectancy for working age wage and salary earners and reduced pension liabilities for Wall Street and the Social Security Administration.

Inequalities are cumulative, inter-generational and multi-sectorial.

Billionaire families, their children and grandchildren, inherit and invest billions. They have privileged access to the most prestigious schools and medical facilities, and conveniently fall in love to equally privileged, well-connected mates to join their fortunes and form even greater financial empires. Their wealth buys favorable, even fawning, mass media coverage and the services of the most influential lawyers and accountants to cover their swindles and tax evasion.

Billionaires hire innovators and sweat shop MBA managers to devise more ways to slash wages, increase productivity and ensure that inequalities widen even further. Billionaires do not have to be the brightest or most innovative people: Such individuals can simply be bought or imported on the 'free market' and discarded at will.

Billionaires have bought out or formed joint ventures with each other, creating interlocking directorates. Banks, IT, factories, warehouses, food and appliance, pharmaceuticals and hospitals are linked directly to political elites who slither through doors of rotating appointments within the IMF, the World Bank, Treasury, Wall Street banks and prestigious law firms.

Consequences of Inequalities

First and foremost, billionaires and their political, legal and corporate associates dominate the political parties. They designate the leaders and key appointees, thus ensuring that budgets and policies will increase their profits, erode social benefits for the masses and weaken the political power of popular organizations .

Secondly, the burden of the economic crisis is shifted on to the workers who are fired and later re-hired as part-time, contingent labor. Public bailouts, provided by the taxpayer, are channeled to the billionaires under the doctrine that Wall Street banks are too big to fail and workers are too weak to defend their wages, jobs and living standards.

Billionaires buy political elites, who appoint the World Bank and IMF officials tasked with instituting policies to freeze or reduce wages, slash corporate and public health care obligations and increase profits by privatizing public enterprises and facilitating corporate relocation to low wage, low tax countries.

As a result, wage and salary workers are less organized and less influential; they work longer and for less pay, suffer greater workplace insecurity and injuries – physical and mental – fall into decline and disability, drop out of the system, die earlier and poorer, and, in the process, provide unimaginable profits for the billionaire class . Even their addiction and deaths provide opportunities for huge profit – as the Sackler Family, manufacturers of Oxycontin, can attest.

The billionaires and their political acolytes argue that deeper regressive taxation would increase investments and jobs. The data speaks otherwise. The bulk of repatriated profits are directed to buy back stock to increase dividends for investors; they are not invested in the productive economy. Lower taxes and greater profits for conglomerates means more buy-outs and greater outflows to low wage countries. In real terms taxes are already less than half the headline rate and are a major factor heightening the concentration of income and power – both cause and effect.

Corporate elites, the billionaires in the Silicon Valley-Wall Street global complex are relatively satisfied that their cherished inequalities are guaranteed and expanding under the Demo-Republican Presidents- as the 'good times' roll on.

Away from the 'billionaire elite', the 'outsiders' – domestic capitalists – clamor for greater public investment in infrastructure to expand the domestic economy, lower taxes to increase profits, and state subsidies to increase the training of the labor force while reducing funds for health care and public education. They are oblivious to the contradiction.

In other words, the capitalist class as a whole, globalist and domestic alike, pursues the same regressive policies, promoting inequalities while struggling over shares of the profits. One hundred and fifty million wage and salaried taxpayers are excluded from the political and social decisions that directly affect their income, employment, rates of taxation, and political representation. They understand, or at least experience, how the class system works. Most workers know about the injustice of the fake 'free trade' agreements and regressive tax regime, which weighs heavy on the majority of wage and salary earners.

However, worker hostility and despair is directed against 'immigrants' and against the 'liberals' who have backed the import of cheap skilled and semi-skilled labor under the guise of 'freedom'. This 'politically correct' image of imported labor covers up a policy, which has served to lower wages, benefits and living standards for American workers, whether they are in technology, construction or production. Rich conservatives, on the other hand, oppose immigration under the guise of 'law and order' and to lower social expenditures – despite that fact that they all use imported nannies, tutors, nurses, doctors and gardeners to service their families. Their servants can always be deported when convenient.

The pro and anti-immigrant issue avoids the root cause for the economic exploitation and social degradation of the working class – the billionaire owners operating in alliance with the political elite.

In order to reverse the regressive tax practices and tax evasion, the low wage cycle and the spiraling death rates resulting from narcotics and other preventable causes, which profit insurance companies and pharmaceutical billionaires, class alliances need to be forged linking workers, consumers, pensioners, students, the disabled, the foreclosed homeowners, evicted tenants, debtors, the under-employed and immigrants as a unified political force.

Sooner said than done, but never tried! Everything and everyone is at stake: life, health and happiness.

conatus > , October 5, 2017 at 9:02 am GMT

Ronald Reagan can be blamed for the excess of billionaires we now have. His lauding of the entrepreneurial spirit and how we are all brave individual risk takers makes it seem you are an envious chickensh$t if you advocate against unlimited assets.

But even Warren Buffet has come out for the estate tax saying something like now the Forbes 400 now possesses total assets of 2.5 trillion in a 20 trillion economy when 40 years ago they totaled in the millions. The legal rule against perpetuities generally used to limit trusts to a lifetime of 100 years, now some states offer 1000 year trusts which will only concretize an outlandishly high Gini coefficient(a measure of income inequality).
The rationale for lowering taxes and the untouchable rich is usually the trickle down theory but, as one of these billionaires said, "How many pairs of pants can I buy?" It takes 274 years spending 10,000 a day to spend a billion dollars.
Better Henry Ford's virtuous circle than Ronald Reagan's entrepreneur.
Ban all billionaires. Bring back the union label. Otherwise .. what do we have to lose?

http://nobillionairescom.dotster.com/

jacques sheete > , October 5, 2017 at 2:29 pm GMT

@Wally "According to the US Internal Revenue Service, billionaire tax evasion amounts to $458 billion dollars in lost public revenues every year – almost a trillion dollars every two years by this conservative estimate."

No, it's $458 billion that the government has not managed to steal.

https://www.ronpaul.com/taxes/


An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent.

Tellingly, "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax" is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.
To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending

"We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don't need to "replace" the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better."

https://youtu.be/qI5lC4Z_T80

No, it's $458 billion that the government has not managed to steal.

There was a time that I would have agreed with that, and technically still get the point, but what it really means is that the government merely allows the corporations which they favor, subsidize, and bail out to keep the chump change they've stolen from the workers, besides that which the government steals from the workers and hands to the corporations.

Corporations and government work hand in hand to fleece the herd and most of the herd apparently think it's just fine.

Never forget that thanks to government, corporations socialize risk while privatizing profit. They are partners in gangsterism.

advancedatheist > , October 5, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT

Private, exclusive clinics and top medical care include the most advanced treatment and safe and proven medication which allow billionaires and their family members to live longer and healthier lives.

Sorry, I don't buy the notion that billionaires have access to some super-healthcare that the rest of us don't know about. In the real world rich people notoriously waste a lot of money on quackery, like the current fad of receiving plasma transfusions from young people as a phony "anti-aging" treatment.

More likely the kinds of men who become billionaires just enjoy better health and longevity for genetic reasons. They tend to have higher IQ's, for example, and some scientists think that IQ correlates with "system integrity" in their bodies which just make higher IQ people more resilient. Look up the growing body of research on cognitive epidemiology.

anonymous > , Disclaimer October 5, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT

I'm disappointed there was no mention of the "Billionaires" use of social media. They've always controlled the press of course: startin' wars, hatin' on those guys, gettin' the blood up, jailin' the 'bad guys', preaching an empty delusion of social justice propaganda, payin' Ken Burns to propagandize and put a new coat of paint on the industrial scale killing of Vietnam. Probably just in time for more violence.

Let's face it, many of the workin' stiff will blow a hedge fund manager and kneel before the so-called free market corpse of Sam Walton but most importantly they'll grab their guns outa' patriotic fervor and social media will be right there with 'em. "I love Elon Musk!"

It's a great thing we're watched and datamined for our own good – information is how billionaires became billionaires along with a lot of help from the Government they usually encourage you to dislike. Keep posting!

MarkinLA > , October 5, 2017 at 3:29 pm GMT

Rich conservatives, on the other hand, oppose immigration under the guise of 'law and order' and to lower social expenditures – despite that fact that they all use imported nannies, tutors, nurses, doctors and gardeners to service their families. Their servants can always be deported when convenient.

BZZZZ – wrong. Rich conservative support massive immigration so they can get cheap labor while simutaneously virtue signaling. I thought you just got done sayiong they don't pay for the costs of the working poor? The middle class is who is against immigratioin. They bear the burden and pay the taxes that support it.

[Sep 17, 2017] Society has always been divided into two classes: those who write the script, and those who live it; the programmers and the users.

Notable quotes:
"... The narratives are, after all not intended to reveal any truths, but to get their subjects to do something the elites want them to do, and in the course their doing it, to cement the elites' power. Subjects, being what they are, have fallen for lies since the Pharoahs told whoppers to get their peasants to invest in pyramids, or the Archdruids got their's to die hauling and arranging 20T rocks on a dreary plain. ..."
"... As long as a subject can internalize the narrative and live his life as if it was true, that's good enough for him. He simply doesn't need, or even want more truth than that. He never has, and he never will. Elites have known this since the dawn of the Neolithic, maybe earlier. That's what made them elites. Nothing else. ..."
"... Much more interesting is what happens when narratives break down ..."
Sep 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anonymous, Disclaimer September 15, 2017 at 8:22 am GMT

@Erebus

This is their starting position: It is a hoax until proven otherwise.
If it's turned out to be a hoax the last 20x it happened, why would you insist on starting at the opposite end? Seems inefficient, no?

What is perhaps even more inefficient on the part of Dinh and Revusky is to go interminably 'round and 'round this spot. Ok, we know that the narratives elites feed their subjects are invariably false. They have to be, or they wouldn't work. Twas ever thus.

The narratives are, after all not intended to reveal any truths, but to get their subjects to do something the elites want them to do, and in the course their doing it, to cement the elites' power. Subjects, being what they are, have fallen for lies since the Pharoahs told whoppers to get their peasants to invest in pyramids, or the Archdruids got their's to die hauling and arranging 20T rocks on a dreary plain.

As long as a subject can internalize the narrative and live his life as if it was true, that's good enough for him. He simply doesn't need, or even want more truth than that. He never has, and he never will. Elites have known this since the dawn of the Neolithic, maybe earlier. That's what made them elites. Nothing else.

Much more interesting is what happens when narratives break down, which is why Dinh's vignettes from the fraying seams of the American Narrative are more fascinating than these half-baked, pseudo-forensic analyses of "terror events". Maybe he thinks too many people still believe these bugaboos and should be brought around to enlightenment. That's as may be, but one wonders whether he understands that if enough people "come around", the forces unleashed are far more disruptive than when they accept, if not believe, the lies.

As long as a subject can internalize the narrative and live his life as if it was true, that's good enough for him. He simply doesn't need, or even want more truth than that. He never has, and he never will. Elites have known this since the dawn of the Neolithic, maybe earlier. That's what made them elites. Nothing else.

In other words, society has always been divided into two classes: those who write the script, and those who live it; the programmers and the users.

What's gone wrong? Are too many people finding the root shell?

[Sep 16, 2017] The Politics of Military Ascendancy by James Pertas

Sep 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction

Clearly the US has escalated the pivotal role of the military in the making of foreign and, by extension, domestic policy. The rise of ' the Generals' to strategic positions in the Trump regime is evident, deepening its role as a highly autonomous force determining US strategic policy agendas.

In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international realities.

We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless degradation of his presidency by his political opposition.

The Prelude to Militarization: Obama's Multi-War Strategy and Its Aftermath

The central role of the military in deciding US foreign policy has its roots in the strategic decisions taken during the Obama-Clinton Presidency. Several policies were decisive in the rise of unprecedented military-political power.

The massive increase of US troops in Afghanistan and their subsequent failures and retreat weakened the Obama-Clinton regime and increased animosity between the military and the Obama's Administration. As a result of his failures, Obama downgraded the military and weakened Presidential authority. The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness. The invasion of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. The US military intervention in Iraq was only a secondary contributing factor in the defeat of ISIS; the major actors and beneficiaries were Iran and the allied Iraqi Shia militias. The Obama-Clinton engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia). The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures.

The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade agreements in Asia excluding China.

The Obama 'legacy' consists of an international order of globalized capital and multiple wars. The continuity of Obama's 'glorious legacy' initially depended on the election of Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump's presidential campaign, for its part, promised to dismantle or drastically revise the Obama Doctrine of an international order based on multiple wars , neo-colonial 'nation' building and free trade. A furious Obama 'informed' (threatened) the newly-elected President Trump that he would face the combined hostility of the entire State apparatus, Wall Street and the mass media if he proceeded to fulfill his election promises of economic nationalism and thus undermine the US-centered global order.

Trump's bid to shift from Obama's sanctions and military confrontation to economic reconciliation with Russia was countered by a hornet's nest of accusations about a Trump-Russian electoral conspiracy, darkly hinting at treason and show trials against his close allies and even family members.

The concoction of a Trump-Russia plot was only the first step toward a total war on the new president, but it succeeded in undermining Trump's economic nationalist agenda and his efforts to change Obama's global order.

Trump Under Obama's International Order

After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed to reverse Obama's 'international order'.

Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and other Obama-designated endless war zones.

Trump's military priorities were supposed to focus on strengthening domestic frontiers and overseas markets. He started by demanding that NATO partners pay for their own military defense responsibilities. Obama's globalists in both political parties were aghast that the US might lose it overwhelming control of NATO; they united and moved immediately to strip Trump of his economic nationalist allies and their programs.

Trump quickly capitulated and fell into line with Obama's international order, except for one proviso – he would select the Cabinet to implement the old/new international order.

A hamstrung Trump chose a military cohort of Generals, led by General James Mattis (famously nicknamed ' Mad Dog' ) as Defense Secretary.

The Generals effectively took over the Presidency. Trump abdicated his responsibilities as President.

General Mattis: The Militarization of America

General Mattis took up the Obama legacy of global militarization and added his own nuances, including the 'psychological-warfare' embedded in Trump's emotional ejaculations on 'Twitter'.

The ' Mattis Doctrine' combined high-risk threats with aggressive provocations, bringing the US (and the world) to the brink of nuclear war.

General Mattis has adopted the targets and fields of operations, defined by the previous Obama administration as it has sought to re-enforce the existing imperialist international order.

The junta's policies relied on provocations and threats against Russia, with expanded economic sanctions. Mattis threw more fuel on the US mass media's already hysterical anti-Russian bonfire. The General promoted a strategy of low intensity diplomatic thuggery, including the unprecedented seizure and invasion of Russian diplomatic offices and the short-notice expulsion of diplomats and consular staff.

These military threats and acts of diplomatic intimidation signified that the Generals' Administration under the Puppet President Trump was ready to sunder diplomatic relations with a major world nuclear power and indeed push the world to direct nuclear confrontation.

What Mattis seeks in these mad fits of aggression is nothing less than capitulation on the part of the Russian government regarding long held US military objectives – namely the partition of Syria (which started under Obama), harsh starvation sanctions on North Korea (which began under Clinton) and the disarmament of Iran (Tel Aviv's main goal) in preparation for its dismemberment.

The Mattis junta occupying the Trump White House heightened its threats against a North Korea, which (in Vladimir Putin's words) ' would rather eat grass than disarm' . The US mass media-military megaphones portrayed the North Korean victims of US sanctions and provocations as an 'existential' threat to the US mainland.

Sanctions have intensified. The stationing of nuclear weapons on South Korea is being pushed. Massive joint military exercises are planned and ongoing in the air, sea and land around North Korea. Mattis twisted Chinese arms (mainly business comprador-linked bureaucrats) and secured their UN Security Council vote on increased sanctions. Russia joined the Mattis-led anti-Pyongyang chorus, even as Putin warned of sanctions ineffectiveness! (As if General ' Mad Dog' Mattis would ever take Putin's advice seriously, especially after Russia voted for the sanctions!)

Mattis further militarized the Persian Gulf, following Obama's policy of partial sanctions and bellicose provocation against Iran.

When he worked for Obama, Mattis increased US arms shipments to the US's Syrian terrorists and Ukrainian puppets, ensuring the US would be able to scuttle any ' negotiated settlements' .

Militarization: An Evaluation

Trump's resort to ' his Generals' is supposed to counter any attacks from members of his own party and Congressional Democrats about his foreign policy. Trump's appointment of ' Mad Dog' Mattis, a notorious Russophobe and warmonger, has somewhat pacified the opposition in Congress and undercut any 'finding' of an election conspiracy between Trump and Moscow dug up by the Special Investigator Robert Mueller. Trump's maintains a role as nominal President by adapting to what Obama warned him was ' their international order' – now directed by an unelected military junta composed of Obama holdovers!

The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog' Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price.

While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has enraged his own Party's leaders.

In sum, under a weakened President Trump, the militarization of the White House benefits the military junta and enlarges their power. The ' Mad Dog' Mattis program has had mixed results, at least in its initial phase: The junta's threats to launch a pre-emptive (possibly nuclear) war against North Korea have strengthened Pyongyang's commitment to develop and refine its long and medium range ballistic missile capability and nuclear weapons. Brinksmanship failed to intimidate North Korea. Mattis cannot impose the Clinton-Bush-Obama doctrine of disarming countries (like Libya and Iraq) of their advanced defensive weapons systems as a prelude to a US 'regime change' invasion.

Any US attack against North Korea will lead to massive retaliatory strikes costing tens of thousands of US military lives and will kill and maim millions of civilians in South Korea and Japan.

At most, ' Mad Dog' managed to intimidate Chinese and Russian officials (and their export business billionaire buddies) to agree to more economic sanctions against North Korea. Mattis and his allies in the UN and White House, the loony Nikki Hailey and a miniaturized President Trump, may bellow war – yet they cannot apply the so-called 'military option' without threatening the US military forces stationed throughout the Asia Pacific region.

The Mad Dog Mattis assault on the Russian embassy did not materially weaken Russia, but it has revealed the uselessness of Moscow's conciliatory diplomacy toward their so-called 'partners' in the Trump regime.

The end-result might lead to a formal break in diplomatic ties, which would increase the danger of a military confrontation and a global nuclear holocaust.

The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. These are Mattis' short-term gains over the excessively pliant Chinese bureaucrats. However, if Mad Dog intensifies direct military threats against China, Beijing can retaliate by dumping tens of billions of US Treasury notes, cutting trade ties, sowing chaos in the US economy and setting Wall Street against the Pentagon.

Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses.

Conclusion

The militarization of US foreign policy, the establishment of a military junta within the Trump Administration, and the resort to nuclear brinksmanship has not changed the global balance of power.

Domestically Trump's nominal Presidency relies on militarists, like General Mattis. Mattis has tightened the US control over NATO allies, and even rounded up stray European outliers, like Sweden, to join in a military crusade against Russia. Mattis has played on the media's passion for bellicose headlines and its adulation of Four Star Generals.

But for all that – North Korea remains undaunted because it can retaliate. Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and remains a counterweight to a US-dominated globe. China owns the US Treasury and its unimpressed, despite the presence of an increasingly collision-prone US Navy swarming throughout the South China Sea.

Mad Dog laps up the media attention, with well dressed, scrupulously manicured journalists hanging on his every bloodthirsty pronouncement. War contractors flock to him, like flies to carrion. The Four Star General 'Mad Dog' Mattis has attained Presidential status without winning any election victory (fake or otherwise). No doubt when he steps down, Mattis will be the most eagerly courted board member or senior consultant for giant military contractors in US history, receiving lucrative fees for half hour 'pep-talks' and ensuring the fat perks of nepotism for his family's next three generations. Mad Dog may even run for office, as Senator or even President for whatever Party.

The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons:

First of all, the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries who possess the capacity to retaliate. Intimidation via sanctions can succeed in imposing significant economic pain on oil export-dependent regimes, but not on hardened, self-sufficient or highly diversified economies.

Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create millions of refugees.

High intensity military brinksmanship carries major risk of massive losses in lives, allies, territory and piles of radiated ashes – a pyrrhic victory!

In sum:

Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed forces and has not led to any permanent military gains.

Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities.

Raffler > , September 15, 2017 at 2:25 pm GMT

American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or punishment of peoples who think and act differently. Those policy thrusts will accomplish the opposite of the stated intention. They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering beacon that once shone brighter.

Parbes > , September 15, 2017 at 6:34 pm GMT

An excellent truthful exposition of what has really been going on and a great essay by James Petras. Kudos.

peterAUS > , September 15, 2017 at 10:06 pm GMT

Stopped reading at

embedded in Trump's emotional ejaculations on 'Twitter'.

nsa > , September 16, 2017 at 4:03 am GMT

Anyone with military experience recognizes the likes of Mad Poodle Mattis arrogant, belligerent, exceptionally dull, and mainly an inveterate suck-up (mil motto: kiss up and kick down). Every VFW lounge is filled with these boozy ridiculous blowhards and they are insufferable. The media and public, raised on ZioVision and JooieWood pablum, worship these cartoonish bloodletters even though they haven't won a war in 72 years .not one. How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward. Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ..

Priss Factor > , Website September 16, 2017 at 4:38 am GMT

Relevant to now

NoseytheDuke > , September 16, 2017 at 7:26 am GMT

@peterAUS Back to watching Game of Thrones then? Good for you.

Apart from some very minor mistakes that should have been fixed with proofreading, this is an excellent account of the situation.

anonymous > , Disclaimer September 16, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT

@NoseytheDuke I'm the commenter who complained about the poor quality of the last Petras article. This one isn't as deficient in that respect, but still would benefit from another review for misplaced/missing punctuation, etc. The redundancy is also annoying -- a well written "Conclusion" wouldn't end with a two paragraph coda. If the author wants to convince his reader, then he should spend more time on his craft or seek editorial assistance.

To commenter "Wally":

You may still feel compelled to play wingman, but my criticisms do not concern the substance of the articles. My point is that they are poorly written essays that needlessly damage the reputation of this excellent website.

KA > , September 16, 2017 at 3:24 pm GMT

It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant .
Now being as stupidly greedy and impatient as these guys are,they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself .

Now military has decided to reverse the roles . At least the military leaders don't have to campaign for re employment .
But very soon the forces that corrupt and abuse the civilian power structure will do same to military .

[Sep 16, 2017] Who Rules America by James Petras

Notable quotes:
"... 'Israel Firsters' ..."
"... 'Three Israel First bankerteers' ..."
"... Troika of three generals ..."
"... Israel-Firsters, ..."
"... 'Senior Adviser' ..."
"... 'anti-Semitism'. ..."
"... 'terrain for struggle'. ..."
"... Trump's Generals ..."
"... 'final solution' ..."
"... 'economic nationalism', ..."
"... 'the deplorables' ..."
Sep 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

Looks like "Free marketers category by Petras corresponds to neoliberal elite...

Introduction

In the last few months, several competing political, economic and military sectors – linked to distinct ideological and ethnic groups – have clearly emerged at the centers of power.

We can identify some of the key competing and interlocking directorates of the power elite:

1. Free marketers, with the ubiquitous presence of the 'Israel First' crowd.

2. National capitalists, linked to rightwing ideologues.

3. Generals, linked to the national security and the Pentagon apparatus, as well as defense industry.

4. Business elites, linked to global capital.

This essay attempts to define the power wielders and evaluate their range of power and its impact.

The Economic Power Elite: Israel-Firsters and Wall Street CEO's

'Israel Firsters' dominate the top economic and political positions within the Trump regime and, interestingly, are among the Administration's most vociferous opponents. These include: the Federal Reserve Chairwoman, Janet Yellen, as well as her Vice-Chair, Stanley Fischer, an Israeli citizen and former (sic) Governor of the Bank of Israel.

Jared Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law and an Orthodox Jew, acts as his top adviser on Middle East Affairs. Kushner, a New Jersey real estate mogul, set himself up as the archenemy of the economic nationalists in the Trump inner circle. He supports every Israeli power and land grab in the Middle East and works closely with David Friedman, US Ambassador to Israel (and fanatical supporter of the illegal Jewish settlements) and Jason Greenblatt, Special Representative for International negotiations. With three Israel-Firsters determining Middle East policy, there is not even a fig leaf of balance.

The Treasury Secretary is Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive, who leads the neo-liberal free market wing of the Wall Street sector within the Trump regime. Gary Cohn, a longtime Wall Street influential, heads the National Economic Council. They form the core business advisers and lead the neo-liberal anti-nationalist Trump coalition committed to undermining economic nationalist policies.

An influential voice in the Attorney General's office is Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller the chief investigator, which led to the removal of nationalists from the Trump Administration.

The fairy godfather of the anti-nationalist Mnuchin-Cohn team is Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sach's Chairman. The 'Three Israel First bankerteers' are spearheading the fight to deregulate the banking sector, which had ravaged the economy, leading to the 2008 collapse and foreclosure of millions of American homeowners and businesses.

The 'Israel-First' free market elite is spread across the entire ruling political spectrum, including ranking Democrats in Congress, led by Senate Minority leader Charles Schumer and the Democratic Head of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff. The Democratic Party Israel Firsters have allied with their free market brethren in pushing for investigations and mass media campaigns against Trump's economic nationalist supporters and their eventual purge from the administration.

The Military Power Elite: The Generals

The military power elite has successfully taken over from the elected president in major decision-making. Where once the war powers rested with the President and the Congress, today a collection of fanatical militarists make and execute military policy, decide war zones and push for greater militarization of domestic policing. Trump has turned crucial decisions over to those he fondly calls 'my Generals' as he continues to dodge accusations of corruption and racism.

Trump appointed Four-Star General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis (retired USMC) – a general who led the war in Afghanistan and Iraq – as Secretary of Defense. Mattis (whose military 'glories' included bombing a large wedding party in Iraq) is leading the campaign to escalate US military intervention in Afghanistan – a war and occupation that Trump had openly condemned during his campaign. As Defense Secretary, General 'Mad Dog' pushed the under-enthusiastic Trump to announce an increase in US ground troops and air attacks throughout Afghanistan. True to his much-publicized nom-de-guerre , the general is a rabid advocate for a nuclear attack against North Korea.

Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster (an active duty Three Star General and long time proponent of expanding the wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan) became National Security Adviser after the purge of Trump's ally Lt. General Michael Flynn, who opposed the campaign of confrontation and sanctions against Russia and China. McMaster has been instrumental in removing 'nationalists' from Trumps administration and joins General 'Mad Dog' Mattis in pushing for a greater build-up of US troops in Afghanistan.

Lt. General John Kelly (Retired USMC), another Iraq war veteran and Middle East regime change enthusiast, was appointed White House Chief of Staff after the ouster of Reince Priebus.

The Administration's Troika of three generals share with the neoliberal Israel First Senior Advisors to Trump, Stephen Miller and Jared Kushner, a deep hostility toward Iran and fully endorse Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's demand that the 2015 Nuclear Accord with Tehran be scrapped.

Trump's military directorate guarantees that spending for overseas wars will not be affected by budget cuts, recessions or even national disasters.

The 'Generals' , the Israel First free marketers and the Democratic Party elite lead the fight against the economic nationalists and have succeeded in ensuring that Obama Era military and economic empire building would remain in place and even expand.

The Economic Nationalist Elite

The leading strategist and ideologue of Trump's economic nationalist allies in the White House was Steve Bannon. He had been chief political architect and Trump adviser during the electoral campaign. Bannon devised an election campaign favoring domestic manufacturers and American workers against the Wall Street and multinational corporate free marketers. He developed Trump's attack on the global trade agreements, which had led to the export of capital and the devastation of US manufacturing labor.

Equally significant, Bannon crafted Trumps early public opposition to the generals' 15-year trillion-dollar intervention in Afghanistan and the even more costly series of wars in the Middle East favored by the Israel-Firsters, including the ongoing proxy-mercenary war to overthrow the secular nationalist government of Syria.

Within 8 month of Trump's administration, the combined forces of the free market economic and military elite, the Democratic Party leaders, overt militarists in the Republican Party and their allies in the mass media succeeded in purging Bannon – and marginalized the mass support base for his 'America First' economic nationalist and anti-'regime change' agenda.

The anti-Trump 'alliance' will now target the remaining few economic nationalists in the administration. These include: the CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who favors protectionism by weakening the Asian and NAFTA trade agreements and Peter Navarro, Chairman of the White House Trade Council. Pompeo and Navarro face strong opposition from the ascendant neoliberal Zionist troika now dominating the Trump regime.

In addition, there is Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, a billionaire and former director of Rothschild Inc., who allied with Bannon in threatening import quotas to address the massive US trade deficit with China and the European Union.

Another Bannon ally is US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer a former military and intelligence analyst with ties to the newsletter Breitbart. He is a strong opponent of the neoliberal, globalizers in and out of the Trump regime.

'Senior Adviser' and Trump speechwriter, Stephen Miller actively promotes the travel ban on Muslims and stricter restrictions on immigration. Miller represents the Bannon wing of Trump's zealously pro-Israel cohort.

Sebastian Gorka, Trump's Deputy Assistant in military and intelligence affairs, was more an ideologue than analyst, who wrote for Breitbart and rode to office on Bannon's coat tails. Right after removing Bannon, the 'Generals' purged Gorka in early August on accusations of 'anti-Semitism'.

Whoever remains among Trump's economic nationalists are significantly handicapped by the loss of Steve Bannon who had provided leadership and direction. However, most have social and economic backgrounds, which also link them to the military power elite on some issues and with the pro-Israel free marketers on others. However, their core beliefs had been shaped and defined by Bannon.

The Business Power Elite

Exxon Mobile CEO Rex Tillerson, Trump's Secretary of State and former Texas Governor Rick Perry, Energy Secretary lead the business elite. Meanwhile, the business elite associated with US manufacturing and industry have little direct influence on domestic or foreign policy. While they follow the Wall Street free marketers on domestic policy, they are subordinated to the military elite on foreign policy and are not allied with Steve Bannon's ideological core.

Trump's business elite, which has no link to the economic nationalists in the Trump regime, provides a friendlier face to overseas economic allies and adversaries.

Analysis and Conclusion

The power elite cuts across party affiliations, branches of government and economic strategies. It is not restricted to either political party, Republican or Democratic. It includes free marketers, some economic nationalists, Wall Street power brokers and militarists. All compete and fight for power, wealth and dominance within this administration. The correlation of forces is volatile, changing rapidly in short periods of time – reflecting the lack of cohesion and coherence in the Trump regime.

Never has the US power elite been subject to such monumental changes in composition and direction during the first year of a new regime.

During the Obama Presidency, Wall Street and the Pentagon comfortably shared power with Silicon Valley billionaires and the mass media elite. They were united in pursuing an imperial 'globalist' strategy, emphasizing multiple theaters of war and multilateral free trade treaties, which was in the process of reducing millions of American workers to permanent helotry.

With the inauguration of President Trump, this power elite faced challenges and the emergence of a new strategic configuration, which sought drastic changes in US political economic and military policy.

The architect of the Trump's campaign and strategy, Steve Bannon, sought to displace the global economic and military elite with his alliance of economic nationalists, manufacturing workers and protectionist business elites. Bannon pushed for a major break from Obama's policy of multiple permanent wars to expanding the domestic market. He proposed troop withdrawal and the end of US military operations in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, while increasing a combination of economic, political and military pressure on China. He sought to end sanctions and confrontation against Moscow and fashion economic ties between the giant energy producers in the US and Russia.

While Bannon was initially the chief strategist in the White House, he quickly found himself faced with powerful rivals inside the regime, and ardent opponents among Democratic and Republican globalists and especially from the Zionist – neoliberals who systematically maneuvered to win strategic economic and policy positions within the regime. Instead of being a coherent platform from which to formulate a new radical economic strategy, the Trump Administration was turned into a chaotic and vicious 'terrain for struggle'. The Bannon's economic strategy barely got off the ground.

The mass media and operatives within the state apparatus, linked to Obama's permanent war strategy, first attacked Trump's proposed economic reconciliation with Russia. To undermine any 'de-escalation', they fabricated the Russian spy and election manipulation conspiracy. Their first successful shots were fired at Lt. General Michael Flynn, Bannon's ally and key proponent for reversing the Obama/Clinton policy of military confrontation with Russia. Flynn was quickly destroyed and openly threatened with prosecution as a 'Russian agent' in whipped-up hysteria that resembled the heydays of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Key economic posts in the Trump regime were split between the Israel-Firster neoliberals and the economic nationalists. The 'Deal Maker' President Trump attempted to harness Wall Street-affiliated neoliberal Zionists to the economic nationalists, linked to Trump's working class electoral base, in formulating new trade relations with the EU and China, which would favor US manufacturers. Given the irreconcilable differences between these forces, Trump's naïve 'deal' weakened Bannon, undermined his leadership and wrecked his nationalist economic strategy.

While Bannon had secured several important economic appointees, the Zionist neoliberals undercut their authority. The Fischer-Mnuchin-Cohn cohort successfully set a competing agenda.

The entire Congressional elite from both parties united to paralyze the TrumpBannon agenda. The giant corporate mass media served as a hysterical and rumor-laden megaphone for zealous Congressional and FBI investigators magnifying every nuance of Trump's US Russia relations in search of conspiracy. The combined state-Congressional and Media apparatus overwhelmed the unorganized and unprepared mass base of Bannon electoral coalition which had elected Trump.

Thoroughly defeated, the toothless President Trump retreated in desperate search for a new power configuration, turning his day-to-day operations over to 'his generals'. The elected civilian President of the United States embraced his generals' pursuit of a new military-globalist alliance and escalation of military threats foremost against North Korea, but including Russia and China. Afghanistan was immediately targeted for an expanded intervention.

Trump effectively replaced Bannon's economic nationalist strategy with a revival Obama's multi-war military approach.

The Trump regime re-launched the US attacks on Afghanistan and Syria – exceeding Obama's use of drone attacks on suspected Muslim militants. He intensified sanctions against Russia and Iran, embraced Saudi Arabia's war against the people of Yemen and turned the entire Middle East policy over to his ultra-Zionist Political Advisor (Real Estate mogul and son-in-law) Jared Kushner and US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman.

Trump's retreat turned into a grotesque rout. The Generals embraced the neoliberal Zionists in Treasury and the Congressional global militarists. Communication Directory Anthony Scaramucci was fired. Trump's Chief of Staff General Joe Kelly purged Steve Bannon. Sebastian Gorka was kicked out.

The eight months of internal struggle between the economic nationalists and the neoliberals has ended: The Zionist-globalist alliance with Trump's Generals now dominate the Power Elite.

Trump is desperate to adapt to the new configuration, allied to his own Congressional adversaries and the rabidly anti-Trump mass media.

Having all but decimated Trump's economic nationalists and their program, the Power Elite then mounted a series of media-magnified events centering around a local punch-out in Charlottesville, Virginia between 'white supremacists' and 'anti-fascists'. After the confrontation led to death and injury, the media used Trump's inept attempt to blame both 'baseball bat'-wielding sides, as proof of the President's links to neo-Nazis and the KKK. Neoliberal and Zionists, within the Trump administration and his business councils, all joined in the attack on the President, denouncing his failure to immediately and unilaterally blame rightwing extremists for the mayhem.

Trump is turning to sectors of the business and Congressional elite in a desperate attempt to hold onto waning support via promises to enact massive tax cuts and deregulate the entire private sector.

The decisive issue was no longer over one policy or another or even strategy.

Trump had already lost on all accounts. The 'final solution' to the problem of the election of Donald Trump is moving foreword step-by-step – his impeachment and possible arrest by any and all means.

What the rise and destruction of economic nationalism in the 'person' of Donald Trump tells us is that the American political system cannot tolerate any capitalist reforms that might threaten the imperial globalist power elite.

Writers and activists used to think that only democratically elected socialist regimes would be the target of systematic coup d'état. Today the political boundaries are far more restrictive. To call for 'economic nationalism', completely within the capitalist system, and seek reciprocal trade agreements is to invite savage political attacks, trumped up conspiracies and internal military take-overs ending in 'regime change'.

The global-militarist elite purge of economic nationalists and anti-militarists was supported by the entire US left with a few notable exceptions. For the first time in history the left became an organizational weapon of the pro-war, pro-Wall Street, pro-Zionist Right in the campaign to oust President Trump. Local movements and leaders, notwithstanding, trade union functionaries, civil rights and immigration politicians, liberals and social democrats have joined in the fight for restoring the worst of all worlds: the Clinton-Bush-Obama/Clinton policy of permanent multiple wars, escalating confrontations with Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela and Trump's deregulation of the US economy and massive tax-cuts for big business.

We have gone a long-way backwards: from elections to purges and from peace agreements to police state investigations. Today's economic nationalists are labeled 'fascists' ; and displaced workers are 'the deplorables' !

Americans have a lot to learn and unlearn . Our strategic advantage may reside in the fact that political life in the United States cannot get worse – we really have touched bottom and (barring a nuclear war) we can only look up. (Republished from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

peterAUS > , September 14, 2017 at 4:41 am GMT

What if there is no other way but to proceed along the current course?
What if the system is so entrenched that changing it, properly, would collapse it?
And, the collapse of the system ignites WW3 etc?

And, the most important, nobody knows what the new course would be.

One has a feeling .just .a sense .that we are on Titanic but, any change of speed/course will really sink it fast.
So ..we just keep steaming ..hoping for a miracle?

And the Captain realized that.
Yes, he himself thought otherwise in the port, but, when he took the bridge he realized the truth.
And now he's just sitting there and watching the sea .hoping we won't hit that iceberg on his watch. Perhaps when the First Mate takes over in a while
Captain, when it happens, will probably be dancing below, entertaining high class passengers.

jilles dykstra > , September 14, 2017 at 6:47 am GMT

In my opinion, the USA now is in a state of Civil War, cold, so the country is not ruled.
I disagree with that it cannot get worse, the cold war can get hot.

The Alarmist > , September 14, 2017 at 11:08 am GMT

Free Marketers Puuhhhhleeeeze? Call them what they are, which is a crony-oligarchy that dresses itself in free-market clothing to pillage and plunder on a global scale.

Wizard of Oz > , September 14, 2017 at 12:22 pm GMT

What an agreeable contrast this makes with the typical conspiracy theorist who seems to need everything neatly tied up and a bunch of conspirators who plot and act with error free precision. The swiftness of a result agreeable to globalist business and militatists of various hues does not prevent the account being plausible.

No mention of Keyser Söze but I read on hoping that the Deep State hadn't been left out. Is's hard to find a live Deep State description in the author's contending categories. So it would be interesting to know whether there is a US Deep State, who constĺitute it, how it operates and whether it is operating today. Is it a useful borrowing for understanding the USA?

Tradecraft46 > , September 14, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

Trump is a weakling. He developed a message, but he is p-whipped and he caved to his daughter, and her scum husband. I think he had no intention of committing to anything, but rather made 'hamster noises' to get elected.

He lied and will be finished soon.

Low Voltage > , September 14, 2017 at 9:26 pm GMT

James,

Nice effort. Can I make a request? Please write an article about the IDEAS that rule America. The attitudes of the billionaire, the Deep State, the working stiff, and the low-level bureaucracy. All the passengers on the ship are doing their part as the Titanic heads for the iceberg.

What are the ideas that keep the ship of state plugging along?

[Aug 24, 2017] Sacrificing Smart Asians to Keep the Racial Peace - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... This peace-keeping aspect of affirmative action understood, perhaps we ought to view those smart Asians unfairly rejected from Ivy League schools as sacrificial lambs. ..."
Aug 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

The argument is that admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core, a policy to protect the racial peace and, as such, has nothing to do with racial justice, the putative benefits of diversity or any other standard justification. It is this peace- keeping function that explains why the entire establishment, from mega corporations to the military, endorses constitutionally iffy racial discrimination and why questioning diversity's benefits is the most grievous of all PC sins. Stated in cost-benefit terms, denying a few hundred (even a few thousand) high-SAT scoring Asians an Ivy League diploma and instead forcing them attend Penn State is a cheap price to pay for social peace.

This argument rests on an indisputable reality that nearly all societies contain distinct ethnic or religious groups who must be managed for the sake of collective peace. They typically lack the ability to economically compete, may embrace values that contravene the dominant ethos, or otherwise just refuse to assimilate. What makes management imperative is the possibility of violence either at an individual level, for example, randomly stabbing total strangers, or on a larger scale, riots and insurrections. Thus, in the grand scheme of modern America's potentially explosive race relations, academically accomplished Asians, most of whom are politically quiescent, are expendable, collateral damage in the battle to sustain a shaky status quo.

Examples of such to-be-managed groups abound. Recall our own tribulations with violent Indian tribes well into the 19 th century or what several European nations currently face with Muslims or today's civil war in Burma with the Karen People. Then there's Turkey's enduring conflict with the Kurds and long before the threat of Islamic terrorism, there were Basque separatists (the ETA ), and the Irish Republican Army . In the past 45 years, there have been more than 16,000 terror attacks in Western Europe according to the Global Terrorism Database . At a lower levels add the persistently criminal Gypsies who for 500 years have resisted all efforts to assimilate them. This listing is, of course, only a tiny sampling of distinct indigestible violence-prone groups.

The repertoire of remedies, successful and failed, is also extensive. Our native-American problem has, sad to say, been largely solved by the use of apartheid-like reservations and incapacitating a once war-like people with drugs and alcohol. Elsewhere generous self-rule has done the trick, for example, the Basques in Spain. A particularly effective traditional solution is to promote passivity by encouraging religious acceptance of one's lowly state.

Now to the question at hand: what is to be done regarding American blacks, a group notable for its penchant for violence whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs.

To appreciate the value of affirmative action recall the urban riots of the 1960s. They have almost been forgotten but their sheer number during that decade would shock those grown accustomed to today's relative tranquility. A sampling of cities with major riots includes Rochester, NY, New York City, Philadelphia, PA, Los Angeles, CA, Cleveland, OH, Newark, NJ, Detroit, MI, Chicago, IL, Washington, DC and several smaller cities.

The damage from these riots! "uprisings" or "rebellions" according to some!was immense. For example, the Detroit riot of 1967 lasted five days and quelling it required the intervention of the Michigan Army National Guard and both the 82 nd and 101 st Airborne divisions. When it finally ended, the death toll was 43, some 7200 were arrested and more than 2000 buildings destroyed. Alas, much of this devastation remains visible today and should be a reminder of what could happen absent a policy of cooling out black anger.

To correctly understand how racial preferences at elite colleges serves as a cost-effective solution to potential domestic violence, recall the quip by comedian Henny Youngman when asked "How's your wife?" He responded with, "Compared to what?" This logic reflects a hard truth: when confronting a sizable, potentially disruptive population unable or unwilling to assimilate, a perfect solution is beyond reach. Choices are only among the lesser of evils and, to repeat, under current conditions, race-driven affirmative action is conceivably the best of the worst. A hard-headed realist would draw a parallel with how big city merchants survive by paying off the police, building and food inspectors, and the Mafia. Racial preferences are just one more item on the cost-of-doing business list–the Danegeld .

In effect, racial preferences in elite higher education (and beneficiaries includes students, professors and the diversity-managing administrators) separates the top 10% measured in cognitive ability from their more violent down market racial compatriots. While this manufactured caste-like arrangement hardly guarantees racial peace (as the black-on-white crime rate, demonstrates) but it pretty much dampens the possibility of more collective, well-organized related upheavals, the types of disturbances that truly terrify the white establishment. Better to have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating about white racism at Princeton where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street corner. This status driven divide just reflects human nature. Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's left behind in the Hood? This is the strategy of preventing a large-scale, organized rebellion by decapitating its potential leadership. Violence is now just Chicago or Baltimore-style gang-banger intra-racial mayhem or various lone-wolf criminal attacks on whites.

Co-optation is a staple in the political management repertoire. The Soviet Union adsorbed what they called the "leading edge" into the Party (anyone exceptionally accomplished, from chess grandmasters or world-class athletes) to widen the divide the dominant elite, i.e., the Party, and hoi polloi. Election systems can be organized to guarantee a modicum of power to a handful of potential disruptors and with this position comes ample material benefits (think Maxine Waters). Monarchies have similarly managed potential strife by bestowing honors and titles on commoners. It is no accident that many radicals are routinely accused of "selling out" by their former colleagues in arms. In most instances the accusation is true, and this is by design.

To appreciate the advantages of the racial preferences in higher education consider Henny's "compared to what"? part of his quip. Certainly what successfully worked for quelling potential Native American violence, e.g., forced assimilation in "Indian Schools" or confinement in pathology-breeding reservations, is now totally beyond the pale though, to be sure, some inner-cities dominated by public housing are increasingly coming to resemble pathology-inducing Indian reservations. Even less feasible is some legally mandated homeland of the types advocated by Black Muslims.

I haven't done the math but I would guess that the entire educational racial spoils system is far more cost effective than creating a garrison state or a DDR-like police state where thousands of black trouble-makers were quickly incarcerated. Perhaps affirmative action in general should be viewed as akin to a nuisance tax, probably less than 5% of our GDP.

To be sure, affirmative action at elite universities is only one of today's nostrums to quell potential large scale race-related violence. Other tactics include guaranteeing blacks elected offices, even if this requires turning a blind eye toward election fraud, and quickly surrendering to blacks who demand awards and honors on the basis of skin color. Perhaps a generous welfare system could be added to this keep-the-peace list. Nevertheless, when all added up, the costs would be far lowers than dealing with widespread 1960s style urban violence.

This peace-keeping aspect of affirmative action understood, perhaps we ought to view those smart Asians unfairly rejected from Ivy League schools as sacrificial lambs. Now, given all the billions that have been saved, maybe a totally free ride at lesser schools would be a small price to pay for their dissatisfaction (and they would also be academic stars at such schools). Of course this "Asian only" compensatory scholarship might be illegal under the color blind requirements of 1964 Civil Right Act, but fear not, devious admission officers will figure out a way around the law.

Carlton Meyer > , Website August 16, 2017 at 4:21 am GMT

This 18 second video clip is a great real world summary:

Thomm > , August 16, 2017 at 4:56 am GMT

Interesting take. But risky because :

1) Asians will grow in power, and either force more fairness towards themselves, or return to Asia.
2) WN idiots happy about Asians returning to Asia fail to see that Asians will return only when they control enough of America to manage large parts of it from afar (like the tech industry).
3) 2-3 million top caliber white male Western Expats might just move to Asia, since they may like Asian women more, and want to be free of SJW idiocy. This is all it takes to fill the alleged gap Asia has in creativity, marketing, and sales expertise. Asia effectively decapitates the white West by taking in their best young men and giving them a great life in Asia.
4) America becomes like Brazil with all economic value colonized by Asians and the white expats in Asia with mixed-race children. White trashionalists left behind are swiftly exterminated by blacks, and white women mix with the blacks. America becomes a Brazil minus the fun culture, good weather, and attractive women.

Thomm > , August 16, 2017 at 5:03 am GMT

@Carlton Meyer At first, I was surprised that they listened to him.

After a while, I realized that many negros are stupid enough to think that Hispanics and Asians would like to be in some anti-white alliance with blacks as a senior partner. In reality, they have an even lower opinion of blacks than whites do. US blacks have zero knowledge of the world outside America, so this reality just doesn't register with them.

Diversity Heretic > , August 16, 2017 at 5:12 am GMT

John Derbyshire has made similar arguments–racial preferences are the price for social peace. But, as Steve Sailer has pointed out, we're running out of white and Asian children to buffer black dysfunction and Asians are going to get less and less willing to be "sacrificial lambs" for a black underclass that they did nothing to create and that they despise.

There are other ways to control the black underclass. You can force the talented ones to remain in their community and provide what leadership they can. Black violence can be met with instant retributive counter-violence. (Prior to the 1960s most race riots were white on black.) Whites can enforce white norms on the black community, who will sort-of conform to them as best they are able.

Finally, Rudyard Kipling had a commentary on Danegeld. It applies to paying off dysfunctional domestic minorities just as much to invading enemies.

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"

War for Blair Mountain > , August 16, 2017 at 5:26 am GMT

Robert Weissberg

Could care less about your smart Asians The smart Asians are enthusiastivally voting Whitey into a racial minority on Nov 3 2020 They don't belong on Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space

jim jones > , August 16, 2017 at 5:30 am GMT

@Carlton Meyer This 18 second video clip is a great real world summary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik You can just hears someone shouting at the end "Go back to Beijing"

Wally > , August 16, 2017 at 5:32 am GMT

Once you give in, they will keep demanding more & more.

There's always a manufactured excuse.

It's time to say no.

Bro Methylene > , August 16, 2017 at 5:34 am GMT

Please stop trying to confuse Orientals with Indians and other subcontinentals. They are quite distinct.

This reminds me of the sinister (but largely successful) campaign to conflate San Francisco with "Silicon Valley." The two are separate in every way.

Priss Factor > , Website August 16, 2017 at 5:55 am GMT

Hell with those 'smart Asians'. They are among the biggest Proglob a-holes.

Asians have servile genes that seek approval from the power. They are status-freaks.

They make perfect collaborators with the Glob.

Under communism, they made the most conformist commies.

Under Japanese militarism, they made the most mindless military goons who did Nanking.

Under Khmer Rouge, they were biggest looney killers.

Under PC, they make such goody good PC dogs.

If the prevailing culture of US was patriotic and conservatives, Asians would try to conform to that, and that wouldn't be so bad.

But since the prevailing culture is PC, these yellow dogs are among the biggest homomaniacal PC tards.

Hell with them. Yellow dogs voted for Obama and Hillary in high numbers. They despise, hate, and feel contempt for white masses and working class. They are servitors of the empire as Darrell Hamamoto said. He's one of the few good guys.

Just look at that Francis Fukuyama, that slavish dog of Soros. He's so disgusting. And then, you got that brown Asian tard Fareed Zakaria. What a vile lowlife. And that fat Jeer Heet who ran from dirty browns shi ** ing all over the place outdoors to live with white people but bitches about 'white supremacy'. Well, the fact that he ran from his own kind to live with whites must mean his own choice prefers white folks. His immigration choice was 'white supremacism'. After all, he could have moved to black Africa. Why didn't he?

PS. The best way of Affirmative Action is to limit it only to American Indians and Blacks of slave ancestry. That's it.

Also, institutions should OPENLY ADMIT that they do indeed discriminate to better represent the broader population. Fair or not, honesty is a virtue. What is most galling about AA is the lies that says 'we are colorblind and meritocratic but ' No more buts. Yes, there is discrimination but to represent larger population. Okay, just be honest.

Thomm > , August 16, 2017 at 6:21 am GMT

@Bro Methylene

Please stop trying to confuse Orientals with Indians and other subcontinentals. They are quite distinct.

In their original countries they are, but in America they are almost identical in all ways except appearance and diet.

Plus, since SE Asia has always had influence from both, there is a smooth continuum in the US across all of these groups by the time the 2nd generation rolls around.

Thomm > , August 16, 2017 at 6:28 am GMT

@War for Blair Mountain

They don't belong on Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space

Three things wrong with this sentence.

1) I don't think you know that Native Americans (i.e. Siberians) were here first.
2) I will bet anything that all 128 of your GGGGG-GPs are not English settlers who were here in 1776. You are probably some 2nd gen Polack or something who still worries that WASPs look down on you.
3) There is very high variance among whites, and white trashionalists are SOOOO far below the quality threshold of any moderately successful white that they can't claim to speak for all whites. White Trashionalists represent the waste matter that nature wants to purge (which is the process that enables exceptional whites to emerge on the other end of the scale). That is why white women are absolutely doing what nature wants, which is to cut off the White Trashionalists from reproduction. If you care about the white race, you should be glad that white women want nothing to do with you and allow you to complete you wastebasket role.

There.

helena > , August 16, 2017 at 6:33 am GMT

@Carlton Meyer That's hilarious. Anti-ma should replace their flags with placards saying, "Hey, Hey, this is Library!" at all counter-anti-fa demos.

Priss Factor > , Website August 16, 2017 at 6:36 am GMT

Will this really keep the peace?

Obama was one of the beneficiaries of AA along with his wife and their kids. Did that prevent Baltimore and Chicago and etc from blowing up?

In a way, AA and Civil Rights made black communities more volatile. When blacks were more stringently segregated, even smart and sensible blacks lived among blacks and played some kind of 'role model'. They ran businesses and kept in close contact with black folks.

It's like white communities in small towns used to be much better when the George Baileys stayed in them or returned to them and ran things.

But as more and more George Bailies left for the big cities, small towns had fewer top notch role models and leaders and enterprisers. Also, the filth of pop culture and youth degeneracy via TV corrupted the dummies. And then, when globalism took away the industries, there were just people on opioids. At least old timers grew up with family and church. The new generation grew up on Idiocracy.

Anyway, AA will just taken more black talent from black community and mix them with whites, Asians, and etc. Will some of these blacks use their power and privilege to incite black mobs to violence? Some do go radical. But most will just get their goodies and forget the underclass except in some symbolic way. It's like Obama didn't do crap as 'community organizer'. He just stuck close to rich Jews in Hyde Park, and as president, he was serving globo-wars, Wall Street, and homos.
When he finally threw a bone at the blacks in his second term, it lit cities on fire.

Did the black underclass change for the better because they saw Obama as president? No. If anything, it just made them bolder as flashmobs. The way blacks saw it, a bunch of fa ** ogty wussy white people voted for a black guy created by a black man sexually conquering a white woman. They felt contempt for cucky whites, especially as rap culture and sports feature blacks as master race lording over whites. To most underclass blacks, the only culture they know is sports and rap and junk they see on TV. And they are told blacks are magical, sacred, badass, and cool. And whites are either 'evil' if they have any pride or cucky-wucky wussy if they are PC.

The Murrayian Coming-Apart of whites took place already with blacks before. And more AA that takes in smarter blacks will NOT make things better for black underclass. And MORE blacks in elite colleges will just lead to MORE anger issues, esp as they cannot keep up with other students.

Even so, I can understand the logic of trying to win over black cream of crop. Maybe if they are treated nice and feel 'included', they won't become rabble-rousers like Al Sharpton and act more like Obama. Obama's race-baiting with Ferguson was bad but could have been worse with someone like Sharpton.

The Power can try to control a people in two ways. Crush everyone OR give carrots to comprador elites so that sticks can be used on masses. Clinton did this. He brought over black elites, and they worked with him to lock up record number of Negroes to make cities safer. As Clinton was surrounded by Negroes and was called 'first black president' by Toni Morrison, many blacks didn't realize that he was really working to lock up lots of black thugs and restore order.

Smart overlords play divide-and-conquer by offering carrots to collaborator elites and using sticks on masses.
British Imperialists did that. Gandhi would likely have collaborated with Brits if not for the fact that he was called a 'wog' in South Africa and kicked off a train. Suddenly, he found himself as ONE with the poor and powerless 'wogs' in the station. He was made equal with his own kind.

Consider Jews in the 30s and even during WWII. Many Western European Jews became rich and privileged and felt special and put on airs. Many felt closer to gentile elites and felt contempt and disdain for many 'dirty' and 'low' Eastern European Jews. If Hitler had been cleverer and offered carrots to rich Jews, there's a good chance that many of them would have collaborated and worked with the Power to suppress or control lower Jews, esp. of Eastern European background.

But Hitler didn't class-discriminate among Jews. He went after ALL of them. Richest Jew, poorest Jew, it didn't matter. So, even many rich Jews were left destitute if not dead after WWII. And this wakened them up. They once had so much, but they found themselves with NOTHING. And as they made their way to Palestine with poor Eastern European Jewish survivors, they felt a strong sense of ethnic identity. Oppression and Tragedy were the great equalizer. Having lost everything, they found what it really means to be Jewish. WWII and Holocaust had a great traumatic equalizing effect on Jews, something they never forgot since the war, which is why very rich Jews try to do much for even poor Jews in Israel and which is why secular Jews feel a bond with funny-dressed Jewish of religious sects.

For this reason, it would be great for white identity if the New Power were to attack ALL whites and dispossess all of them. Suppose globalism went after not only Deplorables but Clintons, Bushes, Kaineses, Kerrys, Kennedys, and etc. Suppose all of them were dispossessed and humiliated and called 'honkers'. Then, like Gandhi at the train station, they would regain their white identity and identify with white hoi polloi who've lost so much to globalism. They would become leaders of white folks.
But as long as carrots are offered to the white elites, they go with Glob and dump on whites. They join with the GLOB to use sticks on white folks like in Charlottesville where sticks were literally used against patriots who were also demeaned as 'neo-nazis' when most of them weren't.

So, I'm wishing Ivy Leagues will have total NO WHITEY POLICY. It is when the whites elites feel rejected and humiliated by the Glob that they will return to the masses.

Consider current Vietnam. Because Glob offers them bribes and goodies, these Viet-cuck elites are selling their nation to the Glob and even allowing homo 'pride' parades.

White Genocide that attacks ALL whites will have a unifying effect on white elites and white masses. It is when gentiles targeted ALL Jews that all Jews, rich and poor, felt as one.

But the Glob is sneaky. Instead of going for White Genocide that targets top, middle, and bottom, it goes for White Democide while forgoing white aristocide. So, white elites or neo-aristocrats are rewarded with lots of goodies IF they go along like the Romneys, Clintons, Kaines, Bidens, and all those quisling weasels.

jilles dykstra > , August 16, 2017 at 7:00 am GMT

" Now to the question at hand: what is to be done regarding American blacks, a group notable for its penchant for violence whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs. "

I read an article, making a learned impression, that on average USA blacks have a lower IQ.
I do suppose that IQ has a cultural component, nevertheless, those in western cultures with a lower IQ can be expected to have less economic success.
A black woman who did seem to understand all this was quoted in the article as that 'blacks should be compensated for this lower IQ'.
One can discuss this morally endless, but even if the principle was accepted, how is it executed, and where is the end ?
For example, people with less than average length are also less successful, are we going to compensate them too ?

Simon in London > , August 16, 2017 at 7:18 am GMT

"economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs"

It only stalled when the Great Society and the uplift programs started. According to The Bell Curve there was basically an instant collapse when LBJ started to wreaking his havoc. Go back to pre-1964 norms and no late-60s riots.

Kyle McKenna > , August 16, 2017 at 7:45 am GMT

We have sacrificed smart white students for three generations to keep the hebraic component around 30% at our highest-ranked colleges and universities, and no one (except the jewish Ron Unz himself) made so much as a peep. And as he copiously documented, whites have suffered far more discrimination than asians have. The difference is, whites are more brainwashed into accepting it.

I hope this doesn't need linking here, but wth

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

Realist > , August 16, 2017 at 8:04 am GMT

"Sacrificing Smart Asians to Keep the Racial Peace"

It is the sacrificing of smart white students that is the problem. Of all the races whites, on average are more innovative and ambitious.

Tom Welsh > , August 16, 2017 at 9:11 am GMT

"The argument is that admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core, a policy to protect the racial peace "

In simpler language, appeasement.

Tom Welsh > , August 16, 2017 at 9:16 am GMT

@War for Blair Mountain "They don't belong on Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space "

Your statement would be perfectly correct if it read, "White people of European origin don't belong on Native American Living and Breeding Space "

Yet there they are, in immense, pullulating numbers. And now they have the gall to complain that other people – some of whom resemble the few surviving Native Americans far more closely than Whites do – are coming to "their" continent.

Honestly, what is the world coming to when you spend centuries and millions of bullets, bottles of whisky and plague-ridden blankets getting rid of tens of millions of people so you can steal their land – and then more people like you come along and want to settle peaceably alongside you? That's downright un-American.

Maybe you'd be more comfortable if the Asian immigrants behaved more like the European settlers – with fire, sword, malnutrition and pestilence.

Tom Welsh > , August 16, 2017 at 9:24 am GMT

@Diversity Heretic The Kipling quote is stirring and thought-provoking (like most Kipling quotes). But it is not entirely correct.

Consider the kings of France in the 10th century, who were confronted by the apparently insoluble problem of periodic attacks by bands of vicious, warlike, and apparently irresistible Vikings. One king had the bright idea of buying the Northmen off by granting them a very large piece of land in the West of France – right where the invading ships used to start up the Seine towards Paris.

The Northmen settled there, became known as Normans, and held Normandy for the rest of the Middle Ages – in the process absolutely preventing any further attacks eastward towards Paris. The dukes of Normandy held it as a fief from the king, and thus did homage to him as his feudal subordinates.

They did conquer England, Sicily, and a few other places subsequently – but the key fact is that they left the tiny, feeble kingdom of France alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans#Settling_of_Normandy

Wizard of Oz > , August 16, 2017 at 9:27 am GMT

Ratioal cost benefit arguments could be applied much more widely to the benefit of America and other First World countries. If otherwise illegal drugs were legalised, whether to be prescribed by doctors or not, it would save enormous amounts of money on law enforcement and, subject to what I proffer next, incarceration.

What is the downside? The advocates of Prohibition weren't wrong about the connection of alcohol and lower productivity. That was then. If, say, 10 per cent of the population were now disqualified from the workforce what would it matter. The potential STEM wizards amongst them (not many) would mostly be nurtured so that it was only the underclass which life in a daze. And a law which made it an offence, effectively one for which the penalty was to be locked up or otherwise deprived of freedom to be a nuisance, to render oneself unfit to perform the expected duties of citizenship would have collateral benefits in locking up the right underclass males.

Logan > , August 16, 2017 at 9:45 am GMT

@Bro Methylene "Orientals," east Asians, or just Asians in American parlance are indeed quite different from south Asians, called "Asians" in the UK,. These are quite different groups.

But the groups of east and south Asians include widely differing peoples. A Korean doesn't have much in common with a Malay, nor a Pathan with a Tamil. Probably not much more than either has in common with the other group or with white Americans.

That they "all look alike" to use does not really mean the do, it just means we aren't used to them.

Was recently watching an interesting Chinese movie and had enormous difficulty keeping the characters straight, because they did indeed all look alike to me. I wonder if Chinese people in China have similar trouble watching old American movies.

Colleen Pater > , August 16, 2017 at 10:19 am GMT

@Carlton Meyer yeah and hispanics are natural conservatives. dont be a cuck once that slant is here long enough he will tumble to the game and get on the anti white bandwagon. and sure asians will eventually out jew the jews just what we need another overlord, only this one a huge percentage or world pop. .

Colleen Pater > , August 16, 2017 at 10:28 am GMT

You know weisberg youre not fooling anyone here peddle that cuck crap elsewhere affirmative action leads to nothing but more affirmative action at this point everyone but white males gets it, and you my jew friend know this so selling it to sucker cucks as the cost of doing business is just more jew shenanigans. There is a much better solution to the problem peoples deport them back where they belong israel africa asia central america.

joeshittheragman > , Website August 16, 2017 at 11:12 am GMT

This is all about nothing now. The only thing White people have to learn anymore is controlled breathing, good position, taking up trigger slack, letting the round go at exactly the right moment – one round, one hit.

Jake > , August 16, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT

When your child tosses a tantrum and tears up his bedroom, and you tell him his mean-spirited, selfish cousins caused it and then you reward him with a trip to Disneyland and extra allowance: then you guarantee more and worse tantrums.

That is what America and America's Liberals, the Elites, have done with blacks and violence.

Astuteobservor II > , August 16, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT

ha, there is another group that is preying on the asian group and it is omitted.

TG > , August 16, 2017 at 12:18 pm GMT

A very interesting post. Really a unique perspective – who cares if it's not fair, if it is necessary to keep the peace?

I do however disagree with one of your points. " whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs."

I think you have missed the main event. Over the last half-century the elites of this nation have waged ruthless economic warfare AGAINST poor blacks in this country, to an extent that far dwarfs the benefits of affirmative action (for a typically small number of already privileged blacks).

Up through the 1960′s, blacks were starting to do not so bad. Yes they were in a lot of menial jobs, but many of these were unionized and the pay was pretty good. I mean, if nobody else wants to sweep your floors, and the only guy willing to do it i s black, well, he can ask for a decent deal.

Then our elites fired black workers en masse, replacing them with Mexican immigrants and outsourcing to low-wage countries. Blacks have had their legs cut off with a chainsaw, and the benefits of affirmative action (which nowadays mostly go to Mexicans etc.!) little more than a bandaid.

And before we are too hard on blacks, let me note that whites are also being swept up in the poverty of neoliberal globalization, and they too are starting to show social pathology.

Because in terms of keeping the social peace, there is one fundamental truth more important than all others: there must be some measure of broadly shared prosperity. Without it, even ethnically homogeneous and smart and hard working people like the Japanese or Chinese will tear themselves apart.

Anonymouse > , August 16, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT

Not New York. Wife & I were living there then and Mayor Lindsay went to Harlem and NYC negroes did not riot after MLK Jr was assassinated.

Jake > , August 16, 2017 at 1:00 pm GMT

Note that there is not a word in this article about what this does to the white working class and how it can be given something in return for allowing Elites to bribe blacks with trillions and trillions of dollars in goodies. Nor is there is there any indication that this process eventually will explode, with too many blacks demanding so much it cannot be paid.

George Weinbaum > , August 16, 2017 at 1:04 pm GMT

Was this written tongue in cheek?
Affirmative action will never end. The bribes will never end. The US made a mistake in the 1960s. We should have contained the riots then let the people in those areas sleep in the burned out rubble. Instead through poverty programs we rewarded bad black behavior.
By filling the Ivy League with blacks we create a new class of Cornell West's for white people to listen to. We enhance the "ethos" of these people.
Eventually, certainly in no more than 40 years, we will run out of sacrifices. What then when whites constitute only 40% of the American population? Look at South Africa today.
We have black college graduates with IQs in the 80s! They want to be listened to. After all, they're college graduates.
I do not believe you have found "a cost-effective solution to potential domestic violence".
You mix in this "top 10%" and they get greater acceptance by whites who are turned left in college.

dearieme > , August 16, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT

"The argument is that admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core, a policy to protect the racial peace "

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: –
"We invaded you last night – we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: –
"Though we know we should defeat you,
we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: –

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 16, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT

whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs.

The reality of this is become a huge stumbling block. In fact this group has actually been mostly regressing into violence and stupidity, going their own separate way as exemplified by their anti-social music which celebrates values repugnant to the majority. Look at the absurd level of shootings in cities like Chicago. That's not changing anytime soon. They're by far overrepresented in Special Ed, juvenile delinquency, prisons and all other indicators of dysfunction. Their talented tenth isn't very impressive as compared to whites or Asians. Their entire middle class is mostly an artificial creation of affirmative action. The point is that they can only be promoted so far based on their capability. The cost of the subsidy gets greater every year and at some point it'll become too heavy a burden and then it'll be crunch time. After the insanity of the Cultural Revolution the Chinese had to come to their senses. It's time to curtail our own version of it.

Truth > , August 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm GMT

It really is terrible and unfair that an Asian needs to score so much higher than you white oppressors to get into the Ivy league

A Princeton study found that students who identify as Asian need to score 140 points higher on the SAT than whites to have the same chance of admission to private colleges, a difference some have called "the Asian tax."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/affirmative-action-battle-has-a-new-focus-asian-americans.html

You All Look Like Ants > , August 16, 2017 at 1:57 pm GMT

I think this is brilliant satire.
It is actually an argument that is logically sound. Doesn't mean that it's good or sensible or even workable over the long run.
It's just logically sound. It holds together if one accepts the not-crazy parts its made out of.
I don't believe it's meant to be taken literally, because both the beneficiaries and those who get screwed will grow in their resentment and the system would melt down.
New fields with the word "studies' in them would get added and everyone would know – deep down – why that is so, and Asians would continue to dominate the hard sciences, math and engineering.
Still, as satire, it's so close to the bone that it works beautifully.

helena > , August 16, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh "Yet there they are, in immense, pullulating numbers. And now they have the gall to complain that other people – some of whom resemble the few surviving Native Americans far more closely than Whites do – are coming to "their" continent."

Agree. The country should be returned to pre-1700 conditions and given over to anyone who wants it.

Rich > , August 16, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

@Anonymouse I guess one man's riot is another man's peaceful night. There was a bit of rioting in Brooklyn that night, businesses burned and looted, and a handful of businesses were looted in Harlem. There was a very heavy police presence with Mayor Lindsey that night and blacks were still very segregated in 1968, so I'd guess it was more that show of force that prevented the kind of riots we'd seen earlier and in other cities at that time. Still, there was looting and burning, so New York's blacks don't get off the hook. As a personal note. my older brother and his friends were attacked by a roving band of blacks that night in Queens, but managed to chase them out of our neighborhood.

Thorfinnsson > , August 16, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT

The costs of BRA may be lower than the costs of 1960s urban riots, though an accurate accounting would be difficult as many costs are not easily tabulated.

Consider, for instance, the costs of excluding higher performing whites and Asians from elite universities. Does this result in permanently lower salaries from them as a result of greater difficulty in joining an elite career track?

What costs do affirmative action impose upon corporations, especially those with offices in metropolitan areas with a lot of blacks? FedEx is famously centralized in Memphis. What's the cost to me as a shipper in having to deal with sluggish black customer service personnel?

The blacks are 15% of the population, so I doubt "garrison state" costs would be terribly high. I am certain that segregation was cheaper than BRA is. The costs of segregation were overlooking some black talent (negligible) and duplication of certain facilities (I suspect this cost is lower than the cost of white flight).

War for Blair Mountain > , August 16, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT

How did America ever manage to survive when there hardly any Chinese Hindus..Sihks .Koreans in OUR America?

Answer:Very well thank you!!!! ..America 1969=90 percent Native Born White American .places two Alpha Native Born White American Males on the Moon 10 more after this Who the F would be opposed to this?

Answer:Chinese "Americans" Korean "Americans" Hindu "Americans" .Sihk "Americans" .Pakistani "Americans"

Jason Liu > , August 16, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT

There would still be racial peace if affirmative action was abolished. They'll bitch for a while, but they'll get used it and the dust will settle.

Side note: Affirmation action also disproportionately helps white women into college, and they're the largest group fueling radical leftist identity politics/feminism on campus. In other words, affirmative action is a large contributor to SJWism, the media-academia complex, and the resulting current political climate.

anarchyst > , August 16, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra The statement "blacks should be compensated for this lower IQ" is no different than the descendents of the so-called jewish "holocaust ™" being compensated in perpetuity by the German government. Now, there are calls by the jewish "holocaust ™" lobby to extend the financial compensation to children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these so-called "holocaust ™ survivors, stating the fake concept of "holocaust ™" transference" just another "holocaust ™" scam
Same thing.

bjondo > , August 16, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

Smart means what?

More Monsanto, DuPont cancers and degraded foods.
New diseases from medical, biological, genetic research
More spying and censorship and stealing by Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, high IQ thieves.
All jobs overseas, domestic unemployment, endless wars, by the best and brightest.
Toxic pollution, mental pollution that dwarfs the back yard pollution of tires and old refrigs by "low IQ deplorables (white and black and brown".
Degraded, degrading entertainment and fake news to match fake histories by Phds.
Tech devices that are "wonderful" but life is actually better more meaningful without.

Poupon Marx > , August 16, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT

[Blacks] "whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs." No, Professor, it is Trillions spend over the last 50 years and millions before that. Countless Whites and other non-Negroid people have had to step aside in education, military, government, private industry, to let the lesser person advance and leap frog the accepted virtue-merit path to advancement. AND IT STILL IS NOT ENOUGN FOR BLECKS.

The obvious solution is to separate into uni-racial/ethnic states. For Whites, this would include a separate autocephalous, independent state of Caucasians, Asians, and Hindu. This is the Proto-IndoEuropean Family, related by genes and languages.

jim jones > , August 16, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT

@Logan I have the same trouble with Korean movies, all the women look the same:

Rdm > , August 16, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT

@Thomm Interesting take. But risky because :

1) Asians will grow in power, and either force more fairness towards themselves, or return to Asia.
2) WN idiots happy about Asians returning to Asia fail to see that Asians will return only when they control enough of America to manage large parts of it from afar (like the tech industry).
3) 2-3 million top caliber white male Western Expats might just move to Asia, since they may like Asian women more, and want to be free of SJW idiocy. This is all it takes to fill the alleged gap Asia has in creativity, marketing, and sales expertise. Asia effectively decapitates the white West by taking in their best young men and giving them a great life in Asia.
4) America becomes like Brazil...with all economic value colonized by Asians and the white expats in Asia with mixed-race children. White trashionalists left behind are swiftly exterminated by blacks, and white women mix with the blacks. America becomes a Brazil minus the fun culture, good weather, and attractive women. Could agree 1 and 2.

2-3 millions Top caliber White males moving to Asia?

haha, Top caliber White males (American) will stay in America, screw the rest WN, devour all the resources available, not only in America, but from the rest of the world.

This is a real White so-called Top caliber White males enjoying in Philippines.

You can see the typical features of White in Asia

1. Bald
2. Obese
3. Lanky
4. Gold watch
5. Cargo pants
6. Flip flop

You can't get away those Top caliber White males features in Asia.

Greg Bacon > , Website August 16, 2017 at 3:52 pm GMT

I'm guessing the author would be screaming at the top of his lungs if it was Jewish students being told to go to some state university–instead of Harvard–since we have to make room for blacks.

BTW, your comment "..Recall our own tribulations with violent Indian tribes" needs clarification. Maybe the tribes got violent because of the 400 treaties Uncle Sam made with the various tribes, he honored NONE

Abelard Lindsey > , August 16, 2017 at 3:58 pm GMT

I would call it the Diversity Tax.

üeljang > , August 16, 2017 at 4:12 pm GMT

@jim jones A great part of that is because, well, let's say that the place where those actresses have got their work done is the same.

Whites have much greater natural variations in hair and eye color, but skin color among East Asian individuals is more naturally variable (especially when the effect of tanning is considered), and their facial features and somatotypes are also more diverse in my opinion. For example, East Asian populations contain some individuals who have what the Japanese call futae mabuta "double eyelids" and some individuals who have what they call hitoe mabuta "single eyelids," whereas White populations contain only individuals who have "double eyelids." Whether such increased physical variability is positive or negative probably depends on one's viewpoint; in the case of that eyelid polymorphism, the variant that is found in Asians but not in Whites is generally considered neutral or even positive when it occurs in male individuals, but negative when it occurs in female individuals, so plastic surgeons must be overflowing with gratitude for the single eyelid gene.

Alden > , August 16, 2017 at 4:14 pm GMT

@Thorfinnsson The separate school facilities meant a major saving in the costs of school police and security guards, resource teachers, counselors buses and bus drivers, and layers and layers of administrators trying to administer the mess.

Separate schools were a lot cheaper in that the black teachers kept the lid on the violence with physical punishment and the White teachers and students had a civilized environment.

The old sunshine laws kept blacks out of White neighborhoods after dark which greatly reduced black on White crime. In the north, informal neighborhood watches kept black on White crime to a minimum until block by block the blacks conquered the cities.

George Wallace said segregation now, segregation forever. I say sterilization now, problem solved in 80 years.

Asians??? I went to college with the White WASP American young men who were recruited and went to work in Mountain View and Cupertino and the rest of Santa Clara county and invented Silicon Valley.

Not one was Asian or even Jewish. And they invented it and their sons couldn't even get into Stanford because their sons are White American men.

I think the worst thing about affirmative action is that government jobs are about the only well paid secure jobs that still stick to the 40 hour work week. Government is the largest employer in the country. And those jobs are "no Whites need apply".

BTW I read the Protocols years before the Internet. I had to make an appointment to go into a locked section of a research library. I had to show ID. It was brought to me and I had to sit where I could be seen to read it. I had to sign an agreement that I would not copy anything from the protocols.

And there it was, the fourth protocol.
"We shall see to it brothers, that we shall see to it that they appoint only the incompetent and unfit to their government positions. And thus we shall conquer them from within"

Alden > , August 16, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

@Thomm Actually, Europeans arrived 20, to 30,000 years ago from Europe and were wiped out by the later arriving Asians.

Beckow > , August 16, 2017 at 4:44 pm GMT

@Thomm Only 4) is remotely possible. And Brazilian women are not that attractive, they are nice looking on postcards, but quite dumpy and weird-looking in person. But that is a matter of personal taste.

The reason 1,2,3 are nonsensical is that geography and resources matter. Asia simply doesn't have them, it is not anywhere as attractive to live in as North America or Europe and never will be. It goes beyond geographic resources, everything from architecture, infrastructure, culture is simply worse in Asia and it would take hundreds of years to change that.

So why the constant 'go to Asia' or 'Asia is the future'? It might be a temporary escape for many desperate, self-hating, white Westerners, a place to safely worship as they give up on it all. Or it could be the endless family links with the Asian women. But that misreads that most of the Asian families are way to clear-headed to exchange what the are trying to escape for the nihilistic dreams of their white partners. They are the least likely to go to Asia, they know it instinctively, they know what they have been trying to escape.

It is possible that the West is on its last legs, and many places are probably gone for good. But Asia is not going to step up and replace it. It is actually much worse that that – we are heading for a dramatic downturn and a loss of comfort and civilization. Thank you Baby Boomers – you are the true end-of-liners of history.

nickels > , August 16, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT

Except that, of course, as with all forms of appeasement, it isn't working .

Alec Leamas (hard at work) > , August 16, 2017 at 5:04 pm GMT

Bright and talented white kids from non-elite families stuck between the Scylla and Charybdis of Cram-Schooled Study-Asians with no seeming limit to their tolerance for tedium and 90 IQ entitled blacks is 2017 in a nutshell.

Realist > , August 16, 2017 at 5:07 pm GMT

Weissberg is a nutless quisling. The proper way to handle blackmail is to stop it in it's tracks.

Peaceful demonstrations are fine, property destroying riots should be stopped by any means necessary. Blacks would soon stop their dumb shit actions

Liberty Mike > , August 16, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT

@George Weinbaum That there Cornell West is a learned fellow. I bet his vocabulary is bigger than that of GWB and DJT – combined.

Liberty Mike > , August 16, 2017 at 5:11 pm GMT

@Truth That study was slanted.

Jeff77450 > , August 16, 2017 at 5:17 pm GMT

Said in all seriousness: I genuinely feel sorry for blacks but not because of slavery & Jim Crow. Those were great evils but every group has gone through that. No, I feel sorry for them because their average IQ of 85–yes, it is–combined with their crass thug culture, which emphasizes & rewards all the wrong things, is going to keep them mired in dysfunction for decades to come. Men like Thomas Sowell & Walter Williams have all the information that blacks need to turn themselves around but they won't listen, I guess because the message is take responsibility for yourselves and your families and refuse to accept charity in all its different forms to include AA.

"Thomas Sowell vs Affirmative Action's failures" (~13 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agkye3vlG0Q

MEFOBILLS > , Website August 16, 2017 at 5:34 pm GMT

From the author:

some legally mandated homeland of the types advocated by Black Muslims.

Why not pay people to leave? A law change would convert the money supply from bank money to sovereign money.

AMI's HR2990 would convert the money supply overnight, and nobody would be the wiser.

At that point, new public money could be channeled into funding people to leave. Blacks that don't like it in the U.S. would be given X amount of dollars to settle in an African country of their choice. This public money can be formed as debt free, and could also be directed such that it can only buy American goods. In other words, it can be forced to channel, to then stimulate the American economy.

In this way, the future works, to then get rid of disruptive future elements.

It always boils down to the money system. There is plenty of economic surplus to then fund the removal of indigestible elements.

People automatically assume that the money supply must be private bank credit, as that is the way it always has been. NO IT HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY.

http://www.sovereignmoney.eu

Astuteobservor II > , August 16, 2017 at 5:41 pm GMT

@Alden source please, that I would like to read. something new.

Rdm > , August 16, 2017 at 5:48 pm GMT

@helena If Whites leave America and go back to their origin, no one, I repeat, NO ONE would complain about that. They'd be singing "God Riddance" song all along.

No one wants to migrate to Ukraine, a white country.
No one wants to migrate to Hungary, a white country.
No one wants to migrate to Austria, a white country.

Everyone wants to migrate to the place where there's an over-bloated sense of job availability. In this case, America offers an ample amount of opportunity.

Let's wait and see how universities in CA populated with merit-based Asian Americans overrule all universities in the US anytime soon.

Name any state in the US that produces more than two universities (in the Top 50 list) in the world.

No state can compete against CA. You wonder why?

segundo > , August 16, 2017 at 6:34 pm GMT

Are you utterly oblivious to the fact that well over 95% of the blacks getting AAed into universities are then being trained/indoctrinated into being future disruptive activists? Activists with credentials, more money and connections. Entirely counterproductive and much of it on the taxpayers' dime. If there is a solution, AA isn't it.

Diversity Heretic > , August 16, 2017 at 7:01 pm GMT

@Rdm Can I count you in on the Calexit movement–followed by the purge of whites? Freed from the burden of those miserable European-origin Americans, the Asian-Negro-Mestizo marvel will be a shining light to the rest of the world!

David > , August 16, 2017 at 7:05 pm GMT

I waited to make this comment until the serious thinkers had been here. Did anyone notice the dame in the picture is giving us the finger? I did a little experiment to see if my hand could assume that position inadvertently and it couldn't. It aptly illustrates the article, either way.

Alec Leamas (hard at work) > , August 16, 2017 at 7:20 pm GMT

@Rdm

Name any state in the US that produces more than two universities (in the Top 50 list) in the world.

No state can compete against CA. You wonder why?

If you took the land mass of CA and imposed it on the U.S. East Coast between Boston and South Carolina, I don't think it'd be a problem to surpass California in any Top 50 University competition.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

The Realist > , Website August 16, 2017 at 8:18 pm GMT

Here's a simpler and more effective solution-KILL ALL NIGGERS NOW. See, not so difficult, was it? Consider it a Phoenix Program for the American Problem. Actually, here's another idea-KILL ALL LIBERALS NOW. That way, good conservative people of different races, sexes, etc., can be saved from the otherwise necessary carnage. Remember, gun control is being able to hit your target.

Mis(ter)Anthrope > , August 16, 2017 at 8:23 pm GMT

The affirmative action game may well serve the interests of the cognitive elite whites, but it has been a disaster for the rest of white America. I have a better solution.

Give the feral negroes what they have been asking for. Pull all law enforcement out of negro hellholes like Detroit and South Chicago and let nature take its course.

Send all Asians and other foreigners who not already citizens back to their homelands. End all immigration except very special cases like the whites being slaughtered in South Africa or the spouse of a white American male citizen.

Thomm > , August 16, 2017 at 8:23 pm GMT

@Rdm I am not referring to guys like in the picture.

I am referring to the very topmost career stars, moving to Asia for the expat life. Some of that is happening, and it could accelerate. Only 2-3 million are needed.

Wally > , Website August 16, 2017 at 8:31 pm GMT

@Kyle McKenna " And as he copiously documented, whites have suffered far more discrimination than asians have. The difference is, whites are more brainwashed into accepting it. "

And that's the function of the fraudulent, impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, gas chambers'.

[MORE]

"The historical mission of our world revolution is to rearrange a new culture of humanity to replace the previous social system. This conversion and re-organization of global society requires two essential steps: firstly, the destruction of the old established order, secondly, design and imposition of the new order. The first stage requires elimination of all frontier borders, nationhood and culture, public policy ethical barriers and social definitions, only then can the destroyed old system elements be replaced by the imposed system elements of our new order.

The first task of our world revolution is Destruction. All social strata and social formations created by traditional society must be annihilated, individual men and women must be uprooted from their ancestral environment, torn out of their native milieus, no tradition of any type shall be permitted to remain as sacrosanct, traditional social norms must only be viewed as a disease to be eradicated, the ruling dictum of the new order is; nothing is good so everything must be criticized and abolished, everything that was, must be gone."

from: 'The Spirit Of Militarism', by Nahum Goldmann
Goldmann was the founder & president of the World Jewish Congress

see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:

http://codoh.com

No name calling, level playing field debate here:

http://forum.codoh.com

Liberty Mike > , August 16, 2017 at 8:31 pm GMT

@Rdm Almost all white people would rather migrate to Austria, Hungary, and the Ukraine than the following citadels of civilization:

Angola
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Djibouti
Ethiopia
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Gabon
Ghana
Kenya
Niger
Nigeria
South Africa
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia

You know what? I bet most blacks would as well.

Mis(ter)Anthrope > , August 16, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT

@Liberty Mike I don't know if anyone else got it, but that is pretty damn funny.

Wally > , August 16, 2017 at 8:40 pm GMT

@Rdm - 45% of California is Federal land.

- Without US taxpayers money CA would be a 3rd world country completely filled with unemployable & dumb illegal immigrants.

- Think about this brief list made possible by the US taxpayers / federal government, money CA would not get and then tens of thousands of CA people would lose their jobs (= lost CA tax revenues):

aerospace contracts, defense contracts, fed gov, software contracts, fed gov airplane orders, bases, ports, money for illegal aliens costs, federal monies for universities, 'affirmative action monies, section 8 housing money, monies for highways, monies for 'mass transportation', monies to fight crime, monies from the EPA for streams & lakes, monies from the Nat. Park Service, monies for healthcare, monies for freeloading welfare recipients, and all this is just the tip of the iceberg

- Not to mention the counties in CA which will not want to be part of the laughable 'Peoples Republic of California'.

- And imagine the 'Peoples Republic of California Army', hilarious.

CA wouldn't last a week without other peoples money.

Calexit? Please, pretty please.

Thomm > , August 16, 2017 at 8:57 pm GMT

@War for Blair Mountain You just want intra-white socialism so you can mooch off of productive whites.

Macumazahn > , August 16, 2017 at 8:58 pm GMT

It's particularly unfortunate that Asians, who can hardly be blamed for the plight of America's Blacks, are the ones from whom the "affirmative action" #groidgeld is extracted.

Rdm > , August 16, 2017 at 9:18 pm GMT

@Diversity Heretic My impression and overall experience from interacting with White Americans is good in general. I have a very distinct view on both White Americans and Europeans. I'd come back later.

I don't recommend purging of Whites in America. Neither do I prohibit immigration of all people. But I do wish "legal" immigration from all parts of the world to this land. But I also understand why people are fed up with White America.

There is a clear distinction between Europeans and White Americans. White Americans born and bred here are usually an admixture of many European origins. They usually hide their Eastern European origin and fervently claim German, French, English whenever possible -- basically those countries that used to be colonial masters in the past.

White Americans are generally daring, optimistic and very open-minded. Usually when you bump into any White Americans born and bred here, you can sense their genuine hospitality.
Europeans, usually fresh White immigrants in this land, tend to carry over their old mentality with a bit of self-righteous attitude to patronize and condescend Americans on the ground that this is a young country.

My former boss was Swiss origin, born in England, and migrated to America. If there's an opportunity cost, he'd regale his English origin. If there's a Swiss opportunity, he'd talk about his ancestry. He'd bash loud, crazy Americans while extoling his European majesty. He became a naturalized American last year for tax purposes so that his American wife can inherit if he kicks the bucket.

Bottom line is, every immigrant to the US, in my honest opinion, is very innocent and genuinely hard working. They have a clear idea of how they like to achieve their dreams here and would like to work hard. It seems after staying here for a while, they all change their true selves to fit into the existing societal structure, i.e., Chris Hemsworth, an Australian purposely trained to speak American English in Red Dawn, can yell "This is our home" while 4th generation Asian Americans will be forced to speak broken English. This is how dreams are shaped in America.

Coming back to purge of Whites, I only wish those self-righteous obese, bald, bottom of the barrel, living on the alms Whites, proclaiming their White skin, will go back to their origin and do something about a coming flood of Muslim in their ancestral country if they're so worried about their heritage.

Rdm > , August 16, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT

@Alec Leamas (hard at work) My point is, universities in CA are doing well commensurate with hard working students without AA action.

Saxon > , August 16, 2017 at 9:26 pm GMT

@Thomm No, he just wants the street-defecating hangers-on like you to go back and show how awesome you claim you are in your own country by making a success of it rather than milking all of the entitlements and affirmative action and other programs of literal racial advantage given to you by virtue of setting foot in someone else's country.

Rdm > , August 16, 2017 at 9:30 pm GMT

@Wally - 45% of California is Federal land.

- Without US taxpayers money CA would be a 3rd world country completely filled with unemployable & dumb illegal immigrants.

- Think about this brief list made possible by the US taxpayers / federal government, money CA would not get and then tens of thousands of CA people would lose their jobs (= lost CA tax revenues):

aerospace contracts, defense contracts, fed gov, software contracts, fed gov airplane orders, bases, ports, money for illegal aliens costs, federal monies for universities, 'affirmative action monies, section 8 housing money, monies for highways, monies for 'mass transportation', monies to fight crime, monies from the EPA for streams & lakes, monies from the Nat. Park Service, monies for healthcare, monies for freeloading welfare recipients, and all this is just the tip of the iceberg

- Not to mention the counties in CA which will not want to be part of the laughable 'Peoples Republic of California'.

- And imagine the 'Peoples Republic of California Army', hilarious.

CA wouldn't last a week without other peoples money.

Calexit? Please, pretty please. So you're talking about Calexit in AA action?

Let us play along.

If CA is existing solely due to Fed Alms, I can agree it's the tip of the iceberg. But we're talking about Universities, their performance and how AA is affecting well qualified students.

Following on your arguments,

UC Berkeley receives $373 Millions (Federal Sponsorship) in 2016.
Harvard University, on the other hand, receives $656 millions (Federal sponsorship) in 2012.

I'm talking about how Universities climb up in World ranking, based upon their innovations, productivity, research output, etc etc etc. Which to me, is reflective of what kind of students are admitted into the programs. That's my point.

If you want to talk about Calexit, you'd better go and refresh your reading comprehension ability.

Stan d Mute > , August 16, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT

The thing that is forgotten is that white Americans DO NOT need the Africans in any way whatsoever. There is NOTHING in Detroit that we want – we abandoned it deliberately and have no interest in ever returning.

On the other hand, what do the Africans need from us?

Food. We own and operate all food production.
Medicine. Ditto.
Clean water. Look at Flint.
Sanitation services. Look at anywhere in Africa.
Order.

To put a stop to African behavior from Africans is an idiot's dream. They will never stop being what they are. They simply cannot. So if we cannot expel them, we must control them. When they act up, we cut off their food, medicine, water, and sewer services. Build fences around Detroit and Flint. Siege. After a month or two of the Ethiopian Diet, the Africans in Detroit will be much more compliant.

War for Blair Mountain > , August 16, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT

@Thomm You just want intra-white socialism so you can mooch off of productive whites. Thomm=the girly boy blatherings of a White Libertarian Cuck

The benefit to the Historic Native Born White American Working Class of being voted into a White Racial Minority in California by Chinese "Americans" Korean "Americans" .Hindu "Americans" Sihk "Americans" and Iranian "Americans"?

Answer:0 . Bring back the Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!

Two Great pro-White Socialist Labor Leaders:Denis Kearney and Samuel Gompers go read Denis Kearney's Rebel Rousing speeches google Samuel Gompers' Congressional Testimony in favor of the passage of The Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act

The peril of appeasement > , August 16, 2017 at 9:40 pm GMT

As some have pointed out, the trouble with appeasement is, it never ends. Those who are used to the handouts will always want more. There's the saying parents tend to strengthen the strong and weaken the weak, that's what paternalistic policies like affirmative action and welfare do to a society. It creates a cycle of dependency.

Those who think multiculturalism coupled with identity politics is a good idea need to take a good look at Malaysia, arguably the most multicultural country outside the US. The country is in Southeast Asia, with roughly 30m people, roughly 60% ethnic Malay(100% muslim), 23% Chinese(mostly buddhist or christian), brought in by the British in the 1800s to work the rubber plantations and tin mines, and 7% Indian(mostly Hindu), brought in by the British to work the plantations and civil service.

In 1957 the Brits left and left the power in the hands of the ethnic Malays. The Chinese soon became the most successful and prosperous group and dominated commerce and the professional ranks. In 1969 a major race riot broke out, the largely rural and poor Malays decided to "take back what's theirs", burnt, looted and slaughtered many ethnic Chinese. After the riot the government decided the only way to prevent more riots is to raise the standard of living for the Malays. And they began a massive wealth transfer program through affirmative action that heavily favors ethnic Malays. First, all civil service jobs were given to only ethnic Malays, including the police and military. Then AA was instituted in all local universities where Malays with Cs and Ds in math and science were given preference over Chinese with all A's to all the engineering, medicine and law majors. Today no one in their right mind, not even the rich Malays, want to be treated by a Malay doctor. I know people who were maimed by one of these affirmative actioned Malay "neurosurgeons" who botched a simple routine procedure, and there was no recourse, no one is allowed to sue.

Thanks to their pandering to the Malay majority and outright voting fraud, the ruling party UMNO has never lost an election and is today the longest serving ruling party in modern history. Any dissent was stifled through the sedition act where dissidents are thrown in jail, roughed up, tossed down 14th story buildings before they even go to trial. All media is strictly controlled and censored by the government, who also controls the military, and 100% of the country's oil production, with a large portion of the profit of Petronas going to the coffers of the corrupt Malay government elites, whatever's left is given to hoi polloi Malays in the form of fluff job positions created in civil service, poorly run quasi-government Malay owned companies like Petronas, full scholarships to study abroad for only ethnic Malays, tax free importation of luxury cars for ethnic Malays, and when the government decided to "privatize" any government function like the postal service or telcom, they gave it in the form of a monopoly to a Malay owned company. All government contracts e.g. for infrastructure are only given to Malay owned companies, even as they have zero expertise for the job. The clever Chinese quickly figured out they could just use a Malay partner in name only to get all government contracts.

As opposed to the US where affirmative action favors the minority, in Malaysia AA favors the majority. You know it can't last. The minority can only prop up the majority for so long. Growth today is largely propped up by oil income, and the oil reserve is dwindling. Even Mahathir the former prime minister who started the most blatant racial discrimination policy against the Chinese started chastising the Malays of late, saying they've become too lazy and dependent on government largess.

Yet despite the heavy discrimination, the Chinese continued to thrive thanks to their industriousness and ingenuity, while many rural Malays not connected with the governing elite remain poor -- classic case of strengthening the strong and weakening the weak. According to Forbes, of the top 10 richest men in Malaysia today, 9 are ethnic Chinese, only 1 is an ethnic Malay who was given everything he had. Green with envy, the ethnic Malays demanded more to keep the government in power. So a new law was made – all Chinese owned businesses have to give 30% ownership to an ethnic Malay, just like that.

Needless to say all this racial discrimination resulted in a massive brain drain for the country. many middle class Indians joined the Chinese and emigrated en masse to Australia, NZ, US, Canada, Europe, Singapore, HK, Taiwan, Japan. The ones left are often destitute and poor, heavily discriminated against due to their darker skin, and became criminals. Al Jazeera recently reported that the 7% ethnic Indians in Malaysia commit 70% of the crime.

To see how much this has cost Malaysia -- Singapore split off from Malaysia 2 years after their joint independence from Britain and was left in destitute as they have no natural resources. But Lee Kuan Yew with the help of many Malaysian Chinese who emigrated to Singapore turned it into one of the richest countries in the world in one generation with a nominal per capita GDP of $53k, while Malaysia is firmly stuck at $9.4k, despite being endowed with natural resources from oil to tin and beautiful beaches. The combination of heavy emigration among the Chinese and high birthrate among the muslim Malays encouraged by racialist Mahathir, the Chinese went from 40% of the population in 1957 to 23% today. The Indians went from 11% to 7%.

I fear that I'm seeing the same kind of problem in the US. It's supremely stupid for the whites to want to give up their majority status through open borders. Most Asians like me who immigrated here decades ago did it to get away from the corrupt, dishonest, dog-eat-dog, misogynistic culture of Asia. But when so many are now here, it defeats the purpose. The larger the immigrant group, the longer it takes to assimilate them. Multiculturalism is a failed concept, especially when coupled with identity politics. Affirmative Action does not work, it only creates a toxic cycle of dependency. The US is playing with fire. We need a 20 year moratorium on immigration and assimilate all those already here. Otherwise, I fear the US will turn into another basketcase like Malaysia.

Truth > , August 16, 2017 at 9:42 pm GMT

@Liberty Mike https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RrWfNonLDQ

Alden > , August 16, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh There were only about one million Indians living in what is the United States in 1500. There are now 3 million living in much better conditions than in 1500.

I would be willing to accept non White immigration if the non White immigrants and our government would end affirmative action for non Whites.

Asians are discriminated against in college admissions. But in the job market they have affirmative action aristocratic status over Whites.

Truth > , August 16, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT

@Liberty Mike The sno percentage is much higher an Ukraine, Hungary and Austria than here.

Joe Wong > , August 16, 2017 at 9:45 pm GMT

@Diversity Heretic John Derbyshire has made similar arguments--racial preferences are the price for social peace. But, as Steve Sailer has pointed out, we're running out of white and Asian children to buffer black dysfunction and Asians are going to get less and less willing to be "sacrificial lambs" for a black underclass that they did nothing to create and that they despise.

There are other ways to control the black underclass. You can force the talented ones to remain in their community and provide what leadership they can. Black violence can be met with instant retributive counter-violence. (Prior to the 1960s most race riots were white on black.) Whites can enforce white norms on the black community, who will sort-of conform to them as best they are able.

Finally, Rudyard Kipling had a commentary on Danegeld. It applies to paying off dysfunctional domestic minorities just as much to invading enemies.

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"

admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core, a policy to protect the racial peace and, as such, has nothing to do with racial justice,

The Black are protesting relentlessly and loudly verbally and thru assertive actions about the racial discrimination they have been facing. I have never seen those academically unqualified blacks admitted to the elite schools have stood up using themselves as shiny examples to refute the discrimination allegations the Black made against the White.

While the policy to protect the racial peace by admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools failed miserably, the restricting the smart and qualified Asians to elite schools is blatantly racial injustice practice exercised in broad day light with a straight face lie. The strategy is to cause resentment between the minorities so that the White can admitting their academically unqualified ones to elite schools without arousing scrutiny.

Thomm > , August 16, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT

@Saxon I'm white, you stupid faggot.

I am extremely committed that you White Trashionalists fulfill your duty as wastebaskets of genetic matter.

Excellent whites exist only because the waste produced gets removed in the form of WN wiggers.

Like I said, there is a huge variance within whites. Therefore, you have no business speaking for respectable whites.

Worst of all, you Nationalist-Leftists are un-American.

Alden > , August 16, 2017 at 10:04 pm GMT

@Astuteobservor II Just google solutrean theory Europeans arrived in America 20,000 years ago. Many articles come up including from smithsonian.

The east coast Canadian Indians always had the founding myth they came over the ocean.

There's a book, Across The Atlantic Ice by Dennis Stanford on kindle, Amazon and many book stores.

Priss Factor > , Website August 16, 2017 at 10:05 pm GMT

Here is one 'smart Asian' who is not a Self-Righteous Addict of Proglobalism, but what a clown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNrytSEyUoY

Dineshisms are always funny as hell.

Because KKK were Southern Democrats, Democratic Party is forever the KKK party. Never mind Democrats represented a broad swatch of people.
And Dinesh finds some parallels between Old Democrats and Nazi ideology, therefore Democrats are responsible for Nazism. I mean

Doesn't he know that parties change? Democratic Party once used to be working class party. Aint no more.
GOP used to be Party of Lincoln. It is southern party now, and most loyal GOP-ers are Southerns with respect for Confederacy. GOP now wants Southern Neo-Confed votes but don't want Confed memorials. LOL.
Things change.

Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond came over to the GOP for a reason.

Dinesh seems to be stuck in 'caste' mentality. Because Dems once had KKK on its side, Democratic Party is forever cast or 'casted' as KKK. And now, 'Democrats are real Nazis'.

Actually, the real supremacism in America at the moment seems to be AIPAC-related.

Anyway, there were leftist elements in National Socialism, but its was more right than left.

Why? Because in the hierarchy of ideological priorities, the most important core value was the 'Aryan' Tribe. Socialized medicine was NOT the highest value among Nazis. Core conviction was the ideology of racial identity and unity. Thus, it was more right than left.

Just because National Socialism had some leftist elements doesn't make it a 'leftist' ideology.

Same is true of Soviet Communism. Stalin brought back high culture and classical music. He favored traditionalist aesthetics to experimental or avant-garde ones. And Soviets promoted some degree of Russian nationalism. And even though communists eradicated certain aspects of the past, they also restored respect for classic literature and culture. So, does that mean USSR was 'conservative' or 'rightist'? No, it had some rightist elements but its core ideology was about class egalitarianism, therefore, it was essentially leftist.

Alden > , August 16, 2017 at 10:20 pm GMT

@Joe Wong All the Whites and Asians who are admitted to the top 25 schools are superbly qualified. There are so many applicants every White and Asian is superbly qualified.

The entire point of affirmative action is that Asians and Whites are discriminated against in favor of blacks and Hispanics. Harvard proudly proclaims that is now majority non White.

Don't worry, the Jews decided long ago that you Asian drones would have medicine and tech, Hispanics construction, food, trucking,and cleaning and Hispanics and blacks would share government work and public education.

Whites will gradually disappear and the 110 year old Jewish black coalition will control the Asians and Hispanics through black crime and periodic riots.

Liberty Mike > , August 16, 2017 at 10:22 pm GMT

@Truth Do you think Beavis and Butthead are choosing Angola over Austria?

Alden > , August 16, 2017 at 10:31 pm GMT

@Macumazahn Affirmative action punishes Whites as well and Asians are always free to go back to wherever their parents or grandparents came from.

After 400 years, Whites can't go anywhere.

Alden > , August 16, 2017 at 10:35 pm GMT

@Thomm Do you favor affirmative action?

Joe Wong > , August 16, 2017 at 10:40 pm GMT

@Wally So you are a tough guy, and never give in anything to anyone in your life? It seems the Jews have similar view as yours, the Jews insist that if they give in an inch to those Holocaust deniers, they will keep demanding more & more, at the beginning the Holocaust deniers will demand for the evidence, then they will demand the Jews are at fault, then they will demand the Nazi to be resurrected, then they will demand they can carry out Holocaust against anyone they don't like, Pretty soon they will demand they to be treated like the pigs in the Orwellian's Animal Farm.

Liberty Mike > , August 16, 2017 at 10:44 pm GMT

@Thomm "Un-American" is descriptively flaccid. It means nada, nothing, zero. It is vapid and so empty and such a lame lexeme.

Any word that is hackneyed, lifeless, and so low energy would never be scripted by a White committed to excellence.

F the media > , August 16, 2017 at 10:46 pm GMT

@Priss Factor Hell with those 'smart Asians'. They are among the biggest Proglob a-holes.

Asians have servile genes that seek approval from the power. They are status-freaks.

They make perfect collaborators with the Glob.

Under communism, they made the most conformist commies.

Under Japanese militarism, they made the most mindless military goons who did Nanking.

Under Khmer Rouge, they were biggest looney killers.

Under PC, they make such goody good PC dogs.

If the prevailing culture of US was patriotic and conservatives, Asians would try to conform to that, and that wouldn't be so bad.

But since the prevailing culture is PC, these yellow dogs are among the biggest homomaniacal PC tards.

Hell with them. Yellow dogs voted for Obama and Hillary in high numbers. They despise, hate, and feel contempt for white masses and working class. They are servitors of the empire as Darrell Hamamoto said. He's one of the few good guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bs_BbIBCoY

Just look at that Francis Fukuyama, that slavish dog of Soros. He's so disgusting. And then, you got that brown Asian tard Fareed Zakaria. What a vile lowlife. And that fat Jeer Heet who ran from dirty browns shi**ing all over the place outdoors to live with white people but bitches about 'white supremacy'. Well, the fact that he ran from his own kind to live with whites must mean his own choice prefers white folks. His immigration choice was 'white supremacism'. After all, he could have moved to black Africa. Why didn't he?

PS. The best way of Affirmative Action is to limit it only to American Indians and Blacks of slave ancestry. That's it.

Also, institutions should OPENLY ADMIT that they do indeed discriminate to better represent the broader population. Fair or not, honesty is a virtue. What is most galling about AA is the lies that says 'we are colorblind and meritocratic but...' No more buts. Yes, there is discrimination but to represent larger population. Okay, just be honest. Asia is a big continent and Asians of different ethnicity have very different voting patterns due to their culture and history. Japanese-Americans tend to be the most liberal ethnic group of all Asian groups because of their experience with internment during WWII. Somehow they conveniently forgot that it was a Democrat president who put them in internment, and are now putting the blames squarely on the right for what happened. These Japanese-Americans are drinking the kool-aid big time, but in the 90s I remember a Japanese prime minister got in big trouble for saying America's biggest problem is we have too many blacks and hispanics dragging us down.

Filipinos, Hmongs and other Southeast Asians tend to be poor and rely on government largess to a certain extent, and also benefit from affirmative action at least in the state of CA, they also tend to be liberal.

In this election cycle Indian-Americans have become the most vocal anti-Trumpers. From Indian politicians from WA state like Kshama Sawant, Pramila Jayapal to Indian entertainers like Aziz Ansari, Hasan Minaj, Kumail Nanjani, to Silicon Valley techies like Calexit mastermind VC Shervin Pishevar, Google CEO Sundra Pichai, all are socialist libtards. In my local election, several Indians are running for city council. All are first generation, all Democrats and champions of liberal policies. It's as if they have amnesia(or just lower IQ), not remembering that socialism was why they had to leave the shithole India to begin with. A Korean American is running as a Republican.

There are Chinese idiots like Ted Lieu and other asians who've gone to elite schools therefore drinking the kool-aid and insisted AA is good for Asian Americans, but most Koreans, Vietnamese and Chinese tend to be more conservative and lean Republican. During the Trump campaign Breitbart printed a story about a group of Chinese Americans voicing their support for Trump despite his anti-China rhetoric because they had no intention of seeing the US turned into another socialist shithole like China.

Per the NYT a major reason Asians vote Republican is because of AA. Asians revere education, esp. the Chinese and Koreans, and they see holistic admission is largely bullshit set up by Jews to protect their legacy status while throwing a few bones to under qualified blacks and hispanics. Unfortunately it didn't seem to dampen their desire to immigrate here. Given that there are 4 billion Asians and thanks to open borders, if it weren't for AA all our top 100 schools will be 100% Asian in no time. I suggest we first curtail Asian immigration, limit their number to no more than 10,000 a year, then we can discuss dismantling AA.

Anon > , Disclaimer August 16, 2017 at 10:46 pm GMT

@Wally This is false. See:

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#main-findings

California sends far more to Washington than it sends back. Also, there is no correlation between percentage of federal land and dependence on federal funding. If there were, Delaware would be the least dependent state in the US.

Clue: It isn't.

Anon > , Disclaimer August 16, 2017 at 10:46 pm GMT

@Wally This is false. See:

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#main-findings

California sends far more to Washington than it sends back. Also, there is no correlation between percentage of federal land and dependence on federal funding. If there were, Maine would be among the least dependent states in the US.

Clue: It isn't.

Astuteobservor II > , August 16, 2017 at 10:47 pm GMT

@Alden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

if the wiki is reliable. you shouldn't be telling others like it is a cold hard fact. But still a very interesting read. thanks for bringing it up.

Astuteobservor II > , August 16, 2017 at 10:48 pm GMT

@Alden

But in the job market they have affirmative action aristocratic status over Whites.

that is another bold claim. I know of black quotas, but asian quota???

F the media > , August 16, 2017 at 11:06 pm GMT

@Astuteobservor II The Indian tribe in tech is known to favor Indians in hiring. I've read from other Indian posters elsewhere that Indian managers like to hire Indian underlings because they are easier to bully.

Indian outsourcing firms like Infosys, TCS, Wipro are like 90% Indian, mostly imported directly from India, with token whites as admin or account manager.

THe Realist > , Website August 16, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT

@Truth See #65 above. You die, too, boy.

F the media > , August 16, 2017 at 11:14 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer That's pretty funny. The guy's got balls. Probably son of some corrupt Chinese government official used to being treated like an emperor back home, ain't taking no shit from black folks.

I suppose this is what happens when universities clamor to accept foreign students because they are full pay. His tuition dollar is directly subsidizing these affirmative action hacks, who are now preventing him from studying. He has fully paid for his right to tell them to STFU.

Joe Wong > , August 16, 2017 at 11:27 pm GMT

@Beckow Romans did not think Europe was a nice place to live, full of bloodthirsty barbarians, uneducated, smelly, dirty, foul mouth and rogue manner, even nowadays a lot of them cannot use full set of tableware to finish their meal, a single fork will do, it is a litte more civilized than those use fingers only.

After a millennium of dark age of superstition, religious cult suppression, utter poverty medieval serf Europe, it followed by centuries of racial cleanses, complete destruction of war, stealing and hypocrisy on industrial scale, this time not only restricted to Europe the plague flooded the whole planet.

Even nowadays the same plague from Europe and its offshoots in the North America is threatening to exterminate the human beings with a big bang for their blinding racial obligatory. The rest of the world only can hope this plague would stay put in North America and Europe, so the rest world can live in peace and prosperity.

Joe Franklin > , August 16, 2017 at 11:33 pm GMT

Asians receive federal entitlements the same as the other protected class groups of diversity.

Diversity ideology lectures us that Asians are oppressed by Occidentals.

1. Preferential US immigration, citizenship, and asylum policies for Asian people
2. Federal 8a set-aside government contracts for Asian owned businesses
3. Affirmative Action for Asians especially toward obtaining government jobs
4. Government anti-discrimination laws for Asians
4. Government hate speech crime prosecutions in defense of Asians
5. Sanctuary cities for illegal Asians, and other protected class groups of diversity
6. Asian espionage directed at the US is common, and many times goes unprosecuted
7. American trade policy allows mass importation of cheap Asian products built with slave labor
8. Whaling allowance for some Asian ethnic groups
9. Most H1-B visas awarded to Asians

Reg Cćsar > , August 16, 2017 at 11:38 pm GMT

@Thomm

Please stop trying to confuse Orientals with Indians and other subcontinentals. They are quite distinct.

In their original countries they are, but in America they are almost identical in all ways except appearance and diet.

And odor.

Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 12:10 am GMT

@War for Blair Mountain Thomm=the girly boy blatherings of a White Libertarian Cuck...

The benefit to the Historic Native Born White American Working Class of being voted into a White Racial Minority in California by Chinese "Americans"...Korean "Americans"....Hindu "Americans"...Sihk "Americans"...and Iranian "Americans"?


Answer:0.... Bring back the Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!


Two Great pro-White Socialist Labor Leaders:Denis Kearney and Samuel Gompers...go read Denis Kearney's Rebel Rousing speeches...google Samuel Gompers' Congressional Testimony in favor of the passage of The Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act... It is MUCH better to be a libertarian than to be a Nationalist-Leftist. You have effectively admitted that you want intra-white socialism since you can't hack it yourself.

Socialists = untalented losers.

Plus, I guarantee that your ancestors were not in America since 1776. You are just some 2nd-gen Polack or something.

Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 12:12 am GMT

@Alden

Do you favor affirmative action?

Absolutely not. It is one of the worst things ever devised.

Issac > , August 17, 2017 at 12:12 am GMT

@Thomm Sounds like a Jewish fantasy.

Vinteuil > , August 17, 2017 at 12:14 am GMT

@Priss Factor Here is one 'smart Asian' who is not a Self-Righteous Addict of Proglobalism, but what a clown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNrytSEyUoY

Dineshisms are always funny as hell.

Because KKK were Southern Democrats, Democratic Party is forever the KKK party. Never mind Democrats represented a broad swatch of people.
And Dinesh finds some parallels between Old Democrats and Nazi ideology, therefore Democrats are responsible for Nazism. I mean...

Doesn't he know that parties change? Democratic Party once used to be working class party. Aint no more.
GOP used to be Party of Lincoln. It is southern party now, and most loyal GOP-ers are Southerns with respect for Confederacy. GOP now wants Southern Neo-Confed votes but don't want Confed memorials. LOL.
Things change.

Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond came over to the GOP for a reason.

Dinesh seems to be stuck in 'caste' mentality. Because Dems once had KKK on its side, Democratic Party is forever cast or 'casted' as KKK. And now, 'Democrats are real Nazis'.

Actually, the real supremacism in America at the moment seems to be AIPAC-related.

Anyway, there were leftist elements in National Socialism, but its was more right than left.

Why? Because in the hierarchy of ideological priorities, the most important core value was the 'Aryan' Tribe. Socialized medicine was NOT the highest value among Nazis. Core conviction was the ideology of racial identity and unity. Thus, it was more right than left.

Just because National Socialism had some leftist elements doesn't make it a 'leftist' ideology.

Same is true of Soviet Communism. Stalin brought back high culture and classical music. He favored traditionalist aesthetics to experimental or avant-garde ones. And Soviets promoted some degree of Russian nationalism. And even though communists eradicated certain aspects of the past, they also restored respect for classic literature and culture. So, does that mean USSR was 'conservative' or 'rightist'? No, it had some rightist elements but its core ideology was about class egalitarianism, therefore, it was essentially leftist. "Stalin brought back high culture and classical music. He favored traditionalist aesthetics to experimental or avant-garde ones."

Priss, you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, here. Stalin didn't favor "traditionalist aesthetics" – he favored vulgar pop-crap.

Issac > , August 17, 2017 at 12:15 am GMT

@Joe Wong Ah yes, the whites are well known for their bigotry. That's why they're so mono-racial and China is so diverse. Good point Chang.

Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 12:15 am GMT

@Joe Franklin Asians receive federal entitlements the same as the other protected class groups of diversity.

Diversity ideology lectures us that Asians are oppressed by Occidentals.


1. Preferential US immigration, citizenship, and asylum policies for Asian people
2. Federal 8a set-aside government contracts for Asian owned businesses
3. Affirmative Action for Asians especially toward obtaining government jobs
4. Government anti-discrimination laws for Asians
4. Government hate speech crime prosecutions in defense of Asians
5. Sanctuary cities for illegal Asians, and other protected class groups of diversity
6. Asian espionage directed at the US is common, and many times goes unprosecuted
7. American trade policy allows mass importation of cheap Asian products built with slave labor
8. Whaling allowance for some Asian ethnic groups
9. Most H1-B visas awarded to Asians That is completely false. You just memorized that from some bogus site.

Section 8a is used more by white women than by Asians, and Asians get excluded from it due to high income. It should be done away with altogether, of course.

Asians face discrimination in University admissions, as the main article describes.

H1-Bs are awarded to Asians because white countries don't produce enough people who qualify.

Plus, Asian SAT scores are consistently higher than whites. That proves that Asian success was not due to AA.

Joe Wong > , August 17, 2017 at 12:15 am GMT

@Alden

the 110 year old Jewish black coalition will control

I am not sure the Muslim and Indian will agree to that, they have a very strong birth rate that can match if not surpass the blacks too.

Saxon > , August 17, 2017 at 12:46 am GMT

@Thomm Green isn't a color that suits you. You're a subcontinental hanger-on who's only able to garner any success in any western country due to an anarcho-tyranny in enforcement against ethnonepotism as well as lavish handouts in the form of all sorts of party favors.

There are very few non-white groups that could do any well on a level playing field with equal enforcement against nepotism, and yours isn't one of them. Your country? Sad!

Ron Unz > , August 17, 2017 at 12:47 am GMT

@Alden

Whites will gradually disappear and the 110 year old Jewish black coalition will control the Asians and Hispanics through black crime and periodic riots.

I don't think this is correct

Since California already has (very roughly) the future demographics you're considering, I think it serves as a good test-case.

The Hispanic and Asian populations have been growing rapidly, and they tend to hold an increasing share of the political power, together with the large white population, though until very recently most of the top offices were still held by (elderly) whites. Whites would have much more political power, except that roughly half of them are still Republicans, and the Republican Party has almost none.

In most of the urban areas, there's relatively little black crime these days since so many of the blacks have been driven away or sent off to prison. I'd also say that major black riots in CA are almost unthinkable since many of the local police forces are heavily Hispanic: they don't particularly like blacks, and might easily shoot the black rioters dead while being backed up by the politicians, and many of the blacks probably recognize this. Admittedly, CA always had a relatively small black population, but that didn't prevent enormous black crime and black riots in the past due to the different demographics.

Meanwhile, Jewish-activists still possess enormous influence over CA politics, but they exert that influence through money and media, just like they do everywhere else in the country.

Astuteobservor II > , August 17, 2017 at 1:03 am GMT

@F the media that is actually true about indians. I have first hand account of a 100+ tech dept getting taken over by indians in just 3 years :/ but that is not a "quota" that is just indians abusing their power once in position of power.

Priss Factor > , August 17, 2017 at 1:26 am GMT

@Vinteuil Priss, you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, here. Stalin didn't favor "traditionalist aesthetics" – he favored vulgar pop-crap.

Right.. Ballet, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and classic literature. That's some pop crap.
Soviet Culture was about commie Lena Dunhams.

Now, most of Soviet culture was what might be called kitsch or middlebrow stuff, but it was not 'pop crap' as known in the West.

Truth > , August 17, 2017 at 1:35 am GMT

@THe Realist LOL, if you're the one holding the knife, hatchet, billy club or brick, I like my chances.

Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 1:58 am GMT

@Saxon Green isn't a color that suits you. You're a subcontinental hanger-on who's only able to garner any success in any western country due to an anarcho-tyranny in enforcement against ethnonepotism as well as lavish handouts in the form of all sorts of party favors.

There are very few non-white groups that could do any well on a level playing field with equal enforcement against nepotism, and yours isn't one of them. Your country? Sad! Whatever helps you sleep at night..

Yesterday I was called a Jew. Today, it is Indian. In reality, I am a white American guy.

You white trashionalists can't get your stories straight, can you? Well, WNs are known for having negro IQs.

Asians don't get affirmative action. They outscore whites in the SAT.

But even blacks outscore WNs like you.

Heh heh heh heh

Joe Franklin > , August 17, 2017 at 2:03 am GMT

@Thomm That is completely false. You just memorized that from some bogus site.

Section 8a is used more by white women than by Asians, and Asians get excluded from it due to high income. It should be done away with altogether, of course.

Asians face discrimination in University admissions, as the main article describes.

H1-Bs are awarded to Asians because white countries don't produce enough people who qualify.

Plus, Asian SAT scores are consistently higher than whites. That proves that Asian success was not due to AA. You have reading comprehension problems to have confused Federal 8A government contacts with Section 8 housing.

8A contracts are federal contracts granted to "socially and economically disadvantaged individual(s)."

https://www.sba.gov/contracting/government-contracting-programs/8a-business-development-program/eligibility-requirements/8a-requirements-overview

The business must be majority-owned (51 percent or more) and controlled/managed by socially and economically disadvantaged individual(s).

The individual(s) controlling and managing the firm on a full-time basis must meet the SBA requirement for disadvantage, by proving both social disadvantage and economic disadvantage.

http://sbda.com/sba_8(a) .htm

Definition of Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals

Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias because of their identities as members of groups without regard to their individual qualities. The social disadvantage must stem from circumstances beyond their control.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the following individuals are presumed to be socially disadvantaged:

• Black Americans;

• Hispanic Americans (persons with origins from Latin America, South America, Portugal and Spain);

• Native Americans (American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians);


• Asian Pacific Americans (persons with origins from Japan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, Samoa, Guam, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands [Republic of Palau], Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Laos, Cambodia [Kampuchea], Taiwan, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Macao, Hong Kong, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru);

• Subcontinent Asian Americans (persons with origins from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands or Nepal);

• And members of other groups designated from time to time by the SBA.

Truth > , August 17, 2017 at 2:20 am GMT

@F the media

That's pretty funny. The guy's got balls.

Nah, just some goofy nerd working on his PhD in Library Science.

THIS Kat on the other hand is my N-!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaTLgw_akhg

Beckow > , August 17, 2017 at 2:25 am GMT

@Joe Wong Romans lived in Europe, get an atlas, Rome is in Europe. I will skip over your silly summaries of European history, we all can do it to any civilization all day. Pointless. Try China. Oh, I forgot, nobody knows much Chinese up and downs because it was mostly inconsequential.

If you call others 'racist' all the time, they might just not take your seriously. Or simply say, fine, if liking one's culture is now 'racism', if it is a white culture, then count me in. The rest of the world is tripping over itself to move – literally to physically move – to Europe and North America. Why do you think that is?

Truth > , August 17, 2017 at 2:33 am GMT

@Ron Unz

I'd also say that major black riots in CA are almost unthinkable since many of the local police forces are heavily Hispanic: they don't particularly like blacks, and might easily shoot the black rioters dead

Oh, would you stop being a make-believe pundit, Ron? That is some commentary you copped from an OJ-era LA Times expose. You've had one conversation with a police officer in your life, and that was over an illegal left term outside the Loma Linda Starbucksand culminated in disturbing the peace when exited your Bentley yelling "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!?!" at the top of your lungs for 4 minutes.

Whenever you've had a nudity-mandatory, eyes-wide-shut, type globalist-soiree at your palatial mansion, the only people you invited were politicians, lawyers, Ivy-league economists, Silicon Valley tech nerds and hookers.

Truth > , August 17, 2017 at 2:35 am GMT

@Priss Factor They had to be into all that tired, boring, 11-century old shit; they didn't have any black people.

Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 2:37 am GMT

@Joe Franklin We've been over this. 8a is not given to anyone with over $250,000 in assets, as your own link indicates. This means most Asians can't use it anyway (not that they need to).

The whole program should be done away with, of course.

What is funny is that you can't accept that Asians have higher SAT scores than whites, which pretty much proves that they can (and do) outperform without AA. You WN idiots can't come to terms with that.

But Section 8a should be removed just so that WN wiggers don't have anything to hide behind, since Asians don't need it to excel.

War for Blair Mountain > , August 17, 2017 at 2:44 am GMT

@Thomm These untalented Socialists you refer to would include the vast majority of America 1969 90 percent Native Born White America .a White Nation that placed two Alpha Native Born White American Males on the Moon .ten more after that. Seems that Socialism worked just fine.

If you prefer an Asian Majority you can always pack your bags and pick the Asian Nation of your choice.

uman > , August 17, 2017 at 3:09 am GMT

@Ron Unz hmm i don't know that will be the case nationally. Southern cities like Atlanta will not have hispanic or white govt. Same with nyc, no need for blacks in harlem or bronx to leave if government aid continues to pay for rent controlled affordable housing. Same case can be made for most large northern cities like chicago, detroit, boston, philadelphia, DC, etc.

So with future aa population of 14%, that's 60 million blacks in america in 2060 timeframe, although that will have an increasing amount of immigration from africa, which tends to be more educated (at least 1st and 2nd generation).

Asians will be about 8%, so that's a poweful community of 40 million. I see tech and wall street with increasing amount of asian representations.

What i would be interested in seeing if there will any maverick asian billionaires that could disrupt the narrative.

Ronnie > , August 17, 2017 at 3:11 am GMT

This article may tend to take your mind off the real racial injustice at Harvard. In an article "Affirmative Action Battle Has a New Focus: Asian-Americans" in the NY Times, August 3, 2017 ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS and STEPHANIE SAUL wrote ""The Harvard lawsuit likens attitudes toward Asian-Americans to attitudes toward Jews at Harvard, beginning around 1920, when Jews were a high-achieving minority. In 1918, Jews reached 20 percent of the Harvard freshman class, and the university soon proposed a quota to lower the number of Jewish students."" In my humble opinion this is a misleading statement which implies that the admission of Jews remained below 20% in the years after 1918. In fact Hillel reports that in recent years the admission of jews to Harvard has been around 25% of the class. This means that almost half of the class are white and half of this white group are Jews. That seems like an amazing over-representation of Jews who are only 2% of our population. So, at least as many Jews as Asians are admitted to Harvard. No wonder the Asians are upset. I note that this article does not point out this Jewish bias in admissions at Harvard and neither did the Asians. Is this another manifestation of political correctness? Or is it an egregious example of racism? This problem is the real elephant in the room. This is the Jewish racism that dare not speak its name. Until lately.

Joe Franklin > , August 17, 2017 at 3:38 am GMT

@Thomm Thanks for changing the subject back to 8A contracts, a subject I first brought up.

You ignorantly labeled me a liar and then prattled on about unrelated Section 8 housing.

I've never mentioned anything about SAT scores because they are irrelevant to anything whatsoever that I've posted.

SAT scores are your irrelevant preoccupation, not mine.

I'm just a person that detests government diversity schemes, group entitlements, and federal protected class groups.

Like it or not, Asians are one of many federal protected class groups entitled by law.

I'm not a WN nor did I ever claim to be a WN; just another example of your fevered and imagined conversations with me.

You are fairly stupid to claim that "most Asians" are rich.

You appear to be a grossly ignorant and arrogant dickhead.

Priss Factor > , Website August 17, 2017 at 3:41 am GMT

@Truth Truth, you is so wise and true. You's right. Them Russian dummies didn't have no vibrant black folks to make fun music that could make them wiggle their butts all their night long. So, they grew stale and bored and drank too much vodka, caught fish with penis, and wrestled with bears and didn't have the all the cool stuff like the US has.

All the world needs to be colonized by superior Negroes cuz folks will just die of boredom.
At least if you get killed by Negroes, it's exciting-like.

Ron Unz > , August 17, 2017 at 3:54 am GMT

@uman

hmm i don't know that will be the case nationally. Southern cities like Atlanta will not have hispanic or white govt. Same with nyc, no need for blacks in harlem or bronx to leave if government aid continues to pay for rent controlled affordable housing. Same case can be made for most large northern cities like chicago, detroit, boston, philadelphia, DC, etc.

Well, my California analogy was self-admittedly very rough and approximate given the considerable differences in demographics. But I strongly suspect that such considerations provide a hidden key to some contentious national policies of the last couple of decades, and I've actually written extensively on the subject:

http://www.unz.com/runz/race-and-crime-in-america/#the-hidden-motive-for-heavy-immigration

Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 4:23 am GMT

@Joe Franklin

You are fairly stupid to claim that "most Asians" are rich.

They have higher household income than whites. Many do not qualify for 8a (not that they needed).

But yes, 8a should be abolished, just like ALL other affirmative action.

SAT scores are your irrelevant preoccupation, not mine.

It is relevant, because it demolishes your retarded belief that Asian success would not have happened without affirmative action.

You really are quite lacking in basic intelligence. A typical white trashionalist.

MarkinLA > , August 17, 2017 at 4:27 am GMT

@Anon I imagine it was far different before the defense wind-downs of the mid 90s. Along with the many cut-backs a lot of defense was moved out of California by the contractors as punishment for California's liberal Congressmen. Companies that merged with California based operation usually consolidated outside California such as when Raytheon swallowed up Hughes Aircraft Companies defense operations and moved R&D to Massachusetts.

dearieme > , August 17, 2017 at 11:02 am GMT

@Liberty Mike I know several white people who would rather live in Botswana than the Ukraine. They have the advantage of having visited . The rest of your list seems pretty sound with the possible exception of Swaziland.

P.S. If you deleted Austria and Hungary and replaced them by Albania and Kosovo you might make your point even stronger.

dearieme > , August 17, 2017 at 11:06 am GMT

@Joe Franklin Good God, how absolutely awful to hale from Portugal, Spain, or Singapore.

Saxon > , August 17, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT

@Thomm You're non-white and really dumb to boot; you don't understand the ecology of a society. Even the white proles are better than your people's proles because they don't make functional civilizations impossible. If it were possible for a tiny minority to drag the lowers upwards you would be able to haul your lower castes upwards and make your own country work, then the Brahmins would have done it. They can't because the average abilities, intelligence and disposition of the masses is too low of quality in those countries to the point where tourists need to be given explicit warnings about rape and other problems which you will never need when visiting, say, some English village of completely average English people. The "white trash" you decry is probably only slightly below your midwit level of intelligence.

Asians do get affirmative action in employment and promotions in the workplace by the way, just not in education.

Truth > , August 17, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT

@Priss Factor Alright, you're finally starting to get it.

MarkinLA > , August 17, 2017 at 2:59 pm GMT

@Thomm I seem to remember you telling everybody that Asians DON'T get affirmative action JUST GOOGLE IT without ever offering proof. Of course it never occurred to you that there could never be any documented proof of something like that. There isn't even official documented proof that white males don't get affirmative action. When people claimed and linked to articles indicating Asians are considered disadvantaged by the government, you claimed those people didn't know what they were talking about JUST GOOGLE IT.

I think you made it quite obvious who the idiot is.

Abracadabra > , August 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT

It's time to force our "Golden Dozen" (Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Amherst and Williams) to admit 100% black until the average black income($43k) equals that of average white income($71k).

I'm Asian and I approve of this message.

Azn_bro > , August 17, 2017 at 3:22 pm GMT

@Thomm The worst hate crimes I have personally witnessed were perpetrated by black men. I have also seen more casual racism against Asians from blacks than from whites. This might be different in other parts of the country or world.

Outside of the U.S., East Asians are the least likely to want to engage in some kind of anti-white alliance since all of the West's most embarrassing military defeats have come from East Asians. We have always relied on guns and not white guilt for racial equality.

Abracadabra > , August 17, 2017 at 4:28 pm GMT

@Ronnie In case you haven't noticed, Jews run this country. They dominate the media, academia, Wall Street, Hollywood, Capitol Hill via the DNC and lobbying firms, Silicon Valley. Per the NYT 80% of Jews are self-proclaimed liberals. They are obsessed with dismantling the WASP World Order that in their mind has oppressed them for the last 2000 years. The Ivy League is the pipeline to these 6 sectors that collectively control the country, whoever controls Harvard controls the country. Jews not only make up majority of the elite college faculty (esp. in the social sciences) but are disproportionately benefiting from legacy admission and development cases(admission of the dim witted sons and daughters of the rich and famous like Malia Obama, Jared Kushner, all of Al Gore's kids).

Asians are the next up. Practically all Asians who've gone to the Ivy League or Stanford have voiced their support for affirmative action, many are left wing nuts like the Jews. CA house representative Ted Liu is one such kool-aid drinking Asian libtard, along with the HI judge Derrick Watson and Baltimore judge Theodore Chuang, both of whom blocked Trump's temp. suspension of Muslim refugees, both went to Harvard Law. As an Asian I would be more than happy if the Ivy League simply make themselves off limits to all Asians and turn their schools 100% black. We don't need more Asians to get indoctrinated in their dumb liberal ideology and go down in history as the group next to the Jews and the blacks who destroyed America.

Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 4:32 pm GMT

@Saxon You're non-white and really dumb to boot; you don't understand the ecology of a society. Even the white proles are better than your people's proles because they don't make functional civilizations impossible. If it were possible for a tiny minority to drag the lowers upwards you would be able to haul your lower castes upwards and make your own country work, then the Brahmins would have done it. They can't because the average abilities, intelligence and disposition of the masses is too low of quality in those countries to the point where tourists need to be given explicit warnings about rape and other problems which you will never need when visiting, say, some English village of completely average English people. The "white trash" you decry is probably only slightly below your midwit level of intelligence.

Asians do get affirmative action in employment and promotions in the workplace by the way, just not in education.

Asians do get affirmative action in employment and promotions in the workplace by the way, just not in education.

No they don't, as this very article explains. Could you BE more of a retard?

Plus, the fact that Asians get higher SAT scores than whites proves that they don't need it. There is a left-wing conspiracy to hide Asian success.

Now, regarding an underachieving WN faggot like you :

Remember that white variance is very high. Excellent whites (like me) exist only because genetic waste master has to be removed from the other end of the process. You and other WNs represent that genetic waste matter, and that is why white women are doing a heroic duty of cutting you off (at least the minority of WNs that are straight. Most are gay, as Jack Donovan has explained). Nature wants the waste matter you comprise of to be expelled.

If you cared about the white race, you would be extremely glad that white women are cutting you off, as that is necessary to get rid of the pollution that you represent.

Heh heh heh heh . it is so much fun to put a WN faggot in its place.

Heh heh heh heh

Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

@Azn_bro Yes, what you say is true.

Any real American would be proud of Asian success, as that represents the American Dream that our country was founded on.

Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 4:36 pm GMT

@MarkinLA No, I talked about 8a even two weeks ago. Good god, you WN really do have negro IQs.

8a benefits Asians the least, and THE WHOLE THING SHOULD BE ABOLISHED ANYWAY. There should be no AA, ever.

8a harms Asians as it taints their otherwise pristine claim to having succeeded without AA. They don't need 8a, most don't qualify for it as they exceed the $250,000 cutoff, and it lets WN faggots claim that 'all of Asian success is due to AA', which is demonstrably false.

Read this slowly, 10 times, so that even a wigger like you can get it.

Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 4:43 pm GMT

@Abracadabra Heh.. good one.

Don't let these WN faggots get away with claiming all of Asian success is merely due to affirmative action. In reality, Asians don't get affirmative action (other than wrongly being included in the Section 8a code form the 1980s, which ultimately was used by barely 2% of the Asian community).

Remember that among us whites, variance is extremely high. The prettiest woman alongside pretty of ugly fat feminists (who the WN losers still worship). The smartest men, and then these loserish WNs with low IQs and no social skills. White variance is very high.

That is why WNs are so frustrated. They can't get other whites to give them the time of day, and white women are super-committed to shutting out WN loser males from respectable society.

Don't let them claim that Asian success is solely due to affirmative action. Remember, respectable whites hate these WN faggots.

Saxon > , August 17, 2017 at 6:00 pm GMT

@Thomm You're not white, though. You're a rentseeker hanging onto someone else's country and the fact that you write barely literate garbage posts with no substance to them tells all about your intellect and your "high achievement." You're not high quality. You're mediocre at best and probably not even that since your writing is so bad.

Do you even do statistics, though? Whites make up about 70% of the national merit scholars in the US yet aren't in the Ivies at that rate. Harvard for example is maybe only 25% white. Asians are over-represented compared to their merit and jews way over-represented over any merit. Now how does that happen without nepotism? The whole system of any racial favoritism should be scrapped but of course that wouldn't benefit people like you, Thomm.

George Orwell > , August 17, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT

Whites aren't more innovative and ambitious than Chinese people. You only have to look at the chinless Unite the Right idiots in Charlottesville to dispel any idea that whites are the superior race. The

üeljang > , August 17, 2017 at 6:42 pm GMT

This Thomm character is obviously of East Asian origin. His tedious, repetitive blather about Asians, white women, and "white nationalist faggots" is a telltale sign. One of his type characteristically sounds like he would be so much less distressed if those white males were not white nationalist faggots.

Diversity Heretic > , August 17, 2017 at 7:06 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh An interesting historical argument My reply Land isn't money Arguably the Normans came back in the form of the Plantagenets to contest the French throne in the 100 Years War. But by that time France wasn't nearly so feeble

Giving Negroes land in the form of a North American homeland appeals to me (provided whites get one too) although I know the geography is agonizing Blacks tend not to like this suggestion–they realize how depedent they are on whites That wasn't true of the Normans–quite self-reliant fellows!

Abracadabra > , August 17, 2017 at 7:54 pm GMT

@Thomm I'm not sure what it was that I said that made you think I think all Asian success is due to AA. In fact I think the opposite is true, that Asians succeed in spite of AA, which is set up solely to hinder Asians from joining the club, and as far as I'm concern, it's a club of sell-out globalist libtards that I wouldn't want more Asians to join.

I've worked in tech long enough to know that in tech, no one gives a fudge where you went to school. I am surrounded by deca-millionaires who went to state schools, many aren't even flagship, some didn't even study STEM. Some didn't even go to college or graduate. The only people I know who still care about the Ivy League are 1st generation often FOB China/India trash, and a small number of Jewish kids looking to benefit from legacy admission, most are gay and/or serious libtards.

Abracadabra > , August 17, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT

You can tell that Jewish achievement has fallen off a cliff as Ron Unz asserted by looking at a certain popular college website. The longest running thread that's been up there for nearly a decade with over a thousand pages and over 18,000 posts is called "Colleges for the Jewish "B" student". The site is crawling with uber liberal Jewish mothers and monitored by a gang of Ivy graduated SJWs who strictly enforce their "safe space", posters who post anything at all that might offend anyone (affirmative action is always a sensitive topic) are either thrown in "jail" i.e. ban from posting for a month, or kicked off altogether. The SJW forum monitors even directly edit user comments as they see fit, first amendment rights be damned. This is the future of all online forums if the left have their way, the kind of censorship that Piers Morgan advocates.

Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT

@Abracadabra Not *you* , them.

There are plenty of KKK losers on here claiming that Asian success is due to AA. I am saying you should join me in fighting them.

Note the comments above from Saxon, MarkinLA, etc. They are alll White Trashionalists.

Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 8:55 pm GMT

@Saxon

Asians are over-represented compared to their merit

False. The main article here alone proves otherwise, plus dozens of other research articles.

You just can't stand that Asian success is due to merit. But you have bigger problems, since as a WN, you can't even compete with blacks.

What bugs you the most is that successful white people like me never give WN faggots the time of day. Most tune you idiots out, but I like to remind you that you are waste matter that is being expunged through the natural evolutionary process.

Vinteuil > , August 17, 2017 at 9:46 pm GMT

@Priss Factor Priss, please, please, please try to get this right:

Stalin DID NOT favor Prokofiev, or Shostakovich. He treated them exactly the same way he treated everybody else – like dirt under his feet.

Shostakovich's (admittedly disputed) memoirs are essential reading, here. Please check them out before you say anything more.

Vinteuil > , August 17, 2017 at 9:57 pm GMT

@Thomm " successful white people like me never give WN faggots the time of day "

So you've got a problem with "faggots?"

Thomm > , August 17, 2017 at 11:04 pm GMT

@Vinteuil

So you've got a problem with "faggots?"

Yes, more so if they are leftists (including Nationalist-Leftists like WNs are). But the fact that WNs are disproportionately gay (as Jack Donovan points out) also explains why they tend to look grotesque, and it supports the scientific rationale that they are wastebaskets designed to expedite the removal of genetic waste matter.

White variance in talent/looks/intelligence is high. WN loser males and fat, ugly feminists represent the bottom. In the old days, these two would be married to each other since even the lowest tiers were paired up. Today, thankfully, both are being weeded out.

Astuteobservor II > , August 17, 2017 at 11:12 pm GMT

I just realized something. a commenter like thomm is the perfect counter to some of the others. hahaha.

Pachyderm Pachyderma > , August 17, 2017 at 11:35 pm GMT

@Saxon God! you are stupid, Saxon he isn't a Paki, he is a Chinaman. No wonder the Normans put you guys in thrall!

Pachyderm Pachyderma > , August 18, 2017 at 1:00 am GMT

@Alden Sure you can why not go back to Europe to replace the growing number of Muslims? It can kill two birds with a single shor!

Thomm > , August 18, 2017 at 1:27 am GMT

@Pachyderm Pachyderma Not just that, but some of these 'white nationalists' are just recent immigrants from Poland and Ukraine. They are desperate to take credit for Western Civilization that they did nothing to create. Deep down, they know that during the Cold War, they were not considered 'white' in America.

400 years? i.e. when most of what is now the lower-48 was controlled by a Spanish-speaking government? Yeah Many of these WNs have been here only 30-70 years. That is one category (the domestic WN wiggers are the other)

Both are equally underachieving and loserish.

MarkinLA > , August 18, 2017 at 3:02 am GMT

@Thomm It's too late, everybody knows what I wrote is true and that you are some pathetic millennial libertarian pajama boy. The sad fact is that you can't even man up and admit that you wrote that BS about "Asians don't get affirmative action just google it". See that would have at least have been a sign of maturity, admitting you were wrong.

There is no point reading anything, even once, from a pathetic pajama boy like you.

Thomm > , August 18, 2017 at 3:50 am GMT

@MarkinLA I openly said that I am proud to be libertarian. Remember, talented people can hack in on their own, so they are libertarians.

Untalented losers (like you) want socialism so that you can mooch off of others.

Plus, Asians don't get affirmative action outside of one obscure place (Section 8a) which they often don't qualify for ($250K asset cutoff), don't need, and was never used by more than 2% of the Asian-American community. The fact that Asian SAT scores are higher than whites explains why Asians outperform without AA.

Plus, this very article says that Asians are being held back. A WN faggot like you cannot grasp that even though you are commenting in the comments of this article. Could you be any dumber?

I realize you are not smart enough to grasp these basic concepts, but that is why we all know that white trashionalists have negro IQs.

Now begone; you are getting in the way of your betters.

Heh heh heh heh

Thomm > , August 18, 2017 at 4:03 am GMT

Remember that White variance in brains/looks/talent/character is extremely high. Hence, whites occupy both extremities of human quality.

Hence, the hierarchy of economic productivity is :

Talented whites (including Jews)
Asians (East and South)
Hispanics
Blacks
Untalented whites (aka these WN wastebaskets, and fat femtwats).

That is why :

1) WNs are never given a platform by respectable whites.
2) Bernie Sanders supporters are lily-white, despite his far-left views.
3) WN is a left-wing ideology, as their economic views are left-wing.
4) WNs are unable to even get any white women, as white women have no reason to pollute themselves with this waste matter. Mid-tier white women thus prefer nonwhite men over these WNs, which makes sense based on the hierarchy above.
5) WNs have the IQ of Negros, the poor social skills of an Asian spazoid, etc. They truly combine the worst of all worlds.
6) This is why white unity is impossible; there is no reason for respectable whites to have anything to do with white trashionalists.
7) Genetically, the very fact that superb whites even exists necessitates the production of individuals to act as wastebaskets for removal of genetic waste. WNs are these wastebaskets.
8) The 80s movie 'Twins' was in effect a way to make these wastebaskets feel good, as eventually, the Arnold Schwarzenegger character bonded with the Danny DeVito character. But these two twins effectively represent the sharp bimodal distribution of white quality. Successful whites are personified by the Schwarzenegger character, while WNs by the DeVito character. In reality, these two would never be on friendly terms, as nature produces waste for a reason.

This pretty much all there is to what White Trashionalists really are.

TWS > , August 18, 2017 at 4:38 pm GMT

@Thomm Tiny Duck? You decided to larp under a different handle?

Incontrovertible > , August 18, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT

Elite colleges are a prime example of left wing hypocrisy. The same people who are constantly calling for an equal society are at the same time perpetuating the most unequal society by clamoring to send their kids to a few elite schools that will ensure their entry to or retain their ranks among the elites. Equality for everyone else, elitism for me and my kids. David Brook's nausea inducing self-hating pablum "How we are ruining America" is a prime example of this hypocrisy.

Another good example of left wing hypocrisy is on "school integration". The same people who condemn "bad schools" for the urban poor and call for more integration are always the first to move into the whitest possible neighborhoods as soon as they have kids. They aren't willing to sacrifice their own kids, they just want other people to sacrifice their children by sending them to bad schools.

If the left didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

Tradecraft46 > , August 18, 2017 at 10:00 pm GMT

Look, the world is short handed: we need good help or we pay dues.

Affirmative action and the EEOC are not the answer.

When you need help you get help and don't care if they are green [in the color sense or have supernumerary digits.

I don't need agreement with my whimsy, I just need people who will turn to.

Gene Su > , August 19, 2017 at 1:46 am GMT

When I first saw the title of this article, I, being an Asian, was a tad insulted. It smelled like Dr. Weissberg was attempting to create (or at least escalate) racial strife between Asians and blacks. I then read through the article and evaluated the bad and the good.

First the bad: Dr. Weissberg's assertion that Asians are being hurt by the Affirmative Action promotion of blacks is a bit exaggerated. This is because most Asians go into rigorous difficult programs such as engineering, science, and medicine. Most black affirmative action babies go into soft programs such as Black Studies (and whatever else the humanities have degenerated into).

Now the good: I think this is the most true portion of the essay.

Better to have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating about white racism at Princeton where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street corner. This status driven divide just reflects human nature. Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's left behind in the Hood? This is the strategy of preventing a large-scale, organized rebellion by decapitating its potential leadership.

I have once wrote that whites stopped sneering at MLK when Malcolm X and the Black Panthers began taking center stage. They sure became more accommodating of "moderate" blacks. With all of the terrorist attacks going on and with blacks converting to Islam, I don't think we're going to get rid of affirmative action any time soon.

Nicholas Stix > , Website August 19, 2017 at 2:42 am GMT

This is a politically plausible but morally craven plan, if we're in 1960.

Oops.

Priss Factor > , Website August 19, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT

@Vinteuil Stalin alternated between favoritism and intimidation. The truth is he did have an eye and ear for culture unlike Mao who was a total philistine.

If Stalin really hated artists, he would have killed all of them.

He appreciated them but kept a close eye.

He loved the first IVAN THE TERRIBLE by Eisenstein, but he sensed that the second one was a criticism of him, and Eisenstein came under great stress.

Vinteuil > , August 19, 2017 at 6:31 pm GMT

OK, well, Stalin loved the movies, and may have had an eye for effective cinema. But when it came to music he was, precisely, a total philistine. On this point, I again recommend Shostakovich's disputed *Testimony,* a work unique in its combination of hilarity and horror, both of which come to a head in his account of the competition to write a new national anthem to replace the internationale – pp. 256-64. A must read.

DB Cooper > , August 19, 2017 at 7:41 pm GMT

@Thomm Can you explain why if South Asians has such high economic productivity India is such a sh*thole?

Stebbing Heuer > , Website August 19, 2017 at 8:33 pm GMT

@Rdm That's the second comment here picking on bald guys.

What do you have against the bald?

You do realise that it's not possible to control baldness? It's an outcome of genetics, yes?

You do also realise that there is zero correlation between baldness and the quality of one's character?

Are you really as stupid as you appear to be?

MarkinLA > , August 19, 2017 at 11:29 pm GMT

Is this the Onion?

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/usc-mascot-traveler-comes-under-fire-having-name-similar-robt-e-lees-horse

I wonder how a Bruin is going to be a symbol of racism?

Thomm > , August 20, 2017 at 3:04 am GMT

@DB Cooper For the same reason North Korea is poorer than South Korea, despite being the same people.
For the same reason the GDR was so much poorer than the FRG, despite the same people.

You probably never even thought about that.

A bad political system takes decades to recover from. Remember that the British also strip-mined India for 200 years..

Come on, these are novice questions

If you think the success of Asian-Americans in general (and Indian-Americans in particular) does not jive with your beliefs, then the burden of explaining what that is, is on you.

Indians happen to be the highest-income group in the US. Also very high are Filipinos and Taiwanese.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

Most WNs are far, far below the intellectual level where they can grasp the complexities of issues like this.

Thomm > , August 20, 2017 at 3:11 am GMT

BTW, the economic center of gravity of the world has always been near Asia, except for a 200-year period from 1820-2020.

That the West would cede to Asia is really just a reversion to the historical norm.

WNs are not smart enough to understand maps/charts like this one, but others will find this interesting.

Russ Nieli > , August 20, 2017 at 8:11 am GMT

Bob,

Racial preferences were ended at California public institutions -- including the elite public universities Berkley and UCLA -- by ballot initiative. No black violence ensued. There is little reason to think the black response would be different if the 8 Ivy League universities ended their policies of racial preferences. Blacks would adjust their expectations. Fear of black rioting and the desire to jumpstart the creation of a large and peaceful black middle class may have been important motives for the initial development of racial preference policies in the late 1960s; they are not major reasons for their retention and continued support from white administrators today. Other reasons and motives are operative (including what I call R-word dread).
PS: Cornel West has moved from Princeton to Harvard Divinity School.

Avalanche > , August 20, 2017 at 12:35 pm GMT

"Nevertheless, when all added up, the costs would be far lowers than dealing with widespread 1960s style urban violence."

Except back in the '60′s; the White, Euro-derived people were unwilling to fight back. They felt guilty and half-blamed themselves. Not. Any. More! The costs -- social, mental, emotional, physical; pick your metric! -- have now exceeded the patience of WAY more Americans than the media is letting on.

Did you not see 20- and 30-THOUSAND, mostly White Euro-derived, Americans rallying to candidate -- and now President -- Trump's side? (No, the media carefully clipped the videos to hide those numbers, but there they (we!) were! We're done! We're fed up! "FEEDING" these destructive vermin to keep them from destroying our houses and families (and nation and country!) is no longer acceptable! You "don't let Gremlins eat after midnight"? Well, we did -- and now we're in a war against them.

You think this capitulating in education is preventing 'widespread 1960s-style urban violence? Have you not watched the news? We pretty much already are: ask NYC how many "sliced with a knife" attacks they have there! In JUST Jan. and Feb., there were well more than 500! (Seriously vicious attacks with knives and razor blades -- media mentioned it once for a few days, and then shut up.) Look at the fair in Indianapolis; count up rape statistics; investigate the "knock-out game" ("polar bear hunting" -- guess who's the polar bear?!). (Oh yeah, and: Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago; look at ANY black-filled ruin of a city ) If (when!) we finally have to (CHOOSE to) deal with this low-grade war -- WHO is better armed, better prepared, SMARTER, and fed up?

"This peace-keeping aspect of affirmative action understood, perhaps we ought to view those smart Asians unfairly rejected from Ivy League schools as sacrificial lambs."

Wait, wait -- these are White schools, built by White Americans FOR White Americans! "Oh, the poor Asians are not getting their 'fair share' cause the blacks are getting way more than their 'fair share'?! The Asians' 'fair share' is GO HOME!! The Asians don't have a 'fair share' in White AMERICAN universities; we LET them come here and study -- and that is a KINDNESS: they don't have a 'fair share' of OUR country! How about: stop giving preferences to every damned race and nationality other than the one that BUILT this country and these universities!

Check your premises!

Avalanche > , August 20, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT

@War for Blair Mountain Call them what they are: "paperwork Americans"! Having the paperwork does NOT make them Americans, and nothing ever will!

Imagine a virgin land with no inhabitants: if you took all the Chinese "Americans" or all the Pakistani "Americans" or Black "Americans" or Mexican "Americans" (funny, why did you leave those last two out?! Way more of them than the others ) and moved them there, would they -- COULD they ever -- create another America? No, they would create another China, or another Pakistan -- or their own version of the hellholes their forebears (or they themselves) came from. ONLY White, ONLY Euro-derived Americans could recreate an America.

And this goes, also, to answer the grumbling "Native" Americans who were also NOT native, yes? Siberia, Bering land bridge, ever heard of those? Do you not even know your own pre-history?! What "America" was here when it was a sparse population of warring tribes of variously related Indian groups? What did your forebears make of this continent?

Nothing. There would be no "America" where everyone wants to come and benefit by taking; because ONLY the White settlers (not immigrants: SETTLERS!) were able to create America! And as all you non-Americans (AND paperwork "Americans") continue to swamp and change America for your own benefit -- you will be losing the very thing you came here to take (unfair!) advantage of!

Avalanche > , August 20, 2017 at 1:17 pm GMT

@MEFOBILLS

At that point, new public money could be channeled into funding people to leave. Blacks that don't like it in the U.S. would be given X amount of dollars to settle in an African country of their choice.

Chip 'em and ship 'em! Microchip where they CAN'T 'dig it out' to prevent them from ever ever ever returning! And ship 'em out! I'd pay a LOT to have this done!

Avalanche > , August 20, 2017 at 1:22 pm GMT

@Mis(ter)Anthrope

Give the feral negroes what they have been asking for. Pull all law enforcement out of negro hellholes like Detroit and South Chicago and let nature take its course.

They (we!) tried that years ago. The BLACK COPS SUED because they were working in the shittiest places with the shittiest, most violent people -- and "the White cops had it easy."

NOT EVEN the blacks want to be with the blacks -- hence them chasing down every last White person, to inflict their Dis-Verse-City on us!

Avalanche > , August 20, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT

@The peril of appeasement

The larger the immigrant group, the longer it takes to assimilate them.

Alas, typical "paperwork American" lack of understanding! I wrote this to a (White) American who wants to keep importing everyone ("save the children!") -- and, she insisted, they "could" assimilate. However, here's what 'assimilate" means:

Suppose you and your family decided to move to, say, Cambodia. You go there intending to "get your part of the Cambodian dream," you go there to become Cambodian citizens, to assimilate and join them, not to invade and change them. You want to adopt their ways, to *assimilate.* Yes? This is how you describe legal immigrants to OUR country (The United States.)

How long would it take for you and your children to be (or even just feel) "assimilated"? How long would it take for you to see your descendants as "assimilated" -- AS Cambodians? Years? Decades? Generations? Would you be trying to fit in -- and "become" Cambodians; or would you be trying to not forget your heritage? ("Heritage"?! Like, Cinco de Mayo, which they don't even celebrate IN Mexico? Or Kwanza -- a CIA-invented completely fake holiday!)

More important: since it's their country -- how long until THEY see you as "Cambodians" and not foreigners. I know a man and family who have lived in Italy for over 20 years. To the Italians in the village where they live, they are still "stranieri": strangers. After this long, to the local Italians, they're not just "the Americans who moved here" -- they're " our Americans" -- but they are still seen as 100% not Italian, not local: not "assimilated"!

Would you and your children and grandchildren learn to speak, read, and write Cambodian -- and stop trying to use English for anything much in your new homeland? Would you join their clubs -- would you join their NATIONAL RELIGION!? Does "becoming Cambodian" -- does "assimilating" -- not actually include (trying to) become Cambodian (and, thus, ceasing to be American)? (If that were even possible; and it's not.) "Assimilation" is a stupid hope, not a possible reality.

That is where my friend balked. She said: she and her family are very Christian, and no way at all ever would they drop Christianity and pick up Cambodian Buddhism. So -- how can they EVER "assimilate" when they (quite rightly) REFUSE to assimilate?!

Please stop buying into the lies the destroyers of OUR nation keep selling. There is no such thing as "assimilation"; only economic parasitism, jihadi invasion, and benefiting from the systems set up by OUR forebears for THEIR posterity!

Avalanche > , August 20, 2017 at 1:52 pm GMT

@Priss Factor

Just because National Socialism had some leftist elements doesn't make it a 'leftist' ideology.

Yes. Yes it does. Go watch/listen to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roMLmYnjslc

The official topic being debated is: "Are National Socialists a legitimate element of the Alt-Right?"
Greg Johnson argues, Yes.
Vox Day argues, No.

rec1man > , August 20, 2017 at 9:08 pm GMT

@DB Cooper Socialism and Affirmative Action

In my origin state of Tamil Nadu, the effective anti-brahmin quota is 100% ( de-jure is just 69% )

Sundar Pichai or Indira Nooyi or Vish Anand ( former Chess champ ) or Ramanujam ( late math whiz ), cant get a Tamil Nadu State Gov , Math school teacher job

Also, the US gets a biased selection of Indians in terms of caste, class and education

Of Tamil Speakers in USA, about 50% are Tamil Brahmins, vs just 2% in India

The bottom 40% in terms of IQ, such as Muslims, Untouchables and Forest Tribals, are no more than 10% in the US Indian diaspora

For comparison, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis ( muslim ), perform much much lower

Thomm > , August 20, 2017 at 10:01 pm GMT

@rec1man

For comparison, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis ( muslim ), perform much much lower

This is interesting, as it puts paid to the obsession that WN idiots have with 'whiteness'.

Pakistan is obviously much more Caucasoid than India and certainly Sri Lanka.

Afghanistan is whiter still. Many in Afghanistan would pass for bona-fide white in the US.

Yet Sri Lanka is richer than India, which is richer than Pakistan, which is richer than Afghanistan.

Either Islam is a negative factor that nullifies everything else including genetics, or something else is going on.

What there is no doubt of is that Asia has been the largest economic region of the world by far except for the brief 200-year deviation (1820-2020), as per that map I posted.

UtherWhys > , August 20, 2017 at 10:50 pm GMT

@Thomm Weissberg asks, "Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's left behind in the Hood?"

Why focus on the LEFT buttock? His point would be as relevant were he to ask, "Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's RIGHT behind in the Hood?" Either way, I smell kinkyness deep within Weissberg's question.

Saintonge235 > , August 21, 2017 at 12:34 am GMT

Not protection money. Imperialism.

"Divide and Rule" said the Romans. Incorporate the potential leaders of those you intend to rule into your hereditary upper class, and the vast majority will stay inert at the least. And many will actively support you. See this post by a black woman: Black Americans: The Organized Left's Expendable Shock Troops .

People like Cornel West are not only NOT rabble-rousing in the 'hood, they're telling blacks to support the people who actively keep them poor. "Affirmative Action" is designed to sabotage its alleged goals. Almost all who 'benefit' from it end up among people whose performance is clearly superior to their own, thus fostering feelings of inferiority, subtly communicating that it doesn't matter what the 'beneficiary' of AA does, they'll always fail. This is no accident.

Without AA, there might still be separation, (consider "ultra-orthodox" Jews), but the separate groups would have to be treated with some respect. Really, viewed amorally, it's a marvelous system for oppressing whites and minorities.

rec1man > , August 21, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT

@Thomm Islam is a negative factor, and the higher IQ castes did not convert to Islam

I have data from California National Merit list, IQ-140 bar

Among Indian Punjabis ;
Jat Sikh peasants = 3 winners ( 75% of Punjabis in USA )
Khatri merchants = 18 winners ( 25% of Punjabis in USA )

Both are extremely caucasoid, both appear heavily among Indian bollywood stars ; genetically very similar, just the evolutionary effect of caste selection for merchant niche vs peasant niche

MarkinLA > , August 21, 2017 at 1:06 am GMT

@Russ Nieli Racial preferences were ended at California public institutions -- including the elite public universities Berkley and UCLA -- by ballot initiative.

But the admissions people immediately started using other dodges like "holistic" admissions policies where they try and figure out if your are a minority from other inferences such as your essay where you indicate "how you have overcome". They also wanted to get rid of the SAT or institute a top X% at each school policy.

Thomm > , August 21, 2017 at 3:19 am GMT

@rec1man I don't know . a lot of the richest Indians in the US are Gujratis who own motels and gas stations. Patels and such..

They were not of some 'high caste' in India; far from it.

Plus, a Tamil who is of 'high caste' is not Caucasoid in the least. Caste does not seem to correlate to economic talent, since business people are the #3 caste out of 4. The richest people in India today are not 'Brahmins'..

Islam is a negative factor, and the higher IQ castes did not convert to Islam

I disagree. Pakistan is 99% Islam, so all castes converted to Islam and/or many of the lighter-skined Pakistanis are Persians and Turks who migrated there..

Afghanistan's religion prior to Islam was Buddhism, not Hinduism

rec1man > , August 21, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT

@Thomm I don't know.... a lot of the richest Indians in the US are Gujratis who own motels and gas stations. Patels and such..

They were not of some 'high caste' in India; far from it.

Plus, a Tamil who is of 'high caste' is not Caucasoid in the least. Caste does not seem to correlate to economic talent, since business people are the #3 caste out of 4. The richest people in India today are not 'Brahmins'..


Islam is a negative factor, and the higher IQ castes did not convert to Islam
I disagree. Pakistan is 99% Islam, so all castes converted to Islam and/or many of the lighter-skined Pakistanis are Persians and Turks who migrated there..

Afghanistan's religion prior to Islam was Buddhism, not Hinduism... Afghanistan was 33% Hindu, 66% buddhist before islam, but in actual practise lots of overlap between Hinduism and Buddhism, and many families had mixed Indic religions

Pakistan was 22% non-muslim in 1947, these 22% were higher caste Hindus and Sikhs – all got driven out in 1947 ; Pakistan is low IQ islamic sludge residue of Punjabi society

I am Tamil speaking, 80% of Tamil brahmins ( 2% ) can be visually distinguished from the 98% Tamil Dravidians ;

vs

Tamil dravidian

Fotosynthesis > , August 21, 2017 at 10:43 am GMT

Thomm you take up too much oxygen in the room insisting on the importance your opinions, the whole conversation is much more interesting when i skip past your stupid WN focused city boy sheltered viewpoint. Big words and that retarded hehehe thing you do would get you wrastled to the ground and your face rubbed in the dirt

Truth > , August 21, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT

@Fotosynthesis hehehehe

Truth > , August 21, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT

@rec1man Does anyone want to fill in my comment here in "Miss" Lakshimi?

Thomm > , August 21, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT

@Fotosynthesis By you and what army?

Remember, WNs represent the absolute bottom of every desirable trait.

Heh heh heh heh

Bill the Kid > , August 21, 2017 at 10:17 pm GMT

@jim jones They look the same because they are all clones of the same body.

Not Another Unz Commenter > , August 21, 2017 at 10:30 pm GMT

@Thomm Why would 'idiot WNs' be happy about the fact that blacks successfully chased asians out of the country, though? That would be a sign that they are gaining a scary degree of power, would it not? Moreover how are white males who want to escape SJW idiocy going to like a country that still actively enforces all sorts of thought control policies of its own? You wannabe libertardian analysts always say silly things like this and it just sounds dumber every time.

Thomm > , August 21, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT

@Not Another Unz Commenter

Why would 'idiot WNs' be happy about the fact that blacks successfully chased asians out of the country, though? That would be a sign that they are gaining a scary degree of power, would it not?

It would be, but WN retards don't think that far.

You wannabe libertardian analysts always say silly things like this and it just sounds dumber every time.

This is what WNs want, not want I want. It is easy to predict WN opinions.

Plus, being a libertarian is much more desirable than being a WN socialist. Talented people thrive in a libertarian society. WN losers just want to mooch off of successful whites.

JohnMc > , August 22, 2017 at 3:32 pm GMT

"Better to have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating about white racism at Princeton where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street corner."

Really? All that does is give the man a bigger sanctioned soap box. In the ghetto he might affect a couple of hundred people. Siting in academia he gets a lever than can affect tens of thousands. Not a good trade.

S. B. Woo > , August 22, 2017 at 8:36 pm GMT

Dear Mr. Weissberg.

Truth is often stranger than fictions. The real reason for discriminating against Asian Ams is not to help make the other minority happy. It is to benefit the whites. The Ivy League schools are using the diversity to give the white applicants an advantage of 140 pst in SAT points. Please see below:

In Table 3.5 on p 92 of Princeton Prof. Espenshade's famous book, "No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal", the following shocking fact was revealed:

Table 3.5 (emphasis added)
Race Admission Preferences at Public & Private Institutions
Measured in ACT & SAT Points, Fall 1997
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-
Public Institutions Private Institutions
ACT-Point Equivalents SAT-Point Equivalents
Item (out of 36) (out of 1600)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-
Race
(White) -- –
Black 3.8 310
Hispanics 0.3 130
Asian -3.4 -140

Why are 140 SAT pts. taken away from AsAm applicants? To give the white applicants an advantage of 140 SAT pts. over the historically disadvantaged AsAms by using the nobility of diversity as a cover? This is the reverse of affirmative action. This is a gross abuse of affirmation action. This is outrageous discrimination. If
the purpose is to give the blacks an advantages, why not add more SAT points to blacks and hispanics?

S.B. Woo

Incontrovertible > , August 23, 2017 at 4:30 am GMT

@Avalanche That's an interesting point you brought up, whether anyone can ever really be "assimilated". Even after hundreds of years, blacks and Jews in this country remain very distinct groups. I think for blacks the reason is skin color and culture, while for Jews it is the religion. Both groups have had low out marriage rate until maybe the last couple of decades.

Assimilation is most successful when there's a high intermarriage rate, but intermarriage rate and immigration rate tend to go in opposite directions. The higher the immigration rate, the lower the intermarriage rate.

Hispanics and Asians have been in this country since the 1800s yet you rarely ever meet a hispanic or Asian person who's been here for more than 3 or 4 generations. Why is that? I think it's because many of these earlier groups, due to their small number at the time relative to the population, had intermarried, blended in and disappeared. I would say these earlier immigrants have fully assimilated. The ones who are unassimilated are the new arrivals, those who arrived in large numbers since 2000.

But for some peculiar reason blacks who are mixed with whites often continue to identify as blacks. We see this in Obama, Halle Barry, Vanessa Williams and many other black/white mixes. Black identity is so strong even Indian-black mixed race people call themselves black, like Kamala Harris.

My theory is that most white-hispanic and white-asian marriages are white males with hispanic/asian females. In most cases the white males who married hispanic/asian women are conservatives who prefer women in cultures that are perceived to be more traditional compared to white females who are often selfish and want a divorce at the first sign of personal unhappiness. Many of them then raise their children in full white traditions including as Christians and encourage them to identify themselves as whites.

OTOH, many white-black mix marriages are white female with black male, in many instances these women marry black men because they are liberal nuts who want to raise black children. Jewish women for instance marry black men at a high rate. Many of these women then raise their children as black or biracial children and encourage their children to identify themselves as black.

Education used to be the biggest tool for assimilation, but these days thanks to libtards running amok, our schools are where racial identity is amplified rather than de-emphasized. Now all minority groups are encouraged to take pride in their own cultural identity and eschew mainstream (white) culture. Lured by affirmative action, more and more mixed race hispanic kids are beginning to identify themselves as latino. Thankfully mixed race Asian kids are running in the opposite direction and now mostly identify themselves as white so they are not disadvantaged by AA.

I think assimilation can occur when you have low immigration rate coupled with high intermarriage rate and a smart education system that discourages racial and individual identity and focuses on a single national identity. The biggest reason assimilation is failing now is a combination of high immigration rate, and a failed education system that promotes identity politics and victimhood narrative. The internet and easy air travels back to the homeland also make it much harder to assimilate newcomers. For these reasons I'm in favor of a moratorium on immigration for the next 20 years. All those not yet citizens should be encouraged to return to their home countries. No more green cards, work visas or even student visas should be issued.

Incontrovertible > , August 23, 2017 at 4:36 am GMT

@S. B. Woo That's the argument of mindless Asian SJWs who've been fed the libtard kool-aid. Just look at the numbers you yourself provided. Whites who were turned down still vastly outperformed blacks and hispanics who were given admission, to the tune of 340 points and 130 points respectively. Libtards who came up with AA want everyone to turn against whites, and mindless Asian SJWs like you are parroting them without thinking things through.

So much for "smart Asians".

Truth > , August 24, 2017 at 12:02 am GMT

@Incontrovertible

OTOH, many white-black mix marriages are white female with black male, in many instances these women marry black men because they are liberal nuts who want to raise black children. Jewish women for instance marry black men at a high rate. Many of these women then raise their children as black or biracial children and encourage their children to identify themselves as black.

Yeah, and the rest of them wanted the SCHLONG!

Truth > , August 24, 2017 at 12:03 am GMT

@Incontrovertible That's the argument of mindless Asian SJWs who've been fed the libtard kool-aid. Just look at the numbers you yourself provided. Whites who were turned down still vastly outperformed blacks and hispanics who were given admission, to the tune of 340 points and 130 points respectively. Libtards who came up with AA want everyone to turn against whites, and mindless Asian SJWs like you are parroting them without thinking things through.

So much for "smart Asians". But they still needed a lower score for admittance than Asians

[Aug 21, 2017] The impetus to grow and gain size and influence is essential to any political party, and sustaining this inertia overrides the thinking and living of the individual in favor of the coherence of the party itself as a mass;

Simone Weil definitely does not understands dialectics.
Notable quotes:
"... "Political parties are a marvellous mechanism which, on the national scale, ensures that not a single mind can attend to the effort of perceiving, in public affairs, what is good, what is just, what is true. As a result – except for a very small number of fortuitous coincidences – nothing is decided, nothing is executed, but measures that run contrary to the public interest, to justice and to truth." ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Charles R | Aug 20, 2017 5:44:06 PM | 7

I have used Simone Weil's " On the Abolition of All Political Parties " in a philosophy class. Her argument, as I'll try to summarize: the impetus to grow and gain size and influence is essential to any political party, and sustaining this inertia overrides the thinking and living of the individual in favor of the coherence of the party itself as a mass; thus, we must eliminate the political party.

My students found this "contradictory" or "stupid." People, they tell me, will naturally form groups, and because of this the group will operate just like she's claiming parties do, so she's not really saying how to get rid of this. I point out that she's very deliberate to talk about fluids versus crystals, between how things form associations that are fluid , and thus on some issues folks connect on on others they disconnect without the pressure to sustain these changes as a stable identity !she points to literary circles as groups that ebb and flow with members and associations that do not conform to the logic of the political party. These are distinct from associations that are crystal , where aggregation and homogeneity and stable arrangement are more important for the whole to remain itself. So, I take it my students, despite getting up in one class, walking around campus, and sitting down in another class, believe that there is little to no difference in one collection over another so long as the reason for the collection is what defines the collection . (How they take their intuition as expressed in my class and think through intersectionality as expressed in another class is something I was trying, through conversations with them, to work out, because I find it helps me when I find my own intuitions about all of this so very different from theirs.) But I think the implicit part of their reasoning was that all of this dealt with force, the force they feel inside as pressure to conform on the outside with others, who are at this point for them undeniably also undergoing these inward pressures to regulate their outward expression.

But then I point out that music, or sports, or lovemaking, or dance, or a lot of other ordinary things we do enjoyably with others, show us how to form and move through groups because we share a similar drive or interest in something outside of both of us, and they seem to get that idea. I find myself coming back to this website just to read the comments, because I find it a refreshing change of pace, a host of interesting exchanges, and a good opportunity to face the perennial challenge of sitting within conflict, finding reasonable the disagreeing voice, and owning what makes myself uncomfortable with strangers.

If enough people share the desire to talk about things from conflicting perspectives, the conversations continue, but as people move in and out, the conversation itself changes and evolves. To shut down the conversation is to lock it in place, to keep it rigid and total. To walk away from the conversation in good spirits, is to hope that it will continue, in some spirit, some form, resembling how it was going before. To walk away from the conversation in bad spirits, is to hope it will change into something that either once was !in which case it can't naturally and so only through artifice! or should be !in which case, being based on the limitations of our own perspective, won't be open for the wonderful possibility of something entirely new and inconceivable happening in a conversation.

I sometimes wish politics were just conversations. I found Hannah Arendt to be one of the few thinkers who set the terms in such a way that I was liberated. Leftist thinking taught me a lot about fashion, I didn't realize until later. Paleoconservative thinking taught me a lot about how much either gets suppressed or gathers dust in the libraries, and yet still smolders underneath the haunted foundations of our civilization. I come back to Zhuangzi over and over again. I come back to these rambling conversations under heaven, over earth, within the noosphere.

But eventually the conversation does end, and you have to hammer a nail to keep the walls up. Winter is coming. Wood needs cutting. Grains need grounding. Papers need grading.

PavewayIV | Aug 20, 2017 10:19:52 PM | 17

Charles R@7 - Well said, Charles R. I loved this quote from Weil's book in one of the reviews of On the Abolition of All Political Parties :

"Political parties are a marvellous mechanism which, on the national scale, ensures that not a single mind can attend to the effort of perceiving, in public affairs, what is good, what is just, what is true. As a result – except for a very small number of fortuitous coincidences – nothing is decided, nothing is executed, but measures that run contrary to the public interest, to justice and to truth."

Not sure I'm sold on eliminating them - this is another call to kill some of the existing victims in a futile effort to eliminate an infectious disease that permeates public affairs. It will irritate power- and control-seeking psychopaths temporarily. Political parties are just a convenient 'easy' button for them.

US society's problem is a child-like belief in some kind of magical innate integrity of organizations that feed us public affairs 'information' despite those organizations being obvious targets for exploitation. Part of psychopath's successful control and exploitation of the public is to obscure the fact that they are being controlled and exploited.

It's lonely here in tin-foil hat land, but I'm starting to see more visitors. I think our 'Taco Tuesday' promotion is starting to pay dividends!

psychohistorian | Aug 20, 2017 10:49:30 PM | 20

@ PavewayIV with his Taco Tuesday Tin Foil Hat promotion in response to Charles R@7 comment about political parties

I am reminded of the movie "Being There" with Peter Sellers as Chauncy Gardner. Chauncy Gardner has spent enough of his life inside so that when forced out on the street he carries a TV remote control and tries to change the channel when the situation starts to get dicey......Unfortunately, I see most Americans responding like Chauncy Gardner and keep banging on their TV remotes hoping the reality they see changes.

Does Waco Wednesday follow Taco Tuesday? or are you staying with a food meme?

[Jul 21, 2017] How The Elites Betrayed Working-Class America by Bill Bonner

Jul 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored via InternationalMan.com,

... ... ...

The typical American day laborer has gained little.

And job competition from overseas made him feel like a loser. Now he wants walls – to keep out foreigners and foreign-made products. He wants win-lose deals that guarantee to make him a winner again.

He has no idea that he was set up by his own elite.

Former Fed chiefs Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan got their pictures on the cover of Time magazine. Most people think they are heroes, not rascals. Most people think they saved the economy from another Great Depression by dropping interest rates and injecting it with trillions of dollars in quantitative easing (QE) money.

Most people – even the POTUS – believe we need more fake money to "prime the pump" and get the economy rolling again.

Almost no one realizes it, but it was these stimulating, pump-priming, new credit-based dollars that fueled the trends that ruined America's working-class wage earner.

Overseas, his competitors used cheap credit to gain market share and take away his job. At home, the elite imposed their crony boondoggles their regulations and their win-lose deals – all financed with fake money.

The average American's medical care now costs him more than seven times more than it did in 1980. His household debt rose nearly 12 times since 1980.

... ... ...

Recently we've been wondering if it's possible that America could be on the brink of a second civil war. We did some digging and while the stuff we found may offend and shock you We recommend you take a look anyway by clicking here.

TeamDepends , Jul 21, 2017 6:32 PM

Everything "the elite" does betrays the working class.

Captain Chlamydia -> TeamDepends , Jul 21, 2017 6:34 PM

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Sonny Brakes , Jul 21, 2017 6:37 PM

And the working class played along knowing full well that they were being duped. Got to support the team.

silverer , Jul 21, 2017 6:42 PM

Money creation without productivity is a truly inspiring phenomenon.

GRDguy , Jul 21, 2017 6:42 PM

They're not "elite," they're sociopaths. They lie and steal without empathy nor conscience.

People running independent businesses are not usually sociopaths. But top executives of major corporations usually are.

[Jul 02, 2017] Does the global neoliberal elite represents a parasitic entity ? If we are talking about financial oligarchy then the answer is yes

The fact that considerable part of financial elite is Jewish changed nothing
www.moonofalabama.org

pantaraxia | Jul 2, 2017 9:08:27 AM | 64

@45 smuks

Careful about that 'parasites' thing.

The conflict is systemic, deeply rooted in the current (dominant) socio-economic order. Reducing it to a narrative of 'parasitic global elites' risks encouraging simplistic 'answers', i.e. laying the blame on certain groups of people.

Last time it was the Jews...who's turn now?

...Your obvious apprehension over the demonization of 'parasitic global elites' is addressed here:

New Rule: Save the Rich Fcks | Real Time with Bill Maher
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahpp27WAT2M

PS: Its interesting to note that in the context of discussing 'parasitic global elites' you bring up the subject of Jews, contextually implying some sort of association. There are numerous Jewish organizations that would accuse you of practicing 'dog whistle politics' here.

[Jun 12, 2017] He who says organization, says oligarchy. Organizations and oligarchies are self-reinforcing psychopath magnets

Notable quotes:
"... Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy ..."
Jun 12, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
PavewayIV | Jun 11, 2017 1:10:50 PM | 42

Robert Michels and the Iron Law of Oligarchy (1911)

"He who says organization, says oligarchy."

Paraphrasing Lobaczewski c. 1959:

"Organizations and oligarchies are self-reinforcing psychopath magnets."

PavewayIV's Magic Box of Death:

Put a few oligarchs in a box and set on floor. Soon, hundreds of 'little people' will be attracted inside. Close box and shake vigorously. Torrents of dead 'little people' will pour out, but never any oligarchs. Repeat as often as desired. It's magic!
jfl | Jun 11, 2017 4:58:36 PM | 50

thanks for the link. reading what amounts to a short introduction, i discovered that Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy itself is available, as so many good books are available, from our friends and benefactors at library genesis.

Archive.org has one: Political parties; a sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy Michels, Robert, 1876-1936 Free

[Jun 11, 2017] Neo-Gramscianism - Wikipedia

Jun 11, 2017 | en.wikipedia.org
Neo-Gramscianism applies a critical theory approach to the study of International Relations (IR) and the Global Political Economy (GPE) that explores the interface of ideas, institutions and material capabilities as they shape the specific contours of the state formation. The theory is heavily influenced by the writings of Antonio Gramsci . [1]

Neo-Gramscianism analyzes how the particular constellation of social forces, the state and the dominant ideational configuration define and sustain world orders. In this sense, the Neo-Gramscian approach breaks the decades-old stalemate between the realist schools of thought, and the liberal theories by historicizing the very theoretical foundations of the two streams as part of a particular world order, and finding the interlocking relationship between agency and structure . Furthermore, Karl Polanyi , Karl Marx , Max Weber , Niccolň Machiavelli , Max Horkheimer , Theodor Adorno and Michel Foucault are cited as major sources within the Critical theory of International Relations. [1] York University professor emeritus, Robert W. Cox 's article "Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory", in Millennium 10 (1981) 2, and "Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method", published in Millennium 12 (1983) 2. In his 1981 article, Cox demands a critical study of IR, as opposed to the usual "problem-solving" theories, which do not interrogate the origin, nature and development of historical structures, but accept for example that states and the (supposedly) "anarchic" relationships between them as Kantian Dinge an sich .

However, Cox disavows the label Neo-Gramscian despite the fact that in a follow-up article, he showed how Gramsci's thought can be used to analyze power structures within the GPE. Particularly Gramsci's concept of hegemony , vastly different from the realists' conception of hegemony, appears fruitful. Gramsci's state theory, his conception of " historic blocs " – dominant configurations of material capabilities, ideologies and institutions as determining frames for individual and collective action – and of élites acting as "organic intellectuals" forging historic blocs , is also deemed useful.

The Neo-Gramscian approach has also been developed along somewhat different lines by Cox's colleague, Stephen Gill , distinguished research professor of political science at York University in Toronto . Gill contributed to showing how the elite Trilateral Commission acted as an "organic intellectual", forging the (currently hegemonic) ideology of neoliberalism and the so-called " Washington Consensus " and later in relation to the globalization of power and resistance in his book "Power and Resistance in the New World Order" (Palgrave 2003). Gill also partnered with fellow Canadian academic A. Claire Cutler to release a Neo-Gramscian inspired volume entitled "New Constitutionalism and World Order" (Cambridge 2014). The book brings together a selection of critical theorists and Neo-Gramscians to analyze the disciplinary power of legal and constitutional innovations in the global political economy. Co-editor A. Claire Cutler has been a pioneer scholar detailing a Neo-Gramscian theory of international law . [2] Outside of North America, the so-called "Amsterdam School" around Kees Van Der Pijl and Henk Overbeek (at VU University Amsterdam ) and individual researchers in Germany , notably in Düsseldorf , Kassel and Marburg as well as at the Centre for Global Political Economy at the University of Sussex in the UK, and other parts of the world, have adopted the neo-Gramscian critical method.

Basics of the neo-Gramscian perspective [ edit ]

In the mainstream approaches to international or global political economy the ontological centrality of the state is not in question. In contrast, Neo-Gramscianism, using an approach which Henk Overbeek, Professor of International Relations at the VU University , calls transnational historical materialism , "identifies state formation and interstate politics as moments of the transnational dynamics of capital accumulation and class formation". [3]

Neo-Gramscianism perceives state sovereignty as subjugated to a global economic system marked by the emergence of a transnational financial system and a corresponding transnational system of production. The major players in these systems, multinational corporations and international financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF , have evolved into a "transnational historic bloc" that exercises global hegemony (in contrast to the realist view of hegemony as the "predominant power of a state or a group of states"). [4] The historic bloc acquires its authority through the tacit consent of the governed population gained through coercive techniques of intellectual and cultural persuasion, largely absent violence. It links itself to other social groups that have been involved in political struggles [5] to expand its influence and seeks to solidify its power through the standardization and liberalization of national economies, creating a single regulatory regime (e.g. World Trade Organization ).

There are powerful forces opposing the progress of this historic bloc who may form counterhegemonies to challenge it as part of an open-ended class struggle. These might include neo-mercantilists who depend on the protection of tariffs and state subsidies, or alliances of lesser developed countries , or feminist and environmentalist movements in the industrialized west. [6] If a counterhegemony grows large enough it is able to subsume and replace the historic bloc it was born in. Neo-Gramscians use the Machiavellian terms war of position and war of movement to explain how this is possible. In a war of position a counterhegemonic movement attempts, through persuasion or propaganda, to increase the number of people who share its view on the hegemonic order; in a war of movement the counterhegemonic tendencies which have grown large enough overthrow, violently or democratically, the current hegemony and establish themselves as a new historic bloc. [7] [8]

[May 15, 2017] The explosive mixture of middle-class shrinking and dual economy in the West

This idea of two segregated societies within one nation is pretty convincing.
Notable quotes:
"... A book released last March by MIT economist Peter Temin argues that the U.S. is increasingly becoming what economists call a dual economy; that is, where there are two economies in effect, and one of the populations lives in an economy that is prosperous and secure, and the other part of the population lives in an economy that resembles those of some third world countries. ..."
"... The middle class is shrinking in the United States and this is an effect of both the advance of technology and American policies ..."
"... In the United States, our policies have divided us into two groups. Above the median income - above the middle class - is what I call the FTE sector, Finance, Technology and Electronics sector - of people who are doing well, and whose incomes are rising as our national product is growing. The middle class and below are losing shares of income, and their incomes are shrinking as the Pew studies, both of them, show. ..."
"... The model shows that the FTE sector makes policy for itself, and really does not consider how well the low wage sector is doing. In fact, it wants to keep wages and earnings low in the low wage sector, to provide cheap labour for the industrial employment. ..."
"... As already described , the middle-class, which has not collapsed yet in France, still has the characteristics that fit to the neoliberal regime. However, it is obvious that this tank of voters has shrunk significantly, and the establishment is struggling to keep them inside the desirable 'status quo' with tricks like the supposedly 'fresh', apolitical image of Emmanuel Macron, the threat of Le Pen's 'evil' figure that comes from the Far-Right, or, the illusion that they have the right to participate equally to almost every economic activity. ..."
"... The media promotes examples of young businessmen who have succeed to survive economically through start-up companies, yet, they avoid to tell that it is totally unrealistic to expect from most of the Greek youth to become innovative entrepreneurs. So, this illusion is promoted by the media because technology is automating production and factories need less and less workers, even in the public sector, which, moreover, is violently forced towards privatization. ..."
"... In the middle of the pyramid, a restructured class will serve and secure the domination of the top. Corporate executives, big journalists, scientific elites, suppression forces. It is characteristic that academic research is directed on the basis of the profits of big corporations. Funding is directed increasingly to practical applications in areas that can bring huge profits, like for example, the higher automation of production and therefore, the profit increase through the restriction of jobs. ..."
May 14, 2017 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

The Pew Research Center, released a new study on the size of the middle class in the U.S. and in ten European countries. The study found that the middle class shrank significantly in the U.S. in the last two decades from 1991 to 2010. While it also shrank in several other Western European countries, it shrank far more in the U.S. than anywhere else. Meanwhile, another study also released last week, and published in the journal Science, shows that class mobility in the U.S. declined dramatically in the 1980s, relative to the generation before that.

A book released last March by MIT economist Peter Temin argues that the U.S. is increasingly becoming what economists call a dual economy; that is, where there are two economies in effect, and one of the populations lives in an economy that is prosperous and secure, and the other part of the population lives in an economy that resembles those of some third world countries.

globinfo freexchange

MIT Economist Peter Temin spoke to Gregory Wilpert and the The Real News network.

As Temin states, among other things:

The middle class is shrinking in the United States and this is an effect of both the advance of technology and American policies . That is shown dramatically in the new study, because the United States is compared with many European countries. In some of them, the middle class is expanding in the last two decades, and in others it's decreasing. And while technology crosses national borders, national policies affect things within the country.

In the United States, our policies have divided us into two groups. Above the median income - above the middle class - is what I call the FTE sector, Finance, Technology and Electronics sector - of people who are doing well, and whose incomes are rising as our national product is growing. The middle class and below are losing shares of income, and their incomes are shrinking as the Pew studies, both of them, show.

The model shows that the FTE sector makes policy for itself, and really does not consider how well the low wage sector is doing. In fact, it wants to keep wages and earnings low in the low wage sector, to provide cheap labour for the industrial employment.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/BRs4VcHprqI" name="I1"

This model is similar to that pursued in eurozone through the Greek experiment. Yet, the establishment's decision centers still need the consent of the citizens to proceed. They got it in France with the election of their man to do the job, Emmanuel Macron.

As already described , the middle-class, which has not collapsed yet in France, still has the characteristics that fit to the neoliberal regime. However, it is obvious that this tank of voters has shrunk significantly, and the establishment is struggling to keep them inside the desirable 'status quo' with tricks like the supposedly 'fresh', apolitical image of Emmanuel Macron, the threat of Le Pen's 'evil' figure that comes from the Far-Right, or, the illusion that they have the right to participate equally to almost every economic activity.

For example, even in Greece, where the middle class suffered an unprecedented reduction because of Troika's (ECB, IMF, European Commission) policies, the last seven years, the propaganda of the establishment attempts to make young people believe that they can equally participate in innovative economic projects. The media promotes examples of young businessmen who have succeed to survive economically through start-up companies, yet, they avoid to tell that it is totally unrealistic to expect from most of the Greek youth to become innovative entrepreneurs. So, this illusion is promoted by the media because technology is automating production and factories need less and less workers, even in the public sector, which, moreover, is violently forced towards privatization.

As mentioned in previous article , the target of the middle class extinction in the West is to restrict the level of wages in developing economies and prevent current model to be expanded in those countries. The global economic elite is aiming now to create a more simple model which will be consisted basically of three main levels.

The 1% holding the biggest part of the global wealth, will lie, as always, at the top of the pyramid. In the current phase, frequent and successive economic crises, not only assist on the destruction of social state and uncontrolled massive privatizations, but also, on the elimination of the big competitors.

In the middle of the pyramid, a restructured class will serve and secure the domination of the top. Corporate executives, big journalists, scientific elites, suppression forces. It is characteristic that academic research is directed on the basis of the profits of big corporations. Funding is directed increasingly to practical applications in areas that can bring huge profits, like for example, the higher automation of production and therefore, the profit increase through the restriction of jobs.

The base of the pyramid will be consisted by the majority of workers in global level, with restricted wages, zero labor rights, and nearly zero opportunities for activities other than consumption.

This type of dual economy with the rapid extinction of middle class may bring dangerous instability because of the vast vacuum created between the elites and the masses. That's why the experiment is implemented in Greece, so that the new conditions to be tested. The last seven years, almost every practice was tested: psychological warfare, uninterrupted propaganda, financial coups, permanent threat for a sudden death of the economy, suppression measures, in order to keep the masses subservient, accepting the new conditions.

The establishment exploits the fact that the younger generations have no collective memories of big struggles. Their rights were taken for granted and now they accept that these must be taken away for the sake of the investors who will come to create jobs. These generations were built and raised according to the standards of the neoliberal regime 'Matrix'.

Yet, it is still not certain that people will accept this Dystopia so easily. The first signs can be seen already as recently, French workers seized factory and threatened to blow it up in protest over possible closure . Macron may discover soon that it will be very difficult to find the right balance in order to finish the job for the elites. And then, neither Brussels nor Berlin will be able to prevent the oncoming chaos in Europe and the West.

Read also:

[May 07, 2017] Book Review Game of Mates naked capitalism

Notable quotes:
"... Australia's Real Lifters and Leaners ..."
May 07, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
... ... ...

By Phil Soos, originally published at LF Economics

This is LF Economics' first review of a book, entitled Game of Mates: How Favours Bleed the Nation by economists Cameron K. Murray and Paul Frijters. The name is a play upon the wonderful TV series Game of Thrones and rightfully so, given both are about how a small number of wealthy and highly-connected individuals, often operating within a cluster of powerful networks, rig rules, policy, laws and ideology for their personal and class benefit.

Game of Mates is a gold mine of information on the racket of rent extraction for a number of reasons. First, it provides background on how the game slowly evolves (Chapter 1) by contrasting the hard-working Aussie Bruce with the connected insider and rent extractor known as James. By using the power of networking and soft corruption, the wealthy James (the 1%) is able to rip-off Bruce (the public) legally without violating the rule of law.

Second, the book goes on to detail the largest state-backed legal thefts carried out by the corporate sector for the benefit of rentiers. This term means those who obtain rents (unearned wealth and income over and above what is justified by perfectly-competitive markets). Unfortunately, Australia is a haven for robber barons, siphoning massive and illegitimate mountains of rents from the property market (Chapter 2), transportation (Chapter 3), superannuation (Chapter 5), mining (Chapter 7) and banking (Chapter 9) for the benefit of owners and managers.

... ... ... Game of Mates helps to reveal the absurdity of what is falsely called free-market capitalism, as it is thoroughly infected by rent extractors. Recent research has demonstrated that Australia's private sector is dominated by cartels of monopolists, duopolists and oligopolists to an even greater extent than the US, the latter of which is often considered the home of crony capitalism. This is no mean feat.

Whoever said there is no such thing as a free lunch (perhaps it was Milton Friedman or someone he quoted) is speaking an utter absurdity. The term 'free lunch' doesn't do justice in describing the epic levels of legal grift in our economy. Indeed, it should be termed 'free banquets' as we argued in our article Australia's Real Lifters and Leaners .

The process of extracting free banquets has gained pace since the neo-liberal reformation of the economy by the Hawke-Keating government, lurching from the centre-left to the centre-right on economy policy during the 1980s. The Howard government continued and magnified these rackets when in power between 1996 and 2007. It should be important to note that these policies can hardly be termed 'neo-liberal' when they are not new and often have little to do with economic liberalisation. Perhaps neo-feudal capitalism is a better term.

...It should be important to note that these policies can hardly be termed 'neo-liberal' when they are not new and often have little to do with economic liberalisation. Perhaps neo-feudal capitalism is a better term.

....

The Game of Mates is about detailing the methods of redistribution from the poor, labour, productive competitive business and the environment into the pockets of those who benefit the most from non-work. There are some data on how much the wealthy steal from everyone else (Chapter 13). Hint: the redistributions are massive in scale and yet do not quantify the full extent of the rent extraction taking place.

In addition, apart from criticising the upwards redistribution of wealth, they advocate solutions to rectifying these problems (Chapter 14). This can be done by reclaiming the value of the free banquets for the public, disrupting the coordination and networks used by rentiers, and shattering the myths peddled to justify their wholesale theft.

This book is a very timely addition to the emerging research in Australia and elsewhere which explains the processes and estimates the amount of wealth and income siphoned off by these schemes of legal theft. At 204 pages, it is not overly long and is makes for an easy read. Fortunately, the authors avoid the often opaque writing style and jargon often found in the economics and financial academic literature.

If one wants to understand how the country is being looted by the minority of the opulent for their own benefit, look no further.

Read more at gameofmates.com

JimTan , May 6, 2017 at 12:14 pm

The interesting thing about exploiting personal connections to extract rents, build cartels, capture regulators, gain legal protections, or generally restrict competition is that all these activities are essentially risk free. Gaining a rent or legal protection from a friend or colleague has zero risk, and guarantees higher profits. This is in contrast to innovation or product improvement which requires high risk, time, effort, capital, and expertise, but can return much higher profits. When opportunities for rent collection become systemic, I think economic rents can crowd out risky innovation because returns for economic rents are guaranteed. In this case the probabilities for (short-term) economic success are higher with economic rents, and as the saying goes 'firms act to maximize profitability'. That is a bad outcome for all of society.

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , May 6, 2017 at 6:23 pm

In 2014 62 individuals owned one half of the world's wealth, now that's down to just 8 people (how they sleep at night is utterly beyond me). When it's down to one guy we can strangle him in the bathtub and redistribute, and usher in a new Golden Age of prosperity and peace.

[Apr 28, 2017] The Final Stage of the Machiavellian Elites Takeover of America by Paul Fitzgerald & Elizabeth Gould

Notable quotes:
"... The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize "truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for genuine free speech. ..."
"... the entire "Freedom Manifesto" employed by the United States and Britain since World War II was never free at all, but a concoction of the CIA's Psychological Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare program waged on friend and foe alike. ..."
"... The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950 Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying the CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals, but for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans from their own political culture in such a way they would never really know it. ..."
"... The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them. ..."
"... PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement, to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion, doubt and loss of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West." The goal was to "predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners," while employing local elites "would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development." ..."
"... Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document. As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall also took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which emphasized the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and so on.' ..."
"... With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite. ..."
"... The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism, whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda. ..."
"... Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the IRD served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977. According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of " Britain's Secret Propaganda War ," "the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit the British Left." ..."
"... The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in 1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put out stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist spy. Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in his own intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book above all others that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think about politics." ..."
"... Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his Fourth International experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage for rolling back the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers" as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives. When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam in Afghanistan, it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the Machiavellians without anyone being the wiser. ..."
"... As George Orwell wrote in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud." ..."
www.truthdig.com

Editor's note: This article is the last in a four-part series on Truthdig called "Universal Empire" -- an examination of the current stage of the neocon takeover of American policy that began after World War ll. Read Part 1 , Part 2 and Part 3 .

The recent assertion by the Trump White House that Damascus and Moscow released "false narratives" to mislead the world about the April 4 sarin gas attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria, is a dangerous next step in the "fake news" propaganda war launched in the final days of the Obama administration. It is a step whose deep roots in Communist Trotsky's Fourth International must be understood before deciding whether American democracy can be reclaimed.

Muddying the waters of accountability in a way not seen since Sen. Joe McCarthy at the height of the Red Scare in the 1950s, the " Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act " signed into law without fanfare by Obama in December 2016 officially authorized a government censorship bureaucracy comparable only to George Orwell's fictional Ministry of Truth in his novel "1984." Referred to as " the Global Engagement Center ," the official purpose of this new bureaucracy is to "recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests." The real purpose of this Orwellian nightmare is to cook the books on anything that challenges Washington's neoconservative pro-war narrative and to intimidate, harass or jail anyone who tries. As has already been demonstrated by President Trump's firing of Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian government airbase, it is a recipe for a world war, and like it or not, that war has already begun.

This latest attack on Russia's supposed false narrative takes us right back to 1953 and the beginnings of the cultural war between East and West. Its roots are tied to the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to James Burnham's pivot from Trotsky's Fourth International to right-wing conservatism and to the rise of the neoconservative Machiavellians as a political force. As Burnham's " The Struggle for the World " stressed, the Third World War had already begun with the 1944 Communist-led Greek sailors' revolt.

In Burnham's Manichean thinking, the West was under siege. George Kennan's Cold War policy of containment was no different than Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. Détente with the Soviet Union amounted to surrender. Peace was only a disguise for war, and that war would be fought with politics, subversion, terrorism and psychological warfare. Soviet influence had to be rolled back wherever possible. That meant subverting the Soviet Union and its proxies and, when necessary, subverting Western democracies as well.

The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize "truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for genuine free speech. The real irony is that the entire "Freedom Manifesto" employed by the United States and Britain since World War II was never free at all, but a concoction of the CIA's Psychological Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare program waged on friend and foe alike.

The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950 Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying the CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals, but for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans from their own political culture in such a way they would never really know it.

As historian Christopher Lasch wrote in 1969 of the CIA's cooptation of the American left,

"The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them. This propaganda, in order to be successful, demands the cooperation of writers, teachers, and artists not as paid propagandists or state-censored time-servers but as 'free' intellectuals capable of policing their own jurisdictions and of enforcing acceptable standards of responsibility within the various intellectual professions."

Key to turning these "free" intellectuals against their own interests was the CIA's doctrinal program for Western cultural transformation contained in the document PSB D-33/2 . PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement, to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion, doubt and loss of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West." The goal was to "predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners," while employing local elites "would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development."

While declaring itself as an antidote to Communist totalitarianism, one internal critic of the program, PSB officer Charles Burton Marshall, viewed PSB D-33/2 itself as frighteningly totalitarian, interposing "a wide doctrinal system" that "accepts uniformity as a substitute for diversity," embracing "all fields of human thought -- all fields of intellectual interests, from anthropology and artistic creations to sociology and scientific methodology." He concluded: "That is just about as totalitarian as one can get."

Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document. As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall also took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which emphasized the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and so on.' Weren't these the models used by James Burnham in his book the Machiavellians? Perhaps there was a copy usefully to hand when PSB D-33/2 was being drafted. More likely, James Burnham himself was usefully to hand."

Burnham was more than just at hand when it came to secretly implanting a fascist philosophy of extreme elitism into America's Cold War orthodoxy. With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite.

The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism, whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda.

Hard at work on that task since 1946 was the secret Information Research Department of the British and Commonwealth Foreign Office known as the IRD.

Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the IRD served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977. According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of " Britain's Secret Propaganda War ," "the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit the British Left."

IRD was to become a self-fulfilling disinformation machine for the far-right wing of the international intelligence elite, at once offering fabricated and distorted information to "independent" news outlets and then using the laundered story as "proof" of the false story's validity. One such front enterprise established with CIA money was Forum World Features, operated at one time by Burnham acolyte Brian Rossiter Crozier . Described by Burnham's biographer Daniel Kelly as a "British political analyst," in reality, the legendary Brian Crozier functioned for over 50 years as one of Britain's top propagandists and secret agents .

If anyone today is shocked by the biased, one-sided, xenophobic rush to judgment alleging Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election, they need look no further than to Brian Crozier's closet for the blueprints. As we were told outright by an American military officer during the first war in Afghanistan in 1982, the U.S. didn't need "proof the Soviets used poison gas" and they don't need proof against Russia now. Crozier might best be described as a daydream believer, a dangerous imperialist who acts out his dreams with open eyes. From the beginning of the Cold War until his death in 2012, Crozier and his protégé Robert Moss propagandized on behalf of military dictators Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet, organized private intelligence organizations to destabilize governments in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Africa and worked to delegitimize politicians in Europe and Britain viewed as insufficiently anti-Communist.

The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in 1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put out stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist spy. Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in his own intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book above all others that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think about politics." The key to Crozier's thinking was Burnham's distinction between the "formal" meaning of political speech and the "real," a concept which was, of course, grasped only by elites. In a 1976 article, Crozier marveled at how Burnham's understanding of politics had spanned 600 years and how the use of "the formal" to conceal "the real" was no different today than when used by Dante Alighieri's "presumably enlightened Medieval mind." "The point is as valid now as it was in ancient times and in the Florentine Middle Ages, or in 1943. Overwhelmingly, political writers and speakers still use Dante's method. Depending on the degree of obfuscation required (either by circumstances or the person's character), the divorce between formal and real meaning is more of less absolute."

But Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his Fourth International experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage for rolling back the Soviet Union.

In a secret meeting at a City of London bank in February 1977, he even patented a private-sector operational intelligence organization known at the Sixth International (6I) to pick up where Burnham left off: politicizing and privatizing many of the dirty tricks the CIA and other intelligence services could no longer be caught doing. As he explained in his memoir "Free Agent," the name 6I was chosen "because the Fourth International split. The Fourth International was the Trotskyist one, and when it split, this meant that, on paper, there were five Internationals. In the numbers game, we would constitute the Sixth International, or '6I.' "

Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers" as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives. When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam in Afghanistan, it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the Machiavellians without anyone being the wiser.

As George Orwell wrote in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud."

Today, Burnham's use of Dante's political treatise "De Monarchia" to explain his medieval understanding of politics might best be swapped for Dante's "Divine Comedy," a paranoid comedy of errors in which the door to Hell swings open to one and all, including the elites regardless of their status. Or as they say in Hell, " Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate ." Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

This poart 4 of the series. For previous parts see

  1. Part 1: American Imperialism Leads the World Into Dante's Vision of Hell
  2. Part 3: How the CIA Created a Fake Western Reality for 'Unconventional Warfare'

Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of " Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story ," " Crossing Zero: The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire " and " The Voice ." Visit their websites at invisiblehistory.com and grailwerk.com .

[Apr 28, 2017] Former President Obama Has a New Job Control the Official Narrative of American Exceptionalism - Truthdig

Apr 28, 2017 | www.truthdig.com
The ruling class is seriously rattled over its loss of control over the national political narrative-a consequence of capitalism's terminal decay and U.S. imperialism's slipping grip on global hegemony. When the Lords of Capital get rattled, their servants in the political class are tasked with rearranging the picture and reframing the national conversation. In other words, Papa Imperialism needs a new set of lies, or renewed respect for the old ones. Former president Barack Obama, the cool operator who put the U.S. back on the multiple wars track after a forced lull in the wake of George Bush's defeat in Iraq, has eagerly accepted his new assignment as Esteemed Guardian of Official Lies.

At this stage of his career, Obama must dedicate much of his time to the maintenance of Official Lies, since they are central to his own "legacy." With the frenzied assistance of his first secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, Obama launched a massive military offensive-a rush job to put the New American Century back on schedule. Pivoting to all corners of the planet, and with the general aim of isolating and intimidating Russia and China, the salient feature of Obama's offensive was the naked deployment of Islamic jihadists as foot soldiers of U.S. imperialism in Libya and Syria. It is a strategy that is morally and politically indefensible-unspeakable!-the truth of which would shatter the prevailing order in the imperial heartland, itself.

Thus, from 2011 to when he left the White House for a Tahiti yachting vacation with music mogul David Geffen and assorted movie and media celebrities, Obama orchestrated what the late Saddam Hussein would have called "The Mother of All Lies": that the U.S. was not locked in an alliance with al-Qaida and its terrorist offshoots in Syria, a relationship begun almost 40 years earlier in Afghanistan.

Advertisement Square, Site wide He had all the help he needed from a compliant corporate media, whose loyalty to U.S. foreign policy can always be counted on in times of war. Since the U.S. is constantly in a (self-proclaimed) state of war, corporate media collaboration is guaranteed. Outside the U.S. and European corporate media bubble, the whole world was aware that al-Qaida and the U.S. were comrades in arms. (According to a 2015 poll, 82 percent of Syrians and 85 percent of Iraqis believe the U.S. created ISIS .) When Vladimir Putin told a session of the United Nations General Assembly that satellites showed lines of ISIS tankers stretching from captured Syrian oil fields "to the horizon," bound for U.S.-allied Turkey, yet untouched by American bombers, the Obama administration had no retort. Russian jets destroyed 1,000 of the tankers , forcing the Americans to mount their own, smaller raids. But, the moment soon passed into the corporate media's amnesia hole-another fact that must be shed in order to avoid unspeakable conclusions.

Presidential candidate Donald Trump's flirtation with the idea of ending U.S. "regime change" policy in Syria-and, thereby, scuttling the alliance with Islamic jihadists-struck panic in the ruling class and in the imperial political structures that are called the Deep State, which includes the corporate media. When Trump won the general election, the imperial political class went into meltdown, blaming "The Russians"-first, for warlord Hillary Clinton's loss, and soon later for everything under the sun. The latest lie is that Moscow is sending weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the country where the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan spent billions of dollars to create the international jihadist network. Which shows that imperialists have no sense of irony, or shame. (See BAR: " The U.S., Not Russia, Arms Jihadists Worldwide .")

After the election, lame duck President Obama was so consumed by the need to expunge all narratives that ran counter to "The Russians Did It," he twice yammered about " fake news " at a press conference in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Obama was upset, he said, "Because in an age where there's so much active misinformation and its packaged very well and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television. If everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won't know what to protect."

Although now an ex-president, it is still Obama's job to protect the ruling class, and the Empire, and his role in maintaining the Empire: his legacy. To do that, one must control the narrative-the subject uppermost in his mind when he used Chicago area students as props, this week, for his first public speech since leaving the White House.

"It used to be that everybody kind of had the same information," said Obama, at the University of Chicago affair. "We had different opinions about it, but there was a common base line of facts. The internet has in some ways accelerated this sense of people having entirely separate conversations, and this generation is getting its information through its phones. That you really don't have to confront people who have different opinions or have a different experience or a different outlook."

Obama continued:

"If you're liberal, you're on MSNBC, or conservative, you're on Fox News. You're reading The Wall Street Journal or you're reading The New York Times, or whatever your choices are. Or, maybe you're just looking at cat videos [laughter].

"So, one question I have for all of you is, How do you guys get your information about the news and what's happening out there, and are there ways in which you think we could do a better job of creating a common conversation now that you've got 600 cable stations and you've got all these different news opinions-and, if there are two sets of opinions, then they're just yelling at each other, so you don't get a sense that there's an actual conversation going on. And the internet is worse. It's become more polarized."

Obama's core concern is that there should be a "common base line of facts," which he claims used to exist "20 or 30 years ago." The internet, unregulated and cheaply accessed, is the villain, and the main source of "fake news" (from publications like BAR and the 12 other leftwing sites smeared by the Washington Post, back in November, not long after Obama complained to Merkel about "fake news").

However, Obama tries to dress up his anti-internet "fake news" whine with a phony pitch for diversity of opinions. Is he suggesting that MSNBC viewers also watch Fox News, and that New York Times readers also peruse the Wall Street Journal? Is he saying that most people read a variety of daily newspapers "back in the day"? It is true that, generations ago, there were far more newspapers available to read, reflecting a somewhat wider ideological range of views. But most people read the ones that were closest to their own politics, just as now. Obama is playing his usual game of diversion. Non-corporate news is his target: "...the internet is worse. It's become more and more polarized."

The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC and Fox News all share the "common base line of facts" that Obama cherishes. By this, he means a common narrative, with American "exceptionalism" and intrinsic goodness at the center, capitalism and democracy as synonymous, and unity in opposition to the "common" enemy: Soviet Russians; then terrorists; now non-Soviet Russians, again.

Ayanna Watkins, a senior at Chicago's Kenwood Academy High School, clearly understood Obama's emphasis, and eagerly agreed with his thrust. "When it comes to getting information about what's going on in the world, it's way faster on social media than it is on newscasts," she said.

"But, on the other hand, it can be a downfall because, what if you're passing the wrong information, or the information isn't presented the way it should be? So, that causes a clash in our generation, and I think it should go back to the old school. I mean, phones, social media should be eliminated," Ms. Watkins blurted out, provoking laughter from the audience and causing the 18-year-old to "rephrase myself."

What she really meant, she said, was that politicians should "go out to the community" so that "the community will feel more welcome."

If she was trying to agree with Obama, Ms. Watkins had it right the first time: political counter-narratives on the internet have to go, so that Americans can share a "common base line" of information. All of it lies.

Black Agenda Report executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected].

[Mar 24, 2017] Paltering as a new way to not tell the truth

Notable quotes:
"... The palter was to skip the fact that it had broken down twice in the last year, instead saying, "This car drives very smoothly and is very responsive. Just last week it started up with no problems when the temperature was 5 degrees Fahrenheit." The outright lie would have been: "This car has never had problems." Researchers learned that car sellers perceived paltering as more ethical than lying, and thus used it more. ..."
"... Paltering allows people who consider themselves honest to deceive others while getting the same results that lying would. In a third experiment, participants in a pretend real estate negotiation performed just as well when they paltered as they did when they lied. Their successes didn't come without costs, however. When the deception was discovered, negotiation partners deemed palterers as untrustworthy as liars. ..."
"... One occasional advantage of paltering over lying is plausible deniability: You can blame any misunderstanding on the listener. ..."
"... So how can you avoid falling victim? "If you ask a specific question, that specific question should be answered, not a variant of it," Rogers says, even though insistence on clarification "often makes you look like a jerk." ..."
"... Paltering relies on our tendency to trust others and not cause a scene. ..."
Mar 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs : March 18, 2017 at 08:39 PM , 2017 at 08:39 PM 'Paltering,' a new way to not tell the truth
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/03/17/paltering-new-way-not-tell-truth/TRB2ap22NK5Ya8KjF4x0GI/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe
Matthew Hutson - March 17, 2017

... ... ..

Although paltering occurs in all realms of life, researchers at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government focused on its use in negotiation. In one of eight studies to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, study participants pretended to sell a used car on eBay. They answered the buyer's question "Has this car ever had problems?" with a response selected from a list supplied by the researchers.

The palter was to skip the fact that it had broken down twice in the last year, instead saying, "This car drives very smoothly and is very responsive. Just last week it started up with no problems when the temperature was 5 degrees Fahrenheit." The outright lie would have been: "This car has never had problems." Researchers learned that car sellers perceived paltering as more ethical than lying, and thus used it more.

In another study, half of surveyed executives said they paltered in more than "a few" of their negotiations, versus a fifth who said they actively lied more than a few times. Consistent with this discrepancy, executives viewed the behavior as more honest than lying.

Paltering allows people who consider themselves honest to deceive others while getting the same results that lying would. In a third experiment, participants in a pretend real estate negotiation performed just as well when they paltered as they did when they lied. Their successes didn't come without costs, however. When the deception was discovered, negotiation partners deemed palterers as untrustworthy as liars.

Another study found that victims saw palterers as less ethical than palterers saw themselves. We have a "broken mental model" of paltering, the researchers have concluded, seeing this behavior as honest when others do not.

One occasional advantage of paltering over lying is plausible deniability: You can blame any misunderstanding on the listener. Without knowing the speaker's intentions, it's difficult to diagnose paltering with certainty says Todd Rogers, a behavioral scientist at the Kennedy School and the paper's lead author. Few examples are as clear as Bill Clinton's response when asked if he'd had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky: "There is not a sexual relationship - that is accurate." (Note the slick use of present tense.)

So how can you avoid falling victim? "If you ask a specific question, that specific question should be answered, not a variant of it," Rogers says, even though insistence on clarification "often makes you look like a jerk."

Paltering relies on our tendency to trust others and not cause a scene. "It's pretty amazing how much you can get away with because of people's truth bias," says David Clementson, a researcher at Ohio State University's School of Communication, who was not involved in the study. "Paltering totally takes advantage of that, diabolically and deceptively."

Artful Paltering: The Risks and Rewards
of Using Truthful Statements to Mislead Others
Rogers, Todd; Zeckhauser, Richard; et al.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol 112(3), Mar 2017,
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-pspi0000081.pdf

There's a Word for Using
Truthful Facts to Deceive: Paltering
HBR - Francesca Gino - October 05, 2016
https://hbr.org/2016/10/theres-a-word-for-using-truthful-facts-to-deceive-paltering

[Mar 18, 2017] The Role of Experts in Public Debate

Notable quotes:
"... Economist James K. Galbraith disputes these claims of the benefit of comparative advantage. He states that "free trade has attained the status of a god" and that ". . . none of the world's most successful trading regions, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now mainland China, reached their current status by adopting neoliberal trading rules." He argues that ". . . comparative advantage is based upon the concept of constant returns: the idea that you can double or triple the output of any good simply by doubling or tripling the inputs. But this is not generally the case. For manufactured products, increasing returns, learning, and technical change are the rule, not the exception; the cost of production falls with experience. With increasing returns, the lowest cost will be incurred by the country that starts earliest and moves fastest on any particular line. Potential competitors have to protect their own industries if they wish them to survive long enough to achieve competitive scale."[42] ..."
"... Galbraith, as always, is very succinct and readable. I well remember sitting in an economics lecture in the 1980's when the Professor mentioned Galbraith and described him as with distain someone 'who's ideas were more popular with the public than with economists'. The snigger of agreement that ran around the students in the hall made me realise just how ingrained the ideology of economics was as I'm pretty sure I was the only one of the students who'd actually read any Galbraith. ..."
"... I'd also recommend Ha-Joon Chang as someone who is very readable on the topic of the many weaknesses of conventional ideas on comparative advantage. ..."
"... "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." ..."
"... I've noticed many experts are especially bad at verbosity. Maybe they think somehow that quantity of words is a form of potency. Maybe that's it. Also individuals with a grievance who write posts about their grievance. I know when I have a grievance it's hard to shut up. I'm just being honest. I'll keep rambling and rambling, repeating myelf and fulminating. Thankfully I know better than to write like that. ..."
"... Thing 13: Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer. Trickle down economics doesn't work because wealth doesn't trickle down. It trickles up, which is why the rich are the rich in the first place ..."
"... Thing 23: Good economic policy does not require good economists. Most of the really important economic issues, the ones that decide whether nations sink or swim, are within the intellectual reach of intelligent non-economists. Academic Economics with a capital "E" has remarkably little to say about the things that really matter. Concerned citizens need to stop being intimidated by the experts here. ..."
"... Although Ha Joon Chang is an excellent economist, I would also strongly recommend Michael Hudson, Michael Perelman, Steve Keen and E. Ray Canterbery - they are really great, along with Samir Amin of Senegal. ..."
"... A major issue is that those incapable politicians do rely upon experts, but they have consistently selected experts not on their track record (such as how good economists were at predicting the evolution of the economy, or how good political scientists were at predicting the evolution of communist or Arab societies), but on whether pronouncements of experts corresponded to their ideological preconceptions and justified their intended policies. ..."
"... A bit like rejecting physicians' diagnoses when they do not suit you and preferring the cure of a quack. ..."
"... This is not restricted to economists, it pervasive in science in general. I can't remember how many times I got a paper for peer review where I couldn't figure out what the person was trying to say because they layered the jargon ten levels deep. ..."
"... I think it is as simple as: if you create something that justifies the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you have something to sell and willing buyers. If you create something that delegitimizes the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you not only have no willing patrons but you have made powerful enemies. ..."
"... It is the law of supply and demand for pretentious bullshit. ..."
"... Leave workers exposed to starvation long enough and they'll work for next- to-nothing. The solution to James O'Connor's Fiscal Crisis of the State is to clean house in a big way, a very big way. Put everyone out on the street and start all over again. (Everyone but the 1% of course.) ..."
"... It's Andrew Mellon's advice for getting out of the Depression: "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people." ..."
"... The Reserve Army of Labor saves the Capitalist Day, once again. (Except for the little problem that the 1% won't accept their own liquidation, so Goldman Sachs and the rest must be exempted from the purging–which means that the purging can't work.) ..."
"... Not too long before he died, Paul Samuelson said: "Maybe I was wrong on the subject of jobs offshoring." (I.e., maybe offshoring all the jobs and dismantling the US economy wasn't so intelligent after all!) ..."
"... C. Wright Mills called them "crackpot realists." ..."
"... It's all a part and parcel of the meritocracy. If you don't have a degree in Econ, your opinion doesn't matter about why your job moved to China. If you don't have a degree in Urban Planning, you don't get to comment on how the city wants to tear down the park and put up condos. ..."
"... Their advice helped lead to this 2008 Financial Crisis. The promise of neoliberalism was faster growth. It did not happen. Quite the opposite. It gave the rich intellectual cover to loot society. That"s what this was always about. ..."
"... Then there's the matter of the Iraq War. Another example. Many foreign policy "experts", particularly affiliated with the neoconservative assured the American people that invading Iraq would be easy to do and lead to lots of long term benefits. Others insisted, despite evidence to the contrary, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. Now look at where we are. No WMDs, long and cost war, with no long-term solutions. Many of said "experts" later endorsed Clinton. ..."
"... We do not need pro-Establishment experts who sell themselves out to enrich themselves. We need experts who act in the public interest. ..."
Mar 18, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

By Sandwichman. Originally published at Angry Bear

Jonathan Portes asks, " What's the role of experts in the public debate? " He assumes it is his prerogative, as an expert, to define that role:

I think we have three really important functions.

First, to explain our basic concepts and most important insights in plain English. Famously, Paul Samuelson, the founder of modern macroeconomics, was asked whether economics told us anything that was true but not obvious. It took him a couple of years, but eventually he gave an excellent and topical example – simply the theory of comparative advantage.

Similarly, I often say that the most useful thing I did in my 6 years as Chief Economist at DWP was to explain the lump of labour fallacy – that there isn't a fixed number of jobs in the economy, and increased immigration or more women working adds to both labour demand and labour supply – to six successive Secretaries of State. So that's the first.

Second is to call bullshit.

O.K. I call bullshit. What Portes explained "to six successive Secretaries of State" was a figment of the imagination of a late 18th century Lancashire magistrate, a self-styled " friend to the poor " who couldn't understand why poor people got so upset about having their wages cut or losing their jobs - to the extent they would go around throwing rocks through windows, breaking machines and burning down factories - when it was obvious to him that it was all for the best and in the long run we would all be better off or else dead.

I call bullshit because what Portes explained to six successive Secretaries of State was simply the return of the repressed - the obverse of "Say's Law" (which was neither Say's nor a Law) that "supply creates its own demand," which John Maynard Keynes demolished in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money and that John Kenneth Galbraith subsequently declared " sank without trace " in the wake of Keynes's demolition of it.

I call bullshit because when Paul Samuelson resurrected the defunct fallacy claim that Portes explained to six successive Secretaries of State, he did so on the condition that governments pursued the sorts of "Keynesian" job-creating policies that the discredited principle of "supply creates its own demand" insisted were both unnecessary and counter-productive.

But the lump of labor argument implies that there is only so much useful remunerative work to be done in any economic system, and that is indeed a fallacy . If proper and sound monetary, fiscal, and pricing policies are being vigorously promulgated , we need not resign ourselves to mass unemployment. And although technological unemployment is not to be shrugged off lightly, its optimal solution lies in offsetting policies that create adequate job opportunities and new skills.

[Incidentally, as Robert Schiller has noted, the promised prevention of mass unemployment by vigorous policy intervention did not imply the preservation of wage levels. Schiller cited the following passage from the Samuelson textbook, " a decrease in the demand for a particular kind of labor because of technological shifts in an industry can he adapted to - lower relative wages and migration of labor and capital will eventually provide new jobs for the displaced workers."]

I call bullshit because what Portes explained to six successive Secretaries of State was not even Paul Samuelson's policy-animated zombie lump-of-labour fallacy but a supply-side, anti-inflationary retrofit cobbled together by Richard Layard and associates and touted by Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder as the Third Way " new supply-side agenda for the left. " Central to that agenda were tax cuts to promote economic growth and "active labour market policies" to foster non-inflationary expansion of employment by making conditions more "flexible" and lower-waged:

Part-time work and low-paid work are better than no work because they ease the transition from unemployment to jobs.

Encourage employers to offer 'entry' jobs to the labour market by lowering the burden of tax and social security contributions on low-paid jobs.

Adjustment will be the easier, the more labour and product markets are working properly. Barriers to employment in relatively low productivity sectors need to be lowered if employees displaced by the productivity gains that are an inherent feature of structural change are to find jobs elsewhere. The labour market needs a low-wage sector in order to make low-skill jobs available.

I call bullshit because in defending the outcomes of supply-side labour policies, Portes soft-pedaled the stated low-wage objectives of the Third Way agenda. In a London Review of Books review, Portes admitted that "it may drive down wages for the low-skilled, but the effect is small compared to that of other factors (technological change, the national minimum wage and so on)." In the Third Way supply-side agenda, however, a low-wage sector was promoted as a desirable feature - making more low-skill jobs available - not a trivial bug to be brushed aside. In other words, in "driving down wages for the low skilled" the policy was achieving exactly what it was intended to but Portes was "too discreet" to admit that was the stated objectives of the policy.

dk , March 18, 2017 at 4:47 am

I found this helpful in better understanding the economics discussed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Criticism

Economist James K. Galbraith disputes these claims of the benefit of comparative advantage. He states that "free trade has attained the status of a god" and that ". . . none of the world's most successful trading regions, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and now mainland China, reached their current status by adopting neoliberal trading rules." He argues that ". . . comparative advantage is based upon the concept of constant returns: the idea that you can double or triple the output of any good simply by doubling or tripling the inputs. But this is not generally the case. For manufactured products, increasing returns, learning, and technical change are the rule, not the exception; the cost of production falls with experience. With increasing returns, the lowest cost will be incurred by the country that starts earliest and moves fastest on any particular line. Potential competitors have to protect their own industries if they wish them to survive long enough to achieve competitive scale."[42]

Galbraith also contends that "For most other commodities, where land or ecology places limits on the expansion of capacity, the opposite condition – diminishing returns – is the rule. In this situation, there can be no guarantee that an advantage of relative cost will persist once specialization and the resultant expansion of production take place. A classic and tragic example, studied by Erik Reinert, is transitional Mongolia, a vast grassland with a tiny population and no industry that could compete on world markets. To the World Bank, Mongolia seemed a classic case of comparative advantage in animal husbandry, which in Mongolia consisted of vast herds of cattle, camels, sheep, and goats. Opening of industrial markets collapsed domestic industry, while privatization of the herds prompted the herders to increase their size. This led, within just a few years in the early 1990s, to overgrazing and permanent desertification of the subarctic steppe and, with a slightly colder than normal winter, a massive famine in the herds."

PlutoniumKun , March 18, 2017 at 5:45 am

Galbraith, as always, is very succinct and readable. I well remember sitting in an economics lecture in the 1980's when the Professor mentioned Galbraith and described him as with distain someone 'who's ideas were more popular with the public than with economists'. The snigger of agreement that ran around the students in the hall made me realise just how ingrained the ideology of economics was as I'm pretty sure I was the only one of the students who'd actually read any Galbraith.

I'd also recommend Ha-Joon Chang as someone who is very readable on the topic of the many weaknesses of conventional ideas on comparative advantage.

/L , March 18, 2017 at 6:39 am

James K Galbraith is the son of the famous New Deal economist John K Galbraith.

John K G:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

"In the case of economics there are no important propositions that cannot be stated in plain language."

/L , March 18, 2017 at 7:10 am

John K G on The Art of Good Writing

"I was an editor of Fortune under Henry Luce, the founder of Time, Inc., who was one of the most ruthless editors that I have ever known, that anyone has ever known. Henry could look over a sheet of copy and say, "This can go, and this can go, and this can go," and you would be left with eight to ten lines which said everything that you had said in twenty lines before.

And I can still, to this day, not write a page without the feeling that Henry Luce is looking over my shoulder and saying, "That can go." That illuminate one "problem" in our age of internet, unlimited space to be verbose and no editors that de-obscure the writers "thoughts".

JEHR , March 18, 2017 at 8:24 am

/L–This site is just wonderful! Anything you want to know about knowing seems to be here. Thanks for the great link.

sgt_doom , March 18, 2017 at 2:21 pm

Recommendation: Wealth, Power and the Crisis of Laissez-Faire Capitalism , by Donald Gibson

Norb , March 18, 2017 at 8:54 am

I wonder if this phenomenon – the desirability succinct communication -- was a holdover of earlier times, when accurate communication made the difference between life and death. Settling and developing a continent would place a high value on such purposeful human exchanges.

Today, we are awash in branding and marketing intended to maintain the current order. The language is used to obfuscate, not clarify experience or goals.

An expert in any field that has the ability to communicate in a general , popular mode, is of great value to society. Truth and understanding is its main function. Knowledge, or insight that cannot be shared is more often than not just an excuse to hide methods of control and exploitation.

If citizens can't get the generalities right, the specifics will be impossible to comprehend.

craazyman , March 18, 2017 at 5:23 pm

Almost everything can go. I remember seeing a video of the photographer William Klein saying a master photographer is remembered for just a handfull of images. Maybe 10 or 15, tops. Out of probably at least 100,000 serious photos.

Of course what goes is necessary fertilizer for what doesn't go. You can't avoid it. Hahahah. But you have to let it go anyway. Or your editor has to be williing to cut.

I've noticed lots and lots of posts here could be a lot better if the post author had said the same thing in half as many words. Most wouldn't lose any persuasion, if they had any to begin with. And they'd gain reader attention for the pruning.

I've noticed many experts are especially bad at verbosity. Maybe they think somehow that quantity of words is a form of potency. Maybe that's it. Also individuals with a grievance who write posts about their grievance. I know when I have a grievance it's hard to shut up. I'm just being honest. I'll keep rambling and rambling, repeating myelf and fulminating. Thankfully I know better than to write like that.

Having saidd all that, Say was rite. If the supply of labor increases, that createes its own demand for jobs! How is that not completely obvious.

PlutoniumKun , March 18, 2017 at 9:18 am

Ah yeah, sorry, getting my JK's mixed up. Both are good.

fresno dan , March 18, 2017 at 7:03 am

PlutoniumKun
March 18, 2017 at 5:45 am

Huffington Post review has a synopsis of the Ha-Joon Change book. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/a-review-of-ha-joon-chang_b_840417.html
My favorite:
Thing 13: Making rich people richer doesn't make the rest of us richer. Trickle down economics doesn't work because wealth doesn't trickle down. It trickles up, which is why the rich are the rich in the first place

shinola , March 18, 2017 at 12:55 pm

Thanks for the tip PK & thank you fd for the link to the review. I'm going to check this fellow out; sounds like he has some interesting things to say. One of the "things" that may apply to the above article:

Thing 23: Good economic policy does not require good economists. Most of the really important economic issues, the ones that decide whether nations sink or swim, are within the intellectual reach of intelligent non-economists. Academic Economics with a capital "E" has remarkably little to say about the things that really matter. Concerned citizens need to stop being intimidated by the experts here.

sgt_doom , March 18, 2017 at 2:18 pm

Although Ha Joon Chang is an excellent economist, I would also strongly recommend Michael Hudson, Michael Perelman, Steve Keen and E. Ray Canterbery - they are really great, along with Samir Amin of Senegal.

Anonymous2 , March 18, 2017 at 8:10 am

A word of warning from the UK. Denigrate experts too much and you end up like us with government by people who really are inexpert. That is not an improvement.

Mael Colium , March 18, 2017 at 8:39 am

Ha! I think an anti brexiter just rolled the white eye.

Strange that the awful things that the experts told us all would happen haven't and don't look like happening since the people called bullshit on the EU mess. Britain with or without those blokes in dresses up north will do just fine as they steer themselves out of the EU quagmire. I'll take the people anytime anonymous – they have more common sense than the experts. Didn't you read the article?

Anonymous2 , March 18, 2017 at 9:51 am

If you are referring to economic forecasters, they, by definition, are not experts.

sgt_doom , March 18, 2017 at 2:16 pm

Thank you!!!

I remember back in the 1980s, when so-called "experts" were prattling about such nonsense as . . .

"Computers don't make mistakes, humans make mistakes !"

Which was surely untrue as anyone with any real IT expertise back then would have explained that 97% or more of hardware crashes generate software problems (for obvious reasons).

visitor , March 18, 2017 at 9:16 am

A major issue is that those incapable politicians do rely upon experts, but they have consistently selected experts not on their track record (such as how good economists were at predicting the evolution of the economy, or how good political scientists were at predicting the evolution of communist or Arab societies), but on whether pronouncements of experts corresponded to their ideological preconceptions and justified their intended policies.

A bit like rejecting physicians' diagnoses when they do not suit you and preferring the cure of a quack.

voislav , March 18, 2017 at 8:28 am

This is not restricted to economists, it pervasive in science in general. I can't remember how many times I got a paper for peer review where I couldn't figure out what the person was trying to say because they layered the jargon ten levels deep. This is in chemistry, so things are typically straightforward, no need for convoluted explanations and massaging of the data.

But people still do it because that's the culture that they've been educated in, a scientific paper has to be high-brow, using obscure words and complicated sentences.

Steve Ruis , March 18, 2017 at 8:55 am

I think it is as simple as: if you create something that justifies the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you have something to sell and willing buyers. If you create something that delegitimizes the behaviors of the rich and powerful, you not only have no willing patrons but you have made powerful enemies.

It is the law of supply and demand for pretentious bullshit.

Paul Hirschman , March 18, 2017 at 9:03 am

So in the end, we wind up with Say's Law anyway, since creating a "low wages" sector is exactly how Say's Law functions–supply creates its own demand because declining wages means investment spending can increase, which keeps aggregate demand where it needs to be for full employment.

This is the solution, we are told, to Keynes "sticky prices." Jim Grant makes this very argument in his book about the "short-lived" crisis of the early 1920s. Leave workers exposed to starvation long enough and they'll work for next- to-nothing. The solution to James O'Connor's Fiscal Crisis of the State is to clean house in a big way, a very big way. Put everyone out on the street and start all over again. (Everyone but the 1% of course.)

It's Andrew Mellon's advice for getting out of the Depression: "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."

The Reserve Army of Labor saves the Capitalist Day, once again. (Except for the little problem that the 1% won't accept their own liquidation, so Goldman Sachs and the rest must be exempted from the purging–which means that the purging can't work.)

Back to managing stagnation.

Paul Hirschman , March 18, 2017 at 9:09 am

Managing stagnation is what we have "experts" for in the first place.

sgt_doom , March 18, 2017 at 2:12 pm

Not too long before he died, Paul Samuelson said: "Maybe I was wrong on the subject of jobs offshoring." (I.e., maybe offshoring all the jobs and dismantling the US economy wasn't so intelligent after all!)

Just finished a book called, The Death of Expertise , by a professor of national security (oh give me a frigging break!!!!), Tom Nichols.

Biggest pile of crapola I have ever read! The author was also yearning for the days when "experts" were blindly followed!

Sandwichman , March 18, 2017 at 2:38 pm

C. Wright Mills called them "crackpot realists."

marku52 , March 18, 2017 at 3:25 pm

It's all a part and parcel of the meritocracy. If you don't have a degree in Econ, your opinion doesn't matter about why your job moved to China. If you don't have a degree in Urban Planning, you don't get to comment on how the city wants to tear down the park and put up condos.

Altandmain , March 18, 2017 at 5:00 pm

The answer is that said "experts" have failed the general public miserably.

Their advice helped lead to this 2008 Financial Crisis. The promise of neoliberalism was faster growth. It did not happen. Quite the opposite. It gave the rich intellectual cover to loot society. That"s what this was always about.

Now people wonder, why they don't trust "experts"?

Then there's the matter of the Iraq War. Another example. Many foreign policy "experts", particularly affiliated with the neoconservative assured the American people that invading Iraq would be easy to do and lead to lots of long term benefits. Others insisted, despite evidence to the contrary, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. Now look at where we are. No WMDs, long and cost war, with no long-term solutions. Many of said "experts" later endorsed Clinton.

We do not need pro-Establishment experts who sell themselves out to enrich themselves. We need experts who act in the public interest.

[Feb 19, 2017] In Praise of Hypocrisy by Masha Gessen

Feb 18, 2017 | nyti.ms

Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom.

One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values - to be better. This tradition has set the standard of behavior for government officials and has shaped Americans' understanding of what their government and their country represent. Over the last four weeks, Mr. Trump has lashed out against any criticism of his behavior, because, as he never tires of pointing out, "We won." In requesting the resignation of his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, however, Mr. Trump made his first public concession to political expectations. Hypocrisy has scored a minor victory in America. This is a good thing.

The word "hypocrisy" was thrown around a lot during the 2016 presidential campaign. Both Mr. Trump and Bernie Sanders accused their respective parties and the country's elites of hypocrisy. As the election neared, some journalists tried to turn the accusation around on Mr. Trump, taking him to task, for example, for his stand on immigration. If Mr. Trump favored such a hard line on immigration, the logic went, should he not then favor the deportation of his own wife, Melania, who was alleged to have worked while in the United States on a visitor's visa?

The charge of hypocrisy didn't stick, not so much because it placed its proponents, unwittingly, in the distasteful position of advocating the deportation of someone for a long-ago and common transgression, but because Mr. Trump wasn't just breaking the rules of political conduct: He was destroying them. He was openly claiming that he abused the system to benefit himself. If he didn't pay his taxes and got away with it, this made him a good businessman. If he could force himself on women, that made him more of a man. He acted as though this primitive logic were obvious and shared by all.

Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers. Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior.

In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically, that their politics are based on values and principles. This stance has breathed new life into the old Soviet propaganda tool of "whataboutism," the trick of turning any argument against the opponent. When accused of falsifying elections, Russians retort that American elections are not unproblematic; when faced with accusations of corruption, they claim that the entire world is corrupt.

This month, Mr. Trump employed the technique of whataboutism when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?" To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy to understand the country. No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ...

Hungary's PM Viktor Orban praises Trump for saying countries should put their own interests first
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/donald-trump-nationalist-hungary-pm-viktor-orban-praise-america-first-a7542361.html

Reply Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 02:26 PM

ilsm said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...

the dems' deep state have already trodden the Bill of Rights how worse can it get......

fascism is in the US for 8 years or so. Reply Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 05:35 PM

[Feb 12, 2017] Instead of the endless perception management or strategic communication or psychological operations or whatever the new code words are, you could open up the files regarding key turning-point moments and share the facts with the citizens

Notable quotes:
"... This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong countries. ..."
"... But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the truth cannot be spoken. ..."
"... There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability – might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime change" adventures. ..."
"... But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives, a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with Russia. ..."
"... Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State but that idea, too, has met resistance. ..."
"... The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." ..."
"... What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor. ..."
"... My first concern, however, is the USA predilection for 'regime change" wars - and for that I blame the neocons. ..."
Feb 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
RGC : February 10, 2017 at 06:44 AM

If you wanted to bring sanity to a U.S. foreign policy that has spun crazily out of control, there would be some immediate steps that you – or, say, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – could take, starting with a renewed commitment to tell the truth to the American people.

Instead of the endless "perception management" or "strategic communication" or "psychological operations" or whatever the new code words are, you could open up the files regarding key turning-point moments and share the facts with the citizens – the "We the People" – who are supposed to be America's true sovereigns.

For instance, you could release what the U.S. government actually knows about the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack in Syria; what the files show about the origins of the Feb. 22, 2014 coup in Ukraine; what U.S. intelligence analysts have compiled about the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine. And those are just three examples of cases where U.S. government propagandists have sold a dubious bill of goods to the American and world publics in the "information warfare" campaign against the Syrian and Russian governments.

If you wanted to base U.S. foreign policy on the firm foundation of reality, you also could let the American people in on who is actually the principal sponsor of the terrorism that they're concerned about: Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Taliban – all Sunni-led outfits, none of which are backed by Shiite-ruled Iran. Yet, all we hear from Official Washington's political and media insiders is that Iran is the chief sponsor of terrorism.

Of course, that is what Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Israel want you to believe because it serves their regional and sectarian interests, but it isn't true. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are the ones arming and financing Al Qaeda and Islamic State with Israel occasionally bombing Al Qaeda's military enemies inside Syria and providing medical support for Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate operating near the Golan Heights.

The reason for this unsavory network of alliances is that Israel, like Saudi Arabia and the Sunni-led Gulf states, sees Iran and the so-called "Shiite crescent" – from Tehran through Damascus to Beirut – as their principal problem. And because of the oil sheiks' financial wealth and Israel's political clout, they control how pretty much everyone in Official Washington's establishment views the Middle East.

But the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are not in line with the interests of the American people – nor the average European – who are not concerned about militant Shiites as much as militant Sunnis. After all, the worst terror attacks on Europe and the U.S. have come from Sunni extremists belonging to or inspired by Al Qaeda and Islamic State.

This gap between the reality of Sunni-extremist terrorism and the fantasy of Official Washington's "group think" fingering Shiite-ruled Iran explains the cognitive dissonance over President Trump's travel ban on people from seven mostly Muslim countries. Beyond the offensive anti-Muslim prejudice, there is the fact that he ignored the countries that produced the terrorists who have attacked the U.S., including the 9/11 hijackers.

This bizarre feature of Trump's executive order shows how deep Official Washington's dysfunction goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong countries.

But there's a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the truth cannot be spoken.

There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability – might break from the absurd "Iran is the principal source of terrorism" mantra. But so far he has not. Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these "regime change" adventures.

But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives, a number of whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with Russia.

Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State but that idea, too, has met resistance.

The neocon threat to Trump's stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's neocon chief of staff, once wrote in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees "turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

In other words, if one neocon is given a key job, other neocons can be expected to follow. Then, any Trump deviation from neocon orthodoxy would be undermined in the classic Washington tradition of strategic leaking to powerful media and congressional allies.

So far, the Trump inner circle has shown the administrative savvy to avoid bringing in ideologues who would dedicate their efforts to thwarting any significant change in U.S. geopolitical directions.

What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/09/trumps-foreign-policy-at-a-crossroads/

Julio -> RGC... , February 10, 2017 at 09:04 AM
Very good analysis.
The first and obvious question about the ban is "why isn't Saudi Arabia included"? As the article shows, this question unravels this (Trump's) current version of dysfunctional foreign policy based on misleading the public.
RGC -> Julio ... , February 10, 2017 at 09:43 AM
Yes, Trump seems to want to act directly but he also seems to often be off-target.

My first concern, however, is the USA predilection for 'regime change" wars - and for that I blame the neocons.

sanjait said in reply to RGC... , February 10, 2017 at 10:56 AM
I am all for transparency but very strongly opposed to asinine conspiracy theories.
RGC -> sanjait... , February 10, 2017 at 11:29 AM
Why should anyone care? Maybe you should actually learn something about a topic before you comment on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American

[Feb 12, 2017] Russia Will Not Sell Snowden To Trump; Heres Why Zero Hedge

Feb 12, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Submitted by Alexander Mercouris via TheDuran.com,

On Friday 10th February 2017 NBC circulated a report the Russian government in order to improve relations with the Trump administration was preparing to hand Edward Snowden over to the US.

The report obviously worried Snowden himself, who tweeted that the report proved that he was not and never had been a Russian agent . That suggests that he took the report seriously.

Snowden should not be worried, since the report is groundless and is clearly a provocation. To see why it is only necessary to look at the NBC report itself , which makes it clear who is behind it...

U.S. intelligence has collected information that Russia is considering turning over Edward Snowden as a "gift" to President Donald Trump - who has called the NSA leaker a "spy" and a "traitor" who deserves to be executed.

That's according to a senior U.S. official who has analyzed a series of highly sensitive intelligence reports detailing Russian deliberations and who says a Snowden handover is one of various ploys to "curry favor" with Trump. A second source in the intelligence community confirms the intelligence about the Russian conversations and notes it has been gathered since the inauguration.

(bold italics added)

It turns out that the story does not originate in Russia. It originates with our old friends the 'anonymous officials' of the US intelligence community.

One of these officials claims that the story is based on "intelligence" of "Russian conversations" that the US intelligence community has 'gathered since the inauguration". We have no way of knowing at what level these "conversations" took place, assuming they took place at all, but it is inconceivable that the US intelligence community is genuinely informed of discussions within the top level of the Russian leadership – where such a question would be discussed – or if it is that it would publicise the fact by blurting the fact out to NBC.

The reality is that there is no possibility of the Russians handing Snowden over to the US in order to please Donald Trump . Not only would doing so almost certainly breach Russian law – as Snowden's lawyer, who has denied the whole story , has pointed out – but it contradicts what I personally heard Russian President Putin say at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in 2014 when the subject of Snowden was brought up, which is that Russia never hands over people like Snowden once they have gained asylum in Russia. That is indeed Russian practice extending far back into the Soviet period, and I can think of no exceptions to it.

As it happens Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova has denied the story in a Facebook post which links it to the ongoing struggle between the Trump administration and the US intelligence community (about which see more below). Here is how RT translates her post

Today, US intelligence agencies have stepped up their work, updating two stale stories, 'Russia can gift Snowden to Trump' and 'confirmation found on the details of the scandalous dossier on Trump allegedly collected by an ex-employee of British intelligence.' But it may seem so only to those who do not understand the essence of the game. None of these statements have been made by representatives of the special services, but is information coming from NBC and CNN, citing unnamed sources. The difference is obvious, but only to experts. Yet it is useful for scandalizing the public and maintaining a degree of [public outrage] .

It is evident that the pressure on the new administration on the part of political opponents within the United States continues, bargaining is going on. And that's why the US foreign policy doctrine has not yet been formed

It is just possible that US intelligence overheard some gossip in Moscow about the Kremlin handing Snowden over to Donald Trump in order to curry favour with him. The various reports the US intelligence community released during the Clinton leaks hacking scandal show that the US intelligence community is not actually very well informed about what goes on in Moscow or how the Russian government works. In light of that it would not be entirely surprising if someone overheard some gossip about Snowden in Moscow which the US intelligence community is over-interpreting.

Far more likely however is that – as Maria Zakharova says – this is a deliberate provocation, spread by someone within the US intelligence community who either wants to signal to Moscow what Moscow 'needs to do' if it wants better relations with the US, or (more probably) as a signal to Donald Trump of the minimum the US intelligence community expects of him if he wants the US intelligence community's support in seeking better relations with Russia.

This story is interesting not because of what it says about what the Russians are going to do to Snowden – which in reality is nothing. Rather it is interesting because it shows the degree to which Snowden continues to be an object of obsession for the US intelligence community.

The reason for that is that the US intelligence community knows that Snowden is not a Russian spy.

As Snowden has pointed out, if he really were a Russian spy no-one in Washington would be talking about the Russians handing him over. The Russians do not hand their spies over any more than the US does, and if Snowden really were a Russian spy no-one in Washington would talking about the Russians handing him over.

However if Snowden had been a Russian spy his actions would in that case have been simply a Russian intelligence operation of which the US intelligence community was the victim, of which there have been many since the Second World War. Espionage is what the US and Russia routinely do to each other, and there would be nothing remarkable about Snowden in that case.

It is the fact that Snowden is on the contrary a deeply patriotic American who acted from patriotic motives that has the US intelligence community enraged and alarmed. From their point of view having a patriotic American publicly expose their practices Jason Bourne style is a far greater threat than have a Russian spy penetrate their systems, since because of the far greater publicity it is far more likely to damage them politically.

This explains the extraordinary feud the US intelligence community has waged against Snowden, which in part explains why it has become so hostile to Russia, the country which has become his protector.

Mr.Sono -> knukles •Feb 12, 2017 5:41 PM
Putin is a man of his words and not a little bitch like Obama. I was suprised that fake news was all over zerohedge regarding this topic, but at the end zerohedge confirmed the fake news.
Giant Meteor -> FreeShitter •Feb 12, 2017 5:35 PM
One of the smartest plays the deep state could make is allowing him back, make small fuss, and issue a pardon. It would go far in deflating, diffusing the situation, de minimis so to speak. But, I suppose it is more about absolute control, control of the narrative, full spectrum dominance, cautionary tales etc. Pride goeth before the fall (destruction) I believe. Eventually this laundry is going to get sorted and cleaned, one way or the other.
boattrash •Feb 12, 2017 5:13 PM
" as Maria Zakharova says – this is a deliberate provocation, spread by someone within the US intelligence community who either wants to signal to Moscow what Moscow 'needs to do' if it wants better relations with the US, or (more probably) as a signal to Donald Trump of the minimum the US intelligence community expects of him if he wants the US intelligence community's support in seeking better relations with Russia."

A full pardon from Trump would improve his standing with the American people, IMHO, on both the left and the right.

HumanMan -> boattrash •Feb 12, 2017 5:29 PM
This was my thought when the story broke. Putin can no longer claim to be a protector of human rights if he hands over Snowden...Unless Trump is going to pardon him. As you pointed you, that would be great (politically) for Trump too. Done this way would be a win win for the two and another win for We The People. On top of that, Putin doesn't want to babysit Snowden. I'm sure the Russians would be happy to have a politically expediant way to get the American spy out of their country.
HRClinton •Feb 12, 2017 5:16 PM
The Deep State rules, no matter what DJT thinks.

The roots go deep in my fomer DOS and in the CIA Even in the DOD and Senate. Bill and I know this better than anyone.

FAKE NEWS:

On Friday 10th February 2017 NBC circulated a report the Russian government in order to improve relations with the Trump administration was preparing to hand Edward Snowden over to the US.

How many gringos were fooled???--- not many

shovelhead •Feb 12, 2017 5:37 PM
Pissgate II...

Brought to you from your friends at the CIA

Mr. Crisp •Feb 12, 2017 5:50 PM
Snowden showed the world that the NSA wasn't just tracking terrorists, they were tracking pretty much everyone, everywhere. He deserves a full pardon.

[Feb 09, 2017] How lies work

Feb 09, 2017 | stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com

Nick Cohen makes a good point : it is not congenital liars that should worry us, but congenital believers – those who fall for the lies of charlatans. We know that many do so: almost half of voters believed the lie that leaving the EU would allow us to spend an extra Ł350m a week on the NHS.

This poses the question: why do people fall for lies? Here, we can learn from behavioural economics and research (pdf) into criminal fraud. I reckon there are several factors that liars exploit in politics.

One is wishful thinking. People want to believe there's a simple solution to NHS underfunding (leave the EU!) or to low wages (cut immigration!) just as they want to believe they can get rich quick or make money by taking no risk: Ponzi schemers like Bernie Madoff play upon that last one. The wish is often the father to the belief.

Relatedly, perhaps, there are lottery-type preferences. People like long-odds bets and pay too much for them: this is why they back longshots (pdf) too much and pay over the odds for speculative shares . To such people, the fact that an offer seems too good to be true is therefore, paradoxically, tempting. A study of fraud by the OFT found :

Some people viewed responding to a scam as taking a long-odds gamble: they recognised that there was something wrong with the offer, but the size of the possible prize or reward (relative to the initial outlay) induced them to give it a try on the off-chance that it might be genuine.

There's a particular type that is especially likely to take a long-odds bet: the desperate. Lonely people are vulnerable to the romance scam; gamblers who have lost take big bets to get even; losing teams try "hail Mary" tactics. In like fashion, people who feel like they have lost out in the era of globalization were tempted to vote for Trump and Brexit.

There's another mechanism here: people are likely to turn to con-men if the alternatives have failed. Werner Troesken shows (pdf) how snake-oil sellers exploited this. They invested a lot in advertising and in product differentiation and so when other products failed they could claim that theirs would work when the others hadn't. I suspect that fund managers use a similar trick: the failure of many to beat the market leads investors simply to trust others rather than tracker funds. The fact that previous policies had failed working people thus encouraged them to try something different – be it Brexit or Trump.

Yet another trick here is the affinity fraud. We tend to trust people like ourselves, or who at least who look like ourselves. Farage's endless posturing as a "man of the people" – fag and pint in hand, not caring about "political correctness" – laid the basis for people to trust him, just as Bernie Madoff joined all the right clubs to encourage wealthy (often Jewish) folk to trust him. By contrast, the claims from the Treasury and various think-tanks that Brexit would make us poorer came from metropolitan elites who were so different from poorer working class people that they weren't trusted. And in fact the very talk of "liberal elites" carried the subtext: "don't trust them: they're not like you".

All of these tendencies have been reinforced by another – the fact that, as David Leiser and Zeev Kril have shown , people are bad at making connections in economics. The idea that Brexit would hurt us rested upon tricky connections: between the terms of Brexit and trade rules; from trade rules to actual trade; and from trade to productivity. By contrast, the idea that leaving the EU would save us money was simple and easy to believe.

Now, I don't say all this merely to be a Remoaner; complaining about liars is like a fish complaining that the water is wet. Instead, I want to point out that it is not sufficient to blame the BBC for not calling out Brexiters' lies. Yes, the BBC disgraced itself during the plebiscite campaign. But we must also understand how voters fall for such mendacity. As Akerlof and Shiller write:

Voters are phishable in two major ways. First, they are not fully informed; they are information phools. Second, voters are also psychological phools; for example, because they respond to appeals such as lawnmower ads [a candidate seen mowing his own lawn is regarded as a man of the people] ( Phishing for Phools , p 75)

All this raises a challenge for liberals. Many used to believe the truth would win out over lies in the marketplace for ideas. This is no longer true, if it ever were. Instead, the questions now are: what can we do about this? And what should we do? The two questions might well have different answers. But we can make a start by understanding how lies are sometimes believed. Keith | February 07, 2017 at 04:47 PM

The marketplace of ideas assumes that the consumers are able and willing to inform themselves and be rational rather than emotional. Clearly this is not true of a lot of voters when confronted by a manipulative press and Tories like Jim with their right wing agenda slyly hidden for the time being.

Equally as in other areas such as health care shopping around is impossible to do as the consumers lack expert knowledge. Allowing the profit motive to apply to many areas is sure to be a disaster for human welfare as the profit incentive stops the experts using their knowledge for good. Finance is a classic example of the uninformed being repeatedly duped into unsound investments decade after decade. Benjamin Graham describes how in his first job selling Bonds to grannies he came to realise that he was being asked to steal the life savings of pensioners via commissions designed to get a sale of junk paper. Which is why he moved elsewhere to a more ethical line of work. But I am sure leaving the biggest most integrated market in the world where lots of foreigners have helpfully learned our language will surely increase our prosperity....Nigel says so.

Matthew Moore | February 07, 2017 at 05:37 PM
There will always be gullible people (/ people constrained by high opportunity cost of information search, as I prefer to think of them)

And there will always be liars looking to take advantage of them. Like 99% of politicians ever.

It's very Marxist to wonder how we might change this basic fact of humanity, when the real solution is clear. Don't set up powerful central institutions that rely on coercion: it attracts liars, rewards them, and makes new liars out of honest people.

Dipper | February 07, 2017 at 07:47 PM
Oh, we Leavers are being lectured again by our Remainer betters on our stupidity.

If the statements of the amount we pay to the EU were lies, how come we owe them €50 billion?

how come no-one ever asks why we have to implement the four freedoms when Germany gets a free pass on the Free market in Services?

the government announced house building plans today, and no-one asks whether a cause of high house prices and a housing shortage is too much immigration?

It's not the lies, it's the questions never asked that stand out.

Dipper | February 07, 2017 at 08:09 PM
@ Keith - "Tories like Jim"

I don't read Jim as a Tory. I read him as someone who was a Labour supporter but now just stares in amazement at a group of people who have become EU Federalist fanatics spouting delusional slogans who can never answer a straight question and refuse to acknowledge the obvious problems of democratic accountability.

How on earth did that happen? How did apparently intelligent people completely lose their critical faculties and join a quasi-religious cult that chants empty slogans and denounces anyone who questions them?

But I'm sure Jim can speak for himself.

Ralph Musgrave | February 07, 2017 at 09:45 PM
Chris missed out the fact that people tend to give others the benefit of the doubt. I.e. if X tells a monster lie, peoples' immediate reaction is: "X is is a bastard". But then on second thoughts they feel ashamed at accusing someone else of being a bastard, and assume it's they themselves that must be wrong.

Sotto Voce | February 07, 2017 at 10:45 PM
There is a bit of a danger here of another comment thread being derailed with Brexit mud-slinging. Chris's post isn't really about the pros and cons of Brexit, it just offers a vivid example of the phenomenon under discussion.

The point Chris makes in the last paragraph is more general and profound. If any and all data/information/evidence/argument is interpreted in partisan fashion and subject to massive confirmation bias so that debates increasingly polarise - or if different sides in debates proffer their own favoured but incompatible versions of the truth - then meaningful dialogue, deliberation and compromise become near impossible. All we get is intolerance, mistrust and greater partisanship. Clearly these are not entirely new issues, but it seems undeniable that there has been a qualitative shift in 'quality' of public debate.

We appear to be witnessing the US political system at great risk of imploding, as enlightenment values are abandoned and key tenets of liberal democratic practice are wilfully rejected. This is the route to chaos.

The questions Chris poses are, to my mind at least, the right ones. The very nature of the problem means that the old/favoured remedies are unlikely to be effective. But what can replace them? Is a violent conflagration the only way of shocking the system out of hyper-partisanship and the rejection of the foundational belief that we live in a shared reality (i.e. for people to 'come to their senses')? Or can we back out of this particular cul-de-sac peacefully? You've got to hope so. But, if so, how?

e | February 07, 2017 at 10:57 PM
Our upper echelon, i.e. our long-standing middle of the road Labour MPs and commentators, have long been successful in fighting off calls for left leaning policy/talk of how things work (because who knows where this will end) under a guise of fighting off racism/ a closed shop mentality; the routes of least resistance 50s – 00s which should alert us to the ability of the English working class to embrace immigration and avoid base philosophies. But it seems not. Seems to me our shared interest beyond race creed colour and gender continues to be deliberately and systematically no-platformed. What I fail to understand, given the rise of UKIP, is why this is not glaringly obvious; because if you're one of the majority who live life as best you might with as much consideration and tolerance as you can muster where does credence go when an ordinary workers tendency to sound 'populist' is marked up to racism no matter known history...

aragon | February 07, 2017 at 11:53 PM
Not again!
Phishing for Phools. The Political Brain...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/books/review/Brooks-t.html

"Serious thinkers set to work, and produced a long shelf of books answering this question. Their answers tended to rely on similar themes. First, Democrats lose because they are too intelligent. Their arguments are too complicated for American voters. Second, Democrats lose because they are too tolerant. They refuse to cater to racism and hatred. Finally, Democrats lose because they are not good at the dark art of politics. Republicans, though they are knuckle-dragging simpletons when it comes to policy, are devilishly clever when it comes to electioneering. They have brilliant political consultants like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, who frame issues so fiendishly, they can fool the American people into voting against their own best interests."

And immigration is about economics. This is Sweden an immigration superpower.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/755997/Sweden-Malmo-military-intervention-no-go-zone-crime-surge

"Swedish police last year issued a report where it detailed incidents from more than 55 areas which it branded as "no-go zones" as it detailed brutal attacks on police, sexual assaults, children carrying weapons and general turmoil sweeping across the country."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/most-europeans-want-muslim-ban-immigration-control-middle-east-countries-syria-iran-iraq-poll-a7567301.html

"A ban was supported by 71 per cent of people in Poland, 65 per cent in Austria, 53 per cent in Germany and 51 per cent in Italy.
In the UK, 47 per cent supported a ban.
In no country did more than 32 per cent disagree with a ban."

aragon | February 08, 2017 at 12:29 AM
Phishing for Phools

"It thereby explains a paradox: why, at a time when we are better off than ever before in history, all too many of us are leading lives of quiet desperation."

http://nfs.sparknotes.com/macbeth/page_162.html

"Pour the sweet milk of concord into hell,
Uproar the universal peace, confound
All unity on earth."

Human Nature has not changed.

Guano | February 08, 2017 at 12:42 AM
The truth is complicated.

The truth is challenging.

Tony Holmes | February 08, 2017 at 09:13 AM
Chris, a bit off the point, but if everyone followed your advice and put money in tracker funds and active funds disappeared, what would happen to the stock market ? Instinct tells me it would become extremely volatile, but instinct is a bad guide...

gastro george | February 08, 2017 at 09:35 AM
FFS aragon, that "report" from Sweden is from the Express quoting directly a Swedish fascist.

reason | February 08, 2017 at 11:29 AM
Isn't the key point here prospect theory (I've just finished reading Kahneman). People with no good options gamble.

reason | February 08, 2017 at 11:30 AM
P.S. The no good options bit is a very good reason for opposing first past the post and the limited options consequence.

aragon | February 08, 2017 at 11:47 AM
gasto george

It is not an extreme story, I don't speak Swedish or have any contact with Sweden. I only read the main stream media which includes the Daily Express.

As you would expect most of the media does not report on Sweden, unless it has a British angle.
e.g. Birmingham Boy killed by a hand grenade.
(I don't know how you can spin Hand Grenade)

The report originates with the Swedish Police the situation in Malmo is serious and individual police officers like Peter Springare's Facebook post.

Here is a report from the thelocal.se
http://www.thelocal.se/20170127/malmo-police-chief-help-us

"After a wave of violence in Sweden's third city, police boss Stefan Sintéus has appealed to residents in Malmö: "Help us. Help us to tackle the problems. Cooperate with us.""

Dipper | February 08, 2017 at 12:03 PM
@ gastro george

This isn't the first time facists have made inflammatory comments about muslims. Nick Griffin did this and was prosecuted for inciting racial hatred in 2006. The summary of what he said is some way down this article.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tougher-race-laws-likely-after-bnp-pair-cleared-423820.html

Eleven years later we have this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-38845332

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with banning "fake news". You have to be really open, transparent and clear and be absolutely sure you are right, otherwise you end up making heroes of facists and stoking the notion that its all a plot to hide the truth from the people. And that is a really bad outcome.

MPs wrestling with their consciences, loud debates, arguments about the truth ... this is the sound of a properly functioning parliamentary democracy and long may that noise continue.

Guano | February 08, 2017 at 02:06 PM
The first two words of the article: Nick Cohen.

Nick Cohen does make some good points but he himself has a complicated relationship with the truth in some areas. When he isn't talking about congenital liars and congenital believers, he continues to get into a rage about people who opposed the invasion of Iraq. As far as I can see, the invasion of Iraq has been the disaster that some of us feared (because regime change involves putting in place a new regime change, which is very difficult and for which the USA and UK do not have the skills). And, as far as I can see, some of the assumptions made by Nick Cohen in 2002 and 2003 in supporting the invasion (such as the ability of the Iraqi National Congress to create a new regime) were very dubious and their weakness of these assumptions is why the invasion was a failure and has had created an array of other problems.

In his campaign to avoid a post-truth future, Nick Cohen claims that people like him "are on their own" and he explicitly rejects working with the kind of people who opposed the invasion of Iraq. That's a pity, really, because many people appear to have started their opposition to the invasion because the information provided and the logic used appeared to be dodgy. The period from August 2002 to March 2003 prefigured the Trump/Brexit era for post-truth information and arguments. Nick Cohen would be on stronger ground if he admitted that the invasion of Iraq has not necessarily worked to anyone's advantage.

I guess that what is going on in Nick Cohen's mind (and I can only guess) is that he has built up a negative image of the type of person who opposed the invasion of Iraq and he has difficulty getting past that image and come to terms with what those people were saying and what has actually happened in Iraq. Thus in between writing articles about the need for truth, Nick Cohen writes expressions of outrage about opponents of the invasion of Iraq as if they had been found to be wrong.

It seems to be a very extreme example of seeing the messenger and not the message, which is one of the issues with failing to recognise lies.

gastro george | February 08, 2017 at 02:24 PM
@aragon

OK, well I've worked most of my life with Swedes and Norwegians, and have regularly visited Malmo three or four times a year recently, although the last was a bit over a year ago.

So, yes, immigration is an issue, and the Sweden Democrats (fascists) have been rising in the polls. Malmo itself has some problems in the suburbs.

But there are no no-go areas. Armed violence has more traditionally been associated with biker-gang turf-related drug wars - otherwise with the far right (see Breivik in Norway) and then, as your last link discusses, lone serial killers.

Reading anything the Sweden Democrats have to say is the equivalent of believing Wilders in the Netherlands - they are loons.

Barbara Konstant | February 08, 2017 at 05:36 PM
Despairing as it seems, our humanity has not reached the necessary level of awareness needed to function peacefully in our world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... ... ....

Something Stinks

The Rolling Stone comments Something About This Russia Story Stinks

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

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

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

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

The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where the Hell is the Evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

Question of Patriotism

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

Related

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

No problem if they deliver proof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note he avoided the phrase, "slam dunk"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dec 31, 2016] What Happened to Obamas Passion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael August 7, 2011

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

Bill Levine August 7, 2011

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

AnAverageAmerican August 7, 2011

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

cdearman Santa Fe, NM August 7, 2011

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

SP California August 7, 2011

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

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

farospace san francisco August 7, 2011

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

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

Richard Katz American in Oxford, UK August 7, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

An Ordinary American Prague August 7, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

martin Portland, Oregon August 7, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps all of these are true.

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

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

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

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

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

... ... ....

Something Stinks

The Rolling Stone comments Something About This Russia Story Stinks

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

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

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

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

The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where the Hell is the Evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

Question of Patriotism

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

Related

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

No problem if they deliver proof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note he avoided the phrase, "slam dunk"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


vgnych 8h ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American party politics /
Spite ?
Ideological hatred ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama plays snakes and ladders while Putin is playing chess.

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

[Dec 30, 2016] The Coup against Trump and His Military

Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.
Notable quotes:
"... In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'. ..."
"... Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly. ..."
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

Introduction

A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from taking office and fulfilling his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup' is not a secret conspiracy, but an open, loud attack on the election.

The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.

The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives, mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.

The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and legitimacy.

The Coup as 'Process'

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'.

Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies in Congress and the Judiciary.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking office in January.

While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.

Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.

Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure – accusing President-Elect Trump of

  1. being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against his Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
  2. blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party prevented minority voters from casting their ballot for Secretary Clinton.

The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass media.

In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.

Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia, the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like Jill Stein.

The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention: The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties, and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival 'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry' Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.

ORDER IT NOW

The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.

President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and place of our choosing".

Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo – and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.

Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance

Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress. He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three retired generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power struggle between the highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.

Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his cabinet who had their own allied business associations.

One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL, George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security and intelligence positions.

The Coup: Can it succeed?

In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation' on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.

If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').

He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.

(Reprinted from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

Kirt December 28, 2016 at 3:19 pm GMT

A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power. But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but the whole system?

John Gruskos , December 28, 2016 at 4:16 pm GMT

If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Robert Magill , December 28, 2016 at 5:30 pm GMT

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations

The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids?

Replies: @Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). , @animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.

What a god-awful president.

An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.

The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not one shred of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --

If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Brás Cubas , December 28, 2016 at 6:17 pm GMT

Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance of forces in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction to make, and it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy" is being questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?

Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more optimistic than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about my own poor country Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)

Happy new year!

schmenz , December 28, 2016 at 9:05 pm GMT
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Exactly...

Svigor , December 28, 2016 at 9:28 pm GMT

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.

And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

Replies: @Seamus Padraig

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Lieutenant Morrisseau , December 28, 2016 at 11:27 pm GMT

MAN PAD LETTER – DM 24 DEC 2016

I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers .such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still–that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this I think we are all in very great danger today–now– AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]–a felony under existing laws. –Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future–or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
–FOR TRUMP–
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

• Replies: @Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Bruce Marshall , December 29, 2016 at 6:05 am GMT • 100 Words @Lieutenant Morrisseau MAN PAD LETTER - DM 24 DEC 2016


I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing laws. --Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

• Replies: @El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Mark Green says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment December 29, 2016 at 6:39 am GMT • 600 Words

This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump–not Obama–that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump–out of fear and necessity–run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?–Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?–Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

• Replies:

@Authenticjazzman

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist. ,

@Seamus Padraig

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead foreever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,

@Rurik

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naďve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game. , @map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained.

How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors. ,

@RobinG "

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile...
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

@Tomster

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Pirouette , December 29, 2016 at 7:08 am GMT

The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will now be tied by all the traitors that run the US.

You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade buying slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.

(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and forcing the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.

You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate reality: are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression of you?

This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject matter is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or do you want to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary and dishonest policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?

Max Havelaar , December 29, 2016 at 10:45 am GMT

My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.

Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

• Replies: @annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
Karl , December 29, 2016 at 11:20 am GMT

the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches – it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

@Seamus Padraig
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally--you know, a kosher nostra!

mp , December 29, 2016 at 11:23 am GMT

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups

The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic. In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need" for a coup.

If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course be from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally white interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.

El Dato , December 29, 2016 at 11:39 am GMT
@Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my.

Authenticjazzman , December 29, 2016 at 1:00 pm GMT
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

Agent76 , December 29, 2016 at 1:59 pm GMT

D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.

Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)

It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.

Skeptikal , December 29, 2016 at 3:00 pm GMT
@Robert Magill
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.

So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).

animalogic , December 29, 2016 at 3:01 pm GMT • 100 Words

@Robert Magill

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website

@Svigor

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT • 1

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.

Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.

They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:28 pm GMT

@Karl the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

It seems you may be on to something:

RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra!

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 4:36 pm GMT

@Max Havelaar My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.

Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0

The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

• Agree: Kiza • Replies: @Anonymous
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do? , @Max Havelaar A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would hang.

Maybe the Russian FSB an get to him.

Durruti , December 29, 2016 at 4:57 pm GMT

Nice well written article by James Petras.

I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ as to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .

The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the cost of 2 million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's brother, Robert Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and many others, followed.

Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.

Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor.

I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic below, for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.

Respect All! Bow to None!

Merry Christmas!

God Bless!

[MORE]
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "

The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.

We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion . This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

The United States is No longer Sovereign

The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.

The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

For Love of Country

The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"

"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."

Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "

Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty
[email protected]

Anonymous , December 29, 2016 at 5:02 pm GMT

@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.

It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do?

• Replies: @Bill Jones The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.

My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer etc and pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining while his two palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda and a mysterious explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?

The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before any occupation certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing business. Guess who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?

As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.

Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:

My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the new 3 year contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts and discovered that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and 2013 (the latest years I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased by 13%.

At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.

Miro23 , December 29, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT

If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI are probably split the same way.

The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees joined these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial projects, and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.

Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their employers.

Rurik , December 29, 2016 at 5:42 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naďve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game.

Art , December 29, 2016 at 7:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace - Art

• Agree: Seamus Padraig • Replies: @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.

Francis Boyle writes:

"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP.

Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Svigor , December 29, 2016 at 9:52 pm GMT

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.

True.

alexander , December 29, 2016 at 10:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.

Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow.

What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?

They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration.

Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

• Replies: @annamaria

"They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration."

The subtitles are quite direct in presenting the US deciders as criminal bullies: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/12/russia-obama-was-most-evil-president.html

@Tomster What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

RobinG , December 29, 2016 at 10:25 pm GMT

@Art I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace --- Art

"If we get past the inauguration ."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act – providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

• Replies: @Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

map , December 29, 2016 at 10:41 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

• Replies: @joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb , @RobinG "A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Realist , December 29, 2016 at 11:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

joe webb , December 29, 2016 at 11:35 pm GMT • 200 Words

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but

Joe Webb

• Replies: @map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

Stebbing Heuer says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 11:36 pm GMT

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else.

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 11:50 pm GMT

@Realist "The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies – the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

• Replies: @Realist Great observations. Thanks. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art , December 30, 2016 at 1:06 am GMT • 100 Words @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really – how pissed off can they be?

Peace - Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

• Replies: @RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

Svigor , December 30, 2016 at 2:20 am GMT • 100 Words

Looks like I spoke too soon:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking

The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public a peek inside the Democrat machine.

Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand!

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT

@Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

• Replies: @Art
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
anon , December 30, 2016 at 6:33 am GMT

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp .

• Replies: @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC


Realist , December 30, 2016 at 8:17 am GMT

@annamaria The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html

"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb ... the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."

Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies - the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

Great observations. Thanks.

map , December 30, 2016 at 9:16 am GMT

@joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb

The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

• Replies: @Tomster "treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing for them. , @joe webb good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much...even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.

Joe Webb

Seamus Padraig says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment December 30, 2016 at 2:05 pm GMT

@anon https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

• Replies: @geokat62
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ , @alexander Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years...

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine...that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back.....four times...

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.

But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?

Skeptikal , December 30, 2016 at 2:38 pm GMT • 100 Words

"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. "

The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it has for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."

A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist. A black mark on both countries' report cards.

geokat62 , December 30, 2016 at 2:52 pm GMT @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/


RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:02 pm GMT

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by?

The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:32 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

Art , December 30, 2016 at 4:49 pm GMT

@RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:03 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:14 pm GMT @alexander

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.

Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow.

What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?

They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration.

Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:16 pm GMT

@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.

alexander , December 30, 2016 at 5:28 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today .combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back ..four times

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.

But hey, that's life in the USA .Right, Seamus ?

joe webb , December 30, 2016 at 6:15 pm GMT

@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway. Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
Joe Webb

Realist , December 30, 2016 at 6:57 pm GMT • 100 Words

Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him.

January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.

lavoisier says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment December 31, 2016 at 1:38 am GMT • 100 Words

@joe webb

Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb.

I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.

[Dec 29, 2016] Cell phones can track their location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies on them is a necessity

Notable quotes:
"... I'd wager that most people know that cell phones can track their location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations, etc, etc but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies on them is a necessity. ..."
"... I've often wondered whether the relatively high difficulty in buying a smartphone with less than two cameras has something to do with the SIGINT Enabling Project. ..."
Dec 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
PQS , December 28, 2016 at 11:30 am

I was paranoid about the Roomba and I'm pretty sure it doesn't have any connectivity, nor does it record anything.
Personal assistant connected to both the 'net and Large Corp? No. Way.

lyman alpha blob , December 28, 2016 at 1:01 pm

I'd wager that most people know that cell phones can track their location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations, etc, etc but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies on them is a necessity.

Don't think learning that Echo is doing the same thing would deter most people from using it. 'Convenience' and all

cocomaan , December 28, 2016 at 5:40 pm

Fortunately, I can barely hear the person I'm talking to through my smartphone, so I am not optimistic that it can actually hear me from someplace else in the house, especially compared to someone's Echo I have experience with. But point taken.

hunkerdown , December 28, 2016 at 6:20 pm

The microphoneS (often there is an extra mic to cancel ambient noise) in a phone are exquisitely sensitive. The losses you're hearing are those from crushing that comparatively high-fidelity signal into a few thousand bits per second for transmission to/from the base station.

I've often wondered whether the relatively high difficulty in buying a smartphone with less than two cameras has something to do with the SIGINT Enabling Project. (Not that I'm foily )

carycat , December 28, 2016 at 3:17 pm

Wonder if Mr. B gave Mr. T and all the other attendees an Echo at Mr. T's tech summit. ATT and all the other big telcom players all said, scout's honor, they don't listen in on their customer's phone calls, so no worries because Fortune 500 companies are such ethical people. That may even be technically true because the 3 letter agencies and their minions (human or otherwise) are doing the actual listening. So if you are too lazy to go to Amazon.com to delete your idle chit chat, I can sell you a cloth to wipe it with (maybe I'll even list it on Amazon's marketplace).

Daryl , December 28, 2016 at 8:09 pm

It should be fairly simple to determine whether it's sending everything home by analyzing network traffic.

Of course, just because it doesn't right now, doesn't mean that Amazon or your local three letter agency cannot alter it to do so in the future

[Dec 29, 2016] Cell phones can track their location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies on them is a necessity

Notable quotes:
"... I'd wager that most people know that cell phones can track their location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations, etc, etc but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies on them is a necessity. ..."
"... I've often wondered whether the relatively high difficulty in buying a smartphone with less than two cameras has something to do with the SIGINT Enabling Project. ..."
Dec 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
PQS , December 28, 2016 at 11:30 am

I was paranoid about the Roomba and I'm pretty sure it doesn't have any connectivity, nor does it record anything.
Personal assistant connected to both the 'net and Large Corp? No. Way.

lyman alpha blob , December 28, 2016 at 1:01 pm

I'd wager that most people know that cell phones can track their location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations, etc, etc but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies on them is a necessity.

Don't think learning that Echo is doing the same thing would deter most people from using it. 'Convenience' and all

cocomaan , December 28, 2016 at 5:40 pm

Fortunately, I can barely hear the person I'm talking to through my smartphone, so I am not optimistic that it can actually hear me from someplace else in the house, especially compared to someone's Echo I have experience with. But point taken.

hunkerdown , December 28, 2016 at 6:20 pm

The microphoneS (often there is an extra mic to cancel ambient noise) in a phone are exquisitely sensitive. The losses you're hearing are those from crushing that comparatively high-fidelity signal into a few thousand bits per second for transmission to/from the base station.

I've often wondered whether the relatively high difficulty in buying a smartphone with less than two cameras has something to do with the SIGINT Enabling Project. (Not that I'm foily )

carycat , December 28, 2016 at 3:17 pm

Wonder if Mr. B gave Mr. T and all the other attendees an Echo at Mr. T's tech summit. ATT and all the other big telcom players all said, scout's honor, they don't listen in on their customer's phone calls, so no worries because Fortune 500 companies are such ethical people. That may even be technically true because the 3 letter agencies and their minions (human or otherwise) are doing the actual listening. So if you are too lazy to go to Amazon.com to delete your idle chit chat, I can sell you a cloth to wipe it with (maybe I'll even list it on Amazon's marketplace).

Daryl , December 28, 2016 at 8:09 pm

It should be fairly simple to determine whether it's sending everything home by analyzing network traffic.

Of course, just because it doesn't right now, doesn't mean that Amazon or your local three letter agency cannot alter it to do so in the future

[Dec 29, 2016] One thing lost in all the hullabaloo about Russian hacks is that the Obama administration's record on cyber security has been terrible.

Dec 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Reply ↓ cocomaan , December 28, 2016 at 9:29 am

One thing lost in all the hullabaloo about Russian hacks is that the Obama administration's record on cyber security has been terrible. Off the top of my head I can think of several compromising cases:

* Anything having to do with HRC's bathroom server, of course
* The Sony hack that Obama said was North Korea, but other experts say was probably just Trump's 400 lb fat guy on a bed.
* The alleged Chinese hacking of OPM
* And undoubtedly the "CYBER 911!!" of the alleged Russian interference in the election.

I don't see anyone talking about the fact that cyber infrastructure looks like it's been hit by birdshot. All the while, Obama's intelligence teams are mining information on Americans as extralegally as possible.

[Dec 29, 2016] The neoliberal MSM narrative that it is a well established fact that Russia influenced US election is nonsense.

Dec 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
sanjait -> DeDude... , December 28, 2016 at 06:26 PM
"Russia tampered with vote tallies to help Donald Trump"

Yeah, that seems like a clear statement, but when you consider that the vast majority of people do not habitually read closely and interpret things literally, I can see how this would easily be misinterpreted.

Russia tampered with the election to help Donald Trump. That's a fairly well established fact. It's not the same as "tampered with vote tallies" but an inattentive poll respondent might assume the question was about the former. And most people are inattentive.

likbez -> sanjait... December 28, 2016 at 09:40 PM , 2016 at 09:40 PM
Sanjait,

"Russia tampered with the election to help Donald Trump. That's a fairly well established fact."

You are funny. Especially with your "well established fact" nonsense.

In such cases the only source of well established facts is a court of law or International observers of the elections. All other agencies have their own interest in distorting the truth. For example, to get additional funding.

And that list includes President Obama himself, as a player, because he clearly was a Hillary supporter and as such can not be considered an impartial player and can politically benefit from shifting the blame for fiasco to Russia.

Also historically, he never was very truthful with American people, was he? As in case of his
"Change we can believe in!" bait and switch trick.

There were several other important foreign players in the US elections: for example KAS and Israel. Were their actions investigated? Especially in the area of financial support of candidates.

And then FYI there is a documented history of US tampering in Russian Presidential election of 2011-2012 such as meetings of the US ambassador with the opposition leaders, financing of opposition via NGO, putting pressure by publishing election pools produced by US financed non-profits, and so on and so forth. All in the name of democracy, of course. Which cost Ambassador McFaul his position; NED was kicked out of the country.

As far as I remember nobody went to jail in the USA for those activities. There was no investigation. So it looks like the USA authorities considered this to be a pretty legal activity. Then why they complain now?

And then there is the whole rich history of CIA subverting elections in Latin America.

So is not this a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"?

I don't know. But I would avoid your simplistic position. The case is too complex for this.

At least more complex that the narrative the neoliberal MSMs try to present us with. It might be Russian influence was a factor, but it might be that it was negligible and other factors were in play. There is also a pre-history and there are other suspects.

You probably need to see a wider context of the event.

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

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

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

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

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

[Dec 28, 2016] The Empire Strikes Back The MSMs 3-Point Plan To Recapture The Narrative

Notable quotes:
"... Secondly , a meme has been invented about so-called "Fake News," which will be used to shut down dissident media outlets. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com
Some perspective: For most of human history, power was rooted in possession of land. After the Industrial Revolution , power lay in controlling in the means of production. But today, the main source of power is control of information.

Having the power to control information (what Steve Sailer calls The Megaphone ) gives you the ability to determine what issues will be discussed, what viewpoints are considered legitimate, and who is allowed to participate in polite society. It ultimately allows you to push an entire code of morality on others. And morality is, ultimately, a weapon more terrible than can be found in any arsenal [ Weaponized Morality , by Gregory Hood, Radix, October 12, 2016].

The 2016 election was ultimately a battle between the commanding heights of media (newspapers, networks, and web portals) and what we could call the guerillas of media (/pol, forums, hackers, right wing trolls , and independent media outlets like us). The latter lacked power on their own, but they united behind Donald Trump, a man whose brand was so well-established that the Establishment couldn't ignore him. It was Fourth Generation Warfare –this time over information.

And just as guerillas have been frustrating established armies all around the world on real-world battlefields, so did the online commandos frustrate and eventually overcome the seemingly invincible Fourth Estate.

But this victory wasn't inevitable. From day one, the MSM tried to destroy Donald Trump , including his business empire, because of his stated views on immigration.

Since that failed, they have started turning on his supporters with three tactics.

Soon after the election, the Leftist Think Progress blog announced that the Alt Right should only be called "white nationalist" or "white supremacist". [ Think Progress will no longer describe racists as "alt-right" , November 22, 2016] The AP dutifully echoed this pronouncement days later, warning journalists not to use the term and instead to stick to pejoratives. [ AP issues guidelines for using the term 'alt-right,' by Brent Griffiths, Politico, November 28, 2016]

This is a literally Orwellian attempt to eliminate Crimethink through linguistic control . Of course, no such guidelines will apply to non-white Identitarian groups such as the National Council of La Raza, which will continue to be called an "advocacy" or "progressive grass-roots immigration-reform organization" [ NCLR head: Obama 'deporter-in-chief, ' by Reid Epstein, Politico, March 4, 2016].

Needless to say, most the rationale for this is not just fake, but comically, obviously, wrong. Thus the Washington Post reported that VDARE.com (and many other sites) was a "Russian propaganda effort" based on no evidence at all. We ask: where is our vodka?

Rolling Stone, which pushed one of the most disgusting hoaxes in modern journalism at the University of Virginia, is having meetings with President Obama to discuss "fake news." The Guardian fell for what appears to be a hoax decrying "online hate" precisely because it is impossible to tell the difference today between the latest virtue signaling craze and satire.

But algorithms are already being introduced to distinguish between "verified" and "non-verified" news sources. It can be assumed only Leftist sites will receive verification on social media. [ Fake news on Facebook is a real problem. These college students came up with a fix in 36 hours , By Colby Itkowitz, Washington Post, November 18, 2016]

There is "fake news" and it is annoying, to be sure. There were plenty of cringey stories about non-existent celebrity endorsements of Trump i n the last cycle. But most "verified" or "mainstream" sources today don't actually report but simply "point and sputter" or actually conceal real news. For example, even after the journalists got what they wanted out of the latest NPI conference , the MSM still couldn't restrain themselves from simply making things out of whole cloth .

Actual attacks on Trump supporters are not covered, while unsourced, unverified claims of a wave of "hate crimes," which mostly consists of handwritten notes most likely written by the supposed "victims" or incidents so trivial normal people wouldn't even notice , dominate the headlines.

This is a far more insidious form of "fake news" than anything "the Russians" are promoting. And what about the lie of " hands up, don't shoot ?"

Another example: supposedly mainstream outlets are comfortable leveling wild charges Steve Bannon is somehow a "white nationalist." Bannon on the evidence is actually a civic nationalist who has specifically denounced racism and, if anything, is showing troubling signs of moving towards the "DemsRRealRacist"- style talking points which led Conservatism Inc. to disaster. There are absolutely no statements by Bannon actually calling for, say, a white ethnostate.

In contrast, Rep. Keith Ellison, candidate to head the DNC, actually has c alled for a black ethnostate. [ Keith Ellison once proposed making a separate country for blacks , by Justin Caruso, Daily Caller, November 26, 2016]. However, this has not prevented him from being "normalized" and celebrated by the "mainstream" media.

The logical conclusion of all of this:

Or, as VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow told the NPI conference: "What we are going to see in the next few years is an intensified Reign Of Terror."

For example, Buzzfeed's latest masterpiece of journalism: the shocking revelation that reality stars Chip and Joanna Gaines attend a church that disagrees with homosexual marriage [ Chip and Joanna Gaines' Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage , by Kate Aurthur, Buzzfeed, November 29, 2016]. You know–like every Christian church for about 2000 years. The obvious agenda: to get the show canceled or the Gaines to disavow their own pastor.

This is the goal of most "journalism" today–to get someone fired or to get someone to disavow someone. The Southern Poverty Law Center ( $PLC to VDARE.com) makes a lucrative income from policing speech . ( Right, a graph of their endowment fund.)And journalists today are no different than the $PLC. They do not report, they do not provide information, and rather than ensuring freedom they are the willing tools of repression.

And this repression only goes one way.

If you wouldn't invite some communist demonstrator into your meeting, why would you invite an MSM journalist? They have the same beliefs, the same motivations, and increasingly, they rely on the same tactics. Aside from the occasional throwing of feces (as Richard Spencer learned at NPI), the preferred tactic of "Antifa" consists of pearl-clutching blog posts.

The repression is accelerating. Reddit is now moving to censor pro-Trump content on its site [ Breaking: Unethical @reddit CEO vows to crack down on "toxic users" as right wing subreddit protests censorship , by Charles Johnson, Got News, November 30, 2016]. Having been purged from Twitter, many free speech supporters are moving to GAB, so The New York Times is trying to get that shut down too [ The Far Right Has a New Digital Safe Space , by Amanda Hess, November 30, 2016]. And Kellogg pulled its ads from Breitbart, after Trump's election, because it said it did not "align with its values as a company". [ Breitbart at 'war' with Kellogg's over advertising snub , BBC, December 1, 2016].

Since the election, journalists have been paying tribute to their own courage, promising to hold Trump accountable. But there is no greater enemy to free speech than reporters. Shutting down the networks and shuttering the newspapers would be a boon to independence of thought, not an obstacle.

For his own sake, to defend his own Administration, Trump has to delegitimize the MSM, just as he did during the campaign. He should continue to use his Twitter account and speak straight to the people. He should not hold press conferences with national MSM and speak only to local reporters before holding rallies. If Twitter bans him, as Leftists are urging, he should nationalize it as a utility and make it a free speech zone.[ Twitter has become a utility , by Alan Kohler, The Australian, October 17, 2016]

And Trump's supporters need to act the same way. Stop giving reporters access. Stop pretending you can play the MSM for your own benefit. Stop acting like these people are anything other than hostile political activists whose only interest in life is to make yours worse.

Stop giving them what they want.

Your career, family, and entire life may depend on it. And so does the life of the nation.

James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

[Dec 28, 2016] The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these maniacs from doing everything they can to keep neoliberals in power

Notable quotes:
"... "The lockstep zombies for the sleaze and global mayhem of the Clinton Machine and Dem Party gangsters are on the march. These liberals for US Empire are showing their reverence and fanboy love for the CIA and FBI and McCarthyism. ..."
"... They either cheered or shrugged when the Clinton thugs stole the primary from Bernie (with his obsequious assent) or snored when Obama/Clinton staged coups and installed fascists in Honduras and Ukraine but oh how they bellow and shake their fists at the *alleged* hacking by Russia that amounts to providing info on just how sleazy the Democratic Party is. ..."
"... THAT form of fake news is not only acceptable it is to be embraced and taught to our fucking children. If the NYT or WaPo tells us all bad things come from Putin these shock troops for the Democratic Party click their heels and salute. ..."
"... The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these fucking maniacs from doing all they can to keep their team in power. Meanwhile their leaders want to "work with" Trump and "give him a chance." Who are the fascists in this shit show?? Such a clusterfuck of incoherence. ..."
"... If it's true the "Russians" (who be that by the way?) did what the professional liars in the intelligence agencies say they did it doesn't even amount to a parking violation compared to the billions and billions of dollars spent by the US over the last 70 years rigging and crushing democracy (literally with murder) across the globe. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

Anon December 12, 2016 at 9:33 pm GMT

This post by Leftie on facebook offers glimpse into chasm on the other side.

It's Progs vs Globs. ProGlob is coming apart.

"The lockstep zombies for the sleaze and global mayhem of the Clinton Machine and Dem Party gangsters are on the march. These liberals for US Empire are showing their reverence and fanboy love for the CIA and FBI and McCarthyism.

They either cheered or shrugged when the Clinton thugs stole the primary from Bernie (with his obsequious assent) or snored when Obama/Clinton staged coups and installed fascists in Honduras and Ukraine but oh how they bellow and shake their fists at the *alleged* hacking by Russia that amounts to providing info on just how sleazy the Democratic Party is.

The "fake news" (it's called free speech you fucking assholes) that the Rooskies pumped into our helpless and confused brains is a threat to the Republic but "capitalism means freedom and democracy", WMD's, yellow cake, mobile weapons labs, babies torn from incubators, the international monolithic communist conspiracy, Gaddafi supplying viagra to his troops, the headchoppers Obama gives arms and sends into Syria to destroy yet another nation are "moderates", KONY 2012, the filthy Hun is coming to kill us all in 1917, "Duck and cover!!" Gulf of Tonkin, Ho Chi Min's soldiers are going to spring from their canoes on the beaches of Malibu to rape your wife and make you wear pajamas, "superpredators" and on and on etc etc etc

THAT form of fake news is not only acceptable it is to be embraced and taught to our fucking children. If the NYT or WaPo tells us all bad things come from Putin these shock troops for the Democratic Party click their heels and salute.

The risk of WWIII is not enough to deter these fucking maniacs from doing all they can to keep their team in power. Meanwhile their leaders want to "work with" Trump and "give him a chance." Who are the fascists in this shit show?? Such a clusterfuck of incoherence.

If it's true the "Russians" (who be that by the way?) did what the professional liars in the intelligence agencies say they did it doesn't even amount to a parking violation compared to the billions and billions of dollars spent by the US over the last 70 years rigging and crushing democracy (literally with murder) across the globe.

And the whole obscene carnival engulfing the nation is of course to be blamed on the racist knuckle-dragging "basket of deplorables.""

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Hack an Election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading about 'truth' and 'alternative reality'

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution .

Armand Hammer: The Untold Story

A People's History of the United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [Dec 27, 2016] Democracy Is Dying as Technocrats Watch

    Replace Technocrats with Neoliberals. Somewhat stupid laments of a neoliberal economist, who feels that his plush position might be soon engaged... Under the smoke screen of identity politics (exemplified by gay and lesbian rights and "gay marriage" gambit desired to distract from important economic processes in the country ) neoliberals destroyed unions, outsourced manufacturing and now are outsourcing service sector, and lowered the standard living of the US middle class, while top 1% became filthy rich... they behave like the occupiers of the country so "Occupy Wall Street" movement should actually be called "liberation of the country from Wall Street occupation" movement.
    Notable quotes:
    "... This is most obvious in the case of Trump, who devoted a large share of his presidential campaign not just to attacking democratic norms but also to attacking the technocratic experts who have come to symbolize democracy in the United States. ..."
    "... Technocrats do not even have a good answer for technocratic-sounding attacks on democracy. ..."
    "... Whether because of the incompetence of experts or just a string of bad luck, democracies haven't been performing very well lately. ..."
    "... The foreign-policy experts guided wars on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq that seemingly made terrorism worse. Domestic economists gave us the 2008 financial crisis - and a response afterward that bailed out banks too big to fail but treated families losing homes as too small to care about. Dictator-run China is taking over ever larger chunks of the world economy while U.S. wages stagnate. ..."
    "... Experts often cannot agree on "what works" or even what already happened. Some experts could still credibly argue that in the long run democracies worldwide outperform dictatorships on average, but there is disagreement, and few have the patience to wait for long-run world averages to reassert themselves. ..."
    "... As the economist John Stuart Mill said almost 150 years ago, the true test of freedom is not whether we care about our own rights but whether we care about "the rights of others." ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | foreignpolicy.com

    This is most obvious in the case of Trump, who devoted a large share of his presidential campaign not just to attacking democratic norms but also to attacking the technocratic experts who have come to symbolize democracy in the United States.

    ...the technocrats who now monopolize the country's political elite would be incapable of fighting back.

    Technocrats have always shown little interest in fights over fundamental values. ...So when technocrats are all we have to defend democracy, fights over fundamental values become embarrassingly one-sided. Technocrats do not even have a good answer for technocratic-sounding attacks on democracy. Technocrats' defense of democracy on the basis of "what works" was always vulnerable because the anti-democratic side was not going to be maximally scrupulous about the evidence in any case. It also makes liberal values hostages to fortune.

    Whether because of the incompetence of experts or just a string of bad luck, democracies haven't been performing very well lately.

    The foreign-policy experts guided wars on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq that seemingly made terrorism worse. Domestic economists gave us the 2008 financial crisis - and a response afterward that bailed out banks too big to fail but treated families losing homes as too small to care about. Dictator-run China is taking over ever larger chunks of the world economy while U.S. wages stagnate.

    Experts often cannot agree on "what works" or even what already happened. Some experts could still credibly argue that in the long run democracies worldwide outperform dictatorships on average, but there is disagreement, and few have the patience to wait for long-run world averages to reassert themselves. Which is why the principal defense of democratic values must be that they are desirable in themselves as values - something technocrats are not trained to do Which is not to suggest they don't have any resources at their disposal. My own field of economics can be so technical that whenever I give a talk mentioning values, I feel like I have to apologize.

    Yet economics is better equipped to defend values than usually believed. At the core of models of economic behavior is individual choice. Hidden in plain sight is the assumption that all individuals - whether male, female, white, black, gay, Muslim, or Latino - should indeed have equal rights to make decisions for themselves. The assumptions that guide analysis of what makes people better off embody the same respect for individual choice - we infer A is better than B for an individual if they voluntarily selected A over B. And if an individual chose something for himself or herself that did not make anyone else worse off, we say that overall well-being improved.

    Although these principles are more than a century old in economics and are still at the core of our textbooks, they get sporadic attacks and less attention than they should due to our infatuation with evidence-based policy. Yet as Harvard University economist Edward Glaeser argued along the same lines in 2011, economics still has a "moral spine" beneath all the technocracy: "That spine is a fundamental belief in freedom."

    As the economist John Stuart Mill said almost 150 years ago, the true test of freedom is not whether we care about our own rights but whether we care about "the rights of others."

    But can economics provide a conception of democracy that truly protects the "rights of others"? The field does indeed offer a potential defense against one of the core democratic dangers - the possibility that a tyrannical majority might vote to violate the rights of some minority group. Economists teach that it's in a majority party's interest to conduct a simple thought experiment before making political decisions: Since it's impossible to know for sure that they will always be in the majority, and they could always wind up as part of some minority that some future majority decides to tyrannize, they should make political decisions behind a so-called "veil of ignorance" that sets aside their personal status and group affiliations. And anyone running that thought experiment faithfully would join a coalition to protect all future minority and individual rights.

    Needless to say, the "veil of ignorance" thought experiment is ultimately a voluntary exercise. This year's U.S. election tore the veil of ignorance to shreds and not for the first time. Many white men apparently did not perceive, or consider, this "ignorance" about the future, feeling confident that they will always have enough power to protect themselves and thus are free not to vote to protect the rights of others.

    The long campaign for equal rights, by mixing eloquent moral appeals with "veil of ignorance" warnings, has nevertheless tried to make us all care just enough about other groups to forge a broad coalition in favor of democracy. Our technocratic age often sees such appeals as sentimentalism - more suitable for refrigerator magnets than serious debates. But Trump's attack on core values required a response of such universal moral appeals - to white people as well as to minorities - instead of Clinton's coalition of minorities and the 41-point plan of measurable outcomes on her website.

    Democratic values have never been capable of defending themselves - equal rights require eloquent defenses capable of building broad alliances on their behalf. History offers plenty of inspiration. Abraham Lincoln: "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." Martin Luther King Jr.: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Elie Wiesel: "Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe."

    [Dec 27, 2016] Wielding Claims of Fake News, Conservatives Take Aim at Mainstream Media

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together." ..."
    "... "What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy," ..."
    "... The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. "We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe," Mr. Ziegler, the radio host, said. "Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time." ..."
    Dec 25, 2016 | www.nytimes.com
    ... ... ...

    Rush Limbaugh has diagnosed a more fundamental problem . "The fake news is the everyday news" in the mainstream media, he said on his radio show recently. "They just make it up."

    .... As reporters were walking out of a Trump rally this month in Orlando, Fla., a man heckled them with shouts of "Fake news!"

    Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are meant to spread virally online. But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake stories may have helped swing the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to their agenda.

    In defining "fake news" so broadly and seeking to dilute its meaning, they are capitalizing on the declining credibility of all purveyors of information, one product of the country's increasing political polarization. And conservatives, seeing an opening to undermine the mainstream media, a longtime foe, are more than happy to dig the hole deeper.

    "Over the years, we've effectively brainwashed the core of our audience to distrust anything that they disagree with. And now it's gone too far," said John Ziegler, a conservative radio host, who has been critical of what he sees as excessive partisanship by pundits. "Because the gatekeepers have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don't see how you reverse it."

    Journalists who work to separate fact from fiction see a dangerous conflation of stories that turn out to be wrong because of a legitimate misunderstanding with those whose clear intention is to deceive. A report, shared more than a million times on social media, that the pope had endorsed Mr. Trump was undeniably false. But was it "fake news" to report on data models that showed Hillary Clinton with overwhelming odds of winning the presidency? Are opinion articles fake if they cherry-pick facts to draw disputable conclusions?

    "Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together."

    The right's labeling of "fake news" evokes one of the most successful efforts by conservatives to reorient how Americans think about news media objectivity: the move by Fox News to brand its conservative-slanted coverage as "fair and balanced." Traditionally, mainstream media outlets had thought of their own approach in those terms, viewing their coverage as strictly down the middle. Republicans often found that laughable. As with Fox's ubiquitous promotion of its slogan, conservatives' appropriation of the "fake news" label is an effort to further erode the mainstream media's claim to be a reliable and accurate source.

    "What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy," said Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, a liberal group that polices the news media for bias. "Therefore, by applying that term to credible outlets, it becomes much more believable."

    .... ... ...

    Mr. Trump has used the term to deny news reports, as he did on Twitter recently after various outlets said he would stay on as the executive producer of "The New Celebrity Apprentice" after taking office in January. "Ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS!" he wrote. (He will be credited as executive producer, a spokesman for the show's creator, Mark Burnett, has said. But it is unclear what work, if any, he will do on the show.)

    Many conservatives are pushing back at the outrage over fake news because they believe that liberals, unwilling to accept Mr. Trump's victory, are attributing his triumph to nefarious external factors.

    "The left refuses to admit that the fundamental problem isn't the Russians or Jim Comey or 'fake news' or the Electoral College," said Laura Ingraham, the author and radio host. "'Fake news' is just another fake excuse for their failed agenda."

    Others see a larger effort to slander the basic journalistic function of fact-checking. Nonpartisan websites like Snopes and Factcheck.org have found themselves maligned when they have disproved stories that had been flattering to conservatives.

    When Snopes wrote about a State Farm insurance agent in Louisiana who had posted a sign outside his office that likened taxpayers who voted for President Obama to chickens supporting Colonel Sanders, Mr. Mikkelson, the site's founder, was smeared as a partisan Democrat who had never bothered to reach out to the agent for comment. Neither is true.

    "They're trying to float anything they can find out there to discredit fact-checking," he said.

    There are already efforts by highly partisan conservatives to claim that their fact-checking efforts are the same as those of independent outlets like Snopes, which employ research teams to dig into seemingly dubious claims.

    Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, has aired "fact-checking" segments on his program. Michelle Malkin, the conservative columnist, has a web program, "Michelle Malkin Investigates," in which she conducts her own investigative reporting.

    The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. "We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe," Mr. Ziegler, the radio host, said. "Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time."

    [Dec 27, 2016] The fake news is the everyday news in MSM. They just make it up.

    Dec 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : December 27, 2016 at 05:06 AM , 2016 at 05:06 AM
    (Does this have something to do
    with Jon Stewart's retirement &
    Stephen Colbert 'going legit'?)

    Wielding Claims of 'Fake News,' Conservatives

    Take Aim at Mainstream Media http://nyti.ms/2iuFxRx
    NYT - JEREMY W. PETERS - December 25, 2016

    WASHINGTON - The CIA, the F.B.I. and the White House may all agree that Russia was behind the hacking that interfered with the election. But that was of no import to the website Breitbart News, which dismissed reports on the intelligence assessment as "left-wing fake news."

    Rush Limbaugh has diagnosed a more fundamental problem. "The fake news is the everyday news" in the mainstream media, he said on his radio show recently. "They just make it up."

    Some supporters of President-elect Donald J. Trump have also taken up the call. As reporters were walking out of a Trump rally this month in Orlando, Fla., a man heckled them with shouts of "Fake news!"

    Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are meant to spread virally online. But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake stories may have helped swing the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to their agenda.

    In defining "fake news" so broadly and seeking to dilute its meaning, they are capitalizing on the declining credibility of all purveyors of information, one product of the country's increasing political polarization. And conservatives, seeing an opening to undermine the mainstream media, a longtime foe, are more than happy to dig the hole deeper.

    "Over the years, we've effectively brainwashed the core of our audience to distrust anything that they disagree with. And now it's gone too far," said John Ziegler, a conservative radio host, who has been critical of what he sees as excessive partisanship by pundits. "Because the gatekeepers have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don't see how you reverse it."

    Journalists who work to separate fact from fiction see a dangerous conflation of stories that turn out to be wrong because of a legitimate misunderstanding with those whose clear intention is to deceive. A report, shared more than a million times on social media, that the pope had endorsed Mr. Trump was undeniably false. But was it "fake news" to report on data models that showed Hillary Clinton with overwhelming odds of winning the presidency? Are opinion articles fake if they cherry-pick facts to draw disputable conclusions?

    "Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together."

    The right's labeling of "fake news" evokes one of the most successful efforts by conservatives to reorient how Americans think about news media objectivity: the move by Fox News to brand its conservative-slanted coverage as "fair and balanced." Traditionally, mainstream media outlets had thought of their own approach in those terms, viewing their coverage as strictly down the middle. Republicans often found that laughable.

    As with Fox's ubiquitous promotion of its slogan, conservatives' appropriation of the "fake news" label is an effort to further erode the mainstream media's claim to be a reliable and accurate source. ...

    [Dec 27, 2016] U.S. Sold $40 Billion in Weapons in 2015, Topping Global Market - The New York Times

    Dec 27, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    Developing nations continued to be the largest buyers of arms in 2015, with Qatar signing deals for more than $17 billion in weapons last year, followed by Egypt, which agreed to buy almost $12 billion in arms, and Saudi Arabia, with over $8 billion in weapons purchases.

    Although global tensions and terrorist threats have shown few signs of diminishing, the total size of the global arms trade dropped to around $80 billion in 2015 from the 2014 total of $89 billion, the study found. Developing nations bought $65 billion in weapons in 2015, substantially lower than the previous year's total of $79 billion.

    The United States and France increased their overseas weapons sales in 2015, as purchases of American weapons grew by around $4 billion and France's deals increased by well over $9 billion.

    The report, " Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2008-2015 ," was prepared by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, a division of the Library of Congress, and delivered to legislators last week. The annual review is considered the most comprehensive assessment of global arms sales available in an unclassified form. The report adjusts for inflation, so the sales totals are comparable year to year.

    [Dec 27, 2016] Democracy Is Dying as Technocrats Watch

    Replace Technocrats with Neoliberals. Somewhat stupid laments of a neoliberal economist, who feels that his plush position might be soon engaged... Under the smoke screen of identity politics (exemplified by gay and lesbian rights and "gay marriage" gambit desired to distract from important economic processes in the country ) neoliberals destroyed unions, outsourced manufacturing and now are outsourcing service sector, and lowered the standard living of the US middle class, while top 1% became filthy rich... they behave like the occupiers of the country so "Occupy Wall Street" movement should actually be called "liberation of the country from Wall Street occupation" movement.
    Notable quotes:
    "... This is most obvious in the case of Trump, who devoted a large share of his presidential campaign not just to attacking democratic norms but also to attacking the technocratic experts who have come to symbolize democracy in the United States. ..."
    "... Technocrats do not even have a good answer for technocratic-sounding attacks on democracy. ..."
    "... Whether because of the incompetence of experts or just a string of bad luck, democracies haven't been performing very well lately. ..."
    "... The foreign-policy experts guided wars on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq that seemingly made terrorism worse. Domestic economists gave us the 2008 financial crisis - and a response afterward that bailed out banks too big to fail but treated families losing homes as too small to care about. Dictator-run China is taking over ever larger chunks of the world economy while U.S. wages stagnate. ..."
    "... Experts often cannot agree on "what works" or even what already happened. Some experts could still credibly argue that in the long run democracies worldwide outperform dictatorships on average, but there is disagreement, and few have the patience to wait for long-run world averages to reassert themselves. ..."
    "... As the economist John Stuart Mill said almost 150 years ago, the true test of freedom is not whether we care about our own rights but whether we care about "the rights of others." ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | foreignpolicy.com

    This is most obvious in the case of Trump, who devoted a large share of his presidential campaign not just to attacking democratic norms but also to attacking the technocratic experts who have come to symbolize democracy in the United States.

    ...the technocrats who now monopolize the country's political elite would be incapable of fighting back.

    Technocrats have always shown little interest in fights over fundamental values. ...So when technocrats are all we have to defend democracy, fights over fundamental values become embarrassingly one-sided. Technocrats do not even have a good answer for technocratic-sounding attacks on democracy. Technocrats' defense of democracy on the basis of "what works" was always vulnerable because the anti-democratic side was not going to be maximally scrupulous about the evidence in any case. It also makes liberal values hostages to fortune.

    Whether because of the incompetence of experts or just a string of bad luck, democracies haven't been performing very well lately.

    The foreign-policy experts guided wars on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq that seemingly made terrorism worse. Domestic economists gave us the 2008 financial crisis - and a response afterward that bailed out banks too big to fail but treated families losing homes as too small to care about. Dictator-run China is taking over ever larger chunks of the world economy while U.S. wages stagnate.

    Experts often cannot agree on "what works" or even what already happened. Some experts could still credibly argue that in the long run democracies worldwide outperform dictatorships on average, but there is disagreement, and few have the patience to wait for long-run world averages to reassert themselves. Which is why the principal defense of democratic values must be that they are desirable in themselves as values - something technocrats are not trained to do Which is not to suggest they don't have any resources at their disposal. My own field of economics can be so technical that whenever I give a talk mentioning values, I feel like I have to apologize.

    Yet economics is better equipped to defend values than usually believed. At the core of models of economic behavior is individual choice. Hidden in plain sight is the assumption that all individuals - whether male, female, white, black, gay, Muslim, or Latino - should indeed have equal rights to make decisions for themselves. The assumptions that guide analysis of what makes people better off embody the same respect for individual choice - we infer A is better than B for an individual if they voluntarily selected A over B. And if an individual chose something for himself or herself that did not make anyone else worse off, we say that overall well-being improved.

    Although these principles are more than a century old in economics and are still at the core of our textbooks, they get sporadic attacks and less attention than they should due to our infatuation with evidence-based policy. Yet as Harvard University economist Edward Glaeser argued along the same lines in 2011, economics still has a "moral spine" beneath all the technocracy: "That spine is a fundamental belief in freedom."

    As the economist John Stuart Mill said almost 150 years ago, the true test of freedom is not whether we care about our own rights but whether we care about "the rights of others."

    But can economics provide a conception of democracy that truly protects the "rights of others"? The field does indeed offer a potential defense against one of the core democratic dangers - the possibility that a tyrannical majority might vote to violate the rights of some minority group. Economists teach that it's in a majority party's interest to conduct a simple thought experiment before making political decisions: Since it's impossible to know for sure that they will always be in the majority, and they could always wind up as part of some minority that some future majority decides to tyrannize, they should make political decisions behind a so-called "veil of ignorance" that sets aside their personal status and group affiliations. And anyone running that thought experiment faithfully would join a coalition to protect all future minority and individual rights.

    Needless to say, the "veil of ignorance" thought experiment is ultimately a voluntary exercise. This year's U.S. election tore the veil of ignorance to shreds and not for the first time. Many white men apparently did not perceive, or consider, this "ignorance" about the future, feeling confident that they will always have enough power to protect themselves and thus are free not to vote to protect the rights of others.

    The long campaign for equal rights, by mixing eloquent moral appeals with "veil of ignorance" warnings, has nevertheless tried to make us all care just enough about other groups to forge a broad coalition in favor of democracy. Our technocratic age often sees such appeals as sentimentalism - more suitable for refrigerator magnets than serious debates. But Trump's attack on core values required a response of such universal moral appeals - to white people as well as to minorities - instead of Clinton's coalition of minorities and the 41-point plan of measurable outcomes on her website.

    Democratic values have never been capable of defending themselves - equal rights require eloquent defenses capable of building broad alliances on their behalf. History offers plenty of inspiration. Abraham Lincoln: "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." Martin Luther King Jr.: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Elie Wiesel: "Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe."

    [Dec 27, 2016] This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context.

    Notable quotes:
    "... This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context. ..."
    "... Voting machines are public and for Federal elections then tampering with them is elevated to a Federal crime. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron : , December 18, 2016 at 07:18 AM

    This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context.

    Cyber security is a serious risk management operation that firms and governments spend outrageous sums of money on because hacking attempts, especially from sources in China and Russia, occur in vast numbers against every remotely desirable target corporate or government each and every day. At my former employer, the State of Virginia, the data center repelled over two million hacking attempts from sources in China each day. Northrop Grumman, the infrastructure management outsourcer for the State of Virginia's IT infrastructure, has had no known intrusions into any Commonwealth of Virginia servers that had been migrated to their standard security infrastructure thus far since the inception of their contract in July 2006. That is almost the one good thing that I have to say about NG. Some state servers, notably the Virginia Department of Health Professions, not under protection of the NG standard network security were hacked and had private information such as client SSNs stolen. Retail store servers are hacked almost routinely, but large banks and similarly well protected corporations are not. Security costs and it costs a lot.

    Even working in a data center with an excellent intrusion protection program as part of that program I had to take an annual "securing the human" computer based training class. Despite all of the technical precautions we were retrained each year to among other things NEVER put anything in an E-Mail that we did not want to be available for everyone to read; i.e., to never assume privacy is protected in an E-Mail. Embarrassing E-Mails need a source. We should assume that there will always be a hacker to take advantage of our mistakes.

    RGC -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 07:57 AM
    Can you spell "diversion"?

    Sanders: "Break up the banks!"

    Trump: "The elites are screwing you over!"

    Supporters of the status quo:

    "It's racism"

    "It's Russian hackers"

    Whatever it takes to change the subject.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RGC... , December 18, 2016 at 08:09 AM
    Maybe it is diversion, but it is definitely uninformed if not just plain stupid.
    sglover -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 06:11 PM
    Absolutely. What does that suggest about Team Dem?
    DrDick -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 08:34 AM
    The reality is that all the major world powers (and some minor ones), including us, do this routinely and always have. While it is entirely appropriate to be outraged that it may have materially determined the election (which I think is impossible to know, though it did have some impact), we should not be shocked or surprised by this.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    "...I would suggest attacks on Putin's personal business holdings all over the world..."

    [My guess is that has been being done a long time ago considering the direction of US/Russian foreign relations over NATO expansion, the Ukraine, and Syria.

    Long before TCP/IP the best way to prevent dirty secrets from getting out was not to have dirty secrets. It still works.

    The jabbering heads will not have much effect on the political opinions of ordinary citizens because 40 million or more US adults had their credit information compromised by the Target hackers three years ago. Target had been saving credit card numbers instead of deleting them as soon as they obtained authorizations for transfers, so that the 40 million were certainly exposed while more than twice that were probably exposed. Establishment politicians having their embarrassing E-mails hacked is more like good fun family entertainment than something to get all riled up about.]

    http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/10/news/companies/target-hacking/

    Target: Hacking hit up to 110 million customers

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:22 AM
    Voting machines are public and for Federal elections then tampering with them is elevated to a Federal crime. Political parties are private. The Federal government did not protect Target or Northrop Grumman's managed infrastructure for the Commonwealth of Virginia although either one can take forensic information to the FBI that will obtain warrants for prosecution. Foreign criminal operations go beyond the immediate domestic reach of the FBI. Not even Interpol interdicts foreign leaders unless they are guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

    The Federal government can do what it will as there are not hard guidelines for such clandestine operations and responses. Moreover, there are none to realistically enforce against them, which inevitably leads to war given sufficient cycles of escalation. Certainly our own government has done worse (political assassinations and supporting coups with money and guns) with impunity merely because of its size, reach, and power.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:43 AM
    BTW, "the burglar that just ransacked your house" can be arrested and prosecuted by a established regulated legal system with absolutely zero concerns of escalating into a nuclear war, trade war, or any other global hostility. So, not the same thing at all. Odds are good though that the burglar will get away without any of that because when he does finally get caught it will be an accident and probably only after dozen if not hundreds of B&E's.

    There is a line. The US has crossed that line, but always in less developed countries that had no recourse against us. Putin knows where the line is with the US. He will dance around it and lean over it, but not cross it. We have him outgunned and he knows it. Putin did not tamper with an election, a government function. Putin tampered with private data exposing incriminating information against a political party, which is a private entity rather than government entity. Whatever we do should probably stay within the rule of law as it gets messy fast once outside those boundaries.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 11:01 AM
    As far as burglars go I live in a particular working class zip code that has very few burglaries. It is a bad risk/reward deal unless you are just out to steal guns and then you better make sure that no one is home. Most people with children still living at home also have a gun safe. Most people have dogs.

    There are plenty burglaries in a lower income zip code nearby and lots more in higher income zip codes further away, the former being targets of opportunity with less security and possible drug stashes, which has a faster turnover than fencing big screen TV's. High income neighborhoods are natural targets with jewelry, cash, credit cards, and high end electronics, but far better security systems. I don't know much about their actual crime stats because they are on the opposite side of the City of Richmond VA from me, but I used to know a couple of burglars when I lived in the inner city. They liked the upscale homes near the University of Richmond on River Road.

    Peter K. -> DrDick... , December 18, 2016 at 09:21 AM
    Putin was mad b/c Clinton interfered in Russia's election using the bully-pulpit.

    She may have been complete correct in what she was saying, but it's not surprising she pissed Putin off.

    The Democratic establishment would rather discuss this than do a post-mortem on Hillary's campaign.

    They kept telling us the e-mail didn't reveal anything and now they say the e-mail determined the election.

    DeDude -> Peter K.... , December 18, 2016 at 09:43 AM
    "They kept telling us the e-mail didn't reveal anything and now they say the e-mail determined the election"

    And those two statement are not in conflict unless you are a brain dead Fox bot. Big nothing-burgers like Bhengazi or trivial emails can easily be blown up and affect a few hundred thousand voters. When the heck are you going to grow up and get past your 5 stages of Sanders grief?

    Peter K. -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:54 AM
    "Big nothing-burgers like Bhengazi or trivial emails can easily be blown up and affect a few hundred thousand voters. "

    There is already an audience for those faux scandals, the Fox viewers.

    They don't create new Voters.

    You're nothing but a brainwashed partisan Democrat, a mirror-image of these brainwashed Fox viewers.

    You're told what you're supposed to think by the Party leadership and you eat it up.

    No critical thinking skills.

    EMichael -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    He's barely over Nader.
    DeDude -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 10:07 AM
    I know - and there used to be some signs of a functional brain. Now it is all "they are all the same" ism and Hillary derangement syndrome on steroids. Someone who cares need to do an intervention before it becomes he get gobbled up by "ilsm" ism.
    Peter K. -> EMichael... , December 18, 2016 at 01:08 PM
    Nader's critique was correct.

    The Democrats moved to the right and created more Trump voters.

    im1dc -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 08:56 AM
    ABC video interview by Martha Raddatz of Donna Brazile 2:43

    Adding the following FACTS, not opinion, to the Russian Hacking debate at the DNC

    Russian hacks of the DNC began at least as early as April, the FBI informed the DNC in May of the hacks, NO ONE in the FedGovt offered to HELP the DNC at anytime (allowed it to continue), and Russia's Putin DID NOT stop after President Obama told Putin in September to "Cut it Out", despite Obama's belief otherwise

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dnc-chair-says-committee-was-attacked-by-russian-hackers-through-election-day_us_5856acb6e4b08debb78992e4

    "DNC Chair Says Russian Hackers Attacked The Committee Through Election Day"

    'That goes against Obama's statement that the attacks ended after he spoke to Putin in September'

    by Dave Jamieson Labor Reporter...The Huffington Post...12/18/2016...10:59 am ET

    "The chair of the Democratic National Committee said Sunday that the DNC was under constant cyber attack by Russian hackers right through the election in November. Her claim contradicts President Barack Obama's statement Friday that the attacks ended in September after he issued a personal warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    "No, they did not stop," Donna Brazile told Martha Raddatz on ABC's "This Week." "They came after us absolutely every day until the end of the election. They tried to hack into our system repeatedly. We put up the very best cyber security but they constantly [attacked]."

    Brazile said the DNC was outgunned in its efforts to fend off the hacks, and suggested the committee received insufficient protection from U.S. intelligence agencies. The CIA and FBI have reportedly concluded that Russians carried out the attacks in an effort to help Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.

    "I think the Obama administration ― the FBI, the various other federal agencies ― they informed us, they told us what was happening. We knew as of May," Brazile said. "But in terms of helping us to fight, we were fighting a foreign adversary in the cyberspace. The Democratic National Committee, we were not a match. And yet we fought constantly."

    In a surprising analogy, Brazile compared the FBI's help to the DNC to that of the Geek Squad, the tech service provided at retailer Best Buy ― which is to say well-meaning, but limited.

    "They reached out ― it's like going to Best Buy," Brazile said. "You get the Geek Squad, and they're great people, by the way. They reached out to our IT vendors. But they reached us, meaning senior Democratic officials, by then it was, you know, the Russians had been involved for a long time."..."

    im1dc -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 08:59 AM
    This new perspective and set of facts is more than distressing it details a clear pattern of Executive Branch incompetence, malfeasance, and ineptitude (perhaps worse if you are conspiratorially inclined)
    im1dc -> im1dc... , -1
    The information above puts in bold relief President Obama's denial of an Electoral College briefing on the Russian Hacks

    There is now no reason not to brief the Electors to the extent and degree of Putin's help for demagogue Donald

    [Dec 26, 2016] Russian Hacker Conspiracy Theory is Weak, But the Case For Paper Ballots is Strong

    Dec 26, 2016 | politics.slashdot.org
    (facebook.com) 286 Posted by msmash on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:01PM from the stranger-things dept. On Wednesday, J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan's Center for Computer Security & Society and a respected voice in computer science and information society, said that the Clinton Campaign should ask for a recount of the vote for the U.S. Presidential election . Later he wrote, "Were this year's deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don't believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other." The Outline, a new publication by a dozen of respected journalists, has published a post (on Facebook for now, since their website is still in the works), in which former Motherboard's reporter Adrianne Jeffries makes it clear that we still don't have concrete evidence that the vote was tampered with, but why still the case for paper ballots is strong . From the article: Halderman also repeats the erroneous claim that federal agencies have publicly said that senior officials in Russia commissioned attacks on voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois. In October, federal agencies attributed the Democratic National Committee email hack to Russia, but specifically said they could not attribute the state hacks. Claims to the contrary seem to have spread due to anonymous sourcing and the conflation of Russian hackers with Russian state-sponsored hackers. Unfortunately, the Russia-hacked-us meme is spreading fast on social media and among disaffected Clinton voters. "It's just ignorance," said the cybersecurity consultant Jeffrey Carr, who published his own response to Halderman on Medium. "It's fear and ignorance that's fueling that." The urgency comes from deadlines for recount petitions, which start kicking in on Friday in Wisconsin, Monday in Pennsylvania, and the following Wednesday in Michigan. There is disagreement about how likely it is that the Russian government interfered with election results. There is little disagreement, however, that our voting system could be more robust -- namely, by requiring paper ballot backups for electronic voting and mandating that all results be audited, as they already are in some states including California. Despite the 150,000 signatures collected on a Change.org petition, what happens next really comes down to the Clinton team's decision.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Crowdsourced Volunteers Search For Solutions To Fake News

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
    (wired.co.uk) 270 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday November 27, 2016 @03:34AM from the help-me-hive-mind dept. Upworthy co-founder Eli Pariser is leading a group of online volunteers hunting for ways to respond to the spread of fake news. An anonymous reader quotes Wired UK: Inside a Google Doc, volunteers are gathering ideas and approaches to get a grip on the untruthful news stories. It is part analysis, part brainstorming, with those involved being encouraged to read widely around the topic before contributing. "This is a massive endeavour but well worth it," they say...

    At present, the group is coming up with a list of potential solutions and approaches . Possible methods the group is looking at include: more human editors, fingerprinting viral stories then training algorithms on confirmed fakes, domain checking, the blockchain, a reliability algorithm, sentiment analysis, a Wikipedia for news sources, and more.

    The article also suggests this effort may one day spawn fake news-fighting tech startups.

    [Dec 26, 2016] Snowden: 'The Central Problem of the Future' Is Control of User Data

    Dec 26, 2016 | tech.slashdot.org
    (techcrunch.com) 157 Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @05:00AM from the no-place-to-hide dept. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey interviewed Edward Snowden via Periscope about the wide world of technology. The NSA whistleblower " discussed the data that many online companies continue to collect about their users , creating a 'quantified world' -- and more opportunities for government surveillance," reports TechCrunch. Snowden said, "If you are being tracked, this is something you should agree to, this is something you should understand, this is something you should be aware of and can change at any time." TechCrunch reports: Snowden acknowledged that there's a distinction between collecting the content of your communication (i.e., what you said during a phone call) and the metadata (information like who you called and how long it lasted). For some, surveillance that just collects metadata might seem less alarming, but in Snowden's view, "That metadata is in many cases much more dangerous and much more intrusive, because it can be understood at scale." He added that we currently face unprecedented perils because of all the data that's now available -- in the past, there was no way for the government to get a list of all the magazines you'd read, or every book you'd checked out from the library. "[In the past,] your beliefs, your future, your hopes, your dreams belonged to you," Snowden said. "Increasingly, these things belong to companies, and these companies can share them however they want, without a lot of oversight." He wasn't arguing that companies shouldn't collect user data at all, but rather that "the people who need to be in control of that are the users." "This is the central problem of the future, is how do we return control of our identities to the people themselves?" Snowden said.

    [Dec 26, 2016] NSA's Best Are 'Leaving In Big Numbers,' Insiders Say

    Dec 26, 2016 | yro.slashdot.org
    (cyberscoop.com) 412 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 11, 2016 @11:34AM from the blaming-Oliver-Stone dept. schwit1 quotes CyberScoop: Low morale at the National Security Agency is causing some of the agency's most talented people to leave in favor of private sector jobs , former NSA Director Keith Alexander told a room full of journalism students, professors and cybersecurity executives Tuesday. The retired general and other insiders say a combination of economic and social factors including negative press coverage -- have played a part... "I am honestly surprised that some of these people in cyber companies make up to seven figures. That's five times what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff makes. Right? And these are people that are 32 years old. Do the math. [The NSA] has great competition," he said.

    The rate at which these cyber-tacticians are exiting public service has increased over the last several years and has gotten considerably worse over the last 12 months, multiple former NSA officials and D.C. area-based cybersecurity employers have told CyberScoop in recent weeks... In large part, Alexander blamed the press for propagating an image of the NSA that causes people to believe they are being spied on at all times by the U.S. government regardless of their independent actions.
    "What really bothers me is that the people of NSA, these folks who take paltry government salaries to protect this nation, are made to look like they are doing something wrong," the former NSA Director added. "They are doing exactly what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes."

    [Dec 26, 2016] Young Sanders Campaign Aides Plan Anti-Trump Permanent Protest Base in Washington

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the very rich become much richer. ..."
    "... "To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him." ..."
    Dec 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Sanders betrayed them, but they still use him as a flag...
    PlutoniumKun , December 25, 2016 at 6:27 am

    This is inspiring, but I hope they realise that opposing Trump is just one side of a two-front battle. Trump needs to be opposed when (as seems very likely) he will start to drive a very right wing pro-billionaire set of policies. But its increasingly obvious that there is an equally difficult battle to be fought against the 'centrists' in the Dems and elsewhere. If all the focus is on Trump, then there is the danger they just become the useful idiots of the Dem mainstream.

    Wyoming , December 25, 2016 at 8:18 am

    I would go so far to say that their greatest opponent and biggest danger is not Trump and the Republicans at all. It is the Democratic Party and pretty much every significant office holding Democrat and their staffs.

    Revolution starts at home. Fighting with Republicans will not accomplish much when the fifth columnists from the Democratic Party are going to sabotage every effort they make which shows promise of having an effect. They need to show their power by hamstringing targeted Democrats and thus herding the rest into line through fear. You do what we say and how we say it or we replace you. They have to own the left. No more liberal's in name only. You are against us or you are with us.

    johnnygl , December 25, 2016 at 8:38 am

    Primary them all! Schumer, pelosi, the whole bunch.

    Win in 2020 and redraw those districts to wipe out those super-safe ones that are drawn to wipe out competition.

    Vatch , December 25, 2016 at 11:17 am

    I agree - they must be opposed in the primaries. That's tough to do, and will take real dedication and money. The deplorable Debbie Wasserman Schultz won against Tim Canova in the 2016 primary, and the equally deplorable Chuck Schumer won reelection in 2016, so he won't be facing a primary opponent until the 2022 election season. Pelosi, of course is vulnerable every two years.

    Please need to be willing to do more than just post comments on blogs. And lets not have any more of those comments bewailing the impossibility of overthrowing the status quo - it's difficult, but it's not impossible. (This paragraph isn't directed specifically to you, JohnnyGL or PlutoniumKun. I'm just concerned that some other commenters seem to try to prevent people from taking an active role in politics, and that is just plain wrong.)

    Katharine , December 25, 2016 at 9:12 am

    I think opposing Trump will naturally entail telling the centrists to shape up. That is of course only a start, but it is a start.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 25, 2016 at 11:37 am

    Sanders started, many moths ago, with the goal of taking over/reforming/remaking/revolutionizing the D party.

    That start is not completed yet.

    jrs , December 25, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    uh why fight against a party with NO federal power? (state power in a few states so maybe relevant there)

    Even if you get unanimous Dem opposition how much does it matter? Ok the Rs don't quite have a super-majority yet I guess but it is Rs who will be passing legislation. Fighting Dems is about like fighting WWII after it's all over. They have mouthpieces and foundations it is true, but no power.

    Sorrynotsorry , December 25, 2016 at 6:43 am

    Bwah ha ha ha ha! What are they doing? Anything except, you know, voting

    Synoia , December 25, 2016 at 7:16 am

    Better message is to be pro a set of policies:
    1. Medicare for all
    2. SS are a real retirement system
    3. Job Guarantee
    4. College for all – student debt
    5. Taxes as social and business policy
    6. No permanent standing military

    Merry Christmas to all

    Direction , December 25, 2016 at 7:43 am

    7. Money out of politics
    8. Corporations are not people with inalienable rights.

    Dirk77 , December 25, 2016 at 11:58 am

    Irritated by the identity politics of the main article. That and would they have opened an office if Hillary had won? If not, I fear they don't understand and are doomed to repeat the same mistakes of their elders.

    +1 to you and Synoia. Merry Christmas!

    Reify99 , December 25, 2016 at 10:01 am

    Sanders is always on point moving toward the goal with minimal time spent talking about moving away from what Is opposed. Here's a sometime humorous case in point–

    A candid conversation: Bernie Sanders and Sara Silverman

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP5xavI0d_o&sns=em

    Knifecatcher , December 25, 2016 at 11:23 am

    Waaaaay too many bullet points already, and I see that others are adding more. Not that I'm saying any of those are unimportant, but when you have a dozen goals you actually have none at all. My ideal progressive movement would hammer relentlessly on 3 major initiatives:

    – Medicare for all
    – $15 minimum wage
    – Post office banking

    All 3 provide tangible benefits to the majority of Americans, with the added bonus of poking a sharp stick in the eye of the oligarchs.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 25, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Perhaps these 2:

    – Medicare and one Single Pesion (Socia Security) for all
    – Basic Income (before retirement) for all

    Steeeve , December 25, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    I definitely agree about keeping the list of priorities short, but I feel that these two areas are foundational and systemically corrupting, and little else is likely to be accomplished without major reforms of both

    – MIC/"Defense" spending (mostly spent on offense, not defending the borders of the USA from invasion)
    – Campaign Finance – big money in politics

    floatingcopy , December 25, 2016 at 8:15 am

    9. Lifelong job education and skills-building for all unemployed and under-employed, paid for directly from corporate taxes.
    10. Universal two-year commitment to the military or a full-time volunteer public service program.

    johnnygl , December 25, 2016 at 8:43 am

    11. Rewilding and reforesting polluted and abandoned land.
    12. Anti-trust! More trust-busting needed!
    13. Agricultural reform to ban feedlots, fertilizers and pesticides and reorganize farms to restore and rebuild soil. And yes, this will create jobs.

    Marco , December 25, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    13 points already? We're toast.

    jrs , December 25, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    "9. Lifelong job education and skills-building for all unemployed and under-employed, paid for directly from corporate taxes."

    people don't know what a nightmare such scenarios are, ok it sucks if you are underemployed and have no way to retrain because finances, but it also sucks big league if you have to spend your entire life working full time AND pursuing more and more formal education, forever until you die. Is any of our utopias going to care about human beings being able to BE human beings? We are so so much more than just useful labor machines forever aquiring labor market useful skills.

    Ok course a basic income guarantee or a labor market tilted for labor not capital (including government job creation sure – and sure there's other things that can tilt it for labor – lower Social Security age, unionization etc.) would nullify this objection as the competition for jobs would lessen enough perhaps.

    "10. Universal two-year commitment to the military or a full-time volunteer public service program."

    well this is even more self-evidently nightmarish but it hardly needs unpacking. 2 years of becoming hired killers for the imperialist murder machine. Yea I know you didn't specify military as mandatory, I'm just saying what is being encouraged.

    DJG , December 25, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    jrs: Agreed. Points 9 and 10 are non-starters. They will not lessen class warfare. Only a jobs policy and a commitment to full employment will. And this idea that U.S. citizens have to be drafted into some regimented public-service program isn't helpful.

    But let's talk about reopening the Civilian Conservation Corps, as in point 11. Now that is a genuinely good idea. And people would gladly join–without feeling regimented.

    Direction , December 25, 2016 at 8:28 am

    There was an interesting debate around the water cooler links on Festivus. I would like to recap and extend it here because I want to know more. First about how you, Lambert, see the take over of a single state Democratic party office breaking open a path to reform the party from within. I would like to hear what scenarios you feel are possible.

    Walden pond wrote
    "The elite control the D party (which is nothing but a criminal organization at this point). They will allow outsiders to have dog-catcher, but get uppity and run for a state position and that person will be out in an instant. The Ds are factually/legally a private club and they can select their membership and candidates in any way they choose or get a court to back them on every petty legal change they make to block outsiders. They change rules (legal contract) retroactively, they violate their own rules repeatedly and someone thinks they are going to get any farther than a few school board positions or city council is going to fail.

    Taking over the D party is similar to proposing infiltrating gangs (fully backed by the legal system) with 13 year olds to 'save the neighborhood'."

    I whole heartedly agree. I think it's important that people understand that the party is not just a "machine" waiting for someone new to guide it. It is not a set of empty offices and poster printing machines with helpful local people waiting for guidance. At the top, it is much more like an exclusive country club whose membership passes down through wealthy families who think they know what's best for the nation.

    Anyhow, if you have a strategy on how to break it, I would like to support that discussion. I would like to hear more.

    Montanamaven , December 25, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    I'm glad you carried this discussion over to today. People hear have heard my sad tales of woe when I decided in 2004 to stop being inattentive and to actually try "to change the party from within" that talk show hosts like Thom Hartmann and "The Nation" gang call for every 4 years. Yes, I discovered what Walden Pond wrote; that there is an "elite" control of the state parties. They are almost hereditary positions. Yes, they will get excited by a newbie like me who was articulate, worked in Hollywood, married to a rancher for conservative creeds. But then I started to challenge their positions by advocating for single payer; stronger labor stances that they all paId lip service to but didn't really seem to care about. So no longer was I allowed to talk to the press at the DNC Convention. As I recall in 2006 or 2007 they changed a rule to make it harder to challenge Jon Tester in a primary.
    Affairs like "Campaign for America's Future" conventions were always in D.C. And during the 2nd one I went to, I confirmed by observations that they were just big job fairs for people wanting jobs in the next administration or becoming lobbyists. That was actually what the convention in 2004 was too that I attended as a delegate. "Agriculture Salutes Tom Harking"; brought to you not by The Grange but by Monsanto and Carroll. Lavish party with handsome young men shucking tons of oysters. Ick.
    I went in naive as I suspect many well meaning millennials will do now to this "house". But boy did I start to wake up and finally by 2009 after the failed single payer health care movement, I quit this dead donkey.

    JohnnyGL , December 25, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Christmas Rant!!! ***You've been warned***

    There's a lot of contentious debate on whether to fight in the Democrat Party or build a 3rd one. The answer is both, always and constantly.

    1) Start the fight within the Party, as seen in MI. What happened there is important to expose and embarrass the local party officials. I consider the incident an encouraging sign and hope there are more like it around the country (not happy with the guy getting assaulted, of course, but if it shows 'they are who we thought they were', then that's progress of a sort).

    2) If you can fight within the party and the party leadership at the state level understands the need to change and gets on board (getting on board as defined by fighting for specific policies, organizing and party building, and going against the wishes of big donors), then work with them.

    3) if the big donors and dinosaur party leaders don't get on board, then then need to be A) removed, if possible. Or, if not possible, B) they should be isolated. If Schumer and Pelosi can't be primary-ed out of existence (a-la Eric Cantor) then they should be stripped of leadership positions and isolated. Primary all of their allies in congress. Pelosi still got around 2/3 of the vote. Let's get it below 1/2. We're not starting from scratch, there's a base of opposition to work with.

    4) Part of the contention between points 2) and 3) is protests like those seen recently protesting at Schumer's office by BLM and Occupy folks. Again, make them come to us on policy. Life should get increasingly uncomfortable for Party leaders and members that don't play ball. It should be clear that their current attitudes and policies are untenable and they need to get with the new program. Hassle them in their offices, at their public events. Anti-fracking protestors who harassed Cuomo over several years showed what to do. I think one of his kids joked that when they got lost on the way to an event, they could always find where they were going because the anti-fracking protestors were there waiting for them.

    People like Pelosi and Schumer will cave to public pressure, they've done it in the past. Pelosi said no to medicare changes when Obama wanted to put entitlement reform on the table. These people are different than ideologues who will push their agenda regardless of public opinion. They're snakes, but they'll play ball under pressure.

    5) Now in the case where we can't with the fight within the party, go outside. Socialist Alternative, Working Families and other 3rd parties that are built up at the local level can threaten and do real damage. Does anyone think Seattle gets a $15/hr min. wage without Sawant and Socialist Alternative? Working Families Party demonstrated exactly what NOT to do during NY Governor election. If Cuomo won't come to us and meet our demands, bring him down. Suck it up, deal with a Republican for a few years, if necessary. While the Republican is in charge, pressure them, too. Don't think about the election right now .that's short termism. Let's think 2, 3, 4 elections out. If you're not winning now, clear out the deadwood to win later.

    6) Now, to face up to the 'lesser evil' arguments regarding 5). It's over, there's no more 'lesser evilism'. It's dead. Hillary Clinton and the elite Dems killed it. They put it all on display for all to see. They were willing to crush the left (again), squash voting rights through a variety of means, and risk Trump or another whacky 'Pied Piper' candidate in order to get their anointed candidate put in charge. THAT should tell you EXACTLY who we're dealing with here. They were perfectly willing to risk Trump to win, so that means if a 3rd party can get 3%-5% in a close election and play a spoiler role, then that 3rd party should DO it. Every time. Again, keep doing it until the Democrats adopt the platform of a 3rd party (which, presumably includes fight for $15, medicare for all, no wars, etc). Again, until the Dems come to us on policy, they will be opposed.

    But, but Nader brought us Bush who brought us Iraq War! You cannot take risks like that! Must vote lesser evil!!! Oh really? Dems voted for Patriot Act, Dems voted for AUMF over and over again. Dems voted to keep funding the war, too. When Dems don't win the Presidency they want to sit back and wait for Repubs to do awful stuff so that Dems will be back in charge as seen in 2006-8. Pelosi and Reid did NOTHING to deserve a win, they just waited it out until people voted for change again. They want to do this again. We can't let them. Make them do their job. Make them act in opposition. Make them earn their next win, otherwise we'll get the same group and the same policies that have just been discredited.

    7) From the article, I like Ahmed's strategy/tactics, but the concept of attacking Trump the person, seems flawed. Remember, policy is what matters!
    Nixon passed an amendment that created the EPA. That doesn't happen if you oppose Nixon for who he is. Also, wikipedia reveals that the Clean Water Act got passed in spite of Nixon's veto! If Trump wants to move in the right direction, he should be praised for doing so. If he doesn't, go around him!

    Trump is a guy that just slapped the Repub establishment silly and clearly is running at least partially out of vanity more than he wants to collect fat checks when he leaves office (like the Clintons, and probably Obama soon enough). There's value in this, by itself, and there's value on policy grounds, too.

    Okay, I'm done. I hope anyone who bothers to read found this enjoyable. Happy for comments. Also, to be clear, I've got no experience in organizing or any kind of playbook to carry this plan out. :) So, feel free to mock my credentials, because they don't exist!

    funemployed , December 25, 2016 at 8:49 am

    Sigh. We millennials might be smart about policy and pragmatic, but if this is our moonshot, we don't know jack about how to organize a successful social movement. Protesting "Trump" is stupid. Trump is not a policy. He is a person. Is our goal to make him feel bad about himself? And he did win the election. So his administration is, in fact, "legitimate" in any meaningful sense of the word.

    I'd have slightly different lists, but I entirely agree that a pro-policy platform is an essential starting point. That said, protests basically always fail, and more often then not IMO, strengthen the opposition. When they succeed, or even make headway like NODAPL, they always share a common set of features.

    1) One very specific policy. Today, if I were in charge, I'd choose Federally funded Medicare for all. Never mind details for protesting purposes.

    2) A simple, clear message that appeals to values that most people in a body politic can agree on "Health Care is a Civil Right!"

    3) A symbol that presents a clear, binary, moral choice. Sorry people, it makes me feel icky too, but this is where we go hunting for a dying grandma or kid with cancer who can't get medical care and make him/her our mascot (ideally, in a purely strategic realm, such person would refuse any care until it was guaranteed to all, then die at a decisive moment, thus becoming a martyr).

    4) The ability to bring different folks together to agree on ONE thing. Organized bitch sessions about Obamacare in Trump country might work here, but we'd have to throw shit at the wall and see what stuck. I know for a fact that most Trump supporters, if pressed, will say that a family should not have to choose between impoverishment and treating mom's cancer. But protesting "Trump" is protesting them too, with the main goal of feeling like you are a better person because you know that gender is socially constructed or whatever (as if there is something magical in who you are that is the reason you got to go to a private liberal arts college, and you totally never would have been racist no matter what life circumstances you were born into).

    It's not that I'm a single issue person, it's just protesting lots of things at once just makes a lot of noise, and a bunch of people trying to work together with competing agendas (lack of shared vision, in corporate speak), makes all human organizations dysfunctional. Basically, I support many issues, but think mixing them all together is not a good recipe for success.

    Steven Greenberg , December 25, 2016 at 9:20 am

    Didn't read the article. Seems like a misdirected effort to me. You don't win voters by being against something. You win them by being for something. I am getting tired of the "Ain't It Awful" game. Give me a vision to be for.

    There is something called target fixation. When you concentrate on what you want to avoid, you end up going right toward it. Concentrate on where you want to go rather than spend all your time thinking about where you don't want to go.

    Reify99 , December 25, 2016 at 10:33 am

    This can be demonstrated by asking someone to follow your instructions and then issuing a number of imperative sentences:
    Don't think of blue
    Don't think about your left earlobe
    Don't think about what Crazyman will do with this
    Don't think of Trump
    Etc

    One has to think of those things in order to make sense of the words. Moving away from can be a powerful motivator but only toward will get you there. Sorry, clarifying the obvious again.

    Katharine , December 25, 2016 at 10:38 am

    This effort is not about winning voters but about blocking really bad policy changes that will hurt millions of people. Organizing for an election campaign and organizing for issue-based activism are not the same. If Barb Mikulski forty-odd years ago had just gone around the city talking about her vision of good communities and good transportation policy, a lot of Baltimore neighborhoods would have been wiped out as the city was cut apart by an ill-placed interstate. She stopped it by organizing a fight against it. More recently, Destiny Watford, still in high school at the time, was the prime mover in the successful fight against an incinerator in her Curtis Bay neighborhood in south Baltimore.

    There is a time and a place for everything. There are at least two other organizations focusing on electoral politics. This one has a different purpose.

    jrs , December 25, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    Yes to be opposed to Trump is because they think a bunch of bad policies will come from his administration and they are likely not wrong. It doesn't need to be about Trump the person at all, though for some deluded people it may be. Now they could broaden it to opposing Paul Ryans congress etc. since they are hardly better but if any legistlaton is actually going to be passed a Republican congress and Trump will be working together.

    A single issue focus, say it was Medicare for all, even if it was sucessful, would have let all the other issues a Trump administration will represent slide. Ok so if Trump passes tax cuts say that further enrich the plutocrats, an ever more unequal society might even destroy Medicare for all (the rich will just buy their way out). If Trump passes even more obviously anti-environmental legistlation, the fact Medicare for all was achieved would be a goal of it's own but would not change this. Maybe there are people enough for all movements, I don't know.

    craazyman , December 25, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Oh man. More identity politics yada yada.

    It'll never work & for good reason. It's a form of ideation contrary to gnostic principles and therefore to the highest spiritual values on this plane of existence.

    Sad to see hopeful inspired people get lost in that maze of misery. Trust your perceptions in the silence of your mind without looking to anybody else for affirmation. People are people. That's what everybody who can figure things out figures out when they grow up.

    Grow up & Merry Christmas. LOL

    I'm wishing Trump well & am somewhat hopeful that - through the odd feedback loops in complex systems - the provocations of his originality will shape things in a direction even progressives will find appealing. Maybe I'll be wrong, I admit. But I'm usually not wrong. LOL. (Although I am sometimes, no lie.)

    alex morfesis , December 25, 2016 at 10:03 am

    Firecracker puppies professional trainer who isists she knows about how people of color feel..hmmm a bunch of photos of ms nadine and her fellow associates something about dc that tells me the demographics are not the same as iowa does not look as she thinks there are any people of color who can train on what "she" calls "non violence" and her "famous" black female puppet to represent and protest against the military because the military is so black and female seems a bit tone deaf

    Same old same old chameleons bending to the new hot button funding to keep the lights on

    "As the international director of the committee to make noise and get nothing done, we strive to "

    And ms bangladeshi her nov 27 tweet that anyone right of the democrats is a fascist does this child have an idea what that word means, or is it something she picked up at one of the "people" conventions she attended or spoke at

    Not looking to be hyper cynical on this of all days but seems moumita has spent her entire adult life posing with her megaphone and for someone who is so "out there" mekantz find much about her except her self proclaimed relevance and for a person who claims this large network somewhat smallish set of followers on her chyrping account

    I hope I am wrong

    Peace on earth and goodwill to all

    jrs , December 25, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    movements often outgrow their leaders

    mad as hell. , December 25, 2016 at 10:40 am

    The Washington police will now have to use a search warrant or a battering ram unlike Zuccotti park where night sticks and pepper spray were used. I don't see a problem getting those. Especially after agents have infiltrated. Well at least it is a start which I hope snowballs!

    dcblogger , December 25, 2016 at 10:42 am

    enter the sans coullottes! I am thrilled and will try to get in contact with them. depend upon it, the American people will turn to those who demonstrate the best ability to push back against Trump. Which is why Bernie has been doing that since the election.

    beth , December 25, 2016 at 11:42 am

    No, I disagree. Bernie does not push back against Trump. No identity politics, no focus on personalities. Bernie pushes back against wrong-headed policies. Bernie wants policies that benefit the majority.

    Let's pray our new president does some good that most of us do not expect. I hope he is more unpredictable than that. I may be wrong but I can hope.

    Montanamaven , December 25, 2016 at 10:53 am

    Sounds like the Alternet crowd is up to its sheepdogging tactics again. Let's corral young energy and co-opt it for the Democrats. Co-opting is what I call "Skunking" because it sure stinks up the joint.

    I'm with the majority here in finding this sad that these "organizers" have decided to go all negative. They are "going to hold him [Trump] accountable and delegitimize literally everything he is doing and not let him succeed." Well, how has that worked out so far.
    New thinking and new solutions ae called for, not the same old feel good "protests" and voter drives that professional organizers love to do. If they had done any real introspection they would have come up with ways of forming new coalitions; and also realize the need to keep Schumer and Pelosi as accountable as Trump. But these are still party operatives in younger sheep's clothing. Many are poli sci majors who want to be in politics in Washington as a vocation. See, they are the wise "behind the scenes" people that will guide the "activists" . Ugh. Same old; Same old story.
    And this smells of the same DLC Clinton gang since they are calling Trump's victory and presidency illegitimate. Again, they don't want to delve into why she lost. They wants jobs in D.C. And spend their energy "resisting" rather than coming up with anything remotely interesting. This is not Occupy. And I doubt they will embrace young Anarchists.

    Denis Drew , December 25, 2016 at 10:55 am

    Re: How the Obama Coalition Crumbled, Leaving an Opening for Trump By NATE COHN
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html

    Wonderful shakeout by Cohn: Trump won by trading places with Obama . O appealed to less educated whites as their protector against the Wall Street candidate (47% time) Romney. (Crackpot) Trump appealed to them with same promise versus Wall Street candidate (true enough) Hill.

    Upshot: Dems only have to get busy rebuilding labor union density at the state by progressive state level (or not so progressive; but be seen trying hard). Repubs will have no where to hide: once and for all political checkmate.

    For some beginning thoughts and angles on what and how to - see here:
    http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2016/12/wet-backs-and-narrow-backs-irish.html

    We are only asking state legislatures to make possible joining a union if you want to - without running an impassable gauntlet - no complicated policy issues at all.

    fosforos , December 25, 2016 at 10:55 am

    Totally unpromising that they start with the calamitous premise of the whole Sanders campaign: "a campaign where Bernie specifically said, 'Do not attack the other person." Sanders knew he could run a campaign that would destroy the Clinton, a proven loser on the merits, and thereby make it possible to defeat any of the GOP's dumpster of deplorables, especially the Trumpe-l'oeil. But that would involve a political break with the whole record of the Obama administration in both domestic and foreign policy. So instead Sanders wound up saying the falsest single thing anyone said in the whole campaign–"nobody cares about those damn e-mails."

    Yves Smith , December 25, 2016 at 11:56 am

    *Sigh*

    Sanders did not lose as a result of his position on the e-mails. The GOP was guaranteed to make a big issue of them and did.

    walt , December 25, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Youth may wish to have their bragging rights for their old age, but Trump has proven that power lies with the voters, who will be driven away to the likes of Reagan by this posturing.

    Ahmed has not learned all the lessons of the 1960s.

    Gaylord , December 25, 2016 at 11:23 am

    We-The-Ppl rejected Gold Sacks's "shitty deal" Hillary, foisted on us by the Dems whose elites "assassinated" the best candidate since JFK; Repubs rejected "fool me again" Jeb in the Primary. Nasty Trump was put there to shoo-in Hill, but it backfired. Democracy? all gone. The Wild West is back.

    PhilK , December 25, 2016 at 11:26 am

    They're still trying to grab Sanders' mike and take over his show.

    Katharine , December 25, 2016 at 11:41 am

    He was always the first to point that this show is not about him but about all of us.

    Reify99 , December 25, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    True, otherwise we're lost in celebrity.

    We need both "away from" and "toward" bullet points. The "away from" will naturally target Trump's onerous policies and will generate lots of energy. The "toward" bullet points will also "target" the "fake news" neoliberals because their support will prove to be tepid faint praise and lots of how it can't be done. Energy wise it will be more of a slog. They will also covertly seek to undermine progressive change. They will be called out on their crap.

    Billy-bob , December 25, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    To the naysayers I say: just shut up and fund it–I just did. It's an experiment and it might work.

    At least these yunguns are DOING something.

    Reify99 , December 25, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    +1

    Jamie , December 25, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Why didn't they set up this "permanent base" when Sanders voted for the 700 billion dollar F35 or when Obama claimed the legal right to indefinitely detain or kill anyone without judicial oversight?

    "You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image,
    when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."

    – Anne Lamott

    Elizabeth Burton , December 25, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    I assume all of those who have so arrogantly dismissed the efforts of these young people are all, therefore, engaged in alternative activities that support their respective opinions of how to effect the change that is our only salvation from neo-feudalism. Otherwise, I say put up or shut up.

    Because I'm getting really sick of all the armchair quarterbacking, which to me is no different from the way the DNC elites treat anyone who isn't a member of their club. If people who object to the goals and/or methods of the District 13 House group have useful suggestions to make, why haven't they engaged in working to bring those suggestions to fruition. It's also precisely the kind of ivory-tower critique that has brought us to this pass, so do keep in mind that when pointing out the sins of others, one has three other fingers pointing in the opposite direction.

    ChrisAtRU , December 25, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    Natural skeptic/cynic at this point I go back to to Bernie's first statement after the election:

    "Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the very rich become much richer.

    "To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him."

    Now taken in that light, do we need a generic "anti-Trump" resistance house to "stick out like a sore thumb"?

    Or do we need something that speaks to the deeper issues around which non-squillionaire people can unite?

    I concur with those who posted above on sticking to the issues. If you stick to the issues, the face of the opposition (from within and without) doesn't matter. It's about getting people to realize that agents of the establishment on BOTH sides (Dem & Repub) of all various identarian flavors have betrayed us all.

    Now granted, there's plenty of swamp left undrained to warrant being all up the new administration's grill like freckles. But please, let's get the focus where it should be – on what's being done and undone. Focusing on "Trump" is a non-starter.

    Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah and FestivusForTheRestOfUs to everyone!

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

    Dec 26, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
    TNI Staff

    December 22, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [Dec 26, 2016] Are We Seeing Propaganda About Russian Propaganda?

    Dec 26, 2016 | news.slashdot.org
    (rollingstone.com) 335 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 04, 2016 @12:39PM from the ghosts-of-Joseph-McCarthy dept. MyFirstNameIsPaul was one of several readers who spotted this disturbing instance of fake news about fake news. An anonymous reader writes: Last week the Washington Post described "independent researchers" who'd identified "more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda " that they estimated were viewed more than 200 million times on Facebook. But the researchers insisted on remaining anonymous "to avoid being targeted by Russia's legions of skilled hackers," and when criticized on Twitter, responded "Awww, wook at all the angwy Putinists, trying to change the subject -- they're so vewwy angwy!!"

    The group "seems to have been in existence for just a few months," writes Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi , calling the Post's article an "astonishingly lazy report". (Chris Hedges, who once worked on a Pulitzer Prize-winning team at the New York Times, even found his site Truthdig on the group's dubious list of over 200 " sites that reliably echo Russian propaganda ," along with other long-standing sites like Zero Hedge , Naked Capitalism , and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.) "By overplaying the influence of Russia's disinformation campaign, the report also plays directly into the hands of the Russian propagandists that it hopes to combat," complains Adrian Chen, who in 2015 documented real Russian propaganda efforts which he traced to "a building in St. Petersburg where hundreds of young Russians worked to churn out propaganda ."
    The Post's article was picked up by other major news outlets ( including USA Today ), and included an ominous warning that "The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on 'fake news'."

    [Dec 25, 2016] Is Obama A Russian Agent

    Dec 25, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Dmitry Orlov,

    Sometimes a case looks weak because there is no "smoking gun"-no obvious, direct evidence of conspiracy, malfeasance or evil intent-but once you tally up all the evidence it forms a coherent and damning picture. And so it is with the Obama administration vis ŕ vis Russia: by feigning hostile intent it did everything possible to further Russia's agenda. And although it is always possible to claim that all of Obama's failures stem from mere incompetence, at some point this claim begins to ring hollow; how can he possibly be so utterly competent at being incompetent? Perhaps he just used incompetence as a veil to cover his true intent, which was always to bolster Russia while rendering the US maximally irrelevant in world affairs. Let's examine Obama's major foreign policy initiatives from this angle.

    Perhaps the greatest achievement of his eight years has been the destruction of Libya. Under the false pretense of a humanitarian intervention what was once the most prosperous and stable country in the entire North Africa has been reduced to a rubble-strewn haven for Islamic terrorists and a transit point for economic migrants streaming into the European Union. This had the effect of pushing Russia and China together, prompting them to start voting against the US together as a block in the UN Security Council. In a single blow, Obama assured an important element of his legacy as a Russian agent: no longer will the US be able to further its agenda through this very important international body.

    Next, Obama presided over the violent overthrow of the constitutional government in the Ukraine and the installation of an American puppet regime there. When Crimea then voted to rejoin Russia, Obama imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation. These moves may seem like they were designed to hurt Russia, but let's look at the results instead of the intentions.

    In effect, Russia reaped all the benefits from the Ukrainian stalemate, while the US gained an unsavory, embarrassing dependent.

    Obama's next "achievement" was in carefully shepherding the Syrian conflict into a cul de sac. (Some insist on calling it a civil war, although virtually all of the fighting there has between the entire Syrian nation and foreign-funded outside mercenaries). To this end, Obama deployed an array of tactics. He simultaneously supported, armed, trained and fought various terrorist groups, making a joke of the usual US technique of using "terrorism by proxy." He made ridiculous claims that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against its own people, which immediately reminded everyone of similarly hollow claims about Saddam's WMDs while offering Russia a legitimate role to play in resolving the Syrian conflict. He made endless promises to separate "moderate opposition" from dyed-in-the-wool terrorists, but repeatedly failed to do so, thus giving the Russians ample scope to take care of the situation as they saw fit. He negotiated several cease fires, then violated them.

    There have been other achievements as well. By constantly talking up the nonexistent "Russian threat" and scaremongering about "Russian aggression" and "Russian invasion" (of which no evidence existed), and by holding futile military exercises in Eastern Europe and especially in the geopolitically irrelevant Baltics, Obama managed to deprive NATO of any residual legitimacy it once might have had, turning it into a sad joke.

    But perhaps Obama's most significant service on behalf of the Russian nation was in throwing the election to Donald Trump. This he did by throwing his support behind the ridiculously inept and corrupt Hillary Clinton. She outspent Trump by a factor of two, but apparently no amount of money could buy her the presidency. As a result of Obama's steadfast efforts, the US will now have a Russia-friendly president who is eager to make deals with Russia, but will have to do so from a significantly weakened negotiating position.

    As I have been arguing for the last decade, it is a foregone conclusion that the United States is going to slide from its position of global dominance. But it was certainly helpful to have Obama grease the skids, and now it's up to Donald Trump to finish the job. And since Obama's contribution was especially helpful to Russia, I propose that he be awarded the Russian Federation's Order of Friendship, to go with his Nobel Peace Prize.

    [Dec 24, 2016] If the 2018 elections will not be converted to verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing of all close elections, then it is clear that the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies

    Notable quotes:
    "... Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking, by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines. ..."
    "... If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies. ..."
    Dec 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    John M -> John M ... December 23, 2016 at 07:17 PM

    Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking, by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines.

    If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies.

    [Dec 23, 2016] Has The CIA Been Politicized

    Notable quotes:
    "... The use of the term, however, rather naďvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed. ..."
    "... Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers. ..."
    "... Does the organization depend on taxpayer funding for a substantial amount of its budget? ..."
    "... Does the organization engage in what would be illegal activities were it not for protective government legislation? ..."
    Dec 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    Anonymous leakers at the CIA continue to make claims about Russia and the 2016 election. In response to demands to provide evidence, the CIA has declined to offer any, refusing to meet with Congressional intelligence committees, and refusing to issue any documents offering evidence. Instead, the CIA, communicating via leaks, simply says the equivalent of "trust us."

    Not troubled by the lack of evidence, many in the media and in the Democratic party have been repeating unsubstantiated CIA claims as fact.

    Of course, as I've noted before , the history of CIA intelligence is largely a history of missing the forest for the trees. Sometimes, the failures have been spectacular.

    One of the questions that immediately arises in the media in situations like these, however, is " has the CIA been politicized ?"

    When used in this way, the term "politicized" means that the CIA is involved in helping or hurting specific political factions (e,g., specific ideological groups, pressure groups, or presidential administrations) in order to strengthen the CIA's financial or political standing.

    All Government Agencies Are Politicized

    The use of the term, however, rather naďvely implies that it is possible for a government agency to not be politicized. A non -political government agency, it is assumed, acts without regard to how its actions and claims affect its political standing among powerful interests in Washington. Such an agency has never existed.

    Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers.

    This idea might seem plausible to school children in junior-high-school civics classes, but not to anyone who lives in the real world.

    In fact, if we wish to ascertain whether or not an institution or organization is "politicized" we can simply ask ourselves a few questions:

    If the answer to any of these questions is "yes" then you are probably dealing with a politicized organization. If the answer to all of these questions is "yes" - as is the case with the CIA - then you're definitely dealing with a very politicized organization. (Other "non-political" organizations that fall well within this criteria as well include so-called "private" organizations such as the Federal Reserve System and Fannie Mae.)

    So, it has always been foolish to ask ourselves if the CIA is "politicized" since the answer is obviously "yes" for anyone who is paying attention.

    Nevertheless, the myth that the CIA and agencies like it can be non-political continues to endure, although in many cases, the charge has produced numerous helpful historical analysis of just how politicized the CIA has been in practice.

    Recent Narratives on CIA Politicization

    Stories of CIA politicization take at least two forms: One type consists of anti-CIA writers attempting to illustrate how the CIA acts to manipulate political actors to achieve its own political ends. The other type consists of pro-CIA writers attempting to cast the CIA as an innocent victim of manipulation by senior Washington officials.

    Of course, it doesn't matter whether the provenance of CIA politicking comes from within the agency or outside it. In both cases, the fact remains that the Agency is a tool for political actors to deceive, manipulate, and attack political enemies.

    With CIA leaks apparently attempting to call the integrity of the 2016 election into question, the CIA is once again being accused of politicization. Consequently, articles in the Washington Times , the Daily Caller , and The Intercept all question the CIA's motivation and present numerous examples of the Agency's history of deception.

    The current controversy is hardly the first time the Agency has been accused of being political, and during the build up to the Iraq invasion in 2003, for example, the CIA worked with the Bush Administration to essentially manufacture "intelligence."

    In his book Failure of Intelligence , Melvin Allan Goodman writes:

    Three years after the invasion of Iraq, a senior CIA analyst, Paul Pillar, documented the efforts of the Bush administration to politicize the intelligence of the CIA on Iraqi WMD and so-called links between Iraq and al Qaeda. Pillar accused the Bush administration of using policy to drive intelligence production, which was the same argument offered by the chief of British intelligence in the Downing Street memorandum prior to the war, and aggressively using intelligence to win public support for the decision to go to war....Pillar does not explain why no senior CIA official protested, let alone resigned in the wake of the president's misuse of intelligence on Iraq's so-called efforts to obtain uranium ore in Africa. Pillar falsely claimed "for the most part, the intelligence community's own substantive judgments do not appear to have been compromised," when it was clear that the CIA wa wrong on every conclusion and had to politicize the intelligence to be so egregiously wrong."

    Since then, CIA officials have attempted to rehabilitate the agency by claiming the agency was the hapless victim of the Administration. But, as Goodman notes, we heard no protests from the Agency when such protests would have actually mattered, and the fact is the Agency was easily used for political ends. Whether or not some agents wanted to participate in assisting the Bush administration with trumping up evidence against Iraq remains irrelevant. The fact remains the CIA did it.

    Moreover, according to documents compiled by John Prados at the George Washington University , "The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported" and that "Under the circumstances, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the CIA and other intelligence agencies defended themselves against the dangers of attack from the Bush administration through a process of self-censorship. That is the very essence of politicization in intelligence."

    In other words, to protect its own budgets and privileges, the CIA reacted quickly to shape its intelligence to meet the political goals of others.

    Journalist Robert Parry has also attempted to go the CIA-as-victim route in his own writings. In an article written before the Iraq War debacle, Parry looks at how the Agency was used by both Reagan and Clinton, and claims that what is arguably of the CIA's biggest analytical errors - repeatedly overstating the economic strength of the Soviet Union - was the result of pressure applied to the Agency by the Reagan administration. (Parry may be mistaken here, as the CIA was wrong about the Soviet economy long before the Reagan Administration .)

    While attempting to defend the CIA, however, Parry is merely providing a list of the many ways in which the CIA serves to manufacture false information that are useful for political officials.

    In this essay for the Center for International Policy, Goodman further lists many examples of politicization and concludes "Throughout the CIA's 60-year history, there have been many efforts to slant analytical conclusions, skew estimates, and repress evidence that challenged a particular policy or point of view. As a result, the agency must recognize the impact of politicization and introduce barriers to protect analysts from political pressures. Unfortunately, the CIA has largely ignored the problem."

    It is difficult to ascertain whether past intelligence failures were due to pressure form the administration or whether they originated from within the Agency itself. Nevertheless, the intelligence failures are numerous, including:

    The fact that politicization occurs might help explain some of these failures, but simply claiming "politicization" doesn't erase the legacy of failure, and it hardly serves as an argument in favor of allowing the CIA to continue to command huge budgets and essentially function unsupervised. Regardless of fanciful claims of non-political professionalism, it is undeniable that, as an agency of the US government, the CIA is a political institution.

    The only type of organization that is not politicized is a private-sector organization under a relatively laissez-faire regime. Heavily regulated private industries and all government agencies are politicized by nature because they depend heavily on active assistance from political actors to sustain themselves.

    It should be assumed that politicized organizations seek to influence policymakers, and thus all the actions and claims of these organization should be treated with skepticism and a recognition that these organizations benefit from further taxation and expanded government powers inflicted on ordinary taxpayers and other productive members of society outside the privileged circles of Washington, DC.

    Perimetr -> Chupacabra-322 •Dec 23, 2016 11:34 AM
    Is the CIA politicized?

    ...Is the pope catholic?

    How many more presidents does the CIA have to kill to answer your question?

    Oldwood -> DownWithYogaPants •Dec 23, 2016 11:26 AM
    How could the CIA NOT be politicized? They collect "intelligence" and use it to influence policy makers without ANY accountability and no real proof. The CIA operates on CONJECTURE that is completely subjective to bias and agenda. Is that ANYTHING BUT political?
    TeaClipper's picture -> TeaClipper •Dec 23, 2016 11:24 AM
    The CIA was not wrong about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it lied about them. That is a very big distinction.
    Old Poor Richard •Dec 23, 2016 12:13 PM
    The question is whether the CIA is puppeteer and not the puppet.

    The Snowden report, jam packed with provably false scurrilous accusations, demonstrates that not only is the US intelligence community entirely lacking in credibility, but that they believe themselves so powerful that they can indefinitely get away with baldfaced lies.

    The thing is, the deep state can only keep up the charade when they completely control the narrative, the way China does. Hence the attacks on the first amendment that are accelerating as fast as the attacks on the second amendment. Majority of Americans don't believe the Russian hacking hoax and it make the CIA increasingly hysterical.

    DarthVaderMentor •Dec 23, 2016 12:33 PM
    The CIA has been politicized. In fact, all the way down to the COS level, and in concert with the State Department. Brennan and Moran are nothing but Clinton surrogates.

    In one embassy in a country where IEDs keep blowing up, there were millions of taxpayer dollars spent and continue to be spent in "safe spaces" and "comfort food and liquor" inside an embassy (taking away space from the US Marine Giuards for it) to let "Democrat snowflakes" in senior embassy and CIA positions recover from the Trump elections.

    The real reaon for the loss of the Phillipines as an ally may eventually come out that a gay senior embassy official made a pass at the President of the country. Just like it happened with the gay ambassador in the Dominican Republic.

    That Libral You Hate •Dec 23, 2016 12:41 PM
    I would say the simple answer to the question asked in the headline of this article is "yes" but it is important to actually understand the nuance of the langer answer.

    The critical nuance is that: politics didn't conquor the CIA, but rather the CIA injected itself into politics. I.e. the CIA aren't political stooges, but act political because they have injected political stooges into politics and they have to act political to protect them to protect their interests. Thus while the answer is "yes" the question is phrased wrong as: "Has the CIA Been Politicized," the appropriate question is "Has politics been co-opted by the CIA"

    insanelysane •Dec 23, 2016 12:50 PM
    The first post is spot on except the CIA was in Southeast Asia stirring stuff up to get us into a war. War is big business.

    The entire reason for Vietnam was "If Vietnam falls the commies will be marching down Main Street USA afterwards."

    Well we fucking lost Vietnam and the commies still aren't marching down Main Street and yet the assessment is still being peddled by the Corporation.

    Kennedy was killed because, even though he was fucking totally drugged up, he still saw Vietnam for what it was.

    The Corporation gave Johnson and offer he couldn't refuse, take the keys to the kingdom, just keep "fighting" in Vietnam. I say fighting because we were just fucking around there. No one in charge wanted to risk winning the war.

    And here we are today, 23rd, December, 2016, "fighting" in the Middle East and the Corporation not willing to risk winning the war. Just need to keep it hot enough for the weapons and ammunition to be used in a nice steady pace to keep business going.

    [Dec 23, 2016] CIA Director John Brennan may face investigation for leaking Russian hacker story to the Washington Post

    theduran.com
    Fox Business News discusses a potential investigation involving CIA Director John Brennan over whether he leaked information about the Russian hacking investigation to the media

    John Brennan takes his cues directly from Barack Obama, which means the entire CIA, Russian hack investigation, was initiated and conducted under Obama's direct order.

    The Russian hack, media spin, has been and remains a political play. National security has very little to do with it.

    [Dec 23, 2016] Russian Hacking The CIA Never Lies Information Clearing House - ICH

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    There certainly are experts in the field who should know about the alleged hacking, but they are not allowed to disrupt mainstream media's Russophobe frenzy. Bet you never saw William Binney on mainstream media. Who is Binney? He is the guy who put together the NSA's elaborate worldwide surveillance system. He has publicly stated on alternative news sites, that if something was "hacked", the NSA would instantly know who, when, and whether the info was passed on to another party. He designed the system. He argues, there was no hacking for that very reason. Binney insists the e-mails had to have been leaked by an "insider" who had access to the data. Never heard him on mainstream media huh? Next comes Craig Murray a former US Ambassador who claims he knows who leaked the e-mails, because he met with the individual in Washington D.C. Never heard him on mainstream media either huh? Finally, Julian Assange, the man who released the e-mails. He insisted all along he never got the e-mails from Russia. Another no show on mainstream media. Whatever happened to the journalistic adage of going to the source? Assange is the source, but no mainstream media journalist, and I use the term very loosely, has ventured to speak with him. The accusation has been repeated countless times, without any evidence, or consulting with any of the above three experts.

    Because the big lie has been repeated so many times by corporate media, about half of the US public, according to a recent poll, believes Russia interfered, even though there is not a bit of evidence to support it. Once again they take the bait; hook, line, and sinker.

    For believers of Russian hacking, I offer the following analogy. It might, but I doubt it will help, because you cannot undo the effect of propaganda. You are put on trial for murder that you did not commit. The prosecutor and judge simply say they have reached a "consensus view", the phrase offered by intelligence agencies, that you committed the murder and are guilty. You ask for proof. They offer none. They just keep repeating that you did it. You challenge and ask how do you know I did it? Answer: we have anonymous sources, but we cannot tell you who they are, nor can we show you proof.

    Just as in the fake run-up to the Iraq war, the expert voices of the opposition are not tolerated on mainstream media. Do these folks really want a war with Russia? Are they so upset with Trump's pronouncement that he wanted better relations with Russia? What sane person would not? Hmmm.

    It appears there is a war already raging between the Russophobes, who do not want better relations with Russia, and are doing their best to smear and demonize Putin, and those who do. This is the same tactic used with Manuel Noriega of Panama, Muarmar Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein, before they made war on all three. Demonize, then make war.

    Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Shame on those who buy into propaganda without any proof.

    Think about it and use a little logic.

    jim james · 1 day ago
    The oddity of the above author's first paragraph is that the CIA was not lying in 2001-03. The CIA said Iraq/Saddam had no wmds.

    In fact, if you lived through it then perhaps you recall the words cherry-picking and stove-piped intel. Now, I understand he's CIA so there's no reason to believe them, but ask Larry Johnson (I know, great name for CIA).

    Fitzhenrymac 125p · 22 hours ago
    Actually he didn't mention the CIA in the first paragraph. However in late 2002 CIA director George Tenet and United States Secretary of State Colin Powell both cited attempts by Hussein to obtain uranium from Niger in their September testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee using intelligence Italy, Britain, and France.

    Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced serious doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the UN Security Council, judging them counterfeit but the CIA while having suspicions, largely kept them to themselves.

    guest01 · 18 hours ago
    The author of the above article, Joe Clifford is referring to what CIA Chief George Tenet who represented US intelligence, said: it was "Slam Dunk" Iraq had WMD. Tenet was quoted over and over again by Bush-Dick regime to justify US war against Iraq. After Tenet said those words, CIA neither contradicted him nor corrected him which meant that they went along with the "Slam Dunk" Iraq had WMD. Tenet, representing US intelligence, even sat quietly behind Powell at the UNSC when Powell was spewing his lies about Iraq's nonexistent WMD.
    tictac · 23 hours ago
    Not only to officials repeat false assertions over and over, but those who hear the falsities, themselves start repeating them. The more outrageous, the more they are repeated.
    Rampart · 21 hours ago
    Fool me once, shame on you,. Fool me twice, .....we won't get fooled agin.
    GW
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    Yeah right, in the CIA's (very bad) dreams maybe, the people will not be fooled. But this isn't a CIA nightmare, on the contrary.
    fantelius 67p · 19 hours ago
    Even Trump doesn't believe in or trust the CIA Why should anyone else?
    See: Presidential Proof of Governmental Distrust https://systemhumanity.com/2016/12/23/presidentia...
    OSIKA · 19 hours ago
    You forgot former Yugoslavia.There they "sharpened "their tools.They "demonized" that country,demonized their President,trained and financed those local soldiers and then destroyed that country while "peace making".Filthy BASTARDS.And you people call USA a decent country?They lied when they created that country and still their mouths and deeds are full of lies,murder and plunder.And their Churches are cheer leaders in that endeavour yet they will proclaim even this Christmas "Peace to the world" while they will plot more of the same.They preach one thing but their actions are totally opposite.They leave wrecked countries behind them and those people end up feeding from containers.I hope that they choke on that stolen turkey.
    romanaorfred · 17 hours ago
    I would still plead with our grassroots hero Tom Feely to discontinue the sensationalistic, emotonal pandering photos on the front page of ICH.

    I much prefer the old text styled front page of ICH -sans pictures - leave the focus on quality content - not hype.

    We could do without the bad memory of Hillary and Obama pics.

    uphill · 11 hours ago
    ditto
    Schlüter 84p · 17 hours ago
    „Media, Independent and Mainstream: Fake News and Fake Narratives": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/media-i...
    &
    „US Allegations Against Russia: Hold the Thief! (in addition to the previous post)": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/us-alle...
    ignasi orobitg gene · 15 hours ago
    Truth is the first love of Freedom.
    Truth answers all questions.
    No dream of freedom is possible by listening to lies
    coldish1 42p · 14 hours ago
    Craig Murray was not a US ambassador. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004.
    Fired Up · 11 hours ago
    The counter tactic for the "big lie" is the "big truth." Ordinary people have access to e-mail, social media and website comments. No secret organization is needed. Just make counter-bullturdism part of your personal routine.
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    This takes time. Most people invest little thought into the news they digest. Quite often, news (or "news") is not even digested at all, just internalised. They know this. The CIA, th eDNC, all of them. They rely on public apathy to survive.
    FrankZ · 8 hours ago
    This the the lie the liberals love just like Iraq's wmd was the lie so dear to the conservatives. It's sickening the way these partisan idiots are so easily manipulated.
    LRE · 6 hours ago
    It doesn't matter who hacked the emails one bit! That right there is the point the powers that be want us to argue about endlessly, because it draws attention away from what actually matters: What matters is that the emails revealed the truth about the democratic party, and that they rigged their primaries. What matters is that the press did not reveal this and since the reveal, they have been trying to distract people from the truth. It is the press and the Democratic party that were influencing the 2016 election by lying and cheating, not the Russians or whoever hacked the email.
    chrisgoodwin 60p · 4 hours ago
    The e-mails were not hacked: they were leaked. Every time anyone refers to the "hacked" e-mails, it raises the question "Who dunnit ?" This is a wild goose chase. The e-mails were leaked by a disgusted insider.
    A jurist · 1 hour ago
    The contents of the leaks/hacks were almost never claimed to be false. Even the very faint cries of "the e-mails were doctored" eventually died out. Nobody has stepped in to claim that the information was false since. This means that all Wikileaks revealed was true. Whoever was responsible for providing this information has done a very valuable public service. Yes, even if it (somehow) was the Russians. To deny that the leak/hack was beneficial to the public is insane.

    Not that we didn't know beforehand that the CIA are quite crazy, but still. I would at least have expected them to welcome this 4th detente. I mean, they have thus far shown that their intelligence gathering efforts in Russia are laughably bad. Do they not want some respite form the humiliation? It would at least be good PR.

    [Dec 23, 2016] NSA Whistleblower US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia Zero Hedge

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    During the third and last presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, debate moderator Chris Wallace pulled a quote from a speech Clinton had given to Brazilian bankers, noting the information had been made available to the public via WikiLeaks.

    Instead of answering the question, Clinton blamed the Russian government for the leaks , alleging " [t]he Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans ," hacking " American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election ."

    Following the claim, Clinton criticized Trump for saying " [Clinton] has no idea whether it's Russia, China, or anybody else ," repeating her assertion that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had determined the Russian government had been behind the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack.

    Despite her claim, reality couldn't be more different.

    Instead of 17 agencies, only the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have offered the public any input on this matter, claiming the DNC attacks " are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts ."

    Without offering any evidence, these two - not 17 - agencies hinted that the Kremlin could be behind the cyber attack. But saying they believe the hacks come from the Russians is far short of saying they know the Russians were behind them.

    During an interview on Aaron Klein's Sunday radio program , former high-ranking NSA intelligence official-turned-whistleblower, William Binney , discussed the alleged Russian involvement in our elections, suggesting the cyber attack against the DNC may not have originated from the Russian government. Instead, Binney says, a " disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker " is likely behind the breach.

    https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/nsa-whistleblower-tells-aaron-klein-agency-has-all-of-hillarys-emails

    Speaking as an analyst, Binney added that a testimony by the former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert S. Mueller from March 2011 shows the FBI has access to a series of databases that helps them " to track down known and suspected terrorists ."

    According to Binney, what Mueller meant is that the FBI has access to the NSA database and that it's accessed without any oversight, meaning the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), as well as the FBI, have open access to anything the NSA has access to. " So if the FBI really wanted [Clinton's and the DNC emails] they can go into that database and get them right now ," Binney told Klein.

    Asked if he believed the NSA had copies of all Clinton's emails, " including the deleted correspondence ," Binney said:

    " Yes. That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there ."

    While Binney seems to be the only intelligence insider who has come forward with this type of analysis, a young man from Russia whose servers were implicated in the recent hacking of the DNC sites says he has information that will lead to the hacker - yet the FBI won't knock on his door.

    In a conversation with the New York Times , Vladimir M. Fomenko said his server rental company, King Servers, is oftentimes used by hackers. Fomenko added that the hackers behind the attack against computerized election systems in Arizona and Illinois - which, like the DNC hack, were also linked to the Russian government by the FBI - had used his servers.

    According to the 26-year-old entrepreneur, "[w]e have the information. If the F.B.I. asks, we are ready to supply the I.P. addresses, the logs, but nobody contacted us."

    " It's like nobody wants to sort this out, " he added .

    After learning that two renters using the nicknames Robin Good and Dick Robin had used his servers to hack the Arizona and Illinois voting systems, Fomenko released a statement saying he learned about the problem through the news and shut down the two users down shortly after.

    While he told the New York Times he doesn't know who the hackers are, he used his statement to report that the hackers are not Russian security agents.

    " The analysis of the internal data allows King Servers to confidently refute any conclusions about the involvement of the Russian special services in this attack ," he said on September 15, the New York Times reported.

    According to Fomenko, he found a trail left by the hackers through their contact with King Servers' billing page, which leads to the next step in the chain " to bring investigators in the United States closer to the hackers ."

    The clients used about 60 I.P. addresses to contact Fomenko, including addresses belonging to server companies in Finland, France, Italy, Norway, Britain, and Sweden. With these addresses in hand, authorities could track the hackers down.

    But while this information is somewhat recent, few news organizations found it necessary to report on the King Servers link. In the past, however, at least one major news network mentioned Binney.

    In August 2016, Judge Andrew Napolitano commented on the DNC hack.

    On "Judge Napolitano Chambers," the Judge said that while the DNC, government officials, and the Clinton campaign all accuse the Russians of hacking into the DNC servers, " the Russians had nothing to do with it. "

    [Dec 23, 2016] NSA Whistleblower Destroys CIA Narrative – "Hard Evidence Points To Inside Leak, Not Russia Hack

    Dec 23, 2016 | www.activistpost.com

    Originally from: NSA Whistleblower US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia Zero Hedge

    December 21, 2016

    By Vin Armani

    "A group of retired senior intelligence officials, including the NSA whistleblower William Binney (former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA), have posted an open letter on consortiumnews.com that destroys the Obama administration's "Russian hacking" narrative.

    Within the letter, Binney argues that, thanks to the NSA's "extensive domestic data-collection network," any data removed remotely from Hillary Clinton or DNC servers would have passed over fiber networks and therefore would have been captured by the NSA who could have then analyzed packet data to determine the origination point and destination address of those packets. As Binney further notes, the only way the leaks could have avoided NSA detection is if they were never passed over fiber networks but rather downloaded to a thumb drive by someone with internal access to servers."

    [Dec 22, 2016] Deep State Desperation

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

    Submitted by Robert Gore via StraightLineLogic.com,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Deep State Playback:

    Hegelian Dialectics: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis

    Example

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

    Or

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

    Both hands (Left/Right) to crush Liberty

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

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

    Voila!

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

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

    Withdrawn Sanction •Dec 22, 2016 8:52 PM

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

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

    StraightLineLogic: Linear thinker, indeed.

    WTFUD •Dec 22, 2016 8:56 PM

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

    BadDog •Dec 22, 2016 9:00 PM

    Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.

    red1chief •Dec 22, 2016 9:09 PM

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

    [Dec 21, 2016] Economists View Paul Krugman How Republics End

    Notable quotes:
    "... That seems to be the problem in most of our western democracies right now. Voters are able to diagnose the problems they themselves feel and suffer from; but are clueless as to the actual cause of those problems. So the first guy who comes around promising to provide solutions is given the go ahead, under the false assumption that it "cannot get any worse than it is now" - but it can get a lot worse! ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Dan Nile : , December 19, 2016 at 11:49 AM
    "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."

    -Ben Franklin

    Fred C. Dobbs : , December 19, 2016 at 11:52 AM
    David Souter warned of a Trump-like
    candidate in prescient remarks (in 2012)

    Steve Benen - October 2016 - Maddow Blog

    Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter has maintained a very low public profile since retiring from the bench nearly eight years ago, but Rachel highlighted a 2012 appearance Souter made in New Hampshire, and his remarks on "civic ignorance" are striking in their foresight.

    "I don't worry about our losing republican government in the United States because I'm afraid of a foreign invasion. I don't worry about it because I think there is going to be a coup by the military as has happened in some of other places. What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed, people will not know who is responsible. And when the problems get bad enough, as they might do, for example, with another serious terrorist attack, as they might do with another financial meltdown, some one person will come forward and say, 'Give me total power and I will solve this problem.'

    "That is how the Roman republic fell. Augustus became emperor, not because he arrested the Roman Senate. He became emperor because he promised that he would solve problems that were not being solved.

    "If we know who is responsible, I have enough faith in the American people to demand performance from those responsible. If we don't know, we will stay away from the polls. We will not demand it. And the day will come when somebody will come forward and we and the government will in effect say, 'Take the ball and run with it. Do what you have to do.'

    "That is the way democracy dies. And if something is not done to improve the level of civic knowledge, that is what you should worry about at night."

    Souter couldn't have known about Donald Trump's rise in Republican politics, but that only makes his fears in 2012 that much more prophetic. ...

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 19, 2016 at 12:26 PM
    Do set down the reference link when possible.
    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 12:36 PM
    Oops.

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/souter-warned-trump-candidate-prescient-remarks

    DeDude -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 19, 2016 at 12:55 PM
    That seems to be the problem in most of our western democracies right now. Voters are able to diagnose the problems they themselves feel and suffer from; but are clueless as to the actual cause of those problems. So the first guy who comes around promising to provide solutions is given the go ahead, under the false assumption that it "cannot get any worse than it is now" - but it can get a lot worse!
    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 19, 2016 at 03:58 PM
    Heard on Howie Carr's (AM 680* in Boston) chump line:

    What do you call a bunch of democrats in the basement: whine cellar.

    For democrats "if at first you don't succeed; cry cry again".

    Shorter poor pk

    pitiable pk.

    *I much prefer the late Jerry Williams!

    Chris G -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 19, 2016 at 07:41 PM
    I miss David Souter.
    DrDick : , December 19, 2016 at 11:56 AM
    While this is certainly a real possibility, I have a bit more faith in the American people and the American system than Krugman seems to.
    New Deal democrat -> DrDick... , December 19, 2016 at 12:11 PM
    I hope you are correct, but if Trump decides to defy the Congress or the Courts, with 40% of the populace ready to do whatever he says, who do you think is going to stand up to him? Mitch McConnell? Paul Ryan? Clarence Thomas? Samuel Alito?
    pgl -> New Deal democrat... , December 19, 2016 at 12:13 PM
    None of the above. But there will be another election in 2018. We have to make sure the other 60% of the populace stand up.
    New Deal democrat -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 12:44 PM
    If PK's concern is right -- and I think it is -- Trump is going to crack down on dissent. In this he will be aided and abetted by his Nuremburg rallies.

    We will still have elections in 2018 and 2020. But will they be fair or banana-republic facsimiles? North Carolina has already crossed the line in my opinion.

    ilsm -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 04:04 PM
    can crooks beat the morality play?

    2018 my money is on non democrats!

    yuan -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 05:10 PM
    an election in 2018 that heavily favors republicans.
    ilsm -> New Deal democrat... , December 19, 2016 at 04:03 PM
    it was the crook

    versus cuckoo

    who won

    it ain't so bad

    abortion and deviant

    behavior lost

    does not threaten

    the republic

    however whining

    democrat subversives

    if you all cannot

    get over it!

    tea baggers lived with

    the war mongering

    lover of immorality

    for 8 years

    poor pk

    a candidate

    for dimbot

    che guevera

    pgl -> DrDick... , December 19, 2016 at 12:12 PM
    Maybe PK spent too much time watching the Star Wars marathon this weekend. Me? I watched football.
    Peter K. -> DrDick... , December 19, 2016 at 12:45 PM
    Krugman also said Hillary was a great candidate who would win easily.

    He's wrong a lot when it comes to politics.

    Gibbon1 -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 01:47 PM
    I've said this before economists and politics are like doctors and light aircraft.
    anne -> Gibbon1... , December 19, 2016 at 01:57 PM
    Aside:

    The comment you made and reminder for me that the Chinese leadership has long been largely educated as engineers was especially important in my understanding the IMF warning of dangerous credit growth in China. Economic planners are of course aware of the warning and a just established goal in 2017 is to limit the extension of credit though keeping general economic growth at 6.5%.

    PGL was equally helpful.

    I now have the solution, which I can depict in graphs.

    anne -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 02:41 PM
    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/12/links-for-12-17-16.html#comment-6a00d83451b33869e201b7c8be11ae970b

    December 17, 2016

    [...the seeming lack of concern about corporate debt suggests the level is not considered a problem. Why though?]

    Easy answer: China's leaders are technocrats not finance people like in the US. Meaning they think that a factory is an asset, the bonds used to pay for it is just a weak obligation on paper. In the US it's the opposite.

    -- Gibbon

    yuan -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 05:18 PM
    you are rewriting history. krugman was histrionically concerned about the possibility of trump win.
    Gibbon1 -> yuan... , December 19, 2016 at 05:28 PM
    Look another refugee
    Fred C. Dobbs -> DrDick... , December 19, 2016 at 03:15 PM
    Me too.

    Because we live in the
    best of all possible worlds.

    Tom aka Rusty : , December 19, 2016 at 11:59 AM
    The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

    I'm with Dr. Dick on this one.

    pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 19, 2016 at 12:11 PM
    But you just said that if the Dems don't win the House in 2018 - the party should disband. What's gonna replace it - Luke Skywalker?
    Peter K. -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 12:43 PM
    If the Democrats keel listening to people like pgl and Krugman, they will lose again in 2018.

    Rustbucket was prophetic. So was Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein.

    PGL had nothing but insults for the messengers of what became a populist revolt that helped past Brexit and elect Trump.

    BenIsNotYoda -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 01:10 PM
    I have to support Peter K on this one. This was important before the election but is all the more important now.
    pgl -> BenIsNotYoda... , December 19, 2016 at 04:18 PM
    BINY the gold bug jumps on the PeterK pointless bandwagon. Aren't you guys bored with this pointless nonsense by now? Yawn!
    yuan -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 05:19 PM
    the democrats will lose badly in 2018 because many of their contested seats are in deep red states.
    Tom aka Rusty -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 03:21 PM
    I have an RR8 robot running around my living room - maybe a robot party?
    pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 19, 2016 at 04:18 PM
    Love it. OK I watched football this weekend but Star Wars rocks!
    ilsm -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 04:06 PM
    if the crooks still run the dems.......

    they are toast.

    pgl -> ilsm... , December 19, 2016 at 04:19 PM
    Rusty and I are sending R2D2 over to your place. Take cover.
    ilsm -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 05:31 PM
    I will get to that movie!
    M. Gamble : , December 19, 2016 at 12:14 PM
    I think most people commenting on the Trump phenomena are treating as though it sprang whole cloth out of the either. I think Trump is the natural conclusion of two things the GOP accepted as its own. The modern management style of tell your employees anything and it will happen, no need to be a good manager and know what you're talking about just act as though you know everything. Next the original sin(not my coin) of the GOP supply side economics. Now this brings into power R. Reagan. Who said famously, the scariest thing to hear is, "I am from the Federal Government, and I am here to help you!" This caused down through the years an ongoing disdain for anything coming from Washington, no expert was to be trusted, the other side was not to be trusted, etc. This was for one reason, to make rich people feel good about all the money that was going up stream into their pockets instead of anyone who works for a living.

    After about forty years of this is it any wonder that half the people don't vote? Or that half of the half see a rich guy and think he can do it look at all the money he made? It is a very sad state of affairs, but it is what you get when most of society is in love with the all mighty dollar and not actual substance in their lives.

    pgl -> M. Gamble... , December 19, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA

    Reagan did have a disdain for the government.

    david s -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 01:56 PM
    Yet Reagan and Tip O'Neill spent like the Keynesians they were.

    Far better than the austere Clinton and Obama Administrations.

    Marcus Tullius Cicero -> david s ... , December 19, 2016 at 06:50 PM

    They could talk the walk but could not

    walk the
    talk --

    anne -> Marcus Tullius Cicero... , December 19, 2016 at 07:05 PM
    Fitting name, Cicero.
    Peter K. -> M. Gamble... , December 19, 2016 at 12:48 PM
    "After about forty years of this is it any wonder that half the people don't vote?"

    EMichael is astonished that people aren't more excited and energized by the American Jobs Act or Romneycare or Hillary's family leave tinkering.

    Julio -> M. Gamble... , December 19, 2016 at 01:55 PM
    "...the Trump phenomena...sprang whole cloth out of the either."

    [Either party, I presume :-)].

    Meets : , December 19, 2016 at 12:18 PM
    He doesn't actually present any evidence that "democracy is at the edge" or that the US republic is about to end.

    He's just unhappy about Trump's policies. They may be bad policies, but it's a huge leap from there to the nation collapsing.

    pgl -> Meets... , December 19, 2016 at 12:24 PM
    Is this like we survived Nixon as well as Bush-Cheney so we will survive Trump? I hope you're right.
    Meets -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 12:28 PM
    Exactly.

    I mean, he should first present an argument of why Trump will be a bad president rather than assuming it (which I know he's readers do anyway).

    Then from there he needs to explain how a bad president leads to national collapse.

    I can see a bad presidency, I don't see the country ceasing to exist.

    New Deal democrat -> Meets... , December 19, 2016 at 01:11 PM
    First of all, let me emphasize that I want to be polite about this. But I think the concern is valid. The country will exist. Elections will be held. But they are also held in Russia and Turkey. If those in power crack down on the opposition, and crack down on dissent, and the ruling party controls the election apparatus, then the elections do not make the country a Republic.

    The question is, why do you think Trump will refrain -- or be restrained -- from doing any of those things? His rallies have already appeared to condone violence. He has already suggested an embrace of "second amendment remedies. He called for his opponent to be locked up. He has suggested that he personally will start prosecutions. He has said he wants libel laws broadened. He has called for judges who rule against him to be investigated. Really, he has telegraphed that he wants to cross the Rubicon in just about every way he can. Why shouldn't we take that seriously?

    Meets -> New Deal democrat... , December 19, 2016 at 01:28 PM
    Well for one he has said a lot of stupid things that he's already backed up on, from making the wall just a fence to keeping parts of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.

    Second, a President can't do whatever he wants. Lots of Republicans didn't want him there in the first place, they won't let him just violate the constitution and ruin the party when they have control of house, senate, states, etc.

    I can believe he'll be the worst president yet, I have trouble seeing how we'll become Turkey, which has a history many coups, or Russia, which is practically a failed state.

    New Deal democrat -> Meets... , December 19, 2016 at 01:29 PM
    Re: "a President can't do whatever he wants."

    As I asked up thread, who do you believe is going to stop him?

    Meets -> New Deal democrat... , December 19, 2016 at 01:47 PM
    Congress, Senate, Supreme Court.

    Before you say "They're all Republicans" there was segment of the party that didn't want him to run at all.

    And the Reps have power, they won't let Trump ruin them.

    New Deal democrat -> Meets... , December 19, 2016 at 02:07 PM
    I guess we will just have to leave it at that, because when Trump has his base (which is the GOP base) frothing at the mouth, I simply do not see Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Clarence Thomas, and Samueal Alito suddenly auditioning for Profiles in Courage.

    I pray that Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have the best healthcare on earth.

    kurt -> Meets... , December 19, 2016 at 02:18 PM
    Something about whistling and graveyards is coming to mind here. Do you think that a weasel like Ryan or an addled old man like McCain can hold him back? McConnell? The Republicans long ago gave up any trappings of rationality or reason. They long ago gave up anything smacking of conscious or thoughtfulness. They long ago stopped treating policy as something to be determined by what works best for the most people. For decades the Republican Party has been an insurgent party that has been seeking to prevent positive change in the world. The elected leaders despise government. They are against programs that actually help people. They nakedly stole $12B in Iraq that we know of. Pretending this is normal only helps to hasten the demise.
    pgl -> Meets... , December 19, 2016 at 04:21 PM
    It is already out there - Trump needs to prove he was born on this planet. With that hairdo - it is hard to tell if he is Jedi or a Sith.
    ilsm -> New Deal democrat... , December 19, 2016 at 05:33 PM
    crooks in DNC are a huge threat to republic I thought less GOPsters running Trump. Why I voted against the crook.

    HRC should get 3 squares and a cot!

    david s -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 01:53 PM
    Nixon was the last progressive President.

    We should hope to have an Administration as effective and activist as Nixon's.

    pgl -> david s ... , December 19, 2016 at 04:23 PM
    Nixon was not a right wing creep but he was still a creep. BTW - the Committee to Re-Elect the President was called CREEP.
    DrDick -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 04:28 PM
    While I think this will likely be worse than anything we have seen before, but I do not think this will be the end of democracy. It may be in rather ragged shape by then, however.
    yuan -> Meets... , December 19, 2016 at 05:26 PM
    draconian voter suppression is not a figment of krugman's imagination. nor is the north carolina legislative coup. i think the usa may very well transitionin into an authoritarian political system.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/03/federal_judge_slams_north_carolina_voter_purge.html

    Peter K. : , December 19, 2016 at 12:39 PM
    "Why is this happening? ... And let's be clear: This is a Republican story, not a case of "both sides do it.""

    No it's also a story about Democrats and center-left parties the world over.

    The callous elites of the center are not presenting a good alternative to the demagogues on the right.

    (So voters are unenthusiastic or they don't bother to vote or organize. They're apathetic.)

    You can see it here in comments. You can see it with Krugman who absolves the center-left of any blame.

    Bernie Sanders and his supporters issued a warning.

    But Krugman assured us Hillary was a great candidate who would easily win.

    If the Democrats keep behaving like Krugman and EMichael with their heads in the sand, then they'll lose in 2018 and 2020.

    EMichael quotes Mike Singletary when Singletary would have nothing but contempt for the EMichaels who are always crying about the media/referees and blaming their loss on meddling from the Russians.

    I've seen NO post-mortem from the center-left Democrats. Only excuses.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 12:41 PM
    The experts told us Brexit would never pass.

    The pollsters assured us Hillary would win.

    kurt -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 02:23 PM
    In a normal world, we would know - due to exit polling - that something was amiss. In fact, the large skew from the results and exit polling would be considered by our own election watchers in the 3rd world to be indicative of shenanigans. But we can't say that. And apparently the reason we can't is due to people like you being on the same page with the Republican kleptocrats.
    ilsm -> kurt... , December 19, 2016 at 06:25 PM
    one poll had HRC 48% on 6 Oct....

    before Comey and Assange!

    She polled 48% on 8 Nov!

    kurt -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 02:21 PM
    Your level of dishonesty is appalling. Calling Krugman a centrist? That defies reason. Saying that there is a center-left? Absurd. It doesn't exist. The Pete Peterson's of the world are Center Right. Do you think that being just plain liberal is center left? Anyone who questions anything that Amy Goodman or Thom Hartman says is a centrist (and for the record, while I like Thom and Amy very much - they occasionally fall for utter BS because of tribalism). Also - reasons =/= excuses.
    pgl -> kurt... , December 19, 2016 at 04:25 PM
    "Your level of dishonesty is appalling."

    I would say a rare but of brilliant honesty here. But I should add EVERY one here knows PeterK lies 24/7. It is his day job. Don't get him fired now as this winter is cold.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 07:19 PM
    pgl can't even keep his story straight.

    That's sure sign of a dishonest troll.

    Peter K. -> kurt... , December 19, 2016 at 07:08 PM
    He called himself center-left to differentiate himself from the leftist Sanders supporters.

    There are a lot of nutcases on the left - there are everywhere in politics - but the centrist establishment has failed for 40 years.

    Krugman just gives excuses for Bill Clinton, Hillary, Obama etc.

    Peter K. -> kurt... , December 19, 2016 at 07:21 PM
    "Also - reasons =/= excuses."

    Hillary lost to a laughable Reality TV star.

    Any true progressive would have won by a large margin.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 04:24 PM
    One trick pony you are. Oh wait - I just insulted real world ponies.
    kthomas -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 04:37 PM
    You require a lesson in manners.
    Peter K. -> kthomas... , December 19, 2016 at 07:19 PM
    Who is going to teach me?

    You?

    Don't make me laugh.

    yuan -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 05:33 PM
    additional losses in 2018 are inevitable and voter suppression and gerrymandering will likely result in even larger losses in 2020. i also think constitutional amendments that make the usa a de facto one party state are conceivable.
    ilsm -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 05:35 PM
    center left are the problem.....

    they are con artists and crooks.

    yuan -> ilsm... , December 19, 2016 at 07:53 PM
    "center left are the problem....."

    sanders, warren and grijalva are crooks and con artists? that's an interesting point of view!

    Peter K. : , December 19, 2016 at 12:51 PM
    Bernie Sanders and his primary campaign made me hopeful.

    "Initially considered a long shot, Sanders won 23 primaries and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates to Clinton's 55%. His campaign was noted for the enthusiasm of its supporters, as well as his rejection of large donations from corporations, the financial industry, and any associated Super PAC. The campaign instead relied on a record-breaking number of small, individual contributions."

    If the Democrats continue to flail helplessly, energy will continue to build on the left.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 04:27 PM
    "Bernie Sanders and his primary campaign made me hopeful."

    That's cool but then you reverted to your norm - an angry and pointlessly stupid and dishonest troll. Get a life.

    Gibbon1 -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 06:14 PM
    You need to leave.
    yuan -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 05:43 PM
    "energy will continue to build on the left."

    meh.

    sanders is on his way to retirement and warren is hardly an inspiring candidate. i personally see little evidence of energy from the center-left (e.g. the congressional progressive caucus). if anything, sanders and warren appear to be supporting more triangulation (e.g. neoliberals like ellision and gabbard).

    anne : , December 19, 2016 at 01:07 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/opinion/how-republics-end.html

    December 18, 2016

    How Republics End
    By Paul Krugman

    Adrian Goldsworthy's "In the Name of Rome" says: *

    "However important it was for an individual to win fame and add to his own and his family's reputation, this should always be subordinated to the good of the Republic. The same belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a foreign power."

    * http://erenow.com/ancient/in-the-name-of-rome-the-men-who-won-the-roman-empire/7.html

    anne -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 01:12 PM
    Correcting for spacing:

    http://erenow.com/ancient/in-the-name-of-rome-the-men-who-won-the-roman-empire/7.html

    GENERAL IN EXILE: SERTORIUS AND THE CIVIL WAR

    Quintus Sertorius (c. 125–72 BC)

    The Roman political élite was not unique in its competitiveness and desire to excel. The aristocracies of most Greek cities – and indeed of the overwhelming majority of other communities in the Mediterranean world – were just as eager to win personal dominance and often unscrupulous in their methods of achieving this. Roman senators were highly unusual in channelling their ambitions within fairly narrow, and universally recognized, boundaries. The internal disorder and revolution which plagued the public lives of most city states were absent from Rome until the last century of the Republic. Even then, during civil wars of extreme savagery when the severed heads of fellow citizens were displayed in the Forum, the Roman aristocracy continued to place some limits on what means were acceptable to overcome their rivals. A common figure in the history of the ancient world is the aristocratic exile – the deposed king or tyrant, or the general forced out when he was perceived to be becoming too powerful – at the court of a foreign power, usually a king. Such men readily accepted foreign troops to go back and seize power by force in their homeland – as the tyrant Pisistratus had done at Athens – or actively fought against their own city on their new protector's behalf, like Alcibiades.

    Rome's entire history contains only a tiny handful of individuals whose careers in any way followed this pattern. The fifth-century BC, and semi-mythical, Caius Marcius Coriolanus probably comes closest, for when banished from Rome he took service with the hostile Volscians and led their army with great success. In the story he came close to capturing Rome itself, and was only stopped from completing his victory by the intervention of his mother. The moral of the tale was quintessentially Roman. However important it was for an individual to win fame and add to his own and his family's reputation, this should always be subordinated to the good of the Republic. The same belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a foreign power. Senators wanted success, but that success only counted if it was achieved at Rome. No senator defected to Pyrrhus or Hannibal even when their final victory seemed imminent, nor did Scipio Africanus' bitterness at the ingratitude of the State cause him to take service with a foreign king.

    The outbreak of civil war did not significantly change this attitude, since both sides invariably claimed that they were fighting to restore the true Republic. Use was often made of non-Roman troops, but these were always presented as auxiliaries or allies serving from their obligations to Rome and never as independent powers intervening for their own benefit. Yet the circumstances of Roman fighting Roman did create many highly unorthodox careers, none more so than that of Quintus Sertorius, who demonstrated a talent for leading irregular forces and waging a type of guerrilla warfare against conventional Roman armies. Exiled from Sulla's Rome, he won his most famous victories and lived out the last years of his life in Spain, but never deviated from the attitudes of his class or thought of himself as anything other than a Roman senator and general....

    anne -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 01:16 PM
    http://erenow.com/ancient/in-the-name-of-rome-the-men-who-won-the-roman-empire/7.html

    2003

    In the Name of Rome: The Men Who Won the Roman Empire
    By Adrian Goldsworthy

    anne -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 04:12 PM
    I would hope readers would carefully consider this quoted passage that Paul Krugman has used. I am uncomfortable with this theme.
    kthomas -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 04:38 PM
    No you are not. You are relishing all of this.
    anne -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 04:28 PM
    Julius Caesar who was born in 100 BC, of course invaded Rome with a Roman army. I really am uncomfortable with the theme in using Adrian Goldsworth on the end of the republic, likely I am missing something and will read Goldworthy for a while now.
    ilsm -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 05:42 PM
    Reference to the Rome of the Gracchi and subsequent empire evolutions is a huge stretch toward false equivalence.

    Senators were hereditary, a class oriented. They were the holders of vast farms on the labor of slaves.

    The plebes voted for tribunes etc who observed the senate but had no authority other than a veto.

    When the senate was in trouble they selected a dictator for the duration.

    The roman republic was better than the Athenian demos who sent out fleets to slaughter on the whim of the orator.....

    but no role model for an enlightened civitas....

    But it was not popular!

    anne : , December 19, 2016 at 01:10 PM
    http://erenow.com/ancient/in-the-name-of-rome-the-men-who-won-the-roman-empire/7.html

    GENERAL IN EXILE: SERTORIUS AND THE CIVIL WAR

    Quintus Sertorius (c. 125–72 BC)

    The Roman political élite was not unique in its competitiveness and desire to excel. The aristocracies of most Greek cities – and indeed of the overwhelming majority of other communities in the Mediterranean world – were just as eager to win personal dominance and often unscrupulous in their methods of achieving this. Roman senators were highly unusual in channelling their ambitions within fairly narrow, and universally recognized, boundaries. The internal disorder and revolution which plagued the public lives of most city states were absent from Rome until the last century of the Republic. Even then, during civil wars of extreme savagery when the severed heads of fellow citizens were displayed in the Forum, the Roman aristocracy continued to place some limits on what means were acceptable to overcome their rivals. A common figure in the history of the ancient world is the aristocratic exile – the deposed king or tyrant, or the general forced out when he was perceived to be becoming too powerful – at the court of a foreign power, usually a king. Such men readily accepted foreign troops to go back and seize power by force in their homeland – as the tyrant Pisistratus had done at Athens – or actively fought against their own city on their new protector's behalf, like Alcibiades.
    Rome's entire history contains only a tiny handful of individuals whose careers in any way followed this pattern. The fifth-century BC, and semi-mythical, Caius Marcius Coriolanus probably comes closest, for when banished from Rome he took service with the hostile Volscians and led their army with great success. In the story he came close to capturing Rome itself, and was only stopped from completing his victory by the intervention of his mother. The moral of the tale was quintessentially Roman. However important it was for an individual to win fame and add to his own and his family's reputation, this should always be subordinated to the good of the Republic. The same belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a foreign power. Senators wanted success, but that success only counted if it was achieved at Rome. No senator defected to Pyrrhus or Hannibal even when their final victory seemed imminent, nor did Scipio Africanus' bitterness at the ingratitude of the State cause him to take service with a foreign king.
    The outbreak of civil war did not significantly change this attitude, since both sides invariably claimed that they were fighting to restore the true Republic. Use was often made of non-Roman troops, but these were always presented as auxiliaries or allies serving from their obligations to Rome and never as independent powers intervening for their own benefit. Yet the circumstances of Roman fighting Roman did create many highly unorthodox careers, none more so than that of Quintus Sertorius, who demonstrated a talent for leading irregular forces and waging a type of guerrilla warfare against conventional Roman armies. Exiled from Sulla's Rome, he won his most famous victories and lived out the last years of his life in Spain, but never deviated from the attitudes of his class or thought of himself as anything other than a Roman senator and general....

    David : , December 19, 2016 at 01:16 PM
    I grew up in Bakersfield, California. Most of my friends were minorities, mexicans, phillipinos, blacks. But a lot were white - and there's no other way to put it - racists. I played pool with these guys, drank beer with em.

    A lot of the racism was just so casual I let it slide, though I'm very liberal. We all figured it's just something you say over a beer, it doesn't mean anything.

    Well, maybe now that they run the government, maybe it does. Maybe they just figure they got nothing left to lose.

    And when you got nothing left to lose, you're one dangerous fellow. And there's a bunch of em.

    ilsm -> David... , December 19, 2016 at 05:44 PM
    I prefer Cali secede!

    No nukes for you.

    Lord : , December 19, 2016 at 01:37 PM
    Plutocracy craves power.
    Lord -> Lord... , December 19, 2016 at 01:38 PM
    Or what do you get the person who has everything but power?
    bob : , December 19, 2016 at 02:12 PM
    Lately I have been thinking about the famous story of Kurt Gödel's citizenship hearing, when he said that he could prove that the U.S. Constitution would allow for our government to be converted to a dictatorship. (The most complete account of this perhaps apocryphal story AFAIK is found here http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/ ). I wonder what the most important logician of the 20th century had concluded, and I worry that we may find out!
    Greg : , December 19, 2016 at 03:04 PM
    What is happening follows directly and inevitably from the Citizens United decision. The Supreme Court failed in its duty to be a bulwark of democracy.

    However, that decision wouldn't have gone the way it did unless the culture was already fully compromised.

    ilsm -> Greg... , December 19, 2016 at 04:15 PM
    evidence?

    clinton spent more

    far more

    in NH the republican senate incumbent was out spent by PAC's attacking her and had nothing to sell in the opponent.

    Gibbon1 -> ilsm... , December 19, 2016 at 07:40 PM
    It's not so much that Clinton spent more than Trump. Seriously Clinton lost because she had terrible negatives in the Rust Belt and she didn't do jack diddly to shore that up.

    Where money comes in is that Clinton's ability to raise unlimited amounts of money allowed her to squash the better candidate, Sanders. Even though she lost a lot of campaign operatives made a lot more than they would have if they backed Sanders.

    Tom aka Rusty : , December 19, 2016 at 03:24 PM
    Liberals believe the country survives and prospers because of the federal government.

    So PK's reaction is natural for a liberal.

    The truth is more nuanced.

    pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 19, 2016 at 04:29 PM
    "Liberals believe the country survives and prospers because of the federal government."

    You really need to stop this stupid nonsense. On occassion you make a decent point. But then you write just asinine and utterly stupid comments.

    Tom aka Rusty -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 06:59 PM
    Your opinion and $1 will get me a McDonalds coffee.

    Open your mind grasshopper.

    ilsm : , -1
    sad pk

    neolib, war mongering corporatists are aghast

    it will be 50 years before

    wall st banksters can pass

    their crooked tool off

    as 'center left'

    whose detractors are

    called sexist and racists!!

    only the most deluded liar

    would toss that loss

    out as a harm to the republic

    which they would coup

    deplorables are more organized

    and many are proud

    to be depolrables in the

    "faux center left's" eyes.

    poor pk

    yuan -> ilsm... , -1

    'Murrican "democracy" is the theory that the deplorables know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gareth Porter still found some usable bits in it:

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

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

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

    With the attack on Deir Ezzor the Pentagon has:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    My, my!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you for your kind attention,

    blues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    @17 danny801

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

    @20 lysias

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

    @22 blues

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

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

    IMO, you're right.

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

    Thanks again b, for the therapy....

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

    Turkish-backed rebels torture, execute civilian in northern Aleppo


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

    The sources confirmed that the victim was mentally retarded.

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


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

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

    What happened to CIA vs. FBI & Pentagon?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    How about Harry Truman and Doug Macarthur ?

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

    [Dec 21, 2016] Economists View Paul Krugman How Republics End

    Notable quotes:
    "... That seems to be the problem in most of our western democracies right now. Voters are able to diagnose the problems they themselves feel and suffer from; but are clueless as to the actual cause of those problems. So the first guy who comes around promising to provide solutions is given the go ahead, under the false assumption that it "cannot get any worse than it is now" - but it can get a lot worse! ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Dan Nile : , December 19, 2016 at 11:49 AM
    "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."

    -Ben Franklin

    Fred C. Dobbs : , December 19, 2016 at 11:52 AM
    David Souter warned of a Trump-like
    candidate in prescient remarks (in 2012)

    Steve Benen - October 2016 - Maddow Blog

    Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter has maintained a very low public profile since retiring from the bench nearly eight years ago, but Rachel highlighted a 2012 appearance Souter made in New Hampshire, and his remarks on "civic ignorance" are striking in their foresight.

    "I don't worry about our losing republican government in the United States because I'm afraid of a foreign invasion. I don't worry about it because I think there is going to be a coup by the military as has happened in some of other places. What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed, people will not know who is responsible. And when the problems get bad enough, as they might do, for example, with another serious terrorist attack, as they might do with another financial meltdown, some one person will come forward and say, 'Give me total power and I will solve this problem.'

    "That is how the Roman republic fell. Augustus became emperor, not because he arrested the Roman Senate. He became emperor because he promised that he would solve problems that were not being solved.

    "If we know who is responsible, I have enough faith in the American people to demand performance from those responsible. If we don't know, we will stay away from the polls. We will not demand it. And the day will come when somebody will come forward and we and the government will in effect say, 'Take the ball and run with it. Do what you have to do.'

    "That is the way democracy dies. And if something is not done to improve the level of civic knowledge, that is what you should worry about at night."

    Souter couldn't have known about Donald Trump's rise in Republican politics, but that only makes his fears in 2012 that much more prophetic. ...

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 19, 2016 at 12:26 PM
    Do set down the reference link when possible.
    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 12:36 PM
    Oops.

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/souter-warned-trump-candidate-prescient-remarks

    DeDude -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 19, 2016 at 12:55 PM
    That seems to be the problem in most of our western democracies right now. Voters are able to diagnose the problems they themselves feel and suffer from; but are clueless as to the actual cause of those problems. So the first guy who comes around promising to provide solutions is given the go ahead, under the false assumption that it "cannot get any worse than it is now" - but it can get a lot worse!
    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 19, 2016 at 03:58 PM
    Heard on Howie Carr's (AM 680* in Boston) chump line:

    What do you call a bunch of democrats in the basement: whine cellar.

    For democrats "if at first you don't succeed; cry cry again".

    Shorter poor pk

    pitiable pk.

    *I much prefer the late Jerry Williams!

    Chris G -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 19, 2016 at 07:41 PM
    I miss David Souter.
    DrDick : , December 19, 2016 at 11:56 AM
    While this is certainly a real possibility, I have a bit more faith in the American people and the American system than Krugman seems to.
    New Deal democrat -> DrDick... , December 19, 2016 at 12:11 PM
    I hope you are correct, but if Trump decides to defy the Congress or the Courts, with 40% of the populace ready to do whatever he says, who do you think is going to stand up to him? Mitch McConnell? Paul Ryan? Clarence Thomas? Samuel Alito?
    pgl -> New Deal democrat... , December 19, 2016 at 12:13 PM
    None of the above. But there will be another election in 2018. We have to make sure the other 60% of the populace stand up.
    New Deal democrat -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 12:44 PM
    If PK's concern is right -- and I think it is -- Trump is going to crack down on dissent. In this he will be aided and abetted by his Nuremburg rallies.

    We will still have elections in 2018 and 2020. But will they be fair or banana-republic facsimiles? North Carolina has already crossed the line in my opinion.

    ilsm -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 04:04 PM
    can crooks beat the morality play?

    2018 my money is on non democrats!

    yuan -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 05:10 PM
    an election in 2018 that heavily favors republicans.
    ilsm -> New Deal democrat... , December 19, 2016 at 04:03 PM
    it was the crook

    versus cuckoo

    who won

    it ain't so bad

    abortion and deviant

    behavior lost

    does not threaten

    the republic

    however whining

    democrat subversives

    if you all cannot

    get over it!

    tea baggers lived with

    the war mongering

    lover of immorality

    for 8 years

    poor pk

    a candidate

    for dimbot

    che guevera

    pgl -> DrDick... , December 19, 2016 at 12:12 PM
    Maybe PK spent too much time watching the Star Wars marathon this weekend. Me? I watched football.
    Peter K. -> DrDick... , December 19, 2016 at 12:45 PM
    Krugman also said Hillary was a great candidate who would win easily.

    He's wrong a lot when it comes to politics.

    Gibbon1 -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 01:47 PM
    I've said this before economists and politics are like doctors and light aircraft.
    anne -> Gibbon1... , December 19, 2016 at 01:57 PM
    Aside:

    The comment you made and reminder for me that the Chinese leadership has long been largely educated as engineers was especially important in my understanding the IMF warning of dangerous credit growth in China. Economic planners are of course aware of the warning and a just established goal in 2017 is to limit the extension of credit though keeping general economic growth at 6.5%.

    PGL was equally helpful.

    I now have the solution, which I can depict in graphs.

    anne -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 02:41 PM
    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/12/links-for-12-17-16.html#comment-6a00d83451b33869e201b7c8be11ae970b

    December 17, 2016

    [...the seeming lack of concern about corporate debt suggests the level is not considered a problem. Why though?]

    Easy answer: China's leaders are technocrats not finance people like in the US. Meaning they think that a factory is an asset, the bonds used to pay for it is just a weak obligation on paper. In the US it's the opposite.

    -- Gibbon

    yuan -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 05:18 PM
    you are rewriting history. krugman was histrionically concerned about the possibility of trump win.
    Gibbon1 -> yuan... , December 19, 2016 at 05:28 PM
    Look another refugee
    Fred C. Dobbs -> DrDick... , December 19, 2016 at 03:15 PM
    Me too.

    Because we live in the
    best of all possible worlds.

    Tom aka Rusty : , December 19, 2016 at 11:59 AM
    The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

    I'm with Dr. Dick on this one.

    pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 19, 2016 at 12:11 PM
    But you just said that if the Dems don't win the House in 2018 - the party should disband. What's gonna replace it - Luke Skywalker?
    Peter K. -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 12:43 PM
    If the Democrats keel listening to people like pgl and Krugman, they will lose again in 2018.

    Rustbucket was prophetic. So was Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein.

    PGL had nothing but insults for the messengers of what became a populist revolt that helped past Brexit and elect Trump.

    BenIsNotYoda -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 01:10 PM
    I have to support Peter K on this one. This was important before the election but is all the more important now.
    pgl -> BenIsNotYoda... , December 19, 2016 at 04:18 PM
    BINY the gold bug jumps on the PeterK pointless bandwagon. Aren't you guys bored with this pointless nonsense by now? Yawn!
    yuan -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 05:19 PM
    the democrats will lose badly in 2018 because many of their contested seats are in deep red states.
    Tom aka Rusty -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 03:21 PM
    I have an RR8 robot running around my living room - maybe a robot party?
    pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 19, 2016 at 04:18 PM
    Love it. OK I watched football this weekend but Star Wars rocks!
    ilsm -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 04:06 PM
    if the crooks still run the dems.......

    they are toast.

    pgl -> ilsm... , December 19, 2016 at 04:19 PM
    Rusty and I are sending R2D2 over to your place. Take cover.
    ilsm -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 05:31 PM
    I will get to that movie!
    M. Gamble : , December 19, 2016 at 12:14 PM
    I think most people commenting on the Trump phenomena are treating as though it sprang whole cloth out of the either. I think Trump is the natural conclusion of two things the GOP accepted as its own. The modern management style of tell your employees anything and it will happen, no need to be a good manager and know what you're talking about just act as though you know everything. Next the original sin(not my coin) of the GOP supply side economics. Now this brings into power R. Reagan. Who said famously, the scariest thing to hear is, "I am from the Federal Government, and I am here to help you!" This caused down through the years an ongoing disdain for anything coming from Washington, no expert was to be trusted, the other side was not to be trusted, etc. This was for one reason, to make rich people feel good about all the money that was going up stream into their pockets instead of anyone who works for a living.

    After about forty years of this is it any wonder that half the people don't vote? Or that half of the half see a rich guy and think he can do it look at all the money he made? It is a very sad state of affairs, but it is what you get when most of society is in love with the all mighty dollar and not actual substance in their lives.

    pgl -> M. Gamble... , December 19, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA

    Reagan did have a disdain for the government.

    david s -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 01:56 PM
    Yet Reagan and Tip O'Neill spent like the Keynesians they were.

    Far better than the austere Clinton and Obama Administrations.

    Marcus Tullius Cicero -> david s ... , December 19, 2016 at 06:50 PM

    They could talk the walk but could not

    walk the
    talk --

    anne -> Marcus Tullius Cicero... , December 19, 2016 at 07:05 PM
    Fitting name, Cicero.
    Peter K. -> M. Gamble... , December 19, 2016 at 12:48 PM
    "After about forty years of this is it any wonder that half the people don't vote?"

    EMichael is astonished that people aren't more excited and energized by the American Jobs Act or Romneycare or Hillary's family leave tinkering.

    Julio -> M. Gamble... , December 19, 2016 at 01:55 PM
    "...the Trump phenomena...sprang whole cloth out of the either."

    [Either party, I presume :-)].

    Meets : , December 19, 2016 at 12:18 PM
    He doesn't actually present any evidence that "democracy is at the edge" or that the US republic is about to end.

    He's just unhappy about Trump's policies. They may be bad policies, but it's a huge leap from there to the nation collapsing.

    pgl -> Meets... , December 19, 2016 at 12:24 PM
    Is this like we survived Nixon as well as Bush-Cheney so we will survive Trump? I hope you're right.
    Meets -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 12:28 PM
    Exactly.

    I mean, he should first present an argument of why Trump will be a bad president rather than assuming it (which I know he's readers do anyway).

    Then from there he needs to explain how a bad president leads to national collapse.

    I can see a bad presidency, I don't see the country ceasing to exist.

    New Deal democrat -> Meets... , December 19, 2016 at 01:11 PM
    First of all, let me emphasize that I want to be polite about this. But I think the concern is valid. The country will exist. Elections will be held. But they are also held in Russia and Turkey. If those in power crack down on the opposition, and crack down on dissent, and the ruling party controls the election apparatus, then the elections do not make the country a Republic.

    The question is, why do you think Trump will refrain -- or be restrained -- from doing any of those things? His rallies have already appeared to condone violence. He has already suggested an embrace of "second amendment remedies. He called for his opponent to be locked up. He has suggested that he personally will start prosecutions. He has said he wants libel laws broadened. He has called for judges who rule against him to be investigated. Really, he has telegraphed that he wants to cross the Rubicon in just about every way he can. Why shouldn't we take that seriously?

    Meets -> New Deal democrat... , December 19, 2016 at 01:28 PM
    Well for one he has said a lot of stupid things that he's already backed up on, from making the wall just a fence to keeping parts of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.

    Second, a President can't do whatever he wants. Lots of Republicans didn't want him there in the first place, they won't let him just violate the constitution and ruin the party when they have control of house, senate, states, etc.

    I can believe he'll be the worst president yet, I have trouble seeing how we'll become Turkey, which has a history many coups, or Russia, which is practically a failed state.

    New Deal democrat -> Meets... , December 19, 2016 at 01:29 PM
    Re: "a President can't do whatever he wants."

    As I asked up thread, who do you believe is going to stop him?

    Meets -> New Deal democrat... , December 19, 2016 at 01:47 PM
    Congress, Senate, Supreme Court.

    Before you say "They're all Republicans" there was segment of the party that didn't want him to run at all.

    And the Reps have power, they won't let Trump ruin them.

    New Deal democrat -> Meets... , December 19, 2016 at 02:07 PM
    I guess we will just have to leave it at that, because when Trump has his base (which is the GOP base) frothing at the mouth, I simply do not see Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Clarence Thomas, and Samueal Alito suddenly auditioning for Profiles in Courage.

    I pray that Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have the best healthcare on earth.

    kurt -> Meets... , December 19, 2016 at 02:18 PM
    Something about whistling and graveyards is coming to mind here. Do you think that a weasel like Ryan or an addled old man like McCain can hold him back? McConnell? The Republicans long ago gave up any trappings of rationality or reason. They long ago gave up anything smacking of conscious or thoughtfulness. They long ago stopped treating policy as something to be determined by what works best for the most people. For decades the Republican Party has been an insurgent party that has been seeking to prevent positive change in the world. The elected leaders despise government. They are against programs that actually help people. They nakedly stole $12B in Iraq that we know of. Pretending this is normal only helps to hasten the demise.
    pgl -> Meets... , December 19, 2016 at 04:21 PM
    It is already out there - Trump needs to prove he was born on this planet. With that hairdo - it is hard to tell if he is Jedi or a Sith.
    ilsm -> New Deal democrat... , December 19, 2016 at 05:33 PM
    crooks in DNC are a huge threat to republic I thought less GOPsters running Trump. Why I voted against the crook.

    HRC should get 3 squares and a cot!

    david s -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 01:53 PM
    Nixon was the last progressive President.

    We should hope to have an Administration as effective and activist as Nixon's.

    pgl -> david s ... , December 19, 2016 at 04:23 PM
    Nixon was not a right wing creep but he was still a creep. BTW - the Committee to Re-Elect the President was called CREEP.
    DrDick -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 04:28 PM
    While I think this will likely be worse than anything we have seen before, but I do not think this will be the end of democracy. It may be in rather ragged shape by then, however.
    yuan -> Meets... , December 19, 2016 at 05:26 PM
    draconian voter suppression is not a figment of krugman's imagination. nor is the north carolina legislative coup. i think the usa may very well transitionin into an authoritarian political system.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/03/federal_judge_slams_north_carolina_voter_purge.html

    Peter K. : , December 19, 2016 at 12:39 PM
    "Why is this happening? ... And let's be clear: This is a Republican story, not a case of "both sides do it.""

    No it's also a story about Democrats and center-left parties the world over.

    The callous elites of the center are not presenting a good alternative to the demagogues on the right.

    (So voters are unenthusiastic or they don't bother to vote or organize. They're apathetic.)

    You can see it here in comments. You can see it with Krugman who absolves the center-left of any blame.

    Bernie Sanders and his supporters issued a warning.

    But Krugman assured us Hillary was a great candidate who would easily win.

    If the Democrats keep behaving like Krugman and EMichael with their heads in the sand, then they'll lose in 2018 and 2020.

    EMichael quotes Mike Singletary when Singletary would have nothing but contempt for the EMichaels who are always crying about the media/referees and blaming their loss on meddling from the Russians.

    I've seen NO post-mortem from the center-left Democrats. Only excuses.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 12:41 PM
    The experts told us Brexit would never pass.

    The pollsters assured us Hillary would win.

    kurt -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 02:23 PM
    In a normal world, we would know - due to exit polling - that something was amiss. In fact, the large skew from the results and exit polling would be considered by our own election watchers in the 3rd world to be indicative of shenanigans. But we can't say that. And apparently the reason we can't is due to people like you being on the same page with the Republican kleptocrats.
    ilsm -> kurt... , December 19, 2016 at 06:25 PM
    one poll had HRC 48% on 6 Oct....

    before Comey and Assange!

    She polled 48% on 8 Nov!

    kurt -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 02:21 PM
    Your level of dishonesty is appalling. Calling Krugman a centrist? That defies reason. Saying that there is a center-left? Absurd. It doesn't exist. The Pete Peterson's of the world are Center Right. Do you think that being just plain liberal is center left? Anyone who questions anything that Amy Goodman or Thom Hartman says is a centrist (and for the record, while I like Thom and Amy very much - they occasionally fall for utter BS because of tribalism). Also - reasons =/= excuses.
    pgl -> kurt... , December 19, 2016 at 04:25 PM
    "Your level of dishonesty is appalling."

    I would say a rare but of brilliant honesty here. But I should add EVERY one here knows PeterK lies 24/7. It is his day job. Don't get him fired now as this winter is cold.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 07:19 PM
    pgl can't even keep his story straight.

    That's sure sign of a dishonest troll.

    Peter K. -> kurt... , December 19, 2016 at 07:08 PM
    He called himself center-left to differentiate himself from the leftist Sanders supporters.

    There are a lot of nutcases on the left - there are everywhere in politics - but the centrist establishment has failed for 40 years.

    Krugman just gives excuses for Bill Clinton, Hillary, Obama etc.

    Peter K. -> kurt... , December 19, 2016 at 07:21 PM
    "Also - reasons =/= excuses."

    Hillary lost to a laughable Reality TV star.

    Any true progressive would have won by a large margin.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 04:24 PM
    One trick pony you are. Oh wait - I just insulted real world ponies.
    kthomas -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 04:37 PM
    You require a lesson in manners.
    Peter K. -> kthomas... , December 19, 2016 at 07:19 PM
    Who is going to teach me?

    You?

    Don't make me laugh.

    yuan -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 05:33 PM
    additional losses in 2018 are inevitable and voter suppression and gerrymandering will likely result in even larger losses in 2020. i also think constitutional amendments that make the usa a de facto one party state are conceivable.
    ilsm -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 05:35 PM
    center left are the problem.....

    they are con artists and crooks.

    yuan -> ilsm... , December 19, 2016 at 07:53 PM
    "center left are the problem....."

    sanders, warren and grijalva are crooks and con artists? that's an interesting point of view!

    Peter K. : , December 19, 2016 at 12:51 PM
    Bernie Sanders and his primary campaign made me hopeful.

    "Initially considered a long shot, Sanders won 23 primaries and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates to Clinton's 55%. His campaign was noted for the enthusiasm of its supporters, as well as his rejection of large donations from corporations, the financial industry, and any associated Super PAC. The campaign instead relied on a record-breaking number of small, individual contributions."

    If the Democrats continue to flail helplessly, energy will continue to build on the left.

    pgl -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 04:27 PM
    "Bernie Sanders and his primary campaign made me hopeful."

    That's cool but then you reverted to your norm - an angry and pointlessly stupid and dishonest troll. Get a life.

    Gibbon1 -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 06:14 PM
    You need to leave.
    yuan -> Peter K.... , December 19, 2016 at 05:43 PM
    "energy will continue to build on the left."

    meh.

    sanders is on his way to retirement and warren is hardly an inspiring candidate. i personally see little evidence of energy from the center-left (e.g. the congressional progressive caucus). if anything, sanders and warren appear to be supporting more triangulation (e.g. neoliberals like ellision and gabbard).

    anne : , December 19, 2016 at 01:07 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/opinion/how-republics-end.html

    December 18, 2016

    How Republics End
    By Paul Krugman

    Adrian Goldsworthy's "In the Name of Rome" says: *

    "However important it was for an individual to win fame and add to his own and his family's reputation, this should always be subordinated to the good of the Republic. The same belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a foreign power."

    * http://erenow.com/ancient/in-the-name-of-rome-the-men-who-won-the-roman-empire/7.html

    anne -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 01:12 PM
    Correcting for spacing:

    http://erenow.com/ancient/in-the-name-of-rome-the-men-who-won-the-roman-empire/7.html

    GENERAL IN EXILE: SERTORIUS AND THE CIVIL WAR

    Quintus Sertorius (c. 125–72 BC)

    The Roman political élite was not unique in its competitiveness and desire to excel. The aristocracies of most Greek cities – and indeed of the overwhelming majority of other communities in the Mediterranean world – were just as eager to win personal dominance and often unscrupulous in their methods of achieving this. Roman senators were highly unusual in channelling their ambitions within fairly narrow, and universally recognized, boundaries. The internal disorder and revolution which plagued the public lives of most city states were absent from Rome until the last century of the Republic. Even then, during civil wars of extreme savagery when the severed heads of fellow citizens were displayed in the Forum, the Roman aristocracy continued to place some limits on what means were acceptable to overcome their rivals. A common figure in the history of the ancient world is the aristocratic exile – the deposed king or tyrant, or the general forced out when he was perceived to be becoming too powerful – at the court of a foreign power, usually a king. Such men readily accepted foreign troops to go back and seize power by force in their homeland – as the tyrant Pisistratus had done at Athens – or actively fought against their own city on their new protector's behalf, like Alcibiades.

    Rome's entire history contains only a tiny handful of individuals whose careers in any way followed this pattern. The fifth-century BC, and semi-mythical, Caius Marcius Coriolanus probably comes closest, for when banished from Rome he took service with the hostile Volscians and led their army with great success. In the story he came close to capturing Rome itself, and was only stopped from completing his victory by the intervention of his mother. The moral of the tale was quintessentially Roman. However important it was for an individual to win fame and add to his own and his family's reputation, this should always be subordinated to the good of the Republic. The same belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a foreign power. Senators wanted success, but that success only counted if it was achieved at Rome. No senator defected to Pyrrhus or Hannibal even when their final victory seemed imminent, nor did Scipio Africanus' bitterness at the ingratitude of the State cause him to take service with a foreign king.

    The outbreak of civil war did not significantly change this attitude, since both sides invariably claimed that they were fighting to restore the true Republic. Use was often made of non-Roman troops, but these were always presented as auxiliaries or allies serving from their obligations to Rome and never as independent powers intervening for their own benefit. Yet the circumstances of Roman fighting Roman did create many highly unorthodox careers, none more so than that of Quintus Sertorius, who demonstrated a talent for leading irregular forces and waging a type of guerrilla warfare against conventional Roman armies. Exiled from Sulla's Rome, he won his most famous victories and lived out the last years of his life in Spain, but never deviated from the attitudes of his class or thought of himself as anything other than a Roman senator and general....

    anne -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 01:16 PM
    http://erenow.com/ancient/in-the-name-of-rome-the-men-who-won-the-roman-empire/7.html

    2003

    In the Name of Rome: The Men Who Won the Roman Empire
    By Adrian Goldsworthy

    anne -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 04:12 PM
    I would hope readers would carefully consider this quoted passage that Paul Krugman has used. I am uncomfortable with this theme.
    kthomas -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 04:38 PM
    No you are not. You are relishing all of this.
    anne -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 04:28 PM
    Julius Caesar who was born in 100 BC, of course invaded Rome with a Roman army. I really am uncomfortable with the theme in using Adrian Goldsworth on the end of the republic, likely I am missing something and will read Goldworthy for a while now.
    ilsm -> anne... , December 19, 2016 at 05:42 PM
    Reference to the Rome of the Gracchi and subsequent empire evolutions is a huge stretch toward false equivalence.

    Senators were hereditary, a class oriented. They were the holders of vast farms on the labor of slaves.

    The plebes voted for tribunes etc who observed the senate but had no authority other than a veto.

    When the senate was in trouble they selected a dictator for the duration.

    The roman republic was better than the Athenian demos who sent out fleets to slaughter on the whim of the orator.....

    but no role model for an enlightened civitas....

    But it was not popular!

    anne : , December 19, 2016 at 01:10 PM
    http://erenow.com/ancient/in-the-name-of-rome-the-men-who-won-the-roman-empire/7.html

    GENERAL IN EXILE: SERTORIUS AND THE CIVIL WAR

    Quintus Sertorius (c. 125–72 BC)

    The Roman political élite was not unique in its competitiveness and desire to excel. The aristocracies of most Greek cities – and indeed of the overwhelming majority of other communities in the Mediterranean world – were just as eager to win personal dominance and often unscrupulous in their methods of achieving this. Roman senators were highly unusual in channelling their ambitions within fairly narrow, and universally recognized, boundaries. The internal disorder and revolution which plagued the public lives of most city states were absent from Rome until the last century of the Republic. Even then, during civil wars of extreme savagery when the severed heads of fellow citizens were displayed in the Forum, the Roman aristocracy continued to place some limits on what means were acceptable to overcome their rivals. A common figure in the history of the ancient world is the aristocratic exile – the deposed king or tyrant, or the general forced out when he was perceived to be becoming too powerful – at the court of a foreign power, usually a king. Such men readily accepted foreign troops to go back and seize power by force in their homeland – as the tyrant Pisistratus had done at Athens – or actively fought against their own city on their new protector's behalf, like Alcibiades.
    Rome's entire history contains only a tiny handful of individuals whose careers in any way followed this pattern. The fifth-century BC, and semi-mythical, Caius Marcius Coriolanus probably comes closest, for when banished from Rome he took service with the hostile Volscians and led their army with great success. In the story he came close to capturing Rome itself, and was only stopped from completing his victory by the intervention of his mother. The moral of the tale was quintessentially Roman. However important it was for an individual to win fame and add to his own and his family's reputation, this should always be subordinated to the good of the Republic. The same belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a foreign power. Senators wanted success, but that success only counted if it was achieved at Rome. No senator defected to Pyrrhus or Hannibal even when their final victory seemed imminent, nor did Scipio Africanus' bitterness at the ingratitude of the State cause him to take service with a foreign king.
    The outbreak of civil war did not significantly change this attitude, since both sides invariably claimed that they were fighting to restore the true Republic. Use was often made of non-Roman troops, but these were always presented as auxiliaries or allies serving from their obligations to Rome and never as independent powers intervening for their own benefit. Yet the circumstances of Roman fighting Roman did create many highly unorthodox careers, none more so than that of Quintus Sertorius, who demonstrated a talent for leading irregular forces and waging a type of guerrilla warfare against conventional Roman armies. Exiled from Sulla's Rome, he won his most famous victories and lived out the last years of his life in Spain, but never deviated from the attitudes of his class or thought of himself as anything other than a Roman senator and general....

    David : , December 19, 2016 at 01:16 PM
    I grew up in Bakersfield, California. Most of my friends were minorities, mexicans, phillipinos, blacks. But a lot were white - and there's no other way to put it - racists. I played pool with these guys, drank beer with em.

    A lot of the racism was just so casual I let it slide, though I'm very liberal. We all figured it's just something you say over a beer, it doesn't mean anything.

    Well, maybe now that they run the government, maybe it does. Maybe they just figure they got nothing left to lose.

    And when you got nothing left to lose, you're one dangerous fellow. And there's a bunch of em.

    ilsm -> David... , December 19, 2016 at 05:44 PM
    I prefer Cali secede!

    No nukes for you.

    Lord : , December 19, 2016 at 01:37 PM
    Plutocracy craves power.
    Lord -> Lord... , December 19, 2016 at 01:38 PM
    Or what do you get the person who has everything but power?
    bob : , December 19, 2016 at 02:12 PM
    Lately I have been thinking about the famous story of Kurt Gödel's citizenship hearing, when he said that he could prove that the U.S. Constitution would allow for our government to be converted to a dictatorship. (The most complete account of this perhaps apocryphal story AFAIK is found here http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/ ). I wonder what the most important logician of the 20th century had concluded, and I worry that we may find out!
    Greg : , December 19, 2016 at 03:04 PM
    What is happening follows directly and inevitably from the Citizens United decision. The Supreme Court failed in its duty to be a bulwark of democracy.

    However, that decision wouldn't have gone the way it did unless the culture was already fully compromised.

    ilsm -> Greg... , December 19, 2016 at 04:15 PM
    evidence?

    clinton spent more

    far more

    in NH the republican senate incumbent was out spent by PAC's attacking her and had nothing to sell in the opponent.

    Gibbon1 -> ilsm... , December 19, 2016 at 07:40 PM
    It's not so much that Clinton spent more than Trump. Seriously Clinton lost because she had terrible negatives in the Rust Belt and she didn't do jack diddly to shore that up.

    Where money comes in is that Clinton's ability to raise unlimited amounts of money allowed her to squash the better candidate, Sanders. Even though she lost a lot of campaign operatives made a lot more than they would have if they backed Sanders.

    Tom aka Rusty : , December 19, 2016 at 03:24 PM
    Liberals believe the country survives and prospers because of the federal government.

    So PK's reaction is natural for a liberal.

    The truth is more nuanced.

    pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 19, 2016 at 04:29 PM
    "Liberals believe the country survives and prospers because of the federal government."

    You really need to stop this stupid nonsense. On occassion you make a decent point. But then you write just asinine and utterly stupid comments.

    Tom aka Rusty -> pgl... , December 19, 2016 at 06:59 PM
    Your opinion and $1 will get me a McDonalds coffee.

    Open your mind grasshopper.

    ilsm : , -1
    sad pk

    neolib, war mongering corporatists are aghast

    it will be 50 years before

    wall st banksters can pass

    their crooked tool off

    as 'center left'

    whose detractors are

    called sexist and racists!!

    only the most deluded liar

    would toss that loss

    out as a harm to the republic

    which they would coup

    deplorables are more organized

    and many are proud

    to be depolrables in the

    "faux center left's" eyes.

    poor pk

    yuan -> ilsm... , -1

    'Murrican "democracy" is the theory that the deplorables know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Share This Article (0)

    [Dec 21, 2016] The Perfect Weapon How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S by ERIC LIPTON , DAVID E. SANGER and SCOTT SHANE

    the article contain at least one blatant lie which discredits its connect: the assertion the Sony attack was from North Korea. No mentioning of Flame and Stixnet. Another proof that NYT is a part of Clinton campaign and became a neocons mouthpiece...
    Notable quotes:
    "... How many of us have signed petitions to exonerate Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning for letting us know what our govt was doing? Didn't they do us all, and democracy, a great service? ..."
    "... I'm happy to know how the DNC operated, the astounding and unprecedented conflation of a national party committee with one candidate's campaign organization. ..."
    "... What they were doing to Bernie Sanders, and the use they were making of national media was just wrong. ..."
    "... Clinton herself was involved (via her neocon undersecretary, formerly Cheney's chief foreign policy aide) in overthrowing the elected president of Ukraine, a friend of Russia, and installing a US-capitalist friendly fellow in his stead. ..."
    "... What goes around comes around. If we wanted to stop all this cyber warfare, the time to do it was by treaty BEFORE we risked Iranian lives with the Stuxnet virus. ..."
    "... The release of e-mails was embarrassing for Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but I don't think it tipped the election. How many longtime Democratic voters stayed home on November 9th because of the release of these e-mails? How many working class voters switched their vote because of the release of these e-mails? ..."
    "... If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned. ..."
    "... The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent. ..."
    "... The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it. ..."
    "... That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you. ..."
    "... I suppose Hillary's email server could have been hacked like this too. Could this be the reason for Comey's stern reprimand of her? It is a little ironic, isn't it, that the DNC, while down playing Hillary's issues with her private server and criticizing Comey for his handling of the investigation, should itself suffer a damaging security breach of its own servers at the hands of a foreign power, which was exactly Comey's concern. Not to mention the fact that the NYT, which told us enough was enough with Hillary's email, is now up in arms about exactly that issue with the shoe on the other foot ..."
    "... I am struggling with how to react to this, just as i do with the Edward Snowden disclosures. On the one hand Russian meddling in a US election is certainly a concern, and should be investigated. On the other hand the disclosures laid bare things many people had suspected, let the sunlight in, so to speak. ..."
    "... Would Hillary even have had the nomination were it not for the favoritism shown by the DNC to her campaign at the expense of the Sanders campaign? What was more meddlesome, the Russian hack and release or the DNC's unfair treatment of Bernie? There is no suggestion that the leaked documents were altered. The effect of the hack was to reveal the truth. Is that the Russian goal, to delegitimize the election process by revealing the truth? ..."
    "... I suppose we finally got a taste of our own medicine -- countless governments overthrown and elections influenced at the hand of the United States. Not fun is it? Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this. ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | www.nytimes.com
    Sandy Garossino Vancouver, British Columbia December 13, 2016

    An aspect that truly surprises me is the hopeless ineptitude of the DNC response (which could easily have parallels in the RNC).

    Irrespective of who the cyber-attacker is, it's astounding in this day and age that sensitive organizations do not pre-arm themselves with the highest security, and treat every sign of interference (eg, an actual FBI WARNING PHONE CALL) as a major alarm.

    Sadly, that this response is probably replicated all over the place underscores a theory I've held for some time: Technology will kill democracy. Maybe it already has.

    Martha Dryden, NY December 13, 2016

    I'm surprised at what's missing here. How many of us have signed petitions to exonerate Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning for letting us know what our govt was doing? Didn't they do us all, and democracy, a great service?

    I'm happy to know how the DNC operated, the astounding and unprecedented conflation of a national party committee with one candidate's campaign organization.

    What they were doing to Bernie Sanders, and the use they were making of national media was just wrong.

    Assange and Putin (if he was involved) revealed the truth. And since Clinton took no care to guard her private emails, mixed with public communications, how much sympathy is she owed?

    Clinton herself was involved (via her neocon undersecretary, formerly Cheney's chief foreign policy aide) in overthrowing the elected president of Ukraine, a friend of Russia, and installing a US-capitalist friendly fellow in his stead. We do this sort of thing all the time, so if the Russians "interfere" in our electoral process by revealing true stuff (far short of fomenting a coup like we did in Ukraine), isn't that just tit for tat? We even hacked into the communications of European leaders and international organizations. We were the first to use cyber warfare (Stuxnet, v. Iran), so how can we play holier than thou? What goes around comes around. If we wanted to stop all this cyber warfare, the time to do it was by treaty BEFORE we risked Iranian lives with the Stuxnet virus.

    Classicist New York, NY December 13, 2016

    The release of e-mails was embarrassing for Secretary Clinton and the Democratic Party, but I don't think it tipped the election. How many longtime Democratic voters stayed home on November 9th because of the release of these e-mails? How many working class voters switched their vote because of the release of these e-mails?

    The bigger issue for me is that because we are now politicizing this hacking (i.e. making the argument that the hacking helped Republicans), many Republicans are opposed to investigating it.

    That is crazy to me.

    Southern Boy The Volunteer State December 13, 2016

    If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned.

    The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent.

    The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it.

    That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you.

    GBC , Canada December 13, 2016

    I suppose Hillary's email server could have been hacked like this too. Could this be the reason for Comey's stern reprimand of her? It is a little ironic, isn't it, that the DNC, while down playing Hillary's issues with her private server and criticizing Comey for his handling of the investigation, should itself suffer a damaging security breach of its own servers at the hands of a foreign power, which was exactly Comey's concern. Not to mention the fact that the NYT, which told us enough was enough with Hillary's email, is now up in arms about exactly that issue with the shoe on the other foot

    I am struggling with how to react to this, just as i do with the Edward Snowden disclosures. On the one hand Russian meddling in a US election is certainly a concern, and should be investigated. On the other hand the disclosures laid bare things many people had suspected, let the sunlight in, so to speak.

    Would Hillary even have had the nomination were it not for the favoritism shown by the DNC to her campaign at the expense of the Sanders campaign? What was more meddlesome, the Russian hack and release or the DNC's unfair treatment of Bernie? There is no suggestion that the leaked documents were altered. The effect of the hack was to reveal the truth. Is that the Russian goal, to delegitimize the election process by revealing the truth?

    Mark Bratanov FL December 13, 2016

    I suppose we finally got a taste of our own medicine -- countless governments overthrown and elections influenced at the hand of the United States. Not fun is it? Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this.

    Eric Lipton is an NYTimes reporter Reporter December 13, 2016

    The agent could have walked over to the DNC headquarters and shown the DNC IT consultant his badge. Or he could have invited the DNC IT consultant to his office--confirming his true identity. Instead, the two communicated for several months just by phone, and as a result, the DNC IT consultant did not fully believe he was speaking to an FBI agent, and so he did not act as aggressively to search for the possible cyber intrusion.

    GC carrboro, nc December 13, 2016

    She lost, get over it. Yes the Electoral College is obsolete. Yes some voting machines can be hacked, but no-one is claiming that in states with tight results. Let's see what the official investigation says, and who says it.

    For better or worse Mr. Trump will be our next President because he won the election. Personally I'm delighted that he may damp down the over-the-top Russophobia that is swirling around DC, "defense" contractor Congressional shills, & the offices of the NYT but nowhere else in the country.

    It's time for progressives to emerge from Obama-daze and convince the rest of the country that they have a better vision for this country's future than that offered by conservatives/reactionaries. One that doesn't involve bombing hapless foreigners. Articulate your policies as best you can, learn from your defeats and from your victories. Onward!

    Southern Boy The Volunteer State December 13, 2016

    If the hacking had tampered with voting, I would be extremely concerned, but since it only involved email systems, I am not concerned. The hacked and subsequently published emails revealed the dishonest, deceitful, and unethical practices of the Democrats, especially in the treatment of Sanders, who should have ditched the Democrats run for president as an Independent. The emails also revealed that Obama was a participant in HRC's use of a nongovernmental email system when he stated emphatically that the first time he had ever heard of it was when the media first reported it. That's not the first and probably not the last time he will lie to the public. And the emails revealed the satanic practices of Podesta. The published emails made the election interesting and entertaining. But it is over and mow its time to put this issue to rest, accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next President, the leader of the freest county in the free world, and get on with governing this blessed great nation. Thank you.

    Louisa is a trusted commenter New York December 13, 2016

    The police call and tell you to be sure to lock your doors and windows--there have been people seen lurking around your house.

    You hang up on them. And do nothing about your doors or windows.

    The police call repeatedly. You ignore all their calls.

    The police advise you to install an alarm system. You, making millions a year, say you can't afford it.

    You receive a notice in the mail telling you you've received 6 months worth of free storage. A van will arrive to pick up your stuff.

    You let the movers take your stuff away. You did not supervise what they took.

    You are the DNC, in terms of how they acted during this mess.

    [Dec 21, 2016] Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider? ..."
    "... Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda. ..."
    "... Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time (German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60. ..."
    "... And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer. ..."
    "... This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ? ..."
    Dec 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 07:15 PM

    Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider?

    One DNC staffer, 27-year-old Seth Rich, the DNC's director of voter expansion, was killed around this time in pretty strange circumstances. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/12/democratic-national-committee-staffer-shot-and-killed-in-washington.html

    Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian.

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-wikileaks-figure-says-insider-russia-hack/

    Or it can come from a dissident within the US agency that did have access to all emails.

    Do you remember such a person as Edward Snowden ?

    It might be very educational for you to read his opinion about this case:

    While he is highly critical of Wikileaks, he suggests that without NSA coming forward with hard data obtained via special program that uncover multiple levels of indirection, those charges are just propaganda and insinuations.

    And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party.

    As in any complex case you should not jump to conclusions so easily.

    DeDude -> likbez... , December 18, 2016 at 08:05 PM
    Or you can explain why you believe strange Faux news conspiracy stories with absolutely no evidence that this person was in a position to hack the computers? Or why do you believe the obvious hugely conflicted statements from Wikileaks operatives, who would never want to admit that they were played by the Russians? Or a guy like Snowden who's life depend on Putins charity? Why would those sources make anybody question the clear evidence already presented?

    The fact that NSA is not going to publish all its evidence, is not a surprise. No need to tell the Russians and other hackers how they can avoid detection. But it is not just the government that conclude Russian involvement. Private company experts have reached the same conclusion. The case for a Russian government hack is about as good as it can get.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

    likbez -> DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 09:48 PM
    Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda.

    Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time (German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60.

    And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer.

    This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ?

    That's what this hysteria is now about, I think.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> likbez... , -1
    The NSA is very good at finding the source of intrusion attempts because they happen all the time every day from China, Russia, North Korea and just little island backwaters in the Pacific.

    Doing something to stop or punish the perpetrators is what is hard. Individual US installation instances must each be protected by their own firewalls and then still monitored for unusual variations in traffic patterns through firewalls to detect IP spoofing.

    [Dec 20, 2016] Is the slide toward military dictatorship the poarth the the USA will take due to collapse of neoliberlaism

    Notable quotes:
    "... But "bastard neoliberalism" that Trump represents in his internal economic policy probably is not a solution for the nations problems. It is too early to say what will be the level of his deviation from election promises, but judging for his appointments it probably will be considerable -- up to a complete reverse on certain promises. ..."
    "... So I view his election as the next logical step (after the first two by Bush II and Obama) toward military dictatorship. Previous forms of "Inverted totalitarism" -- a neoliberal version of Bolshevism (or, more correctly, Trotskyism -- many neocons were actually former Trotskyites ) seems to stop working. Neoliberal ideology was discredited in 2008. All three: Bolshevism, Trotskyism and neoliberalism might also be viewed as just different flavors of Corporatism. ..."
    "... After 2008 crisis, neoliberalism in the USA continues to exist in zombie state: as a non-dead dead, so it will be inevitably replaced by something else. Much like Bolshevism after 1945. How soon it will happen and what will be the actual trigger (the next oil crisis which turns into another round of Great Recession?) and what will be the successor is anybody guess. Bolshevism in the USSR lasted till 1991 or 46 years. The victory on neoliberalism in the Cold War was in 1991 so if we add 50 years then 2041 might be the date. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    likbez, December 19, 2016 at 09:18 PM

    I think the shift from New Deal Capitalism to neoliberalism proved to be fatal for the form of democracy that used to exist in the USA (never perfect, and never for the plebs).

    Neoliberalism as a strange combination of socialism for the rich and feudalism for the poor is anathema for democracy even for the narrow strata of the US society who used to have a say in the political process. Like Bolshevism was dictatorship of nomenklatura under the slogan of "Proletarians of all countries, unite!", neoliberalism is more like dictatorship of financial oligarchy under the slogan "The financial elite of all countries, unite!")

    In this sense Trump is just the logical end of the process that started in 1980 with Reagan, or even earlier with Carter.

    And at the same time [he is] the symptom of the crisis of the system, as large swats of population this time voted against status quo and that created the revolutionary situation when the elite was unable to govern in the old fashion. That's why, I think, Hillary lost and Trump won.

    But "bastard neoliberalism" that Trump represents in his internal economic policy probably is not a solution for the nations problems. It is too early to say what will be the level of his deviation from election promises, but judging for his appointments it probably will be considerable -- up to a complete reverse on certain promises.

    So I view his election as the next logical step (after the first two by Bush II and Obama) toward military dictatorship. Previous forms of "Inverted totalitarism" -- a neoliberal version of Bolshevism (or, more correctly, Trotskyism -- many neocons were actually former Trotskyites ) seems to stop working. Neoliberal ideology was discredited in 2008. All three: Bolshevism, Trotskyism and neoliberalism might also be viewed as just different flavors of Corporatism.

    After 2008 crisis, neoliberalism in the USA continues to exist in zombie state: as a non-dead dead, so it will be inevitably replaced by something else. Much like Bolshevism after 1945. How soon it will happen and what will be the actual trigger (the next oil crisis which turns into another round of Great Recession?) and what will be the successor is anybody guess. Bolshevism in the USSR lasted till 1991 or 46 years. The victory on neoliberalism in the Cold War was in 1991 so if we add 50 years then 2041 might be the date.

    And the slide toward military dictatorship does not necessary need to take a form of junta, which takes power via coup d'état. The control of the government by three letter agencies ("national security state") seems to be sufficient, can be accomplished by stealth, and might well be viewed as a form of military dictatorship too. So it can be a gradual slide: phase I, II, III, etc.

    The problem here as with Brezhnev socialism in the USSR is the growing level of degeneration of elite and the growth of influence of deep state, which includes at its core three letter agencies. As Michail Gorbachev famously said about neoliberal revolution in the USSR "the process already started in full force". He just did not understand at this point that he already completely lost control over neoliberal "Perestroika" of the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika

    In a way, the US Presidents are now more and more ceremonial figures that help to maintain the illusion of the legitimacy of the system. Obama is probably the current pinnacle of this process (which is reflected in one of his nicknames -- "teleprompter" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/obama-photo-caption-contest-teleprompter_n_1821154.html) .

    You probably could elect a dog instead of Trump and the US foreign policy will stay exactly the same. This hissy fits about Russians that deep state gave Trump before December 19, might be viewed as a warning as for any potential changes in foreign policy.

    As we saw with foreign policy none of recent presidents really fully control it. They still are important players, but the question is whether they are still dominant players. My impression is that it is already by-and-large defined and implemented by the deep state. Sometimes dragging the President forcefully into the desirable course of actions.

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

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

    globinfo freexchange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [Dec 20, 2016] ClubOrlov The Power of Nyet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Nice...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    BRILLIANT!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Loved.

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

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

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

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

    What a tag team!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Happy Unicorn said...

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

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

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

    In good wronglish:

    There's America, Americans, USA.

    And, in some point of our decolonized memory, there's Pacha Mama, our Mother Earth, the name given to our land by the older people.

    Not by chance, the unique country in Pacha Mama continents that have a pre-colonial language as its official - Paraguay's Guarani - was the initial focus of this antidemocratic wave attacking our countries.

    We, the united states of...? What?

    "Pacha Mama" is our best nyet!

    Not anymore south and central americas, south and central "americans". Pacha Mama is our real continents' name! We are The United States of Pacha Mama!
    When mentioning people from brazil, angentine, chile, bolivia, peru paraguay colombiavenezuelahaiti,surinamepanamacubamexico and so, please call us Pachamamists. That' what we are.

    Roger said... Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 11:27:00 AM EDT

    HappyUnicorn, of course you're right.

    What we ordinary folk think of as "American" interests are those interests as expressed by an entrenched foreign policy establishment to which the price of admission isn't only graduate studies in an expensive university. No, you have to walk within the lines. There's nothing as old under the sun as "group-think".

    The lines are long established. Just think of it: globalization, off-shoring millions of jobs, on-shoring millions of dirt-poor immigrants, legal and otherwise. Nothing warms the cockles of the oligarch's heart like a desperate underclass.

    I know Trump is a buffoon. But he served a purpose when he diverged from long established consensus and said that maybe, just maybe, getting on with the Russians might not be that hard. Or that NATO is an out-dated, dead-weight non-alliance of the unwilling. Or that border-less trade ruined heartland America.

    You saw the venomous reaction. A lot of people staked a career on the status-quo. Is the best-before expired as Trump suggested? I'll bet that if it hadn't been a blustering clown that raised it, many more people on the street would agree.

    Some regional interests are historic and easily visible for example, along the Mason-Dixon line. But even on either side of that old divide I think that the disparity is more an artifact of opposing elites determined to not get along. Why don't they get along? Well, there's a country to loot. You need distractions and diversions while pension funds and treasuries are emptied.

    And so we're off chasing our tails on burning problems like gender neutral washrooms. Brilliant, don't you think? Kudos to the Obama regime for that one. And so it's God fearin', gun packin' "conservative" versus enlightened, high-minded "progressive". What a joke, what a con. Yet, predictably, we fell for it. You name it, school prayer, abortion, evolution, and now washrooms, we fall for it, we always do.

    Robert T. said... Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:52:00 PM EDT

    It would be very nice if someone could write a piece on what life in Russia, in all its levels, is really like nowadays. I suspect that it is not just "nyet" that terrifies the Empire, but rather what Russia herself is now increasingly coming to represent.

    A lot of people, myself included, had been brought up thinking that Russia, while indeed a superpower, isn't and cannot be on the same page as the US. But now here are reports saying that a good and strong leader has pulled Russia out of the rut, and made things better. What's more, this leader did it in a manner that seems antithetical to the Empire. And what's even better is that this new Russia can't be easily rocked, like how the other countries had been rocked and thrown into chaos. The Empire therefore is at its wit's end. If people from other parts of the Earth, especially in those many places where democracy has failed miserably, begin to see that there is indeed an alternative to the empirical system, won't they then start to follow Russia's footsteps?

    Headsails said... Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 2:07:00 AM EDT

    Just like a spoiled rotten child that needs to learn some manners. It needs to learn the meaning of no. But in this case, instead of a spankng they would be chain ganged for life.

    [Dec 20, 2016] ClubOrlov Brain Parasite Gonna Eatcha!

    Dec 16, 2016 | cluborlov.blogspot.com
    Brain Parasite Gonna Eatcha! I've been experiencing some difficulties with commenting on the current political situation in the US, because it's been a little too funny, whereas this is a very serious blog. But I have decided that I must try my best. Now, these are serious matters, so as you read this, please refrain from any and all levity and mirth.

    You may have heard by now that the Russians stole the US presidential election; if it wasn't for them, Hillary Clinton would have been president-elect, but because of their meddling we are now stuck with Donald Trump and his 1001 oligarchs running the federal government for the next four years.

    There are two ways to approach this question. One is to take the accusation of Russian hacking of the US elections at face value, and we will certainly do that. But first let's try another way, because it's quicker. Let's consider the accusation itself as a symptom of some unrelated disorder. This is often the best way forward. Suppose a person walks into a doctor's office, and says, "Doctor, I believe I have schizophrenium poisoning." Should the doctor summon the hazmat team, or check for schizophrenia first?

    And so let's first consider that this "Russians did it" refrain we keep hearing is a symptom of something else, of which Russians are not the cause. My working hypothesis is that this behavior is being caused by a brain parasite. Yes, this may seem outlandish at first, but as we'll see later the theory that the Russians stole the election is no less outlandish.

    Brain parasites are known to alter the behavior of the organisms they infest in a variety of subtle ways. For instance, Toxicoplasma gondii alters the behavior of rodents, causing them to lose fear of cats and to become attracted to the smell of cat urine, making it easy for the cats to catch them. It also alters the behavior of humans, causing them to lavish excessive affection on cats and to compulsively download photographs of cute kittens playing with yarn.

    My hypothesis is that this particular brain parasite was specifically bioengineered by the US to make those it infects hate Russia. I suspect that the neurological trigger it uses is Putin's face, which the parasite somehow wires into the visual cortex. This virus was first unleashed on the unsuspecting Ukrainians, where its effect was plain to see. This historically Russian, majority Russian-speaking, culturally Russian and religiously Russian Orthodox region suddenly erupted in an epidemic of Russophobia. The Ukraine cut economic ties with Russia, sending its economy into a tailspin, and started a war with its eastern regions, which were quite recently part of Russia and wish to become part of Russia again.

    So far so good: the American bioengineers who created this virus achieved the effect they wanted, turning a Russian region into an anti-Russian region. But as happens so often with biological agents, it turned out to be hard to keep under control. Its next victims turned out to be NATO and the Pentagon, whose leadership started compulsively uttering the phrase "Russian aggression" in a manner suggestive of Tourette's Syndrome, entirely undeterred by the complete absence of evidence of any such aggression that they could present for objective analysis. They, along with the by now fit-to-be-tied Ukrainians, kept prattling on about "Russian invasion," waving about decades-old pictures of Russian tanks they downloaded from their friends on Facebook.

    From there the brain parasite spread to the White House, the Clinton presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and its attendant press corps, who are now all chattering away about "Russian hacking." The few knowledgeable voices who point out that there is absolutely no hard evidence of any such "Russian hacking" are being drowned out by the Bedlam din of the rest.

    This, to me, seems like the simplest explanation that fits the facts. But to be fair and balanced, let us also examine the other perspective: that claims of "Russian hacking" should be taken at face value. The first difficulty we encounter is that what is being termed "Russian hacking" is not hacks but leaks. Hacks occur where some unauthorized party breaks into a server and steals data. Leaks occur where an insider-a "whistleblower"-violates rules of secrecy and/or confidentiality in order to release into the public domain evidence of wrongdoing. In this case, evidence of leaking is prima facie: Was the data in question evidence of wrongdoing? Yes. Was it released into the public domain? Yes. Has the identity of said leaker or leakers remained secret? Yes, with good reason.

    But this does not rule out hacking, because what a leaker can do, a hacker can also do, although with difficulty. Leakers have it easy: you see evidence of wrongdoing, take umbrage at it, copy it onto a thumb drive, smuggle it off premises, and upload it to Wikileaks through a public wifi hotspot from an old laptop you bought off Craislist and then smashed. But what's a poor hacker to do? You hack into server after server, running the risk of getting caught each time, only to find that the servers contain minutes of public meetings, old press releases, backups of public web sites and-incriminating evidence!-a mother lode of pictures of fluffy kittens playing with yarn downloaded by a secretary afflicted with Toxicoplasma gondii .

    The solution, of course, is to create something that's worth hacking, or leaking, but this is a much harder problem. What the Russians had to do, then, was take the incorruptible, squeaky-clean goody-two-shoes faithful public servant Hillary Clinton, infiltrate the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and somehow manipulate them all into doing things that, when leaked (or hacked) would reliably turn the electorate against Clinton. Yes Sir, Tovarishch Putin!

    Those Russians sure are clever! They managed to turn the DNC into an anti-Bernie Sanders operation, depriving him of electoral votes through a variety of underhanded practices while appealing to anti-Semitic sentiments in certain parts of the country. They managed to manipulate Donna Brazile into handing presidential debate questions to the Clinton campaign. They even managed to convince certain Ukrainian oligarchs and Saudi princes to bestow millions upon the Clinton foundation in exchange for certain future foreign policy concessions. The list of these leak-worthy Russian subterfuges goes on and on But who can stop them?

    And so clearly the Russians had to first corrupt the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, just in order to render them hackworthy. But here we have a problem. You see, if you can hack into a server, so can everyone else. Suppose you leave your front door unlocked and swinging in the breeze, and long thereafter stuff goes missing. Of course you can blame the neighbor you happen to like least, but then why would anyone believe you? Anybody could have walked through that door and taken your shit. And so it is hard to do anything beyond lobbing empty accusations at Russia as far as hacking is concerned; but the charge of corrupting the incorruptible Hillary Clinton is another matter entirely.

    Because here the ultimate Russian achievement was in getting Hillary Clinton to refer to over half of her electorate as "a basket of deplorables," and this was no mean feat. It takes a superpower to orchestrate a political blunder of this magnitude. This she did in front of an LGBT audience in New York. Now, Hillary is no spring chicken when it comes to national politics: she's been through quite a few federal elections, and she has enough experience to know that pissing off over half of your electorate in one fell swoop is not a particularly smart thing to do. Obviously, she was somehow hypnotized into uttering these words no doubt by a hyperintelligent space-based Russian operative.

    The Russian covert operation into subverting American democracy started with the Russians sending an agent into the hitherto unexplored hinter regions of America, to see what they are like. Hunched over his desk, Putin whipped out a map of the US and a crayon, and lightly shaded in an area south of the Mason-Dixon line, west of New York and Pennsylvania, and east of the Rockies.

    Let me come clean. I have split loyalties. I have spent most of my life hobnobbing with transnational elites on the East Coast, but I have also spent quite a few years working for a very large midwestern agricultural equipment company, and a very large midwestern printing company, so I know the culture of the land quite well. I am sure that what this Russian agent reported back is that the land is thickly settled with white people of Anglo-Irish, Scottish, German and Slavic extraction, that they are macho, that their women (for it is quite a male-centric culture) tend to vote same way as the men for the sake of domestic tranquility, that they don't much like dark-skinned people or gays, and that plenty of them view the East Coast and California as dens of iniquity and corruption, if not modern-day Sodoms and Gomorras.

    And what if Vladimir Putin read this report, and issued this order: "Get Clinton to piss them all off." And so it was done: unbeknownst to her, using nefarious means, Hillary was programmed, under hypnosis, to utter the phrase "a basket of deplorables." A Russian operative hiding in the audience of LGBT activists flashed a sign triggering the program in Hillary's overworked brain, and the rest is history. If that's what actually happened, then Putin should be pronounced Special Ops Officer of the Year, while all the other "world leaders" should quietly sneak out the back entrance, sit down on the ground in the garden and eat some dirt, then puke it up into their hands and rub it into their eyes while wailing, because how on earth can they possibly ever hope to beat that?

    Or we can just go back to my brain parasite theory. Doesn't it seem a whole lot more sane now? Not only is it much simpler and more believable, but it also has certain predictive merits that the "Russian hacking" theory lacks. You see, when there is parasitism involved, there is rarely just one symptom. Usually, there is a whole cluster of symptoms. And so, just for the sake of comparison, let's look at what has happened to the Ukraine since it was infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite, and compare that to what is happening to the US now that the parasite has spread here too.

    1. The Ukraine is ruled by an oligarch-Petro Poroshenko, the "candy king"-along with a clique of other oligarchs who have been handed regional governorships and government ministries. And now the US is about to be ruled by an oligarch-Trump, the "casino king"-along with a clique of other oligarchs, from ExxonMobile to Goldman Sachs.

    2. The Ukraine has repudiated its trade agreements with Russia, sending its economy into free-fall. And now Trump is promising to repudiate, and perhaps renegotiate, a variety of trade agreements. For a country that has run huge structural trade deficits for decades and pays for them by constantly issuing debt this is not going to be easy or safe.

    3. The Ukraine has been subjected to not one but two Color Revolutions, promoted by none other than that odious oligarch George Soros. The US is now facing its own Color Revolution-the Purple Revolution-paid for by that same Soros, with the goal of overturning the results of the presidential election and derailing the inauguration of Donald Trump through a variety of increasingly desperate ploys including paid-for demonstrations, vote recounts and attempts to manipulate the Electoral College.

    4. For a couple of years now the Ukraine has been mired in a bloody and futile civil war. To this day the Ukrainian troops (with NATO support) are lobbing missiles into civilian districts in the east of the country, and getting decimated in return. So far, Trump's victory seems to have appeased the "deplorables," but should the Purple Revolution succeed, the US may also see major social unrest, possibly escalating into a civil war.

    The Ukrainian Brain Parasite has devastated the Ukraine. It is by now too far gone for much of anything to be done about it. All of the best people have left, mostly for Russia, and all that's left is a rotten, hollow shell. But does it have to end this way for the US? I hope not!

    There are, as I see it, two possibilities. One is to view those who are pushing the "Russian hacking" or "Russian aggression" story as political adversaries. Another is to view them as temporarily mentally ill. Yes, their brains are infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite, but that just means that their opinions are to be disregarded-until they feel better. And since this particular brain parasite specifically influences social behavior, if we refuse to reward that behavior with positive reinforcement-by acknowledging it-we will suppress its most debilitating symptoms, eventually forcing the parasite to evolve toward a more benign form. As with many infectious diseases, the fight against them starts with improved hygiene-in this case, mental hygiene. And so that is my prescription: when you see someone going on about "Russian hacking" or "Russian aggression" be merciful and charitable toward them as individuals, because they are temporarily incapacitated, but do not acknowledge their mad ranting, and instead try to coax them into learning to control it.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Tancredo Would Republican Establishment Use Impeachment to Block Trump Agenda

    Notable quotes:
    "... Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you. ..."
    "... Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to win concession after concession from the Trump White House. ..."
    "... There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. ..."
    "... On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump. But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging. ..."
    "... Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms. Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers" from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power to do so. ..."
    "... on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement. ..."
    "... Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican Party. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Several months ago I was asked what advice I would give to the Trump campaign.

    I said, only half joking, that he had better pick a vice presidential candidate the establishment hates more than it hates him. That would be his only insurance against impeachment. Those drums have already begun to beat, be it ever so subtly.

    Is anyone surprised how quickly the establishment that Donald Trump campaigned against has announced opposition to much of his policy agenda? No. But few understand that the passionate opposition includes a willingness to impeach and remove President Trump if he does not come to heel on his America First goals.

    Ferocious opposition to Trump from the left was expected and thus surprises nobody. From the comical demands for vote recounts to street protests by roving bands of leftist hate-mongers and condescending satire on late-night television, hysterical leftist opposition to Trump is now part of the cultural landscape.

    But those are amusing sideshows to the main event, the Republican establishment's intransigent opposition to key pillars of the Republican president's agenda.

    Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you.

    If you think talk of impeachment is insane when the man has not even been sworn into office yet, you have not been paying attention. Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to win concession after concession from the Trump White House.

    What are the key policy differences that motivate congressional opposition to the Trump agenda? There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's immigration laws.

    On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump. But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging.

    Yet, while the President-elect 's transition teams at the EPA, State Department and Education Department are busy mapping ambitious changes in direction, Congress's Republican leadership is busy doubling down on dissonance and disloyalty.

    Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms. Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers" from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power to do so.

    And then, on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement.

    It is no exaggeration to say that Trump's success or failure in overcoming the opposition to immigration enforcement will determine the success or failure of his presidency. If he cannot deliver on his most prominent and most popular campaign promise, nothing else will matter very much.

    So, the bad news for President Trump is this: If he keeps faith with his campaign promises on immigration, for example to limit Muslim immigration from terrorism afflicted regions, which is within his legitimate constitutional powers as President, he will risk impeachment. However, his congressional critics will face one enormous hurdle in bringing impeachment charges related to immigration enforcement: about 90 percent of what Trump plans to do is within current law and would require no new legislation in Congress. Obama disregarded immigration laws he did not like, so all Trump has to do is enforce those laws.

    Now, if you think talk of impeachment is ridiculous because Republicans control Congress, you are underestimating the depth of Establishment Republican support for open borders.

    The first effort in the 21st century at a general amnesty for all 20 million illegal aliens came in January 2005 from newly re-elected President George Bush. The "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill passed by the US Senate in 2013 did not have the support of the majority of Republican senators, and now they are faced with a Republican president pledged to the exact opposite agenda, immigration enforcement. And yet, do not doubt the establishment will sacrifice a Republican president to protect the globalist, open borders status quo.

    The leader and spokesman for that establishment open borders agenda is not some obscure backbencher, it is the Republican Speaker of the House. Because the Speaker controls the rules and the legislative calendar, if he chooses to play hardball against Trump on immigration he can block any of Trump's other policy initiatives until Trump abandons his immigration enforcement goals.

    What all this points to is a bloody civil war within the Republican Party fought on the battlefield of congressional committee votes.

    Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican Party.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Nickolas Kristof again demonstrates the level of neocons panic and his MIC lobbyist credentials

    What a despicable MIC stooge...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The CIA says it has "high confidence" that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and, according to The Washington Post, the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree with that conclusion. ..."
    "... Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting in character by giving important government posts to friends of Moscow, in effect rewarding it for its attack on the United States. ..."
    "... Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager. Yet it's notable that he is particularly close to Putin, who had decorated Tillerson with Russia's "Order of Friendship." ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    From Donald Trump The Russian Poodle - The New York Times

    In 1972, President Richard Nixon's White House dispatched burglars to bug Democratic Party offices. That Watergate burglary and related "dirty tricks," such as releasing mice at a Democratic press conference and paying a woman to strip naked and shout her love for a Democratic candidate, nauseated Americans - and impelled some of us kids at the time to pursue journalism.

    Now in 2016 we have a political scandal that in some respects is even more staggering. Russian agents apparently broke into the Democrats' digital offices and tried to change the election outcome. President Obama on Friday suggested that this was probably directed by Russia's president, saying, "Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin."

    In Watergate, the break-in didn't affect the outcome of the election. In 2016, we don't know for sure. There were other factors, but it's possible that Russia's theft and release of the emails provided the margin for Donald Trump's victory.

    The CIA says it has "high confidence" that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and, according to The Washington Post, the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree with that conclusion.

    Both Nixon and Trump responded badly to the revelations, Nixon by ordering a cover-up and Trump by denouncing the CIA and, incredibly, defending Russia from the charges that it tried to subvert our election. I never thought I would see a dispute between America's intelligence community and a murderous foreign dictator in which an American leader sided with the dictator.

    Let's be clear: This was an attack on America, less lethal than a missile but still profoundly damaging to our system. It's not that Trump and Putin were colluding to steal an election. But if the CIA is right, Russia apparently was trying to elect a president who would be not a puppet exactly but perhaps something of a lap dog - a Russian poodle.

    In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair was widely (and unfairly) mocked as President George W. Bush's poodle, following him loyally into the Iraq war. The fear is that this time Putin may have interfered to acquire an ally who likewise will roll over for him.

    Frankly, it's mystifying that Trump continues to defend Russia and Putin, even as he excoriates everyone else, from CIA officials to a local union leader in Indiana.

    Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting in character by giving important government posts to friends of Moscow, in effect rewarding it for its attack on the United States.

    Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager. Yet it's notable that he is particularly close to Putin, who had decorated Tillerson with Russia's "Order of Friendship."

    Whatever our personal politics, how can we possibly want to respond to Russia's interference in our election by putting American foreign policy in the hands of a Putin friend?

    Tillerson's closeness to Putin is especially troubling because of Trump's other Russia links. The incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn, accepted Russian money to attend a dinner in Moscow and sat near Putin. A ledger shows $12.7 million in secret payments by a pro-Russia party in Ukraine to Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort. And the Trump family itself has business connections with Russia.

    [Dec 18, 2016] America is a banana republic! FBI chief agrees with CIA on Russias alleged election help for Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it. ..."
    "... Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election ..."
    www.sott.net
    Reprinted from RT

    FBI and National Intelligence chiefs both agree with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential elections partly in an effort to help Donald Trump win the White House, US media report.

    FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are both convinced that Russia was behind cyberattacks that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta, The Washington Post and reported Friday, citing a message sent by CIA Director John Brennan to his employees.

    "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it.

    "The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI," it continued.

    Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election to help Trump win, calling info "fuzzy and ambiguous"

    ... ... ...

    [Dec 18, 2016] DNC did not take even elementary steps to protect its infrastructure, steps described in NIST guidelines, it operated like a non profit and did not even have 24 x7 monitoring of its servers to say nothing about firewalls and proxy infrastructure corresponding to the level of sensitivity of information they handle. In other words they were suckers and pays for their machinations, greed and incompetence

    Notable quotes:
    "... To whom do US intelligence agencies owe protection against hackers? The DNC was informed that the Russians or someone pretending to be the Russians was on them. To put your political dirty tricks or your apprehensions about the possible discovery of apparent pay-to-play games in your client's foundation in your emails after being warned was just plain foolish. ..."
    "... The Clintons' venality has been an open secret for 30 years, though Dem-leaning pundits prefer to ignore it or attribute it to the evil right wing conspiracy. From the Arkansas arrangements permitting the purchase of influence by engaging as attorney the wife of the AG or the Governor, the miraculous commodity investment, the Marc Rich and other pardons all stunk. ..."
    "... That the Clinton Foundation and its generous support for Clinton political operators might be a pay-to-play operation was not a surprise to longtime observers. I thought it was admirably bold and clever myself. Nobody else has been able to organize a tax-exempt political slush fund under personal control except even in Illinois where we have a lot of smart lawyers in politics. I suspect we will see a lot more political slush funds disguised as foundations in the future. ..."
    "... We also need to think about what political parties actually are. Then are not government agencies or acting on behalf of government agencies or the people at large. Political parties are large private lobbying firms for a set of loosely affiliated private interests that promote an agenda and communications expressly triangulated to satisfy both their donor class and voting majority constituencies. They are more like corporations with owners, employees, and clients than any public entity. ..."
    "... Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian. ..."
    "... And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 10:06 AM
    It was only after listening to the Donna Brazile interview that I decided to comment on the hacking because of how wrong that Donna Brazile was in so many ways. What responsibility do you think that the Federal government should have for protecting the data of a private political operation? What legal or regulatory responsibility do you think that the Federal government has towards the protection of data for private civilian entities? The second question is rhetorical only to put the first question in perspective since they are materially exactly the same thing according to law. How difficult do you think it is to avoid exposure of incriminating or covert E-mails simply by not having such things?
    sglover -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 06:19 PM
    I just can't get past imagining that Donna Brazile is an honest, competent observer at all, and particularly this episode.
    mrrunangun said in reply to im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 11:13 AM
    To whom do US intelligence agencies owe protection against hackers? The DNC was informed that the Russians or someone pretending to be the Russians was on them. To put your political dirty tricks or your apprehensions about the possible discovery of apparent pay-to-play games in your client's foundation in your emails after being warned was just plain foolish.

    The Clintons' venality has been an open secret for 30 years, though Dem-leaning pundits prefer to ignore it or attribute it to the evil right wing conspiracy. From the Arkansas arrangements permitting the purchase of influence by engaging as attorney the wife of the AG or the Governor, the miraculous commodity investment, the Marc Rich and other pardons all stunk.

    HRC was elected senator from NY despite that. That the Clinton Foundation and its generous support for Clinton political operators might be a pay-to-play operation was not a surprise to longtime observers. I thought it was admirably bold and clever myself. Nobody else has been able to organize a tax-exempt political slush fund under personal control except even in Illinois where we have a lot of smart lawyers in politics. I suspect we will see a lot more political slush funds disguised as foundations in the future.

    DeDude -> mrrunangun... , December 18, 2016 at 12:14 PM
    If it wasn't that none of what you write has any connection to the fact; it sounds good. What right wing website did you copy-paste it from?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to mrrunangun... , December 18, 2016 at 11:52 AM
    THANKS! We better get used to Republicans, at least until they "d'oh" their way out of political power just like the Democrats did. Democrats will never get it back on their own.

    DeDude -> im1dc..., December 18, 2016 at 11:52 AM

    I think there was a serious lack of IT competence in the DNC playing a big role. One being with the obvious incompetence of their cyber-security contractor and another the lack of supervision or procedures set for this person:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

    I agree that the procedures and rules at the FBI could have been much better. Why the FBI agent didn't (or maybe (s)he did) send the information up higher in the chain (all the way to the President) is a bit of a mystery. Hacking of one of our two major parties should have been Presidential level info, or at least cabinet level.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    How about the possibility of not even having any E-mails incriminating Democrats of political corruption? Would that have been to hard? I am not saying that they should not be corrupt, just don't put it in an E-mail for Christ's sake.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:37 PM
    [Interesting that Putin is the bad guy here for exposing the behavior of the DNC. Why so much talk of Russians and so little talk of what was in those Emails?]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

    2016 Democratic National Committee email leak

    The 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak is a collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to and subsequently published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016. This collection included 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the DNC, the governing body of the United States' Democratic Party.[1] The leak includes emails from seven key DNC staff members, and date from January 2015 to May 2016.[2] The leak prompted the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz before the Democratic National Convention.[3] After the convention, DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda also resigned in the wake of the controversy.[4]

    WikiLeaks did not reveal its source; a self-styled hacker going by the moniker Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility for the attack. On July 25, 2016, the FBI announced that it would investigate the hack[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The same day, the DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters, stating, "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," and that the emails did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."[12] On November 6, 2016, WikiLeaks released a second batch of DNC emails, adding 8,263 emails to its collection.[13]

    On December 9, 2016, the CIA told U.S. legislators that the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russia conducted operations during the 2016 U.S. election to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency.[14] Multiple U.S intelligence agencies concluded people with direct ties to the Kremlin gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee...

    ...Bernie Sanders' campaign

    In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign.[45] The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary-after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory-but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage."[46]

    In a May 2016 email chain, the DNC chief financial officer (CFO) Brad Marshall told the DNC chief executive officer, Amy Dacy, that they should have someone from the media ask Sanders if he is an atheist prior to the West Virginia primary.[46][47] In another email, Wasserman Schultz said of Bernie Sanders, "He isn't going to be president."[45]

    On May 21, 2016, DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach sent an email to DNC Spokesman Luis Miranda mentioning a controversy that ensued in December 2015 when the National Data Director of the Sanders campaign and three subordinate staffers accessed the Clinton campaign's voter information on the NGP VAN database.[48] (The party accused Sanders' campaign of impropriety and briefly limited their access to the database. The Sanders campaign filed suit for breach of contract against the DNC; they dropped the suit on April 29, 2016.)[47][49][50] Paustenbach suggested that the incident could be used to promote a "narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never had his act together, that his campaign was a mess." (The suggestion was rejected by the DNC.) [46][47] The Washington Post wrote: "Paustenbach's suggestion, in that way, could be read as a defense of the committee rather than pushing negative information about Sanders. But this is still the committee pushing negative information about one of its candidates."...

    ...Financial and donor information

    The New York Times wrote that the cache included "thousands of emails exchanged by Democratic officials and party fund-raisers, revealing in rarely seen detail the elaborate, ingratiating and often bluntly transactional exchanges necessary to harvest hundreds of millions of dollars from the party's wealthy donor class. The emails capture a world where seating charts are arranged with dollar totals in mind, where a White House celebration of gay pride is a thinly disguised occasion for rewarding wealthy donors and where physical proximity to the president is the most precious of currencies."[60] As is common in national politics, large party donors "were the subject of entire dossiers, as fund-raisers tried to gauge their interests, annoyances and passions."[60]

    In a series of email exchanges in April and May 2016, DNC fundraising staff discussed and compiled a list of people (mainly donors) who might be appointed to federal boards and commissions.[61] Center for Responsive Politics senior fellow Bob Biersack noted that this is a longstanding practice in the United States: "Big donors have always risen to the top of lists for appointment to plum ambassadorships and other boards and commissions around the federal landscape."[61] The White House denied that financial support for the party was connected to board appointments, saying: "Being a donor does not get you a role in this administration, nor does it preclude you from getting one. We've said this for many years now and there's nothing in the emails that have been released that contradicts that."...

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:41 PM
    That does not make Putin a good guy. I was not a fan of Snowden's either. But it is easier for me to avoid incriminating myself in Emails than it is to get a foreign leader half way around the world to not expose my self-incrimination if it is in his self-interest to do so and he has the resources to do so.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:52 PM
    We also need to think about what political parties actually are. Then are not government agencies or acting on behalf of government agencies or the people at large. Political parties are large private lobbying firms for a set of loosely affiliated private interests that promote an agenda and communications expressly triangulated to satisfy both their donor class and voting majority constituencies. They are more like corporations with owners, employees, and clients than any public entity.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 12:53 PM
    I probably should have said investors instead of owners to be more precise.
    DeDude -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 01:20 PM
    So a bunch of nothing burgers about how the sausage is made. You don't say that there is actually people in the DNC that have their own personal favorite among the primary candidates - shocking??? And campaign donations in exchange for the ability to gain influence -- almost half a chocking as the K-Street project - and a quarter as shocking as the revelation that donating to the Clinton foundation could NOT give the donors what they wanted from the State Department (what an absurdly incompetent scheme of corruption - how could we let her run the gobinment).

    I am sure that the Russian governments hack of the GOP didn't find anything like that - and that's the reason they didn't make those emails public.

    The general advice that you should not send anything by email that you don't want the public to know should have been headed by all involved. Maybe the DNC could learn from Hillary - who had > 30K emails examined and not a single one where she had said anything not good for public consumption.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude... , December 18, 2016 at 02:38 PM
    "...Maybe the DNC could learn from Hillary - who had > 30K emails examined and not a single one where she had said anything not good for public consumption."

    [Now you are starting to come around.

    NO, I did not find anything in the Emails shocking. None of it was a surprise at all to me. However, it was enough for a lot of other people to be influenced in their voting (likely to stay home and maybe it helped the Green Party get a few more votes), otherwise no one would care that they were hacked.

    Observer's comment just down thread shows that he got it. Now he was not a Hillary supporter and more likely than not a Libertarian of sorts, but the principle here is universal, simple risk management where there was nothing to be gained and everything to lose.

    Also, going to war over the hacked Emails of any political party is probably off the table:<) Where Hillary made a mistake was making an enemy that had one of the worlds most aggressive state sponsored internet hacking programs (China and the US being the only ones that are more capable, but still less aggressive and more covert).]

    im1dc -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , December 18, 2016 at 05:18 PM
    You have exhaustively proven that there was no crime or wrong doing committed by the DNC or Hillary. Thanks. You have provided evidence that politics is politics and like sausage making you don't want to actually see it up close and personal.

    Nothing here, nothing at all.

    Except for Marshall McLuhan's observation that the media is the message. In this case the Russian leaked emails to Assange lead Wikileaks calculated to dribble out over the months and weeks before the November election to suggest there were illegalities and criminal behavior being covered up by Hillary and the DNC at EXACTLY the same time Donald Trump is jetting around the country telling everybody who listened that the election was rigged, Hillary is a crook, and the MSM was out to get him.

    Wow, how did you miss that and the implications derived from it?

    likbez -> im1dc... , December 18, 2016 at 05:41 PM
    Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider?

    One DNC staffer, 27-year-old Seth Rich, the DNC's director of voter expansion, was killed around this time in pretty strange circumstances. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/12/democratic-national-committee-staffer-shot-and-killed-in-washington.html

    Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian.

    http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-wikileaks-figure-says-insider-russia-hack/

    Or it can come from a dissident within the US agency that did have access to all emails.

    Do you remember such a person as Edward Snowden ? It might be very educational for you to read his opinion about this case:

    While he is highly critical of Wikileaks, he suggests that without NSA coming forward with hard data obtained via special program that uncover multiple levels of indirection, those charges are just propaganda and insinuations.

    And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels. Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to implicate a wrong party.

    As in any complex case you should not jump to conclusions so easily.

    ilsm -> im1dc... , -1
    Nothing Ron says is clearing. The e-mail thing is about safeguarding and preserving public records. The content of mishandled records is not an issue.

    The public demanded to know what government does. Congress passed the federal records act. The crime has nothing to do with content.

    That is one felony Comey could complain about justice whitewashing. The elements of friendly information released must never be discussed, that would make the breeches worse. Except in closed, secure rooms with no electronic bugging devices.

    Clinton would have been impeached!

    [Dec 18, 2016] The US medias neo-McCarthyite campaign for war against Russia by Andre Damon

    Notable quotes:
    "... These allegations were followed Wednesday by a press briefing in which White House spokesman Josh Earnest declared that media outfits in the US, in reporting on the Democratic Party emails released by WikiLeaks, "essentially became the arms of Russian intelligence." ..."
    "... Later that day, President Obama threatened to retaliate against Russia, telling National Public Radio, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action and we will." ..."
    "... The Times followed up its inflammatory article with an editorial Thursday all but accusing the president-elect of acting as a Russian agent. ..."
    "... There are bitter and raging conflicts within the state, and a faction of the military-intelligence apparatus is determined that there be no retreat from an aggressive confrontation with Russia. This is connected to anger over the debacle of the CIA-led regime-change operation in Syria. ..."
    "... Bound up with this internecine conflict within the ruling class, there is a concerted effort to politically bludgeon the American people into supporting further military escalation, both in the Middle East and against Russia itself. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    The American population is being subjected to a furious barrage of propaganda by the media and political establishment aimed at paving the way to war.

    The campaign was sharply escalated this week, beginning with Wednesday's publication of a lead article in the New York Times . Based entirely on unnamed sources and flimsy and concocted evidence, it was presented as definitive proof of Russia's hacking of Democratic Party emails and waging of "cyberwar" against the United States.

    These allegations were followed Wednesday by a press briefing in which White House spokesman Josh Earnest declared that media outfits in the US, in reporting on the Democratic Party emails released by WikiLeaks, "essentially became the arms of Russian intelligence."

    On Thursday, Earnest declared that president-elect Trump had encouraged "Russia to hack his opponent because he believed it would help his campaign." Later that day, President Obama threatened to retaliate against Russia, telling National Public Radio, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections, that we need to take action and we will."

    These warmongering comments by the Obama administration were accompanied by editorials in leading US and international newspapers denouncing Trump's accommodative stance toward Russia and clamoring for a more aggressive response to the alleged hacking. News reports, based on unnamed intelligence officials, breathlessly proclaim that Russian President Vladimir Putin directly ordered and oversaw the hacking.

    The Times followed up its inflammatory article with an editorial Thursday all but accusing the president-elect of acting as a Russian agent. "There could be no more 'useful idiot,' to use Lenin's term of art, than an American president who doesn't know he's being played by a wily foreign power," the Times declared. The editorial further defined Russia as "one of our oldest, most determined foreign adversaries," adding, "Kremlin meddling in the 2016 election" justifies "retaliatory measures."

    The declarations by the Times and other media outlets combine all of the noxious elements of 1950s McCarthyism, with capitalist Russia replacing the Soviet Union: hysterical denunciation of "wily" Russia, shameless lying and attacks on domestic opponents as spies, traitors and agents of foreign governments.

    There are bitter and raging conflicts within the state, and a faction of the military-intelligence apparatus is determined that there be no retreat from an aggressive confrontation with Russia. This is connected to anger over the debacle of the CIA-led regime-change operation in Syria. Trump has packed his cabinet with generals and is planning a massive escalation of war, but he has also indicated a preference for greater accommodation with Russia.

    Bound up with this internecine conflict within the ruling class, there is a concerted effort to politically bludgeon the American people into supporting further military escalation, both in the Middle East and against Russia itself.

    The propaganda campaign alleging Russian interference in the US election parallels a related media blitzkrieg claiming that Syrian government troops, backed by Russia, are carrying out massacres as they retake the Syrian city of Aleppo.

    The Times ' lead editorial on Thursday, titled "Aleppo's Destroyers: Assad, Putin, Iran," declares: "After calling on Mr. Assad to 'step aside' in 2011, Mr. Obama was never able to make it happen, and it may never have been in his power to make it happen, at least at a cost acceptable to the American people." The front-page lead of Thursday's Times bemoans the fact that efforts to whip up public support for US military intervention in Syria have "not resonated" as much as previous propaganda campaigns.

    The international press has joined in the hysteria. An op-ed in Germany's Der Spiegel bitterly complains that "Obama sought a diplomatic, not a military solution" to the crisis in Syria. It "made him popular, both in the United States and here [in Germany]," the piece states, but adds that such "self-righteousness is wrong."

    Such media propaganda campaigns are not new. Without exception, they have preceded every bloody military adventure: the attempts to blame Afghanistan for the September 11 terrorist attacks in the run-up to that country's invasion in 2001; the lying claims about "weapons of mass destruction" before the 2003 invasion of Iraq; and the reports of an imminent massacre of civilians in Benghazi that preceded the US bombing and destruction of Libya in 2011.

    The difference now, however, is that this campaign is directed not at a virtually defenseless and impoverished former colony, but at Russia, the world's second-ranked nuclear power. None of the figures carrying out this campaign care to explain how a war against Russia should be fought, how many people will die, and how such a war could avoid a nuclear exchange leading to the destruction of human civilization.

    Behind the banner headlines and vituperative editorials, real steps are being taken to prepare for warfare on a scale not seen for 60 years. Earlier this year, US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley told the Association of the United States Army that the military must prepare for wars against great powers, which will be "very highly lethal, unlike anything our Army has experienced since World War II."

    The campaign that has developed over the past two weeks makes clear what the policy of a Clinton administration would have been. The Democratic Party and its allied media outlets have rooted their opposition to Trump not on the basis of his losing the popular vote by nearly three million ballots, or that he is appointing a cabinet dominated by right-wing, reactionary billionaires, bankers, business executives and generals, but on the charge that he is "soft" on Russia. That is, the Democratic Party has managed to attack Trump from the right.

    Whatever the outcome of the conflict within the state, the American ruling class is preparing for war. The dissolution of the USSR 25 years ago was greeted with enraptured declarations of an era of perpetual peace, in which a world under the unrivaled hegemony of the United States would be free of the wars that plagued mankind in the 20th century. Now, after a quarter century of bloody regional conflicts, the blood-curdling declarations of the press make it clear that a new world war is in the making.

    Among broad sections of workers and young people, there is deep skepticism toward government lies and hostility to war. However, this opposition can find no reflection within any faction of the political establishment. The building of a new anti-war movement, based on the international unity of the working class in opposition to capitalism and all the political parties of the ruling class, is the urgent task.

    Andre Damon

    [Dec 18, 2016] Two more states confirm election hacks traced to US government

    "Oh dear. How are they going to keep their 'Putin did it' story straight if they keep shooting themselves in the foot like this?"
    www.sott.net

    Last week we reported that the State of Georgia had traced an attempted break-in to its voter registration database to none other than the famous Russian government agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

    Now it has been revealed that Kentucky and West Virginia "have confirmed suspected cyberattacks linked to the same U.S. Department of Homeland Security IP address as last month's massive attack in Georgia". There must be some way to blame Moscow:

    While there could be an "innocent" explanation for such attacks (testing network security, for example), the Department of Homeland Security did not inform any of these states - before or after the attacks - that they had been conducted, for security-checking purposes or otherwise. In other words: These states still don't know why DHS targeted, and they're still waiting for an answer:

    In the past week, the Georgia Secretary of State's Office has confirmed 10 separate cyberattacks on its network over the past 10 months that were traced back to DHS addresses.

    "We're being told something that they think they have it figured out, yet nobody's really showed us how this happened," Kemp said. "We need to know."

    He says the new information from the two other states presents even more reason to be concerned.

    "So now this just raises more questions that haven't been answered about this and continues to raise the alarms and concern that I have," Kemp said.
    Georgia's Secretary of State says he has already sent an appeal to the incoming Trump administration, asking for assistance in resolving this bizarre string of cyber attacks.

    Stay tuned.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Revealed! Putin personally hacked DNC from surveillance aircraft with bear on board

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer, journalist and media analyst. She has lived and traveled extensively in the US, Germany, Russia and Hungary. Her byline has appeared at RT, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, The BRICS Post, New Eastern Outlook, Global Independent Analytics and many others. She also works on copywriting and editing projects. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook or at her website www.danielleryan.net. ..."
    Dec 18, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Danielle Ryan
    RT
    Sat, 17 Dec 2016 21:42 UTC Map © Alexey Nikolsky / Reuters Shocking revelations earlier this week as US intelligence officials confirmed with "high confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin was "personally involved" in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

    According to the anonymous sources inside the anonymous US intelligence agency, Putin's objectives were multifaceted, but the whole thing began as a "vendetta" against Hillary Clinton because she said some mean things about him a few times. Putin is also an "immature 12 year-old child," a former US official with links to the defense industry, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed (with high confidence).

    The high level, anonymous and completely trustworthy sources also told a major US news agency that Putin himself had piloted a specially-designed Russian spy plane across the Atlantic to personally direct the still-ongoing hacking operations from the air.

    via GIPHY
    Satellite images seen by a separate anonymous NASA whistleblower are believed to show Putin in the cockpit of the spy plane alongside his co-pilot Boris, a lifelike robotic bear which has been under secret development in the depths of Siberia and has been programmed to attack Putin's enemies on command using a variety of lethal methods.

    The NASA whistleblower did not provide journalists with photographic evidence, but the editors had a chat about it in their morning meeting and concluded that it's probably still true.

    In fact, the American news agency could not verify any of the claims from the officials who commented for the story, but given that their sources used the term "high confidence" they took this to mean the evidence must be "nearly incontrovertible" and relayed the information to the public with this implication. An understandable decision, since, as we all know, only 100 percent factual information is ever released by anonymous intelligence officials.

    Okay, let's rewind. Obviously that bit about the bear and the plane was fake news. And maybe a few other bits, too. But it all demonstrates a point. I've provided you with about the same amount of evidence as NBC has in its story this week claiming Putin personally rigged the US election: I made some allegations, I cited anonymous sources and then I conveyed it to you readers as "nearly incontrovertible" and suggested no further digging or investigation, or even a bit of healthy skepticism, was necessary.

    Journalism is dying

    There was a time when journalists needed more than 'maybes' and 'probablys' before deciding what their sources told them was "incontrovertible" and delivering half-baked conspiracy theories to the public. That time has apparently long gone.

    Imagine for a moment that RT published a story about, oh, let's say Barack Obama personally hacking into Putin's computer. Now imagine the only evidence RT provided was "anonymous FSB officials" and told its readers the story was therefore practically indisputable because these anonymous sources were "confident" in the legitimacy of their secret evidence. Imagine the laughs that would get from sneering Western journalists. Well, that's pretty much exactly what NBC did. And they're not alone. The Washington Post has been at it too, reporting on a "secret" CIA assessment that Russia worked to get Donald Trump elected, quoting anonymous "top officials" and like NBC, providing no evidence.

    Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but for something to be presented to the public as indisputable fact, there must be evidence made available to back it up. Neither the CIA or the FBI have provided any such evidence to the public.

    Perhaps the saddest thing though is having to acknowledge that all our debates over fake news and real news really don't matter because the very people we are told to trust are the people who will most adeptly use the public's concerns over fake news to manipulate them. The CIA, for example, is hardly known for its long history of telling the truth. Its employees are literally trained in the art of deception and disinformation. They are hardly averse to creating a bit of fake news or making up 'evidence' where needed. Anything they say or do can be forgiven once someone utters the words "national security".

    NBC's story claimed Putin not only wanted to embarrass Clinton with the DNC leaks, but to highlight corruption in the American political system; the emails showing, for example, how the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign to ensure Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, would be the Democratic nominee.

    Now, what better way to encourage people to ignore the corruption in the system than to focus their attention on the idea that Putin is the one who told them about it? Are people really reading these stories and convincing themselves that the CIA is the most credible source of public information on what the Russians are doing?

    Clinton's long-shot

    We've been hearing about Russian hacking for months, long before the election results in November, so why the sudden confidence in all this new and secret evidence? Why the new assertions that Putin himself directed the hacking? Look at your calendar. The Electoral College votes on Monday and it may be Clinton's last hope. It's a long shot, but in true Clinton character, she won't go down without a fight to the last gasp. Her best hope is to convince the Electoral College that Trump's win was influenced by a foreign power, is therefore illegitimate and that national security will be at stake if he takes office.

    Amazingly, in the midst of all this, while Clinton's camp is still trying to get her elected through back-door tactics, Obama has pretty much called the election results legitimate .

    Members of the Electoral College are expected to vote the way their states voted, but they are not required to. If Clinton can get enough members to flip their votes, Trump is deprived of the 270 votes he needs to become president. That's what this is really all about - and the media is serving as Clinton's willing accomplice.

    Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer, journalist and media analyst. She has lived and traveled extensively in the US, Germany, Russia and Hungary. Her byline has appeared at RT, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, The BRICS Post, New Eastern Outlook, Global Independent Analytics and many others. She also works on copywriting and editing projects. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook or at her website www.danielleryan.net.

    [Dec 18, 2016] Neocon Panic and Agony

    Dec 18, 2016 | www.unz.com
    There are clear signs that the Neocons running the AngloZionist Empire and its "deep state" are in a state of near panic and their actions indicate they are truly terrified.

    The home front

    One the home front, the Neocons have resorted to every possible dirty trick on the book to try to prevent Donald Trump from ever getting into the White House: they have

    That is truly an amazing development, especially considering how Hillary attacked Trump for not promising to recognize the outcome of the elections. She specifically said that Trump's lack of guarantees to recognize the outcome would threaten the very basis of the stability of the US political system and now she, and her supporters, are doing everything in their power to do just that, to throw the entire electoral process into a major crisis with no clear path towards resolution. Some say that the Democrats are risking a civil war. Considering that several key Republican Congressmen have said they do support the notion of an investigation into the "Russian hackers" fairy tale, I submit that the Republicans are doing exactly the same thing, that this is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, but a "deep state vs The People of the USA" issue.

    Most experts agree that none of these tactics are going to work. So this begs the question of whether the Neocons are stupid, whether they think that they can succeed or what their true objective is.

    My guess is that first and foremost what is taking place now is what always happens when the Neocons run into major trouble: they double down, again. And again. And again. That is one of the key characteristics of their psychological make-up: they cannot accept defeat or, even less so, that they were wrong, so each time reality catches up to their ideological delusions, they automatically double-down. Still, they might rationalize this behavior by a combination of hope that maybe one of these tricks will work, with the strong urge to do as much damage to President-Elect Trump before he actually assumes his office. I would never underestimate the vicious vindictiveness of these people.

    What is rather encouraging is Trump's reaction to all this: after apparently long deliberations he decided to nominate Rex Tillerson as his Secretary of Defense. From a Neocon point of view, if General Michael Flynn was bad, then Tillerson was truly an apocalyptic abomination: the man actually had received the order of " Friend of Russia " from the hands of Vladimir Putin himself!

    Did Trump not realize how provocative this nomination was and how it would be received by the Neocons? Of course he did! That was, on his part, a totally deliberate decision. If so, then this is a very, very good sign.

    I might be mistaken, but I get the feeling that Trump is willing to accept the Neocon challenge and that he will fight back. For example, his reaction to the CIA accusations about Russian hackers was very telling: he reminded everybody that " these are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ". I think that it is now a safe bet to say that as soon as Trump take control heads will roll at the CIA .

    [Sidebar: is it not amazing that the CIA is offering its opinion about some supposed Russian hacking during the elections in the USA? Since when does the CIA have any expertise on what is going on inside the USA? I thought the CIA was only a foreign intelligence agency. And since when does the CIA get involved in internal US politics? Yes, of course, savvy observers of the USA have always known that the CIA was a key player in US politics, but now the Agency apparently does not even mind confirming this openly. I don't think that Trump will have the guts and means to do so but, frankly, he would be much better off completely dissolving the CIA Of course, that could get Trump killed – messing with the Fed and the CIA are two unforgivable crimes in the USA – but then again Trump is already very much at risk anyway, so he might as well strike first].

    One the external front

    On the external front, the big development is the liberation of Aleppo by Syrian forces. In that case again, the Neocons tried to double-down: they made all sorts of totally unsubstantiated claims about executions and atrocities while the BBC, always willing to pick up the correct line, published an article about how much the situation in Aleppo is similar to what took place in Srebrenica . Of course, there is one way in which the events in Aleppo and Srebrenica are similar: in both cases the US-backed Takfiris lost and were defeated by government forces and in both cases the West unleashed a vicious propaganda war to try to turn the military defeat of its proxies into a political victory for itself. In any case, the last-ditch propaganda effort failed and preventing the inevitable and Aleppo was completely liberated.

    ORDER IT NOW

    The Empire did score one success: using the fact that most of the foreign forces allied to the Syrians (Hezbollah, Iranian Pasdaran, Russian Spetsnaz, etc.) were concentrated around Aleppo, the US-backed Takfiris succeeded in breaking the will of the Syrians, many of whom apparently fled in panic, and first surrounded and then eventually reoccupied Palmyra. This will be short lived success as I completely agree with my friend Alexander Mercouris who says that Putin will soon liberate Palmyra once again, but until this happens the reoccupation of Palmyra is rather embarrassing for the Syrians, Iranians and Russians.

    It seems exceedingly unlikely to me that the Daesh movement towards Palmyra was undetected by the various Syrian, Iranian and Russian intelligence agencies (at least once source reports that Russian satellites did detect it) and I therefore conclude that a deliberate decision was made to temporarily sacrifice Palmyra in order to finally liberate Aleppo. Was that the correct call?

    Definitely yes. Contrary to the western propaganda, Aleppo, not Raqqa, has always been the real "capital" of the US backed terrorists. Raqqa is a relatively small town: 220,000+ inhabitants versus 2,000,000+ for Aleppo, making Aleppo about ten times larger than Raqqa. As for tiny Palmyra, its population is 30,000+. So the choice between scrambling to plug the holes in the Syrian defenses around Palmyra and liberating Aleppo was a no-brainer. Now that Aleppo has been liberated, the city has to be secured and major engineering efforts need to be made in order to prepare it for an always possible Takfiri counter-attack. But it is one thing to re-take a small desert town and quite another one to re-take a major urban center. I personally very much doubt that Daesh & Co. will ever be in control of Aleppo again. Some Neocons appear to be so enraged by this defeat that they are now accusing Trump of "backing Iran" (I wish he did!).

    The tiny Palmyra was given a double-function by the Neocon propaganda effort: to eclipse the "Russian" (it was not solely "Russian" at all, but never mind that) victory in Aleppo and to obfuscate the "US" (it was not solely "US" at all, but never mind that) defeat in Mosul. A hard task for the tiny desert city for sure and it is no wonder that this desperate attempt also failed: the US lead coalition in Mosul still looks just about as weak as the Russian lead coalition looks strong in Aleppo.

    Any comparison between these two battles is simply embarrassing for the USA: not only did the US-backed forces fail to liberate Mosul from Daesh & Co. but they have not even full encircled the city or even managed to penetrate beyond its furthest suburbs. There is very little information coming out of Mosul, but after three months of combat the entire operation to liberate Mosul seems to be an abject failure, at least for the time being. I sincerely hope that once Trump takes office he will finally agree to work not only with Russia, but also with Iran, to finally get Daesh out of Mosul. But if Trump delivers on his promise to AIPAC and the rest of the Israel Lobby gang to continue to antagonize and threaten Iran, the US can basically forget any hopes of defeating Daesh in Iraq.

    Our of despair and spite, the US propaganda vilified Russia for the killing of civilians in Aleppo while strenuously avoiding any mention of civilian victims in Mosul. But then, the same propaganda machine which made fun of the color of the smoke coming out of the engines of the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov (suggesting that she was about to break down) had to eat humble pie when it was the US navy's most expensive and newest destroyer, the USS Zumwalt, which broke down in the Panama canal and had to be immobilzed, while the Kuznetsov continued to do a very good job supporting Russian operations in Syria.

    Over and over again, the AngloZionist propaganda machine has failed to obfuscate the embarrassing facts on the ground and it now clearly appears that the entire US policy for the Middle-East is in total disarray and that the Neocons are as clueless as they are desperate.

    The countdown to January 20 th

    It is pretty obvious that the Neocon reign is coming to an end in a climax of incompetence, hysterical finger-pointing, futile attempts at preventing the inevitable and a desperate scramble to conceal the magnitude of the abject failure which Neocon-inspired policies have resulted in. Obama will go down in history as the worst and most incompetent President in US history. As for Hillary, she will be remembered as both the worst US Secretary of State the US and the most inept Presidential candidate ever.

    In light of the fact that the Neocons always failed at everything they attempted, I am inclined to believe that they will probably also fail at preventing Donald Trump from being sworn in. But until January 20 th , 2017 I will be holding my breath in fear of what else these truly demented people could come up with.

    As for Trump, I still can't figure him out. On one hand he nominates Rex Tillerson in what appears to be a deliberate message of defiance against the Neocons, while on the other hand he continues to try to appease the Israel Lobby gang by choosing a rabid Zionist of the worst kind, David M. Friedman, as the next US ambassador to Israel. Even worse then that, Donald Trump still does not appear to be willing to recognize the undeniable fact that the US will never defeat Daesh as long as the anti-Iranian stance of the Neocons is not replaced by a real willingness to engage Iran and accept it as a partner and ally.

    Right now the Trump rhetoric simply makes no sense: he wants to befriend Russia while antagonizing China and he wants to defeat Daesh while threatening Iran again. This is lunacy. Still, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but somebody sure needs to educate him on the geopolitical realities out there before he also end up making a total disaster of US foreign policy.

    And yet, I still have a small hope.

    My hope is that the latest antics of the Neocons will sufficiently aggravate and even enrage Trump to a point where he will give up on his futile attempts at appeasing them. Only by engaging in a systematic policy of " de-neoconization " of the US political establishment will Trump have any hopes of " making America great again ". If Trump's plan is to appease the Neocons long enough from him to be sworn in and have his men approved by Congress – fine. Then he still has a chance of saving the USA from a catastrophic collapse, but only as long as he remains determined to ruthlessly crack down on the Neocons once in power. If his hope is to distract the Neocons by appeasing them on secondary or minor issues, then his efforts are doomed and he will go down the very same road as Obama who, at least superficially, initially appeared to be a non-Neocon candidate and who ended up being a total Neocon puppet (in 2008 the Neocons had placed their bets on McCain and they only infiltrated the Obama Administration once McCain was defeated

    [Dec 17, 2016] You think Putin personally supervised the Yahoo hacking? This could make many people patriotic in a hurry.

    Notable quotes:
    "... this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified. ..."
    "... [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before. ..."
    "... Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz. ..."
    "... It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts. ..."
    "... "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed. ..."
    "... With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press? ..."
    "... I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire. ..."
    "... The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened. ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    pretzelattack , December 16, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified.

    HBE , December 16, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before.

    B1whois , December 16, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    The great sucking pit of need that keeps on giving. when will it abate?

    different clue , December 16, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    They are only hurt at the loss of their beloved Clintron, and are seizing on the Puttin Diddit excuse.

    polecat , December 16, 2016 at 7:45 pm

    Did they happen to offer you some Guyana Kool-Aid with that order of vitriol ?

    Brad , December 16, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    Unfortunately the whole "grief cycle" will get a reboot after next Monday's "Election II".

    The rest of us are to be pissed off that the CIA and Clinton clique have continued to agiprop this.

    Knot Galt , December 16, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    Since the ex-Correct The Record key jockeys are out of a job they have to practice their craft somewhere.

    hunkerdown , December 16, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz.

    auntienene , December 16, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    I don't think I've looked at my yahoo account in 8-10 years and I didn't use their email; just had an address. I don't remember my user name or password. I did get an email from them (to my not-yahoo address) advising of the breach.

    Do I need to do anything at all?

    hunkerdown , December 16, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    auntienene, probably not, but as a general principle it's better to close accounts down properly than to abandon them.

    Tvc15 , December 16, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    I was amazed as I watched a local am news show in Pittsburgh recommend adding your cell phone number in addition to changing your password. Yeah, that's a great idea, maybe my ss# would provide even more security.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 16, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    I use yahoo email. Why should I move? As I understood the breach it was primarily a breach of the personal information used to establish the account. I've already changed my password - did it a couple of days after the breach was reported. I had a security clearance with DoD which requires disclosure of a lot more personal information than yahoo had. The DoD data has been breached twice from two separate servers.

    As far as reading my emails - they may prove useful for phishing but that's about all. I'm not sure what might be needed for phishing beyond a name and email address - easily obtained from many sources I have no control over.

    So - what am I vulnerable to by remaining at yahoo that I'm not already exposed to on a more secure server?

    polecat , December 16, 2016 at 7:53 pm

    You are vulnerable to the knowledge that Marissa Mayer is STILL employed as a high-level corporate twit --

    Lee , December 16, 2016 at 3:05 pm

    It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts.

    Ranger Rick , December 16, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed.

    Pat , December 16, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Yeah, it isn't like Mr. 'We go high' is going to admit our relationship has declined because we have underhandedly tried to isolate and knee cap them for pretty much his entire administration.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 16, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Are you referring to Obama's press conference? If so, I am glad he didn't make a big deal out of the Russian hacking allegations - as in it didn't sound like he planned a retaliation for the fictional event and its fictional consequences. He rose slightly in stature in my eyes - he's almost as tall as a short flea.

    With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press?

    Why is a lameduck messing with the Chinese in the South China sea? What is the point of all the "fake" news hogwash? Is it related to Obama's expression of concern about the safety of the Internet? I can't shake the feeling that something is going on below the surface of these murky waters.

    Susan C , December 16, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire.

    He did respond at one point to a reporter that the hacks from Russia were to the DNC and Podesta but funny how he didn't say HRC emails. Be it as it may, I think what was behind it was HRC really trying to impress all her contributors that Russia really did do her in, see Obama said so, since she must be in hot water over all the money she has collected from foreign governments for pay to play and her donors.

    The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened.

    Pat , December 16, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    Unfortunately the nightly news is focusing on Obama says Russia hacked the DNC and had it in for Clinton!!! He warned them to stay out of the vote! There will be consequences! Russia demands the evidence and then a story about the evidence. (This one might have a few smarter people going "huh, that's it?!?!")

    I do like the some private some public on that consequences and retaliation thing. You either have to laugh or throw up about the faux I've got this and the real self-righteousness. Especially since it is supposedly to remind people we can do it to you. Is there anyone left outside of America who doesn't think they already do do it to anyone Uncle Sam doesn't want in office and even some they do? Mind you I'm not sure how many harried people watching the news are actually going to laugh at that one because they don't know how how much we meddle.

    Knot Galt , December 16, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    Obamameter. ty L. Scofield ;-)

    [Dec 17, 2016] Paul Krugman Useful Idiots Galore

    Notable quotes:
    "... Shorter Paul Krugman: nobody acted more irresponsibly in the last election than the New York Times. ..."
    "... Looks like Putin recruited the NYT, the FBI and the DNC. ..."
    "... Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which is a big shame. ..."
    "... It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in the future. ..."
    "... Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism. ..."
    "... Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs, etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture. ..."
    "... It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want. That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce optimal results. ..."
    "... All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice -- incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people, "We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small 'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves. ..."
    "... Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments today!?! ..."
    "... Unless the Russians or someone else hacked the ballot box machines, it is our own damn fault. ..."
    "... The ship of neo-liberal trade sailed in the mid-2000's. That you don't get that is sad. You can only milk that so far the cow had been milked. ..."
    "... The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.) ..."
    "... The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned, and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until he had no real chance. ..."
    "... The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic elite and their apologists. ..."
    "... The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought. For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion. ..."
    "... Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the message. ..."
    "... It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing? Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate to win this thing than we Democrats did. ..."
    "... The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy much? ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Monetas Tuas Requiro -> kthomas... , December 16, 2016 at 05:10 PM
    The secret story of how American advisers helped Yeltsin win

    http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html

    JohnH -> Dan Kervick... , December 16, 2016 at 11:46 AM
    PK seems to be a bitter old man...
    anne -> sanjait... , December 16, 2016 at 03:08 PM
    Nothing to see here, say the useful idiots.

    [ I find it terrifying, simply terrifying, to refer to people as "useful idiots" after all the personal destruction that has followed when the expression was specifically used in the past.

    To me, using such an expression is an honored economist intent on becoming Joseph McCarthy. ]

    anne -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 03:15 PM
    To demean a person as though the person were a communist or a fool of communists or the like, with all the personal harm that has historically brought in this country, is cruel beyond my understanding or imagining.

    "Useful Idiots Galore," terrifying.

    Necesito Dinero Tuyo -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 05:25 PM
    Dale : , December 16, 2016 at 10:51 AM
    trouble is that his mind reflects an accurate perception of our common reality.
    Procopius -> Dale... , December 17, 2016 at 02:37 AM
    Well, not really. For example he referred to "the close relationship between Wikileaks and Russian intelligence." But Wikileaks is a channel. They don't seek out material. They rely on people to bring material to them. They supposedly make an effort to verify that the material is not a forgery, but aside from that what they release is what people bring to them. Incidentally, like so many people you seem to not care whether the material is accurate or not -- Podesta and the DNC have not claimed that any of the emails are different from what they sent.
    Tom aka Rusty : , December 16, 2016 at 11:06 AM
    PK's head explodes!

    One thought....

    When politicians and business executives and economists cuddle up to the totalitarian Chinese it is viewed as an act of enlightment and progress.

    When someone cuddles up to the authoritarian thug Putin it is an act of evil.

    Seems a bit of a double standard.

    We are going to have to do "business" with both the Chinese and the Russians, whoever is president.

    Ben Groves -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 16, 2016 at 11:07 AM
    Your head should explode considering Trump's deal with the "establishment" in July was brokered by foreign agents.
    ilsm -> Ben Groves... , December 16, 2016 at 04:11 PM
    curiouser and curiouser! while Obama and administration arm jihadis and call its support for jihadis funded by al Qaeda a side in a civil war.

    the looking glass you all went through.

    Trump has more convictions than any democrat

    ... ... ...

    Tom aka Rusty -> kthomas... , December 16, 2016 at 01:36 PM
    In a theatre of the absurd sort of way.
    dilbert dogbert -> Tom aka Rusty... , December 16, 2016 at 12:11 PM
    One thought:
    Only Nixon can go to China.
    anne -> sanjait... , December 16, 2016 at 03:22 PM
    Putin is a murderous thug...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html

    September 22, 2014

    Snap Out of It
    By David Brooks

    President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a lone thug sitting atop a failing regime....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/thomas-friedman-putin-and-the-pope.html

    October 21, 2014

    Putin and the Pope
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-whos-playing-marbles-now.html

    December 20, 2014

    Who's Playing Marbles Now?
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

    December 21, 2014

    Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion
    By Paul Krugman

    Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/thomas-friedman-czar-putins-next-moves.html

    January 27, 2015

    Czar Putin's Next Moves
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger....

    anne -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 03:23 PM
    Putin is a murderous thug...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html

    September 15, 2015

    Obama Weighing Talks With Putin on Syrian Crisis
    By PETER BAKER and ANDREW E. KRAMER

    WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/opinion/mr-putins-mixed-messages-on-syria.html

    September 20, 2015

    Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria

    Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say....

    Gibbon1 -> anne... , December 16, 2016 at 07:15 PM
    > By David Brooks
    > By Thomas L. Friedman
    > By Paul Krugman
    > By Peter Baker and Andrew E. Kramer

    I feel these authors have intentionally attempted to mislead in the past. They also studiously ignore the United States thuggish foreign policy.

    Sandwichman : , December 16, 2016 at 11:06 AM
    "...not acting as if this was a normal election..." The problem is that it WAS a "normal" U.S. election.
    Ben Groves -> Sandwichman ... , December 16, 2016 at 11:09 AM
    Yup, like the other elections, the bases stayed solvent and current events factored into the turnout and voting patterns which spurred the independent vote.
    Gibbon1 -> Ben Groves... , December 16, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    When people were claiming Clinton was going to win big, I thought no Republican and Democratic voters are going to pull the lever like a trained monkey as usual. Only difference in this election was Hillary's huge negatives due entirely by her and Bill Clinton's support for moving manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China in the 90s.
    dilbert dogbert -> Sandwichman ... , December 16, 2016 at 12:13 PM
    I would have thought in a "normal" murika and election, the drumpf would have gotten at most 10 million votes.
    Sandwichman -> dilbert dogbert... , December 16, 2016 at 01:54 PM
    The trouble with normal is it always gets worse.
    Fred C. Dobbs : , December 16, 2016 at 11:08 AM
    To Understand Trump, Learn Russian http://nyti.ms/2hLcrB1
    NYT - Andrew Rosenthal - December 15

    The Russian language has two words for truth - a linguistic quirk that seems relevant to our current political climate, especially because of all the disturbing ties between the newly elected president and the Kremlin.

    The word for truth in Russian that most Americans know is "pravda" - the truth that seems evident on the surface. It's subjective and infinitely malleable, which is why the Soviet Communists called their party newspaper "Pravda." Despots, autocrats and other cynical politicians are adept at manipulating pravda to their own ends.

    But the real truth, the underlying, cosmic, unshakable truth of things is called "istina" in Russian. You can fiddle with the pravda all you want, but you can't change the istina.

    For the Trump team, the pravda of the 2016 election is that not all Trump voters are explicitly racist. But the istina of the 2016 campaign is that Trump's base was heavily dependent on racists and xenophobes, Trump basked in and stoked their anger and hatred, and all those who voted for him cast a ballot for a man they knew to be a racist, sexist xenophobe. That was an act of racism.

    Trump's team took to Twitter with lightning speed recently to sneer at the conclusion by all 17 intelligence agencies that the Kremlin hacked Democratic Party emails for the specific purpose of helping Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton. Trump said the intelligence agencies got it wrong about Iraq, and that someone else could have been responsible for the hack and that the Democrats were just finding another excuse for losing.

    The istina of this mess is that powerful evidence suggests that the Russians set out to interfere in American politics, and that Trump, with his rejection of Western European alliances and embrace of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, was their chosen candidate.

    The pravda of Trump's selection of Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil, as secretary of state is that by choosing an oil baron who has made billions for his company by collaborating with Russia, Trump will make American foreign policy beholden to American corporate interests.

    That's bad enough, but the istina is far worse. For one thing, American foreign policy has been in thrall to American corporate interests since, well, since there were American corporations. Just look at the mess this country created in Latin America, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia and the Middle East to serve American companies.

    Yes, Tillerson has ignored American interests repeatedly, including in Russia and Iraq, and has been trying to remove sanctions imposed after Russia's seizure of Crimea because they interfered with one of his many business deals. But take him out of the equation in the Trump cabinet and nothing changes. Trump has made it plain, with every action he takes, that he is going to put every facet of policy, domestic and foreign, at the service of corporate America. The istina here is that Tillerson is just a symptom of a much bigger problem.

    The pravda is that Trump was right in saying that the intelligence agencies got it wrong about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction.

    But the istina is that Trump's contempt for the intelligence services is profound and dangerous. He's not getting daily intelligence briefings anymore, apparently because they are just too dull to hold his attention.

    And now we know that Condoleezza Rice was instrumental in bringing Tillerson to Trump's attention. As national security adviser and then secretary of state for president George W. Bush, Rice was not just wrong about Iraq, she helped fabricate the story that Hussein had nuclear weapons.

    Trump and Tillerson clearly think they are a match for the wily and infinitely dangerous Putin, but as they move foward with their plan to collaborate with Russia instead of opposing its imperialist tendencies, they might keep in mind another Russian saying, this one from Lenin.

    "There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience," he wrote. "A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel."

    Putin has that philosophy hard-wired into his political soul. When it comes to using scoundrels to get what he wants, he is a professional, and Trump is only an amateur. That is the istina of the matter.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 11:25 AM
    If nothing else, Russia - with a notably un-free press - has shrewdly used our own 'free press' against US.

    RUSSIA'S UNFREE PRESS

    The Boston Globe - Marshall Goldman - January 29, 2001

    AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DEBATES ITS POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS SHOULD BE ONE OF ITS MAJOR CONCERNS. UNDER PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN THE PRESS IS FREE ONLY AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT CRITICIZE PUTIN OR HIS POLICIES. WHEN NTV, THE TELEVISION NETWORK OF THE MEDIA GIANT MEDIA MOST, REFUSED TO PULL ITS PUNCHES, MEDIA MOST'S OWNER, VLADIMIR GUSINSKY, FOUND HIMSELF IN JAIL, AND GAZPROM, A COMPANY DOMINATED BY THE STATE, BEGAN TO CALL IN LOANS TO MEDIA MOST. Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people. They crave a strong and forceful leader; his KGB past and conditioned KGB responses are just what they seem to want after what many regard as the social, political, and economic chaos of the last decade.

    But what to the Russians is law and order (the "dictatorship of the law," as Putin has so accurately put it) looks more and more like an old Soviet clampdown to many Western observers.

    There is no complaint about Putin's promises. He tells everyone he wants freedom of the press. But in the context of his KGB heritage, his notion of freedom of the press is something very different. In an interview with the Toronto Globe and Mail, he said that that press freedom excludes the "hooliganism" or "uncivilized" reporting he has to deal with in Moscow. By that he means criticism, especially of his conduct of the war in Chechnya, his belated response to the sinking of the Kursk, and the heavy-handed way in which he has pushed aside candidates for governor in regional elections if they are not to Putin's liking.

    He does not take well to criticism. When asked by the relatives of those lost in the Kursk why he seemed so unresponsive, Putin tried to shift the blame for the disaster onto the media barons, or at least those who had criticized him. They were the ones, he insisted, who had pressed for reduced funding for the Navy while they were building villas in Spain and France. As for their criticism of his behavior, They lie! They lie! They lie!

    Our Western press has provided good coverage of the dogged way Putin and his aides have tried to muscle Gusinsky out of the Media Most press conglomerate he created. But those on the Putin enemies list now include even Boris Berezovsky, originally one of Putin's most enthusiastic promoters who after the sinking of the Kursk also became a critic and thus an opponent.

    Gusinsky would have a hard time winning a merit badge for trustworthiness (Berezovsky shouldn't even apply), but in the late Yeltsin and Putin years, Gusinsky has earned enormous credit for his consistently objective news coverage, including a spotlight on malfeasance at the very top. More than that, he has supported his programmers when they have subjected Yeltsin and now Putin to bitter satire on Kukly, his Sunday evening prime-time puppet show.

    What we hear less of, though, is what is happening to individual reporters, especially those engaged in investigative work. Almost monthly now there are cases of violence and intimidation. Among those brutalized since Putin assumed power are a reporter for Radio Liberty who dared to write negative reports about the Russian Army's role in Chechnia and four reporters for Novaya Gazeta. Two of them were investigating misdeeds by the FSB (today's equivalent of the KGB), including the possibility that it rather than Chechins had blown up a series of apartment buildings. Another was pursuing reports of money-laundering by Yeltsin family members and senior staff in Switzerland. Although these journalists were very much in the public eye, they were all physically assaulted.

    Those working for provincial papers labor under even more pressure with less visibility. There are numerous instances where regional bosses such as the governor of Vladivostok operate as little dictators, and as a growing number of journalists have discovered, challenges are met with threats, physical intimidation, and, if need be, murder.

    True, freedom of the press in Russia is still less than 15 years old, and not all the country's journalists or their bosses have always used that freedom responsibly. During the 1996 election campaign, for example, the media owners, including Gusinsky conspired to denigrate or ignore every viable candidate other than Yeltsin. But attempts to muffle if not silence criticism have multiplied since Putin and his fellow KGB veterans have come to power. Criticism from any source, be it an individual journalist or a corporate entity, invites retaliation.

    When Media Most persisted in its criticism, Putin sat by approvingly as his subordinates sent in masked and armed tax police and prosecutors. When that didn't work, they jailed Gusinsky on charges that were later dropped, although they are seeking to extradite and jail him again. along with his treasurer, on a new set of charges. Yesterday the prosecutor general summoned Tatyana Mitkova, the anchor of NTV's evening news program, for questioning. Putin's aides are also doing all they can to prevent Gusinsky from refinancing his debt-ridden operation with Ted Turner or anyone else in or outside of the country.

    According to one report, Putin told one official, You deal with the shares, debts, and management and I will deal with the journalists. His goal simply is to end to independent TV coverage in Russia. ...

    (No link; from their archives.)

    DeDude -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 11:33 AM
    "Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people"

    Exactly; the majority of people are so stupid and/or lazy that they cannot be bothered understanding what is going on; and how their hard won democracy is being subjugated. But thank God that is in Russia not here in the US - right?

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 11:45 AM
    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2001-02-07/html/CREC-2001-02-07-pt1-PgE133-4.htm

    February 7, 2001

    Russia's Unfree Press
    By Marshall I. Goldman

    Watermelonpunch -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 16, 2016 at 04:55 PM
    "Infinitely dangerous" As in the event horizon of a black hole, for pity's sake?

    Odd choice of words. Should there have been a "more" in between there? Was it a typo?

    cm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , December 17, 2016 at 03:42 PM
    "Pravda" is etymologically derived from "prav-" which means "right" (as opposed to "left", other connotations are "proper", "correct", "rightful", also legal right). It designates the social-construct aspect of "righteousness/truthfulness/correctness" as opposed to "objective reality" (conceptually independent of social standards, in reality anything but). In formal logic, "istina" is used to designate truth. Logical falsity is designated a "lie".

    It is a feature common to most European languages that rightfulness, righteousness, correctness, and legal rights are identified with the designation for the right side. "Sinister" is Latin for "left".

    Ben Groves : , December 16, 2016 at 11:18 AM
    If you believe 911 was a Zionist conspiracy, so where the Paris attacks of November 2015, when Trump was failing in the polls as the race was moving toward as you would expect, toward other candidates. After the Paris attacks, his numbers reaccelerated.

    If "ZOG" created the "false flag" of the Paris attacks to start a anti-Muslim fervor, they succeeded, much like 911. Bastille day attacks were likewise, a false flag. This is not new, this goes back to when the aristocracy merged with the merchant caste, creating the "bourgeois". They have been running a parallel government in the shadows to effect what is seen.

    cm -> sanjait... , December 17, 2016 at 03:46 PM
    There used to be something called Usenet News, where at the protocol level reader software could fetch meta data (headers containing author, (stated) origin, title, etc.) independently from comment bodies. This was largely owed to limited download bandwidth. Basically all readers had "kill files" i.e. filters where one could configure that comments with certain header parameters should not be downloaded, or even hidden.
    cm -> cm... , December 17, 2016 at 03:48 PM
    The main application was that the reader would download comments in the background when headers were already shown, or on demand when you open a comment.

    Now you get the whole thing (or in units of 100) by the megabyte.

    tew : , December 16, 2016 at 11:19 AM
    A major problem is signal extraction out of the massive amounts of noise generated by the media, social media, parties, and pundits.

    It's easy enough to highlight this thread of information here, but in real time people are being bombarded by so many other stories.

    In particular, the Clinton Foundation was also regularly being highlighted for its questionable ties to foreign influence. And HRC's extravagant ties to Wall St. And so much more.

    And there is outrage fatigue.

    Ben Groves -> DeDude... , December 16, 2016 at 11:34 AM
    The media's job was to sell Trump and denounce Clinton. The mistake a lot of people make is thinking the global elite are the "status quo". They are not. They are generally the ones that break the status quo more often than not.

    The bulk of them wanted Trump/Republican President and made damn sure it was President. Buffering the campaign against criticism while overly focusing on Clinton's "crap". It took away from the issues which of course would have low key'd the election.

    cm -> DeDude... , December 17, 2016 at 03:55 PM
    Not much bullying has to be applied when there are "economic incentives". The media attention economy and ratings system thrive on controversy and emotional engagement. This was known a century ago as "only bad news is good news". As long as I have lived, the non-commercial media not subject (or not as much) to these dynamics have always been perceived as dry and boring.

    I heard from a number of people that they followed the campaign "coverage" (in particular Trump) as gossip/entertainment, and those were people who had no sympathies for him. And even media coverage by outlets generally critical of Trump's unbelievable scandals and outrageous performances catered to this sentiment.

    Jim Harrison : , December 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM
    Shorter Paul Krugman: nobody acted more irresponsibly in the last election than the New York Times.
    Sandwichman -> Jim Harrison ... , December 16, 2016 at 11:53 AM
    Looks like Putin recruited the NYT, the FBI and the DNC.
    DrDick -> Sandwichman ... , December 16, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    Nah, Wall Street and the GOP recruited them to the effort.
    Sandwichman -> DrDick... , December 16, 2016 at 01:57 PM
    GOP included in FBI. Wall Street included in DNC, GOP. It's all just one big FBIDNCGOPCNNWSNYT.
    sanjait -> Jim Harrison ... , December 16, 2016 at 03:06 PM
    He can't say it out loud but you know he's including the NYT on his list of UIs.
    tew : , December 16, 2016 at 11:26 AM
    Let me also add some levelheaded thoughts:

    First, let me disclose that I detest TRUMP and that the Russian meddling has me deeply concerned. Yet...

    We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence. We do not know whether it likely had *material* influence that could have reasonably led to a swing state(s) going to TRUMP that otherwise would have gone to HRC.

    Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which is a big shame.

    It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in the future.

    DrDick -> tew... , December 16, 2016 at 11:56 AM
    It is quite clear that the Russians intervened on Trump's behalf and that this intervention had an impact. The problem is that we cannot actually quantify that impact.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?pushid=breaking-news_1481916265&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.25d35c017908

    Sandwichman -> tew... , December 16, 2016 at 01:17 PM
    "We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence."

    Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism.

    Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs, etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture.

    cm -> Sandwichman ... , December 17, 2016 at 04:00 PM
    But this is how influence is exerted - by using the dynamics of the adversary's/targets organization as an amplifier. Hierarchical organizations are approached through their management or oversight bodies, social networks through key influencers, etc.
    David : , December 16, 2016 at 11:58 AM
    I see this so much and it's so right wing cheap: I hate Trump, but assertions that Russia intervened are unproven.

    First, Trump openly invited Russia to hack DNC emails. That is on its face treason and sedition. It's freaking on video. If HRC did that there would be calls of the right for her execution.

    Second, a NYT story showed that the FBI knew about the hacking but did not alert the DNC properly - they didn't even show up, they sent a note to a help desk.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fbi-probe-dnc-hacked-emails_us_57a19f22e4b08a8e8b601259

    This was a serious national security breach that was not addressed properly. This is criminal negligence.

    This was a hacked election by collusion of the FBI and the Russian hackers and it totally discredits the FBI as it throwed out chum and then denied at the last minute. Now the CIA comes in and says PUTIN, Trump's bff, was directly involved in manipulating the timetable that the hacked emails were released in drip drip form to cater to the media - creating story after story about emails.

    It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway.

    sglover -> David... , December 16, 2016 at 02:50 PM
    "It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway."

    It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want. That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce optimal results.

    All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice -- incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people, "We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small 'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves.

    Trump and his gang will be deeply grateful if the left follows Krugman's "wisdom", and clings to his ever-changing excuses. (I thought it was the evil Greens who deprived Clinton of her due?)

    100panthers : , December 16, 2016 at 02:17 PM
    Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments today!?!
    ilsm -> 100panthers... , December 16, 2016 at 04:29 PM
    Obama and the Clintons are angered; Russia keeping US from giving Syria to al Qaeda. Like Clinton gave them Libya.
    Jerry Brown -> sanjait... , December 16, 2016 at 04:46 PM
    I agree. Unless the Russians or someone else hacked the ballot box machines, it is our own damn fault.
    ilsm : , December 16, 2016 at 04:27 PM
    the US media is angered putin is killing US' jihadis in Syria
    Mr. Bill : , December 16, 2016 at 08:27 PM
    "On Wednesday an editorial in The Times described Donald Trump as a "useful idiot" serving Russian interests." I think that is beyond the pale. Yes, I realize that Adolph Hitler was democratically elected. I agree that Trump seems like a scary monster under the bed. That doesn't mean we have too pee our pants, Paul. He's a bully, tough guy, maybe, the kind of kid that tortured you before you kicked the shit out of them with your brilliance. That's not what is needed now.
    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 16, 2016 at 08:39 PM
    What really is needed, is a watchdog, like Dean Baker, that alerts we dolts of pending bills and their ramifications. The ship of neo-liberal trade bullshit has sailed. Hell, you don't believe it yourself, you've said as much. Be gracious, and tell the truth. We can handle it.
    Ben Groves -> Mr. Bill... , December 16, 2016 at 09:51 PM
    The ship of neo-liberal trade sailed in the mid-2000's. That you don't get that is sad. You can only milk that so far the cow had been milked.

    Trump was a coo, he was not supported by the voters. But by the global elite.

    Mr. Bill : , December 16, 2016 at 10:28 PM
    Hillary Clinton lost because she is truly an ugly aristocrat.
    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 16, 2016 at 11:49 PM
    The experience of voting for the Hill was painful, vs Donald Trump.

    The Hill seemed like the least likely aristocrat, given two choices, to finish off all government focus on the folks that actually built this society. Two Titans of Hubris, Hillary vs Donald, each ridiculous in the concept of representing the interests of the common man.

    At the end of the day. the American people decided that the struggle with the unknown monster Donald was worth deposing the great deplorable, Clinton.

    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 17, 2016 at 12:11 AM
    The real argument is whether the correct plan of action is the way of FDR, or the way of the industrialists, the Waltons, the Kochs, the Trumps, the Bushes and the outright cowards like the Cheneys and the Clintons, people that never spent a day defending this country in combat. What do they call it, the Commander in Chief.
    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 17, 2016 at 12:29 AM
    My father was awarded a silver and a bronze star for his efforts in battle during WW2. He was shot in the face while driving a tank destroyer by a German sniper in a place called Schmitten Germany.

    He told me once, that he looked over at the guy next to him on the plane to the hospital in England, and his intestines were splayed on his chest. It was awful.

    Mr. Bill -> Mr. Bill... , December 17, 2016 at 12:55 AM
    What was he fighting for ? Freedom, America. Then the Republicans, Ronald Reagan, who spent the war stateside began the real war, garnering the wealth of the nation to the entitled like him. Ronald Reagan was a life guard.
    btg : , December 16, 2016 at 11:09 PM
    Other idiots...

    Anthony Weiner
    Podesta
    Biden (for not running)
    Tim Kaine (for accepting the nomination instead of deferring to a latino)
    CNN and other TV news media (for giving trump so much coverage- even an empty podium)
    Donna Brazile
    etc.

    greg : , December 16, 2016 at 11:57 PM
    The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.)

    The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned, and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until he had no real chance.

    The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic elite and their apologists.

    The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought. For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion.

    The wealthy brought this on. For 230 years they have, essentially run this country. They are too stupid to be satisfied with enough, but always want more.

    The economics profession brought this on, by excusing treasonous behavior as efficient, and failing to understand the underlying principles of their profession, and the limits of their understanding. (They don't even know what money is, or how a trade deficit destroys productive capacity, and thus the very ability of a nation to pay back the debts it incurs.)

    The people brought this on, by neglecting their duty to be informed, to be educated, and to be thoughtful.

    Anybody else care for their share of blame? I myself deserve some, but for reasons I cannot say.

    What amazes me now is, the bird having shown its feathers, there is no howl of outrage from the people who voted for him. Do they imagine that the Plutocrats who will soon monopolize the White House will take their interests to heart?

    As far as I can tell, not one person of 'the people' has been appointed to his cabinet. Not one. But the oppressed masses who turned to Mr Trump seem to be OK with this.
    I can only wonder, how much crap will have to be rubbed in their faces, before they awaken to the taste of what it is?

    Eric377 : , -1
    Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the message.

    It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing? Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate to win this thing than we Democrats did.

    Greg -> Eric377... , December 17, 2016 at 12:11 PM
    Well said, Eric377.

    The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy much?

    This has made me cynical. I used to think that at least *some* members of the US political elite had the best interests of ordinary households in mind, but now I see that it's just ego vs. ego, whatever the party.

    As for democracy being on the edge: I believe Adam Smith over Krugman: "there is a lot of ruin in a nation". It takes more than this to overturn an entrenched institution.

    I think American democracy will survive a decade of authoritarianism, and if it does not, then H. L. Mencken said it best: "The American people know what they want, and they deserve to get it -- good and hard."

    [Dec 17, 2016] Obama, The Divider in Chief, Invokes Reagan 'Rolling Over in His Grave' in Attempt to Shame Republicans into Hating Putin

    Dec 17, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    The agitprop out of the White House isn't working these days, thanks to the advent of fake news of course. Following weeks of hysteria, following Donald J. Trump's triumphant victory of Hillary Clinton and Obama's legacy, Obama took to the podium for one last time to divide Americans -- this time invoking the revered late President Ronald Reagan -- saying he'd be 'rolling over in his grave' now had he known that over a third of republicans approve of Putin in some random poll.

    If Obama truly wants to know why Americans are willing to accept the words of Putin, undoubtedly a strong man leader, over his -- he should take a look in the mirror and then gander over to his computer to re-read all of the Wikileaks from John Podesta's email that Putin so graciously made available to us all. They speak volumes about the corruptness and the rot permeating in our capitol. Even without the emails, we see the neocon strategy of persistent war and deceit hollowing out this nation -- devouring its resources, emptying its treasury, and there is nothing redeeming about it.

    During the press conference, Obama provided his media with incontrovertible evidence that Russia was behind the WikiLeaks, saying 'not much happens in Russia without Putin's approval.'

    Russia has a land mass of 6,592,800 sq miles and Putin controls every single inch of it. This is retard level thinking.

    Moreover, Obama says he told Putin to 'cut it out' when he last saw him in China, warning him of serious consequences. Luckily for us, Putin got scared and ceased all further hackings. However, the damage had already been done and the Wikileaks released.

    I suppose this type of lazy thinking appeals to a certain subset of America, else why would he make such infantile statements?

    The Divider in Chief, one last time reminding himself and the press that XENOPHOBIA against Russians is good. The Russians are a useless sort, who produce nothing of interest, a very small and weak country, only capable of wiping out the entirety of America 10x over via very large nuclear detonations. Oh, and you pesky republicans love Putin because you're sooo political.

    This is what some might call 'idiotic diplomacy', mocking and deriding a rival nation to the point of war, a war that could exterminate life on planet earth for at least a millennia. Genius.

    Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

    [Dec 17, 2016] Top 11 Russian-Hack Questions the Rogue-Electors Should Ask the CIA The Daily Sheeple

    Notable quotes:
    "... (To read about Jon's mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix , click here .) ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | www.thedailysheeple.com
    Assuming these "rogue-Electors" from the Electoral College get a briefing on the "Russian election-hack" from the CIA , and assuming the Electors have a few working brain cells, and assuming they care, here are the top 11 questions they should ask the CIA presenter.

    Questions One through Three (repeated with enthusiasm and fervor): Are you just going to feed us generalities and tell us you can't detail specifics because that would compromise your methods and personnel? We can read the generalities in the Washington Post, whose owner, Jeff Bezos, chief honcho at Amazon, has a $600 million contract with the CIA to provide cloud computing services, so he and the Post and the CIA are in bed together.

    Question Four: We need a precise distinction here. How did "Russia hacked the DNC, Hillary, Podesta, and Weiner emails and fed the emails to WikiLeaks who released them" suddenly morph into "Russia hacked the election vote"?

    Question Five: The security systems that protected the DNC, Hillary, Podesta, and Weiner emails were so feeble a child could have gotten past them in a few minutes. Why should we assume high-level Russian agents were involved?

    Question Six: Not only does the CIA have a history of lying to the American people, lying is part of your job description. Why should we believe you? Take your time. We can have food brought in.

    Question Seven: We're getting the feeling you're talking down to us as if we're the peasants and you're the feudal barons. Why is that? Do you work for us, or do we work for you? Once upon a time, before you went to work for the Agency, were you like us, or were you always arrogant and dismissive?

    Question Eight: Let's put aside for a moment the question of who leaked all those emails. What about the substance and content of the emails? Was all that forged or was it real? If you claim there was forgery, prove it. Put a dozen emails up on that big screen and take us through them, piece by piece, and show us where and how the forgery occurred. By the way, why didn't you allow us to bring several former NSA analysts into this briefing? Are we living in the US or the USSR?

    Question Nine: Are you personally a computer expert, sir? Or are you merely relaying what someone else at the CIA told you? Would you spell your name for us again? What is your job description at the Agency? Do you work in public information? Are you tasked with "being convincing"?

    Question Ten: Do you think we're completely stupid?

    Question Eleven: Let's all let our hair down, okay? Forget facts and specifics. Of course we want to overthrow the election and install Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office. So do you. We're on the same team. But we need you to give us something, anything. So far, this briefing is embarrassing. Once we get out of here, we want to tell a few persuasive lies. Give us a Russian name, any name. Or a location in Russia we can use. The brand name of a Russian vodka. Caviar. Something that sounds Russian. Make up a code with letters and numbers. Help us out. How about the name of an American who who's actually a Russian spy? You could shoot him later today in a "gun battle at a shopping mall." That would work.

    Good luck.

    (To read about Jon's mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix , click here .)

    Related Reads

    Someone Just Officially Called the CIA's Bluff over Russia

    National Intelligence Office: 'We Won't Say the CIA Is Wrong, But They Can't Prove Russian Intent to Tamper with the Election'

    Wow: Now US Officials and Mainstream Media Claim Putin PERSONALLY Involved in Election Hacks

    Russian Narrative Falls Apart – Wikileaks Operative Claims Clinton Emails Handed Over By "Disgusted" Democrat Whistleblowers

    "Sorry, I Meant Russia": Watch WH Press Secretary Josh Earnest "Accidentally" Accuse China of Hacking Our Elections

    Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

    We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos ( Click for details ).

    Contributed by Jon Rappoport of No More Fake News .

    The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED , Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.

    [Dec 16, 2016] Questions for the Electors on Russian Hacking by Andrew Cockburn

    Podesta essentially gave up his email due to committed by him blunder: sending his password to the attacker. As such it was far from high-end hacking, which can be attributed to intelligence agencies. It is more like a regular, primitive phishing expedition which became successful due to Podesta blunder. So this is not hacking but phishing expedition... That makes big difference.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The DNC hackers inserted the name of the founder of Russian intelligence, in Russian, in the metadata of the hacked documents. Why would the G.R.U., Russian military intelligence do that? ..."
    "... If the hackers were indeed part of Russian intelligence, why did they use a free Russian email account, or, in the hack of the state election systems, a Russian-owned server? Does Russian intelligence normally display such poor tradecraft? ..."
    "... Why would Russian intelligence, for the purposes of hacking the election systems of Arizona and Illinois, book space on a Russian-owned server and then use only English, as documents furnished by Vladimir Fomenko, proprietor of Kings Servers, the company that owned the server in question, clearly indicate? ..."
    "... Numerous reports ascribe the hacks to hacking groups known as APT 28 or "Fancy Bear" and APT 29 or "Cozy Bear." But these groups had already been accused of nefarious actions on behalf of Russian intelligence prior to the hacks under discussion. Why would the Kremlin and its intelligence agencies select well-known groups to conduct a regime-change operation on the most powerful country on earth? ..."
    "... The joint statement issued by the DNI and DHS on October 7 2016 confirmed that US intelligence had no evidence of official Russian involvement in the leak of hacked documents to Wikileaks, etc, saying only that the leaks were " consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." Has the US acquired any evidence whatsoever since that time regarding Russian involvement in the leaks? ..."
    Dec 14, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org

    It is being reported that John Podesta, Chairman of the defeated $1.2 billion Clinton presidential campaign, is supporting the call by various officials, including at least forty Electors, that the members of the Electoral College be given a classified intelligence briefing on the alleged Russian hacking before the College votes on December 19.

    In the event such a briefing comes to pass, it might be helpful if the Electors had some informed questions to ask the CIA

    1. The DNC hackers inserted the name of the founder of Russian intelligence, in Russian, in the metadata of the hacked documents. Why would the G.R.U., Russian military intelligence do that?
    2. If the hackers were indeed part of Russian intelligence, why did they use a free Russian email account, or, in the hack of the state election systems, a Russian-owned server? Does Russian intelligence normally display such poor tradecraft?
    3. Why would Russian intelligence, for the purposes of hacking the election systems of Arizona and Illinois, book space on a Russian-owned server and then use only English, as documents furnished by Vladimir Fomenko, proprietor of Kings Servers, the company that owned the server in question, clearly indicate?
    4. Numerous reports ascribe the hacks to hacking groups known as APT 28 or "Fancy Bear" and APT 29 or "Cozy Bear." But these groups had already been accused of nefarious actions on behalf of Russian intelligence prior to the hacks under discussion. Why would the Kremlin and its intelligence agencies select well-known groups to conduct a regime-change operation on the most powerful country on earth?
    5. It has been reported in the New York Times , without attribution, that U.S. intelligence has identified specific G.R.U. officials who directed the hacking. Is this true, and if so, please provide details (Witness should be sworn)
    6. The joint statement issued by the DNI and DHS on October 7 2016 confirmed that US intelligence had no evidence of official Russian involvement in the leak of hacked documents to Wikileaks, etc, saying only that the leaks were " consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." Has the US acquired any evidence whatsoever since that time regarding Russian involvement in the leaks?
    7. Since the most effective initiative in tipping the election to Donald Trump was the intervention of FBI Director Comey, are you investigating any possible connections he might have to Russian intelligence and Vladimir Putin?

    [Dec 16, 2016] The Cold War, Continued: Post-Election Russophobia

    Dec 16, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org
    by Gary Leupp Mainstream TV news anchors including MSNBC's Chris Hayes are reporting as fact---with fuming indignation---that Russia (and specifically Vladimir Putin) not only sought to influence the U.S. election (and---gosh!---promote "doubt" about the whole legitimacy of the U.S. electoral system) but to throw the vote to Donald Trump.

    The main accusation is that the DNC and Podesta emails leaked through Wikileaks were provided by state-backed Russian hackers (while they did not leak material hacked from the Republicans). I have my doubts on this. Former U.S. ambassador to Uzbekistan and torture whistle-blower Craig Murray, a friend of Julian Assange, has stated that the DNC emails were leaked by a DNC insider whose identity he knows. The person, Murray contends, handed the material over to him, in a D.C. park. I have met Murray, admire and am inclined to believe him. (I just heard now that John Bolton, of all people, has also opined this was an inside job.)

    [Dec 16, 2016] Putin Lashes Out At Obama Show Some Proof Or Shut Up Zero Hedge

    Dec 16, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Putin Lashes Out At Obama: "Show Some Proof Or Shut Up" Tyler Durden Dec 16, 2016 9:09 AM 0 SHARES Putin has had enough of the relentless barrage of US accusations that he, personally, "hacked the US presidential election."

    The Russian president's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said on Friday that the US must either stop accusing Russia of meddling in its elections or prove it. Peskov said it was "indecent" of the United States to "groundlessly" accuse Russia of intervention in its elections.

    "You need to either stop talking about it, or finally show some kind of proof. Otherwise it just looks very indecent ", Peskov told Reporters in Tokyo where Putin is meeting with Japan PM Abe, responding to the latest accusations that Russia was responsible for hacker attacks.

    Peskov also warned that Obama's threat to "retaliate" to the alleged Russian hack is "against both American and international law", hinting at open-ended escalation should Obama take the podium today at 2:15pm to officially launch cyberwar against Russia.

    Previously, on Thursday, Peskov told the AP the report was " laughable nonsense ", while Russian foreign ministry spox Maria Zakharova accused "Western media" of being a "shill" and a "mouthpiece of various power groups", and added that "it's not the general public who's being manipulated," Zakharova said. "the general public nowadays can distinguish the truth. It's the mass media that is manipulating themselves."

    Meanwhile, on Friday Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister told state television network, Russia 24, he was "dumbstruck" by the NBC report which alleges that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in an election hack.

    The report cited U.S. intelligence officials that now believe with a "high level of confidence" that Putin became personally involved in a secret campaign to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. "I think this is just silly, and the futility of the attempt to convince somebody of this is absolutely obvious," Lavrov added, according to the news outlet.

    As a reminder, last night Obama vowed retaliatory action against Russia for its meddling in the US presidential election last month. "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections that we need to take action and we will at a time and place of our own choosing," Obama told National Public Radio.

    US intelligence agencies in October pinned blame on Russia for election-related hacking. At the time, the White House vowed a "proportional response" to the cyberactivity, though declined to preview what that response might entail. Meanwhile, both President-elect Donald Trump, the FBI, and the ODNI have dismissed the CIA's intelligence community's assessment, for the the same reason Putin finally lashed out at Obama: there is no proof.

    That, however, has never stopped the US from escalating a geopolitical conflict to the point of war, or beyond, so pay close attention to what Obama says this afternoon.

    According to an NBC report , a team of analysts at Eurasia Group said in a note on Friday that they believe the outgoing administration is likely to take action which could result in a significant barrier for Trump's team once he takes office in January .

    "It is unlikely that U.S. intelligence reports will change Trump's intention to initiate a rapprochement with Moscow, but the congressional response following its own investigations could obstruct the new administration's effort ," Eurasia Group analysts added.

    At the same time, Wikileaks offered its "validation" services, tweeting that " Obama should submit any Putin documents to WikiLeaks to be authenticated to our standards if he wants them to be seen as credible. "

    Obama should submit any Putin documents to WikiLeaks to be authenticated to our standards if he wants them to be seen as credible.

    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) December 16, 2016

    We doubt Obama would take the whistleblower organization on its offer, even if he did have any Putin documents to authenticate.

    Luc X. Ifer Ignatius , Dec 16, 2016 9:21 AM
    No joke anymore today USSA declares war to Russia just for keeping Obama the 1st on the trone. 'Election hacking called the new 9/11' officially

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/16/elijah-cummings-russia-hac...

    Ignatius Luc X. Ifer , Dec 16, 2016 9:27 AM
    If it's "another 9/11," doesn't that mean it's another phony, constructed event (that killed 3,000 people)?
    Luc X. Ifer Ignatius , Dec 16, 2016 9:36 AM
    Correct but this time they will not engage a tin can dictator but an equivalent nuclear power lead by the best strategy trained minds in the world
    ThanksChump Luc X. Ifer , Dec 16, 2016 10:39 AM
    And they would do so over what, apparently, was a typo by Podesta's aide:

    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/12/15/report-podesta-email-hack-due-t...

    TeamDepends Ignatius , Dec 16, 2016 9:38 AM
    And orchestrated by Mossad/CIA Millions upon millions of ordinary folks just got up and voted to take out the trash, and by God their will be done. If we don't remove the cancerous tumors now, they will regrow and regroup and in our weakened state it will be GAME OVER.
    Ignatius TeamDepends , Dec 16, 2016 9:43 AM
    One of the slickest, most corrupt urban renewal projects in history, or at least in NYC history.

    Don't ask me, ask "Lucky Larry."

    http://www.ae911truth.org/news.html

    Crash Overide Luc X. Ifer , Dec 16, 2016 10:04 AM
    The sad part is they are spinning this as election tampering when in fact there was none, some decent human beings found out the truth of how corrupt, evil, and treasonous these people are and wanted the American public to know.

    You can tell they are desperate now, I just hope the law enforcement community is ready to uphold their oath.

    MFL5591 IridiumRebel , Dec 16, 2016 10:14 AM
    False testimony to Congress on NSA surveillance programs [ edit ]

    Excerpt of James Clapper's testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

    On March 12, 2013, during a United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing, Senator Ron Wyden quoted the keynote speech at the 2012 DEF CON by the director of the NSA, Keith B. Alexander . Alexander had stated that "Our job is foreign intelligence" and that "Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense." Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly." [30]

    When Edward Snowden was asked during his January 26, 2014 TV interview in Moscow what the decisive moment was or why he blew the whistle, he replied: "Sort of the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back." [31]

    This is the man reponsible for the newest lie to the American people. Are you serious?

    Mr Pink asteroids , Dec 16, 2016 9:21 AM
    When lying could end up costing hundreds of billions of dollars and many human lives it is called fraud
    JRobby Mr Pink , Dec 16, 2016 9:32 AM
    A new definition of war crimes has presented itself for several years now.

    Day 53 - Where is Eric Braverman?

    Mike Masr , Dec 16, 2016 9:39 AM
    This asshole jack off obozo wants to start WW3 with Russia for Soros and all his globalist neocon pals BEFORE he leaves office. His pals shoveled out way too much money to get that dirty corrupt, crooked pig Hillary elected. The anti-Trump street protests, riots, burning, pillaging and looting didn't work. The recount directed by the Hillary stooge Jill Stein actually got Trump more votes so this didn't work. So now we go with "fake news" accusations against Russia and Putin. The assholes in our goverment pushing this theme are the dirty fucking crooks we voted against by voting for Donald Trump. They won't go down without a fight. So today at 2:15PM ET Obozo will do his best to get the actual war with Russia on deck!!!

    The war mongering neocons won't stop until we have literally minutes to live. Russia has underground facilitities for 70% of the citizens in the Russian Federation. In the US only the so-called elites have some underground place to hide. Like that would save them anyway as it would be delayed death from Cobalt bombs. We peons and serfs will simply be vaporized immediately into non-existance. Obozo and his minions and handlers know this and don't give a fuck.

    Obozo and those around him are insane and believe that a nuclear war with Russia is winnable. The truth is that the world will not even be fit for human life after a full scale nuclear, chemical and biological exchange. Who thinks it stops at nuclear? Russia inherited the WMD arsenal of the Soviet Union. There are enough chemical and biological weapons in the Russian Federation to kill everyone on earth twenty times.

    DirtySanchez , Dec 16, 2016 9:31 AM
    During the days of the Cold War, I generally respected and believed the American press and many of our politicains.

    For the past 25 years, I don't respect or believe the American press or any politician.

    I honestly believe the Russian government and press is more credible and responsible than anything in this country.

    Donald Trump literally gave me my country back.

    Gadfly , Dec 16, 2016 9:43 AM
    This is real simple. Obama and Hillary got their asses kicked by Putin in the Ukraine, Crimea, and Syria because Putin was honest and acted out of integrity and real concern for his people, and Obama and Hillary were evil and pathological liars and up to no good, and acted out of a lust for power, control over others, and stealing their resources. And now the two pathetic losers want revenge. And this is their vile attempt at trying to get it. We're laughing at you Hillary and Obama. You are a disgrace to your country and the human race.
    BitchezGonnaBitch Gadfly , Dec 16, 2016 10:18 AM
    You must remember something here - we laid it on for Vlad / Serg. Our governments made it so easy for them to play the white knights, they didn't even need to try. Russian administration is just like any other - the machine - but we fucked up so tragically bad in our foreign policy conduct that just going against the unilateral actions of US / NATO / UN has won Russians major support in Western societies, sick to the back teeth of the media game BS.

    Our elites came to believe that the world is theirs. That they can take what they want. Citizenry hasn't been best pleased due to cognitive dissonance ("shining house on the hill" =/= 500k dead Iraqis "worth it"). Enter the Russians: central admin personnel = expert level 120, conservative social values, non-interventionist foreign policy, always stressing legality / due process. They showed us up. Simple as. They were the first to dare point at our naked emperors.

    They also have guns. Lots of guns, and big ones too. We will never really fight them head on - we wouldn't stand a chance. Not with their society coalescing around the govt, and ours hating the guts out of our elites. We'd get stomped.

    Phillyguy , Dec 16, 2016 9:39 AM

    To quote Joseph Goebbels "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." There are several things going on. MSM and deep state were counting on a Hillary Clinton victory and continued US bellicose posturing against Russia. The deep state is also apoplectic about the military debacle in Syria. The ministry of propaganda- corporate media (owned by 6 large corporations; Link: www.wakingtimes.com/2015/08/28/the-illusion-of-choice-90-of-american-media-controlled-by-6-corporations ) has been saturating the airwaves and social media with ongoing stories about Russian "hacking" which are probably nonsense. A far more likely scenario is this "hacking" was carried out by people with intimate knowledge of Hillary Clinton's background, her email correspondence and location of servers where this information was stored/archived, such as people in the FBI, CIA, DHS or State Dept. These hacked messages were then forwarded to Judicial Watch, WikiLeaks or contacts in Russia or China to cover their tracks.
    This might be of interest-
    Former NSA Officer – CIA Lying About Russians Hacking DNC By Jim W. Dean Dec 14, 2016; Link: www.veteranstoday.com/2016/12/14/former-nsa-officer-cia-lying-about-russians-hacking-dnc

    Bottom line is that fierce battles are going on between completing economic factions who run the US. Both groups are pursuing increasingly reckless and bellicose foreign policies which are likely to lead to direct military confrontations with Russia and China.

    See:

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/12/16/pers-d16.html ; www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-foreign-policy-and-the-electoral-college-vote-...

    az_patriot , Dec 16, 2016 9:49 AM
    I'm a cyber security professional with over 30 years experience and several certifications. Hackers with apparent Russian ties (not necessarily the Russian government) have been involved in global hacking efforts for many years. So have the Chinese. So has everyone else, including the US.

    None of this may be true at all, because hackers that know what they're doing never leave a trail behind. EVER. And if they do leave a trail, it's almost always a false flag -- which means that what you think you see is not actually where it came from. It's highly unlikely that sophisticated hackers connected with the Russian government would be stupid enough to leave anything behind that identified who they were or where they operated from.

    I'm calling BS on this whole thing, for two reasons. One -- the "election" wasn't hacked, the DNC was -- and their extremely dirty laundry aired. We now know for certain that the Democrats are a bunch of liars, thieves, and hooligans that could care less about the country. And two -- the politicization of this by Obama is nauseating. The likelihood that anyone knows for certain that the Russian government was behind it is about zero or less.

    Jack Offelday , Dec 16, 2016 9:44 AM
    Yesterday, Julian Assange emphatically stated on Sean Hannity's radio show that the Russians had absolutely no involvement in the Wikileaks hacks. I'll believe Assange before the Obama administration or US media shills. Assange has never been proven wrong.
    dexter_morgan , Dec 16, 2016 9:57 AM
    is the fake news (MSM) covering this at all, or just the propaganda from CIA?
    mary mary dexter_morgan , Dec 16, 2016 10:56 AM
    The Associated Press and the New York Times are repeating, word for word, whatever CIA and CIA-in-Chief says, and then all Vatican-controlled newspapers are printing the AP and NYT articles. Big dose of CIA in my local newspaper today, and yesterday, and every day since, at least, Merrimack College pointed the way toward The One True Propaganda, with its junior-professor-of-how-Hollywood-and-TV-portray-overweight-people's omniscient and omnipotent list of "Fake News Sites". Still waiting for the Pope to endorse this list: maybe when Rome Freezes Over.
    Braindonor1 , Dec 16, 2016 9:59 AM
    The article nails an important point. The purpose of this exercise is to sabotage any Trump attempts for a rapprochement with Russia. Peace with major powers is bad for business and Obama's Zionist masters need war to advance their one world government plans.

    Obama knows no moral compass and will do anything, say anything, to get the treats from his masters that a faithful lap dog believes it deserves.

    Dilluminati , Dec 16, 2016 10:02 AM
    Some of the racist quotes here I can't uptick, that said it was classic Obama from the trump speech telling EVERYONE in advance what he was going to do military wise. That is disapointing. Lets assume that China, Russia, and many other capable state actors did hack Hillary's server? Lets go the route of occums razor and assume that as a truth. That does not excuse the behavior and sheer stupidity of:

    Setting up an illegal server anyway, AFTER hillary requested and was denied a phone like the POTUS.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-show-nsa-rejected-hillary-clinton-req...

    Emails show NSA rejected Hillary Clinton's request for secure smartphone

    So let us start here! Keep in mind she lost numerous devices, the stupid cunt kept loosing her phones and misplacing them.

    Then Hillary hell bent on having her own private communication system circumvents the DOS and sets up her own! At the point where that decision was made there was no longer any attack against the United States of America but instead an attack against a politician leaking state level data on a non-secure media. If anyone should be held accountable it should be Hillary despite INTENT, yes Hillary.

    But it gets better folks!

    Then we have the DNC and Weiner hacks, and the DNC and the RNC are not actual offices of government, There is no fucking .gov address behind the DNC or GOP. The nice lady who runs the local GOP isn't a vetted government employee and used some poor habits in her handling of data, she was ignorant of a BCC and the security of doing so. (to her credit she learned quickly) *** side note

    And then finally there was Weiners emails. These emails were on a non-government device/computer and seemed to have been traversed by yahoo. So you have these stupid fucking people doing the following: Using Yahoo, DNC, and Gov systems utilizing the same passwords. BUT IT GETS BETTER

    Yahoo is using a MD5 hash for it's security! https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/12/15/yahoo-breach-ive-closed-my-a...

    So now a phishing attack at one account podesta becomes a swiss cheese attack as numerous vectors are exploited, did the Russians hack weiner and put the emails on his device? It is with password complexity, password expiration, and non-passowrd reuse that government can ensure that you don't use the same password on Yahoo that you use at .gov sites. It is by using multi-factor authentication and geo location that a .gov account can be authenticated and authorized.

    But what we have is a bunch of assholes who mishandled the peoples data or governmnet data and it was never their personal data! It was either the data of the united states in which case Hillary should be fucking charged or it was not and she is a stupid fucking victim like the other billion or so yahoo hacks.

    So now we got Obama just like Trump said, telling the world what we are going to do before we do it for optimal results.. lets tell russia in advance.. we will attack at noon...for what has been characterized as yoga emails on non-government systems by the attorney general.

    This is why I hate the elites, this is why I never needed Russia to do anything to votes against these incompetent and ridiculous assholes.

    As Obama leaves offce remember that this observation is concise and made from an educated and unbiased persepctive of handling government data.

    The echo cjhamber that Obama lives in has become as insular as that of Hillary. And damn these people for their confusion of conviction with fact. And finally.. we beat the democrats in PA the good old fashioned way.. we were grassroots and not astro-turf.

    ***** The local GOP website was being cyber-squated when I volunteered, an email of so from me on blacklisting it and there ads would not have shut them down, but it would have hit them in the pocket and caused monetary disruption, they released the expired domain and stopped squatting, the local head of the GOP, defintly not .gov but "GOP" was being blocked by email systems because she would send out GOP emails to an email list with 100 or so recipients and the spam filters thought it was spam or a virus. So I explained to her how to use BCC tools, and our communication improved. I didn't want my email shared with everyone anyway! But the DNC and GOP ain't fucking government.. at best these people are like televangelists which is like hollywood for ugly people.

    I can say this, I have an ENORMOUS respect for the local GOP, I have come to like many of them. I don't agree with them on everything but never has so few, worked so hard, to empower so many more to volunteer and win an election. And to their credit shown the right way changed, they didn't piss and moan.

    Resistance Is Hope Dilluminati , Dec 16, 2016 10:44 AM
    Good observations, sir. People like you are the reason ZH is so useful for enlightenment.

    I should add that if Hillary was claiming to lose her phone, then Hillary probably wasn't losing her phone all the time. She was probably periodically destroying it to destroy evidence. Burn phones or burners are a common technique among criminals to minimize the evidence available if/when they get caught.

    smacker , Dec 16, 2016 10:04 AM
    Looks to me like Obola and his cabal are trying to cause as much friction as possible with Russia before he leaves office.

    This garbage allegation about Putin being personally involved in hacking the US election, the recent announcement of supplying more weapons to terrorists in Syria, recent wild allegations of Russian genocide in Syria (whilst ignoring Syrian people waving and cheering when the SAA arrived in Allepo) and threats to begin a cyberwar are all designed to do this.

    Obola has become a dangerous liability.

    MrBoompi , Dec 16, 2016 10:31 AM
    Obama has acted like a CIA employee for 8 years. He lied to get into office and he's lied ever since, just like the CIA teaches its employees to do. The CIA is not bound by US or international law and they could give a shit about our Constitution, our laws, or our elections, as long as their preferred candidate gets in of course. Are we currently any better than the Nazis? Conquering other countries is the same regardless if you do it covertly or not, regardless of how many lies you say or not. These people must be stopped. Unfortunately it might take mass civil unrest to bring the changes we need. Stealing the election from Trump and handing it to a criminal like Clinton may be the spark. Let's hope there are enough people left with integrity and intelligence in DC to do the right thing.
    dltff-ya , Dec 16, 2016 10:32 AM
    There is no concept of a open courtroom to decide contentious technical issues like. This . Cozy bear, whatever bear
    'more than i can' bear. A jury of fair minded people can decide when a good adversarial courtroom encounter occurs.
    I would like to see Trey Gowdy defending Putin against whatever CIA stooge they send up. Obama has a lot of gall to complain about hacking when Hillary, Podesta, and the run DNC gang was so careless that a very amateur hacking/phishing effort would be sufficient to do this break in. Then there is the assertion that some disgruntled democratic people leaked the whole works- from the inside- being mad at Hillary over Bernie I guess.

    If the US wants as gentlemen agreement not to read each others mail, maybe we could pursue that but hacking Putin and sending NGO's to undermine him, the numerous color revolutions from George Soros in Ukraine, Georgia, ... make it seem to me that Putin is the aggrieved party here, now being threatened by Obama personally. Everybody snoops on everybody. Israel, Russia, US and the five eyes, China, ... but when it gets personal like this Putin Obama threat thing, we could cross a line, like an obscure assassination of the Austrian Archduke by some Serbian did. Putin is a serious fellow and not somebody to threaten without consequences. We may think he sees it as just posturing, and we better hope it stops right there. If the Clinton mob can't win, they may decide to bring the house down on everybody.

    your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    dltff-ya , Dec 16, 2016 10:41 AM
    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/questions-electors-russian-hacking...

    Interesting points about the alleged hacking.

    dexter_morgan , Dec 16, 2016 10:44 AM
    cia

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/16/senate-homeland-chair-cia-denied-m...

    mary mary , Dec 16, 2016 11:05 AM
    Obama: "I am, of course, not speaking about the real, live Vladimir Putin. I am speaking about our CIA cardboard-cutout caricature of Vladimir Putin. We ALWAYS have a number of cardboard-cutouts in stock, of various people, to blame for whatever goes wrong next.
    Handful of Dust , Dec 16, 2016 11:07 AM
    Assange on WikiLeaks: 'Our Source Is Not the Russian Government'

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/bea2e062-22ac-3d8b-85d4-d8514d5d4efc/assang...

    Yes We Can. But... , Dec 16, 2016 11:09 AM
    "....while Russian foreign ministry spox Maria Zakharova accused "Western media" of being a "shill" and a "mouthpiece of various power groups ", and added that "it's not the general public who's being manipulated," Zakharova said. " the general public nowadays can distinguish the truth . It's the mass media that is manipulating themselves .""

    Can you effin believe such a statement made by the Russian gubmint - and that it is true ?

    az_patriot , Dec 16, 2016 11:35 AM
    This whole affair screams one thing and one thing only: politics. And dirty, childish, Democrat politics at that. COULD the Russian government have hacked the DNC? Sure, anything is possible. Is it likely? NO. Government-sponsored hackers don't leave telltale signs as to who they are, they leave false flags and a trail of breadcrumbs that lead nowhere or to places they want you to think the hack came from. Anyone smart enough to hack the DNC isn't going to do anything to reveal who they are. Not even accidentally.
    dlfield , Dec 16, 2016 11:32 AM
    A) Just why the hell would U.S. "Intelligence" be briefing NBC news?

    B) Next, we will be blaming space aliens for "hacking" the election.

    The horse has spoken. ;-)

    [Dec 15, 2016] Georgia asks Trump to investigate DHS cyberattacks

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Pavlo Svolochenko , December 14, 2016 at 2:43 pm
    Georgia asks Trump to investigate DHS 'cyberattacks'

    If you want to know what Washington is doing at any given time, just look at what they're accusing the competition of.

    yalensis , December 14, 2016 at 5:05 pm
    As the Worm Turns!
    For all those Amurican rubes out there who beleived that Homeland Security was protecting them against foreign terrorists – ha hahahahahaha!

    [Dec 15, 2016] Exclusive: Top US spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking – sources

    Dec 15, 2016 | uk.reuters.com

    The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

    While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named .

    An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

    "ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis – a deductive assessment of the available intelligence – for the same reason, the three officials said


    marknesop says: December 13, 2016 at 6:17 am
    But all of them, without exception, accept that the Democrats' server was hacked by Russia, and that it was Russia who leaked the information through Wikileaks, and that Russia also hacked the Republicans but declined to release incriminating or influential material it had in its possession. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence of this, either.

    [Dec 15, 2016] Georgia asks Trump to investigate DHS cyberattacks

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Pavlo Svolochenko , December 14, 2016 at 2:43 pm
    Georgia asks Trump to investigate DHS 'cyberattacks'

    If you want to know what Washington is doing at any given time, just look at what they're accusing the competition of.

    yalensis , December 14, 2016 at 5:05 pm
    As the Worm Turns!
    For all those Amurican rubes out there who beleived that Homeland Security was protecting them against foreign terrorists – ha hahahahahaha!

    [Dec 15, 2016] The US along with many of its allies had a hand in all of the examples of irredeemable evil Powers named

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The weirdest speech to me was the one by the US representative which built her statement as if she is Mother Theresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember the track record of your country." ..."
    "... "I shouldn't want to remind this Western trio [France, US, UK] , which has called for today's meeting and carried it out in a raised voice, about your role in the creation of ISIS as a result of US and UK intervention in Iraq", Churkin said. ..."
    "... "I don't want to remind these three countries about their role in unwinding the Syrian crisis, which led to such difficult consequences, and let terrorists spread in Syria and Iraq. ..."
    "... Russia's public positions are getting progressively less 'diplomatic' and more direct. The west has been inviting Russia to take a swing with deliberately insulting language for a long time, but Russia is beginning to answer in kind. I smell a lifelong enemies situation, and that's unfortunate because Russia cannot be said to have not tried repeatedly to keep things civil. ..."
    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile , December 14, 2016 at 5:27 am
    What a fucking slag!

    (ad hominem fully intended!)

    In response, Vitaly Churkin advised his colleague from the United States to remember the actions of her own country.

    "The weirdest speech to me was the one by the US representative which built her statement as if she is Mother Theresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember the track record of your country."

    "I shouldn't want to remind this Western trio [France, US, UK] , which has called for today's meeting and carried it out in a raised voice, about your role in the creation of ISIS as a result of US and UK intervention in Iraq", Churkin said.

    "I don't want to remind these three countries about their role in unwinding the Syrian crisis, which led to such difficult consequences, and let terrorists spread in Syria and Iraq.

    Moscow Exile , December 14, 2016 at 5:36 am
    The above translated Churkin quotes are from CNN.

    Churkin's actual words re the Mother Theresa wannabe, namely "Outraged" Powers:

    "Особенно странным мне показалось выступление представителя Соединенных Штатов, которая построила свое выступление, как будто она мать Тереза", - заявил он.

    Especially strange to me appeared the speech by the representative of the United States, who constructed her statement as though she were Mother Theresa", he stated.

    [You see, Denis Denisovich uses the subjunctive mood, unlike those CNN dickheads! :-)]

    marknesop , December 14, 2016 at 6:17 am
    Russia's public positions are getting progressively less 'diplomatic' and more direct. The west has been inviting Russia to take a swing with deliberately insulting language for a long time, but Russia is beginning to answer in kind. I smell a lifelong enemies situation, and that's unfortunate because Russia cannot be said to have not tried repeatedly to keep things civil.
    Lyttenburgh , December 14, 2016 at 10:06 am

    Mother Samantha – the patron saint of the moderate jihadis

    Fern , December 14, 2016 at 10:28 am
    Classic, Lyttenburgh, very droll. I hope Churkin was able to negotiate a pay increase or some sort of bonus for himself for having to sit through and reply to Samantha Power's rants. For a professional diplomat it must be beyond painful to try and work with her and her ilk.
    Moscow Exile , December 14, 2016 at 10:43 am
    I wonder if she prays for the souls of those innocents, about whose estimated half-a-million lives, sacrificed as a result of US sanctions imposed by the USA on Iran, were infamously considered by her fellow countrywoman as a "price well worth it" as regards the furtherance of the the policies of the "Exceptional Nation"?
    Fern , December 14, 2016 at 10:57 am
    Moscow Exile, yes, it's interesting what examples she picks as the epitome of evil that stains consciences – Halabja, Rwanda, Srebrenica etc. All of them non-western. How about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Agent Orange (the gift that's still giving today), the saturation bombing of Cambodia, the extraordinary destruction wrecked on North Korea, the genocides of South and Central America carried out by those trained and shielded by the US and so on and so on – is she unaware of the history of her own country?
    Northern Star , December 14, 2016 at 11:32 am
    Halabja, ****Rwanda,*** Srebrenica etc. All of them non-western.

    Ummmm but the USA through the machinations of susan rice ..the corrupt whore/lackey of Bubba had a hand in Rwanda

    and let's not forget the French connection:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-38152791

    Fern , December 14, 2016 at 3:00 pm
    Indeed, Northern Star, the US along with many of its allies had a hand in all of the examples of 'irredeemable evil' Powers named. My point was that she chose examples where the immediate perpetrators were not western actors.
    Jen , December 14, 2016 at 1:18 pm
    Not to mention of course that 7-year-old boy her motorcade knocked over and killed while she was racing to a photo-shoot in Cameroon. The child's family did get compensation but you wonder how much guilt Samantha Power feels over an incident that would never have occurred had she not been so eager to meet and be photographed with former Boko Haram victims just so she could have bragging rights among the Washington social set.

    [Dec 15, 2016] MSM fight agains new media is somewhat similar to papacy fight with Reformation

    Dec 15, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    On watching the "Keiser Report " on the imperial blowback against independent media, it strikes me that the MSM are as to the Papacy as the new media are to Martin Luther:

    https://www.rt.com/shows/keiser-report/370114-episode-max-keiser-1005/

    [Dec 14, 2016] Opinion Putin didnt win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did

    Notable quotes:
    "... That those scheming Russians were clever enough to hack into voting machines, but not clever enough to cover their tracks? ..."
    "... It's strangely reminiscent of the days of the Red scare, minus the Reds. ..."
    "... The displaced machinists in the industrial midwest, whose votes helped put Trump in the White House, believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. ..."
    "... was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance. ..."
    "... They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican. They hoped they would be so revolted by Trump that they would vote for her, but they didn't. ..."
    "... It's panic over loss of control. They aren't pondering ways to make things better for the American people. Not in the Beltaway. Not the duoploy. The handwringing is strictly about control and pasification of the population. ..."
    "... The long, long list of dodgy-donors to The Clinton Foundation told large numbers of Democrat voters everything they needed to know about a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. This, and the 'knifing' of Bernie, sealed her fate. ..."
    "... America will never, and should never, forgive Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. ..."
    "... At last! Someone on this newspaper talking common sense. ..."
    "... Absurd! She was a rich white hawkish neolib who has no one but herself and the Democratic Pary to blame for the terrible loss which will seal the supreme court for years. Face facts!! She couldn't even beat Trump and was widely viewed as a fraud. ..."
    "... The person who lost the Presidential Election in USA is Hillary Clinton. She, like Blair is a war monger. I, if I had a vote, would not have voted for her. ..."
    "... If she had been elected we would have had bigger and better wars in the Middle East. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never ended despite Obama calling the Iraq war a "strategic mistake". One that continued for another eight years. To those two we have added Syria and Lybia. ..."
    "... " ...reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. " The rest of the world has known that for decades. ..."
    "... I don't understand how accurate reporting by Wikileaks of politicians' emails is considered 'interference' with the US elections. To me, it seems helpful. If a US newspaper made the report, they would probably get a prize. If a foreign organization made the report, so what? People abroad are free (I hope) to comment on US matters, and people in the US are free to read it or not. ..."
    "... Perhaps they mean the Guardian's politics. Identity politics has been thoroughly rejected and instead of learning from the experience, Guardian has been electing to throw more of the same tactics, except louder ..."
    "... Americans across the political spectrum are happy to use Putin to distract them from reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. ..."
    "... You're absolutely right. Putin is the boogeyman for every ill, real or purported, of his own society, and when the American political system and its institutions prove to be broken, Putin gets to be the boogeyman for that, too. What a powerful man! He must be pleased. ..."
    "... This is an ultimate truth because it explains why Merkel will not be elected. These days Putin is in full control of the world and is responsible for everything. ..."
    "... Let's thank Hillary for that. There is a very good news: on the 20th January we'll cut all Saudi supply channels to the IS and kill all the bastards within 2 months. ..."
    "... In the modern world it is enough to do nothing to be a good man, eg if Bush, Blair, Obama and Clinton didn't create ISIS, the world would be a much better place. You do not even need to be smart to understand this. ..."
    "... It's crazy. Even if the Russian hacking claims are legitimate, the leaks still revealed things about the Democrats that were true. It's like telling your friend that their spouse is cheating on them, and then the spouse blaming you for ruining the marriage. ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign spent like drunken sailors, on media. This is a new role for the media giants that took care of Clinton's every need, including providing motivational research and other consultants. ..."
    "... The ongoing scenario that now spins around Putin as a central figure is a product of "after shock media". ..."
    "... To weave fictional reality in real time for a mass audience is a magnum leap from internet fake news. This drama is concocted to keep DNC from going into seclusion until the inauguration. ..."
    "... Doug Henwood is absolutely correct. This obsession with the supposed foreign interference is baseless. All the real culprits operate within our own system. ..."
    "... Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders." ..."
    "... I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, and I note that already Trump's campaign has put down TWO odious political dynasties, AND the TPP -- all very healthy developments. ..."
    "... The only thing that kept the contest somehow close was the unprecedented all-media fear campaign against Trump. ..."
    "... It was always Hillary's election to lose and she lost it simply because she was not to be trusted. Her very public endorsement by gangster capitalist Jay-Z told you all you needed to know about who she represented. ..."
    "... I was dubious before, but I'm now actively concerned. This crop of Democrats and their deep state cohorts are unhinged and dangerous. They see me and my families' lives as an externality in their eventual war with Russia. As Phyrric a victory as there could possibly be. They are psychotic; not only waging countless coups and intelligence operations abroad, but now in plain sight on American soil. The mainstream media seems to invoke the spirit of Goebbels more vividly with each passing day. Their disdain and manipulation of the general populace is chilling. They see us not as people to be won-over, but as things to be manipulated, tricked and coerced. Nothing new for politicians (particularity the opposition) - but the levels here are staggering. ..."
    "... January couldn't come soon enough - and I say that as strong critic of Trump. ..."
    "... A good article to counterbalance the reams of rubbish we are hearing in the US election post-mortem. Anyone who had neural activity should have known that when you steal the candidacy, you certainly won't get the votes. Clinton effectively handed the election to Trump by not having the humility, humanity and honesty to admit defeat by Benie Sanders. ..."
    "... There's always the possibility of course, that the US establishment realised Clinton's blatant warmongering wasn't 'good for business'. ..."
    "... So maybe, they thought, we can get the Russkies 'on side', deal with China (ie. reduce it to a 'client state'/ turn it into an ashtray) - and then move on Russia and grab all those lovely resources freed up by global warming.... ..."
    "... Only her campaign volunteers knew, her message to the public was "dont vote for Trump" which translates to, I could lose to him, vote for me! ..."
    "... The Podesta emails confirmed what many people already suspected and knew of Hillary and her campaign. Those who were interested in reading them had to actually look for them, since MSM was not reporting on them. It's not as if an avid MSNBC or CNN watcher was going to be exposed. ..."
    "... It's hilarious how the major Left outlets (Washington Post) are now telling it's readers how Russia is to blame for people voting against Hillary due to the Podesta emails, when they didn't even report on the emails in the first place. ..."
    "... EVERYTHING about the system all halfway decent people detest, is summed up in the figure of Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... Like Donald said, she had 'experience', but it was all BAD 'experience'. ..."
    "... she is a frail, withered old woman who needs to retire - def the wrong democrat choice, crazy -- Berni.S would have won if for them - he is far more sincere ..."
    "... "The displaced machinists... believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance." ..."
    "... This argument is as asinine as the one the author opposes. It was a collusion of events that led to this result, including the failure of both parties to adapt to an evolving economic and social climate over decades. The right wing hailing the collapse of liberalism as a result of decades of liberal mismanagement conveniently forget their own parties have held the reins for half that time, and failed just as miserably as the left.... ..."
    "... It's quite bizarre to see "progressives" openly side with the military industrial complex, which is threatened by a president elect weary of more warfare. ..."
    "... It's to be expected from career politicians like McCain who is kicking and screaming, but it's shameful to see supposed liberally-minded people help spread the Red Scare storyline. ..."
    "... Obama has behaved dreadfully, first he or his office gets one of its poodles namely MI6 to point the finger at Putin re cyberwar, which was swiftly followed by the International Olympic Committee looking at Russia for 2012 Olympic games, the elections in the US and the Democrats CIA coming out with unsubstantiated nonsense (funny how they never like, providing collaborative evidence - on this or anything that supposedly Russia has done) then there is Syria, and Obama and the Democrats were the cheerleader for regime change, because they have been out manoeuvred in that sphere. All of it in less than a week. ..."
    "... If Obama, the administration, and the CIA were smart they would have realised that a concerted effort to blame Putin / Russia would be seen for what it is - a liar and one of trying to discredit both the outcome of the US elections, the dislike of HRC, and her association with Wall St. - she raised more money for her campaign than Trump and Sanders put together (if the Democrats had chosen Sanders, then they would have stood a chance) and that their hawk would not be in a position to create WW111 - thank goodness. The Democrats deserved what they got. ..."
    "... This organ of the liberal media (no scare quotes required - it is socially liberal and economically neoliberal), along with many others, dogmatically supported Clinton against Sanders to the point of printing daily and ridiculous dishonesty, even going so far as to make out as if anyone who supports any form of wealth redistribution is a racist, sexist, whitesplaining dude-bro. ..."
    "... The Wikileaks emails proved the votes were rigged against Sanders, it why Debbie W Shulz had to resign ..."
    "... The election was close, and if one less thing had gone wrong for Hillary she would have won. However I think an important thing that lost her the election was identity politics. She patronized Afro-Americans and Hispanics, by tell them that because they are Trump-threatened minorities, they should vote for her. In the same vein, gays and women were supposed to vote for her. But what she was really telling these groups was that they should revel in their supposed victimhood, which was not a great message. ..."
    "... Completely agreed! The onus for defeat belongs to the Democrat party leadership as well. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both understood where the momentum of the election was headed before anyone else did. The election was won and lost in the white blue collar Midwest. A place that decided that diet corporatism is decidedly worse than a populist right wing extremist. ..."
    "... No one here believed the ridiculous about-face Hillary pulled on the question of the TPP. I guarantee you Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and perhaps Ohio and Iowa. ..."
    "... "Our self-image as the world's greatest democracy...." Well, speaking for myself and plenty of other Americans, I never said anything like that about us. In fact, like a lot of people I wish we would stick to our own business, quit trying to be the world's cop, and cease meddling in other countries' affairs. ..."
    "... Assuming that it really was the Russians who done it, I guess they had a better game plan than the Saudis. ..."
    "... Her 'deplorables' comment was every bit as telling as Mitt Romney's '47%'. We really needed to know about her 'public versus private positions', even if it only confirmed what everybody already knew. I am not 100% sure the system made the worst choice in raising up Donald Trump. ..."
    "... The American voters heard a steady stream of these arguments. Some may have simply ignored them. Others took them into consideration, but concluded that they wanted drastic change enough to put them aside. White women decided that Trump's comments, while distasteful, were things they'd heard before. ..."
    "... Reliance on the sanctity of racial and gender pieties was a mistake. Not everyone treats these subjects as the holiest of holies. The people who would be most swayed by those arguments never would have voted for Trump anyways. ..."
    "... Colin Powell said Clinton destroys everything she touches with hubris. Seeing as how she destroyed the democrat "blue wall" and also had low turnout which hurt democrats down the ticket I agree. ..."
    "... All this hysteria about the USA and Russia finally working together than apart doesn't help either for it appears that the [neoliberal] lefties want a perpetual war rather than peace. ..."
    "... The CIA being outraged about a foreign state intervening in an election is quite funny. They have intervened so many times, especially in Latin America, to install puppet regimes. ..."
    "... As for hacking... does anybody believe the CIA has never hacked anybody? ..."
    Dec 13, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    Hillary Clinton was the symbol of neoliberal globalization and contept of neoliberal for common poeple (aka deplorable). That's why she lost. this is more of the first defeat of neoliberal candidate in the USA then personal defeat of Hillary. She was just a symbol, or puppet, if you wish.

    ... ... ...

    And what exactly are the claims made by these Putin-did-it stories? That were it not for Russian chicanery, Hillary Clinton would have won the popular vote by five million and not almost three million? That displaced machinists on the banks of Lake Erie were so incensed by the Podesta emails that they voted for Trump instead of Clinton? That Putin was pulling FBI director James Comey's strings in his investigation of the Clinton emails? That those scheming Russians were clever enough to hack into voting machines, but not clever enough to cover their tracks?

    It's strangely reminiscent of the days of the Red scare, minus the Reds.

    ... ... ...

    The displaced machinists in the industrial midwest, whose votes helped put Trump in the White House, believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance.

    They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican. They hoped they would be so revolted by Trump that they would vote for her, but they didn't.

    ... ... ...

    Of course there are questions about our voting machines. The American balloting system is a chaotic mess, with an array of state and local authorities conducting elections under a vast variety of rules using technologies ranging from old-fashioned paper ballots to sleek touch-screen devices.

    The former take forever to count, and the latter are unauditable – we can have no idea whether the counts are accurate. The whole system is a perfect example of a quote attributed (probably falsely) to Joseph Stalin: "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." It's not a system that inspires trust, but we barely discuss that.

    LMichelle , 14 Dec 2016 03:07

    It's panic over loss of control. They aren't pondering ways to make things better for the American people. Not in the Beltaway. Not the duoploy. The handwringing is strictly about control and pasification of the population.

    And you're shocked? I'm shocked you expected more.

    cvneuves , 14 Dec 2016 02:49
    The really amazing story about the presidential elections 2016 was actually not Clinton or Trump. It was how close the US actually got to get its first socialist, or factually rather social-democratic president. Americans are craving for more justice and equality.

    And no, Clinton does not stand for any "left values". Therefore the media favored her.

    Pu2u2skeete -> dphaynes , 14 Dec 2016 02:43
    The long, long list of dodgy-donors to The Clinton Foundation told large numbers of Democrat voters everything they needed to know about a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. This, and the 'knifing' of Bernie, sealed her fate. A reincarnated Tricky Dicky would have trounced her, too.
    poikloik098 -> Mansplain , 14 Dec 2016 03:05
    Weird in your mind only. A letter just before the election suggesting that Clinton might be indicted? And was she? Of course not. Match the letter's release with the polls at the time to see it's influence.

    Clinton's problems such as her email server were nothing compared to all the baggage that Trump carries, yet Trump's problems were blithely ignored by many because they thought Trump would make a difference.

    AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 02:19
    America will never, and should never, forgive Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
    jmac55 , 14 Dec 2016 02:18
    At last! Someone on this newspaper talking common sense.

    For the last twenty years, (way before we even knew Putin's name) the Republican Party have promoted, fomented and instigated the most ludicrous lies and calumnies about the Democratic Party and particularly Hilary Clinton, who they quite rightly recognised as a future Democratic Presidential candidate.

    They have politicised: education, defense, Federal Parks, water, race, religion and even the air we breath in their efforts to ensure victory and to this end, they bought and paid for populist uprisings against Democratic politicians, like the now abandoned Tea Party.

    The problem was that even when Republicans were elected, they obviously couldn't keep their own nonsensical promises to their now rabid audience who no longer trusted their own elected Government.

    When Trump, a disestablishment, anti-Government candidate came along, the electorate (naively) saw a possibility of the change they have been promised.

    Of course the Russians prefer Trump over Clinton, since they can see the destruction he can cause their geopolitical adversary and Putin would say as much as he can to support Trump...errr....even though it would be counter-productive with conservative voters...but it is unlikely that he bears anywhere near the blame that the Republican Party does, who foolishly allowed their own 'attack dog' to bite them on the arse.

    I'm sorry to say that the Republican Party (and the US) has to suck this one up and admit...(to mix my hackneyed metaphors) that they've blown themselves up with their own petard!

    joanne Ward , 14 Dec 2016 02:17
    I think with hindsight Bernie Sanders is going to be blamed for dividing the Democratic Party and bolstering the Republican propaganda against the Clintons. If only we had stuck together with Clinton we wouldn't be facing the Trump disaster now. Hillary Clinton is not evil and she was very highly qualified--to paraphrase Brando, we could have had progress instead of a disaster, which is what we have now.
    sand2016 -> joanne Ward , 14 Dec 2016 02:25
    Absurd! She was a rich white hawkish neolib who has no one but herself and the Democratic Pary to blame for the terrible loss which will seal the supreme court for years. Face facts!! She couldn't even beat Trump and was widely viewed as a fraud.
    FriendlyEmpiricist -> Fred1 , 14 Dec 2016 02:28
    You fool, the Libertarian party is the largest third party in the US and they mostly take votes from the Republicans. Stop blaming third parties when their existence demonstrably helps the Democrats. Or perhaps you dream of a world where conservatives still support their third party just as much as they ever did but lefties all move in perfect lockstep? If so, it's time for a reality check.
    pacificist , 14 Dec 2016 02:14
    Up jumped Hilary Benn with the theory that Jeremy Corbyn had caused the Brexit vote. His resignation and the denunciation of 172 Labour MP's based on an "indisputable fact" that nobody believes to be true today. The person who lost the Presidential Election in USA is Hillary Clinton. She, like Blair is a war monger. I, if I had a vote, would not have voted for her.

    If she had been elected we would have had bigger and better wars in the Middle East. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never ended despite Obama calling the Iraq war a "strategic mistake". One that continued for another eight years. To those two we have added Syria and Lybia. The west, like Russia, is dabbling in other people's wars. They have been made one hundred times worse.

    What Hillary would not have dabbled in is the industrial decline in the "Rust Belt" states. She is proposing to do nothing. So they had the prospect of no rectification at home with yet more wars abroad. No wonder they stayed at home. Hillary and Nu Labour are the same: belligerancy in the Middle East coupled with tame pussy cat against failing capitalism at home. The middle east has got total destruction from the west and total nothingness but austerity (ie more failure) as the action plan for capitalism. They are on the "same page" then!

    Jympton , 14 Dec 2016 01:48
    " ...reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is. " The rest of the world has known that for decades.
    helenus , 14 Dec 2016 01:48
    I don't understand how accurate reporting by Wikileaks of politicians' emails is considered 'interference' with the US elections. To me, it seems helpful. If a US newspaper made the report, they would probably get a prize. If a foreign organization made the report, so what? People abroad are free (I hope) to comment on US matters, and people in the US are free to read it or not. It could be argued that only reporting democratic emails is distorting the truth: I'd say its a step towards the whole truth. I welcome all disclosures that are pertinent to a good decision by US voters.
    PostTrotskyite -> helenus , 14 Dec 2016 01:53
    When did hacking become legal?
    helenus -> PostTrotskyite , 14 Dec 2016 02:57
    ask Snowden
    DMontaigne -> 14122016 , 14 Dec 2016 02:26
    The Guardian helped Trump? How many Americans actually read the Guardian?
    Mansplain -> DMontaigne , 14 Dec 2016 02:46
    Perhaps they mean the Guardian's politics. Identity politics has been thoroughly rejected and instead of learning from the experience, Guardian has been electing to throw more of the same tactics, except louder
    Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 01:42
    Citizens of the UK are by far the most heavily surveilled in the western world. This has been the case since long before the ubiquitous introduction of CCTV cameras.
    HomoSapienSapiens , 14 Dec 2016 01:35

    Americans across the political spectrum are happy to use Putin to distract them from reflecting on how baseless our self-image as the world's greatest democracy is.

    You're absolutely right. Putin is the boogeyman for every ill, real or purported, of his own society, and when the American political system and its institutions prove to be broken, Putin gets to be the boogeyman for that, too. What a powerful man! He must be pleased.

    Only, the thing is, the American political system and its institutions - American democracy - weren't undermined overnight. It took several decades and it was done by Americans who weren't so keen on democracy. Can't fob that off on Putin, try as they might.

    If American power takes a big fat fall like Humpty Dumpty, don't look to Vladimir Putin, look in a fucking mirror. That's where you'll find the culprit.

    PreziDonald -> PostTrotskyite , 14 Dec 2016 01:28
    This is an ultimate truth because it explains why Merkel will not be elected. These days Putin is in full control of the world and is responsible for everything.
    PreziDonald , 14 Dec 2016 01:23
    Let's thank Hillary for that. There is a very good news: on the 20th January we'll cut all Saudi supply channels to the IS and kill all the bastards within 2 months.
    PreziDonald -> shampacanada , 14 Dec 2016 01:43
    In the modern world it is enough to do nothing to be a good man, eg if Bush, Blair, Obama and Clinton didn't create ISIS, the world would be a much better place. You do not even need to be smart to understand this.
    Your Donald.
    From where you'd rather be.
    With love.
    Lafeyette , 14 Dec 2016 01:13
    It's crazy. Even if the Russian hacking claims are legitimate, the leaks still revealed things about the Democrats that were true. It's like telling your friend that their spouse is cheating on them, and then the spouse blaming you for ruining the marriage.
    Althnaharra , 14 Dec 2016 01:05
    The Clinton campaign spent like drunken sailors, on media. This is a new role for the media giants that took care of Clinton's every need, including providing motivational research and other consultants.

    The ongoing scenario that now spins around Putin as a central figure is a product of "after shock media". Broadcast media bounced America back and forth from sit-com to gun violence for decades, giving fiction paramount value. To weave fictional reality in real time for a mass audience is a magnum leap from internet fake news. This drama is concocted to keep DNC from going into seclusion until the inauguration.

    judyblue , 14 Dec 2016 01:04
    Doug Henwood is absolutely correct. This obsession with the supposed foreign interference is baseless. All the real culprits operate within our own system.
    Chukcha Rybak , 14 Dec 2016 01:04
    What happened to Guardian today ? A reasonable story. Unreal feel
    AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:51
    Maybe, in four years, Trump's administration can oversee a secure election. Unlike the Obama folks, who seem to make a calamity out of any project bigger than making a sandwich.
    Pu2u2skeete -> AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:59
    Obama still has access to lethal drones, watch your back.
    TheMediaSux , 14 Dec 2016 00:49
    This hullabaloo really highlights the disdain the establishment has for the American voter. They thought they had it tied up. They thought they had pulled one over on the American people. They are not interested in what the voter actually wants.

    And this raises questions about why our servicemen and women are making sacrifices. The establishment story-line talks about our brave soldiers dying so we can have free elections. Or something like that. The establishment does not care about free and fair elections. In fact, this hullabaloo should have demonstrated to everybody that the establishment does not respect or accepts the results of elections that don't go their way.

    AveAtqueCave -> TheMediaSux , 14 Dec 2016 00:53
    Look at WikiLeaks. They died so Hillary could present her ever-so-clever "tick-tock on Libya" and make fools think she's a constructive foreign policy force.
    AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:48
    Trump blows, but I'm relieved incompetent Hillary Clinton and her gang of bloodthirsty bunglers aren't going to be in the white house.

    Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should have shown more respect to her party's membership.

    Pu2u2skeete -> AveAtqueCave , 14 Dec 2016 00:55
    H. Clinton would have started a war against Russia in Syria come January; and war against Russia in The Ukraine shortly after. Trump could yet end civilization as we know it: thereagain the CIA might 'JFK' him early doors before he's able to.
    DogsLivesMatter -> Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 01:25
    Trump might start a war with Iran. He will have the backing of Saudi Arabia, Israel and Jordon. That frightens me just as much if not worse.
    Pu2u2skeete -> DogsLivesMatter , 14 Dec 2016 01:30
    Fully agree with you. Trump's victory is certain to have incalculable consequences for life on earth. I believe he will give Netenyahu the green light to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. I am no fan of Trump.
    Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 00:43
    American 'exceptionalism;' The World's Policeman; The greatest country on earth. Descriptions believed and espoused by the USA. So Exceptional is America that it claims a God-given right to interfere with or sabotage political parties, foriegn governments (democratically-elected or not) and sovereign states anywhere it chooses. Now we have the hilarious spectacle of a historically blood-drenched CIA (Fake News Central) squawking and squealing completely fabricated nonsense about Kremlin interference in Trump's election victory. Tell that to the tens of millions slaughtered in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the many other nations and people's around the globe who have had first hand experience of American Exceptionalism. You could not make it up..
    Fred Lunau -> Pu2u2skeete , 14 Dec 2016 01:43
    Well said. Sad but true.

    cvneuves , 14 Dec 2016 00:41
    Arguably, Clinton and the DNC themselves showed very little respect for democracy, as we know from leaks. And now they are whining because of a democratic outcome they don't like.

    We should discuss two things:

    - the content of the mails
    - and the ethical question: did the hacker, whoever it is, did democracy rather a service than a disservice? From when on is a piece of information so valuable that its origins don't matter anymore?

    Media, at least in times when msm still had some moral clout, often relied in their investigative journalism on source which by themselves were not necessarily ethically bona fide - but the public interest, the common good benefited by the information.

    Had Clinton won the election and we only found out now about the trickery that aided in her success we would have a major dilemma. We would have to have endless discussions now about her legitimacy.

    LibertineUSA , 14 Dec 2016 00:26
    I am one who firmly believes that Clinton lost this election because of Clinton's and the DNC's ineptitude and hubris.

    But that doesn't mean the Russians weren't running a psy-ops campaign of fake news stories and misinformation about Clinton and this election on Facebook.

    Which was more responsible for Clinton's loss? Most probably Clinton's ineptitude but the fake news campaigns on Facebook had some effect. It needs to be addressed...

    diddoit -> LibertineUSA , 14 Dec 2016 00:35
    But hadn't Hillary made it personal by saying Trump was Putin's puppet etc?
    She even refused to state whether she'd seek to impose a no-fly zone over Syria; this despite leading Generals telling her it would mean going to war with Russia and Syria.

    Given all that, it's hardly surprising the Russian Duma broke into spontaneous applause upon the confirmation of her defeat. She'd very much cast herself as the enemy of Russia in the campaign.

    LibertineUSA -> diddoit , 14 Dec 2016 01:12
    With the naming of Rex Tillerson, a close business, and personal, friend of Putin, to be Secy. of State I am not sure the argument can be made that she was wrong in her assessment.
    Mizzentop , 14 Dec 2016 00:21
    This article is absolutely right. Trump was not a good candidate and for him to beat Clinton should be setting alarm bells ringing in Democrat HQ. The left though does have an entrenched culture of deluding itself and convincing itself that its a victim of things beyond its control. That lack of self awareness and inability to be brutally honest with itself is a major reason why the left wins many fewer elections than the left. It is also why there are never shock wins for the Democrats or Labour because they always assume too much. The Tories and Republicans are very good at understanding their weaknesses and mitigating them to win elections.
    Aaron Aarons -> Mizzentop , 14 Dec 2016 00:41
    It's absurd to consider Clinton and the mainstream Democrats as part of "the Left". Even the best of the Democrats are generally more on the Right than on the Left, in that they are pro-capitalist and defend the national interests of U.S. imperialism. Add to that their almost unanimous support for the settler colony called "Israel" and there's very little leftism to be found among them.
    JamesHeartfield -> ID8701745 , 14 Dec 2016 00:31
    Cunning of Putin to go back in time and persuade the framers of the US constitution to institute an electoral college, so that he could put his own candidate in place all those hundreds of years later.
    No. Both candidates fought an election under the same rules. In the run up to the vote, Hillary's spokesmen often argued that even if the vote was close, they had the electoral college sewn up. She has nobody to blame but herself.
    ID5073867 , 14 Dec 2016 00:11
    There are plenty of villains who contributed to the electoral downfall of HRC, mostly, though, it's HRC who is primarily responsible, with a big assist from an arrogant & politically inept DNC. Hillary won a bare majority of women, plus the average income of Trump voters exceeded that of Hillies' supporters. Then all the groundwork for the deplorables was laid by Bill, who got rid of Glass-Steagell. Too much is being made of the machinist from Erie & the deplorables generally & if the Dems don't take a serious look at themselves we'll have Agent Orange for 8 rather than 4 deplorable years.
    freeandfair -> S , 14 Dec 2016 01:52
    For goodness sake, it is not foreign governments , it is information. With advance of social media and internet it became so much harder to control the information that gets out.
    That is where we are in a post-propaganda world. You are not only receiving your government approved daily portion of brainwashing but propaganda and brainwashing and information from various sources, all with their various interests. It is your job a s an individual to decide what to believe. You can't put the jinni back in the box.
    cvneuves , 14 Dec 2016 00:10
    It is all about a narrative to suit the agenda. Had Trump outspent Clinton 2:1 he would now be reviled as the candidate of arms industry, pharmaceuticals and big banks. Had Clinton defeated him it would be celebrated as a successful setback for the aforementioned industries; the intelligence of the voters would have been praised. But then supposedly, Clinton was more supported by disadvantaged groups, albeit they then also would be disadvantaged with regards to their education.

    It will always end up in absurdity. However, the notion that "Putin" (never with first name, or Mr, preferably pronounced "Poot'n") decided the US presidency is, interesting.

    Usually the issue simply is, crap candidate, crap result.

    diddoit , 14 Dec 2016 00:09
    Had Sanders been the candidate and had he lost to Trump, I doubt very much he'd have started all this blaming the Russians nonsense.

    Ultimately, Hilary had terrible trustworthiness ratings from nearly 25 years in frontline politics; every shortcoming ruthlessly exploited along the way by her and her husband's political opponents. Ignoring all that historic baggage(dating back to the early '90s) as irrelevant and blaming defeat on the Russians makes everyone supporting that theory look equally absurd.

    MayorHoberMallow , 14 Dec 2016 00:08
    In the 2016 Presidential election, in the 49 States other than California, Trump won the popular vote and enough electoral votes to win the election.
    In California, the most populous State in America, the popular vote was so overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary Clinton that she ended up winning the overall popular vote.
    The electoral college is working exactly as the Founding Fathers intended.
    cvneuves -> ID8701745 , 14 Dec 2016 01:08

    No he didn't. Check your facts and try again.

    He did, in fact Trump is 600,000 votes ahead of Clinton without California.

    Trump 62,916,237 - California 3,916,209 = 59,000,028
    Clinton 65,758,070 - California 7,362,490 = 58,395,580

    Amazing, the difference a fact check can make, isn't it? Thanks for alerting me to a fact check.

    Zacky Olumba , 13 Dec 2016 23:58
    In Shakespeare's book "Julius Caesar" the dictator was told not to go to the Capitol where he will be murdered. His wife warned him, the soothsayer warned him but he ignored it. Caesar's wisdom was consumed in confidence...confidence that he will be crowned king, confidence that all Romans (most stupid people then) loved him, and confidence that those who surround him are his 'friends.' He adamantly went to the Capitol and was murdered.

    Clinton ignored most rural areas and I totally agree with the writer along this line "They were so confident of their inevitable victory that they wrote off the old industrial states in favor of luring upscale suburbanites who normally vote Republican." Clinton and her team paid dearly for it just like Caesar did. Blaming Russian for the loss is like "You made me do it."

    Simon Speed , 13 Dec 2016 23:53
    In the UK, Rupert Murdoch accesses a Prime Minister as readily as any government minister and wields at least as much influence. At least he is open and honest about this. Similar oligarchs exert their power more discretely. Murdoch's an Australian born US citizen (for business reasons) with a truly global empire.

    A country's big rich have always ruled it's politics. Imperial powers have intervened in their spheres of influence . But now the big rich are international and, it seems, 1st world electorates are getting a taste of what 3rd world people have become used to.

    What strikes me is the reluctance of the US political elite (including Obama) to intervene, even when there's a suspicion of vote rigging. The right of the rich and powerful to control the electoral process (as they have long done) trumps the national-interest (US v. rival powers) side of politics.

    It's a confusing globalized world.

    LastNameOnTheShelf , 13 Dec 2016 23:41
    Hilary Clinton won the popular vote. More people voted for her. What is the deal with the electoral college? How is it possible to have such a huge discrepancy between the two. What is the point of blaming the candidate when they can lose while winning?

    And what is the point of blaming the candidate for their campaign when large numbers of Americans are prepared to believe the most random bullshit? What did you want her to do, lie more often? Because apparently, that's what it takes.

    86753oh9 -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 13 Dec 2016 23:52
    this does a good job of explaining how the electoral college system works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0 ->
    MayorHoberMallow -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:09
    From my comment above... "In the 2016 Presidential election, in the 49 States other than California, Trump won the popular vote and enough electoral votes to win the election.
    In California, the most populous State in America, the popular vote was so overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary Clinton that she ended up winning the overall popular vote.
    The electoral college is working exactly as the Founding Fathers intended."
    Keith Schoose -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:20
    The election is decided by Electoral Votes. Everyone including Hillary knew that. Complaining that she won the popular vote while losing in the Electoral College would be similar to the loser of a soccer match complaining they lost 1-nil even though they outshot the victor by a 6-1 margin. Whine all you want about the popular vote, it is irrelevant.

    Hillary Clinton visited Arizona in the last week of the election, while visiting Wisconsin ZERO times in the general election campaign. The trip to Arizona was a waste of time.

    She lost because she was a horrible candidate with terrible strategy. All these people bleating about "Putin" and or the "popular vote" make me laugh.

    Afterthoughtbtw -> RobertAussie , 14 Dec 2016 00:10
    With respect, you're going to have to back up some of those claims in the second paragraph and how they could apply to Russia.

    As for the first paragraph, a few things come to mind.

    Firstly, it's a huge simplification - there are things like public interest laws to be borne in mind when talking about the press having to obey the law. I don't think there is much doubt that this was in the public interest. I mean what Clinton did with the email server was actually illegal. If someone hacked into a mob boss' computer, got evidence of his/her crimes, and leaked them to the press, would you criticise the hacker or the mob boss?

    Secondly, how on earth was this selectively released to favour one side? How do you favour one side over the other when you only have information on one side. You are literally saying that you shouldn't report on one side's wrongdoings if you can't find anything wrong about the other's! If these are genuine - which absolutely no-one to do with Clinton has denied - then that is all there is to it. Reality isn't partisan.

    Or are you talking about how it was released? You mean dumped en masse onto Wikileaks? How was that showing bias in any way? I just don't understand what you are trying to claim here.

    Finally this comment makes me suspect you don't appreciate the American political climate:

    But, given the result, the section of the press that would investigate hasn't got the money or power to do so. You can be assured the Fox network would have devoted billions to the investigation had HRC won though.

    Fox News aren't the only people with money - indeed, Clinton vastly outspent Trump in the election... by roughly half a billion(!) dollars.

    JamesHeartfield -> fairviewsue , 14 Dec 2016 01:24
    O -- The Director of the CIA says it, then it must be true? Forgive me, but isn't this an organisation created to spread disinformation around the world, overthrow foreign governments, and subvert democracy? Which elections in the world has the CIA not tried to influence? Time Magazine openly boasts that the US government and agencies had a direct role in securing the election of President Yeltsin (who sold off a significant share of the country's assets under US advice, and plunged Russia into the worst recession since the 1930s). Hillary Clinton openly supported the management of the elections for the Palestine National Authority in 2006. Bill Clinton openly agitated for the overthrow of President Aristide.
    Now that the CIA's most assiduous supporters have lost office, up pops the CIA, blaming the Russians, like we were in some bad 1950s Cold War pastiche. Get real. Take responsibility for your own failures, Democrats. Time to cleanse the stables.
    hashtagthat , 13 Dec 2016 23:21
    The CIA: the organisation that brought us WMD, a Gulf war, 100,000s of deaths and the birth of ISIS. The original fake news masters.

    Highly credible.

    Mark222 , 13 Dec 2016 23:12
    Where is even the proof of Russian propaganda? It all seems to come from an "Anonymous source", without verfication I don't see how this is any more legitimate than the rest of the post truth fake news out there that people believe just because it confirms their biases.
    LastNameOnTheShelf -> Mark222 , 13 Dec 2016 23:45
    The CIA claim to know that Russian hackers leaked the Clinton campaign emails to Assange. You can, of course, disbelieve them, but they're not a random anonymous source exactly.
    Rosie423956 -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:17
    Except the sources within the CIA are anonymous. The same CIA who has wrought wars, coups, interfered with elections. That CIA Anonymous source.

    This would be funny, except...oh hell, it's still funny.

    JamesHeartfield -> LastNameOnTheShelf , 14 Dec 2016 00:56
    The CIA -- Trustworthy source --
    cvneuves -> Sappho53 , 13 Dec 2016 23:17
    Putin extremely powerful man. Make regime change in Amerika without needing invasion or rebels. Soon regime change also in many Europan countries by sending copies of emails to small room in embassy of little country in London.

    You know how powerful Putin? Last week even show finger to Chuck Norris! Chuck Norris now call Putin "sir".

    James Harris -> Sappho53 , 14 Dec 2016 01:43
    Uterus or bust went bust a good while back. Give it up
    Michronics42 , 13 Dec 2016 22:50
    Thank you, Doug Henwood for pointing out what the wholly-owned corporate "pundits" choose not to divulge to coincide with their own agendas.

    Hillary was a disastrous choice for the "Democratic" party, but the vast majority of Democratic politicians were just too feckless to support Bernie Sanders, so now we have an equally terrible choice in Donald Trump.

    That Clinton and Trump even competed for the presidency is in itself an indication of just how disconnected and undemocratic U.S. politics has become.

    Moreover, as Henwood (a frequent and unsparing critic of Clinton, Inc. over the years) has pointed out both Democrats and Republicans are supporting the Russia conspiracy theory in a cowardly attempt to distract the U.S. public from the real and far more dire crisis, which is Washington's enormous political dysfunction not Russia's complicity. (Read Henwood's essay: Stop Hillary! Vote no to a Clinton Dynasty in Harper's Magazine, November 2014 - one article a month is free for reading).

    Yes, the electoral college is a ridiculous throwback to slavery which should be abolished, but its dissolution is just one of many things I'd like to see eradicated from a governing body that has long stopped representing the interests of working class Americans; unless, of course you have the influence and money for such access.

    The non-violent and powerful Black Lives Matter, Moral Mondays in North Carolina and Standing Rock protesters (reinforced by U.S. veterans and other supporters) have demonstrated that change is possible if we're carefully focused on uprooting and replacing government corruption.

    Francisco Carvajal , 13 Dec 2016 22:49
    A silly binary-it's not either Putin or Clinton but a complex conjecture. Can't we raise our intellectual level closer to the complexity of our world?
    SubjectiveSubject , 13 Dec 2016 22:46
    The West support for regimes like Israel and Saudi Arabia makes it hard to present a credible case against Putin on any issues but, rigging the election is just absurd. These days people are more clued up and know Hillary lost because she was not trusted, carried baggage and was funded by big banks. It is rather worrying that we've gone backward and Nazi propaganda tactics are the norm again.
    skiloypet , 13 Dec 2016 22:42
    There was a 50/50 chance the Democrats would take the fall from grace; both parties are out of touch with mainstream, middle-class America, it's just coincidence Trump manifested himself when he did. Neither party had a good message or a good messenger; the dark phenomenon of Trump could have come from either party, the nation was so desperate for change. Yet the GOP really maneuvered for Jeb Bush to begin with; the Democrats, with a significantly smaller field, laid their bet on Clinton. The public's rejection of both Bush and Clinton left the door open for a GOP interloper, Trump; and Clinton was pushed on the Democrats rather than Sanders.

    Even the GOP will have buyers remorse if/when they cannot temper Trump.

    Patrick Moore , 13 Dec 2016 22:34
    As someone who wanted Hilary to win, it is difficult to disagree with any of this.

    If she couldn't beat Trump - who about three times a day said something idiotic or repugnant, then she really was the wrong candidate

    Since he won Trump has actually sounded miles more sensible. I can't help feel that if he had adopted his current tone before the election that he would have won by a landslide

    samuel glover -> Herr_Settembrini , 13 Dec 2016 22:55
    "This was the strategy not because Clinton was was incompetent; it was the strategy because all available data pointed to the fact that it was working."

    What a joke.

    She had a billion dollars in her campaign fund. The money she spent on "data" was just money flushed down the sewer. (No doubt various Clinton hangers-on got very nice "consulting" fees.) She was a Democrat who publicly bragged about her devotion to **Henry Kissinger**.

    She lost to **Donald Trump**. I think even Martin O'Malley could've beaten Trump; I'm certain Sanders could. Only Hillary Clinton had the "magic" necessary to lose to a casino and real estate huckster.

    She was always a lousy candidate, and she's an incompetent politician as well. Dems can face that, face reality, or keep going as they are, in which case there won't **be** a Democratic Party before long.

    MountainMan23 , 13 Dec 2016 22:24
    Agreed. HRC, DNC and the Clintonistas are the only ones responsible for her loss. But there's more to their post-election pushback than just shifting the blame, a lot more.

    Demonizing Russia isn't just about seeking a scapegoat. Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders.

    That's a lot of anticipated arms sales and a lot of every bit as anticipated political "donations" from the corporate establishment.

    amuel glover -> MountainMan23 , 13 Dec 2016 23:00
    " Trump's embrace of Russia and decision to end the neocon-neoliberal agenda of regime change skewer two of the corporate establishment's cash cows - arms sales to the numerous conflicts in the Middle East initiated by the corporate cabal, and arms sales to NATO and all the new post Cold War NATO members to continue the buildup of armaments on Russia's borders."

    That's a mighty optimistic forecast, but it's not impossible. I think Trump is likely to be a disaster, and even if he isn't, an unleashed Republican gang is a horrible thing to imagine. Still, I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, and I note that already Trump's campaign has put down TWO odious political dynasties, AND the TPP -- all very healthy developments.

    cvneuves , 13 Dec 2016 22:23
    Hillary Clinton lost because the majority of the voters were nauseated by her by her fake perma- smile which might as well have been installed by cosmetic surgery. The well rehearsed, worn-out, hollow on-message crap she spouted had zilch credibility and as much resonance. She had nothing to say to the electorate.

    That the Clinton spent about twice as much as the Trump camp in this case did not work to her favour: every appearance on tv made her lose voters.

    The only thing that kept the contest somehow close was the unprecedented all-media fear campaign against Trump.

    I have never had any doubt that that Trump would get the job. What surprised me though, is that only one in 200 eligible voters bothered with the Green's Jill Stein: they are supposedly relatively highly committed to their causes.

    Another mistake of the Clinton campaign, btw. was to focus on scandal. My experience of 45 years of campaigning tells me "scandal" does not win any campaigns.

    cvneuves -> Walter Masterson , 13 Dec 2016 22:45

    99% of the weapons in the Trump arsenal were Trumped up Hillary "scandals"

    They did not decide it. Neither did the new "sexual victim" paraded every couple of days by the Clinton camp. Scandal and counter-scandal are part of every campaign and ignored by non-committed voters.

    What did it for Trump was, that he spoke unscripted, thus came across a somewhat more genuine, and at least acknowledged the victims of de-industrialisation, for which he could not be blamed, but Clinton could. Clinton did not have anything she could present apart from "better equipped because of experience" - with an undistinguished actual record. The name Clinton can be blamed for the plight of the "rust-belt".

    Juillette , 13 Dec 2016 22:19
    Americans have paid a heavy price because of free trade deals and they want a different direction. In the last 15 years there is a noticeable difference in opportunity and wages and most of our politicians don't care. Hillary lost this because she supported most free trade and outsourcing jobs to India and China. They DNC has a chance to reform but they choose not to. I hope Bernie starts a new party and leaves the neo liberals behind. Who knows where Trump will take us but if he adds to the swamp he will be a one term president. Right now it looks like he is repaying his Wall Street fundraisers and big oil super pacs. Our politicians deserve the embarrassment for ignoring our citizens struggles.
    PennyCarter -> Juillette , 13 Dec 2016 22:25
    I mostly see your argument and respect it. However I was not aware that trump was subject to enormous support from super-pacs or Wall Street?
    Juillette -> PennyCarter , 13 Dec 2016 22:58
    Steven Mnuchin with ties to Wall Street stepped in when no one else would and fund raised for Trump. Mnuchin is picked as secretary of treasury. Big oil supported Cruz and moved to Trump with a few superpacs that Kellyanne Conway managed. Both Wall Street and energy will be deregulated. Also tax reform for corporations. He will have to follow through on new trade deals, tax on imports and immigration or he will only help the 1%. We will see if he follows through...
    samuel glover -> PennyCarter , 13 Dec 2016 23:02
    His appointments aren't those of a guy intent on keeping Wall Street at arm's length. **Three** cabinet posts to Goldman Sachs alums?!?!? C'mon.....
    Solomon Black , 13 Dec 2016 22:18
    But didn't Obama dismiss Romney's warning that Russia was a threat to America in 2012. Democrats double standard.
    Walter Masterson -> Solomon Black , 13 Dec 2016 22:31
    Short answer: no.

    Keith Schoose -> Solomon Black , 14 Dec 2016 00:57
    Short answer: Yes.

    Mauryan , 13 Dec 2016 22:18
    CIA? The one which came up with the truth about WMDs in Iraq?

    Who can trust an intelligence agency that has become a legalized criminal organization?

    I think Aliens changed the course of the election and not Putin :-)

    Patrick Moore -> Mauryan , 13 Dec 2016 22:41
    Exactly. So Goldman Sachs as well as the CIA are supporting Hilary. What's not to love about that.

    Difficult to even think of a more toxic endorsement

    MarinaAs , 13 Dec 2016 22:14
    You sir are simply, wrong! read:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/12/1609989/-It-s-the-Russian-arctic-shelf-stupid
    kritter , 13 Dec 2016 22:14
    The only person the democrats are helping with this is Putin.

    diddoit -> kritter , 13 Dec 2016 22:25
    Indeed,

    I bet in Moscow they're quite enjoying this notion Putin can simply dismiss any govt on earth by simply letting loose a few hackers and propagandists. And probably thinking if only.

    The west looks like its collectively losing its marbles. Political systems, like tastes and fashion change naturally over time. Our two party systems struggle to cope with any change, thus the bewildered politicians within these parties lash out.

    PennyCarter -> diddoit , 13 Dec 2016 22:33
    It seems the Arab spring has finally reached America
    MOTCO , 13 Dec 2016 22:11
    The US have been obsessed with the commies for so long they can't see where the new threats are coming from.
    SteveTory , 13 Dec 2016 22:09
    On November 25, 2016, the Obama administration said the results from November 8, "accurately reflect the will of the American people." The following day, the White House released another statement saying, "the federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day."
    Herr_Settembrini -> SteveTory , 13 Dec 2016 22:38
    And? Does anybody claim that any foreign power hacked the voting machines themselves?

    The claim is that Russian directed operatives hacked the DNC, etc. in an attempt to find embarrassing material that would damage Clinton's candidacy. They succeeded.

    mismeasure -> Herr_Settembrini , 13 Dec 2016 23:49
    We know about the claims. What about the evidence?
    suddenoakdeath , 13 Dec 2016 22:04
    Doug Henwood trying to beat the Bernie Sanders drum. What I heard from Bernie Sanders Townhall in Wisconsin is that people blamed illegal immigrants for their situation. Deep down inside they have been Trump supporters for a while. That is why Trump won Wisconsin.
    Wiseaftertheevent , 13 Dec 2016 22:02
    A Labour MP is claiming that Putin also fixed the Brexit vote - which also shows how people will blame anyone but themselves for losing a vote. There is not one Clinton supporter who would have complained about the result had she won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote.

    That is not to say that the system should not be changed but Democrats and/or Clintonites should not try to change it retrospectively. That would mean chaos.

    ATLcitizen7 , 13 Dec 2016 22:02
    Totally agree with this article by Mr. Henwood. If Democrats, and Republicans for that matter, want to go on a wild goose chase to blame Russians for the election outcome, with basically no hard evidence to back their claim, rather than look at the real reasons why they lost (disaffected angry citizens and not being able to compete with Trump because they chose lousy candidates) then they deserve to continue losing their future elections. So be it.
    Mystik Al , 13 Dec 2016 22:01
    If she had not spent so much time calling Trump a Misogynist while taking money from Saudi Arabia then maybe , just maybe she would have not come across as the most deceitful and toxic candidate the US has ever seen.
    NancyVolle , 13 Dec 2016 21:58
    Hillary Clinton lost Pennsylvania, Michigan & Wisconsin solely because of NAFTA & TPP. Bill & Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA. Hillary Clinton had a history of supporting TPP & Obama was actively pushing it. When Hillary Clinton changed her position on TPP people in the old industrial heartland were not convinced that was sincere. The Russians were not responsible for Hillary, Bill & Obama's history of support for trade deals that facilitate moving jobs to low wage countries that suppress unions, allow unsafe working conditions & don't have meaningful environmental regulations.
    seho90 , 13 Dec 2016 21:56

    Julian Assange denies that the Russian government was the source of the hacked emails to and from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta that WikiLeaks published. Of course, there's no way of knowing if he's telling the truth – but regardless of their source, how much influence did they have on the election outcome?

    oh, right

    so when the Wikileaks reveals evilness of the conservatives, it's good, but when the liberals get revealed, he's not telling the truth?

    give me a break.

    Wikileaks is a neutral source, not a conservative or a liberal one.

    PennyCarter -> seho90 , 13 Dec 2016 22:04
    I agree with you. However may I add that the point is not whether Assange is of good character or whether Wikileaks is left or right. The point is has any Wikileaks releases been proven false in the last 10 years or so?
    Herr_Settembrini -> seho90 , 13 Dec 2016 22:32

    Wikileaks is a neutral source, not a conservative or a liberal one.

    Bull. Assange dripped, dripped, dripped the leaks so that it would do maximum damage to Clinton. Whether he has conservative or liberal leanings is irrelevant. What in incontrovertible, however, is that he has an anti-Clinton bias.

    What the leaks revealed is exactly the kind of internal policy debates, calibration of message, and gossipy venting that occurs in any political campaign. Only out of context did they appear damaging.

    calderonparalapaz , 13 Dec 2016 21:43
    Is Guardian running cold war propaganda?

    "Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA's Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence"- Glen Greenwald

    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence /

    ewmbrsfca , 13 Dec 2016 21:41
    The other big elephant in the room is that nearly half of those eligible to vote did not. Instead, the hysterical US media engage the gullible populace in yet another game of mass distraction, and soon Putin will be forgotten and all will salivate over the Oscar nominations. Thus the United States of Amnesia will settle into its usual addictive habit of running after any "news" that holds the promise of distractive entertainment. Never mind the nation's democracy... "We amuse ourselves to death" (Neil Postman).
    Mike Kiepe , 13 Dec 2016 21:37
    This article is spot on. Tulsi Gabbard 2020
    PennyCarter , 13 Dec 2016 21:34
    Otto Bismarck once said: "laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made"

    To paraphrase, I guess you could also say the same about elections. Leaks revealing behind the curtains shenanigans of any election would turn most stomachs. After seeing this election I may become a vegetarian.

    Huddsblue , 13 Dec 2016 21:32
    Too right. It was always Hillary's election to lose and she lost it simply because she was not to be trusted. Her very public endorsement by gangster capitalist Jay-Z told you all you needed to know about who she represented.
    chris200 , 13 Dec 2016 21:12
    I used to work for an American oil company. Clinton was the one thing that united Democrats and Republicans over lunch time chats. She was unsuitable, and unfit for office. People voted not necessarily for Trump, but against Clinton. Don't blame Trump for this result. Blame the democrats and their poor candidates. So far I like his choice of cabinet members. Except for the banker they are men that create wealth by providing work for talented people. Not something the Guardian understands.
    merrykoala -> LDWWDL , 13 Dec 2016 21:27
    So your prime character witness for Hillary Clinton is.....Bill Clinton.

    Good luck with that.

    FYI mishandling protectively marked documents is wrongdoing, which James Comey testified that she had. Had it been ANYBODY other than a presidential candidate their feet wouldn't have touched the floor.

    Justin Chudgar , 13 Dec 2016 21:09
    What the author fails to emphasize is the degree to which Dem. party 'insiders' like DWSchulz and DBrazile and so on sabotaged their own nomination process by biasing the pre-primary and primary contests in favor of Clinton in subtle and stupidly obvious ways.

    Had this been a contest between Trump and B. Sanders, M. O'Malley, J. Biden, E. Warren, etc. there would have been no Podesta emails to care hack, no home server to investigate, etc. By tipping the scales in favor of Clinton early, parts of the Dem. party caused the current outcome.

    piouspish , 13 Dec 2016 20:58
    I was dubious before, but I'm now actively concerned. This crop of Democrats and their deep state cohorts are unhinged and dangerous. They see me and my families' lives as an externality in their eventual war with Russia. As Phyrric a victory as there could possibly be. They are psychotic; not only waging countless coups and intelligence operations abroad, but now in plain sight on American soil. The mainstream media seems to invoke the spirit of Goebbels more vividly with each passing day. Their disdain and manipulation of the general populace is chilling. They see us not as people to be won-over, but as things to be manipulated, tricked and coerced. Nothing new for politicians (particularity the opposition) - but the levels here are staggering.

    January couldn't come soon enough - and I say that as strong critic of Trump.

    erewhon888 , 13 Dec 2016 20:39
    There is an update to yesterday's Guardian article. Update: David Swanson interviewed Murray today, and obtained additional information. Specifically, Murray told Swanson that: (1) there were two American leakers ... one for the emails of the Democratic National Committee and one for the emails of top Clinton aide John Podesta; (2) Murray met one of those leakers; and (3) both leakers are American insiders with the NSA and/or the DNC, with no known connections to Russia.
    michaelmichael , 13 Dec 2016 20:38
    "Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did"

    Nailed it. If the Democrats had fielded someone who actually represented the people (and who spoke the truth) instead of a corporate shill, the outcome would have been very different.

    They had the ideal candidate in Sanders and they fucked him out of it. But have they learned anything? I seriously doubt it.

    Patrick Perroud , 13 Dec 2016 20:37
    Mrs Clinton is not blaming others. She never did. It's the CIA - backed by the 17 US intelligence agencies - that's saying Russia interfered with the election process in the USA.

    In UK as well, the MI6 said something similar a few weeks ago. Germany is also concerned about the next elections in France and Germany. If any of this was true then it would be a serious threat against democracy in Western countries.

    So who's blaming who? Deep cheaters or bad loosers? The CIA could be wrong but is probably correct this time. Trying to bury this unanimous call from western secret services under contempt is significant by itself.

    Thatoneguyyouknow -> Patrick Perroud , 13 Dec 2016 21:06
    " It's the CIA - backed by the 17 US intelligence agencies - that's saying Russia interfered with the election process in the USA. "

    Way to parrot FAKE NEWS.

    That is a COMPLETE LIE. Unless you honestly believe that agencies like the DEA and NASA's "intelligence" conclusively found "proof" that does not exist. That TALKING POINT was a lie when CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN originated it, and it is STILL a lie.

    But hey, it's only wrong when the "bad guys" on the "other team" spread fake news and engage in intellectual dishonesty, right? When it's the "good guys" it's just a case of the "ends justify the means" and perfectly acceptable, right?

    samuel glover -> Patrick Perroud , 13 Dec 2016 23:43
    "Mrs Clinton is not blaming others. She never did."

    Bullshit. Just last week she resurfaced (can't she grasp the idea of the graceful exit?) to yammer on about the menace of "fake news". Because of course we all know that before 2016, all American elections have been exercises in fair-mindedness and scrupulous devotion to truth.

    stellendar , 13 Dec 2016 20:37
    It's funny how media simply refuses to admit that Trump did it.
    Russians, Hilary, polar bears - none of them had anything to do with it - HE WON.
    Live with it.
    Hmeckardt , 13 Dec 2016 20:36
    The clickbait headline is frustrating. No serious person is accusing Russia of having caused Clinton's loss. Instead, serious people (including, thankfully, leading Republicans) are demanding that we take a thoughtful and comprehensive look at the evidence that Russia intended to influence the election. That's a necessary step for protecting our democracy and it's irresponsible to ascribe political motives to that task.
    Bauhaus -> Hmeckardt , 13 Dec 2016 20:42
    What about the $20 million given to Clinton from Saudi Arabia, did that influence the election or don't we talk about that?
    James Harris -> Bauhaus , 13 Dec 2016 20:44
    Sssshhh don't mention facts that don't support the agenda
    HeeeresJohnny , 13 Dec 2016 20:34
    There was a good article in The Intercept the other regarding the CIA's unsubstantiated (and subserviently published by the media) claims of Russian interference - how it has essentially become a willy-waving contest between the CIA and the FBI in the wake of the elections; how the CIA is an inherently untrustworthy organisation and the media allowing "senior officials" to dictate the news with empty leaks and no evidence (while shouting the loudest about fake news) is folly.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence /

    Eric Hurley -> HeeeresJohnny , 13 Dec 2016 20:53
    The CIA is untrustworthy? what about the FBI?

    HeeeresJohnny -> Eric Hurley , 13 Dec 2016 21:05
    As far as I know, the FBI isn't currently leaking unsubstantiated "news" with the potential of provoking dangerously poor relations with Russia.
    Thatoneguyyouknow -> Eric Hurley , 13 Dec 2016 21:12
    "The CIA is untrustworthy?"

    Have you ZERO knowledge of history? WHAT in their ENTIRE EXISTENCE has given you a ONE SINGLE BIT of faith in their credibility?

    michaelmichael -> Dzomba , 13 Dec 2016 20:40
    "but using covert methods to manipulate the flow of information in the public debate to undermine a candidate is totally unacceptable"

    the US prefers to engineer military coups

    finnja , 13 Dec 2016 20:32
    Very true. It takes an abysmal candidate to lose against (quoting Jimmy Dore here:) Donny Tinyhands.
    It takes a special brand of dense to run
    - for Wall Street (against reinstatement of Glass Steagall)
    - for a direct military confrontation with nuclear power Russia (wich Clinton's pet-project of no-fly zones in Syria would have signified)
    - for trade deals (nobody bought Clinton was suddenly against that)
    and expect the DEMOCRATIC base to turn out.
    Jesus Christ, Donny ran to the left of Hillary on all three issues. Not that anyone trusts him to keep any promise, but at least he didn't outright spit in the face of the people who want less war, less neoliberalism and less Wall Street cronyism while running for election.
    No Democratic candidate worth his/her name would have lost against Trump, not even if the Axis of Evil (whoever that currently is) had hacked all their emails, photobooks and private porn-flicks, in which they starred, and had them all run nonstop 24/7 on every screen on Earth.
    2fingersup2tories , 13 Dec 2016 20:23
    I'm shocked!!! Aren't the Russians to blame for everything???
    My t.v breaking, the rain outside, brexit, Donald trump, the Iraq war, the death of Jesus, those damn Russians, nothing is safe around those monsters.
    Hilarious
    enodesign , 13 Dec 2016 20:19
    Thanks for this article .

    You are so correct .

    I am so sick and tired of hearing those whining elite democrats gone incessantly about white males , the FBI , Putin , Russia , stupid red state citizens , etc., etc ..

    I want say ' Shut the fuck up -- ..... and look in the bloody mirror ' .

    I am a classic liberal .... always have been ..... always will be ...... and I don't know what you would like to call these corrupt , elitist , contemporary democrats but you certainly can not call them real liberals .

    I call them designer democrats . They care only for their particular pet issues and they ongoing pursuit of notions of their own superiority . They routinely generalize in highly sexist and racist fashions and through the use of political correctness seek to silence all of their critics .

    I , simply , loath them .

    They sabotaged Bernie Sanders campaign . Bernie Sanders ..... the nicest , most caring man to come along in American politics in the past 50 years . Not since , FDR , John and Robert Kennedy have we seen such hope for average people .

    But oh , no ..... Bernie was an outsider ..... not part of their corrupt , elite club . He was a threat to their ongoing party . He had to go .

    They didn't give a shit about what was good for the people . They only cared about themselves and their exploitation of the Democratic Party and it's traditional status ..... and their vulgar corruption of genuine liberalism for their own purposes .

    The Democratic Party establishment will now undergo a long , long overdue cleansing . The Clintons are the first to go as they should be . Two total career political scoundrels , if ever there were any . Lies and secrecy were all that you ever got from them aside form the horrific repeal of the 'Glass-Steggall Act ' and the Stock Trade Modernization Bill which lead to the licensing of the financial elite to plunder the economy , ruin the lives of countless average Americans and turn the economy into a complete casino .

    Elitist to the core , they were .

    Imagine an elite , spoon fed , self-interested urbanite like Hillary Clinton telling some poor white male schmuck living in some small town , who for economic reasons has never had a good full time time and works 3 temporary part-time jobs to pay the bills that he is privileged .

    Bloody ridiculous --

    Talk about overt sexism . Talk about overt racism .

    It's these kinds of behaviours that doomed Hillary Clinton .

    She only has herself to blame .

    If she really had cared about average people she would have not sabotaged Bernie Sanders and she would have stepped aside back in June when every poll indicated the she could not beat Trump and that Bernie could beat him by 10 to 15 points .

    Now , we the people are stuck with a Trump presidency ..... something which you can pretty much be assured is going to be un mitigated disaster in ways that we can't even begin to imagine yet .

    Lord help us .

    Good-bye Democratic Party elites ..... don't let the fucking door hit on the way out .

    I wish I could say that it was nice knowing you but it wasn't .

    Go off to your designer lives and pontificate about what is good for people ..... a subject that you know little about and really don't give a damn .

    Go back to Davos and party with the financial global elite for they are really your people .... your kind . Certainly , average hardworking , genuinely liberal people are not .

    Liberalism exists for all people not just the self-anointed few .

    Treflesg , 13 Dec 2016 20:14
    Have you noticed how recently the 'we are not racist and you are' left have started to use the Chinese and Russians as convenient foreign bogeymen to scare the people with?

    Awkward economic figures, blame the Chinese.
    Awkward diplomatic issues or you lost a vote, blame the Russians.

    The problem with this is that our media then amplifies these attacks on China and Russia, they hear them, and they start to resent it and respond. And our future relations with two major world powers are made worse than they needed to be.

    sarkany , 13 Dec 2016 20:13
    A good article to counterbalance the reams of rubbish we are hearing in the US election post-mortem. Anyone who had neural activity should have known that when you steal the candidacy, you certainly won't get the votes. Clinton effectively handed the election to Trump by not having the humility, humanity and honesty to admit defeat by Benie Sanders.

    He was not a perfect choice, but he could have been a candidate who was everything that Trump wasn't - uncorrupted, honest, and with a clearly thought out and principled agenda.

    All Trump was facing was someone as entitled and establishment as he was,. but with less of what passes for 'the human touch' across the pond.

    There's always the possibility of course, that the US establishment realised Clinton's blatant warmongering wasn't 'good for business'.

    The Russians are no doubt aware that the US has to try and cut the Gordian knot - Washington cannot face down China and Russia at the same time; and the two countries are mutually supportive in the UN and are developing many economic projects together.

    So maybe, they thought, we can get the Russkies 'on side', deal with China (ie. reduce it to a 'client state'/ turn it into an ashtray) - and then move on Russia and grab all those lovely resources freed up by global warming....

    yohoot , 13 Dec 2016 20:12
    Seems to me like the Clinton agenda of big oil, big banks and alot of lies won the WH. Hillary's big corporate donors are on Trumps transition team. Surely they didnt want her to win, since she adopted Sanders regulatory, tax the wealthy platform, hence Clinton was duped with marketing strategy which turned voters off, she was reduced to name calling over promotong policy...what did she represent? Only her campaign volunteers knew, her message to the public was "dont vote for Trump" which translates to, I could lose to him, vote for me!
    Benjohn6379 , 13 Dec 2016 19:58
    The Podesta emails confirmed what many people already suspected and knew of Hillary and her campaign. Those who were interested in reading them had to actually look for them, since MSM was not reporting on them. It's not as if an avid MSNBC or CNN watcher was going to be exposed.

    So, if you were seeking them out, A: you probably already suspected those things and B: you weren't going to vote for Hillary to begin with.

    It's hilarious how the major Left outlets (Washington Post) are now telling it's readers how Russia is to blame for people voting against Hillary due to the Podesta emails, when they didn't even report on the emails in the first place.

    theshining , 13 Dec 2016 19:57
    FINALLY sanity intrudes. For one article and one day. But hey , progress is progress. Trump will NOT be what you think him to be. He will be far better. He will still do things you don't like, but not REALLY bad things. :-)

    There was no reason to vote for Clinton as the article says. She offered nothing except the entitlement of HER. It wasn't enough. Thank The Gods. EVERYTHING about the system all halfway decent people detest, is summed up in the figure of Hillary Clinton. And evidently (and I stand to be corrected) she didn't even have the stones not to melt down on election night and Podesta had to go out there and be a complete buffoon.

    Trump might be an unknown but Clinton and her used up party were a complete known. Like Donald said, she had 'experience', but it was all BAD 'experience'. Trump might not fix the problems but at least he's going to try. Clinton didn't even see the problems.

    Raleighchopper , 13 Dec 2016 19:48
    -> Neoliberalism turned our world into a business. And there are two big winners
    Fearmongering Donald Trump and optimistic Silicon Valley seem to epitomize opposing ideologies. But the two have far more in common than you think

    Steady now Graun, 2 sensible articles in 1 day.

    quasar9uk , 13 Dec 2016 19:48
    it did her a really big favour because she was and still is in poor health and the stress of high office would have been fatal for her probably
    quasar9uk -> kronfeld , 13 Dec 2016 22:20
    she is a frail, withered old woman who needs to retire - def the wrong democrat choice, crazy -- Berni.S would have won if for them - he is far more sincere
    Ken Kutner , 13 Dec 2016 19:48
    Here is the key paragraph: "The displaced machinists... believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton's turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton's campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with "optics" at the expense of substance." Funny the author fails to notice that that describes to a T Trump's campaign, and actually his whole life. That description applies to Trump several orders of magnitude moreso than it applies to Hillary Clinton's life. If you think Trump is really interested in bringing jobs, especially good paying jobs back, you are willfully blind.
    Prydain , 13 Dec 2016 19:43
    "Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did"

    Trump won, he played the game brilliantly to the rules (including the electoral college system), Clinton lost (you can't win it for the opposition, you can just lose, and the Democrats didn't put out their best hope) and Putin was irrelevant in terms of any interference (although maybe Trump voters would rather the US develop a better relationship with Russia, but that's down to Trump in playing that card).

    SwansonDinner , 13 Dec 2016 19:39
    This argument is as asinine as the one the author opposes. It was a collusion of events that led to this result, including the failure of both parties to adapt to an evolving economic and social climate over decades. The right wing hailing the collapse of liberalism as a result of decades of liberal mismanagement conveniently forget their own parties have held the reins for half that time, and failed just as miserably as the left....
    HellisEmpty , 13 Dec 2016 19:38
    It's quite bizarre to see "progressives" openly side with the military industrial complex, which is threatened by a president elect weary of more warfare.

    It's to be expected from career politicians like McCain who is kicking and screaming, but it's shameful to see supposed liberally-minded people help spread the Red Scare storyline.

    Aquarius9 , 13 Dec 2016 19:27
    A good article Henwood.

    The Democrats are in full blown tantrum mode, throwing teddies out of their pram and spitting dummies across the room, because their warmonger and deceitful candidate HRC, didn't win, that's why there has been all this bad news nonsense about Putin and/or Russia since last week.

    Obama has behaved dreadfully, first he or his office gets one of its poodles namely MI6 to point the finger at Putin re cyberwar, which was swiftly followed by the International Olympic Committee looking at Russia for 2012 Olympic games, the elections in the US and the Democrats CIA coming out with unsubstantiated nonsense (funny how they never like, providing collaborative evidence - on this or anything that supposedly Russia has done) then there is Syria, and Obama and the Democrats were the cheerleader for regime change, because they have been out manoeuvred in that sphere. All of it in less than a week.

    If Obama, the administration, and the CIA were smart they would have realised that a concerted effort to blame Putin / Russia would be seen for what it is - a liar and one of trying to discredit both the outcome of the US elections, the dislike of HRC, and her association with Wall St. - she raised more money for her campaign than Trump and Sanders put together (if the Democrats had chosen Sanders, then they would have stood a chance) and that their hawk would not be in a position to create WW111 - thank goodness. The Democrats deserved what they got.

    ohforgoodnesssake -> PanYanPickle , 13 Dec 2016 19:35
    This organ of the liberal media (no scare quotes required - it is socially liberal and economically neoliberal), along with many others, dogmatically supported Clinton against Sanders to the point of printing daily and ridiculous dishonesty, even going so far as to make out as if anyone who supports any form of wealth redistribution is a racist, sexist, whitesplaining dude-bro.
    WitoldLutoslawski -> zootsuitbeatnick , 13 Dec 2016 19:14
    The Wikileaks emails proved the votes were rigged against Sanders, it why Debbie W Shulz had to resign
    Raleighchopper , 13 Dec 2016 18:59
    Or more precisely the Superdelegates and the Democratic National Committee did. Her Goldman/Morgan Stanley speechs were in 2013 ffs, they all knew she had form and was 'viewed as an insider' as Obama put it in The New Yorker interview.
    danubemonster , 13 Dec 2016 18:58
    The election was close, and if one less thing had gone wrong for Hillary she would have won. However I think an important thing that lost her the election was identity politics. She patronized Afro-Americans and Hispanics, by tell them that because they are Trump-threatened minorities, they should vote for her. In the same vein, gays and women were supposed to vote for her. But what she was really telling these groups was that they should revel in their supposed victimhood, which was not a great message.
    Stetson Meyers , 13 Dec 2016 18:45
    Completely agreed! The onus for defeat belongs to the Democrat party leadership as well. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both understood where the momentum of the election was headed before anyone else did. The election was won and lost in the white blue collar Midwest. A place that decided that diet corporatism is decidedly worse than a populist right wing extremist.

    No one here believed the ridiculous about-face Hillary pulled on the question of the TPP. I guarantee you Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and perhaps Ohio and Iowa.

    ojeemabalzitch , 13 Dec 2016 18:36
    "Our self-image as the world's greatest democracy...." Well, speaking for myself and plenty of other Americans, I never said anything like that about us. In fact, like a lot of people I wish we would stick to our own business, quit trying to be the world's cop, and cease meddling in other countries' affairs.

    If we do that, then I could care less about our image or what the rest of the world thinks. Let some other country be the "leader of the Free World." Who died and left the US in charge, anyway? Not one war we have fought since WWII has been worth the price of one drop of American blood.

    Steve Gustafson , 13 Dec 2016 18:31
    Assuming that it really was the Russians who done it, I guess they had a better game plan than the Saudis. I consider the Russians to have done us a favor of sorts by exposing Hillary's secret Wall Street speeches and the machinations of the DNC. Her 'deplorables' comment was every bit as telling as Mitt Romney's '47%'. We really needed to know about her 'public versus private positions', even if it only confirmed what everybody already knew. I am not 100% sure the system made the worst choice in raising up Donald Trump.

    And even so, if it takes four years of Trump to remove the people who thought Hillary was a good candidate from power in the Democratic Party, it may work out for the best in the long run. And if it takes four years of Trump to show the people who voted for Trump that Republican ideologues can only make their problems worse, so be it. It's mostly the hubris that amuses me at this point. They thought they were the pros. They had the money. They had the ground game. All they did wrong was to preselect and preordain a candidate nobody wanted.

    Steve Gustafson -> Kevin Watson , 14 Dec 2016 04:13

    abuses women, advances the cause of racism, attacks women's rights, is xenophobic

    The American voters heard a steady stream of these arguments. Some may have simply ignored them. Others took them into consideration, but concluded that they wanted drastic change enough to put them aside. White women decided that Trump's comments, while distasteful, were things they'd heard before.

    Reliance on the sanctity of racial and gender pieties was a mistake. Not everyone treats these subjects as the holiest of holies. The people who would be most swayed by those arguments never would have voted for Trump anyways.

    Bronxite -> Kevin Watson , 14 Dec 2016 02:21
    Colin Powell did not advise Clinton to do that, and even if he did she was a fool to take his advice when her boss Obama explicitly told her not to keep a private server. Colin Powell said Clinton destroys everything she touches with hubris. Seeing as how she destroyed the democrat "blue wall" and also had low turnout which hurt democrats down the ticket I agree.
    Max von Berg , 13 Dec 2016 18:09
    Zero evidence other than "he said, she said" regarding any involvement of Russian espionage agencies in the U.S. elections but the left, incredulous once the result didn't go their way, are now clinging to anything to divert attention from the issues that HRC ignored and Trump embraced.

    All this hysteria about the USA and Russia finally working together than apart doesn't help either for it appears that the [neoliberal] lefties want a perpetual war rather than peace.

    noteasilyfooled , 13 Dec 2016 18:01
    The CIA being outraged about a foreign state intervening in an election is quite funny. They have intervened so many times, especially in Latin America, to install puppet regimes.

    As for hacking... does anybody believe the CIA has never hacked anybody?

    Anyway, had the emails not existed, there would have been nothing with which to help Trump. The Democrats have only themselves to blame. Bernie Sanders or ANY other candidate without the Clintons baggage could have done a better job f beating Trump. They wanted Hillary at all cost; they lost!

    GuardianFodder -> noteasilyfooled , 13 Dec 2016 18:55
    Christmas cracker joke for you;

    Q: Why has there never been a coup in the US?

    A: Because Washington doesn't have an American embassy....

    [Dec 14, 2016] Ron Paul The War On Fake News Is A War On Free Speech Zero Hedge

    Dec 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

    A major threat to liberty is the assault on the right to discuss political issues, seek out alternative information sources, and promote dissenting ideas and causes such as non-interventionism in foreign and domestic affairs. If this ongoing assault on free speech succeeds, then all of our liberties are endangered.

    One of the most common assaults on the First Amendment is the attempt to force public policy organizations to disclose their donors. Regardless of the intent of these laws, the effect is to subject supporters of controversial causes to harassment, or worse. This harassment makes other potential donors afraid to support organizations opposing a popular war or defending the rights of an unpopular group.

    Many free speech opponents support laws and regulations forbidding activist or educational organizations from distributing factual information regarding a candidate's positions for several months before an election. The ban would apply to communications that do not endorse or oppose any candidate. These laws would result in the only sources of information on the candidate's views being the campaigns and the media.

    Recently the Federal Election Commission (FEC) rejected a proposal to add language exempting books, movies, and streaming videos from its regulations. The majority of FEC commissioners apparently believe they should have the power, for example, to ban Oliver Stone's biography of Edward Snowden, since it was released two months before the election and features clips of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump discussing Snowden.

    The latest, and potentially most dangerous, threat to the First Amendment is the war on "fake news." Those leading the war are using a few "viral" Internet hoaxes to justify increased government regulation - and even outright censorship - of Internet news sites. Some popular websites, such as Facebook, are not waiting for the government to force them to crack down on fake news.

    Those calling for bans on "fake news" are not just trying to censor easily-disproved Internet hoaxes. They are working to create a government-sanctioned "gatekeeper" (to use Hillary Clinton's infamous phrase) with the power to censor any news or opinion displeasing to the political establishment. None of those wringing their hands over fake news have expressed any concern over the fake news stories that helped lead to the Iraq War. Those fake news stories led to the destabilizing of the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, and the deaths of millions.

    The war on "fake news" has taken a chilling turn with efforts to label news and opinion sites of alternative news sources as peddlers of Russian propaganda. The main targets are critics of US interventionist foreign policy, proponents of a gold standard, critics of the US government's skyrocketing debt, and even those working to end police militarization. All have been smeared as anti-American agents of Russia.

    Just last week, Congress passed legislation creating a special committee, composed of key federal agencies, to counter foreign interference in US elections. There have also been calls for congressional investigations into Russian influence on the elections. Can anyone doubt that the goal of this is to discredit and silence those who question the mainstream media's pro-welfare/warfare state propaganda?

    The attempts to ban "fake news;" smear antiwar, anti-Federal Reserve, and other pro-liberty movements as Russian agents; and stop independent organizations from discussing a politician's record before an election are all parts of an ongoing war on the First Amendment. All Americans, no matter their political persuasion, have a stake in defeating these efforts to limit free speech. dirtscratcher Snípéir_Ag_Obair , Dec 13, 2016 11:45 AM

    For the MSM to declare war on 'fake news' they would have to shoot themselves in the head (instead of the foot). A delightful idea, now that I think about it.
    Nemontel , Dec 13, 2016 11:34 AM
    Leftists just don't like loosing power.

    Ignatius Nemontel , Dec 13, 2016 11:48 AM
    That's the faux left .

    Traditional left is equal protection under the law, against imperial war and, most importantly, pro-justice for the working and middle classes (i.e., against off-shoring mfg, etc.).

    All this nonsense PC and identity politics is designed to divide the left (the working class) on the core issues.

    Killdo Nemontel , Dec 13, 2016 12:12 PM
    from my Easter European point of view (after a decade spent in the USSA) - Democrats seem much more Stalininst and totalitarian than Republicans. $hitlery really reminds me of former prez Milosevic's ugly wife (she was also politically involved and as totalitarian as $hitlery)
    koaj , Dec 13, 2016 11:44 AM
    Anyone with a brain could see this was their underhanded attempt at State approved news. They are getting desperate
    Grandad Grumps , Dec 13, 2016 11:48 AM
    Foreign interference in elections? How about some drill down into Hillary Clinton's donors.

    Foreign influence goes Waaayyy beyond conspiracy theories of hacking.

    whatamaroon , Dec 13, 2016 12:18 PM
    If only the Ron Paulers and the Libertarians weren't for open borders I would support them.
    jfb whatamaroon , Dec 13, 2016 12:55 PM
    They are not "pro-immigration", they are against an intrusive police state that use illegal immigration as an excuse to adopt artificial measures. Do you find logic that in many states you have in parallel

    1) Welfare for refugees & illegal immigrants

    2) Other government services as well

    3) Money use to crack down on business with spot checks to see if they hire illegal immigrants

    4) Money use to increase the patrols along the border or even build a wall

    5) Naturalization of illegal immigrants after a few years of residence

    Usually when the media organize a debate it's always rigged

    On one side you will have the guy/woman who say that Westerners are selfish because they need to offer more to those who arrive and adapt themselves to the new migrants

    On the other side the guy/woman who will say that we are at war with Islam, that they have wage a war on us with this invasion and that some asses need to be kick out overthere, Assad, Ghadafi, Iran, you can name them, martial law is necessary to defend ourself by bombing them.

    Rigged debate between to bogus 'solutions'

    DuneCreature , Dec 13, 2016 12:58 PM
    The fake news accusation is possible to counter. ... Let them call you a 'Fake News' website all they want. ..

    Post and publish well researched and truthful news and then let MSM do your advertising for you. ... Call yourself "Fake News - 'Something'" and let the MSM lying fuckers send you traffic. When they say fake news said this, that or something else and people search you out to hear all your 'fake news' and discover your reports are more on the mark than all the fictional gibberish MSM is trying to feed them, MSM loses it's audience even more.

    Truth has a way of bubbling to the top. ..... Just look at the story of ZeroHedge.

    Send in the lawyers if you have to.

    Live Hard, Sue The Deep Pockets Of MSM When They Lie, Die Free

    ~ DC v4.0

    [Dec 13, 2016] Theres A Psy-Op, All Right; But It Isnt The Russians Zero Hedge

    Dec 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Via DaisyLuther.com,

    Enough with "the Russians" already. This "Russian Disinformation" and "Russian Hacking" stuff is getting more ridiculous by the day.

    First, don't let the irony escape you that most, if not all, of the pundits breathlessly blaming the Russians for "fake news" and "election interference" are the very ones who were saying that Hillary Clinton was a shoe-in for president. They're the ones who were providing her campaign with questions in advance, and allowing her people to approve/disapprove of articles.

    Secondly, many of the entities blamed for spreading "Russian propaganda" were the ones with the audacity to tell the truth about the Clinton crime family and spread knowledge of the information released by Wikileaks. Obviously, I'm not including those Macedonian college kids in this, but keep in mind that they weren't doing it for the Russians – they were doing it to make money.

    This isn't about the Russians at all, which anyone with half a brain realizes is absolutely ridiculous.

    Here's what this really is.

    This is a war on the Trump presidency. It's an attempted coup.

    Maybe it's even another effort to outright steal the presidency from Trump. Maybe there's someone with a lot of money to throw into this "OMG THE RUSSIANS" rhetoric who really hates Russia and who really wanted Hillary Clinton to be the President. Maybe his name rhymes with "Doros." I don't know this for sure, but it's at least a more likely story than "The Russians" hacking our election and deliberately spreading propaganda.

    And it's working. Ten of the Electoral College delegates have asked to be briefed on the Russian "interference" before they cast their votes on the 19th.

    But that isn't all. This is a two-for-one deal.

    It's important to note that the MSM lost every single bit of their remaining credibility during the last election and they're desperate to get it back. It reminds me of a high school kid who gets caught doing something she shouldn't, who then makes up stories about another group of kids to get people talking about them instead of her. The MSM can't accept the fact that Hillary Clinton lost, despite their dishonest but enthusiastic efforts to steal the election for her. They'll collude with whoever they have to in order to become relevant again.

    Do you really have any doubt that they'll collude with whoever they have to in order to become relevant again?

    About "The Russians"

    The whole plotline about "the Russians" really took off when the Washington Post published an article listing a couple hundred websites as Russian "fake news" sites. (I know the owners of quite a few of these sites personally -as in, we've shared meals and wine together – and I can tell you, they're as American as apple pie." The Washington Post later backtracked on the accusations but did not retract the article.

    And today, the New York Times was at it with an article entitled, " CIA Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence ."

    Except that when you consider that evidence by definition is definitive and the NYT admits everything they have is circumstantial, then, doesn't that completely negates the headline? The article is sheer speculation, just like the WaPo article that named the "fake news" sites.

    What's more, the FBI completely disagrees with the CIA, and they've been very public about it. They don't believe that there is well, evidence . I'll quote from WaPo here .

    The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.

    "The FBI briefers think in terms of criminal standards - can we prove this in court," one of the officials said. "The CIA briefers weigh the preponderance of intelligence and then make judgment calls to help policymakers make informed decisions. High confidence for them means 'we're pretty damn sure.' It doesn't mean they can prove it in court."

    Give me a break. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should never, ever believe anything the Washington Post refers to as investigative journalism. They have no idea what proof or evidence even means.

    There's a psy-op, all right, but it isn't "the Russians" perpetrating it.

    It's the CIA (keep in mind that psyops is part of their job) working hand in hand with the MSM.

    You just have to laugh at some of these headlines and quotes.

    For your entertainment, enjoy the following round-up of headlines promoting the "Blame Russia" sentiment.

  • Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House ( source )
  • House passes intelligence bill enhancing efforts against Russia ( source )
  • Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election?" ( CNN )
  • Fake News, Russians, and Election Reversal ( Town Hall )
  • A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories ( NY Times )
  • DID RUSSIAN AGENTS INFLUENCE THE U.S. ELECTION WITH FAKE NEWS? ( Vanity Fair)
  • Experts Say Russian Propaganda Helped Spread Fake News During Election ( NPR )
  • Media Wakes Up To Russia's 'Fake News' Only After It Is Applied Against Hillary ( Forbes )
  • And then, have an eyeroll at some very silly quotes

    From an interview on NPR:

    "But let's remember, this was a very close vote where just, you know, a few tens of thousands of votes in a few states ended up making the difference. So I don't know, if you believe that the kind of information that crashes through all of our social media accounts affects how we think and potentially how we vote, I think you would conclude that this kind of stuff does matter." ( source )

    From the NY Times:

    "RT [Russia Today] often seems obsessed with the United States, portraying life there as hellish. On the day President Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention , for example, it emphasized scattered demonstrations rather than the speeches. It defends the Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, as an underdog maligned by the established news media." ( source )

    From a secret mystery source on CNN:

    "There was no way that any one could have walked out of there with that the evidence and conclude that the Russian government was not behind this." ( source )

    From CBS:

    Responding to intelligence officials' report that Russia tried to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of President-elect Donald Trump, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Arizona) on Sunday said he doesn't know what to make of Mr. Trump's dismissal of the issue.

    "I don't know what to make of it because it's clear the Russians interfered," he told CBS' "Face the Nation." "Whether they intended to interfere to the degree that they were trying to elect a certain candidate, I think that's a subject of investigation. But facts are stubborn things. They did hack into this campaign." ( source )

    Politico reported:

    "Donald Trump's insult-laced dismissal of reports that the CIA believes Russia hacked the 2016 election to help him is rattling a spy community already puzzled over how to gain the ear and trust of the incoming president." ( source )

    While some of the efforts are laughable, the end result could be incredibly serious.

    And by serious, I mean devastating. It could result in civil war. It could result in World War III.

    Despite the inadvertent hilarity, this is a blatant effort to keep President-Elect Trump out of the White House and to silence the opposition.

    When all dissenting voices are silenced, you're only getting one part of the story. You're only getting the part that those in power want you to hear. If we learned nothing else from Wikileaks, we learned that there are dark secrets about the evils of money, power, and manipulation. We learned how many conspiracy theories about the Clintons were actually facts , and we learned some things we can't unlearn about the proclivities of some of the most powerful people in Washington .

    We learned that some people will do anything to remain in power.

    We're watching them do anything right now.

    Never has an election been so vehemently contested. Never has our country been so divided. If the election results are cast aside, what do you really think will happen? Do you think Trump supporters will just sigh and accept it?

    And what about Russia?

    Just a few months ago, we were on the verge of war with them . By scapegoating "The Russians," if this psy-op is successful, and Trump is kept out of office, what do you think is going to happen with tensions between the two countries?

    Enough with "the Russians" already. The real conspiracy is happening right here in America.

    [Dec 13, 2016] Not Just America: Germany and Other Countries Blame Russia for Losses By Status Quo

    Dec 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Glenn Greenwald notes that – in the face of Trump and Brexit (which were primarily caused by economic policies which have created massive inequality ) – the Democratic National committee is trying to blame everybody and everything but their own status quo policies and candidates which rig the system for the fatcats and hurt the little guy:

    The indisputable fact is that prevailing institutions of authority in the West, for decades, have relentlessly and with complete indifference stomped on the economic welfare and social security of hundreds of millions of people. While elite circles gorged themselves on globalism, free trade, Wall Street casino gambling, and endless wars (wars that enriched the perpetrators and sent the poorest and most marginalized to bear all their burdens), they completely ignored the victims of their gluttony, except when those victims piped up a bit too much - when they caused a ruckus - and were then scornfully condemned as troglodytes who were the deserved losers in the glorious, global game of meritocracy.

    ***

    A short, incredibly insightful, and now more relevant than ever post-Brexit Facebook note by the Los Angeles Times's Vincent Bevins wrote that "both Brexit and Trump_vs_deep_state are the very, very wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for 30 years." Bevins went on: "Since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt."

    For those who tried to remove themselves from the self-affirming, vehemently pro-Clinton elite echo chamber of 2016, the warning signs that Brexit screechingly announced were not hard to see. Two short passages from a Slate interview I gave in July summarized those grave dangers: that opinion-making elites were so clustered, so incestuous, so far removed from the people who would decide this election - so contemptuous of them - that they were not only incapable of seeing the trends toward Trump but were unwittingly accelerating those trends with their own condescending, self-glorifying behavior.

    ***

    The warning lights were flashing in neon for a long time, but they were in seedy places that elites studiously avoid. The few people who purposely went to those places and listened, such as Chris Arnade , saw and heard them loud and clear. The ongoing failure to take heed of this intense but invisible resentment and suffering guarantees that it will fester and strengthen. This was the last paragraph of my July article on the Brexit fallout:

    Instead of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws within themselves, [elites] are devoting their energies to demonizing the victims of their corruption, all in order to delegitimize those grievances and thus relieve themselves of responsibility to meaningfully address them. That reaction only serves to bolster, if not vindicate, the animating perceptions that these elite institutions are hopelessly self-interested, toxic, and destructive and thus cannot be reformed but rather must be destroyed. That, in turn, only ensures there will be many more Brexits, and Trumps, in our collective future.

    ***

    Democrats have already begun flailing around trying to blame anyone and everyone they can find - everyone except themselves - for last night's crushing defeat of their party.

    You know the drearily predictable list of their scapegoats: Russia, WikiLeaks, James Comey, Jill Stein, Bernie Bros, The Media, news outlets (including, perhaps especially, The Intercept) that sinned by reporting negatively on Hillary Clinton. Anyone who thinks that what happened last night in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Michigan can be blamed on any of that is drowning in self-protective ignorance so deep that it's impossible to express in words.

    ***

    Put simply, Democrats knowingly chose to nominate a deeply unpopular, extremely vulnerable, scandal-plagued candidate, who - for very good reason - was widely perceived to be a protector and beneficiary of all the worst components of status quo elite corruption. It's astonishing that those of us who tried frantically to warn Democrats that nominating Hillary Clinton was a huge and scary gamble - that all empirical evidence showed that she could lose to anyone and Bernie Sanders would be a much stronger candidate, especially in this climate - are now the ones being blamed: by the very same people who insisted on ignoring all that data and nominating her anyway.

    But that's just basic blame shifting and self-preservation. Far more significant is what this shows about the mentality of the Democratic Party. Just think about who they nominated: someone who - when she wasn't dining with Saudi monarchs and being feted in Davos by tyrants who gave million-dollar checks - spent the last several years piggishly running around to Wall Street banks and major corporations cashing in with $250,000 fees for 45-minute secret speeches even though she had already become unimaginably rich with book advances while her husband already made tens of millions playing these same games. She did all that without the slightest apparent concern for how that would feed into all the perceptions and resentments of her and the Democratic Party as corrupt, status quo-protecting, aristocratic tools of the rich and powerful: exactly the worst possible behavior for this post-2008-economic-crisis era of globalism and destroyed industries.

    ***

    Trump vowed to destroy the system that elites love (for good reason) and the masses hate (for equally good reason), while Clinton vowed to manage it more efficiently. That, as Matt Stoller's indispensable article in The Atlantic three weeks ago documented, is the conniving choice the Democratic Party made decades ago: to abandon populism and become the party of technocratically proficient, mildly benevolent managers of elite power. Those are the cynical, self-interested seeds they planted, and now the crop has sprouted.

    Indeed, the Dems re-elected Mrs. Status Quo – Nancy Pelosi – as minority leader. And Pelosi claims :

    I don't think people want a new direction.

    Similarly, outgoing Senate minority leader Harry Reid says :

    I don't think the Democratic Party is in that big of trouble.

    I mean, if Comey kept his mouth shut, we would have picked up a couple more Senate seats and we probably would have elected Hillary.

    Of course, the whole claim that Russia hacked the U.S. election is baseless as is the whole hysterical claim that Russian propaganda swung the election.

    But it's not just America

    After Brexit and Italexit – with a potential Frexit looming on the horizon – the status quo in Europe is also trying to shift attention (look, squirrel!) from their failed policies to boogeymen.

    For example, European leaders are also claiming that Russian propaganda is interfering with European values.

    And Germany's incredibly unpopular Social Democratic party is claiming that Russia might hack its election.

    A former British cabinet member alleges that Russian hackers "probably" swayed the Brexit vote.

    And Washington Post national security reporter at Adam Entous told BBC this week that a CIA official claims that Russia hacked the Brexit vote, and the vote in Ukraine (starting around 1:09:58).

    What's next the status quo starts blaming their electoral losses on little green men?

    [Dec 13, 2016] If you boil down what Clinton and the Clintonites are saying, Putin stole the election from her, and Trump is a Russian agent of influence.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Where is Steiner?!?!?!? ..."
    "... What is ALREADY going on with Trump, Dems, Russia is fascinating – and he is NOT EVEN SWORN in yet!!! WOW! The war mongers are REALLY panicking . Anti commie – its the new politically correct viewpoint . ..."
    "... adding: "a party of buck-passing juveniles that have no vision for the future " ..."
    "... Republicans have an agenda. It's terrible but they have one. Democrats represent rule by the professional class, including bankers. That's it. Publicly, they're for rainbows, good things and bringing people together. ..."
    "... Several of my Democratic friends are simultaneously convinced that Trump is a Russian stooge and outraged that he won't listen to his daily national security briefings. ..."
    "... No. First, access was granted by .. Hillary and Podesta and their own idiocy ( her with the server, him with the pas*word) . IMO we are entitled to know what was in the emails. It certainly did not change my vote nor did it change the vote of anyone I know. ..."
    "... I think both Clinton and Trump would be terrible presidents but it has been obvious since she lost that Hillary is unable to accept this to the point of mental illness. First she tried to have her proxies do some damage and when that did not work, she counters with this. ..."
    "... The anti-Trump tapes . And the one with former Miss Universe – is she an American now? Do you call that 'foreign' intervention? "Former Miss Universe tries to steal election for HIllary!!!" ..."
    Dec 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Hillary: " Where is Steiner?!?!?!? " I don't envy whoever's gonna have to take her aside and tell her it's really over. Poor Bill

    If you boil down what Clinton and the Clintonites are saying, Putin stole the election from her, and Trump is a Russian agent of influence. The first is a casus belli , and the second is treason. The first demands a response at the very least of recalling our Ambassador from Moscow. That hasn't happened, which tells you that the people responsible for such things (Obama) don't take Clinton's casus belli seriously. The second calls for a solution "by any means necessary" (exactly as Clinton's previous claim, that Trump is a fascist, does).

    "By any means necessary" would include anything from a von Stauffenberg solution (no doubt the CIA has a wet team) all the way up to a coup. (This last is hard to imagine, since a coup demands occupying physical space with armed force. Who could Clinton call on?)

    So what the Clintonites have settled on is trying get the Electoral College to reverse the election. I can't imagine this coming to anything, since the majority of the electors - since Trump won the election - are Republicans

    Ian Welsh lays out the logic if the Clinton dog actually catches the car :

    If I were a Trump voter, and a bunch of electors, on data that is this uncertain, and which even if it is true amounts to "telling the truth about Hillary and Democrats" were to give the election to Clinton I would be furious.

    I would consider it a violation of democratic norms: an overturning of a valid election result because elites didn't like the result.

    And while I'm not saying they should, or I would (nor that I wouldn't), many will feel that if the ballot box is not respected, then violence is the only solution.

    If faithless electors give the election to Clinton, there will be a LOT of violence as a result, and there might even be a civil war.

    Ian is Canadian; then again, installing Clinton in office by retroactively changing the election rules is a "cross the Rubicon" moment. At least in Maine, I wouldn't picture a Civil War, but I would picture shattered windows in every Democrat headquarters in the state, and then we'd go on from there. Welsh concludes:

    This is where Nazi/Fascist/Hitler/Camps rhetoric leaves you. Nothing is off the table.

    Either decide you mean it, or calm down and take shit off the table that is going to get a lot of people dead if you pull it off.

    Exactly.

    "CIA admits it broke into Senate computers; senators call for spy chief's ouster" [ McClatchy (Re Silc)]. Fooled ya! From 2013. I'm so old I remember when anonymous CIA soruces weren't always revered as truth-tellers.

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    What is ALREADY going on with Trump, Dems, Russia is fascinating – and he is NOT EVEN SWORN in yet!!! WOW! The war mongers are REALLY panicking . Anti commie – its the new politically correct viewpoint .

    timbers , December 12, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    Yes, there is something weird going on with these stories that the CIA appears to be spreading. MOA is saying the MSN is falsely reporting China is flying nukes it doesn't have in planes all over the place. Just a guess but bet this too comes from CIA

    China threatening us with nukes and Russia stealing our elections. The fake news B.S. quotient is off the richter scale. Makes you yearn for the good old days when all we had to worry about was WMD in Iraq.

    ProNewerDeal , December 12, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    except Putin & his dominant party in the Russian gov are not Commie, Putin is a right-wing authoritarian. I suppose Putin, Trump, & HClinton could each be labeled within the right-wing authoritarian category.

    politicalcompass certaintly categorized HClinton & Trump as right-wing authoritarian, & HClinton was closer to Trump on the graph, than she was to Sanders (left-wing libertarian)

    Carolinian , December 12, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Hillary: "Where is Steiner?!?!?!?"

    Droll! How long before a Downfall video featuring Hillary's loss?

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    Carolinian
    December 12, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNVu7cCoVlg

    Such videos actually go back to 2015, but I thought you would enjoy the one where the H guy is talking about the actual election results .

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D026asX0oMo

    and the subtitles are much easier too read on this one .

    flora , December 12, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    re: the new McCarthyism.

    I'd expect this 'reds under the bed' fear mongering from Fox News, not from WaPo. Guess the Wapo is to the Dems what Fox News is to the GOP. Clarifying election, indeed.

    flora , December 12, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    adding: "a party of buck-passing juveniles that have no vision for the future "

    Yep. Pretty much.

    ChrisAtRU , December 12, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    #Concur – A marvelous turn of phrase

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    Really? Check out where Saints Jack and Bobby were during the red scare craze of the 50's. Freedom of speech wasn't their pet project. I know but "Dallas 1963", but there whereabouts in the 1950's aren't the product of conspiracy theory. For the fetishists, their red hunter status has to be ignored. Bobby was a full fledged inquisitor for McCarthy.

    The Dems are throwing on the golden oldies in an attempt to relive the glory of the past.

    dcblogger , December 12, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    what drives me crazy about the Russian hacking conspiracy theory is that there actually WAS a conspiracy to steal the 2016 election, as carefully documented by Greg Palast and Brad Friedman. It consisted of the crosscheck purge of the voting rolls, voter suppression and vapour voting machines. That no Democrat is talking about this tells me that the party is done for.

    Michael , December 12, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    +1

    RUKidding , December 12, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Good points, and yes, that ticks me off as well. The D Party continues to sit on their thumbs and do bupkiss about real voting issues while issuing Red Scare Menace 3.0.

    Why bother voting Democratic? They're not going to do one blasted thing for the proles. They haven't for years and years.

    Steve C , December 12, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    Republicans have an agenda. It's terrible but they have one. Democrats represent rule by the professional class, including bankers. That's it. Publicly, they're for rainbows, good things and bringing people together.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 12, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    The tin foil hat theory is the CIA is currently stealing the election.

    Waldenpond , December 12, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    The CIA is sterotypically attempting to ouster the President elect for someone farther to the right? So, the same ol' same ol'.

    Anonymous , December 12, 2016 at 8:04 pm

    Yes, the tin foil hat theory is that this all stems from the situation in Syria The CIA's aka HRC"s Syria regime change is a failure. The CIA had high hopes, now dashed. The only chance for war with Russia is to get HRC installed. The recount failed. So, Plan B.

    fresno dan , December 12, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2016/12/making-predictions-is-tough.html

    For those of us who think too much schadenfreude is ..wonderful

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    The goal is to keep local and state operators and donors from asking questions about the conduct of the Clintonistas and other elected Dems.

    There is a politico article from the wake of the 2014 disaster where elite Dems promised Hillary would save them. An incredible amount of money, time, and reputations was put behind a loser, not just a loser but a person who lost to Donald Trump. Anyone who donated any thing to the Clinton effort should be crazy about Clinton Inc's conduct, so Clinton Inc needs to blame everyone but themselves.

    Roquentin , December 12, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    Let's just say for the sake of argument that the CIA and the Democrats have massively overplayed their hand in these accusations against Russia. I suspect it wouldn't take all that much to bring it all down like a house of cards, with a major scandal ensuing in its wake. Let's say that the anonymous CIA source, assuming it was legit, has badly misrepresented what evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, is there. They're "all-in" on this now. People will have to resign or get fired within these organizations after Trump takes over because of this, wouldn't they? If their careers are on the line, who knows what they'll resort to in order to save their own skins? Maybe this play at flipping the Electoral College was the game all along.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 12, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    The Clintons were abysmal candidates before emails were uttered. Hillary significantly under performed Gore in 2000 in New York by a significant margin despite a candidate too extreme for Peter King.

    Every doubt about Hillary's electability was based in fact and OBVIOUS to anyone who spent more than half a second taking the election seriously. Every Hillary primary voter who isn't a already spectacular crook failed as citizens by putting forth a clown such a Hillary. There are no ways around this.

    Hillary just lost to Donald Trump because "liberals" are too childish to take politics seriously, even her centrist supporters should have seen she is a clod. Of course, most centrists would stop being centrists if they possessed critical thinking skills.

    This is no less than trying to latch onto something that excuses their failures as citizens and human beings.

    Tom Allen , December 12, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    Several of my Democratic friends are simultaneously convinced that Trump is a Russian stooge and outraged that he won't listen to his daily national security briefings.

    lyman alpha blob , December 12, 2016 at 4:36 pm

    In light of the risible 'fake news' meme and NC's invocation of media related laws, here's a reminder of another law you may find useful – Sturgeon's Law .

    Sci fi writer Theodore Sturgeon was told by a critic that 90% of scifi was crap and he retorted that 90% of everything was crap. You just need to know how to find the good stuff.

    Caveat lector.

    Chromex , December 12, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Except he was wrong about crap. 100% of crap is crap. And that's what this latest CIA fake news. influence the electors stuff is-100% crap,

    Aumua , December 12, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    Seems like this fake 'fake news' news (c) 2016 is primed to blow up right in the face of entities like The Times, as more and more people see that half of what they purvey as news is as likely to be B.S. as anything coming from an alternative, or even fringe website.

    What's more is that they are driving the point home that their news stories can't be trusted, with the very same 'fake news' story they are trying to use to emphasize how comparatively real their news is. The irony levels are off the scale. It's uncharted territory.

    Chromex , December 12, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    In order to accept this is any kind of deal ( I do not support Trump nor did I vote for him) there are so many hidden premises you have to accept it is laughable
    First let's assume that Putin himself donned a Mr Robot Hoodie and hacked the server and printed the emails and gave them to Assange who was sitting next to him.
    SO WHAT?

    Is the American public so gullible? Was that somehow unfair?

    No. First, access was granted by .. Hillary and Podesta and their own idiocy ( her with the server, him with the pas*word) . IMO we are entitled to know what was in the emails. It certainly did not change my vote nor did it change the vote of anyone I know.

    It's not like all the anti-Trump tapes etc were not strategically timed to influence the election. IS it OK if Americans do it?

    Second, all they could do with Trump was run past business stuff. He did not have a public policy record to reveal the man was not in government service.. she was. My view is that if the public was so influenced by the emails, which had some absolutely appalling details, none of which were forged, then they were entitled to be ,even if Hitler himself had done the hacking.

    It is disheartening that , less than a month after the NYT said maybe we were biased and we promise to be more careful they are again acting as propagandists and not pointing out all the absurd hidden premises that must be accepted to manufacture an issue. I am still waiting for the Times report on her "fake news" that she was under fire- obviously a story designed to influence primary voters.

    I think both Clinton and Trump would be terrible presidents but it has been obvious since she lost that Hillary is unable to accept this to the point of mental illness. First she tried to have her proxies do some damage and when that did not work, she counters with this.

    I never recall anyone saying that the Democratic party has an absolute right to control the flow of information in the world. AS much as i despise Trump and his stone age cabinet, I am starting to think he is less pathological about this than her. Perhaps if this latest gambit fails she will go the way of Lady Macbeth,

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 12, 2016 at 6:57 pm

    The anti-Trump tapes . And the one with former Miss Universe – is she an American now? Do you call that 'foreign' intervention? "Former Miss Universe tries to steal election for HIllary!!!"

    [Dec 12, 2016] Why CIA is involved in DNC computers hacking probe?

    Dec 12, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    likbez, December 11, 2016 11:46 pm

    Beverly,
    === quote ===
    Just the fact that Trump has now said he thinks the CIA's cyber forensics team is the same group that tries to determine the nuclear capacity of other countries is itself scary–and revealing. He doesn't recognize and obvious distinctions even about incredibly important things, doesn't understand the concept of expertise, and can't distinguish between important and unimportant things.
    === end of quote ===
    Two points:

    1. After Iraq WMD false claim CIA as agency had lost a large part of its credibility, because it is clear that it had succumbed to political pressure and became just a pocket tool in the dirty neocon political games. At this time the pressure was from neocons in Bush administration. Don't you think that it is possible that this is the case now too ?

    2. It's not the job of CIA to determine who and how hacked DNC computers or any other computers in the USA. CIA mandate is limited to foreign intelligence and intelligence aggregation and analysis. It is job of FBI and NSA, especially the latter, as only NSA has technical means to trace from where really the attack had come, if it was an attack.

    So any CIA involvement here is slightly suspect and might point to some internal conflicts within Obama administration. It is unclear why Obama had chosen CIA Also as CIA and State Department are closely linked as CIA operatives usually use diplomatic cover that request looks a little bit disingenuous as Hillary used to work for State Department. In this case one of the explanation might be that it can be attributed to the desire to create a smoke screen and shield Clintons from pressure by rank-and-file Hillary supporter (and donors) to explain the devastating defeat in electoral college votes against rather weak, really amateur opponent.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Something about jungoism of some US politicians

    The poster is trying to imply that John Bolton = Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State. But I doubt that this is true. Still the level of jingoism in those quotes is really breathtaking...
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Everything is fake, b, everything is fake. One ring to bind them and in the darkness find them, and the One Party of Mil.Gov to rule them all with a $35B/yr domestic propaganda budget.Say hello to USArya's defacto 'day-to-day operations' SecState:

    ===

    John Bolton
    "Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the right move for the US and its allies"

    Hillary Clinton
    "No, I don't regret giving the president authority [to invade Iraq] because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

    ===

    John Bolton
    "Our military has a wonderful euphemism called 'national command authority.' It's a legitimate military target. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi is the national command authority. I think that's the answer right there. ... I think he's a legitimate target... and that would end the regime right there."

    Hillary Clinton
    "We came, we saw, he died!"

    ===

    John Bolton
    "If, in this context, defeating the Islamic State means restoring to power Mr. Assad in Syria... that outcome is neither feasible nor desirable."

    Hillary Clinton
    "The world will not waver, Assad must go"

    ===

    John Bolton
    "To stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran"
    "The only longterm solution is regime change in [Iran]."

    Hillary Clinton
    "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

    ===

    John Bolton
    "Vladimir Putin's Russia is on the prowl in Eastern Europe and the Middle East in ways unprecedented since the Cold War"

    Hillary Clinton
    "[Russia is] interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. ... I want to emphasize that what is at stake here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it's all in, in Syria. ... I've stood up to Russia. I've taken on Putin and others, and I would do that as president."

    ===

    John Bolton
    "The gravest threat to U.S. interests ... is the Russia-Iran-Syria axis"

    Hillary Clinton

    "ISIS was primarily the result of the [power] vacuum in Syria caused by Assad first and foremost, aided and abetted by Iran and Russia."

    [Dec 12, 2016] Sundus Saleh, an Iraqi woman, claims that former President George W. Bush and other government officials committed the crime of aggression when they launched the Iraq War, an international war crime that was banned at the Nuremberg Trials

    Dec 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    ALberto | Dec 12, 2016 3:02:04 PM | 2

    The Nuremberg Court Trials rulings only apply to 'them' not 'US'

    Sundus Saleh, an Iraqi woman, claims that former President George W. Bush and other government officials committed the crime of aggression when they launched the Iraq War, an international war crime that was banned at the Nuremberg Trials.

    Saleh filed her lawsuit in March 2013 in San Francisco federal court. The court ruled in December 2014 that the defendants in the lawsuit - George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz - were immune from civil proceedings based on the Westfall Act, a federal law which immunizes government officials from lawsuits for conduct taken within the lawful scope of their authority. Saleh appealed the decision in June 2015.

    The Ninth Circuit has not indicated when it will issue an order with respect to Saleh's appeal.

    Nuremberg trial also prosecuted Judges unt Doctors.

    http://witnessiraq.com/blog/

    [Dec 12, 2016] Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence

    Notable quotes:
    "... Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to WikiLeaks. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    ALberto | Dec 12, 2016 4:37:31 PM | 9

    Apparently CIA has finally figured out that their asses are toast. CIA has fed a constant stream of half truths and outright rabrications to US MSM and are now turning on WaPo. CIA also has killer drones and military powers they have no right to exercise. Apparently the rats are turning on each other. Let the trials and subsequent executions begin.

    LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC

    However, the FBI reported they did not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Russian Government did such a thing. The POST reported that a secret CIA report had been presented to lawmakers on Capitol Hill allegedly saying there was information linking Russia to the election hackings in favor of President-elect Trump.

    Now, the CIA is saying the POST got it wrong in fact, they allegedly lied. At this point I think the whole thing is a mess, and I don't see how the American people can decipher the "real" news from the "fake" news.

    Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to WikiLeaks.

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-cia-says-they-did-not-tell-the-washington-post-that-russia-hacked-election-in-favor-of-trump/

    [Dec 12, 2016] US Insiders Not Russia Leaked Clinton Emails

    Dec 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Posted by: jfl | Dec 12, 2016 2:22:05 AM | 75

    Greenwald documents the fake news produced and disseminated by 'actual, real journalists' at MSNBC, the Atlantic, and Newsweek ...

    A Clinton Fan Manufactured Fake News That MSNBC Personalities Spread to Discredit WikiLeaks Docs

    ... to counteract 'Russian propaganda', no doubt. bs.

    William Binney says US Insiders – Not Russia – Leaked Clinton Emails , and Craig Murray says he knows who leaked them ...

    We're in the midst of an attempted coup by the neo-cons and the cia. On or about 21 January we'll see what happens.

    Krollchem | Dec 12, 2016 9:21:27 AM | 91
    jfl@ 35

    For more information on the WaPo, CIA, Ukraine neo-nazi's and PropOrNot see:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/09/the-anonymous-blacklist-promoted-by-the-washington-post-has-apparent-ties-to-ukrainian-fascism-and-cia-spying/

    Worth noting that Ukrainian associations have been deeply embedded in most large US cities since the early 1950s. Not unlike the AIPAC propaganda wing that pulls the strings in the US government.

    dahoit | Dec 12, 2016 10:54:07 AM | 94
    @22;We are not at war with Russia, so that article has no bearing on Trump.

    The only people at war with them are the ziomonsters and the CIA, and the divide and conquer MSM.

    Why would the CIA f*ck with an incoming POTUS? Because they are scared shiteless he will expose their 9-11 treason?

    ... ... ...


    [Dec 12, 2016] Paul Joseph Watson Dismantles Fabricated Russian Narrative Zero Hedge

    Dec 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    nmewn knukles , Dec 12, 2016 7:11 PM
    And having a KNOWN perjurer (James Clapper) presiding over this farce of an "investigation" is just the icing on the cake.

    "Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

    Then it was revealed by Edward Snowden that, why yes, in fact the NSA does collect data on HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HERE IN AMERICA (probably all) and not "unwittlingly"...on fucking purpose...snaring both Obama and Clapper in their fabricated stories otherwise known as lies.

    Clapper perjured himself before Congress, a felony.

    Period.

    End of story.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Joseph R. McCarthy - Cold War - HISTORY.com

    Dec 12, 2016 | www.history.com
    The next month, a Senate subcommittee launched an investigation and found no proof of any subversive activity. Moreover, many of McCarthy's Democratic and Republican colleagues, including President Dwight Eisenhower, disapproved of his tactics ("I will not get into the gutter with this guy," the president told his aides). Still, the senator continued his so-called Red-baiting campaign. In 1953, at the beginning of his second term as senator, McCarthy was put in charge of the Committee on Government Operations, which allowed him to launch even more expansive investigations of the alleged communist infiltration of the federal government. In hearing after hearing, he aggressively interrogated witnesses in what many came to perceive as a blatant violation of their civil rights. Despite a lack of any proof of subversion, more than 2,000 government employees lost their jobs as a result of McCarthy's investigations. "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" In April 1954, Senator McCarthy turned his attention to "exposing" the supposed communist infiltration of the armed services. Many people had been willing to overlook their discomfort with McCarthyism during the senator's campaign against government employees and others they saw as "elites"; now, however, their support began to wane. Almost at once, the aura of invulnerability that had surrounded McCarthy for nearly five years began to disappear. First, the Army undermined the senator's credibility by showing evidence that he had tried to win preferential treatment for his aides when they were drafted. Then came the fatal blow: the decision to broadcast the "Army-McCarthy" hearings on national television. The American people watched as McCarthy intimidated witnesses and offered evasive responses when questioned. When he attacked a young Army lawyer, the Army's chief counsel thundered, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" The Army-McCarthy hearings struck many observers as a shameful moment in American politics. The Fall of Joseph McCarthy By the time the hearings were over, McCarthy had lost most of his allies. The Senate voted to condemn him for his "inexcusable," "reprehensible," "vulgar and insulting" conduct "unbecoming a senator." He kept his job but lost his power, and died in 1957 at the age of 48.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Clinton Campaign, Top Democrats Call For Intel Briefing, Commission Ahead Of Electoral College Vote

    Notable quotes:
    "... The authenticity of the content of the hacked/leaked emails were never in doubt. Several DNC lackeys, including the chair of the democratic national committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, were fired on the grounds of bias, fraud and even conspiracy to commit criminal acts. ..."
    "... Their desperation makes them very dangerous, especially while still ostensibly in charge of many elements of gov't and, of course, the entrenched MSM. ..."
    "... So can we now accept that the Russians hacked Hillarys server? Seems before the election, the Demorats kept trying to deny it happened. ..."
    "... What about the DHS trying to Hack the Georgia Election Computer System? ..."
    "... Not just gossip, an un-named official (not an official statement by the department head) stating with "confidence" (not evidence), off the record but reported in every major fish-wrap, that Russian hackers were interfered in our elections, AND inferring that they knew the motives/intentions behind this conjured crime. ..."
    "... If there were ANY evidence, the Dems would have paraded it out in front of us loudly and proudly the second they found it. Instead, they prefer making jacka$$es out of themselves (and our country) with innuendo-based trial balloons, as everyone in the world capable of critical thinking laughs at them (us). ..."
    "... So we are still "shooting the messenger"? Nobody wants to discuss the content of the Podesta emails, even though they have not been discredited in any way. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | Zero Hedge
    monad, Dec 12, 2016 8:46 AM

    Russians did not affect my votes against HRC. HRC did: Whitewater. Mena. Foster. Waco. OKC. Ruby Ridge. Her continuing career and liberty is proof of a Conspiracy.

    oncemore , Dec 12, 2016 8:13 AM

    What hacking?

    Gucifer said, that it was open. The sysadmin said, that it was unmodified Windows business suite server.

    Who needs more to get in, as a standard MS product? I am convinced every intelligence agency on this earth (yes, Zimbabwian agency as well), has a copy of all emails there.

    Andre , Dec 11, 2016 10:10 PM
    Doesn't anybody remember O was going to put our cybr-defenses on full alert to defend the election?

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/us-bolsters-cyber-defense-for-election-f...

    (also posted to the nosebleed section of the main article).

    Ya know, if cyber defenses were increased, this should never have gotten this far.

    mary mary , Dec 11, 2016 8:45 PM
    Anthony Weiner is Russian? When will they indict Crooked Hillary?
    YHC-FTSE -> Handful of Dust , Dec 11, 2016 8:34 PM
    It looks like never doesn't it?

    The authenticity of the content of the hacked/leaked emails were never in doubt. Several DNC lackeys, including the chair of the democratic national committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, were fired on the grounds of bias, fraud and even conspiracy to commit criminal acts.

    Hillary Clinton herself can be indicted on lying under oath to Congress, conspiracy to commit criminal acts (Paying agitators to assault the supporters of her opponents), election fraud (See Veritas), contravening the Federal Records Act, Improper handling of classified documents, and I won't even go into Pizzagate, Saudi funding and the Clinton Foundation, or I'll be here typing all night.

    Where it gets interesting (actually vomit-inducing disgusting), just as Julian Assange alluded, is inside the Podesta emails that colludes with Huma Abedin's dirty laundry on her/Weiner's laptop. The missing (deleted) emails, the references to paedophile activities and snippets of pay-for-play inside the Clinton Foundation. These are not just embarrassing or technicalities that can be woven into excuses, but information that could bring hanging back as the ultimate form of justice for the perpetrators.

    So, these cretins are doing what they glanced at in The Art of War: That the best defense is offence. They are going all out full retard to save their lives using every asset they have in the msm, intelligence, politics and oligarchy.

    Look how fast they moved with H.R.6393 to criminalize alternative news. To discredit the leaked information, to discredit the source, to attack anyone who publishes or mentions them. They will not stop because they cannot stop. This isn't a subsidy for the failing msm, that's a bonus, this is a fight for their existence because they have committed crimes that not a single decent person in the world can abide. It is so horrific, I still have trouble with believing it, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

    Where this will lead is obvious -- a distraction first from the content of the leaks, false accusations and attacks on Russia and anyone who talks about it, leading to the biggest false accusation of all: Trump as a (willing or unwilling) foreign agent which amounts to treason and therefore unfit to be president. Bring the hammer down on the stock market at the same time and we have a conflagration erupting from the already boiling cauldron of American society. Too much conjecture? Maybe.

    francis_the_won... YHC-FTSE , Dec 11, 2016 10:51 PM
    "Too much conjecture? Maybe."

    No, you articulated what I was alluding to a few posts above (I posted before reading yours). Their desperation makes them very dangerous, especially while still ostensibly in charge of many elements of gov't and, of course, the entrenched MSM.

    They'll create the crisis they vow to not let go to waste. Any excuse to seize ultimate power.

    foxmuldar , Dec 11, 2016 5:03 PM
    So can we now accept that the Russians hacked Hillarys server? Seems before the election, the Demorats kept trying to deny it happened.

    What about the DHS trying to Hack the Georgia Election Computer System? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/9/georgia-election-official...

    mary mary foxmuldar , Dec 11, 2016 8:41 PM
    No, I can't accept that the Russian's hacked Hillary's server. Not until I see some evidence. Just repeating the same gossip a million times is not providing evidence.
    francis_the_won... mary mary , Dec 11, 2016 10:46 PM
    Not just gossip, an un-named official (not an official statement by the department head) stating with "confidence" (not evidence), off the record but reported in every major fish-wrap, that Russian hackers were interfered in our elections, AND inferring that they knew the motives/intentions behind this conjured crime.

    If there were ANY evidence, the Dems would have paraded it out in front of us loudly and proudly the second they found it. Instead, they prefer making jacka$$es out of themselves (and our country) with innuendo-based trial balloons, as everyone in the world capable of critical thinking laughs at them (us).

    This tactic is so brutally transparent that I really fear what they are really up to......or maybe they are this stupid?

    philipat Keyser , Dec 12, 2016 7:41 AM
    So we are still "shooting the messenger"? Nobody wants to discuss the content of the Podesta emails, even though they have not been discredited in any way. Classic divert and deflect tactics which a Libtard MSM enjoys being a part of.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Now German Politicians Worried About Striking Increase In Russian Propaganda And Fake News

    Notable quotes:
    "... CIA-controlled BND tells its journalists to follow with the program. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    They probably forgot about Snowden revelation way too soon...

    Either Russian intelligence officials have suddenly become extremely efficient at disrupting national elections in the world's largest democracies or the establishment leaders of those democracies have intentionally launched a coordinated, baseless witch hunt as a way to distract voters from their failed policies. We have our suspicions on which is more likely closer to the truth...

    Either way, per Reuters , Germany's domestic intelligence agency is reporting a "striking increase" in Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns aimed at destabilizing German society, and targeted cyber attacks against political parties.

    "We see aggressive and increased cyber spying and cyber operations that could potentially endanger German government officials, members of parliament and employees of democratic parties," Hans-Georg Maassen, head of the BfV spy agency, said in statement.

    Maassen, who raised similar concerns about Russian efforts to interfere in German elections last month, cited what he called increasing evidence about such efforts and said further cyber attacks were expected.

    The agency said it had seen a wide variety of Russian propaganda tools and "enormous use of financial resources" to carry out "disinformation" campaigns aimed at the Russian-speaking community in Germany, political movements, parties and other decision makers.

    The goal was to spread uncertainty, strengthen extremist groups and parties, complicate the work of the federal government and "weaken or destabilise the Federal Republic of Germany".

    Like accusations made by Hillary and Obama in the U.S., German politicians, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, have asserted that Russian intelligence agents and media outlets have attempted to spread "fake news" in an effort to "fan popular angst over issues like the migrant crisis." Of course, it can't simply be that voters disagree with Merkel's "open border" policies which have resulted in a massive influx of migrants that have been linked to increasing crime, terrorist attacks and sexual assaults on German citizens...that would just be silly and racist and xenophobic.

    German officials have accused Moscow of trying to manipulate German media to fan popular angst over issues like the migrant crisis , weaken voter trust and breed dissent within the European Union so that it drops sanctions against Moscow.

    But intelligence officials have stepped up their warnings in recent weeks, alarmed about the number of attacks.

    Last month, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she could not rule out Russia interfering in Germany's 2017 election through Internet attacks and misinformation campaigns.

    Estonian Foreign Minister Sven Mikser on Thursday said he expected Russia to continue a campaign of "psychological warfare" and spreading false information after the cyber attacks launched during the U.S. election.

    "It's a pretty safe bet that they will try to do it again," he told Reuters in Hamburg at a meeting of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. "They will try to surprise us. That's something that we should be very careful to look at and try to protect ourselves from."

    While we have absolutely no doubt in Merkel and Obama's assertions that Russia has been able to successfully sabotage national elections, it is curious that, in the U.S., Russian efforts were only successful in certain states where voters had been disproportionately hurt by past Clinton policies (e.g. WI, MI, PA, OH) but not in other swing states like Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.

    Mediocritas, Dec 12, 2016 3:05 AM ,
    Pot calling the kettle black...again.

    CuttingEdge Mediocritas, Dec 12, 2016 3:17 AM ,

    Is this seriously the best these globalist craven cunts have got as a strategy?

    It really worked out well for them pre-election, didn't it?

    Question is, can they sustain this for eight fucking years without having anything to show for it (and no audience with an IQ over 75) at the end?

    Soros will need to dig deep to keep this shitshow on life-support.

    Captain Chlamydia CuttingEdge, Dec 12, 2016 3:31 AM ,
    Exactly. The whole Putin did it narrative in the MSM is government propaganda. Nato bullshit Deep State military industrial complex trying very hard to get the Sheeple to believe in their leaders.....
    HedgeJunkie Captain Chlamydia, Dec 12, 2016 3:45 AM ,
    Our War Criminal Government is why I'm embarrassed to call myself 'American'.

    I'm not too far from Mexico, I already have two cousins the emmigrated there. I like Mexians and Mexico.

    But I can't throw awasy what I already have.

    I expect a Yuge increase on the cost of renewing our passports,

    Sandmann HedgeJunkie, Dec 12, 2016 3:57 AM ,
    Mitt Romney's family fled to Mexico - you should read the story
    jaap Sandmann, Dec 12, 2016 4:18 AM ,
    Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?
    Troy Ounce jaap, Dec 12, 2016 4:38 AM ,

    The biggest defeat for globalists would be that Europe will start looking east, towards Russia, instead of West. Follow the money for these German politicians: bet the "Open Society Foundation" from George Soros will be mentioned regularly.

    CuttingEdge Troy Ounce, Dec 12, 2016 5:15 AM ,
    Introducing Fake News, as faithfully supplied by that bastion of journalistic integrity (not ) - Der Spiegel :

    More pesky Russian fake news, Frau Merkel? Fearmongering propaganda, Mutti?

    ... ... ...

    HowdyDoody -> Troy Ounce, Dec 12, 2016 5:35 AM ,
    CIA-controlled BND tells its journalists to follow with the program.
    CuttingEdge -> Nobodys Home, Dec 12, 2016 3:18 AM ,
    Same puppetmasters.
    Nobodys Home -> CuttingEdge, Dec 12, 2016 3:22 AM ,
    Shudder! I just got a visual of ugly old Sore Os behind a puppet stage with innocent little kids watching the show.
    Kina, Dec 12, 2016 3:16 AM ,
    The world would be a better place if Russia actualy did all the things they have been accused of instead of the CIA and Germany making all this shit up.

    One thing is for certain the NWO was working on Russia at the time of the election, which Clinton was meant to be a guaranteed winner - expcept the Soros-Neocon-Clinton-DNC cabal totally fucked up their rigging, not realising how popular Trump actually was.

    NOW they are in total fucking panic trying to think of ways to get Trump out.

    These neocon fucktard New World Order proponents were trying to corner Russia, remove Putin and make Russia kow tow to the NWO and accept their new overlords. EXCEPT it was and is a total fucking stupid idea because the result would have been nuclear war - Russia would never ever bend to the USA and the NWO - they were totally dreaming if they believed that. And the result would have been a military alliance between China and Russia - with Europe and the USA and Russia in ashes.

  • The world dodge a nuclear bullet when Trump won. So now, having failed to overturn the election through Stein recounts and rigging (the judges wouldn't play along) they have to go the whole demonise Russia thing, as was their original plan. And they want to push it fast before the EU breaks up, as the sheeple wake the fuck up to these neocon Oligarch overlords.
  • My bet is a major False Flag attack somewhere outrageous blamed on Russia.

    These fucking neocons like Soros, Israel, Germany, Clintons and all their backers and cabal either are totally stupid or just don't give a fuck, knowing that nuclear war is a real possibility - AND that the USA CANNOT defend itself against nuclear attack , despite all the wankery about their defense systems.

    So these people know there is a chance of laying waste to the USA - and they don't care, it is worth it for their NWO.

  • Gavrikon -> Kina, Dec 12, 2016 3:30 AM ,
    Considering that the Russians are Hollywood's favorite general purpose villains (as opposed to the practitioners of the religion of peace, or Mexican criminals), this is hardly unexpected, dontcha think?
    dogismycopilot, Dec 12, 2016 3:16 AM ,
    The Russians ate my homework.

    Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 3:19 AM ,
    last week I read that the german government was aware of the NSA spying at least since 2001. No outrage here. Outrage only occurs if you don't have any evidence, and it's the russians. Do you know how most of german elections are held? Paper ballots, ID-cards and lists of citizens who are elligible to vote. There's definitely some hacking possible... Hate your politicians, often!
    Joe A -> Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 3:45 AM ,
    Not only did they know that the NSA spied on the German government -including Merkel's mobile- the German BND along with the NSA spied on the rest of Europe: policitians, EU officials and European businesses.
    Sandmann -> Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 3:56 AM ,
    BND operates as an arm of NSA which funds their operation in Bad Aibling
    TruthBeforeAll -> Grumbleduke, Dec 12, 2016 5:54 AM ,
    "Outrage only occurs if you don't have any evidence..." Way less risk that way.
    DuneCreature -> rmopf2010, Dec 12, 2016 6:06 AM ,
    Well, you could be right about Snowden. .....

    While I will agree that if you knew where to look, in a basic fashion, everything he brought to light was already known or knowable, at least.

    The thing Snowden did was brought all the pieces together, stole the graphics (great visualizing tools), program names and working details and evidence that these things are all possible and on-line. ..... He brought the story together and made it very public. .........

    Not something that Boos Hamilton, the CIA or the NSA would have wanted. ..

    ... ... ...

    Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 3:51 AM ,
    well, whatever you might think about Russian influence in the US...

    ... Russian influence on and in Germany (and all other european countries) is a quite different affair. one little factoid: the so called "Russlands-Deutsche"( * ), i.e. "Russian-Germans" number somewhere between two and three million , in Germany. we are talking here about at least one million that speaks Russian better then German, and reads/watches Russian News

    here, on this continent, we are btw somewhat used to external influences, be them Russian or US ones

    I forecasted to "Haus" some years ago that eventually the German political "status-quo" would start to point out the Russian influence on "Alternative für Deutschland". That moment is nearly there

    again: US Americans might be somewhat confused about foreign influences on their political matters

    here , it has been a reality during the whole of the Cold War and after, from both the US and Russia

    just some examples:

    the reports over the last years about the German parliament being spied upon and hacked by both the CIA and the Russian intelligence services are completely plausible. Merkel was holding up her phone... and alleged that the CIA was spying on her. again, very plausible

    the EU org in Brussels was hacked/spied upon by the British intelligence services, too. again, very plausible. indeed, now that the Brexit talks begin in a confrontational manner... there are even more reasons for the British GCHQ to spy on Brussels

    -------

    (*) wiki article about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germans_in_Russia,_Ukraine_and_...

    Sandmann -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 3:55 AM ,
    They are caled "Spaetaussiedler" Ghordius. There are about the same number of Turks in Germany. It is true the prison population of Germany is largely Serbs, Turks, Spaetaussiedler and New Arrivals.

    I hear Russian but after having millions of Russian soldiers in Germany since 1945 and huge Russian influence back into the 18th Century that is not unusual. You can get Tax Forms in Russian but not English.

    Berlin always was the capital of the East never of the West which Adenauer cleverly placed on the Rhine rather than the Spree. Berlin has always had to consider Russia because ONLY in the years 1919-1939 and 1990-2016 has Germany NOT shared a border with Russia in the past 250 years.

    It is German Aggression that twice brought Russian troops to Berlin

    Ghordius -> Sandmann, Dec 12, 2016 4:07 AM ,
    Sandmann, as often, you try to "soften the blow" of my message with some tidbits that are often completely irrelevant

    they don't call themselves "Spätaussiedler". They call themselves Russlands-Deutsche, i.e. Russian-Germans

    their prison population is irrelevant, here. their right to vote in the German election is

    they read Russian News, they watch RT in Russian, they hold up signs like "Putin save us", and they are quite confused, to boot, and pawns in this "game"

    some Germans, when they arrived, made jokes that some of those Russian-Germans hardly qualified to "Germanness", up to saying things like "all families that in the 19th Century had once a German Shephard as pet". but this is too, irrelevant

    fact is that their numbers are substantial. fact is that they are influenced by their media consumption from Russia. fact is that they were used to see Putin and Merkel as good friends... until they weren't anymore, and since then they are bombarded with news how Merkel is the source of all evils, in Europe

    fact is also that the political establishments in Germany were, up to now, not that fond to tell them anything that would make them too confused because... they are voters, too. and in a political setup like Germany's, you don't tell hard truths to voters, and you don't insult them as dupes

    nevertheless, fact is that Russian (and US, note) influence on Germany's politics is substantial, including that on the Russlands-Deutsche in Germany

    samjam7 -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 3:58 AM ,
    I don't think anyone is denying the fact that Germany has become a playball of foreign powers ever since it lost WW1, yes the first, not the second one was already desicive in that.

    Now, no matter how many German-Russians there are in Germany they are still citizens of your country, else they would not have been allowed to come back. The question for Germany needs to be looking ahead into the future, become aware that it is dependent or even controlled by other greater powers, a status it lost, one century ago. Its citizens should start to raise the question which side is better for us, should we work more closely with continental Russia, with all its ressources and land? Or should we work closer with martim ZATO? What has that relationship really done for us, what have we truly benefitted from it?

    Once there is a serious discussion going on about it, Germans will surely never support an atlantcist such as Merkel. For the time being, I'm glad there are German-Russians at least one branch of German society that is keenly aware of the dire situation your country is in.

    Ghordius -> samjam7, Dec 12, 2016 4:15 AM ,
    " no matter how many German-Russians there are in Germany they are still citizens of your country, else they would not have been allowed to come back "

    do you live in some alternate reality planet? check yourself on this your assumption

    we are talking about Russian citizens that were granted German citizenship when arriving in Germany because of their German ancestry

    the "Return of the Russian-Germans" to Germany has gone on since before and after WWI, and the only thing that stopped it for a while was the Iron Curtain

    nevertheless, it was a German policy to grant them citizenship on arrival

    and no, your "Merkel the Atlanticist" is a tad... extreme. it's not about Russia or "ZATO", here

    samjam7 -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 4:53 AM ,
    Right, else they would not have been granted citizenship, I don't see why we should disagree on that subject.

    Regarding Merkel is not an Atlanticist, I would like a bit more of an argument just calling it extreme but not providing information as to why is not making your argument very strong. I have plenty of reasons to believe she is: "Allowing nuclear weaopns to be stationed in Germany against the will of the Bundestag, not being the slightest bit affected by the NSA spying scandal, supporting sanctions to Russia that hurt German business much more than British or American...the list goes on and on."

    Ghordius -> samjam7, Dec 12, 2016 5:11 AM ,
    samjam7, do you ever check on what you believe ? let's take only this: " (Merkel) allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed in Germany against the will of the Bundestag "

    just googled it. already in the second hit I get this:

    " The Bundestag decided in March 2010 by a large majority, that the federal government should 'press for the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Germany.' Even the coalition agreement between the CDU and FDP, the German government in 2009 had promised the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Büchel. "

    that's the German Bundestag pressing/instructing the German executive to "do something" in that direction, yes

    that's not the German Bundestag doing a law , which is the very thing it could do, being a lawgiver

    saying "the will of the Bundestag" in this is just that: propaganda. and you fell for it

    the true will of the Bundestag is expressed in law. the rest is "please, try to...", so that your "Merkel is going against the will of..." is just... stretching the truth

    in the same way, there is a substantial difference between welcoming citizens of other countries because of their ancestry and granting them citizenship versus: "they already had that German citizenship"

    samjam7 -> Ghordius, Dec 12, 2016 5:29 AM ,
    Where in the above statement did I talk of law? You Germans always need everything 'schwarz auf weiss' or its wrong....

    I spoke of will and to be honest even your quote that you thankfully looked up, proofs without any doubt that the parliament had a will, namely not to station more nuclear weapons in Büchel. Now that the Bundestag doesn't fight with Merkel over it 'i.e. pass a law' is related to the political system of Germany and that its major parties are co-opted and prefer to nod off Merkel's politics than resist it. Also it is highly questionable whether the German Parliament has the authority to decide on these matters, as it delves into the grey area of who actually decides what kind of troops are stationed in Germany, Merkel or the US/UK?

    To call that Propaganda though is unwarranted and rather weak, or how more clearly can a Parliament demonstrate its will?

    [Dec 12, 2016] Former UK Ambassador Blasts CIAs Blatant Lies, Shows A Little Simple Logic Destroys Their Claims

    Notable quotes:
    "... William Casey (CIA Director), "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."? ..."
    "... if an organization has lost trust of national security affairs it should be DISBANDED ..."
    "... ...so why did Debbie Wassername-Schultz resign if the hacks were untrue about her non-neutrality toward Bernie Marx in favor of Hillary Crony? Is this not a usurpation of the peoples will and an affront to "democracy" everywhere? ..."
    "... How is it that a "charity" is only a "charity" as long as the people running this "charity" remain in power? Everyone suddenly becomes "less charitable" because she lost? Why is that? Can't they say cronyism and be done with it? ..."
    "... The entire story is based on a leak from Senate Staff on SSCI alleging what they were told in a briefing by CIMC. What SSCI was told is that there is no evidence of who was the hacker. Because Russia is one of many possibilities, somebody on SSCI who leaked to WaPo concluded for himself that the hacker was Russia. That is not what they were told. The vitriol should be directed toward WaPo and their Senate SSCI source. ..."
    "... As the Obama Administration falls apart, expect the various players to begin to look out for themselves. ..."
    "... Obama is hanging everyone out to dry in the futile attempt to save his own 'legacy'. ..."
    "... Truman signed its charter. The original intent was to assemble and study Information, period. Truman later remarked he would never have done so had he known it would go amok. Instead, it became a weapon of the Deep State. It is now a direct threat to the American Republic. ..."
    "... Ah, yes. The CIA The folks who claimed that Sony was hacked by North Korea, when a private security firm was able to directly finger the disgruntled ex-employees responsible. ..."
    "... The CIA is run by neocons, who are upset that their stooge Hillary lost the election and Trump, the elected President-to-be, is making a direct pivot towards accomodation with their arch-enemy Vladimir Putin. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, the receivers of the DNC leaks know who they got the information from, and swear publicly that that also was an inside leak. But if it were an inside leak, then it couldn't call the results of the election into question. Only interference by a Foreign Power can do that. ..."
    "... Same for the Nameless One. Does she want to admit that her own bureaucracy prefers that she not sit on the throne, or does she like the idea of blaming a sinister foreign entity for her loss? ..."
    "... If the Russians did it, is Obama twisting the knife in the Clinton's back? The email leaks were a false flag attack against the Clintons perpetrated by Obama to remove them from the power matrix, and install himself as head of the Democrat party, free from their influence, and free to move that party in the direction he wants as it's defacto leader. ..."
    "... John Swinton, Chief editorial writer of the New York Times from 1860 to 1870: "There is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinions. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race, for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes." ..."
    "... Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked. ..."
    "... The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern.(Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners. ..."
    "... Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants. ..."
    "... Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: " Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country's cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. ..."
    "... The other begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples' human rights?" The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity. ..."
    "... Craig Murray: "[...] the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. " I wasn't aware of this CIA allegation against the FBI, it's quite astonishing. ..."
    "... Craig Murray: "[...] this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. " No one should be surprised that The Guardian is up to its neck in publishing ... garbage ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    A little simple logic demolishes the CIA's claims. The CIA claim they "know the individuals" involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks.

    The anonymous source claims of "We know who it was, it was the Russians" are beneath contempt.

    Urban Redneck -> Chris Dakota, Dec 11, 2016 6:07 PM
    The CIA has lots of evidence (both collected and manufactured) which is then misconstrued through politiczed analysis and dissemination to serve their own and their primary customer's personal interests.

    Back during the Reagan administration, someone casually told me "We spend more on disinformaion than we do on information" - I doubt things have changed that much since then.

    manofthenorth -> Urban Redneck, Dec 11, 2016 6:15 PM
    Also during the Reagan years;

    William Casey (CIA Director), "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."?

    Overdrawn -> Laddie, Dec 11, 2016 8:15 PM
    It wasn't a hack, it was a leak. It says so in the article.

    on 19th October CNN said the 2016 Election couldn't be hacked.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cnn+2016+presidential+election+cannot+be+hacke...

    Badsamm -> bigdumbnugly, Dec 11, 2016 7:30 PM
    Correct me if Im wrong; but i thought the law prohibits the CIA from operations and investigations on home soil. That is the job for the FBI. Why is the CIA commenting on computer systems that were hacked in the US of A? There are at least a dozen other agencies (just as worthless) that this would fall under their jurisdiction.
    _mike123_ -> bigdumbnugly, Dec 12, 2016 12:02 AM

    If the Russians had anything to do with the hacked emails, which are only accusations, they did the American people a great service by exposing the evil of the DNC, HRottenC and their MSM minions, none of whom could care less about their ethics violations. They are only upset because they were caught. Their supporters have been had by their own kind and their leaders are now redirecting their exposure onto the Russians and Trump to keep their sheep misdirected from the real problems, HRC and Obama.

    post turtle saver -> bigdumbnugly, Dec 12, 2016 12:31 AM
    we all know what happened to the boy who cried "wolf" when none were there... by the time there actually _were_ wolves, no one believed him...

    the CIA has lost the plot and cried "wolf" too many times for anyone to believe them anymore... if an organization has lost trust of national security affairs it should be DISBANDED

    nmewn -> Billy the Poet, Dec 11, 2016 7:24 PM
    Well it is a wide open "bear trap"...lol...(to use a metaphor) sitting there out in the open un-camouflaged for everyone with two brain cells left in their heads to see...and at some point someone is going to ask...

    ...so why did Debbie Wassername-Schultz resign if the hacks were untrue about her non-neutrality toward Bernie Marx in favor of Hillary Crony? Is this not a usurpation of the peoples will and an affront to "democracy" everywhere?

    How is it that a "charity" is only a "charity" as long as the people running this "charity" remain in power? Everyone suddenly becomes "less charitable" because she lost? Why is that? Can't they say cronyism and be done with it?

    Yezzz, let the progressive tears flow, they taste wonderful ;-)

    chindit13, Dec 11, 2016 6:54 PM
    The Brit Ambassador has the wrong target, because he was caught by Fake News.

    The entire story is based on a leak from Senate Staff on SSCI alleging what they were told in a briefing by CIMC. What SSCI was told is that there is no evidence of who was the hacker. Because Russia is one of many possibilities, somebody on SSCI who leaked to WaPo concluded for himself that the hacker was Russia. That is not what they were told. The vitriol should be directed toward WaPo and their Senate SSCI source.

    As the Obama Administration falls apart, expect the various players to begin to look out for themselves. Do not be surprised if in the next few days, Brennan or someone else at the agency sets the record straight and throws some 'shade' on WaPo and Obama.

    Obama is hanging everyone out to dry in the futile attempt to save his own 'legacy'. Whoever might have been a loyal soldier and who fell on his sword if requested to do so is not going to do it anymore. Obama is a child who cannot accept that he has been an abject failure, so he is getting desperate to create some false historical record.

    imprehensibli , Dec 11, 2016 7:15 PM
    Canadian Journalist Eva Bartlett DESTROYS MSM FAKE NEWS ON SYRIA (please watch - important): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebE3GJfGhfA
    Stemmer -> imprehensibli, Dec 11, 2016 10:09 PM
    I remember Zerohedge reporting on a meeting last year with US Senator McCain and Arab terrorists that included photos . These terrorists were on the US most wanted list. Too bad that Canadian reporter did not mention that.
    SgtShaftoe, Dec 11, 2016 7:23 PM
    I'd say this entire campaign is far too clunky and clumsy to be executed by the CIA The CIA has done some incredibly evil shit in the past so I wouldn't put something like this past them, however they are far more professional generally than this from my limited exposure and what I've researched about activities of the agency.
    lakecity55, Dec 11, 2016 8:30 PM
    The "CIA" has outlived its usefulness. It needs to be broken up and disbanded. Truman signed its charter. The original intent was to assemble and study Information, period. Truman later remarked he would never have done so had he known it would go amok. Instead, it became a weapon of the Deep State. It is now a direct threat to the American Republic.
    kuwa mzuri, Dec 11, 2016 8:36 PM
    Our spy and security apparatus didn't defeat the Soviet Union's "evil empire" so much as it emulated it, using Orwell and Huxley as roadmaps, rather than warnings.
    Fathead Slim -> kuwa mzuri, Dec 11, 2016 11:12 PM
    True, the fall of the Soviet Union came as a complete surprise to US Intelligence agencies.
    fearnot, Dec 11, 2016 10:06 PM
    Maybe it wasn't the Russians. Who else could it possibly be? Not the CIA! Not in good ol USA. Maybe it was Aliens! After all the UK Mail thought as much with Kennedy. Or maybe Bush and his clan are the Aliens. All I can say is Trump better never let the CIA instead of Secret Service guard him and his motorcade!

    The CIA Kennedy assassination theory is a prominent John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. The CIA's potential involvement was frequently mentioned during the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in plots to assassinate foreign leaders, particularly Fidel Castro.[1][2] According to author James Douglass, Kennedy was assassinated because he was turning away from the Cold War and seeking a negotiated peace with the Soviet Union.[3][4] Accusations and confessions of and by alleged conspirators, as well as official government reports citing the CIA as uncooperative in investigations, have at times renewed interest in these conspiracy theories.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theory

    joego1, Dec 11, 2016 10:24 PM
    The DNC leaks came from Seth Rich who was Arkansided; https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4v3bpg/dnc_leaker_silenced_...

    Other leaks came from patriot U.S. intell; https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=steve+pieczenik+leaks+cam+f...

    Case closed; Fire the CIA

    Faeriedust, Dec 11, 2016 10:34 PM
    Ah, yes. The CIA The folks who claimed that Sony was hacked by North Korea, when a private security firm was able to directly finger the disgruntled ex-employees responsible.

    Let's break this down some more. The CIA is run by neocons, who are upset that their stooge Hillary lost the election and Trump, the elected President-to-be, is making a direct pivot towards accomodation with their arch-enemy Vladimir Putin.

    Meanwhile, the FBI is stacked with political employees and their career hirees installed under GW Bush, and leans strongly against the Democrats, to the point of deliberately leaking damaging evidence against the Democratic candidate the week before the election . . . granted that there wouldn't have been any information to leak, if Hillary had followed the laws and policies of her federal position.

    Meanwhile, the receivers of the DNC leaks know who they got the information from, and swear publicly that that also was an inside leak. But if it were an inside leak, then it couldn't call the results of the election into question. Only interference by a Foreign Power can do that.

    But to the extent that the Russians DID lobby against Hillary, they did so completely openly. If you read an article in Russia Today in favor of Trump or against Hillary, you can hardly claim to be deceived.

    The Russians are allowed to have an opinion; we can't stop that. What they aren't allowed to do is to vote, or to contribute money to the candidates' campaigns (here we will lightly skip over the millions donated to Hillary's campaign by Israeli dual citizens, the Saudis, the Australians, Nigeria, VietNam, India, Haiti . . .).

    tarabel, Dec 11, 2016 10:37 PM
    What did you expect them to say? "Uh, yes, Mr. President, it was us, actually." Of course they are going to point the finger elsewhere. Especially to someplace that cannot be pressured. You would too, if placed in the same position. Same for the Nameless One. Does she want to admit that her own bureaucracy prefers that she not sit on the throne, or does she like the idea of blaming a sinister foreign entity for her loss?

    And even if Russia did it, it's not like they made anything up. Come on, people. Realpolitik.

    gregga777, Dec 11, 2016 10:49 PM
    The CIA (Central Insanity Agency) IS the United States government. It controls all of the other so-called independent intelligence agencies. Would the CIA lie to overturn the 2016 Presidential elections? Well, the CIA are the very same people who: <
    • for decades have had hundreds of nationally and internationally prominent so-called journalists on the CIA payroll and controlled the stories reported by Western Mainstream Conporate News Media;
    • assassinated President John F. Kennedy because they were furious about the failure of their insane Bay of Pigs fiasco, the peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc., etc., etc.;
    • faked the Gulf of Tonkin intelligence to get the United States Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution giving the bloodthirsty Generals and Admirals and President Lyndon B. Johnson the false flag incident to drastically escalate the Vietnam War–closely located to the Golden Triangle's highly coveted rich heroin supplies–and all of the attendant decades of lying about that war;
    • destabilized Afghanistan to encourage invasion by the Soviet Union;
    • created, supported and armed the Sunni Mujahideen, which morphed into Al Qaeda following the Gulf War, to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan;
    • encouraged President Jimmy Carter to admit the Shah of Iran to create the pretext for decades of enmity between Iran and the United States and destroy Jimmy Carter's Presidency;
    • encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait to give President George H. W. Bush the pretext to declare war on Iraq;
    • were behind the 9/11/2001 false flag attacks on the World Trade Center towers, and their destruction with controlled explosives demolitions charges, and the Pentagon and then lied that it was all an Al Qaeda plot;
    • lied about Al Qaeda's role in 9/11/2001 to justify the invasion of Afghanistan with its highly coveted, rich poppy fields for heroin production;
    • lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify President George W. Bush's war of aggression against Iraq;
    • created, finances, arms and supports ISIS;
    • plans and carries out false flag operations to influence public opinion;
    • lie about whatever whenever it suits their agenda;
    • controls the 'narratives' in the Feral gangster government's organs of state propaganda (mainstream & social media and entertainment oligopoly);

    And far, far more. But, I got tired of typing and I don't want to bore the readers. The point being that they are ALL professional liars and the love of truth and the American Republic is not in them.

    Yes, of course the CIA would lie to overturn the 2016 Presidential elections.

    Crassius, Dec 11, 2016 11:02 PM
    If the Russians did it, is Obama twisting the knife in the Clinton's back? The email leaks were a false flag attack against the Clintons perpetrated by Obama to remove them from the power matrix, and install himself as head of the Democrat party, free from their influence, and free to move that party in the direction he wants as it's defacto leader.

    Blaming the leaks on the Russians gains obfuscation of Obama's chief foreign policy failure as President.... drawing a red line, then failing to act when it was crossed, which signaled to the world that he was an impudent little bitch that could be ignored in a world that understands only one thiing..... strength.

    holdbuysell, Dec 11, 2016 11:02 PM

    John Swinton, Chief editorial writer of the New York Times from 1860 to 1870: "There is no such thing as a free press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who would dare to write his honest opinions. The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell himself, his country, and his race, for his daily bread. We are tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks; they pull the strings, we dance; our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are the property of these men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

    obelix, Dec 12, 2016 3:52 AM
    Clinton's is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don't know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked.

    Furthermore, Clinton's statement is simply untrue. The history of the agency is growing painfully clear, especially with the declassification of historical CIA documents. We may not know the details of specific operations, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of the CIA These facts began emerging nearly two decades ago at an ever-quickening pace. Today we have a remarkably accurate and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and verified from countless different directions.

    The CIA's response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern.(Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church's fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA's criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners.

    However, over the last two decades the tide of evidence has become overwhelming, and the CIA has found that it does not have enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike. This is especially true in the age of the Internet, where information flows freely among millions of people. Since censorship is impossible, the Agency must now defend itself with apologetics. Clinton's "Americans will never know" defense is a prime example.

    obelix, Dec 12, 2016 3:54 AM
    Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants.

    The CIA had moral options available to them, but did not take them.

    Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: " Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country's cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama.

    The other begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples' human rights?" The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity.

    Our intelligence community should be rebuilt from the ground up, with the goal of collecting and analyzing information. As for covert action, there are two moral options.

    The first one is to eliminate covert action completely. But this gives jitters to people worried about the Adolf Hitlers of the world. So a second option is that we can place covert action under extensive and true democratic oversight. For example, a bipartisan Congressional Committee of 40 members could review and veto all aspects of CIA operations upon a majority or super-majority vote.

    Which of these two options is best may be the subject of debate, but one thing is clear: like dictatorship, like monarchy, unaccountable covert operations should die like the dinosaurs they are.

    smacker, Dec 12, 2016 4:27 AM
    Craig Murray: "[...] the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. " I wasn't aware of this CIA allegation against the FBI, it's quite astonishing.

    The FBI and CIA are both utterly corrupt, as is every other faction of the Obola Administration including the Marxist slimeball himself at the very top, but what we see here are factions throwing allegations against each other.

    smacker, Dec 12, 2016 4:39 AM
    Craig Murray: "[...] this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. " No one should be surprised that The Guardian is up to its neck in publishing ... garbage written by Jonathen Freedland. After all it's been "the progressive Left's" house newspaper for years and is known as " The Grauniad " by dissenters.

    What is truly bad is that the BBC are coming out of the closet and once again revealing their own Left-wing Establishment bias by running fake news stories on its TV news channel.

    The Fing News, Dec 12, 2016 4:50 AM
    This is the same CIA that talked about WMD's in Iraq! They will continue being the good Clinton stooges they are. More lies from CIA!

    [Dec 12, 2016] Trump Claims of Russian interference in 2016 race ridiculous, Dems making excuses

    Notable quotes:
    "... President-elect Donald Trump, in an exclusive interview with " Fox News Sunday ," decried as "ridiculous" the CIA's reported assessment that Russia intervened in the election to boost his candidacy – describing the claim as another "excuse" pushed by Democrats to explain his upset victory. ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.foxnews.com
    President-elect Donald Trump, in an exclusive interview with " Fox News Sunday ," decried as "ridiculous" the CIA's reported assessment that Russia intervened in the election to boost his candidacy – describing the claim as another "excuse" pushed by Democrats to explain his upset victory.

    "It's just another excuse. I don't believe it," Trump said. " Every week it's another excuse. We had a massive landslide victory, as you know, in the Electoral College."

    Trump spoke with Fox News' Chris Wallace in the president-elect's first Sunday show interview since winning the election.

    [Dec 12, 2016] If You Are For Peace You Are A Russian Agent by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the CIA is actually stupid enough to believe this, the US is without a competent intelligence agency. Of course, the CIA didn't say and doesn't believe any such thing. The fake news stories in the presstitute media are all sourced to unnamed officials. Former British ambassador Craig Murray described the reports accurately: "bullshit." ..."
    "... Fake news is the presstitute's product. Throughout the presidential primaries and presidential campaign it was completely clear that the mainstream print and TV media were producing endless fake news designed to damage Trump and to boost Hillary. We all saw it. We all lived through it. What is this pretense that Russia is the source of fake news? ..."
    "... We have had nothing but fake news from the presstitutes since the Klingon regime. Fake news was used against Yugoslavia and Serbia in order to cloak the Clinton's war crimes. ..."
    "... Ironic, isn't it, that it is those who purport to be liberal and progressive who are responsible for the revival of McCarthyism in America. Moreover, the liberal progressives are institutionalizing McCarthyism in the US government. There is clearly a concerted effort being made to define truth as fake news and to define lies as truth. ..."
    www.unz.com

    Speaking of fake news, the latest issue of the National Enquirer at the supermarket checkout is giving the mainstream presstitute media a run for the money: "Castro's Deathbed Confession: I Killed JFK. How I framed Oswald."

    That's almost as good as the fake news going around the presstitute media, such as the TV stations, the Washington Post, New York Times, and Guardian-yes, even the former leftwing British newspaper has joined the ranks of the press prostitutes-that the CIA has concluded that "Russian operatives covertly interfered in the election campaign in an attempt to ensure the Republican candidate's victory."

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report

    If the CIA is actually stupid enough to believe this, the US is without a competent intelligence agency. Of course, the CIA didn't say and doesn't believe any such thing. The fake news stories in the presstitute media are all sourced to unnamed officials. Former British ambassador Craig Murray described the reports accurately: "bullshit."

    So who is making the stories up, another anonymous group tied to Hillary such as PropOrNot, the secret, hidden organization that released a list of 200 websites that are Russian agents?

    Fake news is the presstitute's product. Throughout the presidential primaries and presidential campaign it was completely clear that the mainstream print and TV media were producing endless fake news designed to damage Trump and to boost Hillary. We all saw it. We all lived through it. What is this pretense that Russia is the source of fake news?

    We have had nothing but fake news from the presstitutes since the Klingon regime. Fake news was used against Yugoslavia and Serbia in order to cloak the Clinton's war crimes.

    Fake news was used against Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia in order to cloak the Bush regime's war crimes.

    Fake news was used against Libya and Syria in order to cloak the Obama regime's war crimes.

    Without fake news these three blood-drenched presidencies would have been hauled before the War Crimes Commission, tried, and convicted.

    Can anyone produce any truthful statement from the presstitute media about anything of importance? MH-17? Crimea? Ukraine?

    Ironic, isn't it, that it is those who purport to be liberal and progressive who are responsible for the revival of McCarthyism in America. Moreover, the liberal progressives are institutionalizing McCarthyism in the US government. There is clearly a concerted effort being made to define truth as fake news and to define lies as truth.

    (Reprinted from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)

    [Dec 12, 2016] McCarthyism Is Breaking Out All Over by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... As Pam Martens reports, another imbecile has now composed a list of 200 suspect professors who also dissent from the official bullshit fed to the American people. ..."
    "... In an effort to regain control over Americans' minds, they are attempting to define dissenters and truth-tellers as "Russian agents." Why "Russian agents"? Because they hope that their fake news portrait of Russia as America's deadly enemy has taken hold and will result in the public turning away from those of us labeled "Russian agents." ..."
    Dec 02, 2016 | www.paulcraigroberts.org

    As Pam Martens reports, another imbecile has now composed a list of 200 suspect professors who also dissent from the official bullshit fed to the American people.

    http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/12/u-s-journalists-and-professors-appearing-on-rt-america-get-blacklisted/

    The official government purveyors of fake news in the US and their presstitute agents are concerned that they are losing control over the explanations given to the American people.

    In an effort to regain control over Americans' minds, they are attempting to define dissenters and truth-tellers as "Russian agents." Why "Russian agents"? Because they hope that their fake news portrait of Russia as America's deadly enemy has taken hold and will result in the public turning away from those of us labeled "Russian agents."

    I don't think it is working.

    [Dec 12, 2016] Fake News Versus No News

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the present moment, it is practically obligatory to slam Russia and Putin at every opportunity even though Moscow is too militarily weak and poor to fancy itself a global adversary of the U.S. ..."
    "... Candidate Donald Trump appeared to recognize that fact before he began listening to Michael Flynn, who has a rather different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail. ..."
    "... Blaming Russia, which has good reasons to be suspicious of Washington's intentions, is particularly convenient for those many diverse inside the Beltway interests that require a significant enemy to keep the cash flowing out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the bank accounts of the useless grifters who inhabit K-Street and Capitol Hill. ..."
    Dec 06, 2016 | www.unz.com

    ... ... ...

    ...Does the name Judith Miller ring any bells? And the squeaks of rage coming from the U.S. Congress over being lied to is also something to behold as the federal government has been acting in collusion with the media to dish up falsehoods designed to start wars since the time of the Spanish-American conflict in 1898, if not before.

    The fake news saga is intended to discredit Donald Trump, whom the media hates mostly because they failed to understand either him or the Americans who voted for him in the recent election. You have to blame somebody when you are wrong so you invent "fake news" as the game changer that explains your failure to comprehend simple truths. To accomplish that, the clearly observable evidence that the media was piling on Donald Trump at every opportunity has somehow been deliberately morphed into a narrative that it is Trump who was attacking the media, suggesting that it was all self-defense on the part of the Rachel Maddows of this world, but anyone who viewed even a small portion of the farrago surely will have noted that it was the Republican candidate who was continuously coming under attack from both the right and left of the political-media spectrum.

    There are also some secondary narratives being promoted, including a pervasive argument that Hillary Clinton was somehow the victim of the news reporting due specifically to fake stories emanating largely from Moscow in an attempt to not only influence the election but also to subvert America's democratic institutions. I have observed that if such a truly ridiculous objective were President Vladimir Putin's desired goal he might as well relax. Our own Democratic and Republican duopoly has already been doing a fine job at subverting democracy by assiduously separating the American people from the elite Establishment that theoretically represents and serves them.

    Another side of the mainstream media lament that has been relatively unexplored is what the media chooses not to report. At the present moment, it is practically obligatory to slam Russia and Putin at every opportunity even though Moscow is too militarily weak and poor to fancy itself a global adversary of the U.S.

    Instead of seeking a new Cold War, Washington should instead focus on working with Russia to make sure that disagreements over policies in relatively unimportant parts of the world do not escalate into nuclear exchanges. Russian actions on its own doorstep in Eastern Europe do not in fact threaten the United States or any actual vital interest. Nor does Moscow threaten the U.S. through its intervention on behalf of the Syrian government in the Middle East. That Russia is described incessantly as a threat in those areas is largely a contrivance arranged by the media, the Democratic and Republican National Committees and by the White House.

    Candidate Donald Trump appeared to recognize that fact before he began listening to Michael Flynn, who has a rather different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail.

    Blaming Russia, which has good reasons to be suspicious of Washington's intentions, is particularly convenient for those many diverse inside the Beltway interests that require a significant enemy to keep the cash flowing out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the bank accounts of the useless grifters who inhabit K-Street and Capitol Hill.

    Neoconservatives are frequently described as ideologues, but the truth is that they are more interested in gaining increased access to money and power than they are in promulgating their own brand of global regime change.

    ... ... ...

    Greasy William

    Russophobia/Putinophobia is as big as it is because it is a rare issue where the mainstream right, the left and the political class all agree, albeit for different reasons. The mainstream right is anti Russia because of the Cold War and Russia's support for Iran, Venezuela and Cuba. The left hates Russia because of Pussy Riot, humiliating Obama and Merkel in the Ukraine, Snowden, supporting anti immigrant politicians like Le Pen and Wilders, jailing/killing pro Western Russian politicians, the gay stuff and especially for Trump. The political class hates Russia simply because it is a rival to US power in Europe and the Middle East. Put all three together, and you get a political consensus for Russophobia.

    At the end of the day, however, Russophobia or even Putinophobia is a minority position in the US; or else Trump wouldn't have been elected. And a huge chunk of the people who voted for Hillary are blacks and hispanics, who don't give a rat's ass about Russia and probably couldn't even find it on a map.

    Before Pussy Riot/Ukraine/Snowden/Gays/Trump there was even a lot of sympathy in the US media for victims of Chechen terrorism, especially after the Beslan school thing. As late as the 2012 election, Obama was mocking Mitt Romney's Russophobia.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Trump chooses Exxon CEO Tillerson as Secretary of State

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is a big unknown. I think Paul Craig Roberts said it best - give Trump 6 months and then form an opinion. ..."
    "... For the moment, I think Tillerson is a far far better pick than Guilliani, Romney or Bolton. ..."
    "... "Tillerson might be the worst secretary of state contender on Trump's list" says Wapo. So, he's the best, no doubt!! ..."
    "... Almost all professional anti-Russia "Senior Fellows" are dependent on State Department to fund their lobbying. Tillerson a disaster for them ..."
    "... Deepening Ties Between Exxon and Russia Run Counter to U.S. Efforts to Punish Putin ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    aaaa | Dec 10, 2016 11:11:04 PM | 94
    @35 Trump is a big unknown. I think Paul Craig Roberts said it best - give Trump 6 months and then form an opinion. I'm not too optimistic however; Trump's policies could flop and the hawks could weasel their warmongering in (IRAN + CHINA + ????)

    For the moment, I think Tillerson is a far far better pick than Guilliani, Romney or Bolton. I hope that he will acquire the position. He seems to be smart, but also seems to have good character (considering.)

    Of course, the inauguration is a few weeks off, so the concern about a soft coup are real ones, especially when the CIA is throwing out the Russia claims.

    smuks | Dec 10, 2016 2:36:33 PM | 16

    OT (sorry, but I really don't care about so-called 'leaks' and 'hacks'):

    Trump chooses Exxon CEO Tillerson as Secretary of State.

    Kind of makes me wonder...what if we see the emergence of a new confrontation, between a 'fossil fuel' block comprising the US, Russia and OPEC, and a 'renewables' block of China, the EU and pretty much everyone else? Yep, I admit that's a very long shot.

    From The Hague | Dec 10, 2016 2:53:49 PM | 21
    #16 Yes! Yeah!
    Wonderful

    "Tillerson might be the worst secretary of state contender on Trump's list" says Wapo. So, he's the best, no doubt!!
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/12/07/tillerson-might-be-the-worst-one-on-trumps-list/?utm_term=.066b74221ede

    Almost all professional anti-Russia "Senior Fellows" are dependent on State Department to fund their lobbying. Tillerson a disaster for them
    https://twitter.com/27khv/status/807666659896987648

    Deepening Ties Between Exxon and Russia Run Counter to U.S. Efforts to Punish Putin
    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140827/deepening-ties-between-exxon-and-russia-run-counter-us-efforts-punish-putin

    Russian President Vladimir Putin is seen here awarding ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson with the Order of Friendship last year.

    chipnik | Dec 10, 2016 3:59:06 PM | 39
    @29

    ... ... ...

    John Bolton, dutifully reading from the CIA's Yellow Cake playbook

    "I'm obviously aware that people are quite focused on the economy rather than foreign policy issues, but that is something that should and can be altered as people see the nature of the grave threats around the world that we face. We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material -- it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year."

    MIC IS NOW IN CONTROL OF DEFENSE, NSA, CIA AND STATE, AND GOLDMAN IS IN CONTROL OF TREASURY, COMMERCE, OMB, NEC AND FED. THIS IS THE NEO-CON END-GAME: THE 1998-2001 SOFT COUP-HARD COUP, THAT TOOK AMERICA DOWN.

    All we need is Ari Fleischer in the role of Bolton's spox to the media, lol. "Mr. Fleischer, please come to the red phone service desk, you have a call waiting." It's all monkey-brain now!

    Circe | Dec 11, 2016 12:38:16 AM | 103
    There's something very fishy about the choices of Rex Tillerson and John Bolton for SoS and Deputy SoS respectively.

    Tillerson has major potential conflicts of interest that the Senate will scrutinize including the award he received from Putin. I'm seriously questioning how Tillerson will get Senate approval. On the other hand, John Bolton, is very popular with most Republicans and hawkish Democrats and will have no problem whatsoever.

    I believe this strange combination is a red flag that perfectly illustrates Trump's strategy, which is one of the following:

    1. Either Trump deliberately chose someone with close ties to Russia and Putin because he knows he won't be approved by the Senate, and his first choice from the start, John Bolton, will pass with flying colors;

    2. Or William Engdahl is right that the Neocon strategy is pivoting and adapting to present circumstances:

    His job will be to reposition the United States for them to reverse the trend to disintegration of American global hegemony, to, as the Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz Project for the New American Century put it in their September, 2000 report, "rebuild America's defenses."

    To do that preparation, a deception strategy that will fatally weaken the developing deep bonds between Russia and China will be priority. It's already begun. We have a friendly phone call from The Donald to Vladimir the Fearsome in Moscow. Russian media is euphoric about a new era in US-Russia relations after Obama. Then suddenly we hear the war-mongering NATO head, Stoltenberg, suddenly purr soothing words to Russia. Float the idea that California Congressman and Putin acquaintance, Dana Rohrabacher, is leaked as a possible Secretary of State. It's classic Kissinger Balance of Power geopolitics–seem to ally with the weaker of two mortal enemies, Russia, to isolate the stronger, China. Presumably Vladimir Putin is not so naďve or stupid as to fall for it, but that is the plot of Trump's handlers. Such a strategy of preventing the growing Russia-China cooperation was urged by Zbigniew Brzezinski in a statement this past summer.

    http://journal-neo.org/2016/11/25/the-dangerous-deception-called-the-trump-presidency/

    Let's not forget that the first time Trump was asked during the campaign who he gets foreign policy advice from; the first name that popped up was JOHN BOLTON, and he praised him as being tough. John Bolton was strongly allied with Dick Cheney. Steve Yates, another Neocon, was Cheney's China advisor and is Trump's as well. After reading Engdahl's article, I wrote my own opinion of the Neocon strategy based on Engdahl's and you can read it on the Saker's site here: http://thesaker.is/his-own-man-or-someones-puppet/

    But if you find it difficult to read without paragraphs: scroll down through the comments on the Saker's own opinion of Engdahl's piece as that's where my original comment appeared with paragraphs.

    http://thesaker.is/is-donald-trump-really-only-a-showman-who-will-prepare-the-usa-for-war/

    Something stinks about this Tillerson/Bolton combination. You can read my theory on why Neocons are pivoting to a new strategy of divide and conquer as Engdahl believes, and it has to do with the growing economic bond between China and Iran as well and killing two birds with one stone; invading Iran to contain China and sabotage OBOR.

    Note as well, that in courting Russia to isolate China and weaken the growing cooperation between China and Russia, as Engdahl puts it, Russia will ultimately lose its own influence, unless of course Netanyahu has made Putin an offer he can't refuse, since Netanyahu has been courting Putin for quite some time already; and this is very bizarre, since Putin frustrated Netanyahu's plan for Syria.

    http://en.europe-israel.org/2016/12/09/russian-diplomat-moscow-jerusalem-friendship-at-highest-point-ever/

    Something's very wrong with this picture.

    smuks | Dec 11, 2016 1:01:21 PM | 148
    So Bolton will be Tillerson's vice-SoS. How much more Neocon can you get? And you seriously believe Trump will 'clean the Augean Stables', 'drain the swamp' and 'open a new book' in foreign policy, esp. relations with Russia? Dream on.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Unraveling the Russian Hack Conspiracy Propaganda

    " BARACK OBAMA, WITH THE COOPERATION OF SOME IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT TRUMP BEFORE THE ELECTION"
    Notable quotes:
    "... The whole "blame Russia" movement to account for Hillary's unexpected failure to win the Presidency got a new shot in the arm with today's announcement that Obama ordered: ..."
    "... The stupidity of this is profound. If this review leads to the "discovery" that Russia is carrying out espionage activities in the United States then we have passed the threshold of learning that there is gambling in a casino. ..."
    "... The real irony in all of this is that Wikileaks, thanks to the hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails, exposed the reality of Democrats working surreptitiously to tamper with and manipulate the election. Here are the highlights from that leak: ..."
    "... Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria. ..."
    "... Blaming Russia for Hillary's flame out is absurd. The Russians did not create and lie about Hillary's server. They did not force her to back the multilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and TPP. They didn't set up the Clinton Foundation as a cash cow for the Clinton family. They did not force her to advocate imposing a No Fly Zone in Syria and having been a cheerleader for past wars, including Iraq and Libya. Vladimir Putin did not slip her a mickey and cause her to pass out at the 9-11 memorial, which fueled concerns about her health. And they did not infect her lungs and cause her to have extended coughing jags. They did not cause her to call Americans deplorables. They did not make her say that the coal industry should be shutdown. With that kind of record, coupled with her shrieking, screechy voice, why are folks surprised that she did not win? ..."
    "... So now Democrats and several Republicans are in a lather over the Russians stealing the election for Trump. The list of conspiracy theorists pushing this nonsense include John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Angus King of Maine, Brent Budowsky and Adam Schiff. I defy anyone, to explain to me how Russian meddling gave Trump the win. ..."
    "... The realities are this. First, as noted in the Budowsky email, the Clinton campaign came up with the idea of accusing Trump of being a stooge of Russia. They thought they'd get political bang out of that. They didn't. ..."
    "... Second, the hack of the DNC emails confirmed that the suspicions of many that the DNC and Hillary were collaborating to screw over Bernie and rig the election. That was not fake news. Cold, unwelcomed truth. That's when this drum beat about the big, bad Russians started meddling in our election started. Why? To distract attention away from the ugly reality that the DNC and Hillary were cheating. ..."
    "... The subsequent Wikileaks avalanche of Podesta emails reinforced as fact the existing suspicion that the media was in the bag for Hillary. ..."
    "... I would recommend you assemble a short reading list of everything surrounding President Kennedy's full acceptance of responsibility after the Bay of Pigs, beginning with the substance and tone of his unequivocal taking of responsibility and ending with his huge rise in the polls, to nearly 90% favorable ratings, after he did this. ..."
    "... And then I would suggest she plan the equivalent and take full, absolute and unequivocal responsibility for making a mistake with the private emails and give an honest, direct, explanation of the reasons I believe she used those private emails. . . . ..."
    "... Give Budowsky credit for one thing, if Hillary had followed his advice she might have won the election. But she was too busy exploiting the rules of a rigged game and trying to smear Trump as a Russian agent while failing to exercise genuine, sincere personal responsibility. ..."
    "... Barack Obama appears to be actively working to discredit the Trump election and has enlisted the intelligence community in the effort. How else to explain this disconnect? Yesterday, as noted above, Obama directed the intelligence community to: ..."
    "... I heard from a knowledgeable friend in September that Hillary's campaign was pressing the Obama White House to lean on the intel community and put something out blaming her woes on the Russians. That led to the October statement. And now we have the CIA via a SECRET report (that is leaked to the public) insisting that Trump's victory came because of the Russians. ..."
    "... This is a damn lie. The CIA is now allowing itself to be used once again for blatant political purposes. The politicization became a real problem under Bush. Let's not forget that these are the same cats who insisted it was a slam dunk that were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The same group who missed the rise of ISIS. ..."
    "... Also worth reminding ourselves that the head of the ironically titled "Intelligence Community" is a proven liar. Jim Clapper lied to the Senate about the NSA spying on Americans three years ago (December 2013) : ..."
    "... "Congressional oversight depends on truthful testimony – witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress," wrote representatives James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, Raul Labrador, Ted Poe, Trey Gowdy and Blake Farenthold, citing "Director Clapper's willful lie under oath." ..."
    "... There is a consistent pattern in the Obama Administration of lying to the American people, especially when it comes to National Security matters. The NSA is not an isolated case. We also have Benghazi, Syria and Libya as other examples of not telling the truth and misrepresenting facts. ..."
    "... In my lifetime, going on 60 years, I have never seen such a display of incompetence as is being manifested by Barack Obama and mental midgets that surround him. ..."
    "... What they can say for sure is that the DNC and Podesta emails were hacked. Those hacked emails were passed to WIKILEAKS. Those emails were then released to the public. What the intel community will be hard pressed to prove is that the Russian Government conceived of and directed such a campaign. This is the true information operation to meddle in the U.S. election, but that isn't Russia. That's Obama. ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.noquarterusa.net

    UPDATE–PLEASE SEE BELOW. BOTTOMLINE, BARACK OBAMA, WITH THE COOPERATION OF SOME IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE TRYING TO DISCREDIT TRUMP BEFORE THE ELECTION.

    Let me stipulate up front that both the United States and Russia engage in covert and clandestine information operations. It is called espionage. It is but one aspect of the broader intelligence activity also known as spying. Time for all you snowflakes in America to grow up and get a grip and deal with with reality. If the respective intelligence organizations in either country are not doing this they are guilty of malpractice and should be dismantled.

    There are two basic types of espionage activity–Covert refers to an operation that is undetected while in progress, but the outcome may be easily observed. Killing Bin Laden is a prime example of a "covert" operation. A Clandestine Operation is something that is supposed to be undetected while in progress and after completion. For example, if the U.S. or Russia had a mole at the top of the National Security bureaucracy of their respective adversary, communicating with that mole and the mole's very existence would be clandestine.

    So, the alleged Russian meddling in our election–was it covert or clandestine?

    The whole "blame Russia" movement to account for Hillary's unexpected failure to win the Presidency got a new shot in the arm with today's announcement that Obama ordered:

    a full review into hacking by the Russians designed to influence the 2016 election, White House Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Adviser Lisa Monaco said Friday.

    The stupidity of this is profound. If this review leads to the "discovery" that Russia is carrying out espionage activities in the United States then we have passed the threshold of learning that there is gambling in a casino.

    The real irony in all of this is that Wikileaks, thanks to the hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails, exposed the reality of Democrats working surreptitiously to tamper with and manipulate the election. Here are the highlights from that leak:

    DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Calls Sanders Campaign Manager Jeff Weaver an "A–" and a "Liar"

    In May the Nevada Democratic State Convention became rowdy and got out of hand in a fight over delegate allocation. When Weaver went on CNN and denied any claims violence had happened, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, once she was notified of the exchange, wrote "Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he never acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred."

    Highlighting Sanders' Faith

    One email shows that a DNC official contemplated highlighting Sanders' alleged atheism - even though he has said he is not an atheist - during the primaries as a possibility to undermine support among voters.

    "It may make no difference but for KY and WA can we get someone to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of the DNC, wrote in an email on May 5, 2016. "He had skated on having a Jewish heritage. I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

    Building a Narrative Against Sanders

    "Wondering if there's a good Bernie narrative for a story which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess," DNC National Secretary Mark Paustenbach wrote in an email to National Communications Director Luis Miranda on May 21. After detailing ways in which the Sanders camp was disorganized, Paustenbach concludes, "It's not a DNC conspiracy it's because they never had their act together."

    The London Observer noted that :

    The release provides further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.

    It was the Clinton spokesman, Robbie Mook, who launched the claim on July 24, 2016 that these leaks were done by the Russians in order to help Trump:

    The source of the leak has not been revealed, though Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook, said on ABC News' "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday that he believes the Russians were instrumental in it.

    "Experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, took all these emails and now are leaking them out through these websites," Mook said Sunday. "It's troubling that some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

    The Clinton campaign started planning to smear Trump as a Putin stooge as early as December 2015. The Podesta emails showed clearly that the Clinton campaign decided early on to clobber Trump for his "bromance" with Putin. It was Brent Buwdosky almost one year ago (December 21, 2015) who proposed going after Trump with the Russian card in an email to Podesta:

    Putin did not agree to anything about removing Assad and continues to bomb the people we support. We pushed the same position in 2012 (Geneva 1, which HRC knows all about) and Geneva 2 in 2014. Odds that Putin agrees to remove Assad are only slightly better than the odds the College of Cardinals chooses me to someday succeed Pope Francis. Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria.

    Going after Trump as a Russian stooge was in the Clinton playbook long before Trump won a primary. One the wedge issues for Clinton with respect to Trump was Syria. Trump took a strong stand (which many thought would hurt him with Republicans) in declaring we should not be trying to get rid of Assad and that America should cooperate with the Russians in fighting the Islamists. Clinton, by contrast, called for imposing a No Fly Zone that would have risked a direct confrontation with Russia.

    Blaming Russia for Hillary's flame out is absurd. The Russians did not create and lie about Hillary's server. They did not force her to back the multilateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and TPP. They didn't set up the Clinton Foundation as a cash cow for the Clinton family. They did not force her to advocate imposing a No Fly Zone in Syria and having been a cheerleader for past wars, including Iraq and Libya. Vladimir Putin did not slip her a mickey and cause her to pass out at the 9-11 memorial, which fueled concerns about her health. And they did not infect her lungs and cause her to have extended coughing jags. They did not cause her to call Americans deplorables. They did not make her say that the coal industry should be shutdown. With that kind of record, coupled with her shrieking, screechy voice, why are folks surprised that she did not win?

    So now Democrats and several Republicans are in a lather over the Russians stealing the election for Trump. The list of conspiracy theorists pushing this nonsense include John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Angus King of Maine, Brent Budowsky and Adam Schiff. I defy anyone, to explain to me how Russian meddling gave Trump the win.

    The realities are this. First, as noted in the Budowsky email, the Clinton campaign came up with the idea of accusing Trump of being a stooge of Russia. They thought they'd get political bang out of that. They didn't.

    Second, the hack of the DNC emails confirmed that the suspicions of many that the DNC and Hillary were collaborating to screw over Bernie and rig the election. That was not fake news. Cold, unwelcomed truth. That's when this drum beat about the big, bad Russians started meddling in our election started. Why? To distract attention away from the ugly reality that the DNC and Hillary were cheating.

    The subsequent Wikileaks avalanche of Podesta emails reinforced as fact the existing suspicion that the media was in the bag for Hillary. But no amount of media help and foreign money could transform Hillary into a likeable candidate. She was dreadful on the campaign trail and terrible at talking to the average American. Even her boy, Brent Budowsky, reluctantly acknowledged this in an email to John Podesta on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 :

    While I have been warning for some time about the dangers facing the Clinton campaign, aggressively in privately, tactfully in columns, during this latest stage I have been publicly defending her with no-holds barred, and here is my advice based on the reaction I have been receiving and the dangers I see coming to fruition.

    I would recommend you assemble a short reading list of everything surrounding President Kennedy's full acceptance of responsibility after the Bay of Pigs, beginning with the substance and tone of his unequivocal taking of responsibility and ending with his huge rise in the polls, to nearly 90% favorable ratings, after he did this.

    And then I would suggest she plan the equivalent and take full, absolute and unequivocal responsibility for making a mistake with the private emails and give an honest, direct, explanation of the reasons I believe she used those private emails. . . .

    She could say she was right anticipating this, but wrong in overreacting by trying to shield her private emails, and she takes full responsibility for this, and apologizes to her supporters and everyone else, and now she has turned over all information, it will ultimately be seen that there no egregious wrongs committed.

    She needs to stop talking like a lawyer parsing legalistic words and a potential defendant expecting a future indictment, which is how she often looks and sounds to many voters today. Instead, she should take full responsibility for a mistake with no equivocation, and segue into the role of a populist prosecutor against a corrupted politics that Americans already detest ..and make a direct attack against the Donald Trump politics of daily insults and defamations and intolerance against whichever individuals and groups he tries to bully on a given day, and while defending some Republican candidates against his attacks, she should deplore their being intimidated by his insults and offering pastel versions of the intolerance he peddles.

    In other words, she should stop acting like a front-runner who cautiously tries to exploit the rules of a rigged game to her advantage, and start acting like a fighting underdog who will fight on behalf of Americans who want a higher standard of living for themselves, a higher standard of politics for the nation, and a higher level of economic opportunity and social justice for everyone.

    Like JFK after the Bay of Pigs, the more responsibility she takes now the more she will succeed going forward.

    Give Budowsky credit for one thing, if Hillary had followed his advice she might have won the election. But she was too busy exploiting the rules of a rigged game and trying to smear Trump as a Russian agent while failing to exercise genuine, sincere personal responsibility.

    UPDATE –This is an extremely dangerous time now. Barack Obama appears to be actively working to discredit the Trump election and has enlisted the intelligence community in the effort. How else to explain this disconnect? Yesterday, as noted above, Obama directed the intelligence community to:

    "conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process. It is to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders," she said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters. "This is consistent with the work that we did over the summer to engage Congress on the threats that we were seeing."

    Then comes news last night that :

    The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

    Why do you order a review if the CIA has already made a factual determination? In fact, we were told in October that the whole damn intelligence community determined the Russians did it. USA Today reported this in October :

    The fact-checking website Politifact says Hillary Clinton is correct when she says 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind the hacking.

    "We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing," Clinton said during Wednesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas .

    Trump pushed back, saying that Clinton and the United States had "no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else."

    But Clinton is correct. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies , in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

    I heard from a knowledgeable friend in September that Hillary's campaign was pressing the Obama White House to lean on the intel community and put something out blaming her woes on the Russians. That led to the October statement. And now we have the CIA via a SECRET report (that is leaked to the public) insisting that Trump's victory came because of the Russians.

    This is a damn lie. The CIA is now allowing itself to be used once again for blatant political purposes. The politicization became a real problem under Bush. Let's not forget that these are the same cats who insisted it was a slam dunk that were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The same group who missed the rise of ISIS.

    Barack Obama told CNN' Van Jones the following the other night :

    "The ability of ISIL to not just mass inside of Syria, but then to initiate major land offensives that took Mosul, for example, that was not on my intelligence radar screen," Obama told Zakaria, using the administration's term for the Islamic State terror group.

    Also worth reminding ourselves that the head of the ironically titled "Intelligence Community" is a proven liar. Jim Clapper lied to the Senate about the NSA spying on Americans three years ago (December 2013) :

    In a letter issued the day after a White House surveillance review placed new political pressure on the National Security Agency, the seven members of the House judiciary committee said that James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, ought to face consequences for untruthfully telling the Senate that the NSA was "not wittingly" collecting data on Americans.

    "Congressional oversight depends on truthful testimony – witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress," wrote representatives James Sensenbrenner, Darrell Issa, Trent Franks, Raul Labrador, Ted Poe, Trey Gowdy and Blake Farenthold, citing "Director Clapper's willful lie under oath."

    There is a consistent pattern in the Obama Administration of lying to the American people, especially when it comes to National Security matters. The NSA is not an isolated case. We also have Benghazi, Syria and Libya as other examples of not telling the truth and misrepresenting facts.

    In my lifetime, going on 60 years, I have never seen such a display of incompetence as is being manifested by Barack Obama and mental midgets that surround him.

    What they can say for sure is that the DNC and Podesta emails were hacked. Those hacked emails were passed to WIKILEAKS. Those emails were then released to the public. What the intel community will be hard pressed to prove is that the Russian Government conceived of and directed such a campaign. This is the true information operation to meddle in the U.S. election, but that isn't Russia. That's Obama.

    Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.

    [Dec 11, 2016] The CIA's Absence of Conviction by Craig Murray

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also. ..."
    craigmurray.org.uk

    I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it.

    There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption. Yet this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

    [Dec 11, 2016] Russia Rigged Election, Killed JFK And Hid Saddams WMDs, Confirms CIA

    waterfordwhispersnews.com
    craazyboy December 10, 2016 at 10:10 am

    hahaha. Tho I think they made a spelling error- s/b Osamaovitch Boris Ladenofsky.

    Baby Gerald December 10, 2016 at 10:15 am

    Thanks for this– a much-needed Onion-esque satirical dig at the Globe/Post/NYT trifecta of garbage. To base a headline on information gleaned from anonymous sources and unnamed officials in secret meetings with unpublished agendas seems the most dangerous type of fake news there is. The death of irony was greatly exaggerated, if you ask me.

    Aumua December 10, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Next up: Russia influenced the Superbowl. You thought the Cubs' actually winning was a little strange? Well, have we got a shocker for you..

    [Dec 11, 2016] Are Saudis behind CIA "report" on Russian influence on elections?

    Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Stormcrow , December 11, 2016 at 7:38 am

    What's behind the Russian Hack Propaganda? Two articles worth a read. I apologize if they've been posted before.

    What Are The Hearsay Leaks About "Russian Election Hacking" Attempting To Achieve?
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/12/what-are-the-hearsay-leaks-about-russian-election-hacking-attempting-to-achieve.html

    BEHIND CIA"S "REPORT" ON ELECTION: THE SAUDIS
    https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/09/unpacking-new-cia-leak-dont-ignore-aluminum-tube-footnote/

    UserFriendly , December 11, 2016 at 7:47 am

    Well, At least Tillerson believes in Climate change and is in favor of a carbon tax
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/06/30/exxon-yes-exxon-backs-a-carbon-tax/#1fbb193e4aea

    Jim Haygood , December 11, 2016 at 9:00 am

    Are we seeing a pattern here? Tillerson - a Putin counterpart and recipient of Russia's Order of Friendship - to Moscow; Gov Branstad - farmin' buddy of Premier Xi since the 1980s - to Beijing. And so forth.

    Inside-the-Beltway folk are upset at the overturning of the established order, in which diplomatic posts go to the biggest bundlers, regardless of country knowledge. Lacking titles of nobility here in the Homeland, we need an outlet for the well-connected to purchase a prestigious sinecure and a black diplomatic passport. Otherwise a frightening Revolt of the Affluent could roil our streets.

    Still angling for the Court of St James myself - got any witticisms I could share with the Queen?

    Katniss Everdeen , December 11, 2016 at 10:15 am

    Like it or not, Tillerson as secretary of "state" makes a fair amount of sense.

    His appointment would acknowledge, pretty overtly, that american foreign "policy" is, always and everywhere, about energy.

    We ignore human rights abuses in saudi arabia and overthrow Gadhafi when he proposes demanding payment for oil in a gold-backed currency. Iraq. Assad must "go" because of a pipeline. A biden boy gets a seat on the board of a Ukranian energy company after a u. s. backed coup. The clinton foundation in Nigeria.

    And that's just the last decade or so of wars and "threats to american interests." Maybe it's time we just got honest about it.

    Carolinian , December 11, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Honesty would be a refreshing change.

    Jomo , December 11, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Don't say it's about "energy" 'cause it's about "oil."

    [Dec 11, 2016] Something fishy about President Obama decision to investigate Russian influence of the recent Presidential elections

    Notable quotes:
    "... My perspective from across the ocean has always been that the McCarthy philosophy was the least admirable episode in recent US history. ..."
    "... It's almost as if the West, or at least Western Elite circles who have strived to saturate the airways with Russia-the-bogey-man material since the year dot, can they, on the back of this one-sided propaganda machine, wheel-out blame directed towards Russia for .... well almost anything they desire. ..."
    "... If only Barack Hussain Obama had not taken it upon his self to interfere in our referendum with his clear 'Back of the queue' threat, it may have been possible to not think he is a hypocrite. ..."
    "... I suspect this is one last roll of the dice by the 'democrats' to keep Trump out of office. ..."
    "... Obama is foolishly upping the ante, not on Putin, but on Trump. Trump's instinct will be to put a 10x hurt on Obama for this. Don't punk Trump. ..."
    "... They are desperate to discredit the winner. It is as ineffective as any of his failed policies ..."
    "... In other words, Obama admits he hasn't kept America secure versus 21st-century threats. ..."
    "... Obama has said the intelligence agencies had the proof that Russia interfered with the election. With all their proof why order a review? Can't wait until Obama leaves office. ..."
    "... what, is the USA the new Latin America, and Russia the new CIA ? forever meddling surreptitiously to undermine and overthrow other sovereign nation states democratic processes ? that's just so unfair ..."
    "... It is a funny joke, but on the essence I would advise to read investigative report "The New Red Scare" in Harpers. The evidence of Russian government having anything to do with any hacks is literally non-existing. ..."
    "... The US, heckler of the world for decades, stirring trouble wherever the dart falls, and yet Russian hackers and North Korean hookers are to blame for 99.9% of the worlds problems. Reality is, if the US didn't move past its own borders for 10 years the world would be already a much, much better place. ..."
    "... The Guardian probably shouldn't go along in helping build the new McCarthyist, Cold War narrative, especially when it's just a bunch of US politicians and media figures repeating politically expedient, but factually unsupported claims. The Western media is trying to be Hearst Newspapers in the Spanish-American war. ..."
    "... This is explicitly bad because it allows the suppression of dissent, of creating blacklists, the military industrial complex to further consolidate power, and to blame all sorts of domestic failures on shadowing foreign influence. ..."
    "... But when Judith Miller, the NYT, George Bush and Hillary Clinton used fake news to kill hundreds of thousands, Obama told us to get over it, to "look forward and not backward." ..."
    "... The United States has attempted to push its democratic ideologies on countries all over the world, using means much more direct than hacking. Yet they cannot take a fraction of what they dish out. If Russia is indeed intervening to aid nationalists around the world, then Russia is a friend and should be welcomed with open arms. Trump should do the same, and used the powers of the United States to undermine [neoliberal] leftists around the globe. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | , discussion.theguardian.com
    Mauryan , 9 Dec 2016 18:29
    Interesting - Obama never ordered an independent probe into 9/11 or invasion of Iraq or on the Wall Street Collapse. Somehow Russian hacking seems to be more draconian than all the above.

    And Russians somehow got into the brains of the disgruntled white population, and controlled Trump's brain so that he would be voted to power. Then they still control Trump's brain so much that he is wanting to let NATO countries pay for their security, make Japan, South Korea and everyone else where US maintains its bases to pay for themselves.

    And then suddenly there is a news of a thousand Russian athletes doing well in 2012 London Olympics due to enhanced drugs. Until now, no one knew about this or heard about it.

    It is not that I am supporting Russia all of a sudden. It is just that I am not supporting the attempt to create enemies out of thin air and make them monstrous as needed, while covering even more sinister schemes that need public attention.

    Obama is part of the same system too that runs everything from behind the curtains. He still is a good man. But he has only some much room to function within and survive.

    Karahashianders -> Mauryan , 9 Dec 2016 18:48
    A good man is not capable of bombing 7 countries in 8 years' time. People are too naive to believe that someone could look as nice and sound as nice as Obama and push to advance the agenda of some of the most evil and power-hungry megalomaniacs on the planet.
    Woodenarrow123 , 9 Dec 2016 18:28
    It was Wikileaks that did it.

    I don't know if the Russians provided Wikileaks with the actual emails or not but Wikileaks like so many news organisations before them released info obtained illegally that they thought the public had a right to know.

    Now Assange has effectively been imprisoned in an Embassy in London for around 5 years on bogus charges and his reputation was damaged by the same charges - Obviously Obama does not want to give any credit to Assange and he knows he has played a part in this outrageous persecution.

    This would also a could time to remind fellow commentators here about the Nuland - Pyatt conversation that was recorded by Russia and released. This conversation showed the the involvement of two high ranking US Politicians in the armed coup in Ukraine where an elected albeit corrupt leader was forced to flee the country.

    200gnomes -> Woodenarrow123 , 9 Dec 2016 18:39
    wikileaks did it because the MSM refuses to do it.
    joeblow9999 , 9 Dec 2016 18:28
    NOTHING in the DNC or Hilly campaign emails has been refuted by anyone. The corrupt DNC and Hilly got caught.

    This is literally like a pedophile complaining to the police because someone stole their illegal porn. Absolutely shameful.

    neighbor65003 , 9 Dec 2016 18:23
    US intelligence? is this the same intelligent agency that gave us Iraq WMD report? They have no credibility
    DaveCP , 9 Dec 2016 18:22
    After reading the first two pages of comments here, it is tempting to believe the bear contributes to these forums on quite an organised scale.

    I fail to see what possible fear anyone could have from whatever evidence exists being seen by, at least, those with a vested interest.

    diddoit -> DaveCP , 9 Dec 2016 18:27

    The period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against supposed communists, as well as a campaign spreading fear of their influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents.

    The third Red Scare? *clutches teddy bear*

    Only one slight problem ...there aren't any reds in charge in Russia anymore.

    diddoit -> DaveCP , 9 Dec 2016 18:38
    My point being, there is no great ideological clash anymore. Assange volunteered the fact the email data didn't come from the Russians. And whether Trump is better than Hillary is open to debate.
    DaveCP -> diddoit , 9 Dec 2016 18:42
    My perspective from across the ocean has always been that the McCarthy philosophy was the least admirable episode in recent US history. I doubt many people want to return to that but surely, demonstrable evidence in either direction is the only antidote to accusations and conspiracy theories, and is needed now more than ever in this supposed 'post truth' era. Reply Share
    thinkandleap1234 , 9 Dec 2016 18:22
    I assume that Obama is being told to do this, and probably by the same people who backed the Clinton individual for POTUS. The American people must be exceedingly dumb if they fall for this rubbish.
    jamese07uk , 9 Dec 2016 18:18
    It's almost as if the West, or at least Western Elite circles who have strived to saturate the airways with Russia-the-bogey-man material since the year dot, can they, on the back of this one-sided propaganda machine, wheel-out blame directed towards Russia for .... well almost anything they desire.

    Problem is, are the public still eating out of their hands!?

    Brext and the Trump victory is suggesting - not all of us by a long way.

    Boris66 , 9 Dec 2016 18:15
    If only Barack Hussain Obama had not taken it upon his self to interfere in our referendum with his clear 'Back of the queue' threat, it may have been possible to not think he is a hypocrite.
    john D , 9 Dec 2016 18:14
    I was more worried about Soros and democracy NGOs then i was of russian hackers this election.
    wtfbollos , 9 Dec 2016 18:13
    what a joke, america has been 'interfering' (i.e. bombing and destroying) how many countries since 1945?? incredible hypocrisy and sickening double-standards.
    IronBorn , 9 Dec 2016 18:13
    War propoganda. Will the White Helmets be saving Russian civilians too? I suspect this is one last roll of the dice by the 'democrats' to keep Trump out of office.
    sejong , 9 Dec 2016 18:09
    Obama is foolishly upping the ante, not on Putin, but on Trump. Trump's instinct will be to put a 10x hurt on Obama for this. Don't punk Trump.
    timolin , 9 Dec 2016 18:06
    They are desperate to discredit the winner. It is as ineffective as any of his failed policies. He is completely useless.
    AveAtqueCave , 9 Dec 2016 18:04
    In other words, Obama admits he hasn't kept America secure versus 21st-century threats.
    WoodenNickel , 9 Dec 2016 18:04
    Obama has said the intelligence agencies had the proof that Russia interfered with the election. With all their proof why order a review? Can't wait until Obama leaves office.
    Clotsworth , 9 Dec 2016 17:59
    what, is the USA the new Latin America, and Russia the new CIA ? forever meddling surreptitiously to undermine and overthrow other sovereign nation states democratic processes ? that's just so unfair
    smellycat , 9 Dec 2016 17:57
    Oh dear. Russia causes regime change in America. What a laugh. What goes around comes around.
    Max South -> smellycat , 9 Dec 2016 21:10
    It is a funny joke, but on the essence I would advise to read investigative report "The New Red Scare" in Harpers. The evidence of Russian government having anything to do with any hacks is literally non-existing.
    FMinus , 9 Dec 2016 17:57
    The US, heckler of the world for decades, stirring trouble wherever the dart falls, and yet Russian hackers and North Korean hookers are to blame for 99.9% of the worlds problems. Reality is, if the US didn't move past its own borders for 10 years the world would be already a much, much better place.
    IanB52 , 9 Dec 2016 17:57
    The Guardian probably shouldn't go along in helping build the new McCarthyist, Cold War narrative, especially when it's just a bunch of US politicians and media figures repeating politically expedient, but factually unsupported claims. The Western media is trying to be Hearst Newspapers in the Spanish-American war.

    This is explicitly bad because it allows the suppression of dissent, of creating blacklists, the military industrial complex to further consolidate power, and to blame all sorts of domestic failures on shadowing foreign influence. This is exactly what countries like Iran and North Korea do. Bravo guys, for keep this story going for almost half a year with no substantial proof whatsoever.

    AveAtqueCave , 9 Dec 2016 17:55
    But when Judith Miller, the NYT, George Bush and Hillary Clinton used fake news to kill hundreds of thousands, Obama told us to get over it, to "look forward and not backward." What a waste of 8 years.
    Ginen , 9 Dec 2016 17:54
    Obama's last exercise in futility.
    hadeze242 -> Ginen , 9 Dec 2016 18:04
    he suddenly discovered, 2-3 wks ago, that he was enthusiastic about space technology and exploration. He (that is his ghost writers) published a 1 p. article about his love of space. Fact is, first thing great-mind Obama did 8yrs ago is gut NASA's budget. He never mentioned space once in 8 yrs. Suddenly, he is a fan. Creepy ... how does he deal with his hypocritical self every morning?
    ShoppingKingLouie , , 9 Dec 2016 17:53
    Political theatre. He will be out of office before anyone will even be asked to take office.

    Its hilarious that The Guardian tries to frame US Intelligence as a single cohesive unit. Its a splintered multi-headed hydra that will never act on this. Once again Obama brings righteous powerful leadership to the act of being ineffective.

    Benjohn6379 , 9 Dec 2016 17:51
    "Cold War 2: Tear Down This Firewall"

    Starring:
    Shirtless Putin
    Legacy Obama
    Hillary "I'm Not Trump" Clinton
    Donald "OG Troll" Trump
    Super Elite Genius Ninja Russian Hackers
    The Poor Defenseless Victim DNC
    John "Let's All Just Laugh at The Risotto Recipe and Not Pay Attention to any of my Other Emails" Podesta
    80's synth "rock" and really bright neon clothing

    And featuring: Lou Diamond Phillips as.....Guccifer 2.0

    worryingmother -> Benjohn6379 , 9 Dec 2016 18:14
    Like Rocky Horror, but more psycho. Where has Lou Diamond Phillips been, anyway.
    calderonparalapaz , , 9 Dec 2016 17:45
    News Media Reports of governments hacking foreign govts and private Companies:

    CNN
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/16/technology/nsa-hacking-tools-snowden /

    Bloomberg News
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-23/how-the-u-dot-s-dot-government-hacks-the-world

    Washington Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/powerful-nsa-hacking-tools-have-been-revealed-online/2016/08/16/bce4f974-63c7-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html?utm_term=.2ea1198b2a8b

    The Intercept: The NSA would know about Russian Hacking
    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/26/russian-intelligence-hack-dnc-nsa-know-snowden-says /

    UK Gauardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-petrobras

    RT News
    https://www.rt.com/usa/us-hacking-exploits-millions-104 /

    UK Mirror: hacking German Govt
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/angela-merkels-phone-hacked-american-2485433

    Ryan Wei , 9 Dec 2016 17:45
    The United States has attempted to push its democratic ideologies on countries all over the world, using means much more direct than hacking. Yet they cannot take a fraction of what they dish out. If Russia is indeed intervening to aid nationalists around the world, then Russia is a friend and should be welcomed with open arms. Trump should do the same, and used the powers of the United States to undermine [neoliberal] leftists around the globe.
    John malkovich -> CrankyMac , 9 Dec 2016 19:49
    No its by the letter actually. Libya, Yemen backed by US, Pakistan, Tunisia had some financial and military backing. Obama is the drone king. And Ukraine well have you heard of Victoria nuland before? Regime change in Ukraine cost the taxpayer 5 billion dollars

    [Dec 11, 2016] Russia has always been the convenient whipping boy for the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... Outrageous how the Russians interfered with the Koch brothers and Soros's electoral process... ..."
    "... No one, not the government agencies, not those ominous private security firms, no one presented even a shred of evidence for any involvement of the Russian government. Not even some lackluster ambiguous data, it was all anecdotal stuff, 'confidence' and fluffy rhetoric. ..."
    "... The McCarthy-esque paranoia spread by the Clinton campaign to deflect from the content of those emails took foothold it seems. ..."
    "... If the evidence were to hand, actually existed, it would have been all over the front pages of the WaPo, NYT and other major news outlets, not just in the US but everywhere else too. Investigating this 'evidence' is, to borrow William Gibson's simile, "Like planning to assassinate a figure out of myth and legend". The usual 'national security considerations' which have been and will continue to be adduced, as reasons for not publishing the evidence is pure triple-distilled BS and pretty much everyone knows that it's BS. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | discussion.theguardian.com
    kropotkinsf , 9 Dec 2016 18:44
    Russia has always been the convenient whipping boy for the United States. We manufactured the cold war because we needed an enemy to prop up our war economy. We built the Soviet Union into this monolithic bogey man, spoiling to crush the west, enemies of "freedom," in order to keep the west scared and pliant and in our pocket. After so-called communism collapsed, we found new enemies in the middle east but they lacked the staying power. So now it's back to Russia. Maybe the Russians did hack into the DNC. If so, they merely exposed the damning material. They didn't write it.
    discreto , 9 Dec 2016 18:44
    Oh boy the knives are out against Russia, first I read about the 2012 Olympics which even if it is true I would hold the British Olympic Committee responsible for the failure to find out about the doping at the time of the Games and not 4 years later. I have just read US, Obama is now pointing the finger at Russia for the outcome of the US Elections oh dear they are really scraping the barrell to look for someone to blame instead of finding out why their own people decided to vote for Trump. This is all typical American hyperbole and nonsense and a concerted effort on America's efforts to orchestrate the next War.
    America is so way behind with any modern services, they apparently do not have their bank cards with pin or contactless as yet.
    DogsLivesMatter -> discreto , 9 Dec 2016 18:49
    Have you seen this documentary?
    https://www.rt.com/shows/documentary/369619-drugs-sport-doping-scandal /
    ShoppingKingLouie -> discreto , 9 Dec 2016 18:50
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia
    Puro , 9 Dec 2016 18:43
    Unlucky failed mainstream media lost all confidence of its readership and are now broke. What will they do next? ask for money saying that they're helping others whilst keeping most of it?
    bishoppeter4 , 9 Dec 2016 18:41
    The Russians are coming -- = The sky is falling -- It's the 1950s again.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 18:40
    Yet The Guardian spews anti Trump hatred and propaganda everyday to a US audience and no one is investigating the UK for meddling.

    Seems fishy.

    MasonInNY -> ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 18:46
    Why would the UK wish to meddle in a US election? Or France, Germany, Finland, or Italy? Russia, though... :)
    ShoppingKingLouie -> MasonInNY , 9 Dec 2016 18:48
    Why did the NSA spy on those very same countries?
    Logicon , 9 Dec 2016 18:39
    Outrageous how the Russians interfered with the Koch brothers and Soros's electoral process...
    dongerdo , 9 Dec 2016 18:38
    No one, not the government agencies, not those ominous private security firms, no one presented even a shred of evidence for any involvement of the Russian government. Not even some lackluster ambiguous data, it was all anecdotal stuff, 'confidence' and fluffy rhetoric.

    But if it makes them happy....

    The McCarthy-esque paranoia spread by the Clinton campaign to deflect from the content of those emails took foothold it seems.

    mike muse , 9 Dec 2016 18:36
    If the evidence were to hand, actually existed, it would have been all over the front pages of the WaPo, NYT and other major news outlets, not just in the US but everywhere else too. Investigating this 'evidence' is, to borrow William Gibson's simile, "Like planning to assassinate a figure out of myth and legend". The usual 'national security considerations' which have been and will continue to be adduced, as reasons for not publishing the evidence is pure triple-distilled BS and pretty much everyone knows that it's BS.
    Jim Chaypull -> mike muse , 9 Dec 2016 19:32
    Yeah sure, just like how it was 'all over the front pages' about what really happened on 9/11, who was really involved etc.

    And don't give me any of that conspiracy theory, tin-foil hat bs either...unless you are able to be honest about this conspiracy: 19 or 20 strip-club lovin, don't-need-no-takeoff/landing-lessons jihadists used box-cutters to overpower jet air planes and with the-luck-of-the-century HIT NOT ONE....BUT TWO skyscrapers at the EXACT SPOT where the 47 concrete -steel inner columns were weak enough to cause 'pancaking' of the undamaged 60-90 UNDAMAGED FLOORS. Collapsing (and pulverizing concrete into dust) the building into itself.

    And then weirdly enough a small cabal of PNAC signees who in writing had expressed that pax-americana was going to be 'difficult unless a pearl harbor like event happens' had almost as much Luck-of-the-century as the jihadists when......WA LA....into their lap.....a new pearl harbor.

    suzie009 , 9 Dec 2016 18:36
    Is it possible that if Bernie Sanders had been up against Trump he may have won??

    That's the real question that needs addressing - together with why wasn't he chosen!

    JuliusSqueezer -> suzie009 , 9 Dec 2016 18:41
    He definitely would have won.
    jmac55 , 9 Dec 2016 18:35
    Nonsense!

    Trying to blame one of the most flawed and undemocratic election process's in the Western hemisphere on the Russians is laughable to the point of hysteria.

    The dumb-ed down bigoted electorate is a direct result of decades of a two party political system, backed up by a compliant media, that fosters mindless patriotism and ignorance rather than enlightenment and intelligent discussion on the problems facing the country.

    Never have I seen a better example of your own dog biting you on the arse!

    But Clinton lost the election because the Republicans realised she was certain to be the Democratic Presidential candidate fifteen years ago and they began their smear campaign against her right there and then, and a lot of it stuck.

    When you add to that tens of thousands on the left like me who voted for her...but would not campaign for her because we didn't agree with her disastrous blunder in helping to overthrow Qaddafi in Libya ( a country that is now a feudal backwater) and her stated goals of regime change in Syria and all the while she had a domestic policy was cosying up to the bankers and Wall Street elites, whilst ignoring blue collar Americans without jobs and prospects for their future...the almost inevitable result is Trump as President of the United States.

    'Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out!'

    The US will get what it deserves...and it deserves Trump I'm afraid.

    [Dec 11, 2016] That supposed Russian interference

    Notable quotes:
    "... Greenwald's take down is another hammer meets nail piece. The CIA are systemic liars. In fact, that's their job to move around in the shadows and deceive. They literally lie about everything. They lied about Iran/Contra, torture programs, their propensity for drug smuggling and dealing, infesting the media with agents, imaginary WMDs that launch war and massacre, mass surveillance of citizens, just to name a few. ..."
    "... This is the agency who are in secret and anonymity, with no verifiable evidence, whispering rumors in the WaPoo and NYTimes' ears that the Russians made Hillary lose. What moron would take the CIA at its word anymore? Much less a major newspaper? Did I miss something, is it 1950 again? Methinks I've picked up the scent of fake news ..."
    "... Apparently, all the morons who are still screaming about Trump, as if he alone will be in charge of the government and not his GOP handlers. Please keep in mind that the ardent Clinton supporters quite clearly reveal cult behavior, and anything that allows them to continue embracing their belief in their righteousness will be embraced without question or qualm. ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... The upside of these overtly political battles among intelligence agencies is that we are eroding away the idea that these are non-partisan institutions without overt political agendas. ..."
    "... What Stengel and various mainstream media outlets appear to be arguing for is the creation of a "Ministry of Truth" managed by mainstream U.S. media outlets and enforced by Google, Facebook and other technology platforms. ..."
    "... In other words, once these supposedly responsible outlets decide what the "truth" is, then questioning that narrative will earn you "virtual" expulsion from the marketplace of ideas, possibly eliminated via algorithms of major search engines or marked with a special app to warn readers not to believe what you say, a sort of yellow Star of David for the Internet age. ..."
    "... The NC lawsuit against WaPo, like the lawsuit of Hedges et al. against provisions of the NDAA, marks a watershed moment for defending free speech in our country! I hope that my oft-expressed belief -- that we will soon need to revive samizdat ..."
    "... According to a recent posting on Wolf Street, according to records, the Treasury has borrowed 4 trillion more between 2004-15, than can actually be accounted for in spending. This is because it is the borrowing and thus public obligations, which really matter to the powers that be. The generals just get their toys and wars as icing on the cake. It doesn't matter if they win, because there would be less war to spend it on. Eventually they will use "public/private partnerships" to take their piles of public obligations and trade for the rest of the Commons. ..."
    "... Money needs to be understand as a public utility, like roads. We no more own it than we own the section of road we are using. It is like blood, not fat. ..."
    "... The CIA whinging about a right wing president being installed by a foreign power might just be the greatest self-awareness fail ever! ..."
    "... LOL at that! You'd think they were afraid trump might turn out to be the next Hugo Chavez! They must really, really love their program to help al Qaeda in Syria. ..."
    "... The CIA lies as a matter of course, and now they're being propped up as the paragons of honesty, simply out of political expediency. Crazy days. ..."
    "... Modern Democrats simply aren't a political party but fanatics of a professional sports club. If it wasn't the Russians, it would be referees or Bill Belichick at fault. I'm surprised they aren't mentioning "Comrade Nader" at all times. ..."
    "... In fact, Trump's coalition looks remarkably similar to the one that Scott Walker put together in 2014. ..."
    "... Obama in Spartanburg, SC in 2007: And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner. ..."
    "... And the Dems wonder why the working class feel betrayed. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    2016 Post Mortem

    Trump Transition

    The Evidence to Prove the Russian Hack emptywheel. The headline is a bit off, since the post's subject is really the evidence required to prove the Russian hack. Some of which does exist. That said, this is an excellent summary of the state of play. I take issue with one point:

    Crowdstrike reported that GRU also hacked the DNC. As it explains, GRU does this by sending someone something that looks like an email password update, but which instead is a fake site designed to get someone to hand over their password. The reason this claim is strong is because people at the DNC say this happened to them.

    First, CrowdStrike is a private security firm, so there's a high likelihood they're talking their book, Beltway IT being what it is. Second, a result (DNC got phished) isn't "strong" proof of a claim (GRU did the phishing). We live in a world where 12-year-olds know how to do email phishing, and a world where professional phishing operations can camouflage themselves as whoever they like. So color me skeptical absent some unpacking on this point. A second post from emptywheel, Unpacking the New CIA Leak: Don't Ignore the Aluminum Tube Footnote , is also well worth a read.

    Chief Bromden December 11, 2016 at 7:51 am

    Greenwald's take down is another hammer meets nail piece. The CIA are systemic liars. In fact, that's their job to move around in the shadows and deceive. They literally lie about everything. They lied about Iran/Contra, torture programs, their propensity for drug smuggling and dealing, infesting the media with agents, imaginary WMDs that launch war and massacre, mass surveillance of citizens, just to name a few.

    They murder, torture, train hired mercenary proxies (who they are often pretending to oppose), stage coups of democratically elected govt.'s, interfere with elections, topple regimes, install ruthless puppet dictators, and generally enslave other nations to western corporate pirates. They are a rogue band of pirates themselves.

    This is the agency who are in secret and anonymity, with no verifiable evidence, whispering rumors in the WaPoo and NYTimes' ears that the Russians made Hillary lose. What moron would take the CIA at its word anymore? Much less a major newspaper? Did I miss something, is it 1950 again? Methinks I've picked up the scent of fake news

    Conclusion: It isn't the Russians that are interfering with U.S. kangaroo elections, it's the professionals over at the CIA

    Brett December 11, 2016 at 11:29 am

    +1000

    Elizabeth Burton December 11, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    Apparently, all the morons who are still screaming about Trump, as if he alone will be in charge of the government and not his GOP handlers. Please keep in mind that the ardent Clinton supporters quite clearly reveal cult behavior, and anything that allows them to continue embracing their belief in their righteousness will be embraced without question or qualm.

    voteforno6 December 11, 2016 at 8:10 am

    Re: That supposed Russian interference

    I've tried to point out on other blogs just how shaky that story in the Washington Post is, and the response I get is something along the lines of, well, other outlets are also reporting it, so it must be true. It does me no good to point out that this is the same tactic used by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. People will believe what they want to believe.

    johnnygl December 11, 2016 at 8:35 am

    It may help to point to the history of CIA influence at WaPoo. Counterpunch had a short piece reminding everyone of Operation Mockingbird (going from memory on that name) where CIA had reporters on staff at the paper directly taking orders and simultaneously on CIA payroll.

    If questioned about CIA's motivation for hating trump, my best guess is that it is because trump is undermining their project to overthrow assad in syria using nusra rebels. And also because trump wants to be nice to russia.

    I think there's some people in the cia that think they played a major role in winning the cold war through their support for mujahadeen rebels in afghanistan. I suspect they think they can beat putin in syria the same way. This is absolutely nutty.

    JohnnyGL December 11, 2016 at 11:51 am

    The upside of these overtly political battles among intelligence agencies is that we are eroding away the idea that these are non-partisan institutions without overt political agendas.

    There's a large number of people that will see through the facade. Right now, Trump supporters are getting a lesson in how much resistance there can be within the establishment. I'm no Trump supporter, but I think seeing what these institutions are capable of is a useful exercise for all involved.

    begob December 11, 2016 at 9:07 am

    There's a running battle at the wikipedia article on Fake News Website, where propornot is now considered debunked.

    Ulysses December 11, 2016 at 11:30 am

    Apologies if this analysis by Robert Parry has already been shared here:

    "What Stengel and various mainstream media outlets appear to be arguing for is the creation of a "Ministry of Truth" managed by mainstream U.S. media outlets and enforced by Google, Facebook and other technology platforms.

    In other words, once these supposedly responsible outlets decide what the "truth" is, then questioning that narrative will earn you "virtual" expulsion from the marketplace of ideas, possibly eliminated via algorithms of major search engines or marked with a special app to warn readers not to believe what you say, a sort of yellow Star of David for the Internet age.

    And then there's the possibility of more direct (and old-fashioned) government enforcement by launching FBI investigations into media outlets that won't toe the official line. (All of these "solutions" have been advocated in recent weeks.)

    On the other hand, if you do toe the official line that comes from Stengel's public diplomacy shop, you stand to get rewarded with government financial support. Stengel disclosed in his interview with Ignatius that his office funds "investigative" journalism projects.

    "How should citizens who want a fact-based world combat this assault on truth?" Ignatius asks, adding: "Stengel has approved State Department programs that teach investigative reporting and empower truth-tellers."

    The NC lawsuit against WaPo, like the lawsuit of Hedges et al. against provisions of the NDAA, marks a watershed moment for defending free speech in our country! I hope that my oft-expressed belief -- that we will soon need to revive samizdat techniques to preserve truth– may turn ou to be overly pessimistic.

    Ulysses December 11, 2016 at 11:36 am

    Sorry, I forgot the link!

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-orwellian-war-on-skepticism-battling-fake-news/5559949

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 11, 2016 at 11:57 am

    It's like that quote: When the Clinton tide goes out, you discover who's been swimming naked.

    Jim Haygood December 11, 2016 at 9:11 am

    America's military empire is an enormous convection cycle, as money falls in while arms sales and global disorder radiate out.

    Mr Milk Mustache (John Bolton) as assistant Sec State will help perpetuate and accelerate the grand convective cycle.

    John Merryman December 11, 2016 at 9:47 am

    Jim,

    Keep in mind the basis of this capitalist economy is Federal debt. They have to spend it on something. The government doesn't even budget, which is to list priorities and spend according to need/ability. They put together these enormous bills, add enough to get the votes, which don't come cheap and then the prez can only pass or veto.

    If they wanted to actually budget, taking the old line item veto as a template, they could break these bills into all their various items, have each legislator assign a percentage value to each one, put them back together in order of preference and the prez would draw the line. "The buck stops here."

    That would keep powers separate, with congress prioritizing and the prez individually responsible for deficit spending. It would also totally crash our current "Capitalist" system.

    According to a recent posting on Wolf Street, according to records, the Treasury has borrowed 4 trillion more between 2004-15, than can actually be accounted for in spending. This is because it is the borrowing and thus public obligations, which really matter to the powers that be. The generals just get their toys and wars as icing on the cake. It doesn't matter if they win, because there would be less war to spend it on. Eventually they will use "public/private partnerships" to take their piles of public obligations and trade for the rest of the Commons.

    Money needs to be understand as a public utility, like roads. We no more own it than we own the section of road we are using. It is like blood, not fat.

    The Trumpening December 11, 2016 at 8:15 am

    The CIA whinging about a right wing president being installed by a foreign power might just be the greatest self-awareness fail ever!

    johnnygl December 11, 2016 at 10:12 am

    LOL at that! You'd think they were afraid trump might turn out to be the next Hugo Chavez! They must really, really love their program to help al Qaeda in Syria.

    Uahsenaa December 11, 2016 at 10:24 am

    There are so many eye-rolling ironies in all this I think my eyeballs might just pop out of their sockets. And the liberals going out of their way to tout the virtues of the CIA the very same organization that never shied from assassinating or overthrowing a leftwing president/prime minister it galls. The CIA lies as a matter of course, and now they're being propped up as the paragons of honesty, simply out of political expediency. Crazy days.

    NotTimothyGeithner December 11, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Modern Democrats simply aren't a political party but fanatics of a professional sports club. If it wasn't the Russians, it would be referees or Bill Belichick at fault. I'm surprised they aren't mentioning "Comrade Nader" at all times.

    My guess is donors are annoyed after the 2014 debacle and are having a hard time rationalizing a loss to a reality TV show host with a cameo in Home Alone 2.

    allan December 11, 2016 at 8:25 am

    From the Amy Walter post mortem on the race in WI:

    In fact, Trump's coalition looks remarkably similar to the one that Scott Walker put together in 2014.

    It's really a shame that Obama didn't put on those walking shoes lift a finger to help the public service unions fight Walker.

    Uahsenaa December 11, 2016 at 10:27 am

    Obama in Spartanburg, SC in 2007:

    And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.

    And the Dems wonder why the working class feel betrayed.

    Maybe he just couldn't find a pair of comfy shoes

    polecat December 11, 2016 at 11:37 am

    Hol(e)y Shoes .

    they glide on water funky bilge water --

    Tertium Squid December 11, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Here's what the "russki hacks" narrative reminds me of.

    ambrit December 11, 2016 at 9:43 am

    I'd extend that to include the entire DNC "Apologia pro Sancta Hillaria."

    UserFriendly December 11, 2016 at 9:33 am

    That ProPublica piece ( Suspected of Corruption at Home, Powerful Foreigners Find Refuge in the U.S. Pro Publica) is brutal. Not only do we have to be the shittest corrupt country in the world but we have to be a safe haven for ever other corrupt politician in the world as long as they have $$. Can someone just make it all end? Please. There needs to be a maximum wealth where anything you earn past it just gets automatically redistributed to the poor.

    aliteralmind December 11, 2016 at 9:43 am

    Truth in journalism just got a little bit more difficult:

    http://www.johnlaurits.com/2016/12/10/disinformation-bill-propaganda/

    tgs December 11, 2016 at 10:32 am

    Thanks for the link – really important and scary things are going in congress concerning 'fake news' and Russian propaganda and HR 6393 is particularly bad. The EU is also taking steps to counter 'fake news' as well. Obama claimed that some form of curation is required – and it is happening quickly. People are suggesting that propornot has been debunked. That does not matter anymore. The Obama regime and the MSM don't care – that have gotten the message out.

    And the people behind this are really deranged – check out Adam Schiff calling Tucker Carlson a Kremlin stooge for even suggesting that there is no certainty that Russia leaked the emails to Wikileaks.

    After all, the media went all in for Hillary and spent huge amounts of time explaining why Trump is unfit. But they lost.

    And now our efforts on behalf of al Queada are failing in Syria and more hysteria ensues. See for example:

    Allies Warn Trump Against Cooperating With Russia Over Syria .

    Some commentators believe that there is a well-organized large scale effort to normalize the suppression of free speech.

    temporal December 11, 2016 at 11:50 am

    The email saga lost a provable set of sources a long time ago. Before the files were given to Wikileaks it was already too late to determine which people did it. So-called forensic evidence of these computers only tell us that investigators either found evidence of a past compromise or that people want us to believe they did. Since the compromise was determined after the fact, the people with access could have done anything to the computers, including leave a false trail.

    The core problem is that since security for all of these machines, including the DNC's email server and most likely many of those from Team R, was nearly non-existent nearly nothing useful can be determined. The time to learn something about a remote attacker, when it's possible at all, is while the machine is being attacked – assuming it has never been compromised before. If the attacker's machine has also been compromised then you know pretty much nothing unless you can get access to it.

    As far as physical access protection goes. If the machine has been left on and unattended or is not completely encrypted then the only thing that might help is a 24 hour surveillance camera pointed at the machine.

    Forensic evidence in compromised computers is significantly less reliable than DNA and hair samples. It's much too easy for investigators to frame another party by twiddling some bits. Anyone that thinks that even well intentioned physical crime investigators have never gotten convictions with bad or manipulated evidence has been watching and believing way too many crime oriented mysteries. "Blindspot" is not a documentary.

    As for projecting behaviors on a country by calling it a "state action", Russia or otherwise, implying that there is no difference between independent and government sponsored actions, that is just silly.

    [Dec 11, 2016] This hysteria over Russia is getting downright dangerous as it looks like forces which are pushing that story stop at nothing to delegitimize the election results.

    Apt observation from Gareth: "I believe the CIA is attempting to delegitimize Trump's election so as to force him into a defensive position in which he will temper his dual goals of normalizing relations with Russia and destroying the CIA's proxy armies of jihadists. We will see if Trump has the guts to make some heads roll in the CIA He will remember that the last President who even threatened to take on the CIA received a massive dose of flying lead poisoning. "
    Essentially after WaPo scandal it is prudent to view all US MSM as yellow press.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Post and the like are terrified over their loss of credibility just as the internet has destroyed their advertising. Interesting that their response to competition isn't to outdo the competition but to smother the competition with a lie. Their own fake news. ..."
    "... As a moral American and supporter of free speech, I am going to make a list of online or print WaPo advertisers. Then I will communicate to them that I will never buy another thing from them as long as they advertise in the Washington Post. ..."
    "... Open their ads in Firefox ad blocker. Then add them to the script and spam blacklist. ..."
    "... The story serves many purposes. One is firing a shot across TrumpCo's bow: 'Submit to us or we'll delegitimate your election.' ..."
    "... Another is excusing the Democratic Party establishment for losing the election, and thus diverting the wrath of the rank and file. ..."
    "... About all we can do at the moment is remember to remember the names of the people who purveyed and supported the story, just as we should remember to remember the names of those who purveyed WMD stories. ..."
    "... Job #1 always is suppressing the Sanders faction. Not beating Trump or the Republicans. They want control of their little pond. ..."
    "... Personally, after what we did in Ukraine (essentially funding a revolution) I refuse to get the vapors because Russia apparently "helped" elect Trump by exposing (not forcing her to be a liar or cheat) Hillary. ..."
    "... All of this crap about Russia, or the electoral college system is a distraction from the real issues at hand about our political system, which is a two party one oligarchy (ALEC) anti-democratic system. The rot runs from national presidential elections to the comptroller of the smaller city governments. ..."
    "... If any candidate was capable of speaking to the working and middle class, then either Russia nor the the 0.01% who compose the oligarchy could control who wins in popular elections. What is really needed is to eliminate either the two party system, or democratize their methods of selecting candidates. ..."
    "... Think Hillary played an unfair hand to Sanders? That was nothing compared to the shenanigans that get played at local level, state level, and Congress level to filter out populist candidates and replace them with machine / oligarchy pets. ..."
    "... the idea that Saudi (or other Middle Eastern states) also intervened (with money), is not more credible? ..."
    "... Yes, the NYT piece on Russian hacking is complete evidence free tripe. Not once do they say what evidence they base these accusations on, beyond the Cyrillic keyboard. The code for Cyrillic keyboard is, "fuzzy bear" et al. as the original reporting on the DNC hack and the company that ran security made clear that this was the one and only piece of concrete evidence the attacks by "fuzzy bear" et al. were perpetrated by the Russians. ..."
    "... So based on a Cyrillic keyboard and the below quote, unnamed "American intelligence agencies know it was the Russians, really? ..."
    "... Based on this it appears the NYTs definition of fake reporting is anything that isn't fed directly to it by unnamed experts or the USG and uncritically reported. ..."
    "... I think these unnamed agencies are not going to have a very good working relationship with the orange overlord if they keep this up. They might not even be getting that new war they wanted for Christmas. ..."
    "... It's as though the NYT and WaPo had these vast pools of accumulated credibility and they could go out on a limb here Oh wait - their credibility has been destroyed countless times over the past decade or so. One would think they'd realise: If you're in a ditch, the first thing to do is stop digging. ..."
    "... The world is flat . Note: This is not me awarding a Thomas L. Friedman prize. In this case, I am simply sharing the article because I think it is hilarious. ..."
    "... Nowhere, in any of this, is it mentioned that Clinton's illegal private email server (that got hacked) played any factor whatsoever. It just stinks so bad, I wonder how they can not smell what they are sitting in.. ..."
    "... Summarizing a very plausible theory, NeoCon Coup Attempt: As Syria's Assad (with Russian help) is close to crushing HRC's jihadi Queda & Nusra rebels in Aleppo, the NeoCons are freaking out on both sides of the Atlantic. ..."
    "... What to do? Jill's recount is floundering. So, last resort: Concoct Russia hacking myth to either delay Dec 19 EC vote or create more faithless electors. Result: A NeoCon like HRC or a NeoCon sympathizer is installed. ..."
    "... Two biggest war hawks, McCain and Graham, are leading the Senate charges against Russia. All of this within days of Obama sending 200 MORE US troops to Syria and lifting the ban on more arms to the Syrian rebels, including anti-aircraft MANPADS. ..."
    "... The recount farce makes me angry, and has made me resolve to never give Stein my vote again. ..."
    "... That implies the NeoCon establishment views DJT and cabinet as a threat in any way, which is an extremely dubious premise. Occam's razor: Clinton and the media establishment that gifted the country DJT will do anything they can to cast the blame elsewhere. ..."
    "... I'm not sure if that is a simpler explanation. I offer this: It's simpler to see that they are engaging in a struggle for now and the future – that means the neocons vs Trump. ..."
    "... "The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional leaders last week." You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude. ..."
    "... The problem is we are expected to just trust the NYT and CIA without evidence??? Anybody remember WMD in Iraq?? The complete loss of credibility by the NYT and CIA over the last decade means I have to see credible evidence before I believe anything they say. ..."
    "... Seems coordinated to me -- Globe/Times/WaPo. Double down for WaPoo who are now reporting from area 51 where they found Bigfoot sitting on a stockpile of Sadam's WMDs. Reading this article is surreal. The CIA, a terrorist outfit which our own former reporter (Bernstein) showed to be infesting our own newsroom, whispered in our ear that the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate with or without the establishment coronation queen. ..."
    "... "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House" The link on WaPoo's site actually says a different headline so I am just sharing the headline itself. Not another secret assessment . no more passing notes in class, students. ..."
    "... Robert Reich has posted the news that the Russians helped to secure the election for Trump on his FB page, to it seems much acclaim – perhaps I was foolish for having expected better from him. ..."
    "... WaPo seems allied with the CIA-FIRE sector Clintonian group, while T may be more inclusive of the classic MICC-Pentagon sector which was asserting itself in Syria. ..."
    "... Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things. ..."
    "... Although I'm convinced that the Republicans are, on average, noticeably worse than the Democrats, I agree with you. It is useful that there is no doubt about where Trump and the Congressional Republicans stand, which is on the side of the billionaires and the giant corporations. We've had 8 years of Obama's obeisance to the oligarchs, and millions of Americans still don't understand that this was happening. ..."
    "... rhetoric that is beginning conspicuously to resemble the celebration by capitalist elites during the interwar years of German and Italian fascism (and even Stalinist communism) for their apparently superior economic governance. [12] ..."
    "... I always knew Trump would be a disaster. However, Trump is a survivable disaster–with Hillary that would have been the end. ..."
    "... If Trump has many Goldman guys, is it a case of 'keeping your enemies close?' ..."
    "... First of all, the Democrats would use Clinton to suppress the left and to insist that Clinton was more electable. That would lead to a validation of the idea that the left has nowhere to go and set a precedent for decades with a 3 point formula: ..."
    "... Suppress the left ..."
    "... Accept money from Wall Street and move to the right with each election ..."
    "... Use identity politics as a distraction. ..."
    "... There were other dangers. Clinton wanted war with Russia. That could easily escalate into a nuclear conflict. With Trump, the risk is reduced, although given his ego, I will concede that anything is possible. We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies. ..."
    "... The reality is that the US was screwed the moment Sanders was out of the picture. With Trump, at least it is more naked and more obvious. The real challenge is that the left has a 2 front war, first with the corporate Democrats, then the GOP. On the GOP side, Trump's supporters are going to wake up at some point to an Obama like betrayal, which is exactly what I expect will happen. ..."
    "... There are elements of the Trump fan base already calling him out for the people he has appointed, which is a very encouraging sign. Trump's economic performance is what will make or break him. He has sold himself on his business acumen. Needless to say, I expect it will break him because he won't even try to do anything for his base. ..."
    "... I like a lot of your analysis. "We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies." We could still yet under Trump, given the cabinet nominees. ..."
    "... By dangerous and delegitimizing I assume you mean the results of the election will be reversed sometime in the next six weeks while the current establishment still has martial authority. ..."
    "... Both sides now fear the other side will lock them up or, at the very least, remove them from power permanently. Why do I think this is not over? ..."
    "... I am certainly not ready to rule out Moore's gut feeling. Capitalist Party + MSM + Clinton + Nuland + CIA has shown to be an equation that ends in color revolution ..or at least an attempted color revolution ..."
    "... At the same time that the media hysteria over "fake news" has reached a fever pitch, yesterday the Senate passed the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" , colloquially known as the Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill, as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. ..."
    "... " establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." Our very own Ministry of Truth! ..."
    "... Under Ukrainian law journalists that disagree with Kiev's policies are collaborators. They are subject to any mechanism Kiev can devise to stop them. In the case of RT Ruptly or the Guardian this means developing a strategy to ruin their reputations. The Interpreter was developed to that end. Kiev has gone so far as to petition the UK government to censure the Guardian for its coverage of events in Ukraine hoping to bully the publication into line. US broadcasters (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) have put RT on the same list as ISIS. ..."
    "... This plan to censor opposing viewpoints in the US was intended to be executed during a Clinton presidency, and would've been almost impossible to stop under those circumstances. There is now a window of opportunity to fight back and ruin these clowns once and for all. ..."
    "... These rallies are Trump's means of maintaining contact with his base, and making sure that he knows what they want. And a means of showing that he is trying to get it for them. If Hillary had bothered to do anything of the sort she would have been elected. Sanders did it and it was much appreciated. Trump's ego is huge but the rallies are much more than an ego-trip. ..."
    "... Re: WP's response to Truthdig's retraction request. It seems as if they are doubling down on the "not our responsibility to verify the validity theme". My first reaction is that the WP is now the equivalent of the National Enquirer. What's next, a headline " I gave birth to Trump's Love Child". ..."
    "... Panem et circenses. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Gareth December 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    I believe the CIA is attempting to delegitimize Trump's election so as to force him into a defensive position in which he will temper his dual goals of normalizing relations with Russia and destroying the CIA's proxy armies of jihadists. We will see if Trump has the guts to make some heads roll in the CIA He will remember that the last President who even threatened to take on the CIA received a massive dose of flying lead poisoning.

    voteforno6 December 10, 2016 at 7:21 am

    This hysteria over Russia is getting downright dangerous. The people pushing that story will seemingly stop at nothing to delegitimize the election results.

    Steve C December 10, 2016 at 8:04 am

    The Post's Marc Fisher was on the PBS Newshour last night. He talked about Alex Jones. They probably didn't expect the pushback from Yves, Truthdig, etc. The Establishment often underestimates dissenters.

    Real fake news, like Jones, benefits from the fake news charge. Their readers hate the MSM. I wonder if the same ethic can develop on the left.

    The Post and the like are terrified over their loss of credibility just as the internet has destroyed their advertising. Interesting that their response to competition isn't to outdo the competition but to smother the competition with a lie. Their own fake news.

    Isolato December 10, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    I heard Stephen Colbert lump Alex Jones together w/Wikileaks as if they were the same "fake news". I have also repeatedly heard Samantha Bee refer to Julian Assange as a rapist. Sigh. Both of those comments are "fake news". The allegations against JA are tissue thin and Wikileaks has NEVER been challenged about the truth of their releases. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Rhondda December 10, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/07/how-the-swedes-set-up-julian-assange/

    It's snarky, but then so is your comment. The 'charges' against Assange have a nasty political stink on them.

    Dave December 10, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    "just as the internet has destroyed their advertising." Shouldn't that be "destroyed their ability to sell advertising?"

    As a moral American and supporter of free speech, I am going to make a list of online or print WaPo advertisers. Then I will communicate to them that I will never buy another thing from them as long as they advertise in the Washington Post.

    Open their ads in Firefox ad blocker. Then add them to the script and spam blacklist.

    The Wapo's trying to steal Craigslist business with online job listings. Looks like an opportunity to have some fun for creatives.

    https://jobs.washingtonpost.com/

    different clue December 10, 2016 at 3:27 pm

    Boss WaPo OwnerMan Bezos is very rich. He bought WaPo as a propaganda outlet. He is prepared to lose a lot of money keeping it "open for propaganda." Naming and shaming and boycotting every advertiser WaPo has could certainly embarass WaPo and perhaps diminish its credibility-patina for Bezoganda purposes. It is certainly worth trying.

    The WaPo brand also owns a lot of other moneymaking entities like Kaplan testing and test-prepping I believe. It would be a lot harder to boycott those because millions of people find them to be important. But perhaps a boycott against them until WaPo sells them off to non Bezos ownership would be worth trying.

    Perhaps a savage boycott against Amazon until Bezos fires everyone at WaPo involved in this McCarthy-list and related articles . . . and humiliates them into unhireability anywhere else ever again?

    Brindle December 10, 2016 at 9:16 am

    The Dem Liberals (Joan Walsh etc). on the twitter are going full throttle with this, it's a twofer as Joan is using this to attack Sanders supporters for not being on the front lines of Russia Fear.

    Anarcissie December 10, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    The story serves many purposes. One is firing a shot across TrumpCo's bow: 'Submit to us or we'll delegitimate your election.' (Apparently TrumpCo has not delivered a convincing submission yet.)

    Another is excusing the Democratic Party establishment for losing the election, and thus diverting the wrath of the rank and file. Evidently it's also going to be used against the Sanders faction of the Democrats. About all we can do at the moment is remember to remember the names of the people who purveyed and supported the story, just as we should remember to remember the names of those who purveyed WMD stories.

    Steve C December 10, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    Job #1 always is suppressing the Sanders faction. Not beating Trump or the Republicans. They want control of their little pond.

    cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    Personally, after what we did in Ukraine (essentially funding a revolution) I refuse to get the vapors because Russia apparently "helped" elect Trump by exposing (not forcing her to be a liar or cheat) Hillary.

    Perhaps they should consider that it could be worse, a foreign nation could be arming people and encouraging them to topple the government we have like what we're doing in Syria. It isn't like the very sharp divisions elsewhere haven't resulted in civil war.

    Cry Shop December 10, 2016 at 9:37 am

    All of this crap about Russia, or the electoral college system is a distraction from the real issues at hand about our political system, which is a two party one oligarchy (ALEC) anti-democratic system. The rot runs from national presidential elections to the comptroller of the smaller city governments.

    If any candidate was capable of speaking to the working and middle class, then either Russia nor the the 0.01% who compose the oligarchy could control who wins in popular elections. What is really needed is to eliminate either the two party system, or democratize their methods of selecting candidates.

    Think Hillary played an unfair hand to Sanders? That was nothing compared to the shenanigans that get played at local level, state level, and Congress level to filter out populist candidates and replace them with machine / oligarchy pets.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Flimsy distractions.

    Coincidentally, all these urgent initiatives will lead to replacing Trump with Hillary as president. "I will tear down the very building just to achieve my Pyrrhic victory."

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL December 10, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    Thank you, sorry Dems, Boris Badunov did not swing the election. If you want *hard* evidence (not fake news) of a foreign government influencing the election you might have a look at the beheading, gay-killing, women-supressing tyrannical monarchy known as The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and ask whether it made sense for them to be the *#1* contributor to your candidate.

    HBE December 10, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Yes, the NYT piece on Russian hacking is complete evidence free tripe. Not once do they say what evidence they base these accusations on, beyond the Cyrillic keyboard. The code for Cyrillic keyboard is, "fuzzy bear" et al. as the original reporting on the DNC hack and the company that ran security made clear that this was the one and only piece of concrete evidence the attacks by "fuzzy bear" et al. were perpetrated by the Russians.

    So based on a Cyrillic keyboard and the below quote, unnamed "American intelligence agencies know it was the Russians, really?

    "They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding - which they say was also reached with high confidence - that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee's computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks."

    Based on this it appears the NYTs definition of fake reporting is anything that isn't fed directly to it by unnamed experts or the USG and uncritically reported.

    I think these unnamed agencies are not going to have a very good working relationship with the orange overlord if they keep this up. They might not even be getting that new war they wanted for Christmas.

    Pavel December 10, 2016 at 11:00 am

    It's as though the NYT and WaPo had these vast pools of accumulated credibility and they could go out on a limb here Oh wait - their credibility has been destroyed countless times over the past decade or so. One would think they'd realise: If you're in a ditch, the first thing to do is stop digging.

    Especially when dealing with a President Trump. He's already made his distaste for the WaPo clear. We are entering a new, crazy, dangerous era of press-presidential relations. All the more reason for the newspapers to behave responsibly - is that too much to ask?

    integer December 10, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    The world is flat . Note: This is not me awarding a Thomas L. Friedman prize. In this case, I am simply sharing the article because I think it is hilarious.

    integer December 10, 2016 at 8:38 pm

    Also, Bradford deLong should be included with Krugman and Friedman, though the length and width of deLong's connections don't seem to have the same acceleration, energy, or viscosity, as the other two. There are also olfactory and temporal differences.

    integer December 11, 2016 at 1:32 am

    Come to think of it, I also don't think Krugman Turdman or Friedman Flathead would have to grovel to Neera "I'm a loyal soldier" Tanden and John "Done, so think about something else" Podesta to get a family member a "meritocratic" job.

    YassirYouBetcha December 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    Multiple languages use the Cyrillic alphabet, including Bulgarian and, notably, Ukrainian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_script

    local to oakland December 10, 2016 at 11:52 am

    See also this. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/chuck-schumer-russia-senate-election-inquiry-232464

    TK421 December 10, 2016 at 11:57 am

    If Russia is so dangerous, then anyone who mishandles classified information (say, by storing it on a personal server) should be prosecuted, shouldn't they?

    Aumua December 10, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    Nowhere, in any of this, is it mentioned that Clinton's illegal private email server (that got hacked) played any factor whatsoever. It just stinks so bad, I wonder how they can not smell what they are sitting in.. I also wonder just where the line is between those who actually buy into this hysteria, and those who simply feel justified in using whatever means they can to discredit Trump and overturn the election. I think there's a lot of overlap and grey area there in many people's minds.

    Anonymous December 10, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Summarizing a very plausible theory, NeoCon Coup Attempt: As Syria's Assad (with Russian help) is close to crushing HRC's jihadi Queda & Nusra rebels in Aleppo, the NeoCons are freaking out on both sides of the Atlantic.

    What to do? Jill's recount is floundering. So, last resort: Concoct Russia hacking myth to either delay Dec 19 EC vote or create more faithless electors. Result: A NeoCon like HRC or a NeoCon sympathizer is installed.

    Two biggest war hawks, McCain and Graham, are leading the Senate charges against Russia. All of this within days of Obama sending 200 MORE US troops to Syria and lifting the ban on more arms to the Syrian rebels, including anti-aircraft MANPADS.

    Plenue December 10, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    The recount farce makes me angry, and has made me resolve to never give Stein my vote again. Apparently she's in opposition to much of her party leadership on this, so if they ditch her in the future and get someone better I may consider voting for them again. The reality of Trump as president is going to be bad enough, attempting to sabotage the transition isn't doing anyone any favors. I don't like Obama at all, but he wants a clean, peaceful transfer of power, and on that issue at least he's correct.

    R McCoy December 10, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    That implies the NeoCon establishment views DJT and cabinet as a threat in any way, which is an extremely dubious premise. Occam's razor: Clinton and the media establishment that gifted the country DJT will do anything they can to cast the blame elsewhere.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    I'm not sure if that is a simpler explanation. I offer this: It's simpler to see that they are engaging in a struggle for now and the future – that means the neocons vs Trump.

    Hillary vs Trump, invoking Russia now, is about fighting the last war. That one was over more than a month ago. It's more convoluted to say one team still desires to continue the fight.

    Chief Bromden December 10, 2016 at 5:51 pm

    You may be on to something http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/russian-interference-could-give-courts-legal-authority_us_584be136e4b0151082221b9c

    "The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional leaders last week." You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude.

    Jagger December 10, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude.

    I just read the NYT article covering the same topic, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0 ,

    The problem is we are expected to just trust the NYT and CIA without evidence??? Anybody remember WMD in Iraq?? The complete loss of credibility by the NYT and CIA over the last decade means I have to see credible evidence before I believe anything they say. But that is just me. From reading the NYT comments on the OBama Russia election hack article, the NYT commenters have en mass swallowed the story hook, line and sinker. They apparently don't need evidence and have completely loss any sort of functioning long term memory.

    Benedict@Large December 10, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    And it's pretty clear that Clinton is right in with it. The woman has literally lost her marbles

    cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    Based on the fact that she was hidden more than actually performing on the campaign trail, that is a possibility. She may have very well been our own puppet government member that some were ready to install here just like we tend to do over in other nations. No real marbles needed since she wouldn't actually be running things. It's come to my attention that we seem to be inching closer and closer to third world here and those places rarely have vibrant democracies.

    Chief Bromden December 10, 2016 at 8:04 am

    Seems coordinated to me -- Globe/Times/WaPo. Double down for WaPoo who are now reporting from area 51 where they found Bigfoot sitting on a stockpile of Sadam's WMDs. Reading this article is surreal. The CIA, a terrorist outfit which our own former reporter (Bernstein) showed to be infesting our own newsroom, whispered in our ear that the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate with or without the establishment coronation queen.

    "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House" The link on WaPoo's site actually says a different headline so I am just sharing the headline itself. Not another secret assessment . no more passing notes in class, students.

    Eustache de Saint Pierre December 10, 2016 at 8:49 am

    Robert Reich has posted the news that the Russians helped to secure the election for Trump on his FB page, to it seems much acclaim – perhaps I was foolish for having expected better from him.

    Steve H. December 10, 2016 at 9:31 am

    Sifting the election through a Peter Turchin filter, Sanders' run was a response to 'popular immiseration' while the choice-of-billionaires was 'intra-elite competition'. WaPo seems allied with the CIA-FIRE sector Clintonian group, while T may be more inclusive of the classic MICC-Pentagon sector which was asserting itself in Syria.

    I needed Jalen & Jacoby to sooth me to sleep last night, after seeing the last chart (Fig. 14.4) from Turchin's latest book. You can see it by hitting Ctrl-End from this pdf . If he's correct, this election was just the warm-up for 2020. Crikey.

    subgenius December 10, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

    witters December 10, 2016 at 11:08 pm

    The link to CM – and further disgracefulness from the now worthless Guardian: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

    Vatch December 10, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    Although I'm convinced that the Republicans are, on average, noticeably worse than the Democrats, I agree with you. It is useful that there is no doubt about where Trump and the Congressional Republicans stand, which is on the side of the billionaires and the giant corporations. We've had 8 years of Obama's obeisance to the oligarchs, and millions of Americans still don't understand that this was happening.

    I hope people will vigorously lobby their Representatives and Senators, and pay attention to who the genuine progressives are in the 2018 primaries.

    Invy December 10, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    Like ordinary citizens, although for the opposite reasons, elites are losing faith in democratic government and its suitability for reshaping societies in line with market imperatives. Public Choice's disparaging view of democratic politics as a corruption of market justice, in the service of opportunistic politicians and their clientele, has become common sense among elite publics-as has the belief that market capitalism cleansed of democratic politics will not only be more efficient but also virtuous and responsible. [11]

    Countries like China are complimented for their authoritarian political systems being so much better equipped than majoritarian democracy, with its egalitarian bent, to deal with what are claimed to be the challenges of 'globalization' -- a rhetoric that is beginning conspicuously to resemble the celebration by capitalist elites during the interwar years of German and Italian fascism (and even Stalinist communism) for their apparently superior economic governance. [12]

    How will capitalism end – New Left Review

    jgordon December 10, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Right, the euphemisms have been done away with. I always knew Trump would be a disaster. However, Trump is a survivable disaster–with Hillary that would have been the end.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    If Trump has many Goldman guys, is it a case of 'keeping your enemies close?'

    Altandmain December 10, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    In the long run, a Clinton presidency would be far more damaging.

    First of all, the Democrats would use Clinton to suppress the left and to insist that Clinton was more electable. That would lead to a validation of the idea that the left has nowhere to go and set a precedent for decades with a 3 point formula:

    1. Suppress the left
    2. Accept money from Wall Street and move to the right with each election
    3. Use identity politics as a distraction.

    A Trump victory forces questions on the conventional wisdom (not really wisdom), and forces changes. At best, they can hope to shove another Obama that is attractive on the outside, but will betray people, but even that will be harder because people now are more watchful. Not to mention, the mainstream media has lost its power.

    There were other dangers. Clinton wanted war with Russia. That could easily escalate into a nuclear conflict. With Trump, the risk is reduced, although given his ego, I will concede that anything is possible. We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies.

    The reality is that the US was screwed the moment Sanders was out of the picture. With Trump, at least it is more naked and more obvious. The real challenge is that the left has a 2 front war, first with the corporate Democrats, then the GOP. On the GOP side, Trump's supporters are going to wake up at some point to an Obama like betrayal, which is exactly what I expect will happen.

    There are elements of the Trump fan base already calling him out for the people he has appointed, which is a very encouraging sign. Trump's economic performance is what will make or break him. He has sold himself on his business acumen. Needless to say, I expect it will break him because he won't even try to do anything for his base.

    relstprof, December 10, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    I like a lot of your analysis. "We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies." We could still yet under Trump, given the cabinet nominees.

    The left must be vigilant and smart. There is opportunity here, but sidetracking on fake news, pop vote, etc. doesn't gain much in terms of opposition.

    Michael, December 10, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    I think you're possibly right, and I just couldn't pull the lever to vote for Trump. Sometimes we just have to be true to ourselves and hope it works out.

    RenoDino December 10, 2016 at 8:26 am

    By dangerous and delegitimizing I assume you mean the results of the election will be reversed sometime in the next six weeks while the current establishment still has martial authority.

    All the intelligent agencies are now in lock step over Russian intervention. How do they let this result stand? Trump obviously realizes his win is now in play and has gone after those same agencies pointing out their gross incompetence.

    Both sides now fear the other side will lock them up or, at the very least, remove them from power permanently. Why do I think this is not over?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Michael Moore agrees with you – something is, or might be (more accurate description of what he is said to have said, I think), brewing, according to him, or rather, his intuition .

    John Parks December 10, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    I am certainly not ready to rule out Moore's gut feeling. Capitalist Party + MSM + Clinton + Nuland + CIA has shown to be an equation that ends in color revolution ..or at least an attempted color revolution What the State Department and MSM have pleasantly referred to in the past as a bloodless coup. See Ukraine, Brazil, Argentina et al

    Sammy Maudlin December 10, 2016 at 8:26 am

    At the same time that the media hysteria over "fake news" has reached a fever pitch, yesterday the Senate passed the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" , colloquially known as the Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill, as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

    According to Senator Portman's press release, the Bill "will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." The bill also creates a "grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work."

    While the passage of this bill seems very coincidentally timed given recent events, it was actually introduced in March. Not sure whether it simply followed a normal legislative track, or was brought back from the dead recently, etc.

    Of note is the fact that, according to Steve Sestanovich, a Senior Counsel at the Council on Foreign Relations , "a lot of what the bill wants done is actually being done," noting that a range of agencies are already focused on the disinformation problem, and that traditional foreign policy tools still have a major role to play.

    Eclair December 10, 2016 at 10:46 am

    " establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." Our very own Ministry of Truth!

    grizziz December 10, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    It is important to find work for our newly minted graduates of marketing, psychology and sociology as well as those graduates of the communication school and the arts. The need of our post-industrial information age is to make things up as opposed to just making things. Our liberal nation has promised our children that after they have enslaved themselves through student debt they will find work. The work they find is likely to be meaningful only to the creditors who wish to be repaid.

    The graduates will find idealistic rationales like patriotism or making "'Merica Grate Again" to soothe their corrupted souls while keeping the fake news as fresh as a steamy load.

    integer December 10, 2016 at 11:04 am

    US Psychological Warfare in Ukraine: Targeting Online Independent Media Coverage

    Under Ukrainian law journalists that disagree with Kiev's policies are collaborators. They are subject to any mechanism Kiev can devise to stop them. In the case of RT Ruptly or the Guardian this means developing a strategy to ruin their reputations. The Interpreter was developed to that end. Kiev has gone so far as to petition the UK government to censure the Guardian for its coverage of events in Ukraine hoping to bully the publication into line. US broadcasters (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) have put RT on the same list as ISIS.

    From yesterday's links but seems appropriate. This plan to censor opposing viewpoints in the US was intended to be executed during a Clinton presidency, and would've been almost impossible to stop under those circumstances. There is now a window of opportunity to fight back and ruin these clowns once and for all.

    local to oakland December 10, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    But these memes are now in play differently by Trump appointees. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/betsy-devos-claim-media-fake-news-232459

    Government messing with the First Amendment is dangerous. I feel like an electrician watching someone reach for the wrong wire.

    integer December 10, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    That may be but what we are seeing now is just an echo of the Clinton/Soros plan, and not even close to the disaster that would result from having Soros et al at the helm. My guess is that the CIA are now simply using gullible Republicans (yes, there is certainly some redundancy there) as useful idiots, but this dynamic significantly weakens the original plan.

    shinola December 10, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    "I feel like an electrician watching someone reach for the wrong wire." I'm definitely stealing that one – thanks!

    cnchal December 10, 2016 at 8:28 am

    Trump, the Man in the Crowd

    Amy Davidson ends her article with this paragraph.

    And that is why the rallies are likely to endure: to serve as calibrators of or infomercials for what Trump believes that "the public" wants. One can waste a lot of time delving into the question of Trump's psychological need for affirmation . What is politically more important is how he might use the set piece of a cheering crowd to brush aside other considerations, particularly those involving the checks on the Presidency, and the willingness of those in other areas of the government, or in the White House itself, to exercise them. Should courts worry about "a lot of angry people"? One important point not to let go of is that a crowd that the President assembles and the broader public are two very different things, no matter how big the arena, or how filled it is with love . A better opportunity to hear that public voice will come in two years, at the midterm elections. Maybe those will surprise Trump.

    News flash for Amy. When a narcissist uses the word "love" it doesn't mean what you think it does. Those rallies are about training people to react emotionally in a way that is fulfilling to Donald. Nothing more, nothing less.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 11:55 am

    A better opportunity to hear that public voice will come in two years, at the midterm elections. Maybe those will surprise Trump.

    We remind ourselves that no one can help us but us. We empower ourselves.

    So, it goes for today, as it did in 2008. Such moderation!!! A better opportunity will come in two years!!!! I said that to myself 8 years ago, but I didn't hear much of it from the media then. And we (not just I) say that now.

    As for crowds reacting and it being fulfilling for the one being looked up on – again, it's the same human psychology, whether the guy on stage is a rock star, Lenin, Roosevelt, Pol Pot, the next savior or Idi Amin. How much love is there for anyone in any long term relationship, except to affirm and be affirmed by 'love' everyday, in small acts or otherwise, much less some politicians you interact through abstractions, like, through the media or stories told to us.

    kareninca December 10, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    "Those rallies are about training people to react emotionally in a way that is fulfilling to Donald. Nothing more, nothing less."

    These rallies are Trump's means of maintaining contact with his base, and making sure that he knows what they want. And a means of showing that he is trying to get it for them. If Hillary had bothered to do anything of the sort she would have been elected. Sanders did it and it was much appreciated. Trump's ego is huge but the rallies are much more than an ego-trip.

    Jhallc December 10, 2016 at 8:51 am

    Re: WP's response to Truthdig's retraction request. It seems as if they are doubling down on the "not our responsibility to verify the validity theme". My first reaction is that the WP is now the equivalent of the National Enquirer. What's next, a headline " I gave birth to Trump's Love Child".

    Steve H. December 10, 2016 at 9:15 am

    : The right has its own version of political correctness. It's just as stifling.

    It looks like this perspective is snapping into place. From a letter in our (paywalled) local paper, from Dec. 3:

    telling everyone else not to be so sensitive or PC (ditto; theirs is a "conservative" PC). [Kenneth D. Pimple]

    Steeeve December 10, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    Patriotic Correctness is a useful term and concept. Otherwise, the article was extremely long-winded and boring. Editor to writer: "I need you to fill 3,000 words worth of space with this 50-word idea "

    Steve H. December 10, 2016 at 10:59 am

    Panem et circenses.

    But then I think of the old Chicago prayer:

    Where's my bread, Daley?

    fosforos December 10, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    Long, long ago I learned that the only really trustworthy stories in the "Press" were on the sports pages. Now I'm scarcely sure of even that

    cwaltz December 10, 2016 at 10:38 pm

    I don't consider Trump a compromise candidate and that's largely because I don't see him actually moving the country forward in the right direction. Sanders, for me, would have been a compromise from the point of view of he probably wouldn't have moved us far enough fast enough for me but he would have set us leftward instead of ever rightward and that IS an improvement.

    The Trumpening December 10, 2016 at 10:06 am

    The mainstream media is doubling down on imagined pro-Russian heresies in a fashion not seen since the Reformation. Back then the Catholic Church held a monopoly on ideology. They lost it to an unruly bunch of rebellious Protestants who were assisted by the new technology of the printing press.

    Nowadays various non-conformist internet sites, with the help of the new technology of the internet, are challenging the MSM's monopoly on the means of persuasion. To show how much things have changed, back in the 60's, dissidents such as the John Birch Society were limited to issuing pamphlets to expound on their theories of Russians taking over America. In a very ironic role-reversal, today it is the increasingly desperate Washington Post that more closely matches the paranoia of the John Birch Society as it accuses non-conformist media heretics – who are threatening the MSM's monopoly on the means of persuasion - of allowing Russians to take over America.

    But let's spare a thought for poor Jeff Bezos. He basically thought he was purchasing the medieval equivalent of a Bishopry when he bought the WaPo. But now after running six anti-Trump editorials each and every day for the past 18 months, in which his establishment clergy engaged in an ever increasing hysteria-spiral trying to outdo each other in turning Trump into Hitler, it ends up Bezos' side lost the election anyway. It's like he bought a Blockbuster store in 2008 and never even thought about Netflix!

    And so now the MSM is literally launching an Establishment Inquisition by issuing "indexes" of prohibited heretical websites.

    Where will this lead? The grossly paranoiac reading is the Establishment's Counter Reformation is laying the ideological groundwork for a sort of coup d'etat to be followed by the rule of a goodthink junta. In this case we have to start calculating how many divisions are loyal to Trump's gang of generals versus how many are loyal to Obama's generals. A more moderate reading is that with these anti-Russian headlines, the Establishment is attempting to pressure Trump to stay the Establishment course on foreign policy and to appoint a SecState who is hostile to Russia. And in the best case these crazy MSM ramblings are just the last gasps of soon to be extinct media mammoths.

    fosforos December 10, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    Or is it CIA preparation for an Electoral College coup and an H of Reps "election" of–Lindsy Graham?

    The Trumpening December 10, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    One thing you can say about Trump is that he is most certainly not a wuss. In the face of this firestorm about Russian influence sources say Trump is going to nominate Rex Tillerson, who is very pro-Putin, as Secretary of State!

    Lindsie Graham is going to be apoplectic!

    tgs December 10, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Do you think Tillerson will be confirmed?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef December 10, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    I wonder what happens when they don't confirm any of his nominees? Is this a case of 'I will nominee so many you don't like, you will be forced to confirm at least a few?'

    The Trumpening December 10, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    Yes I do because Trump is reportedly naming NeoCon John Bolton as undersecretary. That's going to be a package deal; if they reject Tillerson then Bolton is gone as well. The NeoCons are desperate to get Bolton into the Administration.

    Bolton's job will be to go on talk shows and defend Trump's policies. If he doesn't do it then he gets fired.

    And so from the rest of the world's point of view, Tillerson is the carrot but Bolton remains in the background as the stick in case anyone starts thinking Trump is too soft and decides to test him.

    Baby Gerald December 10, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Glenn Greenwald dissects the fake news spewing about Russian involvement with aplomb:

    Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA's Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

    [Dec 10, 2016] A Soft Coup Attempt Furious Trump Slams Secret CIA Report Russia Helped Him Win

    Praetorian Guard Redux. Any nation that embraces secret police will find itself ruled by them in short order.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes, the CIA's sterling reputation around the world for truth-telling and integrity might be sullied if someone doubts their claims... https://t.co/2uyQXvFdOK - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016 ..."
    "... When is it hardest to get people not to blindly accept anonymous, evidence-free CIA claims? When it's very pleasing to believe them. - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016 ..."
    "... "...there is no clear evidence - even now," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. "There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it." ..."
    "... "...Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by [PROVEN LIAR] James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said." ..."
    "... Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought to more subtly influence elections in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist Dov Levin calculates that the "two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946 to 2000 - an average of once in every nine competitive elections. ..."
    "... In the late 1940s, the newly established CIA cut its teeth in Western Europe, pushing back against some of the continent's most influential leftist parties and labor unions. In 1948, the United States propped up Italy's centrist Christian Democrats and helped ensure their electoral victory against a leftist coalition, anchored by one of the most powerful communist parties in Europe. CIA operatives gave millions of dollars to their Italian allies and helped orchestrate what was then an unprecedented, clandestine propaganda campaign : This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated sex scandals, starting a mass letter-writing campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots, and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church. ..."
    "... "We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets," recounted F. Mark Wyatt , the CIA officer who handled the mission and later participated in more than 2˝ decades of direct support to the Christian Democrats. ..."
    "... This template spread everywhere : CIA operative Edward G. Lansdale, notorious for his efforts to bring down the North Vietnamese government, is said to have run the successful 1953 campaign of Philippines President Ramon Magsaysay. Japan's center-right Liberal Democratic Party was backed with secret American funds through the 1950s and the 1960s. The U.S. government and American oil corporations helped Christian parties in Lebanon win crucial elections in 1957 with briefcases full of cash. ..."
    "... In Chile, the United States prevented Allende from winning an election in 1964. "A total of nearly four million dollars was spent on some fifteen covert action projects, ranging from organizing slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties," detailed a Senate inquiry in the mid-1970s that started to expose the role of the CIA in overseas elections. When it couldn't defeat Allende at the ballot box in 1970, Washington decided to remove him anyway. ..."
    "... Obama & The Presstitutes: Legalized DOMESTIC Propaganda to American Citizens The National Defense Authorization Act of July 2013 (NDAA) included an amendment that legalized the use of propaganda on the American public. The amendment - originally proposed by Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and passed – nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 allowed U.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population. ..."
    "... This Russia CIA Program aimed at US Citizens is part of the OBAMA FRAUD to cover the crimes of Clinton et al. The MSM and especially the NYT is the epi-center of "Fake News" ..."
    "... Hillary was a big threat to Russia security. Trump was willing to work with Russia. Does anyone really believe Russia has absolutely no part to play in Trump's win? Think again. ..."
    "... Thinking is one thing. Proving it is another. And what do you "think" about the CIA and Victoria Nuland's role in toppling the elected government in the Ukraine? ..."
    "... After a year of MSM propaganda and lies, you are now obsessed with "fake news" ironically the kind that totally obliterated your propaganda for the lies that they were. ..."
    "... Go back to the 1960s. Phillp Graham and his wife rans Wa Post. Phillip got a young girl friend and started going off the reservation saying WaPo was becoming a mouthpiece for the See Eye Ah. He was going to divorce his wife. He then was commited to an insane asylum, released and then killed himself with a shotgun. ..."
    "... There have to be good, patriotic Americans within CIA These intelligence reports are obvious fictions: The agitprop of a neocon/zionist Deep State that fully intends to expand the wars, target Iran and Russia, while sending American blood and treasure to pay their bill. ..."
    "... Kennedy knew that the CIA was nothing but a group of Useless, Meddling, Lying Assholes, and made it known Publicly. Unfortunately for him, things didn't turn out all that well. "Wetwork" is never in shortage with that crew. ..."
    "... Praetorian Guard Redux. Any nation that embraces secret police will find itself ruled by them in short order. ..."
    "... Most CIA directors are/were members of the Rockefeller/CFR including: Morell, Petraeus, Hayden, Tenet, Deutch, Woolsey, Gates, Webster, Casey, Turner, Bush, Colby, Schlesinger, Helms, McCone and Allen Dulles. Also every Fed chairman since WW2. See member lists at cfr dot org. ..."
    "... The domestic policies of both CFR wings are the same: the maintenance of the American Empire... There is no possibility of [outsiders] capturing power at the top of either party... ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Overnight the media propaganda wars escalated after the late Friday release of an article by the Washington Post (which last week admitted to using unverified, or fake, news in an attempt to smear other so-called "fake news" sites) according to which a secret CIA assessment found that Russia sought to tip last month's U.S. presidential election in Donald Trump's favor, a conclusion presented without any actual evidence, and which drew an extraordinary, and angry rebuke from the president-elect's camp.

    "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," Trump's transition team said, launching a broadside against the spy agency. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It's now time to move on and 'Make America Great Again.' "

    The Washington Post report comes after outgoing President Barack Obama ordered a review of all cyberattacks that took place during the 2016 election cycle , amid growing calls from Congress for more information on the extent of Russian interference in the campaign. The newspaper cited officials briefed on the matter as saying that individuals with connections to Moscow provided WikiLeaks with email hacked from the Democratic National Committee, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign chief and others.

    Without a shred of evidence provided, and despite Wikileaks' own on the record denial that the source of the emails was Russian, the WaPo attack piece claims the email messages were steadily leaked out via WikiLeaks in the months before the election, damaging Clinton's White House run. Essentially, according to the WaPo, the Russians' aim was to help Donald Trump win and not just undermine the U.S. electoral process, hinting at a counter-Hillary intent on the side of Putin.

    "It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia's goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected," the newspaper quoted a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation last week to key senators as saying. " That's the consensus view."

    CIA agents told the lawmakers it was "quite clear" - although it was not reported exactly what made it "clear" - that electing Trump was Russia's goal, according to officials who spoke to the Post, citing growing evidence from multiple sources.

    And yet, key questions remain unanswered, and the CIA's report fell short of being a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies the newspaper said, for two reasons. As we reported in November " The "Fact" That 17 Intelligence Agencies Confirmed Russia is Behind the Email Hacks Isn't Actually A "Fact ", and then also because aside from so-called "consensus", there is - once again - no evidence, otherwise the appropriate agencies would have long since released it, and this is nothing more than another propaganda attempt to build tension with Russia. In fact, the WaPo admits as much in the following text, which effectively destroys the article's entire argument :

    The CIA presentation to senators about Russia's intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency's assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

    For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin "directing" the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were "one step" removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

    * * *

    "I'll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there's clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence - even now," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. "There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it."

    And since even the WaPo is forced to admit that intelligence agents don't have the proof that Russian officials directed the identified individuals to supply WikiLeaks with the hacked Democratic emails, the best it can do is speculate based on circumstantial inferences, especially since, as noted above, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has denied links with Russia's government , putting the burden of proof on the side of those who challenge the Wikileaks narrative. So far that proof has not been provided.

    Nonetheless, at the White House, Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Obama called for the cyberattacks review earlier this week to ensure "the integrity of our elections."

    "This report will dig into this pattern of malicious cyberactivity timed to our elections, take stock of our defensive capabilities and capture lessons learned to make sure that we brief members of Congress and stakeholders as appropriate," Schultz said.

    Taking the absurdity to a whole new level, Obama wants the report completed before his term ends on January 20, by none other than a proven and confirmed liar : " The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said. " In other words, the report that the Kremlin stole the election should be prepared by the time Trump is expected to be sworn in.

    "We are going to make public as much as we can," the spokesman added. "This is a major priority for the president."

    The move comes after Democrats in Congress pressed the White House to reveal details, to Congress or to the public, of Russian hacking and disinformation in the election.

    On Oct. 7, one month before the election, the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence announced that "the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations." "These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process," they said.

    Trump dismissed those findings in an interview published Wednesday by Time magazine for its "Person of the Year" award. Asked if the intelligence was politicized, Trump answered: "I think so."

    "I don't believe they interfered," he said. "It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey."

    Worried that Trump will sweep the issue under the rug after his inauguration, seven Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee called on Nov. 29 for the White House to declassify what it knows about Russian interference. The seven have already been briefed on the classified details, suggesting they believe there is more information the public should know. On Tuesday this week, leading House Democrats called on Obama to give members of the entire Congress a classified briefing on Russian interference, from hacking to the spreading of fake news stories to mislead U.S. voters.

    Republicans in Congress have also promised hearings into Russian activities once the new administration comes in.

    Obama's homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said the cyberinterference goes back to the 2008 presidential race, when both the Obama and John McCain campaigns were hit by malicious computer intrusions.

    * * *

    An interesting aside to emerge from last night's hit piece and the Trump team response is that there is now a full blown turf war between Trump and the CIA, as NBC's Chuck Todd observed in a series of late Friday tweets:

    The implication in the Trump transition statement is that he doesn't believe a single thing from the CIA

    - Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

    Is the next Commander-in-Chief is signaling that the CIA won't be a major player in his national security team?

    - Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

    So stunned by the Trump transition statement on the Post-CIA-Russia story that I half expect a walk back by tomorrow

    - Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

    How helpful is it for the CIA's reputation around the world if the next US questions their findings so publicly? Good luck Mike Pompeo

    - Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

    To which Glenn Greenwald provided the best counterargument:

    Yes, the CIA's sterling reputation around the world for truth-telling and integrity might be sullied if someone doubts their claims...https://t.co/2uyQXvFdOK - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016

    When is it hardest to get people not to blindly accept anonymous, evidence-free CIA claims? When it's very pleasing to believe them. - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016

    However, of the mini Tweetstorm, this was the most important aspect: the veiled suggestion that in addition to Russia, both the FBI and the Obama presidency prevented Hillary from becoming the next US president...

    While Obama's FBI director smeared Hillary, Obama sat on evidence of Russian efforts to elect Trump that had basis in evidence.

    - Franklin Foer (@FranklinFoer) December 10, 2016

    ... which in light of these stunning new unproven and baseless allegations, she may very well have renewed aspirations toward.

    * * *

    So while there is no "there" there following the WaPo's latest attempt to fan the rarging fires of evidence-free propaganda, or as the WaPo itself would say "fake news", here is why the story has dramatic implications. First, the only two quotes which matter:

    "...there is no clear evidence - even now," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. "There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it."

    * * *

    "...Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by [PROVEN LIAR] James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said."

    And then the summary:

    1. Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
    2. Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
    3. Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
    4. Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
    5. Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.

    Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel " Seven Days in May ."

    Nemontel Dec 10, 2016 9:13 AM ,

    Trump is the first more or less independent candidate in decades. Most of our politicians are chosen by the Oligarchy.

    http://www.truthjustice.net/politics/chosen-leaders-proven-failures/

    Keyser -> TeamDepends Dec 10, 2016 9:22 AM ,
    Once again it's a case of "watch the shiny object"... The "secret CIA report" seems to focus on who leaked the documents to Wikileaks and not the content of those documents... The left have not refuted that the emails are real, just who leaked them to Assange... Fuck 'em, if they keep Trump from the white house there will be revolution...
    manofthenorth -> Manthong Dec 10, 2016 10:55 AM ,
    And the song remains the same; From none other than the Washington Post, oh the irony.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-hi...

    "Aside from its instigation of coups and alliances with right-wing juntas, Washington sought to more subtly influence elections in all corners of the world. And so did Moscow. Political scientist Dov Levin calculates that the "two powers intervened in 117 elections around the world from 1946 to 2000 - an average of once in every nine competitive elections."

    In the late 1940s, the newly established CIA cut its teeth in Western Europe, pushing back against some of the continent's most influential leftist parties and labor unions. In 1948, the United States propped up Italy's centrist Christian Democrats and helped ensure their electoral victory against a leftist coalition, anchored by one of the most powerful communist parties in Europe. CIA operatives gave millions of dollars to their Italian allies and helped orchestrate what was then an unprecedented, clandestine propaganda campaign : This included forging documents to besmirch communist leaders via fabricated sex scandals, starting a mass letter-writing campaign from Italian Americans to their compatriots, and spreading hysteria about a Russian takeover and the undermining of the Catholic Church.

    "We had bags of money that we delivered to selected politicians, to defray their political expenses, their campaign expenses, for posters, for pamphlets," recounted F. Mark Wyatt , the CIA officer who handled the mission and later participated in more than 2˝ decades of direct support to the Christian Democrats.

    This template spread everywhere : CIA operative Edward G. Lansdale, notorious for his efforts to bring down the North Vietnamese government, is said to have run the successful 1953 campaign of Philippines President Ramon Magsaysay. Japan's center-right Liberal Democratic Party was backed with secret American funds through the 1950s and the 1960s. The U.S. government and American oil corporations helped Christian parties in Lebanon win crucial elections in 1957 with briefcases full of cash.

    In Chile, the United States prevented Allende from winning an election in 1964. "A total of nearly four million dollars was spent on some fifteen covert action projects, ranging from organizing slum dwellers to passing funds to political parties," detailed a Senate inquiry in the mid-1970s that started to expose the role of the CIA in overseas elections. When it couldn't defeat Allende at the ballot box in 1970, Washington decided to remove him anyway."

    Manthong -> ThaBigPerm Dec 10, 2016 12:16 PM ,

    This is in the UK Express. So it has to be true.

    A US Official has claimed the Russians are out to get Merkel in a cyber campaign.

    A CIA probe confirms Moscow helped Trump win the election.

    "In both cases, said the official, Mr. Putin's campaigns in both Europe and the US are intended to disrupt and discredit the Western concept of democracy by promoting extremist candidates, parties, and political figures."

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/741960/russia-angela-merkel-germany-election-cyber-attack-plot-us-official-cia

    Isn't it grand that we get all this great, comprehensive information from the modern MSM?

    The Express and WaPo are in a class unto themselves.

    Creative_Destruct -> TruthHunter Dec 10, 2016 1:02 PM ,
    Both WAPO , & C.TODD would NOT be missed. Per Todd: "How helpful is it for the CIA's reputation around the world if the next US questions their findings so publicly?"

    Todd is concerned about The CIA's "Reputation" ?????? AS IF its current rep is wonderful??? - TODD: There is no "reputation" to damage!!! Lame brain !!

    zhandax -> Creative_Destruct Dec 10, 2016 3:08 PM ,
    17 intelligence agencies? Is this some dystopian record?

    "There's a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it."

    So these 'intelligence' agencies are in the same boat as the pizzgate crowd. The main difference is after failing to produce any actionable evidence the pizzagate crowd will loose interest and move on. We still have to give the bureaucrats at these intelligence agencies a paycheck next month.

    There needs to be one yuge housecleaning.

    Kidbuck -> Pinto Currency Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    Russians are training the illegals in secret camps in the Sierra Madre mountains before they are released into the US. I was there and saw it. Bigfoot was guarding the entrance.
    Jim in MN -> cossack55 Dec 10, 2016 12:15 PM ,
    The only WMDs around here are on WEINER'S LAPTOP. That laptop is the real 'shiny object'. Eyes on the prize, folks.
    Omen IV -> manofthenorth Dec 10, 2016 1:16 PM ,
    Obama & The Presstitutes: Legalized DOMESTIC Propaganda to American Citizens The National Defense Authorization Act of July 2013 (NDAA) included an amendment that legalized the use of propaganda on the American public. The amendment - originally proposed by Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and passed – nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 allowed U.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population.

    Signed by .. Obama. This Act formalized systems in place covertly or ad hoc for some time.

    This Russia CIA Program aimed at US Citizens is part of the OBAMA FRAUD to cover the crimes of Clinton et al. The MSM and especially the NYT is the epi-center of "Fake News" The Smith-Mundt Modernization Bill was incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R.4310) . The Smith-Mundt provisions weren't part of the bill when it was originally introduced, but were added on May 18, 2012. included in amendment 1140 , which was approved by roll call vote 288 . http://foreignpolicy.com/channel/the-cable/ http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5

    beemasters -> Manthong Dec 10, 2016 11:18 AM ,
    Hillary was a big threat to Russia security. Trump was willing to work with Russia. Does anyone really believe Russia has absolutely no part to play in Trump's win? Think again. They should and I think they did! Whether it was an illegal intervention would be another question.
    Bay of Pigs -> beemasters Dec 10, 2016 11:36 AM ,
    Thinking is one thing. Proving it is another. And what do you "think" about the CIA and Victoria Nuland's role in toppling the elected government in the Ukraine? How about NATO expansion for decades under Clinton, Bush and Obama? Aren't these DIRECT THREATS against Putin and Russia? Yes, they most certainly are. Fuck the CIA They do far more harm than good for the people in the USA.
    Krungle -> beemasters Dec 10, 2016 12:53 PM ,
    Hillary was a threat to life on Earth. She made it clear her intent was to wage war against Russia (and probably China). Obviously the US has been conducting cyberwarfare, psyops and propaganda against Russia, as this has been documented in the past. Russia's response may merely have been presenting authentic information via RT/Sputnik/etc. and putting clips of Putin online where he sounds like a rational human being. In other words, they may be guilty of nothing more than providing Americans with the truth, much as America did with the Soviets.
    mccvilb -> Greyhat Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    That was exactly what this brought to mind for me - a John F Kennedy moment, but not his assassination. I was thinking of an earlier time well before this., ie, Nikita Krushev banging the table at the UN with his shoe. The state of the nation - people were in a panic because Russia let it be known it was about to bring nuclear missiles into Cuba. It was a ploy by the Russians and Krushev to de-escalate the tensions between the two countries over our attempt to take out Castro and the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

    Fade to today. Why would the Russians care who won the presidency? Hillary the war monger or the Donald, the negotiator? Ahh, maybe because we just brought into Turkey then consequently moved fifty nuclear missiles into position along Russia's border? Who authorized and ordered that? Would that be any cause for worry by Russia or its citizenry? Is that or is it not total insanity? Total fuckery? Obama and Hillary have put us four minutes away from a worldwide nuclear holocaust and now they are trying to make Trump look like he was in bed with Putin. I don't know what Trump is but I do know he and Putin are the only two people on the same wavelength right now, thank the electoral college.

    Kayman -> nmewn Dec 10, 2016 10:08 AM ,
    Bay of Pigs, Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. The CIA will fabricate any truth you would like. The Deep State has shit its' pants.
    Smiddywesson -> Eirik Magnus Larssen Dec 10, 2016 10:51 AM ,
    You are delusional, dishonest, ignrorant, and proud of it. Fortunately, YOU LOST.

    After a year of MSM propaganda and lies, you are now obsessed with "fake news" ironically the kind that totally obliterated your propaganda for the lies that they were.

    After a year of cackling laughter when every two bit dictator and NWO globalist bad mouthed Trump, like a child, you are OUTRAGED that Russia might have not wanted Hillary to take power and make war against it. At least Russia didn't PUBLICALLY attempt to influence an American election LIKE HILLARY'S NWO GOONS DID FROM THEIR EXECUTIVE OFFICES.

    The popular vote: Ignoring fraud, which was proven in the Michigan recount, Hillary supporters are trying to make hay out of her garnering 2.6 million more votes than Trump. Besides the fact that this is irrelevant in a campaign for the electoral college, 2.6 million votes is only somewhere @0.7% of the US population. That's hardly a mandate, especially when we consider she only had that dubious edge over Trump, not the entire playing field. There were other candidate you know.

    I'm sorry, I forgot, YOU LOST, and you think you can spoil our good time with the assertion that the better candidate was Hillary. LOL, losers.

    Chris Dakota -> Eirik Magnus Larssen Dec 10, 2016 11:41 AM ,
    Trump is a wildcard, we all knew that when we voted for him.

    Hillary is a witchcard and we all knew what she would do.

    Bernie wasn't even a choice, Hillary had him as a straw man opponent.

    Rand Paul to me was the best choice but establishment didn't want him, Gay media wanted Trump because they thought Hillary could beat him and many of the Ron Paulers still butthurt over him endorsing Romney. Never mind Ron Paul didn't even put up a fight when they robbed him of the nomination he won.

    Trump is a fighter, something we felt we needed.

    Freddie -> Moe Hamhead Dec 10, 2016 10:40 AM ,
    Go back to the 1960s. Phillp Graham and his wife rans Wa Post. Phillip got a young girl friend and started going off the reservation saying WaPo was becoming a mouthpiece for the See Eye Ah. He was going to divorce his wife. He then was commited to an insane asylum, released and then killed himself with a shotgun.

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/2935-philip-graham/&p...

    Phil's wife was the daughter of Eugene Meyer who ran The Fed.

    Watergate was not what you were told. Nixon wanted tariffs and the Rockefellers (who myguess started the CIA - David was an OSS officer in WW2) got mad at their boy Nixon. Nixon hated George Bush and did not trust him. All the info the Wa Post got on Nixon was C**IIA info to Ben Bradley, editor of Wa Post, probably from George Bush. All of Nixons,relatively minor, dirt was passed from See EYE Ah to Wa Post. Woodward and Bernstein just typed it up.

    Bradley was brther in law to Cord Meyer (operation mockingbird). Cord's wife (Mary Pinchot-Meyer) had an ongoing affair with JFK. After he was killed, she was gonna spill the beans like Marilyn Monroe. She was killed taking a walk. Ben BRadley and the See EYE Ah rush to her apartment to get her diary.

    War Machine -> Chupacabra-322 Dec 10, 2016 2:51 PM ,
    the CIA has been arming Al Qaeda and (likely) 'ISIS'.

    It is very probable US forces will be killed by these weapons.

    Add to that the small issue of the hundreds of thousands of people, Christian and non-Salafist/non-Wahhabi Muslims murdered by the Islamopsycho and Acadami etc. private western mercs.

    There have to be good, patriotic Americans within CIA These intelligence reports are obvious fictions: The agitprop of a neocon/zionist Deep State that fully intends to expand the wars, target Iran and Russia, while sending American blood and treasure to pay their bill.

    And now they are going to try to overturn an election in which Clinton not only lost by the rules of our system, but in which Clinton's 'popular vote' win was the product of illegal immigrant and other fraudulent voting.

    all of which means they are also willing to risk civil war.

    Vatican_cameo -> Keyser Dec 10, 2016 9:27 AM

    Kennedy knew that the CIA was nothing but a group of Useless, Meddling, Lying Assholes, and made it known Publicly. Unfortunately for him, things didn't turn out all that well. "Wetwork" is never in shortage with that crew.

    MilwaukeeMark -> Vatican_cameo Dec 10, 2016 9:44 AM ,
    I have developed a begrudging admiration for Stalin. He knew how to decapitate the hydra and keep it under his control.
    tmosley -> Vatican_cameo Dec 10, 2016 9:44 AM ,
    Praetorian Guard Redux. Any nation that embraces secret police will find itself ruled by them in short order.
    Uzda Farce -> Vatican_cameo Dec 10, 2016 11:32 AM ,
    Most CIA directors are/were members of the Rockefeller/CFR including: Morell, Petraeus, Hayden, Tenet, Deutch, Woolsey, Gates, Webster, Casey, Turner, Bush, Colby, Schlesinger, Helms, McCone and Allen Dulles. Also every Fed chairman since WW2. See member lists at cfr dot org.

    "I have discussed Council on Foreign Relations Team A vs. Team B for 35 years. I have seen two anti-CFR people get through the [presidential] screening... The domestic policies of both CFR wings are the same: the maintenance of the American Empire... There is no possibility of [outsiders] capturing power at the top of either party..."

    http://archive.lewrockwell.com/north/north1193.html

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-cfr-the-cia-and-the-banks/

    [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this. ..."
    "... In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in. ..."
    "... Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran. ..."
    "... Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts ..."
    "... Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege ..."
    "... I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves ..."
    "... "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. ..."
    "... New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail. ..."
    "... No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken. ..."
    "... The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda. ..."
    "... So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical! ..."
    "... Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote. ..."
    "... So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me. ..."
    "... "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul ..."
    "... At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg ..."
    "... President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ..."
    "... The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power. The fight goes on. ..."
    "... Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis. ..."
    "... Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it! ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    From: Barack Obama orders 'full review' of possible Russian hacking in US election Spncer Ackerman in New York and David Smith in Washington

    Geoff Smythe , 24m ago

    Well, if Rupert Mudroach, an American citizen, can influence the Australian elections, who gives a stuff about anyone else's involvement in US politics?

    The US loves demonising Russia, even supporting ISIS to fight against them.

    The United States of Amnesia just can't understand that they are run by the military machine.

    As Frank Zappa once correctly stated: The US government is just the entertainment unit of the Military.

    Nataliefreeman, 11 Dec 2016

    Altogether the only thing people are accusing the Russians of is the WikiLeaks scandal. And in hindsight of the enormous media bias toward Trump it really comes of as little more than leveling the playing field. Hardly the sort of democratic subversion that is being suggested.

    And of course there is another problem and that is in principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The US even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    HollyOldDog -> Nataliefreeman, 11 Dec 2016 01:4
    Don't know about Russians, but in the early 2000's the Ukrainian hackers had some nasty viruses embedded in email attachments that could fuckup ARM based computers.
    smellycat -> waltercarl67, 11 Dec 2016 00:0
    Time to stop attempting regime change in other countries then, if you condemn it in your own. What goes around comes around.
    caveOfShadows , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    European governments tried to elect Hillary Clinton. Latin American and Asian allies of the US tried to elect Clinton.

    Top leaders of France, the UK, Germany, all leaked to US newspapers, with dire warnings of how Trump's election would lead to bad outcomes.

    Many countries made as clear as possible, without coming out officially for a candidate, that they were for the election of Clinton.

    Mexico tried to get Clinton elected. Believe me, they did. Not officially, of course, but almost.

    But all we hear about is Russia.

    Wonder why???

    uyCybershy -> caveOfShadows , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran.
    imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:0
    Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts, as the last battle in their support to jidaists fighting the Syrian Army. This is the dark pit where our so called free press has fallen into.
    Flugler -> imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Yep had a chat with an army mate yesterday asked him what the fcuk the supposed head of MI6 was on about regarding Russian support for Syrian govt suggesting Russian actions made terrorism more likely here in UK. He shrugged his shoulders and said he hoped Putin wiped the terrorists out...
    smellycat -> imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:4
    Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege

    Of course no news on the danger to the civilians of W,Aleppo, who have been bombarded indiscriminately for months by the 'moderates' in the east of the city or the danger to the civilians of Palmyra, Mosul or al Bab.

    Geoff Smythe -> smellycat , 11 Dec 2016 01:3
    Or the 50,000 that have been evacuated out of Aleppo by the Russian military. https://www.rt.com/news/369869-syria-evacuation-civilians-aleppo /
    Merseysidefella , 10 Dec 2016 21:5
    I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves. I´ll still look for the Guardian articles on football which are excellent.
    Cheers!
    GuyCybershy -> confettifoot , 10 Dec 2016 21:0
    The Sanders movement inside the Democratic party did offer some hope but this was snuffed out by the DNC and the Clinton campaign in collusion with the media. This is what likely caused her defeat in November and not some Kremlin intrigue.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality," Karl Rove.
    caveOfShadows -> dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Don't use quotes when you are doing a fake attribution.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:4
    New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail.
    joinupthedots , 10 Dec 2016 20:4
    Fake news....No news.....None sense news?

    Uncle Sam has been doing it for years and the degree of incestuousness between MSM and the "Agencies" is all right here (just one example)

    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmeyerM.htm

    smellycat -> joinupthedots , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    That's some serious shit
    '"The same sons of bitches," he hissed, "that killed John F. Kennedy."
    stoneshepherd , 10 Dec 2016 20:2
    No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken.

    Hmmm....

    Flugler -> stoneshepherd , 10 Dec 2016 20:3
    Distract the masses with bullsh*t , nothing new... Trump needs to double up on his personal security, he has doubled down on the CIA tonight bringing upmtheir bullsh*t on WMD. Thing are getting interesting...
    Liesandstats , 10 Dec 2016 19:2
    Meanwhile the good guys with their Smart bombs indulge in a spot of collateral damage. (Or war crimes as it's described when Russians do it).

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-90-iraqi-soldiers-killed-in-mosul-from-us-airstrikes/

    This article is jiberish, as are the ones trying to say that the Russians caused Brexit.

    GuyCybershy -> sunflowerxyz , 10 Dec 2016 19:3
    The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda.
    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 19:1
    Spreading lies about the very real Podesta emails and their importance seems to be a fake news stock in trade. Since Hillary was responsible I'm not sure where Putin comes into the picture.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs /
    GuyCybershy , 10 Dec 2016 19:0
    So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical!
    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 18:3
    "If we can revert to the truth, then a great deal of one's suffering can be erased, because a great deal of one's suffering is based on sheer lies. "
    R. D. Laing
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    US politicians and the MSM depend on sheer lies.....
    Powerspike -> KassandraTroy , 10 Dec 2016 18:5
    They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
    R. D. Laing
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I'm sick of jumping through their hoops - how about you?
    James7 , 10 Dec 2016 17:2
    "Tin Foil Hat" Hillary--
    "This is not about politics or partisanship," she went on. "Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It is a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly."

    We fail to see how Russian propaganda has put people's lives directly at risk. Unless, of course, Hillary is suggesting that the increasingly-bizarre #Pizzagate swarm journalism campaign (which apparently caused a man to shoot up a floor tile in a D.C. pizza shop) was conjured up by a bunch of Russian trolls.

    And this is about as absurd as saying Russian trolls were why Trump got elected.

    "It needs to be said," former counterintelligence agent John R. Schindler (who, by the way, believes Assange and Snowden are both Russian plants), writes in the Observer, "that nearly all of the liberals eagerly pontificating about how Putin put Trump in office know nothing about 21st century espionage, much less Russia's unique spy model and how it works. Indeed, some of the most ardent advocates of this Kremlin-did-it conspiracy theory were big fans of Snowden and Wikileaks -- right until clandestine Russian shenanigans started to hurt Democrats. Now, they're panicking."

    (Nonetheless, #Pizzagate and Trump, IMHO, are manifestations of a population which deeply deeply distrusts the handlers and gatekeepers of the status quo. Justified or not. And with or without Putin's shadowy fingers strumming its magic hypno-harp across the Land of the Free. This runs deeper than just Putin.)

    Fake news has always been around, from the fake news which led Americans to believe the Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise and completely unprovoked .

    To the fake news campaigns put out by Edward Bernays tricking women into believing cigarettes were empowering little phallics of feminism. (AKA "Torches of Freedom.")

    This War on Fake News has more to do with the elites finally realizing how little control they have over the minds of the unwashed masses. Rather, this is a war on the freaks, geeks and weirdos who've formed a decentralized and massively-influential media right under their noses.

    Laissez Faire Today

    James7 -> fedback , 10 Dec 2016 17:3
    and there may be some truth to that. An article says has delved into financial matters in Russia.

    Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
    Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.

    Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.

    Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.

    As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.

    chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."

    BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me.

    So let me be the first to thank Russia for providing us with their research.

    Instead of assassination, coup or invasion, they simply showed us our leaders' own words when written behind the public's backs.

    I'm no fan of Putin, but this was a useful bit of intelligence you've shared with us.
    Happy Christmas, Vlad.

    Next time why not provide us with the email of all our banks and fossil fuel companies; you can help us clean up both political parties with one fell swoop that way.

    GuyCybershy -> BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul
    greyford14 -> GuyCybershy , 10 Dec 2016 17:1
    Be careful there, Ron Paul is an FSB agent of Putin, according to the Washington Post.
    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg
    GuyCybershy -> elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 17:1
    Dems are so out to lunch that they make FOX pundits seem sane. I would say the Democratic party is beyond hope of saving.
    sblejo , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    The U.S. is getting what it deserves, IF Russia was even dumb enough to meddle. The government in this country has been meddling in other countries' affairs sixty years, in the Middle East, in South America and other places we don't even know about. The result is mayhem, all in the 'interests' of the U.S., as it is described.
    Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    Note that most supporters of the Russian hacks never (and cannot) present rational arguments, just dubious talking points--AKA Fake News.

    But it is fun to spot the gaps in their logic, and the holes in their stories.

    Great sport--rather like hunting hares.

    GuyCybershy -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    We need to trust the CIA, they'd never fix evidence to manipulate the American public.
    BaronVonAmericano -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:5
    Where's the gap in this logic:
    A) The American public has been offered ZERO proof of hacking by the Russian government to alter our election.
    B) Even if true, no one has disputed the authenticity of the emails hacked.
    C) Therefore, the WORST Russia could have done is show us who are own leader are when they don't think we're listening.
    D) Taken together, this article is pretty close to fake news, and gives us nothing that should outrage us much at this time -- unless we are trying to foment war with Russia or call for a military coup against the baboon about to take the oath of office.
    foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    Hacking by unnamed individuals. No direct involvement of the Russian government, only implied, alleged, etc. Seems to me that if Hillary had obeyed the law and not schemed behind the scenes to sabotage Bernie S. there would have been nothing to leak! Really this is all about being caught with fer fingers in the cookie jar. Does it matter who leaked it? Did the US public not have a right to know what the people they were voting for had been up to? It's a bit like the governor of a province being filmed burgling someone's house and then complaining that someone had leaked the film to the media, just when he was trying to get re-elected!
    GuyCybershy -> foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    The US public has a right to know what CNN, New York Times and the Washington Post want them to know.
    sblejo -> foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    It is called passing the buck, and because of the underhanded undermining of Bernie Sanders, who was winning, we have Trump. Thank you Democratic party.
    aidanfahey , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    I am disappointed that the Guardian gives so much prominence to such speculation which is almost totally irrelevant. Why would we necessarily (a) believe what the superspies tell us and (b) even if it is true why should we care?

    I am also very disappointed at the Guardians attitude to Putin, the elected leader of Russia, who was so badly treated by the US from the moment he took over from Yeltsin. I was in Russia as a visitor around that time and it was obvious that Putin restored some dignity to the Russian people after the disastrous Yeltsin term of office. If the US had been willing to deal with him with respect the world could be a much better place today. Instead the US insisted in trying to subvert his rule with the support of its supine NATO allies in order to satisfy its corporate rulers.

    GuyCybershy -> aidanfahey , 10 Dec 2016 16:5
    They expected Russia to fall apart like the USSR and then they could march in and pick up the pieces. Putin prevented this and this why they hate him.
    NickinHalifaxNS , 10 Dec 2016 16:2
    If this is true, the US can hardly complain. After all, the US has a long record of interfering in other countries' elections--including CIA overthrow of elected governments and their replacement with murderous, oppressive, right-wing dictatorships.

    If the worst that Russia did was reveal the truth about what Democratic Party figures were saying behind closed doors, I'd say it helped correct the unbalanced media focus on preventing Trump from becoming President. Call it the globalization of elections.

    BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 15:5
    First, the government has yet to present any persuasive evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or anyone else. All we have is that there is Russian code (meaningless according to cyber-security experts) and seemingly baseless "conclusions" by "intelligence" officials. In other words, fake news at this point.

    Second, even if true, the allegation amounts to an argument that Russia presented us with facts that we shouldn't have seen. Think about that for a while. We are seeing demands that we self-censor ourselves from facts that seem unfair. What utter idiocy.

    This is particularly outrageous given that the U.S. directly intervenes in the governance of any number of nations all the time. We can support coups, arm insurgencies, or directly invade, but god forbid that someone present us with unsettling facts about our ruling class.

    This nation has jumped the shark. The fact that Trump is our president is merely confirmation of this long evident fact. That fighting REAL NEWS of emails whose content has not been disputed is part of our war on "fake news," and the top priority for some so-called liberals, promises only worse to come.

    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 14:5
    >> Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Russia had "succeeded" in "sow[ing] discord" in the election, and urged as much public disclosure as is possible.

    What utter bullshit. The DNC's own dirty tricks did that. Donna Brasille stealing debate questions and handing them to Hillary so that she could cheat did that. The FBIs investigation into Hillary did that. Podesta's emails did that. The totally one-sided press coverage (apart from Fox) of the election did that. But it seems the american people were smart enough to see through the BS and voted for trump. Good for them.

    And we're gonna need a lot more than the word of a few politicised so-called intelligence agencies to believe this russo-hacking story. These are the same people who lied about Iraqi WMDs so they are proven fakers/liars. These are also the same people who hack EVERYONE else so I, quite frankly, have no sympathy even of the story turns out to be true.

    MrIncredlous , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Obama is a disgrace to his office.

    Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
    Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
    Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
    Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
    Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
    Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."

    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    When the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security release a joint statement it is not without very careful consideration to the wording.
    Therefore, to understand what is known by the US intelligence services one must analyse the language used.

    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

    This is very telling:
    "The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."

    Alleged:
    adjective [attributive]
    said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality

    Consistent:
    adjective
    acting or done in the same way over time

    Method:
    noun
    a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something

    Motivation:
    noun
    a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way

    So, what exactly is known by the US intelligence services?

    Well what we can tell is:
    the alleged (without proof) hacks were consistent (done in the same way) with the methods (using a particular procedure) and motivations (and having reason for doing so) with Russian State actions.

    There is absolutely no certainty about this whatsoever.

    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Thank God Obama will be out of office soon. He is the biggest disappointment ever. He has ordered the death of THOUSANDS via drone strikes in other people's countries and most of the deaths were innocent bystanders. If President Xi of China or Putin were to do that we would all be calling them tyrannical dictators and accusing them of a back door invasions. But somehow people are brainwashed into thinking its ok of the US president to do such things. Truly sickening.
    Flugler , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Says the CIA the organisation set up to destabilise governments all over the world. Lol.....
    Congratulations for keeping a straight face I hope Trump makes urgently needed personnel changes in the alphabet soup agencies working against humanity for very many years.
    Susanna246 , 10 Dec 2016 13:1
    Beware --

    This is an extremely dangerous game that Obama and the political elites are playing.

    The American political elites - including senetors, bankers, investors, multinationals et al, can feel power and control slipping away from them.

    This makes them very dangerous people indeed - as self-preservation and holding onto power is their number one priority.

    What they're aiming to do ( a child can see what's coming ), is to call into question the validity of Trump's victory and blame the Russians for it.

    The elites are looking to create chaos and insurrection, to have the result nullified and to vilify Putin and Russia.

    American and Russian troops are already lined up and facing each other along the Eastern European borders and all it takes is one small incident from either side.

    And all because those that have ruled the roost for so many decades ( in the White house, the 2 houses of Congress and Wall St ), simply cannot face losing their positions of power, wealth and political influence.

    They're out to get Trump, the populists and President Putin.

    God help us all.

    MacTavi5h , 10 Dec 2016 12:5
    This is starting to feel like an attempt to make the Trump presidency appear illegitimate. The problem is that it could actually make the democrats look like sore losers instead. We've had the recount, now it's foreign interference. This might harm them in 2020.

    I don't like that Trump won, but he did. The electoral college system is clearly in the constitution and all sides understood and agreed to it at the campaign commencement. Also some, by no means all, of commenters saying that the popular vote should win have also been on referendum BTL saying the result isn't a legitimate leave vote, make your minds up!

    I don't want Trump and I wanted to remain but, by the rules, my sides lost.

    alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 12:5
    Yet in August, Snowden warned that the recent hack of NSA tied cyber spies was not designed to expose Hillary Clinton, but rather a display of strength by the hackers, showing they could eventually unmask the NSA's own international cyber espionage and prove the U.S. meddles in elections around the world.

    http://yournewswire.com/snowden-claims-russia-can-expose-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections /

    nishville , 10 Dec 2016 12:3
    A reader's comment from the Independent:

    Will the CIA be providing evidence to support these allegations or is it a case of "just trust us guys"? In any event, hypocrisy is a national sport for the Yanks. According to a Reuters article 9 August 2016 "NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peńa Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peńa won that election and is now Mexico's president.

    The NSA identified Peńa's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.

    The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.

    Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."

    At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America."

    zulugroove -> nishville , 10 Dec 2016 13:4
    Fake news!! ...That would be a Clinton / Obama , reply!!
    CTG2016 , 10 Dec 2016 12:0
    Breaking news! CIA admits people in USA aren't smart enough to vote for the person right person. Why blame Russians now?
    Come on. Let's move on and enjoy the mess Trump will start. This is going to be worse than GWB.
    We should all just enjoy the political comedy programs.
    Gallicdweller , 10 Dec 2016 11:1
    The CIA accusing a foreign power of interfering in the election of a showman for president - it would take me all day top cite the times that this evil criminal organisation has interfered in the affairs of other countries, ordered assassinations, coups etc. etc. etc
    Dave Harries , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    Yes like the "help" the CIA gave to the Taliban, Bin Laden and Co. when the Russians were in Afghanistan.
    Then these dimwits from the CIA who taught Bin Laden and Co guerrilla warfare totally "missed" 9/11 and Twin Towers with all their billions of funding.
    So basically this is a total load of crap and if you think we are going to believe any reports vs. Russia these fools at the CIA are going to publish then think again.
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    During the election our media was exposed as in essence a propaganda tool for the Democrat campaign and they continue the unholy alliance after the election
    Liesandstats , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    Instead of trying to blame the Russians how about reflecting on why the Democrats picked such a dreadful candidate.
    ana ruiz , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    Pathetic move from an organisation that created ISIS and is single handling every single conflict in the world. Here we have a muppet president that for once wants to look after USA affairs internally and here we have a so alleged independent organisation that wants to keep bombing and destabilising the world. Didn't Trump said he wanted to shake the FBI and CIA ? Who is going to stop this machine of treachery ? : south America, middle east ...Asia ... they put their fingers on to create a problem- solution caveat wereas is to create weapons contracts /farma or construction and sovereign debt . But it never tricles down to the layperson ..
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    "We are Not calling into question the election results"
    next White House sentence - "Just the integrity.. " WTF

    What more do you need to know - Bullshit Fake News.. propaganda, spoken by the youngest possible puppet boy White House Rep. who almost managed to have his tie done up..

    I am bookmarking this guy, for a laugh! White House Fake Newscaster ..:)

    Worth watching the sides of his mouth onto his attempt to engage you with the eyes, but blinking way too much before, during and after the word "Integrity".. FAKE!

    His hand signals.. lmfao, so measured, how sweet.. now sack the sycophants --

    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    People should know that these Breaking News stories we see in Western media on BBC, Guardian etc, about Russian interference are in fact from Wash Post and NY Times quoting mysterious sources within the CIA
    Of course we know that Wash Post and NY Times were completely objective during the election and didn't favor any party
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:0
    Russia made Hillary run the most expensive campaign ever, spending 1.2 billion dollars.
    Russia stole Hillary's message to the working people and gave her lousy slogans
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    My real comment is below, but work with me, for a moment.
    So, since 2008, eh? Barack has thought carefully, with a legal mind.

    Can't we somehow blame the Russians for the whole Economic collapse.. coming soon, Wall Street Cyber Crash, screwed up sKewed up systems of Ponzi virus spiraling out of control..

    blame the Russians , logic, the KGB held the FED at gunpoint and said "create $16.2 Trillion in 5 working days"
    jeez, blame anything and anybody except peace prize guy Obama, the Pope, Bankers & Israel..

    Now can we discuss the Security of the Pound against Cyber Attack.. what was it 6% in 2 minutes, early on Sunday morning, just over month ago.. whoosh!

    It seems more important than discussing an election where the result was always OBVIOUS!

    And we called it, just like Kellyanne Conway..

    Who is Huma Abedin? I wish to know and hear her talking to Kellyanne Conway, graciously in defeat.. is that so unreasonable?
    ********
    Obama wishes to distract from exceedingly poor judgement, at the very minimum....
    after his Greek Affair with Goldman Sachs.. surely.

    As for his other Foreign Policy: Eternal Shame, founded on Fake News!
    Obama the Fake News Founder to flounder over the Russians, who can prove that he, Obama supports & supported Terrorism!

    Thus this article exists, to create doubt over the veracity of evidence to be presented over NATO's involvement in SYRIA! Obama continues to resist, or loose face completely..

    Just ask Can Dundar.... what he knows now and ask Obama to secure the release of Can Dundar's wife's passport, held for no legitimate reason in Turkey! This outrageous stand off, from Erdogan & Obama to address their failures and arrogant disrespect of Woman and her Legal Human Rights is Criminal.. & a Sickness of Mind that promotes Dictatorship!

    Mainstream Media - Fake News.. for quite some time!
    & Obama is guilty!

    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 09:4
    President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/trump-team-same-people-who-say-russia-meddled-in-election-said-iraq-had-wmds/#ixzz4SQWsDXpZ
    alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 09:1
    It's getting funny as Biden promised cyber attack on Russia weeks before Trump was elected .. due to Russian hackers?
    uptonogoode -> alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    Link?
    alexfoxy28 -> uptonogoode , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/721851/russia-joe-biden-obama-cyber-attack-war-clinton-putin-US-moscow

    or just google about it.

    ArtherOhm , 10 Dec 2016 08:5
    Is the USA, as author of windows software, really unable to prevent foreign hacking?

    Do the CIA never do anything like this?

    Do we actually have any evidence rather than just a lot of allegations?

    Shotcricket -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 09:0
    'Russia like to surprise' ?

    The one certainty of the US/EU led drive to remove an elected leader just in their 2nd year after an election that saw them gain 47% of the popular vote was the Russki response, its borders were immediately at open 'threat' from any alliance. NATO or otherwise, the deep sea ports of eastern Ukraine which had always been accessed by the Russki fleets would lose guaranteed access etc....to believe the West was surprised by this action, would be to assume the US Generals were as stupid as the US administration, they knew exactly the response of the Russkis & would have made no difference if their leader had been named Putin or Uncle Tom Cobbly.

    In some ways the Russkis partitioning of the East of Ukraine could well minimise the possibility of a world conflict as the perceived threat is neutralised by the buffer.

    The Russkis cyber doodah is no different to our own the US etc, they're all 'at it' & all attempt to inveigle the others in terms of making life difficult.....not too sure Putin will be quite as comfortable with the Pres Elects 3 Trumpeteers though as the new Pressie looks likely to open channels of communications but those negotiations might well see a far tougher stance......still, in truth, all is never fair in love or war

    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 08:4
    .....that the CIA is not only suddenly involved, but suddenly at the forefront, may well reflect President-elect Trump's stated policy intentions being far removed from those that the CIA has endorsed, and might be done with an eye toward undermining Trump's position in those upcoming policy battles.
    At the center of those Trump vs. CIA battles is Syria, as the CIA has for years pushed to move away from the ISIS war and toward imposing regime change in Syria. Trump, by contrast, has said he intends to end the CIA-Saudi program arming the Syrian rebels, and focus on fighting ISIS. Trump was even said to be seeking to coordinate anti-ISIS operations with Russia.
    The CIA allegations could easily imperil that plan, as so long as the allegations remain part of the public discourse, evidence or not, anything Trump does with respect to Russia is going to have a black cloud hanging over it.
    http://news.antiwar.com/2016/12/09/cia-claims-russia-intervened-to-get-trump-elected /
    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 08:3
    Oh dear Obama trolls? Food for your starved thoughts:

    Your degree of understanding IT is disturbing, especially given how dependent we are on it.

    This is all very simple. The process by which you find out if and how a machine was hacked was clearly documented in the Russian "Internet Audit", run by a group of Grey Hats.

    Grey Hats: People concerned about security who perform unauthorized hacks for relatively benign purposes, often just notifying people of how their system is flawed. IT staff have mixed reactions(!), the illegality is not disputed but the benefit of not being hit by a Black Hat first can be considerable at times. Differentiation is rare, especially as some hacktivist groups belong here, causing no damage beyond reputational by flagging activity that is not acceptable to the hacktivists.

    Black Hats: These are the guys to worry about. These include actually destructive hacktivists. These are the ones who steal data for malicious purposes, disrupt for malicious purposes and just generally act maliciously.

    Nothing in reports indicates if the DNC hack was Grey Hat or Black Hat, but it should be obvious that there is a difference.

    IP addresses and hangouts - worthless as evidence. Anyone can spoof the former, happens all the time (NMap used to provide the option, probably still does), Grey Hats and Black Hats alike have the latter and may break into other people's. It's all about knowing vulnerabilities.

    That voting machines were even on the Internet is disturbing. That they and the DNC server were improperly configured for such an environment is frightening - and possibly illegal.

    The standard sequence of events is thus:

    Network intrusion detector system identifies crafted packet attacking known vulnerability.
    In a good system, the firewall is set to block the attack at that instant.

    If the attacker scans the network, the only machine responding to such knocks should be a virtual machine running a honeypot on attractive-looking port numbers. The other machines in the zone should technically violate the RFCs by not responding to ICMP or generating recognized error codes on unused/blocked ports.

    The system logger picks up an event that creates a process that shouldn't be happening.
    In a good system, this either can't happen because the combination of permissions needed doesn't exist, or it doesn't matter because the process is root jailed and hasn't the privileges to actually do any harm.

    The file alteration logger (possibly Tripwire, though the Linux kernel can do this itself) detects that a process with escalated privileges is trying to create, delete or alter a file that it isn't supposed to be able to change.
    In a good system with mandatory access controls, this really is impossible. In a good system with logging file systems, it doesn't matter as you can instruct the filesystem to revert those specific alterations. Even in adequate but feeble systems, checkpoints will exist. No use in a voting system, but perfectly adequate for a campaign server. In all cases, the system logs will document what got damaged.

    The correct IT manager response is thus:
    Find out why the firewall wasn't defaulting to deny for all unknown sources and for unnecessary ports.
    Find out why the public-facing system wasn't isolated in the firewall's DMZ.
    Find out why NIDS didn't stop the attack.
    Non-public user mobility should be via IPSec using certificates. That deals with connecting from unknown IP addresses without exposing the innards of the system.
    Lock down misconfigured network systems.
    Backup files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt for forensic purposes.
    Revert files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt to last good version.
    Close permission loopholes. Everything should run with the fewest privileges necessary, OS included. On Linux, kernel permissions are controlled via capabilities.
    Establish from the logs if the intruder came through a public-facing application, an essential LAN service or a non-essential service.
    If it's a LAN service, block access to that service outside the LAN on the host firewall.
    Run network and host vulnerability scanners to detect potential attack vectors.
    Update any essential software that is detected as flawed, then rerun the scanners. Repeat until fixed.
    Now the system is locked down against general attacks, you examine the logs to find out exactly what failed and how. If that line of attack got fixed, good. If it didn't, then fix it.
    Password policy should prevent rainbow attacks, not users. Edit as necessary, lock accounts that aren't secure and set the password control system to ban bad passwords.

    It is impossible from system logs to track where an intruder came from, unsecured routers are common and that means a skilled attacker can divert packets to anywhere. You can't trust brags, in security nobody is honest. The sensible thing is to not allow such events in the first place, but when (not if) they happen, learn from them.

    GraemeHarrison , 10 Dec 2016 08:2
    If the USA is to investigate the effect of foreign governments 'corrupting' the free decisions of the American people in elections, perhaps they could look into the fact that for the past three decades every Republican candidate for president, after they have won the nomination of their party, has gone to just one foreign country to pledge their firm commitment/allegiance to that foreign power, for the purpose of shoring up large blocks of donors prior to the actual presidential election. The effect is probably more 'corrupting' than any leak of emails!
    SamSamson , 10 Dec 2016 08:2
    Obama should confess to creating ISIS, sustaining ISIS & utilising ISIS as a proxy army to have them do things that he knew US soldiers could never be caught doing!!!

    They then spoon fed you bullshit propaganda about who the bad guys were, without ever being to properly explain why the US armed forces were prevented from taking any hostile action against ISIS, until they were FORCED TO, that is, when Putin let the the cat out of the bag!!!

    LordTomnoddy , 10 Dec 2016 08:1
    Hilarious. One would've thought Obama of all presidents would be reluctant to delve too deeply into this particular midden. As the author of the weakest and most incompetent American foreign policy agenda since Carter's, it's much the likeliest that if China or Russia have been hacking US elections, then by far the biggest beneficiary will have been himself.
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 08:1
    Just another attempt to distract from realities, like:-

    From:[email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected] Date: 2015-05-28 12:12 Subject: Fwd: POLITICO Playbook

    cdm Begin forwarded message: > From: Lynn Forester de Rothschild <[email protected]> > Date: May 28, 2015 at 9:44:12 AM EDT > To: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>, "Cheryl Mills ([email protected])" <[email protected]> > Subject: FW: POLITICO Playbook > > Morning, > I am sure you are working on this, but clearly, the opposition is trying to undercut Hillary's reputation for honesty (the number one characteristic people look for in a President according to most polls) ..and also to benefit from an attack on wealth that Dems did the most to start I am sure we need to fight back against both of these attacks. > Xoxo > Lynn > > By Mike Allen (@mikeallen; [email protected]), and Daniel Lippman (@dlippman; [email protected]) > > > > QUINNIPIAC POLL, out at 6 a.m., "Rubio, Paul are only Republicans even close to Clinton": "In a general election, ... Clinton gets 46 percent of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio." Clinton leads Christie 46-37 ... Huckabee 47-40 ... Jeb 47-37 ... Walker 46-38 ... Cruz 48-37 ... Trump 50-32. > > --"[V]oters say 53-39 percent that Clinton is NOT honest and trustworthy, but say 60-37 ... that she has strong leadership qualities. Voters are divided 48-47 ... over whether Clinton cares about their needs and problems." > > --RNC's new chart - "'Dead Broke' Clintons vs. Everyday Americans": "Check out the chart below to see how many households in each state it would take to equal the 'Dead Broke' Clintons." http://bit.ly/1Avg8iE

    Blind leading the Blind.. & Obama knows that very well after it was clear that Clinton was NEVER trusted by the Voters, which makes Debbie and the DNC look like a complete bunch of..

    Idiots?!?! STILL BLAMING The RUSSIANS.... instead of themselves!

    She was and always will be unelectable due to exceedingly poor judgement, across the board.

    Can we move on?

    Polly123456 , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Who is in charge of Internet security in the US government? Because it seems full of holes. Last time it was the Chinese and this time it's the Russians, yet not one piece of evidence to say where hacks have come from. How much are these world class Internet security people paid? And why do they still have a job? People sitting in their bedrooms on a pc from stores like staples have hacked their security regularly.
    AlexPeace , 10 Dec 2016 08:0

    In 2016, he said, the government did not detect any increased cyber activity on election day itself but the FBI made public specific acts in the summer and fall, tied to the highest levels of the Russian government. "This is going to put that activity in a greater context ... dating all the way back to 2008."

    Extremely vague. Seems like there is no evidence at all to suggest any Russian involvement, but they need to pretend otherwise. Blah, blah, blah, Weapons of mass destruction... Apollo mission, etc
    FMinus , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Ole, Russians exposed the DNC emails, we knew about that. I though this should investigate Russians vote rigging, but I guess not. I for once welcome anyone who hacks my government and exposes their skeletons, so I can see what kind of dirty garbage I had leading or potentially leading my country.

    Maybe the DNC should play fair and not dirty next time and put a candidate forward without skeletons that still reek of rotting flesh.

    Robert Stokes -> FMinus , 10 Dec 2016 08:3
    You rig electronic voting machines by reflashing the firmware or switching out the sd cards. Can't be done remotely.
    Baldrick Daacat , 10 Dec 2016 07:5
    And the CIA has never intervened in a foreign election?
    VibePit -> Baldrick Daacat , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Oh heaven forbid!! The Shah of Iran was democratically elected but of course. . .
    HeathCardwell , 10 Dec 2016 07:2
    Don't believe any of this at all.
    American has been thee most corrupt and disgusting western nation for decades, run by people who are now being shown for who they really are and they're shitting themselves big time. The stakes don't get higher than this.
    theonetruepainter , 10 Dec 2016 07:1
    What's the point of this?

    The American people don't want Clinton because she is a liar and a dangerous psychopath who also ignored the working people.

    If you want to change that, get her treatment. Don't try to undermine the election result.

    theonetruepainter , 10 Dec 2016 07:0
    How can you not respect Putin?

    He's spent the last few years making fools out of Clinton, Kerry and the obomber.

    If you didn't want him to let Crimea rejoin Russia, then you shouldn't have initiated the coup that broke up Ukraine.

    Peter Turner , 10 Dec 2016 07:0
    What a total load of double talk. There is zero integrity in anything CIA says or does since the weapons of mass destruction deal or before that it was the Iran Contra deal and before that it was the Bay of Pigs. Now we have this rigging os the election results based on zero evidence. The whole thing is just idiocy. What is Obama trying to achieve?The end game will be for Obama to go down in history as ... let's just say he is not the smartest tool in the shed when it comes to being a so called world leader. Well done Obama you have now completely trashed what is left of your legacy.
    LondonLungs , 10 Dec 2016 06:5

    "CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election – report "

    You might as well ask accountants to do a study on wether it's worthwhile to use an accountant. Part of the CIAs job is to influence elections around the world to get US-Corporation friendly gov'ts in to power. So yes of course they are going to say that a gov't can influence elections, if they said otherwise then they'd be admitting they're wasting money.

    Ted Reading Reading 10 Dec 2016 06:3
    So, it was the Russians! I knew it must've been them, they're so sneaky. All HFC had was the total backing of the entire establishment, including prominent Republican figures, the total fawning support of the entire main-stream media machine which carefully controlled the "she's got a comfortable 3 point lead maybe even double-digit lead" narrative and the "boo and hiss" pantomime slagging of her opponent. Plus the endless funds from the crooked foundation and murderous fanatics from the compliant Gulf states, and lost. But hey, do keep this going please, it'll help the Trumpster get a second term! Trump/Nugent 2020.
    righteousfist01 , 10 Dec 2016 06:2
    It's possible the Russians hacked and released the documents. However the report is not saying the Russians created them.

    So whatever was so deplorable about them was all Democrat

    Nataliefreeman -> righteousfist01 , 10 Dec 2016 06:3
    Good point. Add that the whole election was dogged is the most glaring media bias and suddenly Russia comes off as simply leveling the playing field a bit
    12inchPianist , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    CIA finds Russia had covertly influenced election. CIA finds FBI had overtly influenced election. Fancy that!
    ashleigh2 , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    The 'secret' enquiry reported to Congress that the CIA concludes etc, etc, etc. Then yet more revelations from 'anonymous sources' are quoted in the Washington Post and The New York Times reaching the same conclusions.....talk about paranoia, or are the Democrats guilty of news fakery of the highest order to deny the US voters....
    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 05:5
    Ooh Obama...there's a little snag about this investigation.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S. even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    Bosula , 10 Dec 2016 05:5
    How about a Presidential review covering US interference in the elections of countries around the world?
    Paulare -> Bosula , 10 Dec 2016 06:2
    But where to start?

    UK, Australia, Chile, Nicoragua, Cuba, Philippines, Malaysia, Germany...?

    such choice..

    Bosula -> Paulare , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Yes. Maybe do it on a regional basis across the globe.
    Anarchy4theUK , 10 Dec 2016 05:4
    Of course the Americans would never interfere in other people's elections would they?...........I imagine the Russians wanted to avoid a nuclear war with war monger Hilary & who can blame them?
    Nataliefreeman -> Anarchy4theUK , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    Y'know really all they seem to be looking possibly guilty of is the wikileaks scandal. Compare that to the enormous media bias regarding Trump and suddenly the Russians at worst come off as evening the playing field so as to help an election be less biased...
    Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 05:4
    When certain members of the public would believe one man over those who have more intelligence in a follicle than he will ever have floating in his cranium is when you realise that a place like Guantanamo should exist, exclusively for them.
    http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/surprise-cost-of-ammo-for-us-navy-destroyers-new-guns-800000-a-shot-161114?news=859762
    Newmacfan , 10 Dec 2016 05:3
    Paranoia about Russia has arrived at the laughable, almost like the fable of the boy who cried wolf! Even the way the CIA statement is worded makes you smile. "silk purse sows ear"? Everyone is clutching at straws rather than looking down the barrel at the truth......that folks is what is missing from Western Politics......"The Truth" --
    StephenO , 10 Dec 2016 04:3

    Obama expected the review to be completed before he leaves office...

    Really?? Obama wants a "deep review" of internet activities surrounding the elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016; and he wants this done in less than 40 days? And it encompasses voting stations throughout the 50 states? That's the definition of political shenanigans.

    Dom Michaels -> pureist , 10 Dec 2016 04:3
    Seeing as how the CIA interfered with Ukraine before and during the overthrow of Yanukovich, and with Moscow protests a few years ago...... seems like everyone is always trying to interfere with each-other. Hypocrisy abounds
    MarkThomason , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    This is not really a fight against Trump. That is lost. This is an intramural fight among Democrats.

    This is desperate efforts by the corporate Democrats to hang on to power after Hillary (again) lost.

    Excuses. Allegations without sources given, anonymous.

    Remember that the same people used the same media contacts to spread fake news that the Podesta leaks were faked, and tried to shift attention from what was revealed to who revealed it.

    GuyCybershy -> MarkThomason , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Agreed. Another reason why the Democratic party is not worth saving. 13 million voted for Sanders in the primary, that is enough to start a new party.
    Fabr1s , 10 Dec 2016 03:4
    if the Ruskies did it, there's something funny: they did it on Obama's watch and her protege, Hillary, lost it. The system is a real mess in this case.

    Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 03:4
    Read and research further...
    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national
    GeoffP -> Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Interesting link. It raises a particularly salient question: assuming the Russians did indeed do it - and after the whole CIA yellow cake thing in Iraq, no one could possibly doubt national intelligence agencies any more - does it particularly matter?

    Did the Russians write the emails? The betrayal of Sanders, the poor protection on classified materials, the cynical, vicious nonsense spewed out by the HRC campaign, the media collusion with the DNC and HRC: did the Russians do these things too? Or was that Clinton and the DNC? Silly question, I'm sure.

    sejong -> jcadams , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    Russia's competence with computer hacking and cyber espionage is a given

    So what? What about Chinese or Israeli competence in these areas?

    This is Fake News that exists only because Clinton lost.

    The real news is about in competence by HRC, DWS, and the DNC in foisting a sure loser on American voters.

    naomh -> sejong , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    Thank you for speaking the truth!!!!
    GeoffP -> jcadams , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Well, chief, the Wisconsin recount is in and the results are staggering: after the recount, Clinton has gained on Trump by 3 votes... and Trump gained on Clinton by a heady six votes. One begins to wonder at the 'Manchurian candidate' claim.
    third_eye , 10 Dec 2016 03:3
    It is precisely charades like this that millions in the US and around the world have given up on the establishment. Business as usual or rather lying as usual will only alienate more not-so-stupid citizens. It speaks volumes about their desperation that they're are actually employing such obviously infantile tactics on the Russia even as they continue to paper over Hillary's tattered past. The result of the investigation is totally predictable..................Yes, the Russians were involved in hacking the elections, but..........for reasons of national security, details of the investigative process and evidence cannot be revealed.
    Longleveler , 10 Dec 2016 03:2
    If the Russians really wanted Trump to win that means they helped Hillary win the Democratic primaries because Bernie would have beat Trump.. There was a mess of hanky-panky going on to defeat Bernie, and deflecting the blame to a foreign actor should keep the demonstrators off the streets.
    If someone is gullible enough to believe the Russians did it they'd also believe that Elvis made Bigfoot hack the DNC. That's even more plausible since bigfoot is just a guy who spends so much time sitting at his computer he lost all interest in personal hygiene.
    Will D , 10 Dec 2016 03:1
    The Democrats are really desperate to find anything they can use to challenge the results of the election.

    Either way they look foolish - openly investigating the possibility of Russian hacking which acknowledges that their electoral systems aren't well secured, OR look really foolish if they find anything (whether real or faked).

    The big question now is if, and how much, they will fake the findings of the investigation so that they can declare the election results wrong, and put Clinton into the White House.

    Clearly, it is a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures. It is incredible that one man can make the largest Western nation look so ridiculous in the eyes of the world.

    madeiranlotuseater , 10 Dec 2016 02:4
    Pot calling the kettle black. Reveal fully what the CIA get up to all over the planet. The phoney intel America has used to go to war causing countries to implode. The selective way they release information to project the picture they want. I am not convinced that Russia is any better or any worse than the USA.
    onofabeach , 10 Dec 2016 02:3
    I can understand the Russians wanting Obama in 2008 and 2012 because he is a weak leader and totally incompetent.

    I can also understand Putin preferring DJT to HRC.

    It's about time the planet settled down a little bit, Trump and Putin will do more for world peace in the next year than Obama achieved in his 8 wasted years in charge.

    The Democrats have yet to realise the reason for their demise was not the racists, the homophobes, the KKK, the Deplorables, the misogynists, the xenophobes etc etc etc.

    It was Hillary Clinton.

    Get over it, move on, stop whining, get out of your safe room, put the puppy down, throw the play dough away, stop protesting, behave like an adult.

    As much as I am enjoying the monumental meltdown of the left, it is getting sad now and I am starting to feel very sorry for you.

    BoBiel , 10 Dec 2016 02:2
    Georgia Says Someone in U.S. Government Tried to Hack State's Computers Housing Voter Data

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/georgia-reports-attempt-to-hack-states-election-database-via-ip-address-linked-to-homeland-security-1481229960

    http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-12-08/georgia-accuses-us-of-trying-to-hack-its-election-systems

    123Akava , 10 Dec 2016 02:1
    What a sad bunch of clowns. But the time is ripe. You and your sort are done Obama, Hillary Clinton, Juncker, Merkel, Hollande, Mogherini, Kerry, Tusk, Nuland, Albright, Breedlove, SaManThe Power and the rest of the reptiles. With all respect - mwuahahaha! - you will soon sink into the darkness of the darkest places of history, but you won't be forgotten, no you won't!
    poppetmaster , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    The Democrats still don't understand that the problem in American politics is everything that happened BEFORE election day.

    How can you worry about the ballot boxes when the entire process from beginning to end is utterly corrupt.

    CarlHansen , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    As for the Podesta email. John Podesta was so stupid that he gave out his password in a simple email scam that any 8 year old kid could have conducted. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange did it himself. Assange will be celebrating at the demise of Hillary.
    phobeophobe , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    Guys! Your side lost the election. Get over it & stop looking for excuses.

    I don't think it was the Russians, it was just a lot of people got sick of being told what to think & how to behave by your side of politics.

    It is because people who disagree with you are either ignored, shut-down or called names with weaponised words such as "racist, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, islamophobe, you name it. You go out onto the streets chanting mindless slogans aimed at shutting down debate. You have infiltrated academia and no journalism graduate comes out of a western univerity without a 60 degree lean to the left. People of alternative views to what is now the dominant social paradigm are not permitted to speak at universities. Once they were the vanguard of dangerous ideas. Now they are just sheep pens.

    You have infiltrated the mainstream media so of course people need to go to Info Wars, Breitbart & Project Veritas to get the other side to your one-sided argument.

    Your side of politics has regulated the very words we speak so that we can't even express a thought anymore without being chanted down, or shut down, prosecuted or sued.

    There was once a time when it was the left who spoke up for freedom of speech. It was the left who demanded that a man be judged by the content of his character & not the color of his skin & it was once the right who used to be worried about the Russians taking over our institutions.

    Have a look at yourselves. Look at what you've become. You've stopped being the guardians of freedom & now you have become the very anti-freedom totalitarians you thought you were campaigning against.

    Bleating about the "popular vote" doesn't cut it either. That's like saying, the other side scored more goals than us but we had possession of the ball more times. It is sad for you but it is irrelevant.

    Trump won the election! Get over it!

    Let's see what sort of job he does before deciding what to do next.

    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 01:5
    News flash for all the obamabots:

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S. even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 01:3
    Joe Biden unwittingly gave the game up when he spoke to the press with indignation of the Russian hacks. The US would respond in kind with a covert cyber operation run by the CIA First of all it would be the NSA, not the CIA Secondly, it's not covert when you tell the press! Oh Joe, you really let the Obama administration down with that gaffe! Who would believe them now? A lot of people it would seem. Mainly those still reeling from an election they were so vested in
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 01:2
    Unfortunately our media has lost all credibility.
    For years we were told it was necessary to remove the dictator Assad in Syria. The result, a country destroyed, migrant crisis that fuelled Brexit and brought EU to its knees.
    Now they are going to sell the 'foreign entities decided the US election'.
    It's just a sad situation
    GuyCybershy -> fedback , 10 Dec 2016 01:2
    Syria has been destroyed because Western client states in the Middle East wanted this to happen. Assad had a reasonably successful secular government and our medieval gulf state allies felt. threatened by his regime. there was the little business of a pipeline, but of course that would be called a "conspiracy theory".
    SomersetApples , 10 Dec 2016 01:1
    If Obama has resources to spend on investigations, he should be investigating why the US is providing guided missiles to the terrorist in Syria. We had such great hopes for him, and he has proved to be totally useless as a president. Rather than giving us leadership and guidance he is looking under his bed for spooks. Just another example of his incompetence at a time when we needed leadership.

    Looking for proof of espionage will be like trying to prove a negative and only result in a possible or at best a likely type of result for no purpose. It would just be another case of an unsupported accusation being thrown about.

    Facing up to the question of who is supplying weapons to terrorist would require the courage to take on the Military Industrial Complex and he hasn't got it. Trump will be different.

    ID3053875 , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    If the russians did interfere in the USA elections perhaps is a bit of poetic justice.
    The USA has interfere in Latin America for over hundred years and they have given us Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, Noriega, Pinochet, Duvaliers , military juntas in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Streener in Paraguay to name a few. They all were narcissists, racists and insecure. The american people love this type of leader now they got him in the white house may be from Russia with love. Empires get destroyed from within, look at Little Britain now, maybe the same will happen soon in the USA.
    Viva China , is far from Latin America
    nbk46zh , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    So if the US managed to somehow get rid of Russia and China, what would they do then? How would it justify hundreds of billions in defense spending? Just remember, the US military industry desperately needs an external enemy to exist. Without it, there is no industry.
    ID5151903 , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    No I disagree. I don't think it was a conpriscy. It was just decades of misinformation, lies, usually perpertrated by our esteemed foreign minister. The man is a buffoon , liar and incompetent. It is quite amusing to see how inept, Incompotent and totally unsuited this man child is to public office.
    PullingTheStrings , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    Good to see alot of Americans on here back into Mccarthyism/Paranoia/scapegoating/Witch hunting/Propaganda.
    smellycat , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    Clinton's 'Russia did it' cop-out
    https://off-guardian.org/2016/12/09/clintons-russia-did-it-cop-out /
    prairdog , 10 Dec 2016 00:4
    Why should we trust US intelligence which is essentially US propaganda?
    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 00:3
    Another red herring that smacks of desperation. The final death throes of a failed administration. These carefully chosen words reveal a lot. The email leaks were "consistent with the methods and motivations" of Russian hackers. In layman's terms its the equivalent of saying "we haven't got a clue who it was but it's the kind of thing they would probably do". Don't expect a smoking gun because it doesn't exist, otherwise we would have known about it by now.
    PostTrotskyite -> DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 00:3
    It's not just the US who has accused Putin of meddling in their domestic affairs. Germany and the UK have made the same allegations. Are they wrong too?
    DanielDee -> PostTrotskyite , 10 Dec 2016 00:5
    I think anyone with reasonable intelligence would take each accusation on a case by case basis. There is no doubt that Russia conducts cyber operations, as the US and UK and Germany does. There is also little doubt that significant Russophobia exists, particularly since the failed foreign attempt of regime change in Syria that was thwarted by Russia. On that last point many citizens of the West are coming to the realisation that a secular government in Syria is preferable to one run by jihadists installing crude sharia law (Libya was certainly a lesson). Furthermore, if Hillary Clinton had succeeded one dreads to think of the consequences of her no-fly-zone plans. Thankfully she didn't succeed, no doubt in part to wikileaks revelations, who for the record stated that did not result from Russian hacks
    sejong , 10 Dec 2016 00:2
    Fake News is mass gaslighting, removing any sense of what is real. Biggest psy-op ever.
    gondwanaboy , 10 Dec 2016 00:1
    Barack Obama orders 'full review' of possible Russian hacking in US election


    FAKE NEWS ALERT

    JCDavis -> gondwanaboy , 10 Dec 2016 00:2
    They already stated their conclusions, now they have to find evidence.
    Yodasyodel , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Hows the election recount going? You know the one this paper kept going on about a few weeks ago in Wisconsin that was supposed to be motivated by "Russian Hacking" in the election? Not very well but you have gone quiet. Also I see the Washington Post has been forced to backtrack for implying news outlets like Breitbart are Russian controlled on the advice of their own lawyers....after all calling someone a Russian agent without a shred of evidence is seriously libellous and they know it. Russian agents to blame yeah ok Obama no doubt the Easter Bunny will be next in your sights you fraud.
    Wilderloo , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Look no further than Hillarys private server. Classified information sent and received and Obam was part of it. Obama is a liar and a fraud who is now blaming the Russians for crooked Hillarys loss.
    SUNLITE , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Feed the flames of the war mongers that want Russia and Putin to be our bogeyman.Feed the military industrial complex more billions.The U.S. Defense budget is already 10 times that of Russia ,feed NATO already on Russia's boarder with tanks ,troops and heavy weapons.i did expect more from this pres,... The lies ,mis information and propaganda has worked so well since the end of WW2,upon a public who has been fed those lies {and is to busy with sports ,gadgets,games, alcohol and other drugs }for 70 yrs by a compliant,for profit lap dog media more interested in producing infotainment and profits than supplying information..If you don't think the "public" isn't very poorly informed and will believe anything ,..just look at who the next prez will be..
    GuyCybershy -> SUNLITE , 10 Dec 2016 00:0
    I don't think it's true that Trump voters were less informed than Clinton voters. The public knows that they all lie, they simply choose the one who's lies most appeal to them.
    Alexander Bach , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Did he also order to investigate the Clinton's deeds revealed by the 'hackers'?
    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    Unfortunately Obama is not leaving office with dignity.
    This action is another attempt to delegitimize the election of Trump. We already have the recount farce going on.
    If Republicans had tried to delegitimize the election of Obama we know what the reaction from media would have been. An outcry against antidemocratic and racist behaviour
    USApatriot12 , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    The corporate media is so predictable at this point. The news cranks up the anti-Russia hysteria while the guys over in entertainment roll out a slick fantasy about anti-Nazi resistance. It all adds up to a big steaming pile of crap but you hope it will push enough buttons to keep the citizens chained to their their desks for another quarter. Don't bet on it. As a great American said at another time of upheaval, you can't fool everyone forever...
    GuyCybershy -> USApatriot12 , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    We're supposed to condemn "white nationalism" in The US and UK while supporting it in Ukraine.
    GeeDeeSea -> GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 23:4
    That's not all. We in US and UK are supposed to condemn jihadists in Iraq while supporting them Syria.
    James7 -> Eddy Cannella , 9 Dec 2016 23:2
    Hillary? Although I would lean to more "Grey."

    Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
    Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.

    Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.

    Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.

    As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
    chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."

    raymondffoulkes , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    So it's anti-Russia propaganda today again, all over the Guardian as well as everywhere else.

    I daresay they have a few things (perhaps a tad more important than football and athletics) to say about us as well..

    smellycat -> raymondffoulkes , 9 Dec 2016 23:2
    Sour grapes at the liberation of Aleppo and their loss of face.
    I'm surprised they haven't started asking about the missing 250K civilians,who must even now be languishing in Assad's dungeons.
    Keeping that one for tomorrow probably.
    nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    When Cheney used the terror alert levels to keep the US population in the constant state of fear, the Democrats denounced it as fear mongering. Now they're embracing the same tactics in the constant demonization of Russia. Look, it's raining today! Russia must be trying to control the weather in the US! Get them! Utterly ridiculous.
    stegordon21 , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    The US has been the most bloodthirsty, aggressive nation in my lifetime. Where the US goes we obediently follow. Yet as Obama (7 countries he's bombed in his presidency, not bad for a Nobel Prize Winner) continues to circle Russia with NATO on their borders. We're continually spun headline news that Russia is the aggressor and is continually meddling in foreign affairs. We are the aggressors, we are the danger to ourselves and it's we who are run by megalomaniac elites who pump us full of fear and propaganda.
    nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    Malicious cyberactivity... has no place in international community... No? When West does it, then it's for democratic purposes? But invading countries on a humanitarian pretense does? So Democrats are still looking to blame Russia for everything not going their way I see. This rhetoric didn't work for Clinton in the election and it won't now. Stop with this nonsense
    GuyCybershy -> nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    There wasn't a lot of outrage about the use of the "stuxnet" virus against Iran. You see, when we do it is always for a good cause.

    Paulare , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    Take the long view folks.

    The Egyptian Empire lasted millenum,
    The Greek and Roman Empires a thousand years, give or take.
    The Holy Roman Empire centuries.
    The British and French circa 200 years.
    The USSR about 70, the USA 70 and counting

    This is just the cyclical death throes of empires played out at ever increasing speed before our very eyes.

    DexDex , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    5 articles abut Russia, again. This is the Russia interference in the Guardian. Putin must be stopped.
    Earl_Grey -> DexDex , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    NATO has bought a subscription to the Guardian
    TonyBlunt , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    Is all this hoohaa the BBC and the Guardian trying to get some revenge for the Russian liberating East Aleppo?
    TheIPAResistance , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    This is exactly why we should never move to electronic voting. Can you imagine the lengths the IPA would go to ensure their men security the power they need to roll out their neoliberal agenda? As a tax-free right wing think tank composed of rich like Rinehart, Murdoch, Forrest, et al. the sky's the limit.
    Anthony1152 , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    The five stages of dealing with psychological trauma: Anger, Denial, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Hillary and the Democrats are still at stage one and two. Obama is only beginning stage one as events dawn on him.
    TheCharacteristicEquation 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    I really do feel the established media and its elite hierarchy are vexed by both the Trump victory and Brexit here in the UK. Now the media attention turns to a report on another of its perpetual campaigns, namely Russia, and corruption in sport.

    I'm not going to doubt the 'findings', but I know humans are corrupt ALL over the world, but it does strike me that no Western outlet, ever prints anything positive about Russia. I mean - nothing, zero!

    dallasdunlap , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    If, indeed, the Russian government gathered the DNC and Podesta info released by Wikileaks, the Russians did the American people a favor by pulling back the curtain on behind the scenes scheming by Clinton campaign potentates.
    Of course, I don't believe the Democratic claim that Clinton lost the election because of the Russians and the FBI.
    GuyCybershy -> dallasdunlap , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    Podesta's password was "p@ssword". Inexcusable carelessness.
    smellycat , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Nothing wrong with a bit of regime change now and then, so we've been told. No good crying when the Russians do it to you.
    sammy3110 , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    It's instructive to see the Guardian drag up Reagan's "Evil Empire" spiel, but only after Hillary lost.
    GeeDeeSea , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    US backed a coup, or set up a coup, to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine which led to war. Putin's payback seems fully justified.
    theenko -> GeeDeeSea , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    sweet fucking jesus

    Yanukovych is a disgrace to Ukrainian's everywhere and a traitor to his country. Fucking Putin puppet should be in jail.

    GeeDeeSea -> theenko , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    sweet fucking jesus

    Porshenko is a disgrace to Ukrainian's everywhere and a traitor to his country. Fucking Obama puppet should be in jail.

    Earl_Grey , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Oh my, a foreign country may have had a tiny influence on a US Election.

    How about investigating the overthrow of the Democratically elected Govt in Ukraine, or the influence the US has had on the Syrian Govt, or even in Australia, where the Chinese Govt donates massive amounts of money to Political Parties (note, there's no link of course between Chinese Govt donations and Chinese Companies being able to buy most of Australia and employ Chinese Nationals in Australia on Chinese conditions and 500,000 Chinese Nationals being able to buy Real Estate in Sydney alone... none whatsoever).

    bcnteacher , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Good call! Something is fishy about the US electoral system.
    COReilly , 9 Dec 2016 22:2
    I'm not a policy or think tank wonk, but isn't Russia just a euphemism for China. Aren't their geopolitical interests linked. You just say Russia because China has us by the financial balls (I'm sure the Guardian would prefer to NOT be censored on the mainland) right? Package it that way and I'm on board. My love of Dostoevsky goes out the window. Albeit I still think Demons one of the best novels ever written. Woke me up.
    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    Survivor of Bosnian sniper fire Hillary Clinton decries fake news in speech yesterday
    Aaron Aarons , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    I'm all in favor of delegitimizing the incoming semi-fascist Trump/Pence regime, and find Obama's talk of a smooth transition disgusting. However, I reject the appeal to Russophobia or other Xenophobia.

    BTW, Obama and his collaborators like Diane Feinstein have done a lot to prepare the legal basis for fascistic repression under the new POtuS.

    Sund Fornuft , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    I already know what the comission will find. They will find evidences that Iraq holds vast ammonúnt of weapons of mass destruction! Oh wait, that was already used.
    kalander , 9 Dec 2016 22:0
    Obama has been as useless as his predecessor young Bush. His policies generally are in tatters and the US neo cons evil fantasy of full spectrum dominance has met its death in Syria. Bravo.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 22:0
    The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power.

    The fight goes on.

    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    After an election cycle with proven collusion between the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign and our media, our media has the nerve to come up with the term 'fake news'.
    Hypocrisy at its finest
    John Urquhart , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Nobody does paranoia like the yanks. To the rest of the world, the unedifying spectacle of the world's biggest bullies, snoops, warmongers, liars and hypocrites complaining about how unfair life is, is pretty nauseating. Most of America's problems are home-grown.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Why fake the news when you can just strong the media companies into muzzling their criticism?

    http://nypost.com/2016/12/09/mika-brzezinski-says-clinton-camp-tried-to-pull-her-off-the-air /

    mjp3470 , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    And the final report will conclude with something along the lines of:
    'After a thorough, exhaustive investigation of all relevant evidence concerning the potential of foreign interference in the United States electoral process, the results of the investigation have shown that, although there remain troubling questions about the integrity of U.S. cyber-security which should prompt immediate Congressional review, there has been uncovered no conclusive evidence to support the conjecture that cyber attacks originating with any foreign actor, state or individual had any significant effect on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election, and that there is no cause or justification for the American People to question the fairness of or lose faith in the electoral process and laid out by and carried out according to the Constitution.'
    I do Holiday cards too.
    garenmel -> mjp3470 , 9 Dec 2016 22:2
    My hat off to you sir/madam. This was great!
    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Georgia's Secretary of State is accusing someone at the Department of Homeland Security of illegally trying to hack its computer network, including the voter registration database.
    In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, copied to the full Georgia congressional delegation, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp alleges that a computer with a DHS internet address attempted to breach its systems.
    http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/309530-state-of-georgia-allegedly-accusing-homeland-security-of-attempted-hack

    Wake up and smell the BS, the hacking is being done by people a lot nearer home.....

    feliciafarrel , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Oh dear, the GOP seem to have forgotten what they were saying about Putin and the Kremlin a short while back:

    The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.

    https://www.gop.com/platform/american-exceptionalism/

    Are they going to conveniently forget all decency and morality? Is the white supremacist agenda in the GOP finally in the ascendant?

    Russian Troll (Number 254) 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    I as a Russian Troll do not like this investigation and will do or say anything in order to change your mind. Putin is not a problem, the EU is.
    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    ..... prohibiting "fake" or "false" news would be a cure worse than the disease, i.e., censorship by other means. The government cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because it has ulterior motives. News the government dislikes would be conflated with fakery, and news the government approved would be conflated with truthfulness. Private businesses like Facebook cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because its overriding mission is to make money and to win popularity, not to spread truth. It would suppress news that risked injury to its reputation or profits but leave news that did the opposite undisturbed.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/5/reflections-fake-news /
    GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    "The Anonymous Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying".

    http://www.alternet.org/media/anonymous-blacklist-promoted-washington-post-has-shocking-roots-ukrainian-fascism-eugenics-and

    GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    Clinton lost even though she outspent Trump two to one. She was just a lousy candidate who ran a terrible campaign.
    fimbulvinter -> GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Uh excuse me but that sort of introspection doesn't fly. She was flawless and the blame rests solely on Russia/alt-right/Sanders/Third Parties/Racism/Misogyny/Alignment of the stars/etc/etc
    emilyadam , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I thnk the idea that russia has world domination is quite laughable, what else they gonna be blamed for next, reduction of giraffe population!Lol
    I think a teeny wee paranoia is setting in, or outright deliberate propaganda, too obvious
    Jim Moodie , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around.

    The CIA hacks have been destabalisuping Government for a at least seventy years.

    One thing is pretty obvious paper ballots and a different ballot for each is much harder to rig.

    It is ironic it takes a despot life key Trump to bring the issue to a head AFTER unexpectedly won.

    freeandfair -> Jim Moodie , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    "Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around."

    The CIA were caught hacking into the US Congressional computers just 6 or so months ago. Nothing came out of it.

    guest88888 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3

    possible Russian hacking in US election

    Based on the fact that the US 2000 (and possibly 2004) election was outright stolen by George Bush Jr., perhaps the propagandists in the White House and media ought to be looking for a "Russian connection" in regards to our illustrious former president.

    Texas_Sotol , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I'm shocked--shocked--to hear that our close Russian allies have done anything to influence and undermine the stability of other countries. Preposterous accusation! And to try to become huge winners in the Western Hemisphere, by cheating? Vitriolic nonsense!

    Many posters here actually believe that Good Old Russia should just stick with what they do best. That's poison!

    Fencewalker -> Bluebird101 , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Rather like the Litvenenko inquiry...full of maybe's and possibilities, with not a shred of hard, factual proof shown - demonstrating that the order came from the Kremlin.
    It's just a total accident that Putin's most vocal opponents keep getting shot in the head, gunned down on bridges, suffering 'accidents' or strange miscarriages of (sometimes post-mortem) 'justice' and fall victim to radiological state-enacted terrorism in foreign countries. No pattern there, whatsoever.
    Informed17 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I am at a loss. On the one hand, I hear about Russian economy in tatters, gas station posing as a country, deep crisis, economy the size of Italy, rusty old military toys, aircraft carrier smoking out the whole Northern hemisphere, etc. On the other hand, I hear about Russian threat all the time, which must be countered by massive build up of the US and EU military, Russia successfully interfering in the elections in the beacon of democracy, the US, with 20 times greater economy, with powerful allies, the best armed forces in the world, etc. Are we talking about two different Russias, or is this schizophrenia, pure and simple?
    jamese07uk -> Informed17 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    It's always easy to find reasons to fear something, added to that the psychology of the unknown, and we have the makings of very powerful propaganda. Whatever Russia's level of corruption, and general society, I feel I cannot trust the Western media anymore 100%. There seems to be a equally sinister hidden agenda deep within Western Elites - accessing Russia's land, political and potential wealthly resources must surely be one of them!? The longterm Western agenda/mission?
    spiridonovich , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    The Democratic Party's problem is Russia, which the President is rightly putting front and center. All Russians are the summit of eviality, and must be endlessly scapegoated in order for Democrats to regain power for the nation's greater good.

    Democrats' problems have nothing to do with corruption, glaring conflicts of interest, favoritism, ass-licking editors, crappy data, lacking enthusiasm, and horribly poor judgement.

    None of these issues need to be publicly addressed, being of no consequence to independent voters, and the President, Guardian, et al. must continue their silent -- and "independent" -- vigil on such silly topics, if Democrats are to have any hope of cultivating enough mindless, enraged, and abandoned sheep to bring them future victories.

    ImmortalTao , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    I admire Trump, Putin & Farage. Don't agree with them but I have admiration for them. They show all the cunning, calculating, resourcefulness that put the European race on top. Liberals don't like that and want to see the own people fall to the bottom. Thankfuly the neoliberal elite are finishedm
    MJMaguire , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    Absurd nonsense - the third anti-Russian story of the day. Very little of this has much traction because of the sheer volume of misinformation coming out about Russia. there are very good cogent reasons why the Democrats lost the US election - none of them have anything to do with Russia.
    slats7 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    another pathetic attempt to delegitimize Trump. wanna know why he won? look in the mirror, Barry.
    oldsunshine -> slats7 , 9 Dec 2016 21:2
    Will Obama see Clinton if he looks in the mirror??
    Bluejil , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    I can't see a thing wrong with reviewing the last three election cycles, if there is any doubt at all and to put speculation to bed, it should be done.
    CurtBrown -> Bluejil , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    Why stop at the last three?
    Karl Marks -> CurtBrown , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Because the US is more concerned about money than democratic integrity.
    dicksonator , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    So the US intelligence servies aren't doing similar operations?

    If they werent, heads would roll as they have a considerable budget. Did we learn nothing from Edward Snowden? Are Russia just better at this? I doubt it.

    I think both sides conduct themselves in a despicable manner so please dont call me a Putin apologist. Well, feel free actually, I could'nt care less.

    gray2016 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0

    Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election


    US interference:

    COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Comments
    VIETNAM l960-75 Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
    CUBA l961 CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
    GERMANY l961 Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
    LAOS 1962 Military buildup during guerrilla war.
    142 more rows

    Shall I go on with anoter 142? US lying scumbags

    yeCarumba -> gray2016 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    the vietnam fiasco alone is enough to disqualify america from any criticism about interference in internal affairs
    they practically destroyed the country
    KitKnightly , 9 Dec 2016 20:5
    The pathetic way the media are pushing this big-bad-Russians meme is a little depressing.

    This "hack" is totally fictional, the wikileaks e-mails were almost certainly that...leaks. As most o their output has been over the years. For 95% of the Wikileaks existence there have been absolutely zero connections with "the Kremlin", in fact they have leaked stuff damaging to Russia before now.

    The Russian's did not hack the DNC, or rig the election, this is yet another example of the political establishment hysterically pointing fingers and making up lies when their chosen side loses an election.

    freeandfair -> KitKnightly , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I remember how North Korea was blamed for Sony hack. I think they were even cut from the internet for a day and there was all this talk of punishing them. And then later it came out that very likely wasn't North Korea. Only the news cycle already moved on and nobody cared.
    mismeasure , 9 Dec 2016 20:5
    Traditionally, the best Cold Warriors have been right-wing liberals. In the absence of policies that concretely benefit the people they engage in threat inflation and demagoguery.
    SergeyL , 9 Dec 2016 20:4
    In 90s US set all figures in Russia - from president to news program anchor. Elections of 96 were ripped by American "advisors" so that Eltsyn with 3% rating "won" them. It's payback time.
    Shaemus Gruagain , 9 Dec 2016 20:4
    Oh how wonderful it is to watch them smart and the bonus? no more Obamas.
    uest88888 -> PeteCW , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    And yet the so-called "Russian trolls" (which is apparently anyone who exercise a modicum of skepticism) seem to be winning here at CiF based on the number of likes per comment, which is likely why the NSA sponsored propagandists and clueless dopes are getting so increasingly shrill.
    Mattster101 , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    If you take a wider view, this is all really about keeping the Dems in the game, trying to undo the Trump validity and give them another go in 4 or so years. Really, seems quite desperate that a man that allowed 270000 wild horses to be sold for horsemeat this year across the border to Mexico, brought HC in to his own cabinet having said 'she will say anything and do nothing', knowing what a nightmare that would make, and is going to watch his healthcare get ripped to shreds, needs more accomplishments in his last year, aka Obama, ergo, let's investigate the evil russians and their female athletes with male DNA ( you would think I am making this stuff up, but I am not ) ... Come on Grandma, where are you when we need you most
    nolongersilent , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    we must somehow, subvert the despicable populace that elected trump. we must erase from history the conceding of president elect clinton - newpeak from the ministry of truth. we'll get her into the white house if it takes more cash, lies, and corruption. after all, who needs democracy in the democratic party when we have big brother. democracy just confuses the members. we'll send the despicables through the ministry of love to re-educate them, of course, this IS 1984 after all....we will vote for you, the intelligentsia of the left knows what is best for you.
    eldudeabides , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    Should Hillary have been disqualified (and prosecuted) for having access to debate questions beforehand?
    Nete75 , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    "Malicious cyber activity, specifically malicious cyber activity tied to our elections , has no place in the international community. Unfortunately this activity is not new to Moscow. We've seen them do this for years ... The president has made it clear to President Putin that this is unacceptable."

    Note how carefully it specifies that it is cyber activity tied to the american elections that is inappropriate. I presume that is simply to avoid openly saying that mass-surveillance by the US government of everyone's private email, and social network accounts doesn't come under that "no place in the international community" phrase. You know, one does wonder how these people's faces don't come off in shame when whinning about potential interference by foreign governemnts after a full 8 years or so of constant revelations of permanent spying and mass-surveillance by the US government of international leaders and ordinary citizens worldwide.

    Boghaunter , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    So the DNC was hacked - so what. Hacking is so common these days as to be expected. A quick perusal of the internet provides some SIGNIFICANT hacks that deserved some consternation:

    9/4/07 The Chinese government hacked a noncritical Defense Department computer system in June, a Pentagon source told FOX News on Tuesday.

    Spring 2011 Foreign hackers broke into the Pentagon computer system this spring and stole 24,000 files - one of the biggest cyber-attacks ever on the U.S. military,

    On the 12th of July 2011, Booz Allen Hamilton the largest U.S. military defence contractor admitted that they had just suffered a very serious security breach, at the hands of hacktivist group AntiSec.

    5/28/13 The confidential version of a Defense Science Board report compiled earlier this year reportedly says Chinese hackers accessed designs for more than two dozen of the U.S. military's most important and expensive weapon systems.

    June 2014 The UK's National Crime Agency has arrested an unnamed young man over allegations that he breached the Department of Defense's network last June.


    1/12/15 The Twitter account for U.S. Central Command was suspended Monday after it was hacked by ISIS sympathizers (OK twitter accounts shouldn't be a big deal. Why does US CentCom even HAVE a twitter account???)

    5/6/15 OPM hack: China blamed for massive breach of US government data

    Omoikani , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    And so the neocon propaganda machine trundles on, churning out this interesting material day after day. The elephant in the room is that if you get hacked you have no knowledge of this until your private stuff is all over the internet, and the chances of finding out who did it are zilch. Everyone in IT security knows this.
    johhnybgood , 9 Dec 2016 20:1
    Another "fake news" story. Does anybody with a pulse really believe that Russia hacked the DNC? The US Security Services admitted that it was NOT Russia; the likelihood is that the leaks were provided to Wikileaks by insiders within the US Administration - they wanted to ensure that Hillary did not win. None of the actual revelations were covered by the MSM, and "the Russians did it" was a convenient distraction.
    Omoikani -> johhnybgood , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    All people that on earth do dwell have no clue who hacked the DNC to the amusing end that Podesta's e-mails ended up on the internet, but it suits a dangerous political narrative to demonise Russia until it becomes plain logical to attack them.
    peterward881 , 9 Dec 2016 20:0
    YES YES let attack Russia, YES YES YES, Russia Russia we should carry on attacking Russia. We the journalists are well paid by the man from Australia. YES YES we must to carry on attacking Russia and forget the shit happening in other countries. YES YES it is our duty.
    guest88888 , 9 Dec 2016 20:0

    Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference

    And I guess Obama has also ordered the Guardian to do a full court press of anti-Russian propaganda, just judging by the articles pumped out on today's rag alone.

    The US government is seemingly attempting the "Big Lie" tactic of Joseph Goebbels and instigating support in the public for war against Russia. By repeating the completely unsubstantiated allegations that Russia has somehow "interfered with the election" they hope, without any genuine basis, to strong arm the public into accepting a further ramping of tensions and starting yet another illegal war for profit.

    Chirographer , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    There's nothing wrong with conducting the investigation, but shouldn't it have been done before accusing Russia?

    And aren't all the people cited in the article political appointees, Democrats or avowed Trump enemies, and then there's closing, " A spokesman for the director of national intelligence declined to comment."

    Karega , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Surely of all the Orders Obama might issue during his last weeks in office, why does he choose to give a stupid Order that effectively makes US some sort of Banana Republic? This man was/is more hype than real! At a stroke of a pen he seriously undermines the integrity of the US Electoral System. Whatever credibility was left has now been eroded by these constant and silly claims that somehow Russians installed Trump as President. Doesn't that make Trump some sort of Russian Agent?
    Meanwhile MSM keeps on streaming some fake news and theories and then Obama Orders US intelligence to dig deeper. This is lunacy!
    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Obama certainly understands that Russia is not the reason why Trump was elected. However, he wants to create new obstacles on the way of normalization of relations between the US and Russia and make it more difficult for Trump.

    However, Trump is not a weak man, not a skinny worm; and he can hit these opponents back so hard that international court for them (for invasions into sovereign countries) will lead to their life sentences.

    Ginen , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Only two weeks ago the Obama Administration publicly stated there was no evidence of cybersecurity breaches affecting the electoral process, as reported in the NYT :

    The administration, in its statement, confirmed reports from the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence officials that they did not see "any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day."

    The administration said it remained "confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was borne out." It added: "As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."

    Was Obama lying then or is he lying now?
    imperfetto , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Is there any limit to the ridicolous, Mr. Obama? what is this? a tragicomic play of the inept?
    Here we are with the most childish fabrication that it must be the Russians' fault if Trump won the election. I'll be laughing for an entire cosmic era! And all this after US publically announced that they were going to launch a devastating acher attack against the badies: the Russians, which of course didn't work out. Come on, this is more comedy that a serious play.

    What probably is going on, the readers can gather by having a look at the numberless articles that are being published by maistream media against the Russians.
    Why this histeric insurgence of Russofobia? Couldn't it be that it is intolerable for the US and their allies to see the Russians winning in Aleppo, and most of all restoring peace and tollerance among the population returning to their abbandoned homes.

    brothersgrimm , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    I think Hillary, in part, lost the election due to all the fake news being pumped out by the mainstream corporate media, doing her bidding. People are tired of it, along with all the corruption and lies that came to the surface through the likes of Wikileaks.
    Trump is a terrible alternative, but the only alternative people were given, so many went with it.
    Now we see fake news making out the Russians to be the bad guys again, pumping out story after story, trying to propagandize the population into sucking up these new memes. Russia has its problems, and will always act in its own self-interest, but it's nothing compared to the tactics the US uses, bullying countries around the world to pander to its own will, desperately trying to maintain its Empire.
    RoachAmerican , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    Examine something real, Nuclear Hillary. It must be time for Spring Planting??
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html?_r=0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syEjkPyqRew
    Minutes 20 to 25
    Uranium One Wyoming
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    http://www.npr.org/2015/04/23/401781313/clinton-foundation-linked-to-russian-effort-to-buy-uranium-company
    https://youtu.be/jkfE10g8xbc
    at 25 minutes et seq
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkfE10g8xbc&feature=youtu.be


    Below, first paragraphs are the most important
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company

    The 1 2 3 Step of Acquisition of Uranium One
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-clintons-putin-and-uranium-2015-4

    Going Private Part Public Company Disappears
    http://www.wise-uranium.org/ucscr.html

    http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/economics/22-01-2013/123551-russia_nuclear_energy-0 /
    Coward Comey needs to go.

    Joelbanks , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    The scripture tells us those who live by the sword will perish by it.

    America was in the interference of other countries' elections before its ugly 2016 presidential election. Remember Ukraine and Secretary Hillary Clinton's employee Victoria F****the EU Nuland in Ukraine. Now we have the makings of some kind of conflict with Russia over its alleged meddling in America's elections. More global tension= More cash flowing into the US equity market, money printing by another means.

    hardlyeverclever , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    I'd be surprised if the Russians weren't trying to affect the outcome of the election. The Brits had a debate in Parliament on Trump, Obama made threats to the UK on the Brexit vote, so who knows what we're all doing in each others elections behind closed doors while we are clear to do so publically.

    The MSM's absolute refusal to address the leaks in a meaningful way (other than the stuff about recipes) suggests to be no one felt it a big deal at the time.

    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    Obama could realise that Hillary's viewes on Putin and Russia did not help her at all. People are not that stupid, they see well, use own brains and not so easily impressed by whatever CNN says to them.
    Alun Jones , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    John McAfee said that any organization sophisticated enough to do these hacks is also sophisticated enough to make it look as though any country they want did it. So it could have been anyone.
    palindrome , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    Obama earlier this year: Russia is not a world power, only a regional power.

    Obama now: Russia has the power to manipulate the USA election.

    Which one is it then?

    Of course it's all bull...Obama is another establishment puppet who cannot accept that people have figured out their modus operandi.

    diddoit , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    It's reported today on Ars Technica : ThyssenKrupp suffered a "professional attack"

    The steelmaker, which makes military subs, says it was targeted from south-east Asia.

    ..the design of its plants were penetrated by a "massive," coordinated attack which made off with an unknown amount of "technological know-how and research."

    The internet and precious information...

    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    Neoliberals are just desperately losing ideological competition at home and abroad. They cannot convince people that they are right because it's not what's going on.

    It does not matter what some others say, it's what really goes on matters.

    alexfoxy28 -> imipak , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    But there is innate, basic self-interest in all people (that does not depend on education, ethnicity, race) and people know it instinctively well. They will not go against it even if all around will tell otherwise.
    alexfoxy28 -> alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 21:1 0 1
    simulacra27 , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    The fake news channel brought to you by Obama and co.
    p.s. I mean that people cannot be manipulated by others at this basic level when some higher level manipulative tools are used.
    Kasem3000 , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    I love how this has now become solid fact. No confirmation, nothing official but it is no common fact that the Russians interfered. How many reports do we hear about US interference with foreign countries infastructure through covert means.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia

    Meh. Seems like tampering happens all the time. How many elections in South America did the USA fix? How many in the middle east and Africa? I think this "russian's did it" rhetoric is counterproductive as it is stopping Democrats from doing the introspective needed to really understand why HRC lost the election.

    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    How can you on the one hand crusade against "fake news" and on the other promote this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/dec/08/artist-alison-jackson-self-publishes-spoof-trump-photos-despite-fear-of-being-sued#comments

    Sutir Comed , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and there was credible evidence that the Russians had rigged the election in favor of the Democrat. The right-wing echo chamber would be having seizures! These people are UTTER HYPOCRITES. And they would obviously rather win with the help of a hostile foreign power than try to preserve the integrity of our elections.
    MayorHoberMallow , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Russia may or may not have hacked the DNC. I'd like to find out. I hope the DNC aren't enough of doofusses to assume this wouldn't be in the realm of possibility.
    I presume that the U.S. has its own group of hackers doing the same Worldwide. This is not a criticism; I would expect the U.S. intelligence community to learn what our rivals, and even some of our friends, are up to.
    Timothy Everton , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    This is getting to be pretty lame. I have doubts that "Russia" could interfere to any great extent with our elections any more than we could with theirs. Sure, individuals or organizations, and more than likely in THIS country, could do so. And they have, as we saw with the DNC and Sanders campaign (and vice versa). Let's not go into an almost inevitable nuclear war over what is quite possibly "fake news".
    dreylon , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Russia did this, Russia did that
    its getting very boring now, you have lost all credibility
    you have cried wolf to many times
    stop trying to manipulate us
    Johnny Kent , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    When will the Democrats get it? It wasn't the Russians, who are blamed for everything, including the weather, by desperate Western failed leaders, but an unsuitable candidate in Clinton, which lost them the Election. Bernie Sanders would have walked it.
    Catonaboat , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Well Guardian I do believe you hit a nerve, I don't think I've ever seen a more one sided BTL. Me thinks some people do protest too much.
    Iaorana , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Regarding the notorious "fuck the EU " on the part of the US "diplomat" Victoria Nuland "the State Department and the White House suggested that an assistant to the deputy prime minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin was the source of the leak, which he denied " Wiki

    Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis.

    Lafcadio1944 , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Boy, oh boy, fake news is everywhere just read this headline!

    Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference

    Which states as fact there was interference by Russia and that the investigation is to determine how bad it was. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER has been offered by anyone that Russia interfered in any way. FAKE NEWS!!

    Mike5000 , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Voting machine hacking is a very serious problem but you generally need physical access to a voting machine to hack it. Anyone notice thousands of Russians hanging around in Detriot, Los Angeles, etc election HQs? How about Clinton drones?

    If the DNC hadn't rigged the primary we'd be celebrating president-elect Bernie. If they hadn't rigged the general Hillary would have lost by a landslide.

    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    We never investigated this tho did we Former President Obama?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia

    Time to put on your big girl pants, accept defeat and leave gracefully.

    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    1000 Russian athletes were doping in the 2012 Olympics - but it's taken until now to realise it?!
    Russia influenced the 2016 US election?!
    Russia is presently "influencing" the German elections?!
    Russia is killing civilians and destroying hospitals with impunity in Syria?!
    etc
    Wow! Russia is taking over the world, it must be stopped, can anyone save us? Obama? Trump? NATO?
    Look out! Russian armies are massing on the border ready to sweep into Europe.......arrhhh!

    I love the smell of gibberish in the morning!

    geofffrey , 9 Dec 2016 18:4
    ***Newsflash***

    Reads:

    "..ex-prime minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair of the United Kingdom, and Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States of America, have formally announced a new transatlantic political party to be named: The Neoliberal Elite Party for bitter anti-Brexiters and sore anti-Trumpettes.

    dahsab , 9 Dec 2016 18:4
    Rather rich coming from my country which has interfered in elections around the world for decades. I suppose it's only cheating if the other team does it.

    Not that they'll find any evidence. Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it!

    [Dec 10, 2016] McCarthys Smiling Ghost Democrats Point the Finger at Russia by Norman Solomon

    Notable quotes:
    "... Joe McCarthy rose to corrosive prominence at the midpoint of the 20th century by riding hysteria and spurring it on. The demagoguery was fueled not only by opportunistic politicians but also by media outlets all too eager to damage the First Amendment and other civil liberties in the name of Americanism and anti-communism. ..."
    "... Most Democratic leaders, for their part, seem determined to implicitly - or even explicitly - scapegoat the Russian government for the presidential election results. Rather than clearly assess the impacts of Hillary Clinton 's coziness with Wall Street, or even the role of the FBI director just before the election, the Democratic line seems bent on playing an anti-Russia card. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    This country went through protracted witch hunts during the McCarthy era. A lot of citizens - including many government workers - had their lives damaged or even destroyed. The chill on the First Amendment became frosty, then icy. Democracy was on the ropes.

    Joe McCarthy rose to corrosive prominence at the midpoint of the 20th century by riding hysteria and spurring it on. The demagoguery was fueled not only by opportunistic politicians but also by media outlets all too eager to damage the First Amendment and other civil liberties in the name of Americanism and anti-communism.

    Today, congressional leaders of both parties seem glad to pretend that Section 501 of the Intelligence Authorization Act is just fine, rather than an odious and dangerous threat to precious constitutional freedoms. On automatic pilot, many senators will vote aye without a second thought.

    Yet by rights, with growing grassroots opposition , this terrible provision should be blocked by legislators in both parties, whether calling themselves progressives, liberals, libertarians, Tea Partyers or whatever, who don't want to chip away at cornerstones of the Bill of Rights.

    Most Democratic leaders, for their part, seem determined to implicitly - or even explicitly - scapegoat the Russian government for the presidential election results. Rather than clearly assess the impacts of Hillary Clinton 's coziness with Wall Street, or even the role of the FBI director just before the election, the Democratic line seems bent on playing an anti-Russia card.

    Perhaps in the mistaken belief that they can gain some kind of competitive advantage over the GOP by charging Russian intervention for Donald Trump 's victory, the Democrats are playing with fire. The likely burn victims are the First Amendment and other precious freedoms.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Whos Behind PropOrNots Blacklist of News Websites

    From Wikipedia article Communist propaganda. "....the term "propaganda" broadly refers to any publication or campaign aimed at promoting a cause and is/was used for official purposes by most communist-oriented governments. Rooted in Marxist thought, the propaganda of communism is viewed by its proponents as the vehicle for spreading the enlightenment of working class people and pulling them away from the propaganda of their oppressors that reinforces their exploitation, such as religion or consumerism. A Bolshevik theoretician, Nikolai Bukharin, in his The ABC of Communism wrote:[1] The State propaganda of communism becomes in the long run a means for the eradication of the last traces of bourgeois propaganda dating from the old régime; and it is a powerful instrument for the creation of a new ideology, of new modes of thought, of a new outlook on the world.
    Similarly neoliberal propaganda is the vehicle of spreading neoliberal ideas and "neoliberal rationality" inside the country and all over the world the reinforces key postulated of neoliberalism -- unlimited "free market" for transnational corporations, deregulation, suppression of wages via "free movement of labor" and outsourcing and offshoring, decimation of labor unions and organized labor in general (atomization of working force"), "greed is good" memo, etc.
    Like Communist propaganda during Brezhnev rule, neoliberal propaganda after 2008 is in crisis, and it is natural to expect that neoliberal propagandists will resort to heavy handed tactic of McCarthyism in a vain attempt to restore its influence.
    wallstreetonparade.com
    Wall Street On Parade closely examined the report issued by PropOrNot, its related Twitter page, and its registration as a business in New Mexico, looking for "tells" as to the individual(s) behind it. We learned quite a number of interesting facts.

    As part of its McCarthyite tactics, PropOrNot has developed a plugin to help readers censor material from the websites it has blacklisted. It calls that its YYYCampaignYYY. In that effort, it lists an official address of 530-B Harkle Road, Suite 100, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. That's one of those agent addresses that serve as a virtual address for the creation of limited liability corporations that want to keep their actual principals secret. The address has dozens of businesses associated with it. There should also be a corresponding business listed in the online archives of the business registry at the Secretary of State of New Mexico. However, no business with the words Propaganda or PropOrNot or YYY exist in the New Mexico business registry, suggesting PropOrNot is using a double cloaking device to shield its identity by registering under a completely different name.

    PropOrNot's Twitter page provides a "tell" that its report may simply be a hodgepodge compilation of other people's research that was used to arrive at its dangerous assertion that critical thinkers across America are a clandestine network of Russian propaganda experts. Its Tweet on November 7 indicates that the research of Peter Pomerantsev, a Senior Fellow at the Legatum Institute in London, who has also been cooperating on research with the Information Warfare Project of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) in Washington, D.C, inspired its efforts.

    According to SourceWatch, the Legatum Institute "is a right-wing think tank promoting 'free markets, free minds, and free peoples.' " SourceWatch adds that the Legatum Institute "is a project founded and funded by the Legatum Group, a private investment group based in Dubai." According to the Internet Archive known as the Wayback Machine, the Center for European Policy Analysis previously indicated it was an affiliate of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). We can see why they might want to remove that affiliation now that the Koch brothers have been exposed as funders of a very real network of interrelated websites and nonprofits. According to Desmog, NCPA has received millions of dollars in funding from right wing billionaires like the Koch brothers and their related trusts along with the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation (heir to the Mellon fortune) along with corporations like ExxonMobil.

    CEPA's InfoWar Project is currently listed as a "Related Project" at PropOrNot's website. Indeed, there are numerous references within the report issued by PropOrNot that sound a familiar refrain to Pomerantsev and/or CEPA. Both think the U.S. Congress is in denial on the rising dangers of Russian propaganda and want it to take more direct counter measures. Pages 31 and 32 of the PropOrNot report urge the American people to demand answers from the U.S. government about how much it knows about Russian propaganda. The report provides a detailed list of specific questions that should be asked.

    In the August 2016 report released by CEPA (the same month the PropOrNot Twitter account was established) Pomerantsev and his co-author, Edward Lucas, recommend the establishment of "An international commission under the auspices of the Council of Europe on the lines of the Venice Commission" to "act as a broadcasting badge of quality. If an official body cannot be created, then an NGO could play a similar advisory role."

    On its website, PropOrNot recommends a much stronger censorship of independent media websites, writing:

    "We call on the American public to Obtain news from actual reporters, who report to an editor and are professionally accountable for mistakes. We suggest NPR, the BBC, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Buzzfeed News, VICE, etc, and especially your local papers and local TV news channels. Support them by subscribing, if you can!"

    It has been the experience of Wall Street On Parade that the editors of the New York Times are more than willing to ignore brazen misreporting of critical facts, even when the errors are repeatedly brought to their attention; even when those erroneous facts are then repeated by the President of the United States. (See our report: President Obama Repeats the Falsehoods of the New York Times and Andrew Ross Sorkin on Restoring the Glass-Steagall Act.)

    CounterPunch was quick to point out that the Washington Post's former publisher, Philip Graham, supervised a disinformation network for the CIA during the Cold War, known as Mockingbird. Graham was reported to have died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound at his farm in 1963.

    CEPA's website indicates that on May 10 it hosted Senators Chris Murphy and Rob Portman to discuss "Russia's sophisticated disinformation campaign." CEPA's President, A. Wess Mitchell is quoted as saying: "What's missing is a significant effort on the part of the U.S. government. Not nearly enough has been done."

    Six days after Washington Post reporter Craig Timberg ran his first PropOrNot story, he published another article indicating that "Congressional negotiators on Wednesday approved an initiative to track and combat foreign propaganda amid growing concerns that Russian efforts to spread 'fake news' and disinformation threaten U.S. national security." Quoted in the story was none other than the very Senator who had met with CEPA in May on that very topic, Senator Rob Portman.

    Portman is quoted as follows: "This propaganda and disinformation threat is real, it's growing, and right now the U.S. government is asleep at the wheel." Among Portman's top three donors to his 2016 Senate race were Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, two Wall Street behemoths that would very much like to pivot the national debate to anything other than Wall Street power and corruption.

    [Dec 10, 2016] NBCs Fake News King Brian Williams Launches Crusade Against Fake News

    Notable quotes:
    "... Fake News, the new barrel bombs meme ..."
    "... Sorry, Brian, but you and your ilk sold your credibility for a full investment position in Hillary and Globalism. Your only recourse now is to attack and try to delegitamize those who call you out. ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Now this is rich. Brian Williams, the disgraced ex-NBC journalist who was literally fired for falsely reporting that he was in a helicopter during the Iraq war that took on combatant fire, is now going on a crusade against "fake news." On his MSNBC show last night, Williams decided to attack retired General Flynn and Donald Trump for spreading "fake news" via their twitter accounts.

    ... ... ...

    nuubee •Dec 9, 2016 11:42 AM

    I'm going to start reading The Onion and taking it seriously now.

    nope-1004 -> Pladizow •Dec 9, 2016 11:48 AM

    At least he wasn't in real harms way, like Hillary, when she landed under sniper fire.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMpqImAjel4

    NoDebt -> Life of Illusion •Dec 9, 2016 12:02 PM

    It's like [neo]Liberals are genetically compelled or something to accuse others of what they themselves are actually doing. I've never seen anything this universally true for an entire group of people suffering the same mental illness ([neo]liberalism).

    nmewn -> MillionDollarBonus_ Dec 9, 2016 1:24 PM ,
    Accredit this you fucking bozo...

    The Iraq RPG Helicopter Hit

    - "A terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG." - NBC Nightly News, January 30, 2015

    - "It was no more than 120 seconds later that the helicopter in front of us was hit." - Brian Williams to Tim Russert on CNBC, March 2005

    - "I was instead following the aircraft" [that was struck by the RPG]. - NBC Nightly News, Wednesday February 5, 2015

    - Williams' original [March 26, 2003, NBC News] report indicated that a helicopter in front of his was hit. - PolitiFact

    - NBC publishes a book [in 2003], "Operation Iraqi Freedom," in which they describe Williams' experience, implying that his helicopter sustained fire. - PolitiFact

    - May 2008: Williams writes another [NBC News] blog, responding to a note from a soldier who he met in Iraq. In this post, Williams indicates that he was in a helicopter that took fire. - PolitiFact

    - "I've done some ridiculously stupid things under that banner, like being in a helicopter I had no business being in Iraq with rounds coming into the airframe," he said [to Alec Baldwin in March 2014] - PolitiFact

    - "We were in some helicopters. What we didn't know was, we were north of the invasion. We were the northernmost Americans in Iraq. We were going to drop some bridge portions across the Euphrates so the Third Infantry could cross on them. Two of the four helicopters were hit, by ground fire, including the one I was in, RPG and AK-47. - Williams to Letterman on March 26, 2013 - PolitiFact.

    - In the initial NBC broadcast where he described his 2003 Iraq reporting mission, embattled NBC anchor Brian Williams falsely claimed that "we saw the guy . . . [who] put a round through the back of a chopper," which he further and incorrectly claimed was "the Chinook [helicopter] in front of us." - Breitbart

    - "We flew over a bridge. He waved to the lead pilot very kindly. With that someone else removed the tarp, stood up, and put a round through the back of a chopper missing the rear rotor by four or five feet." - To Tom Brokaw on March 26, 2003 - Breitbart

    - "[Y]ou go back to Iraq, and I looked down the tube of an RPG that had been fired at us and it hit the chopper in front of ours." - Williams to Fairfield University in 2007 - Ace of Spades

    SEAL Team 6 Tale

    - "We have some idea which of our special operations teams carried this out," Williams said on "The Late Show With David Letterman" the day after the raid [May 2, 2011]. "It happens to be a team I flew into Baghdad with, on the condition that I would never speak of what I saw on the aircraft, what aircraft we were on, what we were carrying, or who we were after." - Huffington Post

    - "Now, people might be hearing about SEAL Team 6," Williams said the next night, May 3, 2011, on "Nightly News." "I happen to have the great honor of flying into Baghdad with them at the start of the war." - Huffington Post

    - "I flew into Baghdad, invasion plus three days, on a blackout mission at night with elements of SEAL Team 6, and I was told not to make any eye contact with them or initiate any conversation," Williams said. (Three days after the U.S. invasion would have been March 22, 2003, not April 9, 2003, which was the day Williams broadcasted from the Baghdad airport.) - To David Letterman in May of 2012 - Huffinton Post

    - In the 2012 "Late Show" appearance, Williams also recalled carrying a box of Wheat Thins, which he said a hungry special operator dug into with a "hand the size of a canned ham." They got to talking, and Williams told the commando how much he admired his knife. "Darned if that knife didn't show up at my office a couple weeks later," Williams told Letterman. - Huffington Post

    - "About six weeks after the Bin Laden raid, I got a white envelope and in it was a thank-you note, unsigned," Williams said on "Letterman" in January 2013. "And in it was a piece of the fuselage of the blown-up Black Hawk in that courtyard. Sent to me by one of my friends." - Huffington Post

    - In February 2014, Williams elaborated on the helicopter gift in another media appearance, this time on the sports talk show hosted by Dan Patrick. "It's one of the toughest things to get," he said, "and the president has a piece of it as well It's made of a material most people haven't seen or held in their hands." - Huffington Post

    Fall of the Berlin Wall

    - "I've been so fortunate," he said during a 2008 forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. "I was at the Brandenburg Gate the night the wall came down." - CNN

    - "Here's a fact: 25 years ago tonight, Tom Brokaw and I were at the Berlin Wall," Williams said at a gala held on November 8, 2014. - CNN

    The Pope

    - "I was there during the visit of the pope," Williams said [in 2002]. - CNN

    - While delivering the commencement address at Catholic University that year [2004], Williams said the "highlight" of his time at the school "was in this very doorway, shaking hands with the Holy Father during his visit to this campus." - CNN

    Katyusha Rocket Fire

    - "There were Katyusha rockets passing just beneath the helicopter I was riding in," he told a student interviewer from Fairfield (Conn.) University that year [2007]. - Washington Post

    Katrina

    - "All of us watched [in the Superdome] as one man committed suicide." - Williams to Tom Brokaw, at Columbia University in 2013 .

    –. My week, two weeks there was not helped by the fact that I accidentally ingested some of the floodwater. I became very sick with dysentery." - Williams to Tom Brokaw at Columbia University in 2013.

    - "Our hotel was overrun with gangs. I was rescued in the stairwell of a five-star hotel in New Orleans by a young police officer – we are friends to this day." - Williams to Tom Brokaw at Columbia University in 2013.

    - "When you look out of your hotel window in the French Quarter and watch a man float by face down, when you see bodies that you last saw in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, and swore to yourself that you would never see in your country," Williams told Eisner [in 2006], who suggested in the interview that Williams emerged from former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw's shadow with his Katrina coverage. - USA Today

    - In Williams's telling, the pathos of the scene extended to his crew's access to food. "We were desperate for food and drink. But not like the people we were seeing in the streets," he said in the documentary "In His Own Words: Brian Williams on Hurricane Katrina." - Washington Post

    Puppy Rescue

    - "I remember one such house fire - the structure was fully involved with flames and smoke. I was wearing a breathing apparatus, conducting a search on my hands and knees, when I felt something warm, squishy and furry on the floor of a closet. I instinctively tucked it in my coat." - October 2011, USA Today

    - "All I ever did as a volunteer fireman was once save two puppies." - January 2007, Esquire

    Christmas Tree Robbery

    In a 2005 interview with Esquire magazine, Williams said a thief drew on him in the 1970s - leaving him "looking up at a thug's snub-nosed .38 while selling Christmas trees out of the back of a truck." – NY Post

    Quitting College

    - "One day, I'm at the copy machine in the White House and Walter Mondale comes up behind me and clears his throat. A classic throat-clearing. I thought people only did that in movies, but it turns out vice-presidents do it, too. Anyway, it makes for an exceptionally good morning, and I run from the White House to the GW campus for class. I'm still wearing my West Wing hard pass on a chain, and when my professor sees it, he admits that he's only been to the White House on the public tour. And I thought to myself, This is costing me money that I don't have, and I'm a young man in too much of a hurry. So I left school." - Brian Williams to Esquire , 2005

    - But then a friend invited him to drive to Washington, D.C., for a weekend, and everything changed. Smitten with the city and its youthful energy, Williams decided to move there. He transferred what credits he could from Brookdale to Catholic University and took a job in the public relations department to help pay his expenses. He landed an internship at the White House, and when that ended, he answered an ad for a clerking job at a broadcasting association. - 2009, New Jersey-Star Ledger

    Ms No nmewn Dec 9, 2016 10:08 PM ,
    It's just amazing what a shameless loser this guy has always been. I was surprised that they even fired him for contriving this story, that is after all, what they do. The whole idea behind embedding journalists was to make them part of the team, which prevents subjective journalism (not that there was a risk of that happening with him) and turning the war into a fictionalized patriotic orgy of bullshit reality TV. This was a huge shame to the profession of journalism before you factor in the lies and perpetual fabrication.

    The only reason he was fired was due to the fact that we were in the throws of a giant national masturbation frenzy over military aggression and the military and it's endeavors became untouchable overnight. When they got pissed off during that time frame it definitely mattered, not so much now. Now they are just screwing them and everybody else. These news anchors are absolutely disgusting, just about every one of them. They all look like pumpkins and hookers. They need to lay off the hairspray and man-makeup before throwing themselves into 170 degree acidic geyser (you don't want it too hot).

    Perimetr Ms No Dec 9, 2016 10:44 PM
    These ratfuck pressitutes haven't noticed Clinton lost the election because we stopped buying the MSM lies nothing there that's worthwhile to read based on his stupidity here.
    The Saint NewHugh Dec 9, 2016 10:11 PM ,
    Similar to Brian Williams, here is a short documentary on what makes George Soros such an evil person.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aETpLQ7WcM

    Paul E. Math NoDebt Dec 9, 2016 9:21 PM ,
    Brian Willians has been discredited and should either retire or find another job. But also, and I'm serious about this, Pizzagate is a ridiculous made-up bullshit story that is distracting everyone from the real issues and the way that the Dems have fucked our whole civilization for real, not just a few kids that likely never even happened.

    Even if pizzagate is real it is far less important than the many real ways in which the elites have fucked us all.

    Uzda Farce AllTimeWhys Dec 9, 2016 12:10 PM ,
    Brian Williams is a member of the Rockefeller/CFR along with Mika Brzezinski and Charles "Joe" Scarborough. See member lists at cfr dot org.

    "The fact that we will not reestablish [another] Walter Cronkite, because of technology... does not mean we can't have people who are trusted. Brian Williams is sitting here , Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric..."

    -- CFR media control roundtable , sponsored by Time-Warner, 2009-09

    J S Bach Uzda Farce Dec 9, 2016 12:18 PM ,
    Hubris and hypocrisy... the two things the MSM is best at.
    NotApplicable J S Bach Dec 9, 2016 1:02 PM ,
    With over a century of government schooling to dumb down the population, I'd say their lack of tact is fairly well warranted, given the average length of attention span can likely be measured in hours.
    TeamDepends Uzda Farce Dec 9, 2016 12:20 PM ,
    All we can do is tell the unawake to turn off the idiot box, stop ingesting Kellogg's etc etc. Every day we win a few more battles, and one day come to realize the enemy are all lying on the ground, motionless.
    Bam_Man NoDebt Dec 9, 2016 1:05 PM ,
    It's called PROJECTION.

    A very common symptom of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

    Other symptoms include:

  • Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
  • Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
  • Exaggerating your achievements and talents
  • Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
  • Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people
  • Requiring constant admiration
  • Having a sense of entitlement
  • Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
  • Taking advantage of others to get what you want
  • Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
  • Being envious of others and believing others envy you
  • Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner
  • Dimwit Life of Illusion Dec 9, 2016 1:00 PM ,
    EVIDENTLY NOT,

    Obama orders review of cyber attacks on 2016 election – adviser

    President Barack Obama directed US intelligence agencies to conduct a full review of cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office, homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said on Friday. Monaco told reporters the results of the report would be shared with lawmakers and others. Obama leaves office on January 20. (Reuters)

    EscapeKey LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 11:54 AM ,
    here's some more fake news from nbc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgm3_jzcNm4

    Whalley World EscapeKey Dec 9, 2016 12:34 PM ,
    Fake News, the new barrel bombs meme
    Antifaschistische LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 11:58 AM ,
    remember, this has nothing to do with fake news. This has everything to do with competition. THe MSM is getting too much competition from independent bloggers and opinions that don't follow their narrative. Their goal now......figure out some way to shut them down.
    mary mary Antifaschistische Dec 9, 2016 12:06 PM ,
    Amazing! People find truth more interesting than the MSM pablum of misdirection and misinformation.
    LyLo Antifaschistische Dec 9, 2016 12:29 PM ,
    And that's the entirety of the issue: if McCain had won in 2008, we'd have been hearing about fake news then. It really is just that we had the audacity to disagree with the legacy media--who for the first time in my memory broke every rule they had for themselves in appearing to cover all sides--to try to corral the US public into voting for their candidate of choice. Even Fox News was anti-Trump, for fuck's sake: did they not realize that gave away the game?!

    Ironically, I feel if the media hadn't been so in-the-bag for Clinton from the start, I wouldn't be surprised if she had won. The media lost her A LOT of votes by making it look like, whether true or not, they had been bought off. (Yeah, I know they were. But they aren't supposed to APPEAR it; Clinton should ask for a refund, in my opinion.)

    So yeah; look forward to media licensing being floated, and somehow requiring credentials for journalists (which will end with needing to be 'certified,' which will inevitably require an expensive several year trip to your university daycare of choice.)

    Will it work? Actually, for once, I have hope: I don't think it will. In fact, I suspect fairly soon, someone is going to notice that Thomas Payne was probably the first purveyor of "fake news" in this country, and that's a fucked up thing to be against as an American.

    MANvsMACHINE LyLo Dec 9, 2016 1:03 PM ,
    Fox News was anti-Trump?
    equity_momo LyLo Dec 9, 2016 8:53 PM ,
    BS. If McCain won in 2008 we'd already be in an actual fucking hot war with Russia. 2008 was a wet-dream for Soros and his boys. They got to win big or win FUCKING BIG.
    flaminratzazz LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 12:06 PM ,
    This is all a distraction from the tribes FULL COURT PRESS

    again, just like I said yesterday about recognizing evil look at their eyes

    The eyes

    equity_momo LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD Dec 9, 2016 8:48 PM ,
    Heres an idea. How about we play the "Fake News Game"

    I say something that could be true or false , you reply with your answer and then its your turn.

    "Hillary Clinton has only been on the Lolita Express 6 times" True or False ?

    equity_momo equity_momo Dec 9, 2016 9:04 PM ,
    Its TRUE!

    The FBI found State Dept emails showing that Hillary Clinton went to "Orgy Island" at least 6 times - and at least once in the company of convicted pedo Jeffrey Epstein. (Bill Clinton went there "at least 20 times" - those pesky progressives!)

    El Oregonian nope-1004 Dec 9, 2016 11:50 AM ,
    Oh yeah, him and pope poopagolio are the "Real" ones... PLEASE! (FLAKE NEWS!: as in snowflakes)
    Chupacabra-322 El Oregonian Dec 9, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    Brian,

    You are the epitome of and exactly exactly the type of vile, disgusting, reprehensible Scum at the bottom of the Swap. A bottom feeder at best.

    The Presstitute Centrailized Media has been exposed for the farce that it is. The obvious denial of it simply exposes the Sociopathic / Psychopathic Nature of you vile Scum Fucks.

    Accept it. The Public has lost all respect for the Centrailzed Industrial Complex Presstitiute Media.

    Son of Loki El Oregonian Dec 9, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    The Libtards are desperate to attack Russia and start WW III, bailout Wall Street again and keep the Swamp parasites in power in DC to keep the gravy train flowing.

    MSM and Dem lies get Yuuuger every day...it's almost laughable but they are actually very dangerous people and thus, we need to protect the 2nd to protect us from them if they get to desperate.

    Miss Expectations nope-1004 Dec 9, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    Part of me is sorry that our military didn't drop Hillary and Chelsea off in Tuzla, Bosnia amid snipper fire.
    sgt_doom Pladizow Dec 9, 2016 1:27 PM ,
    False assumption, my friend!

    There has never been an actual media in America to begin with --- just go back and check out the trash that the Pulitzer fellow wrote, and then realize why that prize is awarded to the riff-raff who usually receive it.

    Yup, I remember Brian . . .

    https://memegenerator.net/instance/59167575

    What a piece of crapola.

    RU4Au Pladizow Dec 9, 2016 1:29 PM ,
    Suicide, indeed!

    Sorry, Brian, but you and your ilk sold your credibility for a full investment position in Hillary and Globalism. Your only recourse now is to attack and try to delegitamize those who call you out.

    EAT ROCKS, PRICK!

    chubbar Pladizow Dec 9, 2016 8:55 PM ,
    The gig is up for these MSM pantywaists and they know it. The only way they maintain viewership is if the gov't shuts down the internet, which it may. These little fucktards like williams are some of the biggest purveyors of bullshit in the history of mankind and they know we are on to their game. No one is going back to believing anything these assholes say except for the most partisan, retarded, misinformed of the US population.
    stocker84 nuubee Dec 9, 2016 11:50 AM ,
    Wait, the onion is not a real news souce?

    Get outta here!

    This is real isn't it?

    http://www.theonion.com/article/cia-realizes-its-been-using-black-highli...

    trumpala Dec 9, 2016 11:43 AM ,
    McCarthyism 2.0 against the independent information
    Rebel yell Dec 9, 2016 12:10 PM ,
    Main Stream news - earning the respect and trust of 6% of Americans!
    Dangerous Fake News Epidemic!
    Yes We Can. But... Dec 9, 2016 12:20 PM ,
    MSM = MainStream Media

    It died and is being reincarnated as:

    FNM - The Fake News Media

    Heretofore, please refer to the former MSM as the FNM. Thank you.

    Squidbilly Dec 9, 2016 12:37 PM ,
    the news organizations are all propped up to keep the global culture industry operational. If they were to be displaced by conscious consumers of worth while real news, like the kind that's now starting to make it's way through the alternative media, they would only exist for viewers who were being groomed for social unrest. Oh wait, that's what their doing now isn't it?
    2muchtax Dec 9, 2016 12:38 PM ,
    This is the opportunity to wake people up that you care about. If nothing else you can show that the news is all coordinated. There is no possibility that in a free competitive market every org would repeat the same message from the same perspective.

    I have taken advantage of the oligarchs sloppiness. People who thought I was crazy two years ago are now acknowledging I was right. I have delivered news to people and two weeks later it was a breaking story. Take the opportunity and bring a few more people over.

    Robert Trip Dec 9, 2016 12:41 PM ,
    Not only has Williams got hot combat experience but he's also rescued countless folks right here at home form car wrecks and burning buildings.

    And this guy is a regular Batman for thwarting armed robberies and terrorist attacks.

    Let's cut the guy some slack on this.

    He sure has the street cred.

    Atomizer Dec 9, 2016 12:48 PM ,
    Brian,

    Ever hear about NYT vs Sullivan? 1964, before I was born.

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commonlaw.htm

    Then you have the 1998 telecommunications Act signed by Bill Clinton. Next,

    Shh! Don't criticize the government or they will send you to the Gulag! HR 6393

    Text of H.R. 6393 : Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Received by the Senate version) - GovTrack.us

    Highlights of H.R. 6393 ,

    Driving your own into the Media coffin. Do you honestly think we will be forced to watch your shit? I think not...

    CIA FAKE NEWS Propaganda!! Full Documentary 2015 - YouTube

    Mike Masr Dec 9, 2016 1:51 PM ,
    The only truly fake news is the US MSM. This bullshit that is called "news" is filled with omissions, distortions, half truths, bald faced lies and fabrications. This is the "official narrative" the Kool Aid that we are all supposed to drink. Remember how the MSM colluded with the Bush Administration's neocons to sell the bullshit Iraq WMD story that was presented to the UN by Colin Powell? Total bullshit. How can anyone believe anything that is fed to us from the MSM.

    Ironic but the guy I'm going to tell you about was featured on 60 minutes. You know what I love is when the US State Department or the MSM quotes the UK Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. This is a little old man in a dingy apartment in a slum Arab neighborhood in London. This old fucking guy claims to know whats going on in Syria. Actually this is a neocon propaganda mill for the CIA It's comments, suggestions and conclusions are solely based upon an official narrative created by the CIA and sold to us through the MSM.

    Look at the pre-election coverage and non-stop polling data talked about by all the MSM boneheads including this Brian Williams jack off. Donald Trump was continously slammed, over and over again by *all of them.*The exception was Sean Hannity. Now look at the partial list of donors to crooked Hillary's campaign.

    The list of donors to the Clinton campaign included many of the most powerful media institutions in the country - among the donors: Comcast (which owns NBC, and its cable sister channels, such as MSNBC); James Murdoch of News Corporation (owner of Fox News and its sister stations, among many other media holdings); Time Warner (CNN, HBO, scores of other channels); Bloomberg; Reuters; Viacom; Howard Stringer (of CBS News); AOL (owner of Huffington Post); Google; Twitter; The Washington Post Company; George Stephanopoulos (host of ABC News' flagship Sunday show); PBS; PRI; the Hearst Corporation and others ( http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37451-the-clinton-foundation-and-the-... ).

    Trump is correct when he says the US media is crooked. It's all fucking fake news!!

    Post election- I now watch local news for traffic and weather in the morning. But fuck them I will not listen to the MSM talking heads or anything else on the crooked MSM. To know whats going on in the world I now watch RT which presents an objective and honest perspective of what's really going on in the world. Of course they call RT fake news, or Russian propaganda. All I can say is they can go fuck themselves! I am sick and tired of the lies and bullshit which is the official US narrative as presented by our 100% crooked MSM!

    The real fake news is presented by the liars in our MSM!

    SirBarksAlot Dec 9, 2016 1:47 PM ,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EZezBEeRHw

    Spoof on Brian Williams.

    HeyThere Dec 9, 2016 3:21 PM ,
    Brian Williams (known liar) warns against Fake News?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EZezBEeRHw
    GreatUncle Dec 9, 2016 3:31 PM ,
    Lol makes no difference now ... I left the MSM, never read it anymore.

    I am no longer misinformed by them - that's a bonus.

    I now prefer news from other nations because domestically it is all the fucking same from the libtards and progressives of more people murdered because of some shit they created. Still get drug addicts committing crime just like all them illegal immigrants because with no money you have to commit a crime to exist. We all know that domestically your bankers are robbing you and that the politicians are lying pieces of shit.

    So why would I want to read what I already know? Nope don't need it.

    Bye, bye NBC and the rest of you I can predict what the stories you will run with tomorrow because they are the same fucking lies like the past 30 years.

    StreetObserver Dec 9, 2016 9:04 PM ,
    Attack the MSM by attacking their ability to sell advertising.

    "That newspaper you are advertising in has been wrong on everything, from going into Iraq to recommending that loser Hillary Clinton to the final election results. If you are advertising in that dishonest discredited rag, your product or service is being tarnished by association. "

    "Just watch President Elect Trump's Thank You Tour speech. Tens of thousands of people loudly booed the press and the media that were there. You really want to spend your money buying ads from those discredited losers?"

    847328_3527 Dec 9, 2016 9:16 PM ,
    The neocons and fascist Democrat factions are joining forces looks like and as desperate as can be. They've lied since day one, bombed RNC offices, beat innocent people up at Trump rallys, published non-stop fake news, and now pull the "Russian agent" theory out of their closet.

    Most Americans laugh at these nuts but I think they are very scary and serious since they have alot of money invested in Queeb Hillary and war with Russia.

    Rebel yell Dec 9, 2016 10:01 PM ,
    The Washington Post ( fake news organization) is reporting that the CIA secretly informed the senate last week that there was Russian interference in our election and that it was Russia's goal to ensure the election of Donald Trump. Apparently the house was informed in September and was questioned if this should be made public and the Republicams said no, according to the Washington Post - the source identified himself as " DNC in deep shit" . /Sarc.

    Rachel Maddow was gleefully reporting on this tonight, as if it somehow vindicated her and her morally bankrupt colleagues from the fact that they should have been reporting on this rather than the Russians, since it is an American election and it is their job to investigate and report the news.

    Of course Obama has decided to keep this information secret, although, 7 "Democratic " senators were requesting that the Obama administration released PARTS of the findings of the investigation which can only lead one to question which PARTS they would prefer to keep from the American public and why. It also is a concern of national security that national secrets are ending up on the Washington Post- maybe they received this information from Russia.

    Mitch McConell was reported to have been dismissive of the allegations as a result of the lack of agreement over the evidence among the 17 security agencies involved, the lack of any source directly linking the Russian government to releasing DNC hacked emails to the Wikileaks
    This also begs to question Rachel Maddow on her lack of outrage of the behavior of the DNC in colluding with the press and rigging the primary. As if to say, since Russia revealed the information and the wrong doing of the DNC, it is not a question of if the behavior of the DNC was just or unjust.

    Nor does it vindicate any Hillary supporter, it does not legitimize what the DNC, the press, or Hillary Clinton did.

    Leave it to the incompetent Washington Post and MSNBC and Rachel Maddow to completely miss the ball again.

    Is it surprising to anyone that Russia did not wish for world war 3?

    Thanks comrades!

    Kina Dec 9, 2016 10:07 PM ,
    Washington Post CNN Madow DNC credibility approaching zero plus they already did the 'Russians did it' thing.

    The probs them Dems has that THEY were in power when whatever happened ..happened.

    Rjoins Dec 9, 2016 10:19 PM ,
    We don't have to be too concerned about fake news pumped out by Russia and other evil doers. That job is being well handled already by NBC, CNN, the New York Times, and others.

    In this post-truth world, these openly left-biased media organizations can rival Pravada of the old Soviet Union in their laughable news reports, lack of integrity, and willingness to suppress news they don't want known while publishing outright propaganda.

    In a democracy where citizens must make informed decisions about governments, politicians and issues, it seems to me that the people behind these corrupt media outlets are just debasing their country; I imagine they at least get well paid for their treachery.

    Curious how, having destroyed their own credibility and lost so many viewers and readers, these organizations are now attacking their new, smaller divergent rivals on the internet.

    amenlight Riquin Dec 9, 2016 10:56 PM ,
    The Liberal Leftist and the MSM created the terms Alt-Right and Fake News to distort real news and make them fit into their political agenda! They use this to discredit Conservatives in an effort to shut down Alternative and Conservatist News Media, especially on the Internet and Talk Radio to end competition! They want Free Speech for the Left and Censorship for the Right! The truth is that people discovered their plot and it backfired!!!
    Mainstream media lost all credibility with We the People!!!

    [Dec 10, 2016] Site Behind Washington Posts McCarthyite Blacklist Appears To Be Linked to Ukrainian Fascists and CIA Spies

    Notable quotes:
    "... All of the "The Russians are Coming" nonsense is coming from Democrat party organs and mouthpieces. Not Trump and his media allies. ..."
    "... An excellent article from Mark. This Alexandra Chalupa sounds like a real piece of work. These Cold Warriors seem to have red-colored glasses and see commies everywhere they look. ..."
    "... Of course, there was that old experiment ( Kohler et al ) where they had people wearing different colored goggles for some time, then asked participants to take them off. And what happened? The participants continued to see in those hues. ..."
    "... Wait a second, so there was ..."
    "... CIA has been whipping ethnic Ukies into a patriotic frenzy for decades with social clubs that seep revanchist propaganda. ..."
    "... HR 6393: "(Sec. 501) This title establishes an executive branch interagency committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples and governments (with the role of the Russian Federation hidden or not acknowledged publicly) through front groups, covert broadcasting, media manipulation, disinformation or forgeries, funding agents of influence, incitement, offensive counterintelligence, assassinations, or terrorist acts. The committee shall expose falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies." ..."
    "... Plus, that will add $160 million, IIRC, to The Deficit. ..."
    "... Two things this article curiously doesn't seem to mention. The first is Victoria Nuland, who must be a close Hillary confidante, and architect of the coup in Ukraine ..."
    "... So your food for thought is that the Russian state behaves rationally in the face of an aggressive military power? Of course, they are hacking everything. If they weren't before the NSA revelations (where the U.S. vacuums up everything and then has no safeguards on what they grab; Congress has had testimony about NSA employees using their power to stalk people), they were afterwards. ..."
    "... Here's some food for thought. John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton all tried to make a country of 145 million or so people with numerous internal problems a major campaign platform. Not one of them is President. Could there be a connection? ..."
    "... As one of the people who consistently calls bull hockey about the claims that the wikileaks releases of the DNC and Podesta emails are the results of Russian government hackers, I will hereby agree with the idea that Russia is hacking everything they can get their hands on. Mind you I believe that every major government from the US to China to Germany to India are hacking everything they can get their hands on. And that every government knows that about all the rest. As far as I am concerned anyone who doesn't believe that is beyond naive. ..."
    "... But thinking that every major government had access to Clinton's emails, Boeing's files, and knows what internet videos Obama/May/Merkel/Putin/Castro have accessed more than once is not the same thing as thinking they are stupid enough or have decent strategic reasons to make that public knowledge by releasing damaging but not destroying emails concerning the massive stupidity and arrogance of one candidate for President and her core people. ..."
    "... There is only one reason that the meme about Fake News is being pushed now – the people who have been pushing fake news for awhile to promote their agendas have lost the control they thought they had over the public and now worry about them rebelling. If fake news were important Judith Miller wouldn't have a job or a book deal and the opportunity to promote that book. Hell Murdoch wouldn't have a media empire. ..."
    "... I don't know why so many so-called movers and shakers want war with Russia, but it is clear that anyone getting in the way of that goal is now in the cross hairs. ProporNOT may be more about Ukrainian support, but the people who promoted them are about the reasons it was being used in the first place. ..."
    "... Eastern European fascists running propaganda web sites for the Whappo, indeed. ..."
    "... If you read Matt Stoller's excellent piece from The Atlantic ..."
    "... I don't see "Banana Republican" Trump as a fascist - he is in many ways an exemplar of Caudillismo , a charismatic, populist, but authoritarian oligarch. ..."
    "... Nance used fake news about Clinton speeches to propagate the fake news that the Podesta emails were fake. ..."
    "... Was amused to see that naturalnews (one of the sites listed in propornot – it looks like I guess a right wing alternative medicine type site) is offering a $10k reward for unmasking propornot but I don't think anyone's ever going to be able to collect. ..."
    "... Why? Because they take the site seriously on its claim of being composed of 30 members and will only pay out for the identities of at least ten. I think it's just one, maybe two guys. ..."
    "... There are dots to connect – the WP article, Congressional Section 501 activity, Senators McCain/Graham "leadership"; and most recently, Hillary's comments. Suspect coordination. Connect the dots. And then search for a motive. ..."
    "... The national security state is concerned that Trump will seek mutually beneficial agreements with Russia. For evidence of the power of the national "security" state a tour of the Pentagon is not necessary. Tour Tyson Corner, Virginia, instead, for starters. ..."
    "... And once Trump has established these agreements there will then be no stopping several Eastern European countries + Germany (of course) realizing where their economic interests really lie. Does anyone really believe that Germany is going to let itself be turned into an irradiated wasteland just to please a bunch of neocon paranoids ? ..."
    "... That's what the neocons, the MIC, and all their shills, and enablers truly fear. Paradoxically this ludicrous attempt to revive McCarthyism may well end up actually ending the Cold War for good & all 25 years after it should have ended. ..."
    "... From the article: "It's now been a few days, and the shock and disgust is turning to questions about how to fight back-and who we should be fighting against." ..."
    "... How many people, world-wide, are involved and invested in the whole "taking over everything" machinery of "state security" and espionage and corporate hegemony? And who is this "we" who should be fighting? ..."
    "... This book provides a detailed account of the ways in which the CIA penetrated and influenced a vast array of cultural organizations, through its front groups and via friendly philanthropic organizations like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. The author, Frances Stonor Saunders, details how and why the CIA ran cultural congresses, mounted exhibits, and organized concerts. The CIA also published and translated well-known authors who toed the Washington line, sponsored abstract art to counteract art with any social content and, throughout the world, subsidized journals that criticized Marxism, communism, and revolutionary politics and apologized for, or ignored, violent and destructive imperialist U.S. policies. ..."
    "... The CIA was able to harness some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West in service of these policies, to the extent that some intellectuals were directly on the CIA payroll. Many were knowingly involved with CIA "projects," and others drifted in and out of its orbit, claiming ignorance of the CIA connection after their CIA sponsors were publicly exposed during the late 1960s and the Vietnam war, after the turn of the political tide to the left. ..."
    "... U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the "Democratic Left" and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell. The CIA, under the prodding of Sidney Hook and Melvin Lasky, was instrumental in funding the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a kind of cultural NATO that grouped together all sorts of "anti-Stalinist" leftists and rightists. They were completely free to defend Western cultural and political values, attack "Stalinist totalitarianism" and to tiptoe gently around U.S. racism and imperialism. Occasionally, a piece marginally critical of U.S. mass society was printed in the CIA-subsidized journals. What was particularly bizarre about this collection of CIA-funded intellectuals was not only their political partisanship, but their pretense that they were disinterested seekers of truth, iconoclastic humanists, freespirited intellectuals, or artists for art's sake, who counterposed themselves to the corrupted "committed" house "hacks" of the Stalinist apparatus. ..."
    "... It is impossible to believe their claims of ignorance of CIA ties. How could they ignore the absence in the journals of any basic criticism of the numerous lynchings throughout the southern United States during the whole period? How could they ignore the absence, during their cultural congresses, of criticism of U.S. imperialist intervention in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, and Korea that led to millions of deaths? How could they ignore the gross apologies of every imperialist crime of their day in the journals in which they wrote? They were all soldiers: some glib, vitriolic, crude, and polemical, like Hook and Lasky; others elegant essayists like Stephen Spender or self-righteous informers like George Orwell. Saunders portrays the WASP Ivy League elite at the CIA holding the strings, and the vitriolic Jewish ex-leftists snarling at leftist dissidents. When the truth came out in the late 1960s and New York, Paris, and London "intellectuals" feigned indignation at having been used, the CIA retaliated. Tom Braden, who directed the International Organizations Branch of the CIA, blew their cover by detailing how they all had to have known who paid their salaries and stipends (397-404). ..."
    "... I have no answers for "what is to be done." ..."
    "... It seems inevitable that perversion and corruption and greed will always eventually "trump" decency and comity, once a certain size and composition of a human population has been reached. ..."
    "... One may hope that the general principle of eventual incompetence that seems to apply to even the Deep State activities might become more immanent. ..."
    "... Dems didn't lose this elections because of "fake news". Dems lost because they did not prosecute the bankers who caused the 2008 financial crash, who fraudulently foreclosed on homes and are still engaged in fraud (see: Wells Fargo). imo. ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    financial matters December 9, 2016 at 7:00 am

    Great article but I'm unsure about the conclusion. ""This is the world the Washington Post is bringing back to its front pages. And the timing is incredible-as if Bezos' rag has taken upon itself to soften up the American media before Trump moves in for the kill. And it's all being done in the name of fighting "fake news" and fascism.""

    I was much more worried about this happening with Hillary at the helm. She seems more in line with Soros and the Ukrainian extremists. Trump still seems to be interested in working with Putin on things of mutual interest although he will probably find resistance in both US parties.

    craazyboy December 9, 2016 at 9:11 am

    Yup. I'm still thinking "Make Ukraine Great Again" is not on Trump's agenda. But I'm just taking things day by day. Still digesting Soros found some Nazis he likes. [Facebook "Like" gots it covered. No new tweaking of social media required.]

    However, I think it would be interesting if Trump investigated whether treason against Ukraine is punishable by firing squad under US Treason Law. Since they've made it kinda personal.

    Ted December 9, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Yeah, the piece is a bit uneven and the last bit a bit revealing of the author's own biases. All of the "The Russians are Coming" nonsense is coming from Democrat party organs and mouthpieces. Not Trump and his media allies.

    The most effective neo-fascism that we see emerging everywhere is pretty consistently on the erstwhile voices of the "left" affiliated with the Democrat Party which is double speak for the New American Right. Indeed, by going back to the height of the cold war to make connections to these shady organizations rather than modern day plutocrats (Amazonia and Googlie are low hanging fruit), the author is employing misdirection. So, I will take this with a few grains of salt.

    Romancing The Loan December 9, 2016 at 10:49 am

    Yeah. Didn't propornot even mention Trump himself as one of those scurrilously Russian-influenced? That's certainly been a major D talking point.

    cocomaan December 9, 2016 at 7:07 am

    An excellent article from Mark. This Alexandra Chalupa sounds like a real piece of work. These Cold Warriors seem to have red-colored glasses and see commies everywhere they look.

    Of course, there was that old experiment ( Kohler et al ) where they had people wearing different colored goggles for some time, then asked participants to take them off. And what happened? The participants continued to see in those hues.

    Roger Smith December 9, 2016 at 8:11 am

    Wait a second, so there was foreign intervention in this election and there were nefarious racists and eugenicists involved, but they weren't behind Trump, but Clinton!?

    /heavy sarcasm

    Thank you very much for sharing this JLS! What a fasc inating read! The historical context Ames provides is very intriguing and convincing.

    Katharine December 9, 2016 at 10:33 am

    "Convincing" is too strong. I would say rather suggestive, possibly persuasive. There is not enough evidence to convince. More investigation is needed, and this might be a productive line of inquiry, but it is too soon to talk about conclusions.

    Claudia Riche December 9, 2016 at 8:17 am

    I am a huge fan of your website and donate as regularly as i can. I am appalled at what the Washington Post did and its implications for free speech in the US going forward.

    That said, I find this article defamatory in purpose, rather than informative. I do not believe it meets the usual standards of Naked Capitalism: it is not fairly reasoned, nor based only on relevant fact to the issue at hand. In my opinion, it is designed to smear and thus undermines the considerable, unusual credibility of your website. I find it disturbing that it has been amplified by its inclusion as a link. It does damage to the cause, rather than further it.

    Roger Smith December 9, 2016 at 8:44 am

    How so? First off, we know very little and Ames acknowledges that, but he uses historical context to expand on that and build a case behind the PropOrNot / FPRI claims and their potential motives. He fully admits he is working with that we've got. Maybe all these illustrations do just happen to line up well and new information will change perception, but Ames discussion hits a lot of typical looking benchmarks.

    Eureka Springs December 9, 2016 at 9:11 am

    How is Mr Ames experience and the very place in which Chalupa works, what she says, as well as the history of our countries actions upon others around the world and within not reasonable to consider?

    I'm sorry if incorrect but you seem like a troll without explaining yourself in specificity further.

    Kogut December 9, 2016 at 8:33 am

    Disturbed voter, batshit Springtime-for-Hitler Ukies long predate Biden's involvement. CIA has been whipping ethnic Ukies into a patriotic frenzy for decades with social clubs that seep revanchist propaganda. The hapless Ukies were meant to be cannon fodder for hot war on the USSR. When Russia molted and shed the USSR, Ukraine continued its Soviet degeneration but the associations had a life of their own. That's how CIA clowns wound up proud owners of the Exclusion Zone.

    Sluggeaux December 9, 2016 at 9:12 am

    The DNC should have dropped the Chalupa. (I can't help myself this morning )

    MED December 9, 2016 at 9:20 am

    HR 6393: "(Sec. 501) This title establishes an executive branch interagency committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples and governments (with the role of the Russian Federation hidden or not acknowledged publicly) through front groups, covert broadcasting, media manipulation, disinformation or forgeries, funding agents of influence, incitement, offensive counterintelligence, assassinations, or terrorist acts. The committee shall expose falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies."

    craazyboy December 9, 2016 at 9:30 am

    Plus, that will add $160 million, IIRC, to The Deficit.

    Jay December 9, 2016 at 9:38 am

    Two things this article curiously doesn't seem to mention. The first is Victoria Nuland, who must be a close Hillary confidante, and architect of the coup in Ukraine .

    The second thing is not so curious per se, but a common feature of articles about Russian hacking accusations–they gloss over the fact that there is good evidence that the Russians are hacking everything they can get their hands on. To assume otherwise is naive. Much of this evidence is available in a recently-published book, The Plot to Hack America by Malcolm Nance.

    He doesn't identify American news sources of being Russian stooges, but does describe how the hacks on the DNC have FSB (the new KGB) fingerprints all over them. He also describes Trump's ties to the Kremlin, as well as his advisors' business interests there. Food for thought.

    NotTimothyGeithner December 9, 2016 at 10:06 am

    So your food for thought is that the Russian state behaves rationally in the face of an aggressive military power? Of course, they are hacking everything. If they weren't before the NSA revelations (where the U.S. vacuums up everything and then has no safeguards on what they grab; Congress has had testimony about NSA employees using their power to stalk people), they were afterwards.

    Here's some food for thought. John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton all tried to make a country of 145 million or so people with numerous internal problems a major campaign platform. Not one of them is President. Could there be a connection?

    Pat December 9, 2016 at 10:08 am

    As one of the people who consistently calls bull hockey about the claims that the wikileaks releases of the DNC and Podesta emails are the results of Russian government hackers, I will hereby agree with the idea that Russia is hacking everything they can get their hands on. Mind you I believe that every major government from the US to China to Germany to India are hacking everything they can get their hands on. And that every government knows that about all the rest. As far as I am concerned anyone who doesn't believe that is beyond naive.

    But thinking that every major government had access to Clinton's emails, Boeing's files, and knows what internet videos Obama/May/Merkel/Putin/Castro have accessed more than once is not the same thing as thinking they are stupid enough or have decent strategic reasons to make that public knowledge by releasing damaging but not destroying emails concerning the massive stupidity and arrogance of one candidate for President and her core people.

    There is only one reason that the meme about Fake News is being pushed now – the people who have been pushing fake news for awhile to promote their agendas have lost the control they thought they had over the public and now worry about them rebelling. If fake news were important Judith Miller wouldn't have a job or a book deal and the opportunity to promote that book. Hell Murdoch wouldn't have a media empire.

    I don't know why so many so-called movers and shakers want war with Russia, but it is clear that anyone getting in the way of that goal is now in the cross hairs. ProporNOT may be more about Ukrainian support, but the people who promoted them are about the reasons it was being used in the first place.

    susan the other December 9, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    Because big picture. Eurasia is inevitably coming together and it is the end of an era. Why we thought we could prevent this from happening must be based on pure hubris. Everything has changed so much in one century that even language makes no sense. Eastern European fascists running propaganda web sites for the Whappo, indeed.

    Hillary Clinton taking up the cause against fake news. Jesus. As Liz Warren said, personnel is policy. You hire fascist nut cases, you create fascism. Hillary, you're so very patriotic.

    Sluggeaux December 9, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    If you read Matt Stoller's excellent piece from The Atlantic , "How the Democrats Killed their Populist Soul" you'll see that Clintonism matches the corporatist model of fascism as derided by Franklin Roosevelt in the late '30's, before mass-murder became associated with the brand and when people like Charles Lindbergh were touting it as the "modern" way forward. If you understand Clintonism as corporatist fascism, the DNC's affinity for Ukraine becomes more and more logical.

    I don't see "Banana Republican" Trump as a fascist - he is in many ways an exemplar of Caudillismo , a charismatic, populist, but authoritarian oligarch.

    marym December 9, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Nance used fake news about Clinton speeches to propagate the fake news that the Podesta emails were fake.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/

    Jay December 9, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    I read that. I don't believe Nance said the Podesta emails were fake, just that there was a possibility that those supplying the documents to Wikileaks could adulterate the documents or introduce fabricated documents into the pipeline. Quite easy to do when leaking, what was it, fifty thousand emails? And I still haven't heard a single persuasive argument to disprove that the Russians hacked the DNC. Quite the contrary. The hacks originated from IP addresses known to originate in the FSA (Fancy Bear) who have led a prodigious list of pro-Russian exploits against targets throughout eastern Europe, including the Baltic states, Ukraine, and the German Bundestag. Real-time adjustments from those IPs also occurred from the Moscow time zone, and some used cyrillic keyboards.

    Don't get me wrong: I disagree with the WaPo piece, and have read, commented, and financially supported Naked Capitalism for quite a while now. And there's no faker news than that Iraq had WMDs, a fact that the press has never quite overcome in the eyes of the public. But just because spooky Intelligence Community people say that Russia hacked the DNC, doesn't make it not so. There are way too many people on the left going off half-cocked. Have you noticed how since the "fake news" imbroglio flamed up, MSM criticism of Trump's swampland cabinet picks have been quite muted?

    marym December 9, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    The Intercept post has a link to the Nance tweet, which is still out there, saying

    Malcolm Nance Retweeted KA Semenova

    Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done.

    He, Podesta, and the correspondents in the leaked emails never provided a single example and/or proof that any email was forged. Also, I don't understand the technicality, but there is some type of hash value associated with an email such that WL was able provide confirmation of those emails where the hash value was intact. Instructions on how to replicate that confirmation process were published at the time.

    Romancing The Loan December 9, 2016 at 9:40 am

    Was amused to see that naturalnews (one of the sites listed in propornot – it looks like I guess a right wing alternative medicine type site) is offering a $10k reward for unmasking propornot but I don't think anyone's ever going to be able to collect.

    Why? Because they take the site seriously on its claim of being composed of 30 members and will only pay out for the identities of at least ten. I think it's just one, maybe two guys.

    Outis Philalithopoulos December 9, 2016 at 10:28 am

    That's really funny.

    Carolinian December 9, 2016 at 10:48 am

    Or as Trump would say one 400 lb guy in his bedroom.

    Yalt December 9, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    Would Josh Frank's article today at Counterpunch on the BSDetector plugin be a good place to start, or is that unrelated BS?

    Deep Throat December 9, 2016 at 10:57 am

    There are dots to connect – the WP article, Congressional Section 501 activity, Senators McCain/Graham "leadership"; and most recently, Hillary's comments. Suspect coordination. Connect the dots. And then search for a motive.

    The national security state is concerned that Trump will seek mutually beneficial agreements with Russia. For evidence of the power of the national "security" state a tour of the Pentagon is not necessary. Tour Tyson Corner, Virginia, instead, for starters.

    JustAnObserver December 9, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    And once Trump has established these agreements there will then be no stopping several Eastern European countries + Germany (of course) realizing where their economic interests really lie. Does anyone really believe that Germany is going to let itself be turned into an irradiated wasteland just to please a bunch of neocon paranoids ?

    Goodbye sanctions and then, shortly after, its bye, bye NATO bye bye.

    That's what the neocons, the MIC, and all their shills, and enablers truly fear. Paradoxically this ludicrous attempt to revive McCarthyism may well end up actually ending the Cold War for good & all 25 years after it should have ended.

    Grizziz December 9, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    Good article. Great comment thread! Thanks to everyone.

    JTMcPhee December 9, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    From the article: "It's now been a few days, and the shock and disgust is turning to questions about how to fight back-and who we should be fighting against."

    How many people, world-wide, are involved and invested in the whole "taking over everything" machinery of "state security" and espionage and corporate hegemony? And who is this "we" who should be fighting?

    Fundamentals: The human siege of the planet is (it seems sort of clear) driving the biosphere toward collapse as a sustainer of most human life. Ever more of the extractable entities of the planet (mineral and living resources, "money" whatever that is, the day labor of most of us, on and on) are being used, and used up, in service to what? a relatively few masters of manipulation who are playing a game that most of the rest of us, were we able to focus and figure it out, would recognize as murder and attempted murder as part of a war "we" did not enlist (most of us) to participate in. The manipulators, both the ones sitting on extreme piles of wealth and the power it provides, and the senior effectives in the various "agencies" that play out the game, what the heck do they "want?" Other than "MORE"?

    What motivates a Coors or Koch or Bezos or Brock or the various political figures and their handlers and minions and "advisors?" This one little episode shows how completely it appears that the whole species is screwed: "Who do we fight, and how?" Are "we" is the readers of NC? Some few of whom are stooges and operatives for the Ministries of Truth who are tracking and recording what transpires here and no doubt subtly injecting "influencers" into the discourse. Some are just ordinary people, of varying degrees of insight and ability to influence the collective net vector of human activity (for good or ill). Some are hoping to just find some awareness of and comprehension of what-all is shaking on the Big Game Board of Life. In this moment, "we" depend, in this one tiny instance among the great flood of chaos-induction and interest-seeking, on the responses and pressures "our" hosts can bring to bear - threatening letters to the propagators like WaPo and Craig Timberg, just one tumor in the vast cancer that afflicts the species, attempts to link up with other parts of the too-small "good will, comity and deceny" population that is fractioned and atomized and constantly seduced or frightened into going along with the larger trend line, grabbing URLs and stuff I'm not smart enough to understand, all that. But the Big People, the Deep State that "we" are subtly taught NOT to believe exists by various bits of sophistry, is a lot better armed and equipped and always active - its operatives are paid, usually pretty well, to be on the job all the time, operating their various and manifold, multifarious, often ingenious, always disingenous operations, and always thinking up new ways to screw over and loot and debase and oppress and enserf the rest of us.

    Here's just one explication of how the Deep State operates:

    This book provides a detailed account of the ways in which the CIA penetrated and influenced a vast array of cultural organizations, through its front groups and via friendly philanthropic organizations like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. The author, Frances Stonor Saunders, details how and why the CIA ran cultural congresses, mounted exhibits, and organized concerts. The CIA also published and translated well-known authors who toed the Washington line, sponsored abstract art to counteract art with any social content and, throughout the world, subsidized journals that criticized Marxism, communism, and revolutionary politics and apologized for, or ignored, violent and destructive imperialist U.S. policies.

    The CIA was able to harness some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West in service of these policies, to the extent that some intellectuals were directly on the CIA payroll. Many were knowingly involved with CIA "projects," and others drifted in and out of its orbit, claiming ignorance of the CIA connection after their CIA sponsors were publicly exposed during the late 1960s and the Vietnam war, after the turn of the political tide to the left.

    U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the "Democratic Left" and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.

    The CIA, under the prodding of Sidney Hook and Melvin Lasky, was instrumental in funding the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a kind of cultural NATO that grouped together all sorts of "anti-Stalinist" leftists and rightists. They were completely free to defend Western cultural and political values, attack "Stalinist totalitarianism" and to tiptoe gently around U.S. racism and imperialism. Occasionally, a piece marginally critical of U.S. mass society was printed in the CIA-subsidized journals.

    What was particularly bizarre about this collection of CIA-funded intellectuals was not only their political partisanship, but their pretense that they were disinterested seekers of truth, iconoclastic humanists, freespirited intellectuals, or artists for art's sake, who counterposed themselves to the corrupted "committed" house "hacks" of the Stalinist apparatus.

    It is impossible to believe their claims of ignorance of CIA ties. How could they ignore the absence in the journals of any basic criticism of the numerous lynchings throughout the southern United States during the whole period? How could they ignore the absence, during their cultural congresses, of criticism of U.S. imperialist intervention in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, and Korea that led to millions of deaths? How could they ignore the gross apologies of every imperialist crime of their day in the journals in which they wrote? They were all soldiers: some glib, vitriolic, crude, and polemical, like Hook and Lasky; others elegant essayists like Stephen Spender or self-righteous informers like George Orwell. Saunders portrays the WASP Ivy League elite at the CIA holding the strings, and the vitriolic Jewish ex-leftists snarling at leftist dissidents. When the truth came out in the late 1960s and New York, Paris, and London "intellectuals" feigned indignation at having been used, the CIA retaliated. Tom Braden, who directed the International Organizations Branch of the CIA, blew their cover by detailing how they all had to have known who paid their salaries and stipends (397-404). http://monthlyreview.org/1999/11/01/the-cia-and-the-cultural-cold-war-revisited/

    And that is just one part of the "operations" put in motion by just "our" national rulers by ONE of the "seventeen national security agencies" that apparently appear in the organization chart of the US empire.

    These mostly faceless people, from "wet workers" to "economic hit men" to analysts and office workers and Station Chiefs and functionaries at DIA and NIA and NSA and the rest of the acronymists of "state security," are "just doing their jobs," with more or less personal malevolence (William Casey, Dick Cheney, the Dulleses, Kermit Roosevelt, on and on), seem to be working from a central organizing principle: Control of minds and resources, in service to imperial and corporate and personal dominion. What tools and actions and thought processes do ordinary people have, to fight back or even resist against this kind of onslaught? "We" are told we are becoming responsible to do our daily best, in among fulfilling our and our families' basic needs, and to minimize our environmental impacts to at least slow the destruction, and also somehow to become aware, in a world of dis- and dysinformation, of what is being done to us and our children and communities, and "resist." And "fight back." Against who, and against what, and by what means, when you have the "Googolverment," and all those millions of employees and managers and executives thereof, on call and on task 24/7 looking for ever more subtle ways to data mine and monetize and manipulate "us"? And in a feedback loop that has been ongoing since no doubt the earliest of "civilization" cities and tribes and nations, the "arms race" both in straight military terms and in the sneaky-pete realm of espionage and state security and "statecraft," "the Russians" and the Pakistanis and Chinese and Israelites, and probably Brazilians and Zoroastrians, are all growing their own machinery of consumption and dominance and destruction.

    What's the model "we" are supposed to be working from? Some people here are looking for "investment opportunities" to take advantage of the chaos and destruction, and there are many for those who can see the patterns and buy in. But what would a "just and decent world" (at least the human population) even look like, and is there anything in our DNA that moves enough of us toward that inchoate model to even have a prayer of suppressing those darker and deadlier impulses and motivations and goals?

    I have no answers for "what is to be done." It seems inevitable that perversion and corruption and greed will always eventually "trump" decency and comity, once a certain size and composition of a human population has been reached. One may hope that the general principle of eventual incompetence that seems to apply to even the Deep State activities might become more immanent. And try to build little communities that don't depend on killable cyber connections for their interconnectedness. And work on an "organizing principle" of their/our own, that has a chance of surviving the crushing mass of energetic but negative energy that infects the species.

    And thanks to our hosts, for doing their bit to face down the fokkers that would take us all down if they could. It's a constant struggle, and no doubt they are more aware than even a Futilitarian like myself of all the parasites and malignancies that are so increasingly active and invested in looting what's left of "antidotes."

    dk December 9, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    I have no answers for "what is to be done."

    Yes you do, the part about little communities and ad-hoc organizing principles is spot-on; that stuff works, it just grows slowly at first. It is also self-limiting, a valuable feature, given the manifest evidence of how badly things can go wrong when communities are pushed to grow beyond their capacities.

    It seems inevitable that perversion and corruption and greed will always eventually "trump" decency and comity, once a certain size and composition of a human population has been reached.

    Decency and comity have their little flaws, too; both can obscure incidents of gross folly. But yeah, population factors are just ferocious.

    One may hope that the general principle of eventual incompetence that seems to apply to even the Deep State activities might become more immanent.

    Not to worry. Incompetence is on it! Any second now wait for it wait for it excuse me, my timepiece seems to have frozen hmm. Well, it appears that "peak incompetence" has already arrived and done the bulk of its work, we just haven't noticed all of the results yet. We are now in that phase between the giant's stumble and their final impact on the ground.

    All this is normal, predictable, and as it should be (even the unfortunate parts); it's entropy. It would be wiser to abandon bivalent moralities and just evaluate each circumstance on its merits, and do our best.

    Yalt December 9, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    That Ukrainian nationalists are behind propornot seems clear; that they're from the Nazified wing seems implausible. Would the Bandera crowd be likely to think of putting a USS Liberty veterans' website on a list of Russian propaganda outlets?

    integer December 9, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Ukrainian nationalists = Nazified Ukrainians. Israel is also involved so yes it makes a lot of sense that the USS Liberty veterans' website on "the list". Might be time for Israel (and Genie energy) to kiss the Golan Heights goodbye.

    integer December 9, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    (((Israel))) was almost certainly the "brains" behind YYYpropornotYYY
    Not as clever as they think they are. Free Palestine!

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 6:02 pm

    Yats and Porky are Jewish, so are some oligarchs who sponsor various neo-Nazi military formations. Ihor Kolomoyskyi, for example, sponsors the Aidar Battalion. The bottom line is, the neo-Nazis need to please their US government and Ukie oligarch sponsors in order to keep the dough flowing, so Russians are the new Jews in Ukraine. Geopolitics makes for strange bedfellows.

    grizziz December 9, 2016 at 9:11 pm

    Wikipedia has Yats being a member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Porky belonging to the Ukrainian Orthodox church. Not vouching for Wikipedia and knowing that history can produce some interesting heritage, I thought I would point that out. Kolomoyskyi has dual citizenship with Israel and of course infamous Clinton Foundation donor and Maidan supporter Victor Pinchuk was raised by Jewish parents before sacking his own country.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    The Forward certainly counts Porky as a Jew, and many Jewish organizations have attacked Yats for concealing his Jewish roots. Given the rampant anti-antisemitism in Ukraine, can't really blame them for concealing their identity. It was shortly before the Maidan that Mila Kunis went back to her native Ukraine to promote her flick, and got called very unsavory names by some rabid anti-Semites in Kiev.

    Kim Kaufman December 9, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Fake News: How a Partying Macedonian Teen Earns Thousands Publishing Lies

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fake-news-how-partying-macedonian-teen-earns-thousands-publishing-lies-n692451

    " Dimitri - who asked NBC News not to use his real name - is one of dozens of teenagers in the Macedonian town of Veles who got rich during the U.S. presidential election producing fake news for millions on social media. "

    flora December 9, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    heh. Dems didn't lose this elections because of "fake news". Dems lost because they did not prosecute the bankers who caused the 2008 financial crash, who fraudulently foreclosed on homes and are still engaged in fraud (see: Wells Fargo). imo.

    Pat December 9, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    Well that and passed a regressive health insurance bailout that required people to purchase expensive and largely useless insurance; and showed their complete and utter contempt for working Americans by ignoring the real state of the under and unemployment, and continued that contempt by passing several job killing trade bills and attempting three other mega steroid versions of same.

    There are many reasons why the Democrats lost, but mostly it is because they stopped doing little more than barely pretending to represent the interests of anyone outside of the wealthy and corporate 'persons' who fund their campaigns and retirements. Protecting the banks and bankers being only the clearest example.

    Pat December 9, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    Dimitri works cheap. Although I'm sure Brock wasn't paying much more to his minions.

    John Medcalf December 9, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    I still don't see any of my favorite bloggers going after Bezos. I didn't even see him mentioned until today. We are looking pretty timid so far in the face of Trump and Bezos (Trump from another direction). No possibility of winning without fighting the war where it's taking place.

    Kim Kaufman December 9, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    Style
    Mainstream media puts out the call for pro-Trump columnists

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mainstream-media-puts-out-the-call-for-pro-trump-columnists/2016/12/09/2153fdd2-bca7-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?postshare=9161481311692262&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.4161c7dfadd3

    Comments are pretty funny:

    For Hire: Established corporation seeking experienced individuals in need of a challenge. Applicants should have –

    *at least 3 Yrs. experience of having their head head firmly up their backsides.
    * a certificate from a licensed physician confirming applicants
    mental impairment
    * an ability to to obfuscate combined with no understanding of the terms 'cognitive dissonance' 'false moral equivalence' and 'logical fallacy'

    Applicant must be at least 13 years old and show the capacity to convince 45% of America that he or she is 30.

    If this is you contact 1-800-DON TRUMP

    ginnie nyc December 9, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Earlier in this thread there was a comment from Claudia Riche claiming the Ames article is, essentially, a smear job. I feel compelled to respond as I have direct personal knowledge of one of his two main points, specifically re: the extreme right-wing tenor of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, or FPRI in Philadelphia.

    I worked at FPRI (yes, me the Marxist) in the mid-to-late 1970's, and was in contact with people there through the early 1980's. I can testify that Ames's description of Strausz-Hupe and his ideas are entirely accurate. I didn't know much about S-H when I first started working there, but I figured out his age and original location probably made him a 3-way spook, at the least. I could cite chapter and verse of the various associates and leading personalities that went through there (including Alexander Haig) but I don't have the energy today.

    Ames mentions that FPRI was driven off the Penn campus – well, only in the technical sense. If you spit out the window you'd hit a university building, and many principals there were professors at Penn, including Strausz-Hupe. Also, many Penn grad students passed through there, and undergrads (like me).

    For laughs, here is an interesting, if airbrushed, synopsis of the influence of FPRI by my old friend Alan Luxenberg:

    http://www.fpri.org/news/2013/11/the-impact-of-the-foreign-policy-research-institute/

    So, no Ms. Riche, there is no smearing going on in Mark Ames detailed account in this regard.

    Outis Philalithopoulos December 9, 2016 at 4:56 pm

    Here it is – sorry it didn't post immediately. BTW stuff not posting immediately doesn't necessarily mean either (1) there is anything wrong with your comment, or (2) it got permanently eaten by Skynet. Sometimes the algorithm for finding spam gets false positives for reasons that are not entirely clear.

    ginnie nyc December 9, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    Outis, my comment on FPRI seems to have disappeared. Could you see if it can be extracted from Skynet? Thanks.

    JOHN bougearel December 9, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    that was alot of investigative digging jerri-lynn -- so nice To see u surprise me twice in a week. tremendous effort -thank you a post worth cross posting if it hasn't been already

    Jerri-Lynn Scofield Post author December 9, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    John–

    This is indeed a great post, but I'm not the author. Mark Ames is the author. I just cross-posted his fine work, which was originally published by AlterNet.

    RBHoughton December 9, 2016 at 9:14 pm

    The CIA's apparent involvement reveals the immense danger and probable failure of expecting a few managers to keep the sty clean.

    Its not just in spookery that standards have collapsed. The world of professionals – doctors, lawyers, accountants – has followed the same downward trajectory and it started in 1970 with demonetization and the subsequent expansion of honorable greed.

    It was in early 1970s that creative accounting and its penchant for creating wealth out of nothing appeared.Then we saw these dodgy scorers appearing in court and swearing to the truth of their new view. That infected the legal profession. The prosecutors were still willing to present all their evidence for and against conviction to the Judge but the defense increasingly cheated, led by the lawyer who tells his customers 'we never plead guilty,' and starts the creation of a case beyond a reasonable doubt in place of the defendant's actual evidence.

    It may be that doctors have so far escaped the moral collapse although on a recent visit to hospital I saw the elevator lobbies infested with the army of capitalism in the shape of suited drug salesmen trying to create obligations on the part of doctors.

    We seem to have lost our way and for the time being its the man who cares only for the bottom line who is winning the war of the world. He's the man who owns the newspaper that tells you every bad thing is because of foreigners.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Possible connection between Ukraian Diaspora in the USA and

    Typically Diaspora is more nationalistic the "mainland" population. This is very true about Ukrainian Diaspora, which partially is represented by those who fought on the side of Germany in the WWII. They are adamantly anti-Russian.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine. ..."
    "... Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them, but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. ..."
    "... And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment. ..."
    "... Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American Exceptionalism. ..."
    "... And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues. ..."
    "... The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion ..."
    "... This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad faith commenting. ..."
    "... The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. ..."
    "... I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side won WWII. ..."
    "... "The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko " ..."
    "... Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security – the trajectory of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops – analyzed over and over ..."
    "... The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military. ..."
    "... The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is becoming more visible each day. ..."
    "... Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that can 180 mid-flight? ..."
    "... What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story. ..."
    "... Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained in Poland, US, and Canada). ..."
    "... Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption – but every U. government since 1991 has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception – but he was also not the worst one (do some research on J. Timoshenko). ..."
    "... There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 – after a deal had been signed calling for early elections. The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis. ..."
    "... So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points ..."
    "... I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will just laugh at you. ..."
    "... What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded Voice of America and is a regular with Ukraine's "StopFake.org" which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up. ..."
    "... Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. ..."
    "... Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too. ..."
    "... What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center. That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government. ..."
    "... Here's an article by Lev Golinkin commenting on the far-right's strong and dangerous influence on Ukraine today. A fascist presence like this could easily be a powerful element in Ukrainian elections, very suddenly and unpredictably too. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ukrainian-far-right-and-the-danger-it-poses/ ..."
    "... This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far! ..."
    "... Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues. I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream lies about Russia and Ukraine. ..."
    "... and/or incontinence ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim Kovpak December 9, 2016 at 3:45 am

    Hello, I'm the blogger of Russia Without BS, a site you cited once in the stories about PropOrNot. As I have recently written on my blog , I believe PropOrNot is most likely one person who is not linked to any real organization group or intelligence agency. The individual is most likely what I call a cheerleader, which is basically a person with no reasonable connection to some conflict, yet who takes a side and sort of lives vicariously through their imagined "struggle."

    That being said, you're probably not going to do yourself any favors claiming that Maidan was a fascist coup and that fascists are in charge in Ukraine. Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers (quite the opposite, actually), and they were not the majority of people there. Basically you condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence of neo-Nazis and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well documented).

    Without actually bothering to look at the issues involved, you are basically telling millions of Ukrainians that they should have tolerated a corrupt, increasingly authoritarian government that was literally stealing their future all because some right-wingers happened to latch on to that cause too. Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine.

    As for the slogan, yes, Slava Ukraini, Heroiam Slava! has its origins in the OUN, but there are some important things to consider when discussing Ukrainian history.

    Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them, but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. Look at the average salary in Ukraine and look into some of the instances of corruption (some of which continue to this day), and you'll understand why a lot of people aren't going to get up in arms about someone waving the red and black flag. Most people have become very cynical and see the nationalists as provocateurs or clowns, and thus they don't take them seriously enough.

    ... ... ...

    olga December 9, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Before you call this good points, please familiarize yourself with the (accurate) history of the Maidan, Ukraine, neo-nazi presence in that country, and Russian history. Please Kovpak seems to be an embodiment of what Ames tries to convey.

    dk December 9, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    "You're a poseur!"
    "No, you're poser!"

    The more experienced observer listens to all sides; and all sides lie at least a little, if only for their own comfort. Beyond that, subjectivity is inescapable, and any pair of subjectives will inevitably diverge. This is not a malign intent, it's existential circumstance, the burden of identity, of individual life.

    My own (admittedly cursory) analysis happens to coincide with Jim Kovpak's first para (PropOrNot being primarily a lone "cheerleader"). And I can see merit, and the call for dispassionate assessment, in some of his other points. This does not mean I endorse Kovpak over Ames, or Ames over Kovpak; both contribute to the searching discussion with cogent observation (and the inevitable measure of subjective evaluation).

    I thank both for their remarks, and also thank our gracious hosts ;).

    hemeantwell December 9, 2016 at 9:23 am

    Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers

    No, but it was hijacked by fascists. It is sad that more democratic/progressive forces lost out, but that's what happened. You seem to be trying to avoid recognizing this fact by affirming the rightfulness of those who began the revolt. Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered, spent, and gunned them. It's time to mourn, not to defend a parasitic Frankenstein that is trying to develop a European fascist movement. Goons from that movement assaulted and injured May Day demonstrators in Sweden this year and then fled back to the Ukraine. They are dangerous and should not be protected with illusions.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered, spent, and gunned them

    And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment. Thus we have the ridiculous situation where supposedly reputable media like NYT and WaPoo cheer on the Azov battalion and its brethren, and deny the very symbolism of the various Nazi insignia and regalia featured on their uniforms. Jim makes some very good points, but he fell way short in ignoring the role of the US MSM in this travesty.

    And just in case someone tries to claim that we all make mistakes at times and that the MSM made an honest mistake in regards to these neo-Nazi formations, the same thing has been happening in Syria, where the US and its Gulf allies have armed extremists and have whitewashed their extremism by claiming even Al Qaeda and its offshoots are noble freedom fighters.

    hemeantwell December 9, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    Good on the parallel with Syria. The evolution, or distortion, of revolutionary movements as they struggle to gain support and offensive power and then either are modified or jacked by "supporting" external powers is not a cheering subject. The tendency to ignore that this has happened takes two forms. One is what we are here discussing. The other is its opposite, as seen in, for example, the way some writers try to maintain that there never was a significant democratic/progressive/humane etc. element to the Syrian opposition.

    flora December 9, 2016 at 9:57 am

    Ukraine, as I understand it, is not monolith but has roughly 2 interest areas – western and eastern – divided by the River Dnieper. The Western half is more pro-European and EU, the Eastern half is more pro-Russia. The word "fascist" in Ukraine means something slightly different than in means in the US and the EU. So I take your comment with a grain of salt, even though it is interesting.

    Ukraine's geographical location as the land "highway" between Europe and Asia has created a long and embattled history there.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 10:17 am

    So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points because you mistakenly think Russia is somehow opposed to US capitalism,

    Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American Exceptionalism.

    And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues.

    Soulipsis December 9, 2016 at 11:48 am

    Seconded.

    hemeantwell December 9, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    Thirded. The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion of the fruits of the Russian oligarchic capitalist effort will benefit Russians, not elites tied to the US, because of his self-interested nationalism. Not much to cheer about but better than where things were headed when Yeltsin was in power.

    KRB December 9, 2016 at 10:49 am

    This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad faith commenting.

    The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. There is absolutely no equivalent to this with Occupy at all. Where does this false analogy even come from? No where does the author state that Maidan was ONLY fascists, that is again your strawman response. Maidan had a lot of support from pro-western, pro-european, pro-liberal forces. But to deny the key and often lead roles played by neo-fascists in the actual organization, "self defense" and violent confrontations with the Yanukovych goons is gross whitewashing.

    Much worse is the way you rationalize the fascist OUN salute by arguing that it means something else now, or it's become normalized, etc. These are all the same bullshit arguments made by defenders of the Confederate flag. "It means something different now." "it's about heritage/being a rebel!/individualism!" There is no "but" to this, and anyone who claims so is an asshole of the first order. The salute descends directly from collaborators in the Holocaust and mass-murder of Jews and Poles and collaboration with Nazis. If people claim they don't understand its origins, then educate them on why it's so fucked up, don't make excuses for them. Really disgusting that you'd try to rationalize this away. There is no "but" and no excuse, period.

    "Russia Without BS" is one hell of an ironic name for someone bs-ing like this. Your failure to actually engage the article, setting up and knocking down strawmen instead, and evading, using false analogies-reveal your own intellectual pathologies. Try responding to the actual text here, and maybe you'll be taken seriously.

    Martin Finnucane December 9, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    +1

    My thought was that this post was an example of the strawman fallacy. Yet certainly Mr. Kovpak wasn't just shooting from the hip. That is, he thought about this thing, wrote it, looked it over, and said "well enough" and posted it. Poor logic, or bad faith?

    I think the tell was his characterization of the article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points." What the hell is a "Russian talking point"? How do Ames' contentions follow said talking points? Are he saying, perhaps, that Ames is another one of those Kremlin agents we've been hearing about, or perhaps another "useful idiot"? Perhaps Ames – of all people – is a dupe for Putin, right?

    Hasbara, Ukrainian style. Bringing this junk onto NS, either this guy is alot of dumber than he gives himself credit for, or he actually has no familiarity with NS, outside of the now- and rightly-notorious WP/ProporNot blacklist. Probably the latter, since it looks like his comment was a pre-masticated one-and-done.

    sid_finster December 9, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side won WWII.

    AD December 9, 2016 at 10:55 am

    I'm glad Jim Kovpak provided this background. I was very troubled to see Ames breezily smear the Ukrainian uprising as "fascist," essentially writing off the protesters as U.S. proxies and dismissing their grievances as either non-existent or irrelevant. Something similar has happened in Syria, of course. Yes, the U.S. ruling blocs try to advance their interests in such places, but if you ignore the people on the ground or dismiss them as irrelevant, you're just playing into the hands of other tyrannical interests (in Syria: Assad, Putin, Hezbollah, etc.).

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    $5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they ain't US proxies. Gla that you straightened that out for us.

    The grievances in Ukraine are many and are legitimate. But that the people's anger was hijacked by US-financed proxies is a fact. Nuland was caught dictating that Yats would be the new PM, and darned if he didn't become just that. The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko, and the country was plunged into a civil war. But Yats and Porky are freedom-loving democrats! The old saying remains true: "They may be corrupt SOBs, but they are our corrupt SOBs!"

    Heck, for all the crocodile tears shed by the West about corruption and democracy, it has nurtured corruption in Eastern Europe and looked the other way as democracy has been trampled. Including in my native Bulgaria, where millions of dollars spent by the US and allied NGOs on promoting and financing "free press" have seen Bulgaria's freedom of media ranking slip to third world levels. But Bulgaria is a "democracy" because it is a member of the EU and NATO, and as such its elites have done the bidding of its Western masters at the expense of Bulgaria's national interests and the interests of its people. Ukraine is headed down that road, and all I can say to regular Ukrainians is that they are in for an even bigger screwing down the road, cheer-led by the Western "democracies" and "free" media.

    Meddling by US hyperpower in the internal affairs and the replacement of one set of bastahds with another set of bastahds that is beholden to the US is not progress, which is why we call it out. After all the spilled blood and destruction sponsored by the US, can you honestly say that Ukraine and Syria and Libya and Iraq are now better off, and that their futures are bright? I can't, and I can't say that for my native country either. That's because this new version of neocolonialism is the most destructive and virulent yet. And it is particularly insidious because it fools well-meaning people, like yourself, into believing that it actually helps improve the lives of the natives. It does not.

    lyman alpha blob December 9, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    "The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko "

    That pretty much sums it up. Jim Kovpak does make some excellent points which help to understand what the Ukranians are thinking. The discussion regarding the poor education system and potential lack of knowledge of what certain symbolism refers to was really good. Sort of reminds me of the Southerners in the US who still claim that the Stars and Bars is just about Southern heritage and pride without bothering to consider the other ramifications and what the symbol means for those who were persecuted at one time (and continuing to today). But yeah, I'm sure there are those who think that that flag was just something the Duke boys used on the General Lee when trying to outrun Roscoe.

    All that being said, I don't believe anybody here thinks that Yanukovich was some paragon of virtue ruling a modern utopia. The problem is that the new boss looks surprisingly familiar to the old boss with the main difference being that the fruits of corruption are being funneled to different parties with the people likely still getting the shaft.

    If your a(just as many in the US are), it's quite possible they are also unaware of the current US influence in their country, just as most US citizens are unaware of what the US has done in other countries.

    I'd be very interested in Jim Kovpak's thoughts on this.

    RMcHewn December 9, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    $5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they ain't US proxies. Gla[d] that you straightened that out for us.

    Yes, it doesn't get any more blatant than that, and if anyone believes otherwise they are obviously hooked on the officially sanctioned fake news, aka the MSM.

    Damian December 9, 2016 at 10:56 am

    "Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers / Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers than other Eastern European nations" silly at best!

    Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security – the trajectory of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops – analyzed over and over

    The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military.

    The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is becoming more visible each day.

    Your statements are pure propaganda and I would assume you work indirectly for Alexandra Chalupa!

    sid_finster December 9, 2016 at 11:35 am

    Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that can 180 mid-flight?

    Young Ex-Pat December 9, 2016 at 11:28 am

    "Basically you condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence of neo-Nazis and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well documented)."

    You must be kidding. Where to begin? Can we start with the simple fact that the Russian Foreign Ministry wasn't handing out baked goods to Occupy protesters in NYC, egging them on as they tossed molotov cocktails at police, who, strangely enough, refrained from shooting protesters until right after a peaceful political settlement was reached? Coincidence or fate? Or maybe there is strong evidence that right wing fanatics were the ones who started the shooting on that fateful day? http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31359021

    And sorry, no matter how much Kovpak denies it, the muscle behind the "glorious revolution" was a bunch of far-right thugs that make our American alt-right look like girl scouts. Andrei Biletsky, leader of Azov Battalion and head of Ukraine's creatively named Social-National Assembly, says he's committed to "punishing severely sexual perversions and any interracial contacts that lead to the extinction of the white man." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329 - Just like those hippies at Zuccotti Park, right?! Oh,and this guy received a medal from Poroshenko.

    I can keep going, but your "Maidan was just like Occupy!" argument pretty much speaks for itself. Glory to the heroes indeed.

    p.s. "Russia Without the BS" is awful.

    sid_finster December 9, 2016 at 11:30 am

    As someone who lived many years in Ukraine, speaks Ukrainian and Russian and knows personally many of the people involved, yes, Ukrainians know full well the origin of the Nazi slogans that the local Nazis spout.

    That doesn't mean that the average frustrated euromaidan supporter is a Nazi, but Nazis bussed in from Galicia did eventually provide the muscle, as it were, and the rest of the country were willing to get in bed with them, appoint them to run ministries, and let them have independent military units.

    Those Nazis are perfectly happy to call themselves Nazis.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 12:11 pm

    What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story.

    Foppe December 9, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    To be fair, there is a fairly wide gap between 'racist' and 'violent racist of the KKK/Nazi variety'.

    Also (yes, partly preaching to the choir, but with a purpose), liberals are perfectly happy to stay quiet about enormous income/prosecution/incarceration/kill rate differences, so long as those targeted/affected can (bureau-/meritocratically) be described as 'druggies/criminals/"extremists"/uneducated-thus- undeserving '. And to ignore drone bombing of brown people. Etc. So all the pearl-clutching/virtue-signaling concerning racism is pretty easy to shrug off as concerning little more than a plea to express one's support for racist policy in a PC fashion.

    (Highly recommend The New Jim Crow , which I've only recently started reading, for no good reason. Bizarre to realize that all of the stuff that's being reported on a little bit now has been going on for 30 years now (30y of silence / wir-haben-es-nicht-gewusst wrt the structural nature; note that any/all reporting that im/explicitly describes these issues as "scandals"/"excesses" is part of the problem.)

    Gareth December 9, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    The whole Fake News world is a house of mirrors:

    http://www.stopfake.org/en/stopfakenews-98-eng-with-jim-kovpak/

    olga December 9, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    WOW I guess we have democracy, so your comment got through. In a way, your post confirms the existence of rabidly anti-Russian entities – the very point that Mark Ames makes. But you know, there are people who know a thing or two about Russia and Ukraine, and can easily refute much of your diatribe. (1) Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained in Poland, US, and Canada).

    Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption – but every U. government since 1991 has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception – but he was also not the worst one (do some research on J. Timoshenko).

    Corruption persists in U. today – and based on the now-required property disclosures by U. politicians – may be even worse. It is likely correct that most U. don't give a damn about Bandera – but most U. also do not have any power to do anything about the neo-nazis, as they are (at least in the western part of the country) numerous, vocal, and prone to violence.

    There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 – after a deal had been signed calling for early elections. The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis.

    (2) But it is your comments about the U. neo-nazi participation in the war that seem to clarify who you really represent. This participation was not much discussed during the soviet times – I only found out that they continued to fight against the soviet state long after the war ended recently – from family members who witnessed it (in Belorussia, west. Ukr., and eastern Czechoslovakia). Some of them witnessed the unspeakable cruelty of these Ukr. "troops" against villagers and any partisans they could find. White-washing this period (or smearing soviet educational system) will not help – there is plenty of historical evidence for those who are interested in the subject.

    (3) What you say about the Russian state promoting this or that is just a scurrilous attack, with no proof. Not even worth exploring. On the other hand, there are plenty of documented murders of Ukr. journalists (google Buzina – a highly intelligent and eloquent Ukr. journalist, who was gunned down in front of his home; there are quite a few others).

    Ukr. in 2014 may have been protesting inept government, but what they ended up with is far worse – by any measure, Ukr. standard of living has gone way down. But now, the industrial base of the country has been destroyed, and the neo-nazi genie will not go back into the bottle any time soon. Ukr. as a unified place did not exist until after WWI, and the great divisions – brought starkly into contrast by the 2014 destruction of the state – cannot be papered over anytime soon.

    lyman alpha blob December 9, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    Appreciate the points you bring up but if the Ukranians truly want an end to an exploitative system, they probably are not going to get it by allying themselves with Uncle Sugar. The US provided billions of dollars to foment the coup and our oligarchs expect a return on that investment – they aren't going to suddenly start trust funds for all Ukranians out of the goodness of their hearts. You are aware of that aren't you?

    integer December 9, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points

    I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will just laugh at you.
    Hahahahahaha!

    Reply
    KRB December 9, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded Voice of America and is a regular with Ukraine's "StopFake.org" which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up.

    Rhondda December 9, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    It was patently obvious from his comment that he's a pro shill but very good to have the proof. Thanks, KRB.

    OIFVet December 9, 2016 at 5:54 pm

    Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. The good news is that by the 80's nobody believed the state and its propagandists, even on the rare occasion they were telling the truth, and America's people seem to be a bit ahead of the curve already, which may explain the "fake news" hysteria from the creators and disseminators of fake news.

    Eddie Anderson December 9, 2016 at 8:34 pm

    Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers than other Eastern European nations, but if you look at their polls and elections you see that the far-right in Ukraine does far worse than it does in other Eastern and even Western European countries

    Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too.

    What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center. That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government.

    Here in America we saw something like that in the early 1990s, when KKK leader David Duke migrated to the political mainstream by running for office as a Republican in Louisiana. Of course Duke never changed his views, he just learned to dissemble himself in the way he sold his politics to the public.

    Here's an article by Lev Golinkin commenting on the far-right's strong and dangerous influence on Ukraine today. A fascist presence like this could easily be a powerful element in Ukrainian elections, very suddenly and unpredictably too. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ukrainian-far-right-and-the-danger-it-poses/

    Ignacio December 9, 2016 at 4:22 am

    This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far!

    Benedict@Large December 9, 2016 at 7:32 am

    Yes, these are dangerous people, as are most "true believers". I'm also becoming even more disappointed at Ms, Clinton. For a while, she seemed to be keeping a little distance from her dead-enders, but now that her and Bill are out back on the money trail (How much is enough?), it doesn't look good.

    Selling fear? Really? Isn't there a shelf life on that?

    notabanker December 9, 2016 at 7:56 am

    Ahhh, but it's not money they accumulate, its power. And time is their only constraint. This is what they do.

    Jim Haygood December 9, 2016 at 8:03 am

    William Banzai7 on "Prop or Nuts." Hillary's "Childen of the Rainbow" button (look carefully) is to die for.

    https://c8.staticflickr.com/1/601/30710973103_365b8e0b4d_b.jpg

    Clive December 9, 2016 at 9:00 am

    There's a crock of something at the end of that rainbow, but I doubt very much that it contains any gold.

    ambrit December 9, 2016 at 11:07 am

    I'm not certain about the contents of that crock, good sir. We now live in a "culture" where s–t IS gold. Otherwise, why are we now enduring a "popular press" full of "wardrobe malfunctions," new amazing bikini bodies, salacious gossip, and equally salacious "news?" (The Page Three was shut down really because there was too much competition.)

    Oh tempura, oh s'mores! (Latinate for "We're crisped!")

    Carolinian December 9, 2016 at 9:30 am

    Indeed. The above article is great, great stuff and shows why some of us found Hillary more disturbing than Trump. Therefore Ames' final assumption

    And the timing is incredible-as if Bezos' rag has taken upon itself to soften up the American media before Trump moves in for the kill.

    seems a bit off. It's certainly true that Trump said news organizations should face greater exposure to libel laws but one suspects this has more to do with his personal peevishness and inability to take criticism than the Deep State-y motives described above. Clearly the "public versus private" Hillary–Nixon in a pant suit–would have been just the person to embrace this sort of censorship by smear and her connection with various shadowy exiles and in her own campaign no less shows why Sanders' failure to make FP the center of his opposition was, if not a political mistake, at least evidence of his limited point of view.

    It's unlikely that anyone running this time would be able to change our domestic trajectory but this fascism from abroad is a real danger IMO. In Reagan times some of us thought that Reagan supported reactionary governments abroad because that's what he and his rogue's gallery including Casey and North wished they could do here. The people getting hysterical over Trump while pining for Hillary don't seem to know fascism when it's right in front of them. Or perhaps it's just a matter of whose ox is going to be gored.

    Soulipsis December 9, 2016 at 11:59 am

    Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues. I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream lies about Russia and Ukraine.

    Disturbed Voter December 9, 2016 at 6:45 am

    No surprise, ever since the US, and Biden, got involved in Ukraine. And it is even probable, that people like that were behind the Kennedy assassination, that the US has admitted was a conspiracy, that is still protected from "journalistic sunshine" under lock and key by the US government.

    integer December 9, 2016 at 6:49 am

    Thanks for giving this article its own post, and thanks to dcblogger for providing the link in yesterday's Water Cooler.

    Seems to me that this little bout of D-party/CIA incompetence, and/or incontinence, will finally sound the death knell for the Operation Paperclip gang's plan. Good riddance.

    integer December 9, 2016 at 7:01 am

    and/or incontinence

    I'm looking at you, Soros!

    [Dec 10, 2016] We Demand That PropOrNot Remove Its Blacklist, Report, and Browser Tool Defaming Naked Capitalism and Issue an Apology naked

    Notable quotes:
    "... merely reporting what PropOrNot said ..."
    "... the first in a series ..."
    "... The MSM has lost control of the narrative. The big dailies continue to hemorrhage ad revenue, month in and month out, year in and year out. Their existence going forward will be even more dependent on government assistance. Fake News is the pathetic death rattle of the neoliberal order. ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    As the Columbia Journalism Review stated (emphasis original):

    More importantly, the editor's note vaults into verbal gymnastics in an attempt to simultaneously rationalize and distance itself from an obviously flawed primary source. Any data analysis is only as good as the sum of its parts, and it's clear that PropOrNot's methodology was lacking.

    The Post, of course, was merely reporting what PropOrNot said . Yet it used declarative language throughout, sans caveat, lending credence to a largely unknown organization that lumps together independent left-wing publications and legitimately Russian-backed news services. The Post diminished its credibility at a time when media credibility is in short supply, and the non-apologetic editor's note doesn't help.

    And from FAIR (emphasis original):

    Almost two weeks after its article ran, the Post ran a sort of correction in the form of an editorial comment in italics pasted on top of the online edition of Timberg's November 24 piece (where only those looking for the by then old original story would find it). In that note, the editors say that the paper

    did not name any of the sites [on PropOrNot's blacklist], does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of the Post 's story, PropOrNot has removed some of those sites from its list.

    Of course, the damage was already done, as the original article achieved widespread circulation via the Post 's wire service; it would be up to all those news organizations that bought and ran the story, or reported their own versions of it, to make any correction.

    Meanwhile, the facile dodge of "we didn't name the sites" ignores the reality that the Post had prominently showcased PropOrNot and let its name vouch for the heretofore unknown group's credibility. The paper didn't have to run the list; anyone with a smartphone could do a Google search, find PropOrNot's website as the first listing, go to the homepage and find a link button headed "The List."

    And apparently plenty of readers did that. While thanks to the Post 's grant of anonymity, PropOrNot's hidden principals remained safe from inquiring reporters and Russian hackers alike, editors of sites named on its McCarthyite hit list quickly found themselves deluged with venomous calls and emails. As Jeffrey St. Clair, a co-founder and editor of CounterPunch.org , another site listed prominently as a propaganda tool, recalls, "The morning after the Post published its article, I found 1,000 emails in my inbox, mostly hate mail and death threats."

    readerOfTeaLeaves December 10, 2016 at 2:40 am

    Expert media commentators criticized the Post's handwave in the form of an editor's note that it placed at the top of a story that is now history, as opposed to news. The mild concession is likely to be read only by fans of the 199 sites that were defamed by the Post, and journalists who've taken interest in the row and not the vast public that read the story through the post and other major outlets, like USA Today, that re-reported or syndicated Timberg's piece.

    It all depends upon who you follow on Twitter, but from my check-in's today, the WaPo is not coming off well.

    This whole 'fake news' mess is downright weird.
    I have trouble understanding how anyone can govern, given the growing legitimacy problems.

    It seems as if there are (very well greased) wheels within (extravagantly funded) wheels moving behind the scenes.
    Meanwhile, apparently Obama has formally requested that the Intel Community develop a 'consensus report' about the role of the Russians in this most recent election (per Emptywheel). "Senior officials' in Congress have already been briefed, and some are apparently leaking: this much smoke signals a battle royale behind the scenes.

    The worst possible outcome, IMVHO, is failing to investigate and come clean.

    Every time our government is too gutless to deal with reality - whether WMD, or the Financial Crisis - the legitimacy of government is further eroded. It would be helpful if Hillary renounced the Presidency, and agreed that even if the election should be overturned, that she would defer to some other person. The investigation should not be used as a recount, nor as a re-do. It should function only to restore credibility to the US federal government, and for no other reason.

    Unfortunately for Trump, if he blocks this kind of investigation, it will only diminish his credibility, and weaken the very power he seeks to hold.
    Life is full of paradoxes and mysteries; this one takes the cake.

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 3:16 am

    I agree with your comment re Twitter, but Twitter is heavy with journalists who love the story of a media fight. This is catnip to them.

    The Washington Post story was tweeted far more heavily when it first ran than the follow-on criticism was. The story proper got 14,800 comments. It was picked up by USA Today, CNN, and I haven't even begun to track how many different other publishers. The original reach was at least an order of magnitude, and probably two orders of magnitude, bigger than the discussion of the itty bitty walkback.

    Presumptuous Insect December 10, 2016 at 6:16 am

    Yves,

    Do you have a website set up for donations, like GoFundMe or Paypal? If you do, I am sure lots of us can help you to get the word out on twitter, etc.

    PI

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 6:19 am

    Thanks so much!

    Please see our Tip Jar in the right column. It tells you how to donate using a debit or credit card, or send a check.

    We had a recent emergency fundraiser, and some of that has already been allocated to extra site coverage (to have others do more site-minding and content generation so as to free me up to spend time on this stuff) and the other part (a bit more than half the total) is to fund expenses for litigation.

    Generalfeldmarschall Von Hindenburg December 10, 2016 at 3:05 am

    Is this episode really Bezos carrying water for a faction of the deep state? They had to have known that if you malign the entirety of the alt media-left and right that they'd show their teeny little teeth.
    I bet they feed this chump Timberg to the crocodiles ultimately. Meanwhile Mark Ames will ferret out the weird nexus of Ukrainian Nazi types. But since the WaPo will take the heat and the public will lose interest, nobody will care. But in the end the 4 or 5 folks who came up with this scheme will have achieved their goals:

    *Throw mud on non corporate news reportage.
    *Fire a warning shot over Trumps bow
    *Plant seeds with the population for the future when some ginned up provocation will again put Russia in the crosshairs of a black propaganda campaign.

    These archonic m_fers are relentless. Russia represents an independent power which absolutely cannot be permitted by Empire. This is part of a long term strategy to box Russia in. They are seen as the weaker of the Sino Russian partnership and are being targeted first.

    rusti December 10, 2016 at 6:13 am

    Not having witnessed anything like this before I'm having trouble understanding the strategy here. What potential end game is there in dealing directly with PropOrNot? Jim Moody's time is valuable, Yves' time is valuable, but they seem likely to be a few nobodies who no one would have paid any attention to if the Washington Post hadn't amplified the reach of their amateurish operation by factor of a million.

    Clive December 10, 2016 at 6:24 am

    I think you said it all there without maybe realizing it - PropOrNot may seem like harmless nobodies and, left to their own devices and not given the oxygen of publicity that is what they'd have remained.

    But there are no accidents in life. The Washington Post (and do keep in mind its owner) picked up on their output and played their tune on the Mighty Media Wurlitzer thereby amplifying it. That alone is suggestive that PropOrNot may not be the two guys working out of their Mom's basement which it is easy to think they might be.

    Add in the fact that - worldwide now, I can tell you that even outside the U.S. this whole "fake news" meme is still getting lots of airtime, the BBC in England is running 'Russia Hacked the U.S. Election' stories right now as I watch and the Japanese language media has similar too - what the Washington Post is seeking to do looks very well orchestrated and coordinated it means that you must not take anything at face value here.

    allan December 10, 2016 at 6:47 am

    The MSM is all in. Last night the PBS Newshour ran the first in a series of stories on FakeNews™, with favorably framed clips of Clinton and Sheryl Sandberg, and an extended
    interview with Marc Fisher of the WaPo. Oddly, no mention of the PropOrNot fiasco.

    craazyboy December 10, 2016 at 8:08 am

    It doesn't take a tin foil hat to believe the globalist-neocon-neolib-blob_thing feels it necessary to delegitimize Trump and Trump's election in order to reassure its merry band of practitioners that it's still biz as usual in the One World.

    And tho it may seem a challenge to re-paint "Lying Hillary" as the beacon of truth, challenges are what keep one motivated and ever stronger. No pain no gain.

    P.S. Irony Of The Year Award goes to Russia for hacking and releasing real news. If we are giving them the credit for DNC hacks and Hillary's secret private server discovery.

    barefoot charley December 10, 2016 at 10:24 am

    All in: (Yes, the Russians did it and no, we don't have to prove it)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.3de053262ddc

    lyman alpha blob December 10, 2016 at 9:42 am

    I went to a fundraiser last night where the very politically involved crowd was largely liberal and one of the award presenters brought up 'fake news' during her speech. If I'm not mistaken a member of this woman's family was one of Clinton's superdelegates. This 'fake news' meme is definitely being spread far and wide.

    Nuke it from orbit.

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 6:33 am

    We need to pursue the source of the defamation. See the BuzzFeed story yesterday, which is generally very sympathetic to our position. Yet even that reporter says, Why have you gone after the Post and not ProOrNot too?

    I think this is at the very most six guys and probably more like two or three, for reasons not worth taking the time to explain. And do not forget that the New Yorker said not only they but other major pubs were shown the story and passed on it.

    So the question is more: why did the Post pick up on obvious rubbish and treat it as newsworthy? This may have less to do with grand conspiracy as much as a bad intersection of events, such as: the Post under Bezos explicitly placing much more pressure on reporters to churn out stories quickly, which means less fact checking; hysteria over Russia and fake news; and individual reporters and editors seeing it as to their advantage to be in front of a hot area, no matter at what risk. Recall the Post has run such nutty stories as one saying that Hillary's 9/11 collapse was due to Putin poisoning her.

    Jack December 10, 2016 at 9:07 am

    I think WAPO picked it up because they were obviously all in for Clinton during the election. Whether Bezos was the hand behind this or not, WAPO has certainly focused on Trump. They even admitted they were doing it as Bob Woodward disclosed in a Zero Hedge article. And of course, WAPO assisted Clinton against Sanders with their coverage which has been documented many times. Now Clinton is on the bandwagon of the fake news fiasco. She just gave a speech about it Thursday.

    rusti December 10, 2016 at 9:14 am

    Thanks Yves (and Clive) for the responses. My concern is that if a shoddy three-man operation, paired with a useful idiot MSM amplifier, can provoke a response that puts sites like NC on the defensive and takes time from original reporting, it could be a template for quick-and-dirty future attacks against independent media outlets. It seems like the amplifier is the only part of the chain that can't just change domain names and set up shop somewhere else.

    But I can see how ignoring them entirely isn't an optimal solution either. I'll keep throwing my change in the tip jar and seeing how it all unfolds.

    craazyboy December 10, 2016 at 8:47 am

    The PorN site is a dark site. We don't know who the principals are or where its funding comes from. YYYYvesYYY also said NC needs to know what jurisdiction to file in in order to pursue PorN, but that is not even known at this point. But in the Wapo response to TruthDig, Wapo stated they did have "numerous" discussions with some persons at PorN before running the story.

    So you got to shake the tree by the branches you can grab. The ball is now in Wapo's court to state, "Journalistic integrity demands we do not reveal our sources in order to protect their safety."

    Meanwhile PorN is calling upon the entire USG security apparatus to investigate 200 websites for Treason, but we are unsure about which country[government] Treason is being committed against in One World. This doesn't sound like a very safe situation for simple minded provincial US citizen homebodies.

    Mike December 10, 2016 at 6:25 am

    Hello,

    I have been browsing your links for many years now – I find them well balanced, genuine, thought provoking, and usually quite deep. And it is not just me – your quality is well recognized among financial online community and punditry.

    It is important you treat this thing with the right kind of attention. This is not mccarthian. If it would be, you would be locked down in some hole in a secret location. This is somebody claiming you have silicone tits and an extramarital affair with Michael Moore. Nobody gives a shit about this, or their software, or WaPo and thir article – even if it gets 10 million retweets. Twitter attention span is 1 minute.

    Sure, sue everybody. But never give them an aureola of some dark sinister power. Ridicule them every way of the step. Ridicule "newspapers of record". Ridicule retweets. Have fun with it. Find new cases of such crap, where you personally are not affected. Help Melania Trump in her great fight against online violence :-)

    Just never concede to this as a "media fight" or "two versions of reality". This has nothing to do with news or reality. Do not give them that ground. This is some insignificant ass claiming you have fake tits, and it was picked up by an obsolete marketing tool called WaPo. A claim of an extramarital affair with Michael Moore would probably get even more coverage and more retweets and I bet some cable news discussions about public health consequences of missionary position with such a voluptuous man.

    Make the most out of this opportunity.

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 6:44 am

    We are fighting a legal battle and a political battle. The need to do both somewhat restricts our degrees of freedom. The political battle is ultimately the far more important one, since the "fake news" scare is part of a major push to restrict content on the web, by de facto rather than de jure means.

    tegnost December 10, 2016 at 10:22 am

    you're kidding yourself, every time lately that I look at mainstream headlines the fake news story is there near the top, can no longer stomach the news hour but another commenter says they're doing a series think about all those proper folks demanding their kids not read alternative views? The only consolation I can think of is that hillary lost because clearly this story was put out in advance of her losing and would still be amplified had she won, .the outcome looks bleak either way from here might as well fight it

    Hoi Polloi December 10, 2016 at 7:04 am

    I can tell you these fake news websites articles were heavily promoted here in Europe, so the consequences are wide spread world wide.

    I tried to explain the reasons and people behind ProporNot, but my comments were censored on 3 of the biggest digital newspapers in The Netherlands, some of them are in close contact with Soros.

    We have national elections in March 2017 and I can tell you the majority of the people are mad as hell and they know the news presented to them in the MSM are/were heavily biased towards Clinton. The MSM are sh*t scared what will happen in March 2017, an earthquake in the political landscape. All the liberal political leaders are now suddenly promoting political stuff that was unimaginable 2 years ago.

    I have followed your website on and off the last 5 years and the idea that you are guided by the Ruskies is absolutely preposterous even insane.

    I just wonder, was Wapo so blinded by the total unexpected loss of Clinton that they keep on publicing this nonsense or is it the trench war by Trump through his tweets. Wapo must have been aware of the amateurish drivel from Propornot and took a big risk of being exposed as havily biased and unprofessional with a heavy backlash.

    Anyways, I would like to donate to you in this battle, do you accept Paypal as well.

    I wish you and your team lots of success, Yves in this battle for truth.

    Cheers
    Fred from Holland

    Yves Smith Post author December 10, 2016 at 7:37 am

    Thanks for the intel and your willingness to help. Yes, we accept PayPal. Please visit our Tip Jar (the snow leopards in the right column).

    Itamar Turner-Trauring December 10, 2016 at 7:54 am

    It's not clear who own the domain since they use a Whois privacy provider ( https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=propornot.com ).

    However, if PropOrNot doesn't respond you might be able to get their Whois privacy provider to get you the real owner's details – click on "File a Claim" at https://www.domainsbyproxy.com/default.aspx to see their process.

    Peter December 10, 2016 at 9:37 am

    Check this: http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/12/whos-behind-propornots-blacklist-of-news-websites/

    And follow the money. Always.

    FluffytheObeseCat December 10, 2016 at 7:58 am

    I realize that there were a number of right wing news outlets included in this de facto censorship effort. But, they seem to be in a much stronger position than the left wing ones. Wider distribution, less choosy about what they'll run, favored by the incoming power elite, etc. Except, perhaps for a few paleocons-turned-libertarian-contrarians like Paul Craig Roberts. The Drudge Report types seem less vulnerable.

    I haven't been paying as much attention as I should to post a comment. But, first order, it looks like this imbalance may pertain to targeting. No one could expect to dull the impact of the Drudge Report by including it in an app of this kind. It is simply too prominent. Therefore, dampening the influence of the Drudge Report (and similar sites) was not the point of this little exercise.

    Slurring the actual targets by including Drudge & company in the app seems . more the point.

    Carolinian December 10, 2016 at 8:32 am

    Last night the PBS Newshour did a segment on "fake news." They are also participating in the current PBS pledge drive. Perhaps they are hoping that George Soros will send them a big check.

    One had hoped that the show would improve now that the election is over. One was wrong.

    Local8 December 10, 2016 at 9:34 am

    The MSM has lost control of the narrative. The big dailies continue to hemorrhage ad revenue, month in and month out, year in and year out. Their existence going forward will be even more dependent on government assistance. Fake News is the pathetic death rattle of the neoliberal order.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Shiny object distruction from the real issues

    Short-termism is a real problem for the US politicians. It is only now the "teeth of dragon" sowed during domination of neoliberalism since 80th start to show up in unexpected places. And reaction is pretty predictable. As one commenter said: "Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'. ..."
    "... Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. ..."
    "... i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists) ..."
    "... Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. ..."
    "... The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there? ..."
    "... Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us ..."
    "... The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet. ..."
    "... The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions. ..."
    "... What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord! ..."
    "... As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. ..."
    "... Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. ..."
    "... The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly 4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn ..."
    "... 96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. ..."
    "... Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA. ..."
    "... Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. ..."
    "... There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. ..."
    "... And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. ..."
    "... Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. ..."
    "... I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor. ..."
    "... The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling ..."
    "... Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying. ..."
    "... This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play. ..."
    "... At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show. ..."
    "... Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA ..."
    "... Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms. ..."
    "... I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. ..."
    "... In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. ..."
    "... after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing? ..."
    "... The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS. ..."
    "... 'CIA Team B' ..."
    "... 'Committee on the Present Danger' ..."
    "... 'Office of Special Plans' ..."
    "... Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. ..."
    "... It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. ..."
    "... He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    MEFOBILLS -> Keyser , Dec 10, 2016 1:01 PM

    It is worse than "shiny object." Human brains have a latency issue - the first time they hear something, it sticks. To unstick something, takes a lot of counter evidence.

    So, a Goebbels-like big lie, or shiny object can be told, and then it can take on a life of its own. False flags operate under this premise. There is an action (false flag), and then false narrative is issued into press mouthpieces immediately. This then plants a shiny object in sheeple brains. It then takes too much mental effort for average sheeple to undo this narrative, so "crowds" can be herded.

    Six million dead is a good example of this technique.

    Fortunately, with the internet, "supposed fake news sites like ZH" are spreading truth so fast - that shiny stories issued by our Oligarch overlords are being shot down quickly.

    Bezo's, who owns Washington Post, is taking rents by avoiding sales taxes; not that I'm a fan of sales taxes. But, ultimately, Bezos is taking rental thefts, and he is afraid of Trump - who may change the law, hence collapse the profit scheme of Amazon.

    Cognitive Dissonance -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM

    Oldwood. I have a great deal of respect for you and your intelligent opinions.

    My only concern is our constant and directed attention towards the 'liberals' and 'progressives'. When we do so we are thinking it is 'them' that are the problem.

    In fact it is the force behind 'them' that is the problem. If we oppose 'them', we are wasting our energy upon ghosts and boogeymen.

    Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'.

    chunga -> Cognitive Dissonance •Dec 10, 2016 11:33 AM

    I've been reading what the blue-teamers are saying over on the "Democratic Underground" site and for a while they've been expressing it's their "duty" to disrupt this thing. They are now calling Trump a "Puppet Regime".

    Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. Also watch for moar of the Suprun elector frauds pop out of the woodwork. The Russian people must be absolutely galvanized by what's happening, USSA...torn into many opposing directions.

    dark pools of soros -> chunga •Dec 10, 2016 1:38 PM
    First tell them to change their name to the Progressive Party of Globalists. Then remind them that many democrats left them and voted for Trump.. Remind them again and again that if they really want to see blue states again, they have to actually act like democrats again

    I assure you that you'll be banned within an hour from any of their sites

    American Gorbachev -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:12 AM

    not an argument to the contrary, but one of elongating the timing

    i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists)

    with a political timetable operative as well, whereby some (pardon the pun :) trumped up excuse for impeachment investigations/proceedings can consume the daily news during the run-up to the mid-term elections (with the intent of flipping the Senate and possibly House)

    these are very powerful, patient, and deliberate bastards (globalist statists) who may very well have engineered Trump's election for the very purpose of marginalizing, near the point of eliminating, the rural, christian, middle-class, nationalist voices from subsequent public debate

    Oldwood -> American Gorbachev •Dec 10, 2016 10:21 AM

    The problem is that once Trump becomes president, he will have much more power to direct the message as well as the many factions of government agencies that would otherwise be used to substantiate so called Trump failures. This is a calculated risk scenario for them, but to deny Trump the presidency by far produces more positives for them than any other.

    They will have control of the message and will likely shut down much of alternate media news. It is imperative that Trump be stopped BEFORE taking the presidency.

    sleigher -> overbet •Dec 10, 2016 10:00 AM

    "I read one morons comment that the IP address was traced back to a Russian IP. Are people really that dumb? I can post this comment from dozens of country IPs right now."

    Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. IP addresses from Russia mean nothing.

    kellys_eye -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

    The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there?

    Paul Kersey -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

    "Most of our politicians are chosen by the Oligarchy."

    And most of our politicians choose the Oligarchy. Trump's choices:

    Wilbur Ross, Rothschild, Inc

    The working man's choices.....very limited.

    Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey •Dec 10, 2016 10:27 AM

    "Barack Obama received more money from Goldman Sachs employees than any other corporation. Tim Geithner, Obama's first treasury secretary, was the protege of one-time Goldman CEO Robert Rubin. "

    "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

    Nameshavebeench... -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 11:53 AM

    If Trump gets hit, the 'official story' of who did it will be a lie.

    There needs to be a lot of online discussion about this ahead of time in preparation. If/when the incident happens, there needs to be a successful counter-offensive that puts an end to the Deep State. (take from that what you will)

    We've seen the MO many times now;

    The patterns are well established & if Trump gets hit it should be no surprise, now the 'jackals' need to be exterminated.

    Also, keep in mind that everything we're hearing in all media just might be psyops/counter-intel/planted 'news' etc.

    sgt_doom -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 1:25 PM

    Although I have little hope for this happening, ideally Trump should initiate full forensic audits of the CIA, NSA, DIA and FBI. The last time a sitting president undertook an actual audit of the CIA, he had his brains blown out (President John F. Kennedy) and the Fake News (CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.) reported that a fellow who couldn't even qualify as marksman, the lowest category (he was pencilled in) was the sniper.

    Then, on the 50th anniversary of that horrible coup d'etat, another Fake News show (NPR) claimed that a woman in the military who worked at the rifle range at Atsuga saw Oswald practicing weekly - - absurd on the fact of it, since women weren't allowed at military rifle ranges until the late 1970s or 1980s (and I doublechecked and there was never a woman assigned there in the late 1950s).

    Just be sure he has trustworthy bodyguards, unlike the last batch of phony Secret Service agents (and never employ anyone named Elmer Moore).

    2rigged2fail -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 4:04 PM

    Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us

    Arnold -> Arnold •Dec 10, 2016 9:15 AM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

    jmack -> boattrash •Dec 10, 2016 11:08 AM

    All these Russian interference claims require one to believe that the MSM and democrat machine got out played and out cheated by a bunch of ruskies. This is the level of desperation the democrats have fallen too. To pretend to be so incompetent that the Russians outplayed and overpowered their machine. But I guess they have to fall on that narrative vs the fact that a "crazy" real estate billionaire with a twitter account whipped their asses.

    Democrats, you are morally and credulously bankrupt. all your schemes, agenda's and machinations cannot put humpty dumpty back together again. So now it is another period of scorched earth. The Federal Bureaucracy will fight Trump tooth and nail, joined by the democrats in the judiciary, and probably not a few rino's too.

    It is going to get ugly, like a machete fight. W. got a taste of it with his Plame affair, the brouhaha over the AGA firings, the regime of Porter Goss as DCI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Goss

    DuneCreature -> cherry picker •Dec 10, 2016 10:30 AM

    The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet.

    The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions.

    You said a mouth full, cherry picker. ..... Until the US Intel community goes 'bye bye' the world will HATE the US. ... People aren't stupid. They know who is behind the evil shit.

    ... ... ..

    G-R-U-N-T •Dec 10, 2016 9:39 AM

    What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord!

    Colborne •Dec 10, 2016 9:37 AM

    As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. So, that's the lay of the terrain there now, that's who's running the place. And they aren't going without a fight apparently.

    Interesting times , more and more so.

    66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM

    For those of us who still have a grip on reality, here are the facts of this election:

    But given this is a story from WaPo, I think will just give a few days until it is thoroughly discredited.

    max2205 -> 66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 11:04 AM

    And she won CA by 4 million. She hates she only gets a limited amount of electoral votes.. tough shit rules are rules bitch. Suck it

    HalEPeno •Dec 10, 2016 9:43 AM

    Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA.

    Clara Tardis •Dec 10, 2016 9:45 AM

    This is a vid from the 1950's, "How to spot a Communist" all you have to do is swap out commie for: liberal, neocon, SJW and democrat and figure out they've about won....

    https://youtu.be/w86QhV7whjs

    dogismycopilot •Dec 10, 2016 9:51 AM

    This is the same CIA that let Pakistan build up the Taliban in Afganistan during the 1990s and gave Pakistan ISI (Pakistan spy agency) hundreds of millions of USD which the ISI channeled to the Taliban and Arab freedom fighters including a very charming chap named Usama Bin Laden.

    The CIA is as worthless as HRC.

    Fuck them and their failed intelligence. I hope Trump guts the CIA like a fish. They need a reboot.

    Yes We Can. But... -> venturen •Dec 10, 2016 10:08 AM

    Why might the Russians want Trump? If there is anything to the stuff I've been reading about the Clintons, they are like cornered animals. Putin just may think the world is a safer, more stable place w/o the Clintons in power.

    TRM -> atthelake •Dec 10, 2016 10:44 AM

    If it is "on" then those doing the "collections" should be aware that a lot of people they will be "collecting" have read Solzhenitsyn.

    "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"

    Those doing the "collections" will have to choose and choose wisely the side they are on. How much easier would it be for them to report back "Sorry, couldn't find them" than to face the wrath of a well armed population?

    Abaco •Dec 10, 2016 9:53 AM

    The clowns running the intelligence agencies for the US have ZERO credibility. Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. He was not fired or reprimanded in any way. He retired with a generous pension. He is a treasonous basrtard who should be swinging from a lamppost. These people serve their political masters - not the people - and deserve nothing but mockery and and a noose.

    mendigo •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM

    As reported on infowars:
    On Dec 9 0bomber issued executive order providing exemption to Arms Export Control Act to permit supplying weapons (ie sams etc) to rebel groups in Syria as a matter "essential to national security "interests"".

    Be careful in viewing this report as is posted from RT - perhaps best to wait for corraboaration on front page of rededicated nyt to be sure and avoid fratrenizing with Vlad.

    Separately Gabard has introduced bill : Stop Arming Terrorists Act.

    David Wooten •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM

    There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia.

    Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. All of these institutions should be registered as foriegn agents and any cleared US citizen should have his or her clearance revoked if they do any work for these organizations, either as a contractor or employee. And these Gulf states have all been donating oil money to UK and US universities so lets include the foreign studies branches of universities in the registry of foreign agents, too.

    And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. Arms companies who sell deadly weapons to the Gulf States, in turn, donate money to Congressmen and now own politicians such as Senators Graham and McCain. It's no wonder Graham wants to help his pals - er owners. So what we have here ('our' government) is institutionalized influence, if not outright control, of US foreign policy by some of the most vicious states on the planet,
    especially Saudi Arabia - whose religious police have been known to beat school girls fleeing from burning buildings because they didn't have their headscarves on.

    As Hillary's 2014 emails have revealed, Qatar and Saudi Arabia support ISIS and were doing so about the same time as ISIS was sweeping through Syria and Iraq, cutting off the heads of Christians, non-Sunnis and just about anyone else they thought was in the way. The Saudi/Gulf States are the driving force to get rid of Assad and that is dangerous as nuclear-armed Russia protects him. If something isn't done about this, the Gulf oil states may get US into a nuclear war with Russia - and won't care in the least.

    Richard Whitney •Dec 10, 2016 10:10 AM

    So...somehow, Putin was able to affect the election one way, and the endorsements for HRC and the slander of Trump by and from Washington Post, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, practically every big-city newspaper, practically every newspaper in Europe, every EU mandarin, B Streisand, Keith Olberman, Comedy Central, MSNBC, CNN, Lady Gaga, Lena Dunham and a wad of other media outlets and PR-driven-celebs couldn't affect that election the other way.

    Sounds unlikely on the face of it, but hats off to Vlad. U.S. print and broadcast media, Hollywood, Europe...you lost.

    seataka •Dec 10, 2016 10:11 AM

    The Reverse Blockade

    "Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. " page 104, Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski more

    just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:51 AM

    that car ride for the WH to the capital is going to be fun.

    Arnold -> just the tip •Dec 10, 2016 12:12 PM

    Your comment ticked one of my remaining Brain Cells.

    The final scene of "The Gauntlet".

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076070/

    Pigeon •Dec 10, 2016 10:29 AM

    I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor.

    The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling. 50% of the Federal govt needs to go.....now.

    What is BEYOND my comprehension is how anyone would think that in Putin's mind, Trump would be preferable to Hillary. She and her cronies are so corrupt, he would either be able to blackmail or destroy her (through espionage and REAL leaks) any time he wanted to during her presidency.

    Do TPTB think we are this fucking stupid?

    madashellron •Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM

    Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46006.htm

    jfb •Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM

    I love this. Trump is not eager to "drain the swamp" and to collide with the establishment, anyway he has no viable economic plan and promised way too much. However if they want to lead a coup for Hilary with the full backing of most republican and democrat politicians just to get their war against Russia, something tells me that the swamp will be drained for real when the country falls apart in chaos.

    northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:36 AM

    Fuckin' Obama interfered in the Canadian election last year by sending advisers up north to corrupt our laws. He has a lot of nerve pointing fingers at the Russians.

    I notice liberals love to point fingers at others, when they are the guilty ones. It must be in the Alinsky handbook.

    Pigeon -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:38 AM

    Called "projection". Everything they accuse others of doing badly, illegally, immorally, etc. - means that is EXACTLY what they are up to.

    just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:35 AM

    It is in the Alinsky handbook.

    Arnold -> just the tip •Dec 10, 2016 4:41 PM

    http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/13/12_ways_to_use_sau...

    jerry_theking_lawler •Dec 10, 2016 10:45 AM

    CIA = Deep State.

    Trump should not only 'defund' them but should end all other 'programs' that are providing funds to them. Drug trade, bribery, embezzelment, etc. End the CIA terror organization.

    Skiprrrdog •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM

    Putin for Secretary of State... :-)

    brianshell •Dec 10, 2016 10:50 AM

    Section 8, The congress shall have the power to...declare war...raise armies...navies...militia.
    The National Security Act charged the CIA with coordinating the nation's intelligence activities and correlating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence affecting national security.

    Rogue members of the executive branch have overstepped their authority by ordering the CIA to make war without congressional approval or oversight.

    A good deal of the problems created by the United States, including repercussions such as terrorism have been initiated by the CIA

    Under "make America great", include demanding congress assume their responsibility regarding war.

    Rein in the executive and the CIA

    DarthVaderMentor •Dec 10, 2016 10:59 AM

    This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play.

    At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show.

    Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA

    The fact that's forgotten about this is that if the story was even slightly true, it shows how incompetent the Democrats are in running a country, how Barak Obama was an intentional incompetent trying to drive the country into the ground and hurting its people, how even with top technologies, coerced corrupted vendors and trillions in funding the NSA, CIA and FBI they were outflanked by the FSB and others and why Hillary's server was more incompetent and dangerous a decision than we think.

    Maybe Hillary and Bill had their server not to hide information from the people, but maybe to actually promote the Russian hacking?

    Why should Trump believe the CIA? What kind of record and leadership do they have that anyone other than a fool should listen to them?

    small axe •Dec 10, 2016 10:55 AM

    At some point Americans will need to wake up to the fact that the CIA has and does interfere in domestic affairs, just as it has long sought to counter "subversion" overseas. The agency is very likely completely outside the control of any administration at this point and is probably best seen as the enforcement arm of the Deep State.

    As the US loses its empire and gains Third World status, it is (sadly) fitting that the CIA war to maintain docile populations becomes more apparent domestically.

    Welcome to Zimbabwe USA.

    marcusfenix •Dec 10, 2016 11:10 AM

    what I don't understand is why the CIA is even getting tangled up in this three ring circus freak show.

    Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms.

    I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. All these stars are not exactly going to support their president going belly up to the bar with Putin. and since Trump has no military or civilian leadership experience (which is why I believe he has loaded up on so much brass in the first place, to compensate) I have no doubt they will have tremendous influence on policy.

    In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. perhaps some have grown so large and so powerful that they have their own agendas? it's not as if our federal government has ever really been one big happy family there have been many times when the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. and congress is week so oversight of this monolithic military and intelligence entities may not be as extensive as we would like to think.

    after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing?

    and is this really all just a small glimpse of some secret war within, which every once in a while bubbles up to the surface?

    CheapBastard •Dec 10, 2016 11:34 AM

    The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS.

    However, there is no doubt the Russians stole my TV remote last week.

    Kagemusho Dec 10, 2016 11:38 AM

    The Intel agencies have been politicized since the late 1970's; look up 'CIA Team B' and the 'Committee on the Present Danger' and their BS 'minority report' used by the original NeoCons to sway public opinion in favor of Ronald Reagan and the arms buildup of the 1980's, which led to the first sky-high deficits. It also led to a confrontational stance against the Soviet Union which almost led to nuclear war in 1983: The 1983 War Scare Declassified and For Real http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb533-The-Able-Archer-War-Scare-Decl...

    The honest spook analysts were forced out, then as now, in favor of NeoCons with political agendas that were dangerously myopic to say the least. The 'Office of Special Plans' in the Pentagon cherry-picked or outright fabricated intel in order to justify the NeoCon/Israeli wet-dream of total control of oil and the 'Securing the (Israeli) Realm' courtesy of invading parts of the Middle East and destabilizing the rest, with the present mess as the wholly predictable outcome. The honest analysts told them it would happen, and now they're gone.

    This kind of organizational warping caused by agency politicization is producing the piss-poor intel leading to asinine decisions creating untold tragedy; that the WaPo is depending upon this intel from historically-proven tainted sources is just one more example of the incestuous nature of the relations between Traditional Media and its handlers in the intel community.

    YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 11:54 AM

    This isn't a "Soft Coup". It's the groundwork necessary for a rock hard, go-for-broke, above the barricade, tanks in the street coup d'etat. You do not get such a blatant accusation from the CIA and establishment echo vendor, unless they are ready to back it up to the hilt with action. The accusations are serious - treason and election fraud.

    Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. His natural "Mistake" is seeking people at his level of business acumen - his version of real, ordinary people - when billionaires/multimillionaires are actually Type A personalities, usually predatory and addicted to money. In his world, and in America in general, money equates to good social standing more than any other facet of personal achievements. It is natural for an American to equate "Good" with money. I'm a Brit and foreigners like me (I have American cousins I've visited since I was a kid) who visit the States are often surprised by the shallow materialism that equates to culture.

    So we have a bunch of dubious Alpha types addicted to money in transition to take charge of government who know little or nothing about the principle of public service. Put them in a room together and without projects they can focus on, they are going to turn on each other for supremacy. I would not be surprised if Trump's own cabinet destroys him or uses leverage from their own power bases to manipulate him.

    Mike Pompeo, for example, is the most fucked up pick as CIA director I could have envisaged. He is establishment to his core, a neocon torture advocate who will defend the worst excesses of the intelligence arm of the MIC no matter what. One word from his mouth could have stopped this bullshit about Russia helping Trump win the election. Nobody in the CIA was going to argue with the new boss. Yet here we are, on the cusp of another attack on mulitple fronts. This is how you manipulate an incumbent president to dial up his paranoia to the max and failing that, launch a coup d'etat.

    It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him and he chose his cabinet from the establishment swamp dwellers to best protect him from his enemies. Wrong choices, granted, but understandable.

    He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power.

    flaminratzazz ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM
    I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him,,
    +1 I think he was just dickin around with throwin his hat in the ring, was going to go have fun calling everyone names with outlandish attacks and lo and behold he won.. NOW he is shitting himself on the enormity of his GREATEST fvkup in his life.
    jomama ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:16 PM
    Unless you can show how Trump's close ties to Wall St. (owes banks there around 350M currently
    YHC-FTSE ->jomama •Dec 10, 2016 12:59 PM
    My post is conjecture, obviously. The basis of my musings, as stated above, is the fact that the establishment has tried to destroy Trump from the outset using all of their assets in his own party, the msm, Hollyweird, intelligence and politics. A full retard attack is being perpetrated against him as I type.

    There is some merit to dividing the establishment, the Deep State, into two opposing sides. One that lost power, priestige and funds backing Hillary and one that did not, which would make Trump an alternative establishment candidate. But there is no proof that any establishment (MIC+Banking) entity even likes Trump, let alone supports him. As for Israel, Hillary was their candidate of choice, but their MO is they will always infiltrate and back both sides to ensure compliance.

    blindfaith ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:36 PM
    Do not underestimate Trump. I will grant that some of these picks are concerning. However, think in terms of business, AND government is a business from top to bottom. It has been run as a dog and pony show for years and look where we are. To me, I think his picks are strating to look like a very efficient team to get the government efficient again. That alone must make D.C. shake in thier boots.
    YHC-FTSE ->blindfaith •Dec 10, 2016 1:08 PM
    Underestimating Trump is the last thing I would do. I'm just trying to understand his motives in my own clumsy way. Besides, he promised to "Drain the swamp", not run the swamp more efficiently.
    ducksinarow •Dec 10, 2016 12:04 PM
    From a non political angle, this is a divorce in the making. Then democrats have been rejected in totallity but instead of blaming themselves for not being good enough, they are blaming a third party which is the Russians. They are now engaging the Republican Party in a custody battle for the "children". There are lies flying around and the older children know exactly what is going on and sadly the younger children are confused, bewildered, angry and getting angrier by the minute. Soon Papa(Obama) will be leaving which is symbolic of the male father figure in the African American community. The new Papa is a white guy who is going to change the narrative, the rules of engagement and the financial picture. The ones who were the heroes in the Obama narrative are not going to be heroes anymore. New heroes will be formed and revered and during this process some will die for their beliefs.

    Back to reality, Trump needs to cleanse the CIA of the ones who would sell our nation to the highest bidder. If the CIA is not on the side of America the CIA should be abolished. In a world where mercenaries are employed all over the world, bringing together a culturally mixed agency does not make for a very honest agency. It makes for a bunch of self involved countries trying to influence the power of individuals. The reason Castro was never taken down is because it was not in the interest of the CIA to do so. That is why there were some pretty hilarious non-attempts on Castro's life over the years. It is not in the best interest of the CIA that Trump be president. It is in the best interest of America that Trump is our President.

    brane pilot •Dec 10, 2016 12:22 PM

    Even the idea that people would rely on foreign governments for critical information during an election indicates the bankruptcy of the corrupt US media establishment. So now they resort to open sedition and defamation in the absence of factual information. The mainstream media in the USA has become a Fifth Column against America, no different than the so-called 'social science' departments on college campuses. Trump was America's last chance and we took it and no one is going to take it away.

    [Dec 10, 2016] The head of the worlds largest private surveillance operation, billionaire Eric Schmidt

    Notable quotes:
    "... the world's largest private surveillance operation ..."
    "... Ha! I wish I'd thought of that line! I just laughed out loud on the train and my fellow commuter drones are shuffling and wondering to themselves if I'm on day release from an institution. ..."
    "... Of course, the joke's on us, because that's exactly what they (Google) are with all the right friends in high places to boot ..."
    "... Something that has been occurring lately with Chrome makes me think that Google is truly watching. A lot of sites (RT et al) are having the https// crossed out in red implying that the connection is no longer secure. ..."
    Dec 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Clive December 9, 2016 at 2:42 am

    " the head of the world's largest private surveillance operation , billionaire Eric Schmidt "

    Ha! I wish I'd thought of that line! I just laughed out loud on the train and my fellow commuter drones are shuffling and wondering to themselves if I'm on day release from an institution.

    Of course, the joke's on us, because that's exactly what they (Google) are with all the right friends in high places to boot .

    heresy101 December 9, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Something that has been occurring lately with Chrome makes me think that Google is truly watching. A lot of sites (RT et al) are having the https// crossed out in red implying that the connection is no longer secure.

    For instance, the "true" link in the article above has the https// in red when using Chrome, but Firefox does not make it unsecure (at least it isn't showing it). https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/maxim-eristavi/terror-against-ukraine-s-journalists-is-fueled-by-political-elites Does this have something to do with certificates or is something more sinister going on?

    Chrome puts each tab in a new process versus Firefox creating one big file that becomes unstable if you open too many tabs.

    There was a comment on ZH recently that referenced a secure browser but now I can't find the link. Does anyone have a suggestion?

    Clive December 9, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    Probably TOR but I would caution this is far from foolproof and may even incur The Panopticon's more intrusive surveillance attention.

    I value my privacy as much as anyone but I don't use TOR or similar simply because if they are not a guaranteed solution, what's the point? And besides, why should I have to? It's just another tax on my time and resources.

    Dopey Panda December 9, 2016 at 7:08 pm

    The opendemocracy link you gave shows up as having issues in firefox also. It looks like they have some insecure images on the page, which is probably what chrome is complaining about.

    [Dec 09, 2016] Washington Post Refuses to Retract Article Defaming Naked Capitalism and Other Sites naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... It appears that the globalists are scared of anything that resembles the truth that counters their incessant propaganda If there was ever a discovery process in a lawsuit against WAPO, I would imagine that all roads would lead to a Contelpro section of the CIA It's interesting that Wall Street on Parade has noted that Propornot has a double blind registration in New Mexico. ..."
    "... Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. ..."
    "... More and more it seems like USA, like the roman empire, needs barbarians at the gates to distract the plebs from internal structural problems. ..."
    "... As long as Yeltsin allowed Wall Street to loot Russia of former soviet holdings, Russia was not "barbaric". Now that Putin has put a solid halt on said looting, Russia is again "barbarians" ..."
    "... And by refusing to address the emails, other than to scream "Russian hackers," the corporate media were able to convince the Clinton cultists and other Third-Way believers that the information they contained was just another right-wing attack on The Anointed because (other than leftist, Russian-loving "fake news" sites), the right-wing media were the only ones paying it any attention. ..."
    "... I am old enough to remember seeing in the news reel at my local theater in 1950 Joseph McCarthy holding up a piece of paper to the cameras and intoning in his inimitable droning voice, "I have here in my hand a list of 205 known members of the Communist Party who are working and shaping policy in the State Department." ..."
    "... People's livelihoods and reputations were thereby smeared for life. Never did McCarthy back his claims with evidence, nor did he retract his scurrilous accusation. Now, tell me how what Jeff Bezos and co. are doing in this instance is in any significant way different from what McCarthy did to these people back in 1956. What finally put it squarely before the American public and finally earned McCarthy Congressional censure was when Boston attorney Joseph Welch asked McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" ..."
    "... Here's the thing. Yes, RT is funded by the Russian government, and thus anything posted thereon needs to be considered with that in mind. Nevertheless, it is also where stories the corporates prefer to ignore are given attention. In other words, there is an irony that the Russians may, indeed, be trying to influence us, but if so, they appear to be doing it by subtly undermining the reliability of the corporate media. ..."
    "... To put it another way, dismissing RT solely because of its funding source is no better than dismissing NC et al. as propaganda sites, and doing so is actually feeding the propaganda machine. After all, we don't know what percentage of the US media currently receives "grants" from US intelligence agencies, now, do we. ..."
    "... In studying communications, there's a distinction between 'white' and 'black' propaganda. White propaganda is publishing truth that supports your cause. Black propaganda is, of course, slanderous lies. RT is white propaganda, so use it for the value it brings. ..."
    "... Exactly. I'm a grown-up. I have a lot of practice reading critically and I'm quite capable of questioning sources and filtering bias. I don't need Jeff Bezos to protect me from Russkie BadThink. ..."
    "... "does not itself vouch " You have to bear in mind this is not the Post talking, this is CIA CIA has blatantly used the Post as a their sockpuppet since they put Woodward in there to oust Nixon, and now they've got Bezos by the contractual balls. CIA has impunity in municipal statute and secret red tape so any answer you get from them means No fuck You. ..."
    "... The NDAA legalized domestic propaganda in 2013 so when the public repudiated their chosen president Hillary Clinton, CIA immediately got to work work attacking Article 19. ..."
    "... [M]aybe we should just lump them [WaPo] in with Breitbart and company. ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    cocomaan December 8, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Right on. When Yves says:

    This is tantamount to an admission that not only did the Washington Post do no fact-checking, but also that it does not consider fact-checking to be part of its job.

    Another way to put it is to say that WaPoo is not in the business of investigation but instead is in the business of regurgitation . WaPoo seems to think that reporting equals repeating.

    We don't need people who repeat other people's words. We need reporters who are digging.

    Eduardo Quince December 8, 2016 at 7:30 am

    Not enough! They need to apologise. They should also fire Timberg.

    Was this mimicry of a Trump tweet intentional or subconscious?

    john bougearel December 8, 2016 at 7:46 am

    "This minimalist walk-back does not remedy the considerable damage [already] done to NC and other sites." No, it certainly does not. Once the "defamatory cat" is out of the bag, you can't exactly stuff the cat back in.

    Proceed, young lady with your case. But as you move forward, do take measures to keep these vampires from stealing your adaptive energies and health.

    p.s. You know, this diminiishes WaPo to a mere "blog aggregator" when allows its "reporters" such as Craig Timberg to merely "scrape and publish" posts from anonymous blogsites (not even scraping from the laughable "gold standard" of truth on the internet: Wiki). These reporters aren't writing, they are scraping. What a bunch of lazy fucks at WaPo!

    And you know what I'd really like to do: kick this Craig Timberg character a new ass in a dark alley. Yves, when you are done shredding WaPo and Timberg, I sincerely hope they won't be able to sit down for a whole year.

    p.s.s. that post (yd) about Wiki becoming the "gold standard" of 'fact-finding" and "truth" on the internet was particularly disturbing. Even citations from academic journals (such as JAMA) posted in Wiki are laden with flawed research suffering from poor design and methodology, draw the wrong conclusions, reveal biases and conflicts of interest, show a lack of references etc. Decades ago, there was a shift in much of the medical literature – a shift from "evidence-based" to "consensus-based." The internet appears to be moving in the same direction, using various tools and methodologies that allow "consensus-based" opinions (valued by the certain parties that be) to be shaped as "facts" and "truth." When in fact, those opinions are anything but a truth.

    Alex December 8, 2016 at 8:53 am

    I suppose they're applying the Amazon retail aggregation model to the WaPo?

    flora December 8, 2016 at 10:11 am

    . a shift from "evidence-based" to "consensus-based."

    Yes. That's what I see as behind the browser flagging extensions, as if facts are subject to majority vote, which would make them opinions, not facts. If wapoo prints an editorial opinion on the editorial page, that's one thing. If wapoo prints editorial opinion masquerading as fact on the front page, that is a different matter.

    Wapoo's arrogant reply, in the form of an editor's note, to NC's letter isn't a surprising first move for them. I trust NC's atty has already thought many, many steps ahead.

    Sally December 8, 2016 at 7:47 am

    "The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so."

    You couldn't get a more weassely response. They admit they didn't fact check their sources, they cowadly now hide behind the defence of not actully naming any of the sites, and then finally try to play the "nothing to see here" defence of pretending the article didn't mean what it quite clearly did mean when it was published.

    Increasingly, challenging western govt output is seen as a form of rebellion. As Orwell said . telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    dk December 8, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    " nor did the article purport to do so."

    Shouldn't that be "nor does"? Since they didn't take it down

    Jim Haygood December 8, 2016 at 7:48 am

    One day I was listening to Bloomberg News on the car radio, when they aired a critical story on a company where I had worked. The criticism was from a third party group. And then the next news story began.

    Stunned, I phoned the reporter and asked, "Where was the company's rebuttal, or refusal to comment?"

    He replied, "It was there, you just didn't hear it."

    But I had listened with full attention, and it wasn't there. Maybe an editor had removed it to shorten the clip.

    This has been my experience with the MSM. They are always right. They make no mistakes. You should believe them, not your lying eyes and ears.

    Ulysses December 8, 2016 at 8:47 am

    "This has been my experience with the MSM. They are always right. They make no mistakes. You should believe them, not your lying eyes and ears."

    We have always been at war with Eurasia.

    The Ministry of Truth hasn't, yet, been given the power to completely silence those of us who don't stay within the confines of The Narrative. So their tactic is to portray us all as dangerous disinformators like Emmanuel Goldstein.

    Andrew December 8, 2016 at 7:52 am

    Accuracy is not part of the job when producing and publishing fake news – Washington Post

    Insta-epic classic

    William Young December 8, 2016 at 7:57 am

    In 1975, I went to the Soviet Union with a group of American tourists. At the time, I was working as a volunteer for Ralph Nader. A few times, some of the people in our group had a chance to talk to Soviet people in our hotels. The other Americans would give civics book explanations about how the US government worked. Some of the Soviet people would question these explanations, saying that they had heard from their government that the American government worked in a way that sounded to me much more accurate and in line with the way Nader portrayed the US. Undemocratic regimes are often fairly accurate in describing the faults of other governments, especially those of their perceived enemies, while ignoring their own failings. I do not know exactly what Russian propaganda the Washington Post is referring to, but I would not be surprised if various Russian sources simply repeat the common criticisms of the toxic activities of the neoliberal establishment – an establishment of which the Washington Post has been a long-time supporter. Why go through all of the trouble of fabricating stories when the reality is as damning as anything you could make up? So rather than the US sources in question spouting Russian propaganda, the Russians might simply be repeating the criticisms they are hearing from the US.

    Arizona Slim December 8, 2016 at 8:07 am

    All right. That did it. I'm sending another check to NC.

    FedUpPleb December 8, 2016 at 8:08 am

    This is tantamount to an admission that not only did the Washington Post do no fact-checking, but that it does not consider fact-checking to be part of its job.

    Ah, the Ratings Agencies "opinions" defense. Blithely ignorant of their own legally and historically protected positions. I suspect this is exactly the defense the WP will run with. Effectively they will assert their constitutional right as propagandists, to broadcast whatever they please in the national interest.

    is a new, private sector-led initiative

    I would say not entirely. True, large private corporations are behind a lot of this, but what is at stake is their authority to speak for, and their connections to, the state and Deep State.

    On a more emotional level, what is at stake is status. Because really that is all the big newspapers have anymore. Social status. Do not underestimate this currency. It is probably the most precious form of capital there is and the Post, et al, will fight with their fingernails to avoid losing it. Things could get pretty nasty. Good luck and give the bastards hell.

    HotFlash December 8, 2016 at 9:19 am

    Long, long time, b/c of their policies. I figure my opinion doesn't count, my vote doesn't count, but by golly, I will make every dollar I spend count. I buy locally when possible (ideally both locally made/grown and locally-owned retail, although there is at least one local company I will not patronize, for policy reasons) and have found alternate sources for things I can't get around here, eg. Powell's for books and Lehman's for tools and kitchen stuff. As a last resort I will comparison shop on Amazon and then ask my local supplier to order the thing in for me (as I did with my water heater). Not one nickel of mine will go to WaPo or Amazon. And I have told rellies, pls no Amazon gifts for our household.

    Vatch December 8, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Long before the current series of events happened, there were excellent reasons to avoid buying from Amazon.com. The horrific working conditions in Amazon.com warehouses should be enough to prevent any person from buying from the company. I suppose many people still aren't aware of how bad it is, so here's an example article:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-in-amazons-massive-warehouses-fulfillment-centers-2014-11/

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    As much as I would love to "boycott Amazon," it's not possible for several reasons. First, being old and crippled, I can't run out to the nearest Target to buy stuff, and I definitely don't have time or physical capacity to hop all over town trying to find some specialty item that doesn't sell enough for most bricks-and-mortar retailers to carry. I do buy direct when it's possible, but the fact of life is there's stuff you can only find on Amazon.

    Second, I own and operate a small digitally-based book publishing company, and Amazon is our major source of revenue. For me, boycotting Amazon would mean pulling my authors' work from distribution there, which isn't an option. Likewise, consider Kindle owners with extensive libraries.

    Frankly, I consider these calls to boycott some huge corporation the kind of symbolic action that allows people to feel good about themselves while avoiding doing anything actually effective. Like writing/emailing/phoning the editorial board of the local news media should they be broadcasting/publishing this rubbish-preferably all three and multiple times. Given that many are connected to the same major corporations as the Big Media, that strikes me as what really needs to be done.

    After all, WaPo isn't doing this in an echo chamber. Their fiction was picked up by all the major players and more than a few of the minor. The only way to counter public discourse is publicly.

    On another subject-Yves and Lambert, if you'd like someone to run over your articles pre-publication for a quick copyedit, you know where to find me. It's one of the non-monetary things I can donate.

    Spring Texan December 8, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Agree on symbolic action. I do buy from Amazon and either go to antiwar.com first (a mixed site, but one I want to see endure) and click so they get a commission or go to smile.amazon.com so my favorite small charity gets it.

    Buying is NOT voting. I'm a citizen and not mainly just a consumer. Not buying from amazon would hurt me more than them (especially as I like buying obscure second-hand books). There are much better things I can do to be politically effective, including letters to the editor and contributions.

    I do buy by preference from a third-party that doesn't distribute from Amazon warehouses if the price is close. And there are many things I do choose to get locally or from others. But I buy a heck of a lot from them especially books.

    JamesG December 8, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    Walmart has recently upgraded its on-line shopping site and its performance.

    You may not like WM but they don't own the Post and they're big enuff to hurt amazon.

    aliteralmind December 8, 2016 at 8:23 am

    There should be a union of sorts, among those defamed. Join forces with some other reputable smallish websites and create a consortium that pools resources to fight this sort of thing going forward.

    millicent December 8, 2016 at 8:24 am

    I think you should take the strongest, most aggressive stance possible given the huge number of very important issues at stake. I will continue to support naked capitalism any way that I can.

    kokuanani December 8, 2016 at 8:35 am

    Yves, have you contacted Bill Moyers? He initially referred to the Post article without adequate critical comment. He could and should remedy this. His voice would carry weight with the book bag-toting NPR folks, who will be among the last to "doubt" the Post.

    Lupemax December 8, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Excellent suggestion. I found NC when Bill Moyers recommended it on his old tv show when he interviewed Yves and it has continued to open my eyes big time and I haven't been the same since. Whenever I encounter a NYTimesbot or a BostonGlobebot or a Wapoobot or NPRbot (Blindly quoting believers) I tell them I don't have time for MSM anymore after Bill Moyers recommended this incredibly informative site and I tell them all about NC. I am so grateful for NC and Yves and Lambert and all the other contributors for what you all do. I would be devastated if this horror damages you (us) all. And Net Neutrality in general – Trump will go after it. WaPoo (love that) should be taken way out to the woodshed, shamed, and publicized for how awful they (and so many others in the MSM) have become. I will help in any way I can. And please stay well Yves and Lambert.

    savedbyirony December 8, 2016 at 11:58 am

    I found NC through Bill Moyers as well. Since he retired, i rarely look at the website and never the FC page anymore since the content significantly decreased in quality and originality imo after he retired. i know his name is still attached to the website and he still occasionally submits articles, but i wonder how much oversight and content involvement he has with the operation these days.

    savedbyirony December 8, 2016 at 1:04 pm

    That should read, "since he retired from the tv show Moyers & Co and it went off the air". The website still lists Bill Moyers as the managing editor. But the quality of the website noticeably changed after the show left PBS in i think 2015.

    andyb December 8, 2016 at 8:36 am

    It appears that the globalists are scared of anything that resembles the truth that counters their incessant propaganda If there was ever a discovery process in a lawsuit against WAPO, I would imagine that all roads would lead to a Contelpro section of the CIA It's interesting that Wall Street on Parade has noted that Propornot has a double blind registration in New Mexico.

    susan the other December 8, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    A propaganda holding company! This is allowed by the Whappo? It's a felony masquerading as a farce and they can't get out of this like little Judy Miller pretending to be dumb. Judy Miller is very sophisticated and so is the Whappo. Journalism isn't journalism if it does this sleazy stuff. Since when does a newspaper "disclaim" its own news? It's totally outrageous. And the nerve to say that PropOrNot insists on being anonymous. PropOrNot might as well be the Whappo itself. Only sleazy purveyors of crap disclaim it. This is just asking for satire. Whappo deserves to be ridiculed into oblivion.

    susan the other December 8, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    just a quick check on the net produced a a site: dab-oracl.com and an atty named Donald Burleson – stating that New Mexico is one of 17 states that enforce criminal libel and that you can file to lift the veil on anonymity for defamation and have the perp arrested cool

    susan the other December 8, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    that's dba-oracle.com for Burleson

    craazyboy December 8, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    craazyman may know these people!

    It's in Santa Fe and the U of Magonia has a channeling portal there. The channeling portal connects to alternate universes and higher order dimensions and all sorts of weird and unusual stuff passes thru the portal. It's where craazyman finds out about lots of stuff and he may have bumped(if that's right word) into these other channelers?

    larry December 8, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    Cointelpro was a section of the FBI, not the CIA

    johnnygl December 8, 2016 at 8:38 am

    If they can't vouch for the validity of their sources and stories, what value are they adding as an organization?

    If we want, we can go direct to prnewswire and govt issued press releases.

    seabos84 December 8, 2016 at 8:49 am

    I'm 56, I was a 9 buck an hour cook in Boston in 1988 when Dukakis came out of Labor Day with a 17 point lead.

    The campaign wizards of Bush Senior came up some kind of 'Dukakis hates America ' baloney, because of some other baloney about The Flag!! or The Pledge!!! For days, GWB Sr. came out in front of a bunch of flags & said the Pledge, and the craven, sycophantic, grovelling media of the day dutifully reported –

    "In order to show '__Dukakis hates America___' Vice President Bush said the pledge of allegiance."

    Anyone from that era remember all the liberal cloak rending and finger waving and furrowed brows? Anyone remember that Fairness Doctrine thing??? Seriously – having some contract mouth piece of the WAPO question NC is a badge of honor.

    rmm.

    But then I sigh; and, with a piece of scripture,
    Tell them that God bids us do good for evil:
    And thus I clothe my naked villany
    With old odd ends stolen out of holy writ;
    And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.

    Northeaster December 8, 2016 at 9:03 am

    Dukakis infamy was due to the rape question in regard to the death penalty. It also didn't help posing in a tank.

    FluffytheObeseCat December 8, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Dukakis' loss was due to his weak response to a racist smear campaign that assigned him personal responsibility for every poor decision made by the Massachusetts penal system.

    His sin was failing to fight back with sufficient vigor. It's a good choice of anecdote for this comments thread however. An object lesson if you will.

    Science Officer Smirnoff December 8, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    Willie Horton, Swift Boats, . . ., "Fake News" but that's just political campaign agitprop.

    Official or establishment agitprop is far more potent.

    Any submissions for the sweepstakes?

    AnonymousCounselor December 8, 2016 at 8:54 am

    The Washington Post has responded, from the perspective of their own interests, in literally the worst way possible.

    They have essentially gone on record as admitting that publish articles that are defamatory per se in a reckless manner, using a reckless (or non-existent) fact-checking and vetting process.

    It's really unbelievable, and many of us in the legal community are scratching our heads, now, wondering from whom The Washington Post is soliciting legal advice.

    sid_finster December 8, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    I don't think it matters, when you're the WaPo and acting as a mouthpiece for the establishment.

    I expect dismissal or summary judgment.

    Yves Smith Post author December 8, 2016 at 9:27 pm

    They wouldn't have deigned to respond at all if they weren't nervous about our attorney. But I agree, this response is incredibly lame and not helpful to them from a legal or reputational standpoint. They seem to think if they make a minimal gesture, NC and the other wronged sites won't proceed. Bad assumption.

    OIFVet December 8, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    My grandfather was a political refugee. He escaped Bulgaria after being jailed one too many times for having the audacity to disagree with the communist elites and its media organs, and to do so in public. What I see happening here in the US, with dissent on the verge of being suppressed or even criminalized, deeply concerns me because it reminds me of those bad old times. I respect you guys and your willingness to stand up to power, in ways I can not adequately express. Thank you.

    John Wright December 8, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Craig Timberg may be another example of the "son of more successful father" phenomenon who in attempting to exceed their fathers, do great damage to others (other examples: G.W. Bush, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, John McCain ).

    Timberg's father, Baltimore Sun political reporter Bob Timberg, is described at http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-bob-timberg-20140821-story.html

    " He was nearly 30 years old, borderline ancient for a beginning daily newspaper reporter. Unlike other Capital staffers, he was a Naval Academy graduate with a master's degree in journalism, and he was a Vietnam war combat veteran. And he could not type."

    "I first noticed Bob's reporting talents from his incisive articles on a legal challenge to compulsory chapel attendance at the U.S. service academies, filed by six Annapolis midshipmen and a West Point cadet."

    "The highlight of Bob's reporting was an interview with celebrated evangelist Billy Graham, who shockingly characterized the students' lawsuit as a being "part of a planned attack against all chaplains, to force them completely out of all services," and further suggested that the young men were Communist dupes. Though Bob knew now that he had a good story, he still pressed on, asking Graham if an atheist can become a good naval officer. "I can't comment on that," the preacher answered."

    So Timberg's father questioned a prominent person who was alleging "Communist dupes" against military chaplains.

    But his son does little vetting of the shadowy group PropOrNot as he goes for HIS story alleging "Russian propagandists".

    It may be too late for the son to learn from the father's example.

    Kurt Sperry December 8, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    Good story. The son as a pale shadow of the father is, as you say, not an uncommon thing. Craig, in this current example, doesn't seem to understand even the most basic, fundamental principles of journalistic ethics or professional conduct. It's strange someone in the profession that long could survive lacking that. Or maybe once you get on with a big name paper with a billionaire owner, sucking up to the establishment is a get out of jail free card when it comes to ethics and professional accountability.

    linda amick December 8, 2016 at 9:10 am

    I stopped ordering from Amazon two years ago after reading the stories about labor conditions for warehouse employees. It is nothing more than brutal slave labor.
    I used to at least read the headlines in the NYT and WaPo. Now I can not even stomach them.

    Sluggeaux December 8, 2016 at 9:18 am

    So, the WaPo now admits that "journalism" is dead and stenography is the only purpose their "platform" exists for.

    The quaint institution of "journalism" existed to sort "fact" from "opinion" and made the important distinction between the two. Opinions are like belly-buttons and assholes, everybody has one. Facts are more difficult to discern, but are immutable and objective. As attributed to the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. "

    This is the death of the First Amendment - The ScAmazon model of purporting to be a "marketplace" but refusing to vouch for the quality, safety, or authenticity of anything that they loudly and slickly shill to profit from the work of others. It is disgusting, hollow, and amoral. It must be brought to heel.

    JTFaraday December 8, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    And the Amazon warehouse of stenography too apparently. (Link from the original post):

    http://www.cjr.org/q_and_a/washington_post_bezos_amazon_revolution.php

    Carolinian December 8, 2016 at 9:20 am

    I suspect the MSM have always seen their ability to shape elections as their true "ring of power." As you say this has been going on for a long time–certainly pre-internet. The fact that Trump won despite their best efforts has likely shaken big media to the core. Which doesn't mean Trump's election was a good thing or a bad thing but simply that they didn't get to pick.

    Television will always be the most important medium when it comes to politics but the print media now see their role as "influencers" under threat from the web. And given their financial problems this may be the final existential threat. It's likely the Post editors knew perfectly well what they were doing and how shoddy that story was. It was a shot across the bow.

    Carolinian December 8, 2016 at 9:25 am

    Reply to seabos84

    Alejandro December 8, 2016 at 10:00 am

    From a sausage factory of "manufacturing consent" to a sausage factory of stifling dissent.

    DJG December 8, 2016 at 9:26 am

    Yves: What is going on here is deeply ingrained. We live in a country in which everyone's opinions are now canonical, as we see with wonder about the candidate for the head of the EPA. Pruitt's opinion counteracts years of research, because lawyers know all about science.

    I was reminded of how ingrained these "narratives" are when I read the lead in the Talk of the Town in the most recent New Yorker: Jeffrey Toobin on voting. He did a drive-by diagnosis of Jill Stein as a narcissist. (But, but, but the New Yorker already declared Trump a narcissist.) Then, in a couple of very curious sentences, he tries to accuse the Russians of tampering with the U.S. election campaign while admitting it unlikely that foreigners hacked the vote count. So you have two or three or four fake-news pieces strung together so as to assert power. That's the long and the short of it. Just as Pruitt is an ignoramus about science, so Toobin as an ignoramus about psychology. As Lambert often writes: Agnotology. I'd add: Agnotology to maintain the structures of power.

    We have been in this intellectual winter for a while: Liberals in denial, peddling psychobabble. Rightwingers in denial, peddling resentment.

    Keep talking to your lawyer.

    olga December 8, 2016 at 10:09 am

    At the end of the 70s, we came to the US, believing western media to be the epitome of honesty and truth (the belief itself based on plentiful pro-western propaganda, which we consumed unquestioningly). The highly misleading anti-Soviet propaganda in the US at that time was a bit of a shock. Not so much its existence, but its vicious nature. And the lies about "Russians are coming." Nothing much has changed – the west still dislikes Russia, and will do all it can to discredit the country (just watch out for the starting effort to ruin the 2018 futbal (soccer) games in Russia – anti-Sochi hysteria was just a preview). The wapoo stunt may be crude, but it is not a demonstration of incompetence. It does seem to be a part of concerted efforts to limit the free flow of information on the Internet. As the "narrative" has gotten away from powers that be, a new way to censor information is needed. Even Merkel said she'd want to address "fake news." Has everybodu forgotten operation Mockingbird ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird )? Nothing new under the sun – but the stakes are much higher now, as the west runs out of options to maintain supremacy.

    tgs December 8, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Yes, I find it hard to believe that, given the current hysteria, Russia is going to be allowed to host the World Cup in 2018.

    sid_finster December 8, 2016 at 9:01 pm

    Apparently HRC has also jumped on the censorship bandwagon.

    digi_owl December 8, 2016 at 9:54 am

    More and more it seems like USA, like the roman empire, needs barbarians at the gates to distract the plebs from internal structural problems.

    As long as Yeltsin allowed Wall Street to loot Russia of former soviet holdings, Russia was not "barbaric". Now that Putin has put a solid halt on said looting, Russia is again "barbarians"

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    Want to have some fun? Next time someone starts ranting about "the Russians hacked our election," try tossing out "Well, we messed with theirs, so it seems only fair."

    Lord Koos December 8, 2016 at 3:08 pm

    It's fitting, since the USA sees no problem in rigging other countries' elections, whether it be the middle East or Latin America.

    LA Mike December 8, 2016 at 10:07 am

    They basically pulled a trump:

    "I'm not saying it's true, but I've heard other people say it's true."

    jake December 8, 2016 at 10:09 am

    Post editorial/management probably doesn't have strong opinions - or any opinions - of the sites impugned by PropOrNot, including Naked Capitalism, since it's unlikely these corporate drones possess enough intellectual curiosity to actually look at them.

    The problem is confirmation bias (in this case, offering an acceptable explanation for why WaPo's Chosen Liberal lost the election, without having to look in the mirror) and shoddy careerist journalism generally, which works so well for so many, and which can't be litigated away.

    Banish Timberg, and you might as well put WaPO out of business.

    craazyboy December 8, 2016 at 10:09 am

    I recall seeing somewhere in the initial flurry of tweets and comments on the subject that someone had contacted Wapo and received a response from the editor or some such stating that "multiple contacts" were made to PorNot for some sort of purpose, perhaps verification, fact checking, or what ever it is newspapers do before breathlessly getting out the bold typeface and running a "story". Wish I could find it again. But now it seems that was fake news.

    The timing and placement of the "clarification" is rich. 14 days later slip in an "editor's comment" buried in the old news pile. Your pet parrot wouldn't even notice.

    drb48 December 8, 2016 at 10:11 am

    Timburg is obviously another tool – like Judith Miller. His "editors" knew full well the story was bullshit – "can't vouch for the validity" (because we can't be bothered to check our sources) – and ran it anyway. So there was/is an agenda. And the media wonder why they are in such low regard.

    Lord Koos December 8, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    I wonder how hands-on Bezos is with the WaPoo?

    amouise December 8, 2016 at 10:57 am

    Yves, in your apology post with your attorney's letter, you stated this

    I also hope, particularly for those of you who don't regularly visit Naked Capitalism, that you'll check out our related pieces that give more color to how the fact the Washington Post was taken for a ride by inept propagandists

    My first reaction to this was "presumes facts not in evidence"

    I don't believe the Post was taken in by anyone. They wanted to have a particular piece written and they did. Why in the world would they back down now?

    You're going to need more fundraisers because I'm guessing they'll be dragging this out. If they can't beat you with fake news then they will drain your resources with a long-drawn out legal process. Yes, I'm very cynical. Watched one of the bloggers I follow spend around $150,000 defending themselves from a defamation case that never went to trail. The blogger was also a lawyer so could help with her defense, had discounted legal assistance from an first amendment expert and an additional attorney. They had a year of depositions with constant delays. $150,000 is not petty cash.

    I know the circumstances are not the same but the Post has deep pockets. If they want to drain NC and other independent news sources, they have the resources to go the distance.

    Also please stop giving the newspapers excuses. The entire industry is pretty much consolidated. I don't think they very much care about whether or not a newspaper makes money after they've leveraged it with so much debt in order to purchase it in the first place. Or used their billions to simply buy it. Either way that would seem to indicate that's about the write-off and controlling the "narrative."

    As an added bonus get rid of your workers due to "costs." Further narrowing the acceptable narrative within the newsroom. Pretty soon, the entire industry is gutted just like other industries in this country. (I'd argue that's most of the way done except for independent media.) That's quite purposeful and just like other industries, it never had to be that way, even with the rise of the Internet and "things" like Google ads and Facebook.

    Stop giving them so much of the benefit of the doubt. They are engaged in a class war.

    Even if somewhere down the line they were to apologize and give you a prominent byline, the damage is already done with a good portion of their readership. Which was entirely the point.

    flora December 8, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    " I don't believe the Post was taken in by anyone. "

    I may wholeheartedly agree with you but there are good reasons for NC to be circumspect and initially offer Wapoo the option of backing away and retracting gracefully; or as gracefully as possible in this situation.

    Yes, I'm in for the long haul wrt donations. Bernie's campaign showed the power of small donations.

    scraping_by December 8, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    You've put your finger on the "stupid, crazy, or evil" question.

    Our esteemed hostess has chosen stupid, for reasons that seem good and sufficient. Crazy would be apparent from past behavior, and we of the tinfoil hat legions can make a good case for evil from the interests of the actors. But if nothing else, stupid is easily proved.

    PlutoniumKun December 8, 2016 at 1:44 pm

    I think the main reason many here are giving the benefit of the doubt to WaPo is that it was done so ineptly. The article reeks of carelessness and non-existent fact-checking and poor (or non-existent) editorial overview. If it was part of a deliberate plot to smear it should have been better written and they would have done a better job in covering themselves legally. Most recent high profile libel claims – such as the Rolling Stones college rape hoax story – originated from a mix of confirmation bias and incompetence, not (so far as we know) from a deliberate malign plot.

    Having said that, their refusal to come straight out and apologise when presented with the facts is just digging themselves a deeper hole. I've no doubt the NC crew will go all the way with this, I hope it proves deeply embarrassing for the WaPo, they are destroying their own reputation and its entirely their fault.

    RUKidding December 8, 2016 at 11:01 am

    I guess, on one level, it's intersting that the PTB saw the websites on the list as having that much power and influence to sway the election to Trump due to telling the truth, frankly. The truth clearly has no place in the US conversation anymore.

    At any rate, most of here saw our main, favored websites on that McCarthyite witch hunt list and thought: WOW. So we told the truth about Clinton and various other issues with this election, and now we must be silenced.

    Of course, it's pretty odd given the DNC hacked emails were really very revealing of many shady (to say the least) things, and I've seen those emails quoted quite a bit by many rightwing sources. And that info was, in fact, disseminated broadly to conservative voters. And I feel that those emails, possibly along with Comey's last minute "reveal," probably swayed some still-on-the-fence voters to either not vote for POTUS at all or to vote for Trump.

    Frankly, it's risable in the extreme that this country has been drowning in rightwingnut propaganda for the past 40+ years (or longer), and that's really what the rise of Trump is all about. As opposed to others here, I frankly despise Trump and all he stands for, but I give him props where due. He's kind of stupid but has this certain rat cunning about reading the moment and grabbing it for his purposes. He saw that those who had lost the most in this country were ripe for the plucking, and he went about using them for his own greedy means accordingly.

    Railing against a handful of truth-telling lefty-ish blogs is amazing on one level. I doubt that, even in the aggragate, many voters were swayed by the information provided. I think most who read these blogs are already determined what we'll do, but we come to these sites for a breath of fresh air, as it were.

    That, for me, is what makes this attack so chilling. The last few small voices of reason and sanity? And they have to be silenced? Brrrrrr . that's bitterly cold.

    Keep up the good fight, Yves and friends. This is gonna be tough row to hoe, but I'm in it to win it.

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    And by refusing to address the emails, other than to scream "Russian hackers," the corporate media were able to convince the Clinton cultists and other Third-Way believers that the information they contained was just another right-wing attack on The Anointed because (other than leftist, Russian-loving "fake news" sites), the right-wing media were the only ones paying it any attention.

    You have to give credit where it's due-they have had decades to perfect their method, and it is very hard to counter it.

    aletheia33 December 8, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    ckimball,

    after my own heart, thanks

    silicon valley does not know the meaning of trust. they have extracted it from every situation they can, destroying everything they touch, without realizing what they have unleashed. this will eventually be learned by all, the hard way.

    Ralph Johansen December 8, 2016 at 11:31 am

    I am old enough to remember seeing in the news reel at my local theater in 1950 Joseph McCarthy holding up a piece of paper to the cameras and intoning in his inimitable droning voice, "I have here in my hand a list of 205 known members of the Communist Party who are working and shaping policy in the State Department."

    People's livelihoods and reputations were thereby smeared for life. Never did McCarthy back his claims with evidence, nor did he retract his scurrilous accusation. Now, tell me how what Jeff Bezos and co. are doing in this instance is in any significant way different from what McCarthy did to these people back in 1956. What finally put it squarely before the American public and finally earned McCarthy Congressional censure was when Boston attorney Joseph Welch asked McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

    PQS December 8, 2016 at 11:38 am

    Yikes,Yves! What a lame response from them. We all need to keep up the pressure, by any means. This is one of those MSM errors that they hope will just go away, as evidenced by their hand waving dismissal. We can't let it! I think letters to the editor-an avalanche- might do a world of good.

    paul Tioxon December 8, 2016 at 11:48 am

    https://twitter.com/MazMHussain

    Murtaza HussainVerified account Dec 5
    ‏@MazMHussain
    2003: Rifle-toting Americans barge into Iraq after reading viral Fake News story about weapons of mass destruction.
    ------------------------------
    This fake news story ranks up there with the rifle toting Americans that barge into Viet Nam after the Fake News story about a US Navy warship that was attacked by the North Viet Namese Naval forces in the Gulf of Tonkin.

    Peter VE December 8, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    PolitiFact is running a poll for "Lie of the Year" here . There's a line for write in votes. I wrote in the Post's "Russian Propaganda " story. I suggest you can do the same.

    Propertius December 8, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Done. Tossing another $50 in for the legal fund, since today is payday.

    Brad December 8, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    A true fake news refusal to retract. Extraordinary that WaPo's editors also claim "not to vouch" for the veracity of whether or not RT.com is a "conduit for Russian propaganda". Really? RT is sponsored by the Russian state, how could it not be such a "conduit"? WaPo has all but admitted that it will print all the fake news it chooses to print. This reply is actually worse than the original offense. Pure confection of arrogance and cowardice as only libertarians can produce.

    But of course it doesn't matter if every last one of the news sources mentioned in the WaPo article were in fact such conduits. The issue is the neo-Cold war, neo-McCarthyite campaign launched over the last 2 years whose center of gravity lies clearly in the Clinton liberal Democrat camp.

    We can only imagine how the campaign would conduct itself if Clinton had won the Presidency. It was predictable they would come after the Left, only now they come on with less swag, but with a pathetic sore loser grudge. A perusal of the Liberal sphere on HuffnPuff, Alternet, Salon and such shows these still lost in a self-induced hysterical psychosis.

    Right NOW is the time to for leftists and progressives to draw a clear line, and distance, from American Liberalism and its blame the victim rhetoric.

    Elizabeth Burton December 8, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    Here's the thing. Yes, RT is funded by the Russian government, and thus anything posted thereon needs to be considered with that in mind. Nevertheless, it is also where stories the corporates prefer to ignore are given attention. In other words, there is an irony that the Russians may, indeed, be trying to influence us, but if so, they appear to be doing it by subtly undermining the reliability of the corporate media.

    To put it another way, dismissing RT solely because of its funding source is no better than dismissing NC et al. as propaganda sites, and doing so is actually feeding the propaganda machine. After all, we don't know what percentage of the US media currently receives "grants" from US intelligence agencies, now, do we.

    scraping_by December 8, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    In studying communications, there's a distinction between 'white' and 'black' propaganda. White propaganda is publishing truth that supports your cause. Black propaganda is, of course, slanderous lies. RT is white propaganda, so use it for the value it brings.

    Propertius December 8, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Exactly. I'm a grown-up. I have a lot of practice reading critically and I'm quite capable of questioning sources and filtering bias. I don't need Jeff Bezos to protect me from Russkie BadThink.

    Yalt December 8, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    There's a sense in which that's true, of course. But it is a useful characterization? Is there even any point to such a broad statement about a media outlet, other than to discredit work that can't be discredited on more direct grounds?

    State sponsorship of media organizations is not all that unusual. The BBC is primarily funded by a tax levied on any British household that uses a television to receive a broadcast signal, for example. Is the WaPo in the habit of describing the BBC as a "conduit for British propaganda"? Am I acting as a useful idiot for the UK government every time I rehash an old Monty Python joke?

    Child Insemination Action December 8, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    "does not itself vouch " You have to bear in mind this is not the Post talking, this is CIA CIA has blatantly used the Post as a their sockpuppet since they put Woodward in there to oust Nixon, and now they've got Bezos by the contractual balls. CIA has impunity in municipal statute and secret red tape so any answer you get from them means No fuck You.

    The NDAA legalized domestic propaganda in 2013 so when the public repudiated their chosen president Hillary Clinton, CIA immediately got to work work attacking Article 19. CIA is panicking because Hillary was going to get them the war they need to preserve CIA impunity for the crime against humanity of systematic and widespread torture and murder in their global gulag of secret death camps.

    The ICC's investigation of US crimes against humanity has reached the critical point of referral to the pre-trial chamber . The ICC is under intense pressure from Russia and the global south to prove it's not afraid of US criminals. Italian courts have got torturer Sabrina de Souza, and they're going to use her to roll up the command chain. One way or another it's going to be open season on CIA torture cowards, in universal jurisdiction with no statute of limitations. This is a far graver threat to CIA than the family jewels. The international community is investigating CIA crimes, not avuncular Jim Schlesinger or some gelded congressional committee. Like Francis Boyle says, the US government is a criminal enterprise. And since COG was imposed it's got one branch, CIA

    That's the background here. You're the Op in Red Harvest. Poisonville's the USA.

    B1whois December 8, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    May I suggest that this site no longer link to The Wapoo for stories that are available elsewhere. I personally would prefer to not go to their site at all, but they seem to make up a lot of the links here.
    I understand that sometimes this will be unavoidable, as the Wapoo is the only one doing a particular story, but in cases where the story is carried at other sites, can you please link to those other sites instead?

    Epistrophy December 8, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    Yves:

    #FreePressDefenseFund

    And as a number of other commenters on this and other blogs have recently suggested:

    #BoycottBezos
    #BoycottAmazon
    #BoycottWaPo

    Mike December 8, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    I live in New Zealand and start every day with NC because WaPo and it's like runs an agenda. We all know that. I feel for you Yves but the site's strength is bringing together all those speaking truth to power. The courts won't care about that and that route can drain you personally and financially. Stay strong and play to your strengths. You have lots of support – perhaps more than you know.

    Kim Kaufman December 8, 2016 at 2:10 pm

    The Second Phase of the Propaganda Fake News War: Economic Strangulation. What Comes Next?
    by BAR editor and columnist Dr. Marsha Adebayo

    "The public has determined that the corporate media is actually the purveyor of "fake news" and turned to media organizations, such as BAR, Truthout and other outlets for information."

    http://blackagendareport.com/propaganda_fake_news_war

    McCarthy's ghost smiles as Dems point the finger at Russia

    By Norman Solomon, contributor – 12/07/16 07:00 PM EST

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/309249-mccarthys-ghost-smiles-as-dems-point-the-finger-at-russia#.WEi4Q_2C5g0.facebook

    R. Post December 8, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    So, since the W.P. won't bear responsibility for what they publish, maybe we should just lump them in with Breitbart and company. Just out of curiosity, did W.P. contact N.C. for comment before they tried to smear your (and, by extension, our) reputation?

    Outis Philalithopoulos December 8, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    No, they did not. Apparently, they did not contact anyone on the List .

    Propertius December 8, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    [M]aybe we should just lump them [WaPo] in with Breitbart and company.

    I already did. Now I lump them in with Alex Jones.

    Jim Haygood December 8, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    William Banzai7 ups the ante in his Visual Combat with the WaPoo (© cocomaan):

    https://c7.staticflickr.com/1/735/31469075126_eb5fa257d4_b.jpg

    marblex December 8, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    It's libel per se and an avalanche of lawsuits directed at PropOrNot and WaPo should be pretty effective. Because WaPo did not retract there is no defense.

    ChrisAtRU December 8, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    From a legal point of view, I wonder how the Executive Editor's (Marty Baron) tweeting of the article plays against the assertion that "The Post does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings". Is that a case where he was speaking (tweeting) his own opinion, and not necessarily that of his employer?

    #DisclaimersBeDamned

    ChrisPacific December 8, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    So if the WaPo doesn't consider validity checking of sources to be part of its job, then that raises the obvious question in this case: WHY the (insert expletive of your choice) did they take this site with anonymous authors, sweeping allegations and no evidence of any kind, and choose to make a featured story out of it? There are hundreds or thousands of other sites just like it out there. Why PropOrNot, and not any of the others?

    In other words, if (as they claim) the story boils down to "some anonymous people on the Internet made some unsubstantiated claims which may or may not be accurate", why did they decide it was newsworthy at all, let alone worthy of the kind of prominence they gave it?

    Read while you can December 8, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    As bad as the article about propornot is, it will get worse. Wapo is a partner of this dangerous group of "fake-news fighters".

    https://firstdraftnews.com/about/

    What is the purpose of a company like Dataminr to participate in this network financed by google?

    Expect NC and other sites be buried on google page 2 and deeper. Not trending on twitter etc.

    https://firstdraftnews.com/latest/
    Funny enough not a single word about the wapo propornot article.

    Please tell me i am overstating the importance of this network.

    3.14e-9 December 8, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    More evidence of WaPo's distorted idea of "fair and impartial."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/wp/2016/12/08/the-washington-post-honors-david-fahrenthold-with-inaugural-ben-bradlee-prize/

    They might actually get off the hook for libel on the grounds that the lack of fairness and impartiality wasn't malicious intent but part of their core values.

    MED December 8, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    might look over HR 6393

    "http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-02/house-quietly-passes-bill-targeting-russian-propaganda-websites"

    Fiver December 8, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    Yves/Lambert,

    Am I the only one who remembered an "Andrew Watts" commenting on NC? And wasn't Aug 21 the date ProporCrap started? And isn't the exchange between 'Andrew Watts' and 'timbers' of interest given the WaPo reporter's name is Timberg?

    Check out the comments from Aug 21 on NC:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/08/links-82116.html

    I also wonder if 'Andrew Watts' could be this guy:

    http://andrewwattsauthor.com/

    How hard would it be, really, for two or three people with some know-how to engage in discussion, get replies from comments, trace/track those people. Even one person hacked (and I'm virtually certain I was this summer) could provide a large number of sites visited or 'linked'.

    And it seems to me as well I sent a story to Lambert (and I wrote to Lambert something like "You mean this isn't real?") that I took to be a real WaPo story re a major wrinkle in the Clinton scandals that was part of a story link I got from Global Research, a story which also had a paragraph referenced from Breibart which I didn't notice until my comment wasn't posted, so I went back and looked. I assumed the comment was rejected due to the Breibart (sp?) reference. But what if WaPo/Watts were fishing at NC and saw my follow-up comment to Lambert with only the WaPo link and my question (assuming it was posted, which I do not remember)?

    Anyway, I hope this might prove useful somehow.

    kareninca December 8, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    I wonder if Snopes has asked to be removed from PropOrNot's list of "related projects."

    I contacted them to find out if they were going to ask themselves to be removed from that list, but I have not heard back from them. I guess we'll find out something about their reputability.

    limani December 8, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    NC deserves a huge Wapo-logy to help compensate for your losses, pain & suffering, and exemplary damages, of course.

    [Dec 08, 2016] Washington Post Appends Russian Propaganda Fake News Story, Admits It May Be Fake

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the sites PropOrNot cited as Russian-influenced was the Drudge Report. ..."
    "... The piece's description of some sharers of bogus news as "useful idiots" could " theoretically include anyone on any social-media platform who shares news based on a click-bait headline ," Mathew Ingram wrote for Fortune. ..."
    "... But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker , its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda - ostensibly with Ukrainian origins - and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote "the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labeled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier." ..."
    "... Now, at least, the "national newspaper" has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted "work" smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the "fake news" it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the elections? ..."
    Dec 07, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    In the latest example why the "mainstream media" is facing a historic crisis of confidence among its readership, facing unprecedented blowback following Craig Timberg November 24 Washington Post story " Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say ", on Wednesday a lengthy editor's note appeared on top of the original article in which the editor not only distances the WaPo from the "experts" quoted in the original article whose "work" served as the basis for the entire article (and which became the most read WaPo story the day it was published) but also admits the Post could not " vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's finding regarding any individual media outlet", in effect admitting the entire story may have been, drumroll "fake news" and conceding the Bezos-owned publication may have engaged in defamation by smearing numerous websites - Zero Hedge included - with patently false and unsubstantiated allegations.

    It was the closest the Washington Post would come to formally retracting the story, which has now been thoroughly discredited not only by outside commentators, but by its own editor.

    The apended note in question:

    Editor's Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot's list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group's methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post's story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.

    As The Washingtonian notes , the implicit concession follows intense and rising criticism of the article over the past two weeks. It was " rife with obviously reckless and unproven allegations, " Intercept reporters Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton wrote, noting that PropOrNot, one of the groups whose research was cited in Timberg's piece, "anonymous cowards." One of the sites PropOrNot cited as Russian-influenced was the Drudge Report.

    The piece's description of some sharers of bogus news as "useful idiots" could " theoretically include anyone on any social-media platform who shares news based on a click-bait headline ," Mathew Ingram wrote for Fortune.

    But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker , its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda - ostensibly with Ukrainian origins - and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote "the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labeled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier."

    Criticism culminated this week when the " Naked capitalism" blog threatened to sue the Washington Post, demanding a retraction.

    Now, at least, the "national newspaper" has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted "work" smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the "fake news" it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the elections?

    [Dec 07, 2016] Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group

    The authors seems to miss the key observation: this is a sign of the crisis of neoliberal propaganda model, which gave rise to Internet rumor mill. Rumor s (aka improvised news) became a prominent news source if and only if official channels of information are not viewed as trustworthy. And blacklisting alternative news sites does not help to return the trust. When it is gone it is gone. The same situation in the past happened in Brezhnev's USSR. People just stopped to trust official newspapers and turned to propaganda sites of Western =government such as BBC and voice of America for news. Soviet authorities tried to jam them, but this did not stop Soviet people from trying to listen to then at nights, trying to find frequencies that were not jammed.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Basically, everyone who isn't comfortably within the centrist Hillary Clinton/Jeb Bush spectrum is guilty. On its Twitter account, the group announced a new "plugin" that automatically alerts the user that a visited website has been designated by the group to be a Russian propaganda outlet. ..."
    "... The group commits outright defamation by slandering obviously legitimate news sites as propaganda tools of the Kremlin. ..."
    "... a big part of the group's definition for "Russian propaganda outlet" is criticizing U.S. foreign policy ..."
    "... In sum: They're not McCarthyite; perish the thought. They just want multiple U.S. media outlets investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Russia. ..."
    "... PropOrNot is by no means a neutral observer. It actively calls on Congress and the White House to work "with our European allies to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT financial transaction system, effective immediately and lasting for at least one year, as an appropriate response to Russian manipulation of the election." ..."
    "... In other words, this blacklisting group of anonymous cowards - putative experts in the pages of the Washington Post - is actively pushing for Western governments to take punitive measures against the Russian government and is speaking and smearing from an extreme ideological framework that the Post concealed from its readers. ..."
    "... The Post itself - now posing as a warrior against "fake news" - published an article in September that treated with great seriousness the claim that Hillary Clinton collapsed on 9/11 Day because she was poisoned by Putin. ..."
    "... Indeed, what happened here is the essence of fake news. The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the objective truth that reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of the Cold War. ..."
    "... So those who saw tweets and Facebook posts promoting this Post story instantly clicked and shared and promoted the story without an iota of critical thought or examination of whether the claims were true, because they wanted the claims to be true. That behavior included countless journalists. ..."
    Dec 05, 2016 | theintercept.com

    ... ... ...

    One of the core functions of PropOrNot appears to be its compilation of a lengthy blacklist of news and political websites that it smears as peddlers of "Russian propaganda." Included on this blacklist of supposed propaganda outlets are prominent independent left-wing news sites such as Truthout, Naked Capitalism, Black Agenda Report, Consortium News, and Truthdig.

    Also included are popular libertarian hubs such as Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com, and the Ron Paul Institute, along with the hugely influential right-wing website the Drudge Report and the publishing site WikiLeaks. Far-right, virulently anti-Muslim blogs such as Bare Naked Islam are likewise dubbed Kremlin mouthpieces. Basically, everyone who isn't comfortably within the centrist Hillary Clinton/Jeb Bush spectrum is guilty. On its Twitter account, the group announced a new "plugin" that automatically alerts the user that a visited website has been designated by the group to be a Russian propaganda outlet.

    ... ... ...

    The group commits outright defamation by slandering obviously legitimate news sites as propaganda tools of the Kremlin.

    One of the most egregious examples is the group's inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired magazine as a crucial site to follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS's Bill Moyers Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington Post, has now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.

    The group eschews alternative media outlets like these and instead recommends that readers rely solely on establishment-friendly publications like NPR, the BBC, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, and VICE. That is because a big part of the group's definition for "Russian propaganda outlet" is criticizing U.S. foreign policy.

    ... ... ...

    While blacklisting left-wing and libertarian journalists, PropOrNot also denies being McCarthyite. Yet it simultaneously calls for the U.S. government to use the FBI and DOJ to carry out "formal investigations" of these accused websites, "because the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal authoritarian oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business." The shadowy group even goes so far as to claim that people involved in the blacklisted websites may "have violated the Espionage Act, the Foreign Agent Registration Act, and other related laws."

    In sum: They're not McCarthyite; perish the thought. They just want multiple U.S. media outlets investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Russia.

    ... ... ...

    PropOrNot is by no means a neutral observer. It actively calls on Congress and the White House to work "with our European allies to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT financial transaction system, effective immediately and lasting for at least one year, as an appropriate response to Russian manipulation of the election."

    In other words, this blacklisting group of anonymous cowards - putative experts in the pages of the Washington Post - is actively pushing for Western governments to take punitive measures against the Russian government and is speaking and smearing from an extreme ideological framework that the Post concealed from its readers.

    ... ... ...

    The Post itself - now posing as a warrior against "fake news" - published an article in September that treated with great seriousness the claim that Hillary Clinton collapsed on 9/11 Day because she was poisoned by Putin. And that's to say nothing of the paper's disgraceful history of convincing Americans that Saddam was building non-existent nuclear weapons and had cultivated a vibrant alliance with al Qaeda. As is so often the case, those who mostly loudly warn of "fake news" from others are themselves the most aggressive disseminators of it.

    Indeed, what happened here is the essence of fake news. The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the objective truth that reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of the Cold War.

    So those who saw tweets and Facebook posts promoting this Post story instantly clicked and shared and promoted the story without an iota of critical thought or examination of whether the claims were true, because they wanted the claims to be true. That behavior included countless journalists.

    [Dec 07, 2016] McCarthyism 2.0 against the independent information

    Notable quotes:
    "... When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship. ..."
    "... Many still wonder if the planet indeed slips towards a new Cold War. Despite that there is plenty of evidence that this is, unfortunately, already a fact, another incident came to verify this situation. ..."
    "... The Western neoliberal establishment is exposed, revealing its real agenda: to challenge the alternative bloc driven by the Sino-Russian alliance. The 'democratic' Europe proceeded in a similar, unprecedented move recently. As reported by RT: "In a completely bonkers move this week, the EU Parliament approved a resolution to counter "Russian propaganda" and the "intrusion of Russian media" into the EU. The resolution was adopted with 304 MEPs voting in favor, 179 MEPs voting against it and 208 abstaining. The most bizarre part, however, is that the resolution lumped Russian media in with Islamist propaganda of the kind spread by terror groups like the so-called Islamic State. Thus Russian media is put on the same level with videos of ISIS beheadings and incitements to mass murder." ..."
    "... In Cold War 2.0, the Western neoliberal establishment is forced to create the respective McCarthyism. Therefore, the new dogma has changed accordingly. It doesn't matter if an alternative medium provides a different view, away from the mainstream media propaganda. It doesn't matter if the Whistleblowers are telling the truth about the US dirty wars and mass surveillance of ordinary citizens. As long as the US empire and its allies are exposed by all these elements outside their Matrix control, these elements help Russia, therefore, they are doing 'Russian propaganda'. It's as simple as that. ..."
    "... When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship. ..."
    Dec 07, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
    Key insight: When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship.

    the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens

    When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship.

    Many still wonder if the planet indeed slips towards a new Cold War. Despite that there is plenty of evidence that this is, unfortunately, already a fact, another incident came to verify this situation.

    The blacklist created by PropOrNot and provided to Washington Post, containing more than 200 websites that are supposedly doing 'Russian propaganda', marks the start of a new McCarthyism era and verifies beyond doubt the fact that we have indeed entered the Cold War 2.0.

    Seeing that it's losing the battle of information, the establishment simply proceeded in one more clumsy move that will only accelerate developments against it.

    It really sounds like a joke to accuse anyone who opposes the US dirty wars and interventions that brought so much chaos and distraction, for doing 'Russian propaganda', when you are the one who supported and justified these wars through the most offensive propaganda, for decades.

    Someone has to tell the mainstream media parrots that their dirty tricks don't work anymore. According to a Gallup latest report, "Americans' trust and confidence in the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly" has dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history, with 32% saying they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media. This is down eight percentage points from last year."

    The mainstream mouthpieces are extremely predictable. They will rush to blame internet and alternative media that flourished over the last fifteen years, for this unprecedented situation. Of course they will. They don't want any alternative to their propaganda monopoly which was extremely effective in guiding the sheeple during the past decades.

    The Western neoliberal establishment is exposed, revealing its real agenda: to challenge the alternative bloc driven by the Sino-Russian alliance. The 'democratic' Europe proceeded in a similar, unprecedented move recently. As reported by RT: "In a completely bonkers move this week, the EU Parliament approved a resolution to counter "Russian propaganda" and the "intrusion of Russian media" into the EU. The resolution was adopted with 304 MEPs voting in favor, 179 MEPs voting against it and 208 abstaining. The most bizarre part, however, is that the resolution lumped Russian media in with Islamist propaganda of the kind spread by terror groups like the so-called Islamic State. Thus Russian media is put on the same level with videos of ISIS beheadings and incitements to mass murder."

    It has been mentioned in previous article that "While the EU and US were occupied with the war against terrorism as well as with the dead-end wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas of the planet, Putin had all the time to build his own mechanism against Western propaganda. Being himself a man who had come to power with the help of media, he built his own media network which includes, for example, the TV network Russia Today, according to the Western standards, and "invaded" in millions of homes in the Western countries using the English language, promoting however the Russian positions as counterweight to the Western propaganda monopoly."

    In Cold War 2.0, the Western neoliberal establishment is forced to create the respective McCarthyism. Therefore, the new dogma has changed accordingly. It doesn't matter if an alternative medium provides a different view, away from the mainstream media propaganda. It doesn't matter if the Whistleblowers are telling the truth about the US dirty wars and mass surveillance of ordinary citizens. As long as the US empire and its allies are exposed by all these elements outside their Matrix control, these elements help Russia, therefore, they are doing 'Russian propaganda'. It's as simple as that.

    This latest desperate move of the establishment should alarm us all. Because it shows that the establishment is in panic and therefore, more dangerous than ever. When the narratives will become completely obsolete and incapable to persuade, except only a slightest minority, the fake democracy will become an open, brutal dictatorship.

    [Dec 06, 2016] What the demand for recount tells us about Jill Stein?

    Dec 06, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    jfl | Dec 3, 2016 5:54:00 PM | 31

    A Bare-Knuckle Fight Over Recounts

    Since recounts that overturn the vote totals seem unlikely, it appears the Clinton campaign's Plan B is to use any evidence of tampering that it can pin on Russia to lobby electors to change their votes to Clinton when the Electoral College meets in state capitals on Dec. 19.

    Finding evidence of hacking of election computers that can somehow be blamed on Russia could be crucial for the Clinton team in their effort to convince electors to change their vote.

    Laurence Tribe, a well-known and connected Democratic lawyer, has offered to defend pro bono any elector who breaks the law by changing their vote to Clinton. And there are plans to mount a constitutional challenge against the 26 states that legally bind the electors' to their state's popular vote.


    Jill Stein's willingness to provide cover for 'the Russians hacked the election' recounts is interesting ...

    Exhibit A in Stein's petition is an affidavit from Professor J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science at the University of Michigan, who alleges that Russia hacked the election.

    Exhibit B from Stein's petition is an article from Wired Magazine about Russia's alleged role in the hack.

    Exhibit C is a New York Times article quoting DellSecureWorks, a private security firm, saying Russia was behind the hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

    Exhibits D through G - meaning all of Stein's exhibits - are on alleged Russian hacking. One article is about an alleged attempted Russian hack of the 2014, post-coup Ukrainian election.


    ... although I think it unlikely that 'the Russians hacked the election' it does look likely that the authors of that 'meme' managed to get Jill Stein to carry their water for them. Why did she do that? Did she even read the petition - that drew $7 million in funding overnight - before signing it? What does it say about her if she didn't? What does it say about her if she did?

    What does it say about her that she went for such a lose-lose proposition?

    Can an actual run on the electoral college be in the works? Can that be the 'reasoning' behind Jeff Bezos' ProPornoTeam?

    [Dec 06, 2016] WPost woulds not Retract McCarthyistic Smear by Norman Solomon

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Smearing is not reporting," the RootsAction petition says. "The Washington Post 's recent descent into McCarthyism - promoting anonymous and shoddy claims that a vast range of some 200 websites are all accomplices or tools of the Russian government - violates basic journalistic standards and does real harm to democratic discourse in our country. We urge the Washington Post to prominently retract the article and apologize for publishing it." ..."
    "... For one thing, PropOrNot wasn't just another source for the Post 's story. As The New Yorker noted in a devastating article on Dec. 1, the story "prominently cited the PropOrNot research." The Post 's account "had the force of revelation, thanks in large part to the apparent scientific authority of PropOrNot's work: the group released a 32-page report detailing its methodology, and named names with its list of 200 suspect news outlets . But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess." ..."
    "... As The New Yorker pointed out, PropOrNot's criteria for incriminating content were broad enough to include "nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself." Yet "The List" is not a random list by any means - it's a targeted mish-mash, naming websites that are not within shouting distance of the U.S. corporate and foreign policy establishment. ..."
    "... As The New Yorker 's writer Adrian Chen put it: "To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labeled a Russian propagandist." And he concluded: "Despite the impressive-looking diagrams and figures in its report, PropOrNot's findings rest largely on innuendo and conspiracy thinking." ..."
    "... As much as the Post news management might want to weasel out of the comparison, the parallels to the advent of the McCarthy Era are chilling. For instance, the Red Channels list, with 151 names on it, was successful as a weapon against dissent and free speech in large part because, early on, so many media outlets of the day actively aided and abetted blacklisting, as the Post has done for "The List." ..."
    "... Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wisconsin, who led the "Red Scare" hearings of the 1950s. ..."
    "... So far The New Yorker has been the largest media outlet to directly confront the Post 's egregious story. Cogent assessments can also be found at The Intercept , Consortium News , Common Dreams , AlterNet , Rolling Stone , Fortune , CounterPunch , The Nation and numerous other sites. ..."
    "... But many mainline journalists and outlets jumped at the chance to amplify the Post 's piece of work. A sampling of the cheers from prominent journalists and liberal partisans was published by FAIR.org under the apt headline " Why Are Media Outlets Still Citing Discredited 'Fake News' Blacklist? " ..."
    "... When liberals have green-lighted a witch-hunt, right wingers have been pleased to run with it. President Harry Truman issued an executive order in March 1947 to establish "loyalty" investigations in every agency of the federal government. Joe McCarthy and the era named after him were soon to follow. ..."
    Dec 05, 2016 | consortiumnews.com
    WPost Won't Retract McCarthyistic Smear

    After publishing a McCarthyistic "black list" that smears some 200 Web sites as "Russian propagandists," The Washington Post refuses to apologize - and other mainstream media outlets pile on, writes Norman Solomon.

    We still don't have any sort of apology or retraction from the Washington Post for promoting "The List" - the highly dangerous blacklist that got a huge boost from the newspaper's fawning coverage on Nov. 24. The project of smearing 200 websites with one broad brush wouldn't have gotten far without the avid complicity of high-profile media outlets, starting with the Post .

    On Thursday - a week after the Post published its front-page news article hyping the blacklist that was put out by a group of unidentified people called PropOrNot - I sent a petition statement to the newspaper's executive editor Martin Baron.

    The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post)

    "Smearing is not reporting," the RootsAction petition says. "The Washington Post 's recent descent into McCarthyism - promoting anonymous and shoddy claims that a vast range of some 200 websites are all accomplices or tools of the Russian government - violates basic journalistic standards and does real harm to democratic discourse in our country. We urge the Washington Post to prominently retract the article and apologize for publishing it."

    After mentioning that 6,000 people had signed the petition (the number has doubled since then), my email to Baron added: "If you skim through the comments that many of the signers added to the petition online, I think you might find them to be of interest. I wonder if you see a basis for dialogue on the issues raised by critics of the Post piece in question."

    The reply came from the newspaper's vice president for public relations, Kristine Coratti Kelly, who thanked me "for reaching out to us" before presenting the Post 's response, quoted here in full:

    "The Post reported on the work of four separate sets of researchers, as well as independent experts, who have examined Russian attempts to influence American democracy. PropOrNot was one. The Post did not name any of the sites on PropOrNot's list of organizations that it said had - wittingly or unwittingly - published or echoed Russian propaganda. The Post reviewed PropOrNot's findings and our questions about them were answered satisfactorily during the course of multiple interviews."

    Full of Holes

    But that damage-control response was as full of holes as the news story it tried to defend.

    For one thing, PropOrNot wasn't just another source for the Post 's story. As The New Yorker noted in a devastating article on Dec. 1, the story "prominently cited the PropOrNot research." The Post 's account "had the force of revelation, thanks in large part to the apparent scientific authority of PropOrNot's work: the group released a 32-page report detailing its methodology, and named names with its list of 200 suspect news outlets . But a close look at the report showed that it was a mess."

    Contrary to the PR message from the Post vice president, PropOrNot did not merely say that the sites on its list had "published or echoed Russian propaganda." Without a word of the slightest doubt or skepticism in the entire story, the Post summarized PropOrNot's characterization of all the websites on its list as falling into two categories: "Some players in this online echo chamber were knowingly part of the propaganda campaign, the researchers concluded, while others were 'useful idiots' - a term born of the Cold War to describe people or institutions that unknowingly assisted Soviet Union propaganda efforts."

    As The New Yorker pointed out, PropOrNot's criteria for incriminating content were broad enough to include "nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself." Yet "The List" is not a random list by any means - it's a targeted mish-mash, naming websites that are not within shouting distance of the U.S. corporate and foreign policy establishment.

    And so the list includes a few overtly Russian-funded outlets; some other sites generally aligned with Kremlin outlooks; many pro-Trump sites, often unacquainted with what it means to be factual and sometimes overtly racist; and other websites that are quite different - solid, factual, reasonable - but too progressive or too anti-capitalist or too libertarian or too right-wing or just plain too independent-minded for the evident tastes of whoever is behind PropOrNot.

    As The New Yorker 's writer Adrian Chen put it: "To PropOrNot, simply exhibiting a pattern of beliefs outside the political mainstream is enough to risk being labeled a Russian propagandist." And he concluded: "Despite the impressive-looking diagrams and figures in its report, PropOrNot's findings rest largely on innuendo and conspiracy thinking."

    As for the Post vice president's defensive phrasing that "the Post did not name any of the sites on PropOrNot's list," the fact is that the Post unequivocally promoted PropOrNot, driving web traffic to its site and adding a hotlink to the anonymous group's 32-page report soon after the newspaper's story first appeared. As I mentioned in my reply to her: "Unfortunately, it's kind of like a newspaper saying that it didn't name any of the people on the Red Channels blacklist in 1950 while promoting it in news coverage, so no problem."

    Pushing McCarthyism

    As much as the Post news management might want to weasel out of the comparison, the parallels to the advent of the McCarthy Era are chilling. For instance, the Red Channels list, with 151 names on it, was successful as a weapon against dissent and free speech in large part because, early on, so many media outlets of the day actively aided and abetted blacklisting, as the Post has done for "The List."

    Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wisconsin, who led the "Red Scare" hearings of the 1950s.

    Consider how the Post story described the personnel of PropOrNot in favorable terms even while hiding all of their identities and thus shielding them from any scrutiny - calling them "a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds."

    So far The New Yorker has been the largest media outlet to directly confront the Post 's egregious story. Cogent assessments can also be found at The Intercept , Consortium News , Common Dreams , AlterNet , Rolling Stone , Fortune , CounterPunch , The Nation and numerous other sites.

    But many mainline journalists and outlets jumped at the chance to amplify the Post 's piece of work. A sampling of the cheers from prominent journalists and liberal partisans was published by FAIR.org under the apt headline " Why Are Media Outlets Still Citing Discredited 'Fake News' Blacklist? "

    FAIR's media analyst Adam Johnson cited enthusiastic responses to the bogus story from journalists like Bloomberg's Sahil Kupar and MSNBC's Joy Reid - and such outlets as USA Today , Gizmodo , the PBS NewsHour , The Daily Beast , Slate , AP , The Verge and NPR , which "all uncritically wrote up the Post 's most incendiary claims with little or minimal pushback." On the MSNBC site, the Rachel Maddow Show's blog "added another breathless write-up hours later, repeating the catchy talking point that 'it was like Russia was running a super PAC for Trump's campaign.'"

    With so many people understandably upset about Trump's victory, there's an evident attraction to blaming the Kremlin, a convenient scapegoat for Hillary Clinton's loss. But the Post 's blacklisting story and the media's amplification of it - and the overall political environment that it helps to create - are all building blocks for a reactionary order, threatening the First Amendment and a range of civil liberties.

    When liberals have green-lighted a witch-hunt, right wingers have been pleased to run with it. President Harry Truman issued an executive order in March 1947 to establish "loyalty" investigations in every agency of the federal government. Joe McCarthy and the era named after him were soon to follow.

    In media and government, the journalists and officials who enable blacklisting are cravenly siding with conformity instead of democracy.

    Norman Solomon is co-founder of the online activist group RootsAction.org. His books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He is the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

    [Dec 06, 2016] The Western War On Truth by Paul Craig Roberts

    This idea of casting dissidents as Russian Agent is directly from McCarthy play book. And paradoxically resembles the practive of the USSR in which dissdents were demonized as "Agent of the Western powers." The trick is a immanent part of any war propaganda efforts. So it is clear the Cold War II had started...
    Notable quotes:
    "... As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western "democratic" governments as a hostile act. A brand new website, propornot.com, has just made its appearance condemning a list of 200 Internet websites that provide news and views at variance with the presstitute media that serves the governments' agendas . Does propornot.com's funding come from the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, or George Soros? ..."
    "... In the West those who disagree with the murderous and reckless policies of public officials are demonized as "Russian agents." ..."
    "... The presstitute Washington Post played its assigned role in the claim promoted by Washington that the alternative media consists of Russian agents. Craig Timberg, who appears devoid of integrity or intelligence, and perhaps both, is the WaPo stooge who reported the fake news that "two teams of independent researchers" - none of whom are identified - found that the Russians exploited my gullibility, that of CounterPunch, Professor Michel Chossudosky of Global Researh, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and that of 194 other websites to help "an insurgent candidate" (Trump) "claim the White House." ..."
    "... Note the term applied to Trump - "insurgent candidate." That tells you all you need to know. ..."
    "... Western governments are running out of excuses. Since the Clinton regime, the accumulation of war crimes committed by Western governments exceed those of Nazi Germany. Millions of Muslims have been slaughtered, dislocated, and dispossessed in seven countries. Not a single Western war criminal has been held accountable. ..."
    "... The despicable Washington Post is a prime apologist for these war criminals. The entire Western print and TV media is so heavily implicated in the worst war crimes in human history that, if justice ever happens, the presstitutes will stand in the dock with the Clintons, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Obama and their neocon operatives or handlers as the case may be. ..."
    Dec 06, 2016 | www.paulcraigroberts.org

    The "war on terror" has simultaneously been a war on truth. For fifteen years-from 9/11 to Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" and "al Qaeda connections," "Iranian nukes," "Assad's use of chemical weapons," endless lies about Gadaffi, "Russian invasion of Ukraine"-the governments of the so-called Western democracies have found it essential to align themselves firmly with lies in order to pursue their agendas. Now these Western governments are attempting to discredit the truthtellers who challenge their lies.

    Russian news services are under attack from the EU and Western presstitutes as purveyors of "fake news" . Abiding by its Washington master's orders, the EU actually passed a resolution against Russian media for not following Washington's line. Russian President Putin said that the resolution is a "visible sign of degradation of Western society's idea of democracy."

    As George Orwell predicted, telling the truth is now regarded by Western "democratic" governments as a hostile act. A brand new website, propornot.com, has just made its appearance condemning a list of 200 Internet websites that provide news and views at variance with the presstitute media that serves the governments' agendas . Does propornot.com's funding come from the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, or George Soros?

    I am proud to say that paulcraigroberts.org is on the list.

    What we see here is the West adopting Zionist Israel's way of dealing with critics. Anyone who objects to Israel's cruel and inhuman treatment of Palestinians is demonized as "anti-semitic." In the West those who disagree with the murderous and reckless policies of public officials are demonized as "Russian agents." The president-elect of the United States himself has been designated a "Russian agent."

    This scheme to redefine truthtellers as propagandists has backfired. The effort to discredit truthtellers has instead produced a catalogue of websites where reliable information can be found, and readers are flocking to the sites on the list. Moreover, the effort to discredit truthtellers shows that Western governments and their presstitutes are intolerant of truth and diverse opinion and are committed to forcing people to accept self-serving government lies as truth.

    Clearly, Western governments and Western media have no respect for truth, so how can the West possibly be democratic?

    The presstitute Washington Post played its assigned role in the claim promoted by Washington that the alternative media consists of Russian agents. Craig Timberg, who appears devoid of integrity or intelligence, and perhaps both, is the WaPo stooge who reported the fake news that "two teams of independent researchers" - none of whom are identified - found that the Russians exploited my gullibility, that of CounterPunch, Professor Michel Chossudosky of Global Researh, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo and that of 194 other websites to help "an insurgent candidate" (Trump) "claim the White House."

    Note the term applied to Trump - "insurgent candidate." That tells you all you need to know.

    You can read here what passes as "reliable reporting" in the presstitute Washington Post .

    See also .

    Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, which somehow escaped inclusion in The 200, unloads on Timberg and the Washington Post here .

    Western governments are running out of excuses. Since the Clinton regime, the accumulation of war crimes committed by Western governments exceed those of Nazi Germany. Millions of Muslims have been slaughtered, dislocated, and dispossessed in seven countries. Not a single Western war criminal has been held accountable.

    The despicable Washington Post is a prime apologist for these war criminals. The entire Western print and TV media is so heavily implicated in the worst war crimes in human history that, if justice ever happens, the presstitutes will stand in the dock with the Clintons, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Obama and their neocon operatives or handlers as the case may be.

    paulcraigroberts.org

    [Dec 06, 2016] Which purveys more fake news

    www.moonofalabama.org
    micawber | Dec 4, 2016 12:30:10 PM | 78
    Which purveys more "fake news" - RT.com on the one hand, or Fox News, MSNBC and CNN on the other? I asked that question on reddit and my post was deleted.

    [Dec 06, 2016] Mattis on Our Way of War

    Dec 06, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    General Mattis reportedly spoke of his concerns during discussions over attacking Iran and thus fell afoul of the Washington establishment, so President Obama hastened his retirement. Foreign Policy 's Thomas Ricks reported :

    Why the hurry? Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way-not because he went all "mad dog," which is his public image, and the view at the White House, but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable. Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, "And then what?"

    Washington did have a "strategy" when it attacked Iraq, the neoconservative one. This was to intimidate the Muslim world with massive bombing, "Shock and Awe" we called it, so all Muslims would be afraid of us and then do what we ordered. Then we planted giant, billion-dollar American air bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. These would, they thought, give us hegemony over Central Asia, intimidate Russia and Iran, while Iraq would turn into a friendly, modern democracy dependent upon Washington. Other Muslim nations would then follow with democratic regimes which would co-operate and obey Washington's plans.

    With the neocons discredited, no other strategy has replaced theirs except to "win" and come home. This is not unusual in our history. In past wars American "strategy" has usually been to return to the status quo ante, the prewar situation. Washington violates nearly all of Sun Tzu's dictums for success. Endless wars for little purpose and with no end strategy are thus likely to continue. They are, however, profitable or beneficial for many Washington interests.

    [Dec 06, 2016] Why is the USA addicted to war?

    www.moonofalabama.org
    ben | Dec 3, 2016 2:01:32 PM | 10

    http://www.addictedtowar.com/ read the books online. don't let the books format fool you, massive thought, with footnotes.

    Penelope | Dec 3, 2016 11:47:02 PM | 59

    Ben @ 10, it's not the USA that's addicted to war. Rather it is the US govt AS CAPTURED BY THE OLIGARCHS. Nor is it truly an addiction, but a means to the end of a global oligarchy. It isn't enough to see the evil of US aggression. One must also understand why the international institutions which have usurped nationhood around the world are evil: Fed/IMF system, World Bank, WTO and the entire UN system to which they belong. US hegemony has never been intended as the endgame. Oligarchical global govt is-- initially as a decentralized administration which they are already trying to sell you as "multipolarity".

    [Dec 06, 2016] Cheney, the Neocons and China by GARY LEUPP

    If conflict with China is inevitable, it does not make sense to increase hostility with Russia. Why neocons are doing that?
    Notable quotes:
    "... I've hesitated about whether to apply the word "neoconservative" to persons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I tend to follow the Christian Science Monitor lis t. Paul Wolfowitz, Libby, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Richard Bolton, and Elliott Abrams are intellectuals absorbed in the project of using U.S. military power to remake the Middle East to improve Israel's long-term security interests. (Hannah, David Wurmser, Eric Edelman, and other White House staffers not on the Monitor's dated list also fall into this category.) ..."
    "... Ultimate decision-makers Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on the other hand are sometimes referred to as "aggressive nationalists." They are no doubt Christian Zionists, but are probably most interested in transforming the "Greater Middle East" in the interests of corporate America in an increasingly competitive world. They're probably more concerned about the geopolitics of oil and the placement of "enduring" military bases to "protect U.S. interests" than the fate of Israel. ..."
    "... They are equipped with a philosophical outlook that justifies the use of hyped, imagined threats to unite the masses behind rulers' objectives and ambitions, to suppress dissent and control through fear. They're inclined to identify each new target as "a new Hitler," and to justify their actions as " an answer to the Holocaust ." ..."
    "... "The true measure of how powerful the vice president's office remains today is whether the United States chooses to confront Iran and Syria or to seek diplomatic solutions. For the moment, at least, the war party led by Dick Cheney remains in ascendancy." ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    I've hesitated about whether to apply the word "neoconservative" to persons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I tend to follow the Christian Science Monitor list. Paul Wolfowitz, Libby, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Richard Bolton, and Elliott Abrams are intellectuals absorbed in the project of using U.S. military power to remake the Middle East to improve Israel's long-term security interests. (Hannah, David Wurmser, Eric Edelman, and other White House staffers not on the Monitor's dated list also fall into this category.)

    Ultimate decision-makers Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on the other hand are sometimes referred to as "aggressive nationalists." They are no doubt Christian Zionists, but are probably most interested in transforming the "Greater Middle East" in the interests of corporate America in an increasingly competitive world. They're probably more concerned about the geopolitics of oil and the placement of "enduring" military bases to "protect U.S. interests" than the fate of Israel.

    Dreyfuss' article suggests that Cheney (and thus, the administration) sees China as the biggest long-term threat to those interests.

    If conflict with China is inevitable,

    Because

    (1) that vision fits in perfectly with the broader New World Order and U.S. plans to contain China, and

    (2) the neocons as a coordinated "persuasion" if not movement, with their fingers in a dozen right-wing think tanks, and the Israel Lobby including its Christian Right component, and the academic community, are well-placed to serve as what Dreyfuss calls "acolytes."

    They are equipped with a philosophical outlook that justifies the use of hyped, imagined threats to unite the masses behind rulers' objectives and ambitions, to suppress dissent and control through fear. They're inclined to identify each new target as "a new Hitler," and to justify their actions as "an answer to the Holocaust."

    They have served Cheney well, and he them so far. They're all being exposed, maybe weakened. But as Dreyfuss states at the end of his article, "The true measure of how powerful the vice president's office remains today is whether the United States chooses to confront Iran and Syria or to seek diplomatic solutions. For the moment, at least, the war party led by Dick Cheney remains in ascendancy."

    GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He can be reached at: [email protected]

    [Dec 05, 2016] New Class War

    This is a very weak article from a prominent paleoconservative, but it is instructive what a mess he has in his head as for the nature of Trump phenomenon. We should probably consider the tern "New Class" that neocons invented as synonym for "neoliberals". If so, why the author is afraid to use the term? Does he really so poorly educated not to understand the nature of this neoliberal revolution and its implications? Looks like he never read "Quite coup"
    That probably reflects the crisis of pealeoconservatism itself.
    Notable quotes:
    "... What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. ..."
    "... the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus. ..."
    "... The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country? ..."
    "... The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists. ..."
    "... The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined. ..."
    "... Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction. ..."
    "... concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." ..."
    "... It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on. ..."
    "... I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom? ..."
    "... Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation. ..."
    "... Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class. ..."
    "... Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles ..."
    "... The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service. ..."
    "... America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November. ..."
    "... The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. ..."
    "... Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. ..."
    "... [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets. ..."
    "... "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite. ..."
    "... Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide. ..."
    "... Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism. ..."
    "... The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense. ..."
    "... The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters." ..."
    "... The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA. ..."
    "... . And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends. ..."
    "... Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector. ..."
    "... The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization. ..."
    "... The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America ..."
    "... . Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires ..."
    "... There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain. ..."
    "... State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those. ..."
    "... People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards. ..."
    "... People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions. ..."
    "... I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period. ..."
    "... A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers. ..."
    "... It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya ..."
    "... Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled. ..."
    "... The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now," ..."
    "... That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same. ..."
    "... "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests." This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived. ..."
    "... The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused. ..."
    Sep 07, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound his party's elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.

    What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would mistake Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's views on immigration for Pat Buchanan's or Donald Trump's, Nader and Paul have registered their own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.

    Sanders has been more in line with his party's orthodoxy on that issue. But that didn't save him from being attacked by Clinton backers for having an insufficiently nonwhite base of support. Once again, what might have appeared to be a class conflict-in this case between a democratic socialist and an elite liberal with ties to high finance-could be explained away as really about race.

    Race, like religion, is a real factor in how people vote. Its relevance to elite politics, however, is less clear. Something else has to account for why the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus.

    The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country?

    Some critics on the right have identified it with the "managerial" class described by James Burnham in his 1941 book The Managerial Revolution . But it bears a stronger resemblance to what what others have called "the New Class." In fact, the interests of this New Class of college-educated "verbalists" are antithetical to those of the industrial managers that Burnham described. Understanding the relationship between these two often conflated concepts provides insight into politics today, which can be seen as a clash between managerial and New Class elites.

    ♦♦♦

    The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists.

    Over the next century, however, history did not follow the script. By 1992, the Soviet Union was gone, Communist China had embarked on market reforms, and Western Europe was turning away from democratic socialism. There was no need to predict the future; mankind had achieved its destiny, a universal order of [neo]liberal democracy. Marx had it backwards: capitalism was the end of history.

    But was the truth as simple as that? Long before the collapse of the USSR, many former communists -- some of whom remained socialists, while others joined the right-thought not. The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined.

    Among the first to advance this argument was James Burnham, a professor of philosophy at New York University who became a leading Trotskyist thinker. As he broke with Trotsky and began moving toward the right, Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction.

    Burnham called this the "managerial revolution." The managers of industry and technically trained government officials did not own the means of production, like the capitalists of old. But they did control the means of production, thanks to their expertise and administrative prowess.

    The rise of this managerial class would have far-reaching consequences, he predicted. Burnham wrote in his 1943 book, The Machiavellians : "that the managers may function, the economic and political structure must be modified, as it is now being modified, so as to rest no longer on private ownership and small-scale nationalist sovereignty, but primarily upon state control of the economy, and continental or vast regional world political organization." Burnham pointed to Nazi Germany, imperial Japan-which became a "continental" power by annexing Korea and Manchuria-and the Soviet Union as examples.

    The defeat of the Axis powers did not halt the progress of the managerial revolution. Far from it: not only did the Soviets retain their form of managerialism, but the West increasingly adopted a managerial corporatism of its own, marked by cooperation between big business and big government: high-tech industrial crony capitalism, of the sort that characterizes the military-industrial complex to this day. (Not for nothing was Burnham a great advocate of America's developing a supersonic transport of its own to compete with the French-British Concorde.)

    America's managerial class was personified by Robert S. McNamara, the former Ford Motor Company executive who was secretary of defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In a 1966 story for National Review , "Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?" Burnham answered the question in class terms: "McNamara is attacked by the Left because the Left has a blanket hatred of the system of business enterprise; he is criticized by the Right because the Right harks back, in nostalgia if not in practice, to outmoded forms of business enterprise."

    McNamara the managerial technocrat was too business-oriented for a left that still dreamed of bringing the workers to power. But the modern form of industrial organization he represented was not traditionally capitalist enough for conservatives who were at heart 19th-century classical liberals.

    National Review readers responded to Burnham's paean to McNamara with a mixture of incomprehension and indignation. It was a sign that even readers familiar with Burnham-he appeared in every issue of the magazine-did not always follow what he was saying. The popular right wanted concepts that were helpful in labeling enemies, and Burnham was confusing matters by talking about changes in the organization of government and industry that did not line up with anyone's value judgements.

    More polemically useful was a different concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." "This 'new class' is not easily defined but may be vaguely described," Irving Kristol wrote in a 1975 essay for the Wall Street Journal :

    It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on.

    "Members of the new class do not 'control' the media," he continued, "they are the media-just as they are our educational system, our public health and welfare system, and much else."

    Burnham, writing in National Review in 1978, drew a sharp contrast between this concept and his own ideas:

    I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom?

    Burnham suffered a stroke later that year. Although he lived until 1987, his career as a writer was over. His last years coincided with another great transformation of business and government. It began in the Carter administration, with moves to deregulate transportation and telecommunications. This partial unwinding of the managerial revolution accelerated under Ronald Reagan. Regulatory and welfare-state reforms, even privatization of formerly nationalized industries, also took off in the UK and Western Europe. All this did not, however, amount to a restoration of the old capitalism or anything resembling laissez-faire.

    The "[neo]liberal democracy" that triumphed at "the end of history"-to use Francis Fukuyama's words-was not the managerial capitalism of the mid-20th century, either. It was instead the New Class's form of capitalism, one that could be embraced by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as readily as by any Republican or Thatcherite.

    Irving Kristol had already noted in the 1970s that "this new class is not merely liberal but truly 'libertarian' in its approach to all areas of life-except economics. It celebrates individual liberty of speech and expression and action to an unprecedented degree, so that at times it seems almost anarchistic in its conception of the good life."

    He was right about the New Class's "anything goes" mentality, but he was only partly correct about its attitude toward economics. The young elite tended to scorn the bourgeois character of the old capitalism, and to them managerial figures like McNamara were evil incarnate. But they had to get by-and they aspired to rule.

    Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation.

    Part of the tale can be told in a favorable light. New Left activists like Carl Oglesby fought the spiritual aridity and murderous militarism of what they called "corporate liberalism"-Burnham's managerialism-while sincere young libertarians attacked the regulatory state and seeded technological entrepreneurship. Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class.

    Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles. On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests. The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service.

    The alliance between finance and the New Class accounts for the disposition of power in America today. The New Class has also enlisted another invaluable ally: the managerial classes of East Asia. Trade with China-the modern managerial state par excellence-helps keep American industry weak relative to finance and the service economy's verbalist-dominated sectors. America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites.

    The New Class plays a priestly role in its alliance with finance, absolving Wall Street for the sin of making money in exchange for plenty of that money to keep the New Class in power. In command of foreign policy, the New Class gets to pursue humanitarian ideological projects-to experiment on the world. It gets to evangelize by the sword. And with trade policy, it gets to suppress its class rival, the managerial elite, at home. Through trade pacts and mass immigration the financial elite, meanwhile, gets to maximize its returns without regard for borders or citizenship. The erosion of other nations' sovereignty that accompanies American hegemony helps toward that end too-though our wars are more ideological than interest-driven.

    ♦♦♦

    So we come to an historic moment. Instead of an election pitting another Bush against another Clinton, we have a race that poses stark alternatives: a choice not only between candidates but between classes-not only between administrations but between regimes.

    Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November.

    The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. For the center-left establishment, minority voters supply the electoral muscle. Religion and the culture war have served the same purpose for the establishment's center-right faction. Trump showed that at least one of these sides could be beaten on its own turf-and it seems conceivable that if Bernie Sanders had been black, he might have similarly beaten Clinton, without having to make concessions to New Class tastes.

    The New Class establishment of both parties may be seriously misjudging what is happening here. Far from being the last gasp of the demographically doomed-old, racially isolated white people, as Gallup's analysis says-Trump's insurgency may be the prototype of an aggressive new politics, of either left or right, that could restore the managerial elite to power.

    This is not something that conservatives-or libertarians who admire the old capitalism rather than New Class's simulacrum-might welcome. But the only way that some entrenched policies may change is with a change of the class in power.

    Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative .

    [Dec 05, 2016] Capitalism Requires World War by Cathal Haughian via TheSaker.ie,

    www.zerohedge.com

    It has been our undertaking, since 2010, to chronicle our understanding of capitalism via our book The Philosophy of Capitalism . We were curious as to the underlying nature of the system which endows us, the owners of capital, with so many favours. The Saker has asked me to explain our somewhat crude statement 'Capitalism Requires World War'.

    The present showdown between West, Russia and China is the culmination of a long running saga that began with World War One. Prior to which, Capitalism was governed by the gold standard system which was international, very solid, with clear rules and had brought great prosperity: for banking Capital was scarce and so allocated carefully. World War One required debt-capitalism of the FIAT kind, a bankrupt Britain began to pass the Imperial baton to the US, which had profited by financing the war and selling munitions.

    The Weimar Republic, suffering a continuation of hostilities via economic means, tried to inflate away its debts in 1919-1923 with disastrous results-hyperinflation. Then, the reintroduction of the gold standard into a world poisoned by war, reparation and debt was fated to fail and ended with a deflationary bust in the early 1930's and WW2.

    The US government gained a lot of credibility after WW2 by outlawing offensive war and funding many construction projects that helped transfer private debt to the public book. The US government's debt exploded during the war, but it also shifted the power game away from creditors to a big debtor that had a lot of political capital. The US used her power to define the new rules of the monetary system at Bretton Woods in 1944 and to keep physical hold of gold owned by other nations.

    The US jacked up tax rates on the wealthy and had a period of elevated inflation in the late 40s and into the 1950s – all of which wiped out creditors, but also ushered in a unique middle class era in the West. The US also reformed extraction centric institutions in Europe and Japan to make sure an extractive-creditor class did not hobble growth, which was easy to do because the war had wiped them out (same as in Korea).

    Capital destruction in WW2 reversed the Marxist rule that the rate of profit always falls. Take any given market – say jeans. At first, all the companies make these jeans using a great deal of human labour so all the jeans are priced around the average of total social labour time required for production (some companies will charge more, some companies less).

    One company then introduces a machine (costed at $n) that makes jeans using a lot less labour time. Each of these robot assisted workers is paid the same hourly rate but the production process is now far more productive. This company, ignoring the capital outlay in the machinery, will now have a much higher profit rate than the others. This will attract capital, as capital is always on the lookout for higher rates of profit. The result will be a generalisation of this new mode of production. The robot or machine will be adopted by all the other companies, as it is a more efficient way of producing jeans.

    As a consequence the price of the jeans will fall, as there is an increased margin within which each market actor can undercut his fellows. One company will lower prices so as to increase market share. This new price-point will become generalised as competing companies cut their prices to defend their market share. A further n$ was invested but per unit profit margin is put under constant downward pressure, so the rate of return in productive assets tends to fall over time in a competitive market place.

    Interest rates have been falling for decades in the West because interest rates must always be below the rate of return on productive investments. If interest rates are higher than the risk adjusted rate of return then the capitalist might as well keep his money in a savings account. If there is real deflation his purchasing power increases for free and if there is inflation he will park his money (plus debt) in an unproductive asset that's price inflating, E.G. Housing. Sound familiar? Sure, there has been plenty of profit generated since 2008 but it has not been recovered from productive investments in a competitive free market place. All that profit came from bubbles in asset classes and financial schemes abetted by money printing and zero interest rates.

    Thus, we know that the underlying rate of return is near zero in the West. The rate of return falls naturally, due to capital accumulation and market competition. The system is called capitalism because capital accumulates: high income economies are those with the greatest accumulation of capital per worker. The robot assisted worker enjoys a higher income as he is highly productive, partly because the robotics made some of the workers redundant and there are fewer workers to share the profit. All the high income economies have had near zero interest rates for seven years. Interest rates in Europe are even negative. How has the system remained stable for so long?

    All economic growth depends on energy gain. It takes energy (drilling the oil well) to gain energy. Unlike our everyday experience whereby energy acquisition and energy expenditure can be balanced, capitalism requires an absolute net energy gain. That gain, by way of energy exchange, takes the form of tools and machines that permit an increase in productivity per work hour. Thus GDP increases, living standards improve and the debts can be repaid. Thus, oil is a strategic capitalistic resource.

    US net energy gain production peaked in 1974, to be replaced by production from Saudi Arabia, which made the USA a net importer of oil for the first time. US dependence on foreign oil rose from 26% to 47% between 1985 and 1989 to hit a peak of 60% in 2006. And, tellingly, real wages peaked in 1974, levelled-off and then began to fall for most US workers. Wages have never recovered. (The decline is more severe if you don't believe government reported inflation figures that don't count the costof housing.)

    What was the economic and political result of this decline? During the 20 years 1965-85, there were 4 recessions, 2 energy crises and wage and price controls. These were unprecedented in peacetime and The Gulf of Tonkin event led to the Vietnam War which finally required Nixon to move away from the Gold-Exchange Standard in 1971, opening the next degenerate chapter of FIAT finance up until 2008. Cutting this link to gold was cutting the external anchor impeding war and deficit spending. The promise of gold for dollars was revoked.

    GDP in the US increased after 1974 but a portion of end use buying power was transferred to Saudi Arabia. They were supplying the net energy gain that was powering the US GDP increase. The working class in the US began to experience a slow real decline in living standards, as 'their share' of the economic pie was squeezed by the ever increasing transfer of buying power to Saudi Arabia.

    The US banking and government elite responded by creating and cutting back legal and behavioral rules of a fiat based monetary system. The Chinese appreciated the long term opportunity that this presented and agreed to play ball. The USA over-produced credit money and China over-produced manufactured goods which cushioned the real decline in the buying power of America's working class. Power relations between China and the US began to change: The Communist Party transferred value to the American consumer whilst Wall Street transferred most of the US industrial base to China. They didn't ship the military industrial complex.

    Large scale leverage meant that US consumers and businesses had the means to purchase increasingly with debt so the class war was deferred. This is how over production occurs: more is produced that is paid for not with money that represents actual realized labour time, but from future wealth, to be realised from future labour time. The Chinese labour force was producing more than it consumed.

    The system has never differed from the limits laid down by the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Real economy system can never over-produce per se. The limit of production is absolute net energy gain. What is produced can be consumed. How did the Chinese produce such a super massive excess and for so long? Economic slavery can achieve radical improvements in living standards for those that benefit from ownership. Slaves don't depreciate as they are rented and are not repaired for they replicate for free. Hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants limited their way of life and controlled their consumption in order to benefit their children. And their exploited life raised the rate of profit!

    They began their long march to modern prosperity making toys, shoes, and textiles cheaper than poor women could in South Carolina or Honduras. Such factories are cheap to build and deferential, obedient and industrious peasant staff were a perfect match for work that was not dissimilar to tossing fruit into a bucket. Their legacy is the initial capital formation of modern China and one of the greatest accomplishments in human history. The Chinese didn't use net energy gain from oil to power their super massive and sustained increase in production. They used economic slavery powered by caloric energy, exchanged from solar energy. The Chinese labour force picked the World's low hanging fruit that didn't need many tools or machines. Slaves don't need tools for they are the tool.

    Without a gold standard and capital ratios our form of over-production has grown enormously. The dotcom bubble was reflated through a housing bubble, which has been pumped up again by sovereign debt, printing press (QE) and central bank insolvency. The US working and middle classes have over-consumed relative to their share of the global economic pie for decades. The correction to prices (the destruction of credit money & accumulated capital) is still yet to happen. This is what has been happening since 1971 because of the growth of financialisation or monetisation.

    The application of all these economic methods was justified by the political ideology of neo-Liberalism. Neo-Liberalism entails no or few capital controls, the destruction of trade unions, plundering state and public assets, importing peasants as domesticated help, and entrusting society's value added production to The Communist Party of The People's Republic of China.

    The Chinese have many motives but their first motivation is power. Power is more important than money. If you're rich and weak you get robbed. Russia provides illustrating stories of such: Gorbachev had received a promise from George HW Bush that the US would pay Russia approximately $400 billion over10 years as a "peace dividend" and as a tool to be utilized in the conversion of their state run to a market based economic system. The Russians believe the head of the CIA at the time, George Tenet, essentially killed the deal based on the idea that "letting the country fall apart will destroy Russia as a future military threat". The country fell apart in 1992. Its natural assets were plundered which raised the rate of profit in the 90's until President Putin put a stop to the robbery.

    In the last analysis, the current framework of Capitalism results in labour redundancy, a falling rate of profit and ingrained trading imbalances caused by excess capacity. Under our current monopoly state capitalism a number of temporary preventive measures have evolved, including the expansion of university, military, and prison systems to warehouse new generations of labour.

    Our problem is how to retain the "expected return rate" for us, the dominant class. Ultimately, there are only two large-scale solutions, which are intertwined .

    One is expansion of state debt to keep "the markets" moving and transfer wealth from future generations of labour to the present dominant class.

    The other is war, the consumer of last resort. Wars can burn up excess capacity, shift global markets, generate monopoly rents, and return future labour to a state of helplessness and reduced expectations. The Spanish flu killed 50-100 million people in 1918. As if this was not enough, it also took two World Wars across the 20th century and some 96 million dead to reduce unemployment and stabilize the "labour problem."

    Capitalism requires World War because Capitalism requires profit and cannot afford the unemployed . The point is capitalism could afford social democracy after the rate of profit was restored thanks to the depression of the 1930's and the physical destruction of capital during WW2. Capitalism only produces for profit and social democracy was funded by taxing profits after WW2.

    Post WW2 growth in labour productivity, due to automation, itself due to oil & gas replacing coal, meant workers could be better off. As the economic pie was growing, workers could receive the same %, and still receive a bigger slice. Wages as a % of US GDP actually increased in the period, 1945-1970. There was an increase in government spending which was being redirected in the form of redistributed incomes. Inequality will only worsen, because to make profits now we have to continually cut the cost of inputs, i.e. wages & benefits. Have we not already reached the point where large numbers of the working class can neither feed themselves nor afford a roof over their heads?13% of the UK working age population is out of work and receiving out of work benefits. A huge fraction is receiving in work benefits because low skill work now pays so little.

    The underlying nature of Capitalism is cyclical. Here is how the political aspect of the cycle ends:

    If Capitalism could speak, she would ask her older brother, Imperialism, this: "Can you solve the problem?" We are not reliving the 1930's, the economy is now an integrated whole that encompasses the entire World. Capital has been accumulating since 1945, so under- and unemployment is a plague everywhere. How big is the problem? Official data tells us nothing, but the 47 million Americans on food aid are suggestive. That's 1 in 7 Americans and total World population is 7 billion.

    The scale of the solution is dangerous. Our probing for weakness in the South China Sea, Ukraine and Syria has awakened them to their danger.The Chinese and Russian leadershave reacted by integrating their payment systems and real economies, trading energy for manufactured goods for advanced weapon systems. As they are central players in the Shanghai Group we can assume their aim is the monetary system which is the bedrock of our Imperial power. What's worse, they can avoid overt enemy action and simply choose to undermine "confidence" in the FIAT.

    Though given the calibre of their nuclear arsenal, how can they be fought let alone defeated? Appetite preceded Reason, so Lust is hard to Reason with. But beware brother. Your Lust for Power began this saga, perhaps it's time to Reason.

    Uncle Sugar

    Seriously - Having a Central Bank with a debt based monetary system requires permanent wars. True market based capitalism does not.

    Father Thyme

    Your logical fallacy is no true scotsman
    http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 23:21 | 7264475 Seek_Truth

    Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

    If wealth were measured by creating strawmen- you would be a Rothschild.

    gwiss

    That's because they don't understand the word "capitalism."

    Capitalism simply means economic freedom. And economic freedom, just like freedom to breed, must be exposed to the pruning action of cause and effect, otherwise it outgrows its container and becomes unstable and explodes. As long as it is continually exposed to the grinding wheel of causality, it continues to hold a fine edge, as the dross is scraped away and the fine steel stays. Reality is full of dualities, and those dualities cannot be separated without creating broken symmetry and therefore terminal instability. Freedom and responsibility, for example. One without the other is unstable. Voting and taxation in direct proportion to each other is another example.

    Fiat currency is an attempt to create an artificial reality, one without the necessary symmetry and balance of a real system. However, reality can not be gamed, because it will produce its own symmetry if you try to deny it. Thus the symmetry of fiat currency is boom and bust, a sine wave that still manages to produce equilibrium, however at a huge bubbling splattering boil rather than a fine simmer.

    The folks that wrote this do not have a large enough world view. Capitalism does not require world wars because freedom does not require world wars. Freedom tends to bleed imbalances out when they are small. On the other hand, empire does require world war, which is why we are going to have one.

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 23:27 | 7264485 GRDguy

    Capitalism becomes imperialism when financial sociopaths steal profits from both sides of the trade. What you're seeing is an Imperialism of Capital, as explained very nicely in the 1889 book "The Great Red Dragon."

    AchtungAffen

    Really? I thought that was the re-prints of Mises Canada, Kunstler or Brandon Smith. In comparison, this article is sublime.

    Caviar Emptor

    Wrong. Capitalism needs prolonged directionless wars without clear winners and contained destruction that utilize massive amounts of raw materials and endless orders for weapons and logistical support. That's what makes some guys rich.

    Wed, 03/02/2016 - 22:56 | 7264423 Jack's Raging B...

    That's was a very long-winded and deliberately obtuse way of explaining how DEBT AS MONEY and The State's usurpation of sound money destroyed efficient markets. The author then goes to call this system Capitalism.

    So yeah, the deliberate destruction of capital, in all its forms, is somehow capitalism. Brilliant observation. Fuck you. There are better terms for things like this. Perhaps....central banking? The State? Fiat debt creation? Evil? Naw, let's just contort and abuse language instead. That's the ticket.

    My Days Are Get...

    From Russia News Feed:

    Cathal Haughian Bio :

    I've spent my adult life in 51 countries. This was financed by correctly anticipating the Great Financial Crisis in 2008. I was studying Marx at that time. I'm presently an employee of the Chinese State. I educate the children of China's best families. I am the author, alongside a large international team of capitalists, of Before The Collapse : The Philosophy of Capitalism.

    I also have my own business; I live with my girlfriend and was born and grew up in Ireland.

    ===============

    Why would anyone waste time to read this drivel, buttressed by the author's credentials.

    The unstated thesis is that wars involve millions of actors, who produce an end-result of many hundreds of millions killed.

    Absent coercion ("the Draft"), how is any government going to man hundreds of divisions of foot soldiers. That concept is passé.

    Distribute some aerosol poisons via drones and kill as many people as deemed necessary. How in the hell will that action stimulate the world economy.

    Weapons of mass-destruction are smaller, cheaper and easier to deploy. War as a progenitor of growth - forget it.

    The good news is that this guy is educating the children of elite in China. Possibly the Pentagon could clone him 10,000 times and send those cyborgs to China - cripple China for another generation or two.

    slimycorporated...

    Capitalism requires banks that made shitty loans to fail

    Ms No

    The term cyclical doesn't quite cover what we have being experiencing. It's more like a ragdoll being shaken by a white shark. The euphoria of bubble is more like complete unhinged unicorn mania anymore and the lows are complete grapes of wrath. It's probably always been that way to some extent because corruption has remained unchallenged for a great deal of time. The boom phases are scarier than the downturns anymore, especially the last oil boom and housing boom. Complete Alfred Hitchcock stuff.

    I don't think it's capitalism and that term comes across as an explanation that legitimizes this completely contrived pattern that benefits a few and screws everybody else. Markets should not be behaving in such a violent fashion. Money should probably be made steady and slow. And downturns shouldn't turn a country into Zimbabwe. I could be wrong but there is really no way to know with the corruption we have.

    Good times.

    o r c k

    And War requires that an enemy be created. According to American General Breedlove-head of NATO's European Command-speaking to the US Armed Services Committee 2 days ago, "Russia and Assad are deliberately weaponizing migration to break European resolve". "The only reason to use non-precision weapons like barrel bombs is to keep refugees on the move". "These refugees bring criminality, foreign fighters and terrorism", and "are being used to overwhelm European structures". "Russia has chosen to be an adversary and is a real threat." "Russia is irresponsible with nuclear weapons-always threatening to use them." And strangely, "In the past week alone, Russia has made 450 attacks along the front lines in E. Ukraine".

    Even with insanity overflowing the West, I found these comments to be the most bizarrely threatening propaganda yet. After reading them for the first time, I had to prove to myself that I wasn't hallucinating it.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Backlash Against Trade Deals: The End of US Led Economic Globalisation?

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline ..."
    "... President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US. ..."
    "... The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values. ..."
    "... But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. ..."
    "... But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them. ..."
    "... Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions ..."
    "... All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-ŕ-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations ..."
    "... So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals. ..."
    "... The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself. ..."
    "... Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg ..."
    "... While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.) ..."
    "... Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes. ..."
    "... Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way. ..."
    "... We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products. ..."
    "... the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future! ..."
    "... The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder. ..."
    "... Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm ..."
    "... It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio. ..."
    "... The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/ "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike." ..."
    "... So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now? ..."
    "... Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade". ..."
    "... Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy." ..."
    "... Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project! ..."
    "... Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves. ..."
    "... Funny how little things change over the centuries. ..."
    "... The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans. ..."
    "... "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu. ..."
    "... The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China". ..."
    "... Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China". ..."
    "... Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them. ..."
    "... Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret. ..."
    "... Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects. ..."
    "... It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country. ..."
    "... I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations ..."
    "... Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St. ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline

    There is much angst in the Northern financial media about how the era of globalisation led actively by the United States may well be coming to an end. This is said to be exemplified in the changed political attitudes to mega regional trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) that was signed (but has not yet been ratified) by the US and 11 other countries in Latin America, Asia and Oceania; and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP) still being negotiated by the US and the European Union.

    President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US.

    However, the changing political currents in the US are making that ever more unlikely. Hardly anyone who is a candidate in the coming elections, whether for the Presidency, the Senate or the House of Representatives, is willing to stick their necks out to back the deal.

    Both Presidential candidates in the US (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) have openly come out against the TPP. In Clinton's case this is a complete reversal of her earlier position when she had referred to the TPP as "the gold standard of trade deals" – and it has clearly been forced upon her by the insurgent movement in the Democratic Party led by Bernie Sanders. She is already being pushed by her rival candidate for not coming out more clearly in terms of a complete rejection of this deal. Given the significant trust deficit that she still has to deal with across a large swathe of US voters, it will be hard if not impossible for her to backtrack on this once again (as her husband did earlier with NAFTA) even if she does achieve the Presidency.

    The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values.

    But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. Even the only US government study of the TPP's likely impacts, by the International Trade Commission, could project at best only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032. A study by Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta with Jomo Kwame Sundaram ("Trading down: Unemployment, inequality and other risks of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement", Working Paper 16-01, Global Development and Environment Institute, January 2016) was even less optimistic, even for the US. It found that the benefits to exports and economic growth were likely to be relatively small for all member countries, and would be negative in the US and Japan because of losses to employment and increases in inequality. Wage shares of national income would decline in all the member countries.

    But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them.

    Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying:

    1. the intellectual property provisions,
    2. the restrictions on regulatory practices
    3. the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.
    Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.

    All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-ŕ-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations

    For example, the TPP (and the TTIP) require more stringent enforcement requirements of intellectual property rights: reducing exemptions (e.g. allowing compulsory licensing only for emergencies); preventing parallel imports; extending IPRs to areas like life forms, counterfeiting and piracy; extending exclusive rights to test data (e.g. in pharmaceuticals); making IPR provisions more detailed and prescriptive. The scope of drug patents is extended to include minor changes to existing medications (a practice commonly employed by drug companies, known as "evergreening"). Patent linkages would make it more difficult for many generic drugs to enter markets.

    This would strengthen, lengthen and broaden pharmaceutical monopolies on cancer, heart disease and HIV/AIDS drugs, and in general make even life-saving drugs more expensive and inaccessible in all the member countries. It would require further transformation of countries' laws on patents and medical test data. It would reduce the scope of exemption in use of medical formulations through public procurement for public purposes. All this is likely to lead to reductions in access to drugs and medical procedures because of rising prices, and also impede innovation rather than encouraging it, across member countries.

    There are also very restrictive copyright protection rules, that would also affect internet usage as Internet Service Providers are to be forced to adhere to them. There are further restrictions on branding that would reinforce the market power of established players.

    The TPP and TTIP also contain restrictions on regulatory practices that greatly increase the power of corporations relative to states and can even prevent states from engaging in countercyclical measures designed to boost domestic demand. It has been pointed out by consumer groups in the USA that the powers of the Food and Drug Administration to regulate products that affect health of citizens could be constrained and curtailed by this agreement. Similarly, macroeconomic stimulus packages that focus on boosting domestic demand for local production would be explicitly prohibited by such agreements.

    All these are matters for concern because these agreements enable corporations to litigate against governments that are perceived to be flouting these provisions because of their own policy goals or to protect the rights of their citizens. The Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism enabled by these agreements is seen to be one of their most deadly features. Such litigation is then subject to supranational tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards and which do not see the rights of citizen as in any way superior to the "rights" of corporations to their profits. These courts can conduct closed and secret hearings with secret evidence. They do not just interpret the rules but contribute to them through case law because of the relatively vague wording of the text, which can then be subject to different interpretations, and therefore are settled by case law. The experience thus far with such tribunals has been problematic. Since they are legally based on "equal" treatment of legal persons with no primacy for human rights, they have become known for their pro-investor bias, partly due to the incentive structure for arbitrators, and partly because the system is designed to provide supplementary guarantees to investors, rather than making them respect host countries laws and regulations.

    If all these features of the TPP and the TTIP were more widely known, it is likely that there would be even greater public resistance to them in the US and in other countries. Even as it is, there is growing antagonism to the trade liberalisation that is seen to bring benefits to corporations rather than to workers, at a period in history when secure employment is seen to be the biggest prize of all.

    So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals.

    human , September 22, 2016 at 10:14 am

    his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US.

    "just _after_ the November Presidential election"

    Uahsenaa , September 22, 2016 at 10:42 am

    I was watching a speech Premier Li gave at the Economic Club of NY last night, and it was interesting to see how all his (vetted, pre-selected) questions revolved around anxieties having to do with resistance to global trade deals. Li made a few pandering comments about how much the Chinese love American beef (stop it! you're killing me! har har) meant to diffuse those anxieties, but it became clear that the fear among TPTB of people's dissatisfaction with the current economic is palpable. Let's keep it up!

    allan , September 22, 2016 at 11:30 am

    On a related note:

    U.S. Court Throws Out Price-Fixing Judgment Against Chinese Vitamin C Makers [WSJ]

    A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out a $147 million civil price fixing judgment against Chinese manufacturers of vitamin C, ruling the companies weren't liable in U.S. courts because they were acting under the direction of Chinese authorities.

    The case raised thorny questions of how courts should treat foreign companies accused of violating U.S. antitrust law when they are following mandates of a foreign government.

    "I was only following orders" might not have worked in Nuremberg, but it's a-ok in international trade.

    different clue , September 22, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself.

    Wellstone's Ghost , September 22, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Trump has already back peddaled on his TPP stance. He now says he wants to renegotiate the TTP and other trade deals. Whatever that means. Besides, Trump is a distraction, its Mike Pence you should be keeping your eye on. He's American Taliban pure and simple.

    RPDC , September 22, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    This is simply false. Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg

    Hillary wants to start a war with Russia and pass the trade trifecta of TPP/TTIP/TiSA.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.)

    Trump was run to make Hillary look good, but that has turned out to be Mission Real Impossible!

    We are seeing the absolute specious political theater at its worst, attempting to differentiate between Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Trumpster – – – the only major difference is that Clinton has far more real blood on her and Bill's hands.

    Nope, there is no lesser of evils this time around . . .

    Quanka , September 23, 2016 at 8:25 am

    Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes.

    different clue , September 24, 2016 at 1:00 am

    Really? Well . . . might as well vote for Clinton then.

    First Woman President!
    Feminism!
    Liberation!

    TedWa , September 22, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way.

    a different chris , September 22, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    >only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032.

    At that point American's wages will have dropped near enough to Chinese levels that we can compete in selling to First World countries . assuming there are any left.

    oh , September 22, 2016 at 4:19 pm

    We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Naaah, never been about competition, since nobody is actually vetted when they offshore those jobs or replace American workers with foreign visa workers.

    But to sum it up as succinctly as possible: the TPP is about the destruction of workers' rights; the destruction of local and small businesses; and the loss of sovereignty. Few Americans are cognizant of just how many businesses are foreign owned today in America; their local energy utility or state energy utility, their traffic enforcement company which was privatized, their insurance company (GEICO, etc.).

    I remember when a political action group back in the '00s thought they had stumbled on a big deal when someone had hacked into the system of the Bretton Woods Committee (the lobbyist group for the international super-rich which ONLY communicates with the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, and who shares the same lobbyist and D.C. office space as the Group of Thirty, the lobbyist group for the central bankers [Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Mario Draghi, Ernesto Zedillo, Bill Dudley, etc., etc.]) and placed online their demand of the senate and the congress to kill the "Buy America" clause in the federal stimulus program of a few years back (it was watered down greatly, and many exemptions were signed by then Commerce Secretary Gary Locke), but such information went completely unnoticed or ignored, and of course, the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future!

    http://www.brettonwoods.org
    http://www.group30.org

    Arthur J , September 22, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder.

    Carla , September 22, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    In June 2016, "[TransCanada] filed an arbitration claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) over President Obama's rejection of the pipeline, making good on its January threat to take legal action against the US decision.

    According to the official request for arbitration, the $15 billion tab is supposed to help the company recover costs and damages that it suffered "as a result of the US administration's breach of its NAFTA obligations." NAFTA is a comprehensive trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico that went into effect in January 1, 1994. Under the agreement, businesses can challenge governments over investment disputes.

    In addition, the company filed a suit in US Federal Court in Houston, Texas in January asserting that the Obama Administration exceeded the power granted by the US Constitution in denying the project."

    http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/transcanada_complains_nafta_sues_us_15_bn_keystone_xl_rejection/

    Six states have since joined that federal law suit.

    Kris Alman , September 22, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm

    It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio.

    Obama's rhetoric May 5, 2015 at the Nike campus was all about how small businesses would prosper. Congresswoman Bonamici clings to this rationale in her refusal to tell angry constituents at town halls whether she supports the TPP.

    The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/
    "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike."

    That appeals to the other big athletic corporations that cluster in the Portland metro: Columbia Sportswear and Under Armour.

    A plot twist!

    Vietnam will not include ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the agenda for its next parliament session. http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/1087705/vietnam-delays-tpp-vote So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now?

    Vatch , September 22, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now?

    Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade".

    hemeantwell , September 22, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy."

    Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project!

    ChrisFromGeorgia , September 22, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves.

    Funny how little things change over the centuries.

    Brad , September 22, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans.

    "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu.

    Minnie Mouse , September 22, 2016 at 3:58 pm

    When America writes the rules of the global economy the global economy destroys America.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 22, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China".

    Would be nice if they had even a passing thought for those people in a certain North American region located in between Canada and Mexico.

    different clue , September 23, 2016 at 1:40 am

    Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China".

    Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them.

    different clue , September 22, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    If calling the International Free Trade Conspiracy "American" is enough to get it killed and destroyed, then I don't mind having a bunch of foreigners calling the Free Trade Conspiracy "American". Just as long as they are really against it, and can really get Free Trade killed and destroyed.

    Chauncey Gardiner , September 22, 2016 at 3:23 pm

    Excellent post. Thank you. Should these so called "trade agreements" be approved, perhaps Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS arbitration) futures can be created by Wall Street and made the next speculative "Play-of-the-day" so that everyone has a chance to participate in the looting. Btw, can you loot your own house?

    KYrocky , September 22, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret.

    At the time he made that statement Warren could go to an offsite location to read the TPP in the presence of a member of the Trade Commission, could not have staff with her, could not take notes, and could not discuss anything she read with anyone else after she left. Or face criminal charges.

    Yeah. Nothing secret about that.

    Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects.

    sgt_doom , September 22, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    And add to that everything from David Dayen's book (" Chain of Title ") on Covington & Burling and Eric Holder and President Obama, and Thomas Frank's book ("Listen, Liberals") and people will have the full picture!

    Spencer , September 22, 2016 at 9:50 pm

    It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country.

    So, there's a financial incentive (to maximize profits), not to repatriate foreign income (pushes up our exchange rate, currency conversion costs, if domestic re-investment alternatives are considered more circumscribed, plus taxes, etc.).

    In spite of the surfeit of $s, and E-$ credits, and unlike the days in which world-trade required a Marshall Plan jump start, trade surpluses increasingly depend on the Asian Tiger's convertibility issues.

    Praedor , September 23, 2016 at 10:30 am

    I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations or even (potential) unfriendlies like China (who can easily put trojan spyware hard code or other vulnerabilities into critical microchips the way WE were told the US could/would when it was leading on this tech when I was serving in the 90s). We already know that US-written rules is simply a way for mega corporations to extend patents into the ever-more-distant future, a set of rules that hands more control of arts over to the MPAA, rules that gut environmental laws, etc. Who needs the US-written agreements when this is the result?

    Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St.

    [Dec 05, 2016] New Class War

    This is a very weak article from a prominent paleoconservative, but it is instructive what a mess he has in his head as for the nature of Trump phenomenon. We should probably consider the tern "New Class" that neocons invented as synonym for "neoliberals". If so, why the author is afraid to use the term? Does he really so poorly educated not to understand the nature of this neoliberal revolution and its implications? Looks like he never read "Quite coup"
    That probably reflects the crisis of pealeoconservatism itself.
    Notable quotes:
    "... What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. ..."
    "... the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus. ..."
    "... The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country? ..."
    "... The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists. ..."
    "... The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined. ..."
    "... Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction. ..."
    "... concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." ..."
    "... It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on. ..."
    "... I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom? ..."
    "... Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation. ..."
    "... Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class. ..."
    "... Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles ..."
    "... The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service. ..."
    "... America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November. ..."
    "... The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. ..."
    "... Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. ..."
    "... [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets. ..."
    "... "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite. ..."
    "... Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide. ..."
    "... Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism. ..."
    "... The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense. ..."
    "... The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters." ..."
    "... The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA. ..."
    "... . And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends. ..."
    "... Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector. ..."
    "... The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization. ..."
    "... The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America ..."
    "... . Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires ..."
    "... There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain. ..."
    "... State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those. ..."
    "... People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards. ..."
    "... People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions. ..."
    "... I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
    "... The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period. ..."
    "... A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers. ..."
    "... It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya ..."
    "... Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled. ..."
    "... The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now," ..."
    "... That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same. ..."
    "... "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests." This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived. ..."
    "... The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused. ..."
    Sep 07, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound his party's elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.

    What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would mistake Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's views on immigration for Pat Buchanan's or Donald Trump's, Nader and Paul have registered their own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.

    Sanders has been more in line with his party's orthodoxy on that issue. But that didn't save him from being attacked by Clinton backers for having an insufficiently nonwhite base of support. Once again, what might have appeared to be a class conflict-in this case between a democratic socialist and an elite liberal with ties to high finance-could be explained away as really about race.

    Race, like religion, is a real factor in how people vote. Its relevance to elite politics, however, is less clear. Something else has to account for why the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus.

    The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country?

    Some critics on the right have identified it with the "managerial" class described by James Burnham in his 1941 book The Managerial Revolution . But it bears a stronger resemblance to what what others have called "the New Class." In fact, the interests of this New Class of college-educated "verbalists" are antithetical to those of the industrial managers that Burnham described. Understanding the relationship between these two often conflated concepts provides insight into politics today, which can be seen as a clash between managerial and New Class elites.

    ♦♦♦

    The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists.

    Over the next century, however, history did not follow the script. By 1992, the Soviet Union was gone, Communist China had embarked on market reforms, and Western Europe was turning away from democratic socialism. There was no need to predict the future; mankind had achieved its destiny, a universal order of [neo]liberal democracy. Marx had it backwards: capitalism was the end of history.

    But was the truth as simple as that? Long before the collapse of the USSR, many former communists -- some of whom remained socialists, while others joined the right-thought not. The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined.

    Among the first to advance this argument was James Burnham, a professor of philosophy at New York University who became a leading Trotskyist thinker. As he broke with Trotsky and began moving toward the right, Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction.

    Burnham called this the "managerial revolution." The managers of industry and technically trained government officials did not own the means of production, like the capitalists of old. But they did control the means of production, thanks to their expertise and administrative prowess.

    The rise of this managerial class would have far-reaching consequences, he predicted. Burnham wrote in his 1943 book, The Machiavellians : "that the managers may function, the economic and political structure must be modified, as it is now being modified, so as to rest no longer on private ownership and small-scale nationalist sovereignty, but primarily upon state control of the economy, and continental or vast regional world political organization." Burnham pointed to Nazi Germany, imperial Japan-which became a "continental" power by annexing Korea and Manchuria-and the Soviet Union as examples.

    The defeat of the Axis powers did not halt the progress of the managerial revolution. Far from it: not only did the Soviets retain their form of managerialism, but the West increasingly adopted a managerial corporatism of its own, marked by cooperation between big business and big government: high-tech industrial crony capitalism, of the sort that characterizes the military-industrial complex to this day. (Not for nothing was Burnham a great advocate of America's developing a supersonic transport of its own to compete with the French-British Concorde.)

    America's managerial class was personified by Robert S. McNamara, the former Ford Motor Company executive who was secretary of defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In a 1966 story for National Review , "Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?" Burnham answered the question in class terms: "McNamara is attacked by the Left because the Left has a blanket hatred of the system of business enterprise; he is criticized by the Right because the Right harks back, in nostalgia if not in practice, to outmoded forms of business enterprise."

    McNamara the managerial technocrat was too business-oriented for a left that still dreamed of bringing the workers to power. But the modern form of industrial organization he represented was not traditionally capitalist enough for conservatives who were at heart 19th-century classical liberals.

    National Review readers responded to Burnham's paean to McNamara with a mixture of incomprehension and indignation. It was a sign that even readers familiar with Burnham-he appeared in every issue of the magazine-did not always follow what he was saying. The popular right wanted concepts that were helpful in labeling enemies, and Burnham was confusing matters by talking about changes in the organization of government and industry that did not line up with anyone's value judgements.

    More polemically useful was a different concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." "This 'new class' is not easily defined but may be vaguely described," Irving Kristol wrote in a 1975 essay for the Wall Street Journal :

    It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on.

    "Members of the new class do not 'control' the media," he continued, "they are the media-just as they are our educational system, our public health and welfare system, and much else."

    Burnham, writing in National Review in 1978, drew a sharp contrast between this concept and his own ideas:

    I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom?

    Burnham suffered a stroke later that year. Although he lived until 1987, his career as a writer was over. His last years coincided with another great transformation of business and government. It began in the Carter administration, with moves to deregulate transportation and telecommunications. This partial unwinding of the managerial revolution accelerated under Ronald Reagan. Regulatory and welfare-state reforms, even privatization of formerly nationalized industries, also took off in the UK and Western Europe. All this did not, however, amount to a restoration of the old capitalism or anything resembling laissez-faire.

    The "[neo]liberal democracy" that triumphed at "the end of history"-to use Francis Fukuyama's words-was not the managerial capitalism of the mid-20th century, either. It was instead the New Class's form of capitalism, one that could be embraced by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair as readily as by any Republican or Thatcherite.

    Irving Kristol had already noted in the 1970s that "this new class is not merely liberal but truly 'libertarian' in its approach to all areas of life-except economics. It celebrates individual liberty of speech and expression and action to an unprecedented degree, so that at times it seems almost anarchistic in its conception of the good life."

    He was right about the New Class's "anything goes" mentality, but he was only partly correct about its attitude toward economics. The young elite tended to scorn the bourgeois character of the old capitalism, and to them managerial figures like McNamara were evil incarnate. But they had to get by-and they aspired to rule.

    Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation.

    Part of the tale can be told in a favorable light. New Left activists like Carl Oglesby fought the spiritual aridity and murderous militarism of what they called "corporate liberalism"-Burnham's managerialism-while sincere young libertarians attacked the regulatory state and seeded technological entrepreneurship. Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class.

    Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles. On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests. The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service.

    The alliance between finance and the New Class accounts for the disposition of power in America today. The New Class has also enlisted another invaluable ally: the managerial classes of East Asia. Trade with China-the modern managerial state par excellence-helps keep American industry weak relative to finance and the service economy's verbalist-dominated sectors. America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites.

    The New Class plays a priestly role in its alliance with finance, absolving Wall Street for the sin of making money in exchange for plenty of that money to keep the New Class in power. In command of foreign policy, the New Class gets to pursue humanitarian ideological projects-to experiment on the world. It gets to evangelize by the sword. And with trade policy, it gets to suppress its class rival, the managerial elite, at home. Through trade pacts and mass immigration the financial elite, meanwhile, gets to maximize its returns without regard for borders or citizenship. The erosion of other nations' sovereignty that accompanies American hegemony helps toward that end too-though our wars are more ideological than interest-driven.

    ♦♦♦

    So we come to an historic moment. Instead of an election pitting another Bush against another Clinton, we have a race that poses stark alternatives: a choice not only between candidates but between classes-not only between administrations but between regimes.

    Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November.

    The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. For the center-left establishment, minority voters supply the electoral muscle. Religion and the culture war have served the same purpose for the establishment's center-right faction. Trump showed that at least one of these sides could be beaten on its own turf-and it seems conceivable that if Bernie Sanders had been black, he might have similarly beaten Clinton, without having to make concessions to New Class tastes.

    The New Class establishment of both parties may be seriously misjudging what is happening here. Far from being the last gasp of the demographically doomed-old, racially isolated white people, as Gallup's analysis says-Trump's insurgency may be the prototype of an aggressive new politics, of either left or right, that could restore the managerial elite to power.

    This is not something that conservatives-or libertarians who admire the old capitalism rather than New Class's simulacrum-might welcome. But the only way that some entrenched policies may change is with a change of the class in power.

    Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative .

    [Dec 05, 2016] We Demand That The Washington Post Retract Its Propaganda Story Defaming Naked Capitalism and Other Sites and Issue an Apology

    Notable quotes:
    "... The motive is there (discredit competition), the evidence is there per the above, the legal standing is explicit, the only thing that is technically unquantifiable is the damage done. ..."
    "... Both Firefox and Chrome have added the option to open in a "private" or "incognito" window or tab, which also gets you around the monthly limit. ..."
    "... What NYT/WaPo lose in people not paying to read, they apparently can make up from people willing to pay to have things published. ..."
    "... 'The man' who shot one round into the floor* at Comet Pizza may be an actor, Edgar Maddison Welch, who has done various jobs in media, including playing a "raver/victim". ..."
    "... Yves, I would very much question your description of The Washington Post being " taken for a ride." over this story. ..."
    "... It's worth pointing out that the newspapers owner Jeff Bezos was hired by the Secretary of Defense to a rather sinister sounding organisation called the " Defense Innovation Advisory Board " in July. The Boards mission statement is to .."focus on new technologies and organizational behavior and culture." Also, in addition "identify innovative private-sector practices, and technological solutions that the DoD could employ in the future." ..."
    "... In short, Bezos, and his companies are now part of the MIC. I believe Googles CEO is also on the same board. ..."
    "... Am I supposed to accept then that the Washington Post really thinks that the work of PropOrNot is honestly and objectively carried out? I can't. ..."
    "... Dan Rather was put in an impossible position by supporters of GW Bush, despite the accuracy of the accusation. In this case, instead, the Post intentionally credits accusations for which it can offer no support (or at least declines to do so). I'll conclude that the Post acted maliciously and spitefully, as in slander, until it gives me reason to think otherwise. No person or media outlet can disseminate such shocking and potentially damaging accusations without our demanding accountability. ..."
    "... If you read section 501 of this year's intelligence authorization bill, it directs the President to set up an interagency committee to 'counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence over peoples and governments.' So that shows you that senators from both parties are clearly concerned about Russian covert influence efforts. ..."
    "... "Never assume malice when incompetence will explain the behavior." unless a lengthy history of errors having the same bias suggests otherwise. ..."
    "... I've been a lifelong journalist, 10 years on a daily newspaper, 20 years freelancing for magazines. The Wapo story so blatantly violated fundamental journalistic standards I cannot believe any experienced editor would not have realized that. My only possible conclusion is that irresistible pressure was placed on editors to publish the story. ..."
    "... You fake a document that contains the truth. When you discredit the document, you discredit the truth. Maneuvers like that show why Karl Rove really was (in his own special way) a genius. ..."
    "... I followed the Bush Texas Air National Guard story in detail at the time, and the Rather story in particular, and posted on it a good deal. So far as I know, nobody ever claimed the $10,000 reward that Gary Trudeau offered for anybody who would come forward as an eye witness to Bush performing his TANG duties. ..."
    "... Your comment is heavy on speculation including the notion that Bezos is directly controlling what goes into the Post. I'd say the tight little club that is mainstream journalism doesn't require government subversion in order to represent a MIC point of view. As Gore Vidal said re the deep state: they don't need to conspire since they all think alike anyway. ..."
    "... With all due respect it isn't speculation that Bezos has been hired by the secretary of defence to the Defence innovation advisory board. I think you have to be very naive if you think he has little input into the editorial running of the paper. Why else buy a newspaper these days? They hardly make much money. ..."
    "... The British Guardian for example has been running articles and pushing a campaign of "The Internet we want." Which seems to consist of all critiscms of what it believes being censored. ..."
    "... As to Yves point about the amateur nature of this list, and the attack on sites like NC in the article, Yves shouldn't assume that all these people are geniuses. It won't be the first or the last time that powerful people who run businesses make complete fools of themselves. ..."
    "... And Bezos is too busy to have much/any input into editorial decisions. Newscycles are far too rapid. Bezos might make clear what the general priorities and tone are, but he's not going to be involved in individual stories save on a very exceptional basis, and news of that would get out to reporters and make the journalism rumor mill in a bad way. Marty Peretz, who unlike Bezos was the publisher and editor in chief of the magazine he bought (the vastly smaller The New Republic) had pet priorities (Israel) and preferences (falling in love with smart young male senior editors and then becoming disenchanted with them in a couple of years and driving them out) that were widely known. ..."
    "... These guys are so ludicrous that folks like Bellingcat are denouncing them. ..."
    "... Carl Bernstein has done some pretty deep reporting on decades of links bw CIA and media: http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php ..."
    "... Even he says there are not really any links bw CIA and WaPo as propaganda channel. As much as it'd be fun to fantasize about Bezos being an evil operator for the MIC, I am inclined toward Yves' narrative of incompetence, and an (unhealthy) dose of confirmation bias-seeking. ..."
    "... Much as I would believe anything about Bezos/WP, the article is so amateurish its very hard to believe it is part of an active top-down conspiracy. I'd be more inclined to think that it 'became known' among WP staff that certain Very Important People believe in the Russian propaganda conspiracy and that any articles highlighting this are more likely to be published than others. ..."
    "... Off the top of my head, some of the worst examples of journalistic libel recently have primarily been driven not by malice or conspiracies, but because of active confirmation bias. The journalist and editor strongly believes X to be true, therefore when a source comes up to provide a potentially juicy story confirming the reality and evil of X, then they leap on the source without any professional scepticism. The Rolling Stone college rape hoax comes to mind, as does a notorious case in Ireland which nearly destroyed investigative journalism in the main TV company. ..."
    "... In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google's search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US. ..."
    "... Zerohedge was listed as a "fake news" site but, as I'm sure many here know, they do great, hard hitting economic analysis and have had their projections and theories confirmed many times with a far better track record than the mainstream sites covering the same subject. ..."
    "... I'm not sure the guys behind all this mind losing the discussion in the end. As often, even if the smeared news sites, including NC, win the debate, they'll still lose the communication war. ..."
    "... The background to all this, the attempt by the Clintonites to draw on Cold War stink reserves (a National Ideological Reserve, sorta like the National Petroleum Reserve) and, if not its complete failure, than its failure to be decisively effective, makes me think we are witnessing signs of a decisive weakening in elite communication control. PropOrNot advances the process. ..."
    "... We fully endorse Yves Smith's efforts. ..."
    "... Additionally, we note that the only reason we haven't followed up with a similar action is because i) the allegations were beyond laughable – we have rejected all of them on the record, and ii) there are simply too much other events taking place in what should otherwise be a quiet end to the year taking place to focus on what may be a lenghty, if gratifying, legal process. ..."
    Dec 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    PWC, Raleigh December 5, 2016 at 4:59 pm

    +1 as well.

    The thing with raising money is you have to ask, ask, ask a lot, lot, lot.

    So when you need more money to continue this fight, just publish an updated case-statement with an ask, and the lot of us will turn over our digits to support the fight. Many hands make light work, as my mother always says.

    It's refreshing to have something to support that is worthwhile in both principle and actuality. Plus, the Post is a nasty piece of work. Same for the Times . Disgraceful and distasteful. They are only fun to peruse for the self-parody.

    Just Wondering December 5, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    Class action lawsuit? Would perhaps smoke out any truly fake news alt media sites.

    Tim December 5, 2016 at 2:14 pm

    Class Action libel suit against WaPo and the propornot website seems reasonable. The motive is there (discredit competition), the evidence is there per the above, the legal standing is explicit, the only thing that is technically unquantifiable is the damage done.

    If the damages can be determined by some reasonable methodology then perhaps there is enough to make it worth bringing a suit.

    lyman alpha blob December 5, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    Regarding paying for the news in general, I'm assuming there aren't too many readers who who actually want to pay WaPo or the NYT for anything at this point.

    Those sites and others in recent years have imposed a monthly free article limit and I find that sometimes after clicking on stories linked to from here I run up against the limit.

    I'm sure most people here are already aware of this, but just so you are never tempted to subscribe to their crappy organizations, all you need to do to get around the limit is use a different browser to open the link.

    Peter VE December 5, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    Both Firefox and Chrome have added the option to open in a "private" or "incognito" window or tab, which also gets you around the monthly limit.

    Skip Intro December 5, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    What NYT/WaPo lose in people not paying to read, they apparently can make up from people willing to pay to have things published.

    choung December 5, 2016 at 3:13 am

    My name is Choung, I'm Korean(south Korea).
    Korean have experienced this kind of things many many times under the military dictatorship,
    and now we were suffering from new blacklist.
    Our president is daughter of the past infamous dictator.

    I have visited your site and linked many good pieces. Sometimes translated them.

    Korean mainstream media don't handle this story,
    So, l wrote some pieces about it in public site.

    I strongly express solidarity with you on behalf of many progressive Koreans.

    ambrit December 5, 2016 at 4:12 am

    Of tangential interest is the "news" report, if Yahoo can be so described, of the man charged with various and sundry for threatening the pizzaria "implicated" in the pedophilia allegations swirling around in the overheated miasma that passes for "common wisdom" today.

    Of importance is the framing of the "story." The man is alleged to have gone off on his "adventure" as the result of "fake news site" reporting. The assault on journalism is now switching from a pure smear to a flanking maneuver. Whether real or manufactured, this act will probably be spun to support further crackdowns on dissenting points of view. Guilt by (manufactured) association can hurt just as badly as real guilt. All this plays out in the court of public opinion, a notoriously rickety edifice in the best of times. \

    See: https://www.yahoo.com/news/gunman-charged-threatening-dc-restaurant-hit-fake-news-030914425.html

    Congratulations for adopting the "best defense is a strong offense" strategy.

    Just Wondering December 5, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    'The man' who shot one round into the floor* at Comet Pizza may be an actor, Edgar Maddison Welch, who has done various jobs in media, including playing a "raver/victim". Look him up on IMDB. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2625901/bio

    * http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/politics/gun-incident-fake-news/

    ambrit December 5, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    Ah ha! Putting on my "tinfoil hat" I'm tempted to say "False Flag Action."

    Sally December 5, 2016 at 4:27 am

    Yves, I would very much question your description of The Washington Post being " taken for a ride." over this story.

    It's worth pointing out that the newspapers owner Jeff Bezos was hired by the Secretary of Defense to a rather sinister sounding organisation called the " Defense Innovation Advisory Board " in July. The Boards mission statement is to .."focus on new technologies and organizational behavior and culture." Also, in addition "identify innovative private-sector practices, and technological solutions that the DoD could employ in the future."

    In short, Bezos, and his companies are now part of the MIC. I believe Googles CEO is also on the same board. These so called private corporations are now part of the US govt that works in the field of black ops. Remember also that Amazon has major contracts with the govt to provide cloud computing storage. This is fascism in all but name. It remains to be seen how long the new President Mr Trump will want to trust these people as they did so much to try to defeat him.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 6:19 am

    I beg to differ. No one would want to damage their credibility above all in undermining a narrative (in Beltway-speak) that they are tying to promote.

    Remember the Dan Rather scandal? Unlike this case, the underlying fact set about George Bush was accurate, but Dan Rather falling for bogus evidence not only forced Rather to resign, but

    1. diverted attention from what should have been a scandal if properly reported and
    2. confused any attempts to discuss it (as in the Rather evidence being bad made casual observers think the dirt on Bush was untrue).
    Quentin December 5, 2016 at 6:57 am

    I was also struck by the statement that the Post was 'taken for a ride'. Am I supposed to accept then that the Washington Post really thinks that the work of PropOrNot is honestly and objectively carried out? I can't.

    Dan Rather was put in an impossible position by supporters of GW Bush, despite the accuracy of the accusation. In this case, instead, the Post intentionally credits accusations for which it can offer no support (or at least declines to do so). I'll conclude that the Post acted maliciously and spitefully, as in slander, until it gives me reason to think otherwise. No person or media outlet can disseminate such shocking and potentially damaging accusations without our demanding accountability.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 7:57 am

    Fact checking at the Washington Post is a joke:

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/12/httpswwwwashingtonpostcomopinionsglobal-opinionsthe-pros-and-cons-of-a-generals-general20161203f8d6e72c-b8b7-11e6.html

    And if you look at the what the Post said to Consortium News (hat tip UserFriendly), it apparently considers just chatting with a source for a bit an adequate basis for validating a smear against 200 publications. They effectively admit they did no independent verification:

    The reply came from the newspaper's vice president for public relations, Kristine Coratti Kelly, who thanked me "for reaching out to us" before presenting the Post's response, quoted here in full:

    "The Post reported on the work of four separate sets of researchers, as well as independent experts, who have examined Russian attempts to influence American democracy. PropOrNot was one. The Post did not name any of the sites on PropOrNot's list of organizations that it said had - wittingly or unwittingly - published or echoed Russian propaganda. The Post reviewed PropOrNot's findings and our questions about them were answered satisfactorily during the course of multiple interviews."

    Sally December 5, 2016 at 8:50 am

    Yves, just to be clear ..I am in complete support for you, and your site and other sites from these outrageous and slanderous attacks.

    I was just surprised at your generous description of them being "taken for a ride." I think that is way to charitable.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 9:24 am

    Never assume malice, when incompetence will explain the behavior.

    Gary Headlock December 5, 2016 at 9:56 am

    Speaking of, do you think your inclusion on the initial "PropOrNot" list is an example of malice or incompetence? Could it be some half-assed algorithm scanned the web for sites linking to RT (which I can remember at least one instance popping up in Water Cooler/Links), and called it a day? That seems the most plausible to me, but it also seems plausible that there are many organizations which would want to discredit NC.

    Samuel Conner December 5, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    I haven't seen "The List", but am confident that sites like Moon of Alabama and The Saker are on it. Saker is explicitly pro-Russia (this is not a criticism per se; I found his pieces on the Ukraine/Donbas crisis in 2014-15 to be more illuminating than most of the very little that one could find in the US MSM, for example) and MoA is typically skeptical of US international military adventures.

    Pieces from both of these sites have been, from time to time, linked at the NC daily news links page. Not sure, but there may be a few links over the past couple of years to items at Russia Insider as well. It may be that 2nd order associations were enough to "merit" NC's inclusion on "The List."

    Katharine December 5, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    But last week Timberg was still touting his "independent experts" in an article on a proposed new committee mandated in the 2017 intelligence authorization bill. He quoted Wyden:

    If you read section 501 of this year's intelligence authorization bill, it directs the President to set up an interagency committee to 'counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence over peoples and governments.' So that shows you that senators from both parties are clearly concerned about Russian covert influence efforts.

    Linking his earlier story with this information may be self-important stupidity on Timberg's part, but stupidity does not actually preclude malice.

    In any case, if senators are treating Russian influence as fact when we have yet to be shown any proof of its existence that is a sign this article, be it folly or malice, needs further discrediting, so thanks and more power to you!

    davidly December 5, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    That's an awful aphorism. Never discount one just because the other is a potential explanation, especially if the pattern indicates they'll abdicate their core responsibilities for access and relish going after those they resent for calling them out on it.

    Having said that, one can see how you personally wouldn't want to risk libel, but I will make no such assumptions about the likes of the beltway press.

    DarkMatters December 5, 2016 at 1:54 pm

    "Never assume malice when incompetence will explain the behavior." unless a lengthy history of errors having the same bias suggests otherwise.

    Best wishes, and success.

    Keith Warren December 5, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    indeed, incompetence and a deep hunger for confirmation bias fodder. Deadly combination.

    Lyle James December 5, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    I've been a lifelong journalist, 10 years on a daily newspaper, 20 years freelancing for magazines. The Wapo story so blatantly violated fundamental journalistic standards I cannot believe any experienced editor would not have realized that. My only possible conclusion is that irresistible pressure was placed on editors to publish the story.

    David Addams December 5, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    "Dan Rather was put in an impossible position by supporters of GW Bush, despite the accuracy of the accusation."

    Excuse me.

    Rather (and CBS) had to admit that the documents used to make those accusations were fake. How do you have "accurate accusations" when those accusations are based on faked documents?

    Rather was not put in a bad positions by supporters of GW Bush.

    He was put in a bad position by Dan Rather.

    BTW, the Rather incident is a perfect illustration on how fake news gets reported. The underlying accusation so matched Rather's world view that he decided to run with them without doing any sort of fact checking. Or checking the reliability of the one source for the story.

    Doing so would have prevented Rather from reporting that story and having to resign in disgrace.

    This is why fact checking and verifying stories via multiple sources is so important when reporting news.

    It prevents reporting fake news.

    The reason we have so much "fake news" is that too many reporters have abandoned basic journalistic practices.

    On both sides of the aisle.

    Lambert Strether December 5, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    > How do you have "accurate accusations" when those accusations are based on faked documents?

    You fake a document that contains the truth. When you discredit the document, you discredit the truth. Maneuvers like that show why Karl Rove really was (in his own special way) a genius.

    I followed the Bush Texas Air National Guard story in detail at the time, and the Rather story in particular, and posted on it a good deal. So far as I know, nobody ever claimed the $10,000 reward that Gary Trudeau offered for anybody who would come forward as an eye witness to Bush performing his TANG duties.

    PWC, Raleigh December 5, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Exactly. +1,000

    And bingo, bango: the very strange truth becomes fiction.

    Carolinian December 5, 2016 at 7:45 am

    Your comment is heavy on speculation including the notion that Bezos is directly controlling what goes into the Post. I'd say the tight little club that is mainstream journalism doesn't require government subversion in order to represent a MIC point of view. As Gore Vidal said re the deep state: they don't need to conspire since they all think alike anyway.

    More likely the Post article is an example of journo dinosaurs striking out at websites they now regard as their rivals. Print journalism has been brought low, financially, by the internet and television.

    The people who work at the Post don't dare attack television because they all want to be on it. However the web is likely regarded as an easy target and I've long been under the impression that mainstream journalists know practically nothing about the internet other than Twitter and a few favored sites like Politico.

    While it's potentially the greatest communication medium ever devised, of course people visiting the internet have to bring their own truth filter. Which is why some of us have landed here. NC seems serious about getting to the truth, and if you don't like what's written you get to say so. What the MSM really resents is people thinking for themselves.

    Sally December 5, 2016 at 8:43 am

    With all due respect it isn't speculation that Bezos has been hired by the secretary of defence to the Defence innovation advisory board. I think you have to be very naive if you think he has little input into the editorial running of the paper. Why else buy a newspaper these days? They hardly make much money.

    I suspect that this outfit PropOrNot was set up before the election of Trump. They assumed Clinton was going to win and this was the The begining of an onslaught against the so called alternative media that was going to be waged once Hilary was safely inside the White House. Full regulation of the Internet is their aim. This agenda has been pushed in other so called liberal newspapers. The British Guardian for example has been running articles and pushing a campaign of "The Internet we want." Which seems to consist of all critiscms of what it believes being censored.

    As to Yves point about the amateur nature of this list, and the attack on sites like NC in the article, Yves shouldn't assume that all these people are geniuses. It won't be the first or the last time that powerful people who run businesses make complete fools of themselves.

    I doubt they thought they were going to be called out on it, and if Clinton won the election it didn't really matter because they would have the power to come after the alternative media. Trumps election has put a spanner in the works .for now. It remains to be seen if he will try to censor the Internet under pressure from elites.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 9:33 am

    No it wasn't. They bought the URL only in late August. The first tweet was November 5. The site appears to have been published at the earliest as of November 9, but from what I can tell, it was November 18.

    And Bezos is too busy to have much/any input into editorial decisions. Newscycles are far too rapid. Bezos might make clear what the general priorities and tone are, but he's not going to be involved in individual stories save on a very exceptional basis, and news of that would get out to reporters and make the journalism rumor mill in a bad way. Marty Peretz, who unlike Bezos was the publisher and editor in chief of the magazine he bought (the vastly smaller The New Republic) had pet priorities (Israel) and preferences (falling in love with smart young male senior editors and then becoming disenchanted with them in a couple of years and driving them out) that were widely known.

    andyb December 5, 2016 at 10:09 am

    Agree that Bezos is an unlikely instigator of this farce. More likely, from what we know about the CIA/Mockingbird history, the person responsible is most likely a CIA plant at the senior editor level.

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 10:15 am

    I have to beg to differ re CIA plant. These guys are so ludicrous that folks like Bellingcat are denouncing them. I won't link even here to the original site since that helps them in Google, but just go look at the FAQ on the baddie's site or their Twitter feed. No one who was a pro in any field would see them as serious. I have no idea what the reporter was smoking. But the article reads as if they never did the most basic verification, like a web search. They didn't recognize that the "report" which was The List, was already up and they either double down on or try to cover for their mistake by "updating" the article saying the "report" went up Saturday November 26, when it had been up since at least November 18.

    Keith Warren December 5, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Carl Bernstein has done some pretty deep reporting on decades of links bw CIA and media: http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

    Even he says there are not really any links bw CIA and WaPo as propaganda channel. As much as it'd be fun to fantasize about Bezos being an evil operator for the MIC, I am inclined toward Yves' narrative of incompetence, and an (unhealthy) dose of confirmation bias-seeking.

    PlutoniumKun December 5, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    Much as I would believe anything about Bezos/WP, the article is so amateurish its very hard to believe it is part of an active top-down conspiracy. I'd be more inclined to think that it 'became known' among WP staff that certain Very Important People believe in the Russian propaganda conspiracy and that any articles highlighting this are more likely to be published than others.

    Off the top of my head, some of the worst examples of journalistic libel recently have primarily been driven not by malice or conspiracies, but because of active confirmation bias. The journalist and editor strongly believes X to be true, therefore when a source comes up to provide a potentially juicy story confirming the reality and evil of X, then they leap on the source without any professional scepticism. The Rolling Stone college rape hoax comes to mind, as does a notorious case in Ireland which nearly destroyed investigative journalism in the main TV company.

    Having said that, I think it is strongly likely that certain elements in the establishment (probably the Clinton part of it) was actively pushing the Putin is Goebbels line for several months – but I doubt there is any structured conspiracy – these things tend to just become part of received wisdom, and there are plenty of bottom feeding journalists ready to join the parade.

    Ralph Johansen December 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Well, there's negligence, and then there's wanton, feckless, scurrilous, criminal negligence. Recompense accordingly.

    They certainly know or ought to know that, with the entire left field virtually empty, the Bill of Rights in the round hole, and because they've foreclosed global working class solidarity with walls, laws and red tape, (if that's too much of a stretch you don't belong), all they have to do is squirm at us and we crash.

    Ralph Johansen December 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Well, there's negligence, and then there's wanton, feckless, scurrilous, criminal negligence. Recompense accordingly.

    They certainly know or ought to know that, with the entire left field virtually empty, the Bill of Rights in the round hole, and because they've foreclosed global working class solidarity with walls, laws and red tape, (if that's too much of a stretch you don't belong), all they have to do is squirm at us and we crash.

    Winston December 5, 2016 at 10:54 am

    "What the MSM really resents is people thinking for themselves."

    Here are other examples of undoubtedly top-down suppression of anything other than the "kingmaker" and corrupt status quo maintainer narratives owned by the six mega-corporations that control 90% of what we see and hear.

    The stealthy, Eric Schmidt-backed startup that's working to put Hillary Clinton in the White House – October 09, 2015

    http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/

    An under-the-radar startup funded by billionaire Eric Schmidt has become a major technology vendor for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, underscoring the bonds between Silicon Valley and Democratic politics.

    The Groundwork, according to Democratic campaign operatives and technologists, is part of efforts by Schmidt -- the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet -- to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election. And it is one of a series of quiet investments by Schmidt that recognize how modern political campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter blocs.

    Research Proves Google Manipulates Autocomplete Suggestions to Favor Clinton – 12 Sep 2016

    In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google's search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US.

    https://sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinton-manipulation-election.html

    Ironically, Sputnick News IS, I believe, a Russian supported site, but just on a hunch and noticing search autocompletion suggestion disparities myself, I had INDEPENDENTLY confirmed what Epstein proved a month before the topic hit the on-line news.

    I even emailed a few web sites about it, but they didn't run with it AS THEY SHOULD HAVE as they would have scooped Sputnick News. It was easy to prove, BTW. Google Trends data which is what is normally used to create autocomplete suggestions on Google did not match the suggestions made, but the search autocomplete suggestions on every other search engine DID.

    YouTube and Facebook censorship against political conservative video bloggers (Google owns YouTube)

    https://youtu.be/B6PtMcMsqVg?t=50m32s

    Wikileaks Reveals Google's "Strategic Plan" To Help Democrats Win The Election, Track Voters

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-01/wikileaks-reveals-googles-strategic-plan-help-democrats-win-election

    Zerohedge was listed as a "fake news" site but, as I'm sure many here know, they do great, hard hitting economic analysis and have had their projections and theories confirmed many times with a far better track record than the mainstream sites covering the same subject.

    James Miller December 5, 2016 at 5:21 am

    My heartfelt support (and contribution) will be with you as you take on one of the most egregiously insulting to its' readers and rot-riddled collection of hacks and mouthpieces. Now a propaganda outlet but once at least a flaky effort at journalism, today,s Washington Post has earned an encounter of the costly kind with a good lawyer or two, many times over.

    .Illegitemi non carborundum! (Don't let the bastards wear you down!).

    Jim Haygood December 5, 2016 at 8:45 am

    We should start calling it the Whoppo for its absurd fake news. Truth be told, I only ever go there for the "graphic news":

    http://comics.washingtonpost.com/featurepages/11_comics_andy-capp.html

    polecat December 5, 2016 at 12:57 pm

    I prefer the Traitor's Post

    Kokuanani December 5, 2016 at 6:54 am

    As I noted here this weekend, I have cancelled my subscription to the WaPo and will be sending a check to NC in the amount of what I would have paid for it.

    I am embarrassed that it took me so long to do so, but having been a subscriber since 1979 [except for when I lived elsewhere], the Post was rather a habit.

    I specifically mentioned the Timberg story as the reason for my cancellation, and hope this information will work its way up the Post food chain.

    Also, Amazon is as dead to me as Walmart. I refuse to buy from either of them.

    Arizona Slim December 5, 2016 at 8:50 am

    Keep the money in your economy. Shop at local businesses.

    Tom Stone December 5, 2016 at 7:29 am

    The "Fake News" story was vetted by editors at the WaPo before it was published. That they published an article that no reputable High School paper would have touched with a 10 foot pole speaks volumes. Hubris?.

    Did they think that because it was published by the WaPo that no one would question it?

    It was certainly a bold thing to do ( And stupid) unless the person or persons who decided to publish this trash thought they had the kind of powerful backing that would protect them from the consequences.

    I expect the WaPo to try to weasel their way out of this embarassment and urge you not to back down or compromise on your demands, if they don't get their noses rubbed in it they will crap on you again.

    When the National Enquirer has become more respectable than the WaPo ( And it is!) we are living in strange times indeed.

    Reify99 December 5, 2016 at 8:40 am

    Yep. The Wapo story is right up there with the grocery aisle headline,
    "Metal Eating Cockroaches Destroy Car"!

    Reify99 December 5, 2016 at 8:58 am

    If this effort begins to build a stronger alliance between truth telling internet sites -- thus promoting change from the ground up -- perhaps it will lead to quicker consequences for Wapo and others who pull this kind of stunt. If it becomes obvious that, not only will your bogus story increase the traffic to these sites at the very time they are pointing out what an idiot you are, but you also reliably get sued, maybe it won't be as much fun anymore.

    Inode_buddha December 5, 2016 at 10:05 am

    I only read the National Enquirer for the articles. {/rimshot}

    OldLion December 5, 2016 at 7:29 am

    I'm not sure the guys behind all this mind losing the discussion in the end. As often, even if the smeared news sites, including NC, win the debate, they'll still lose the communication war.

    The original revelation is buzzing around, and everybody loves it. If there is a rebuttal, it will be a boring article nobody will comment. What people will remember is : "the russians helped Trump win, and some fake news site like NC were their mouthpieces. I distinctly remember the articles, even if the MSM now tries to hide the truth"

    Not sure how to fight that, except with an even better message like : "There is a conspiracy by the WP to smear independent reporting."

    Sadly, I'm not sure it is possible to do that in all honestly. My opinion is that stupidity and ignorance are at work here (and everywhere), not some well organised effort. And the thoughtful voice is just boring.

    hemeantwell December 5, 2016 at 9:56 am

    I'm not so sure. This scandal might be something of a test of your argument, which predicts that, similar to the horrible fate of Gary Webb, the named sites will forever have a residue of doubt to deal with. Webb's story went the way it did because it was semiforgotten, drifting off into the collective preconscious, vaguely malodorous. Surely that can be avoided here. Opportunities for reminding readers of the farce and the revealed intentions of its promoters are abundant. One thing to consider might be to put the WaPo under steady critical scrutiny. For example, as above, the WaPo Whopper of the week.

    The background to all this, the attempt by the Clintonites to draw on Cold War stink reserves (a National Ideological Reserve, sorta like the National Petroleum Reserve) and, if not its complete failure, than its failure to be decisively effective, makes me think we are witnessing signs of a decisive weakening in elite communication control. PropOrNot advances the process.

    Katharine December 5, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Keep needling outlets that picked up the Post story and demanding a prominent apology for irresponsible reporting. Send them the FAIR link, send them this one. Ask why they haven't reaffirmed their commitment (sic) to basic journalistic principles . Be a damn nuisance. (I've often thought what a pity it is that "public nuisance" has a prior signification.)

    AnonymousCounsel December 5, 2016 at 9:07 am

    I'm relieved to know that James Moody will be representing Naked Capitalism in its authentic quest to right an egregious (and either reckless or intentional, in my opinion) wrong committed by a major newspaper of record that purports to represent the Fourth Estate.

    Mr. Moody is technically competent, deeply experienced and highly ethical.

    It's critical that the establishment-driven & coordinated assault on many credible alternative media outlets be halted if free speech and free criticism (which mainstream media sources have not only failed in protecting, but have willingly attempted to suppress views contrary to establishment-approved concepts) is to survive in the United States and elsewhere.

    There is a coordinated attempt by long-standing establishment media sources and government to discredit and de-legitimize very authentic, well-intentioned and thought-provoking non-mainstream media sources, which, if successful, would amount to nothing less than basic censorship and a wholesale de-democratization of news reporting and editorializing.

    That the Washington Post allowed for and even assisted a highly questionable and anonymous source to cast a wide net of aspersions over so many clearly legitimate alternative media sources (such as Naked Capitalism) is nothing short of shameful McCarthy-era attempts to stifle free political expression of substance, and must be challengers if there's any hope in preserving the very system of a free exchange of ideas and speech.

    Romancing The Loan December 5, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    They've come a long way from Watergate. Would really like to see discovery on how Propornot came to the WaPo's attention.

    craazyboy December 5, 2016 at 9:21 am

    I can't believe the unfairness of this allegation made by this propaganda watchdog website. I mean, if I were a Hillary supporter, I would be in tears over this. But as a Bernie supporter, I have learned to get over my butthurt.

    "You identified and thus denigrated Naked Capitalism, one of the sites targeted in the "study" as one of the "right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia."

    "shadowy cabal of global financiers" ???? We always use the stock symbols GS and JPM here. WTF is shadowy about that?????????????? You can look the symbols up in Bloomberg!

    Well, I guess maybe some fake news got posted here in the comments section, but I distinctly recall discussing real news, like when Hillary compared Putin to Hitler, or the Cookie Monster thing in Kiev. Or NATO scattering nukes around Eastern Europe. Or Soros and the CIA funding a long term propaganda war in Eastern Europe. Even Fox News would call that fair and balanced fake news. But at any rate, Russia shouldn't view any of this as hostile. That would just be childish.

    Jim Haygood December 5, 2016 at 9:23 am

    Confirming the impression that the Z site monitors NC closely for useful content, Tyler Durden now has a post up titled "Fake News" Site Threatens Washington Post With Defamation Suit, Demands Retraction .

    The post includes the Scribd document of Moody's letter.

    Since the Z site reportedly generates a six-figure annual profit, you'd think this deep-pocketed site would join the suit (should litigation regrettably become necessary). Whaddya say, Tyler(s)?

    frosty zoom December 5, 2016 at 9:45 am

    "moodyjim"*

    yeah!

    *@aol.com?!? ms. yves, may i suggest carrier pigeons?

    Yves Smith Post author December 5, 2016 at 10:25 am

    He's actually quite technically expert (as in he can take apart and analyze software) which is why I don't get the aol.com either. Although he may have been an early aol.com user, and I am told it is a nuisance to extract your contacts from aol.com, and he may have decided it was not worth the fuss.

    Jim Haygood December 5, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Now the post is "gray boxed" (pinned) on the Z site, making it one of two lead articles that apparently are expected to generate a high level of interest and comments.

    Which will send traffic this way. Welcome ZHers.

    MDBill December 5, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    It's not monetary support, however, the story now ends thus,

    We fully endorse Yves Smith's efforts.

    Additionally, we note that the only reason we haven't followed up with a similar action is because i) the allegations were beyond laughable – we have rejected all of them on the record, and ii) there are simply too much other events taking place in what should otherwise be a quiet end to the year taking place to focus on what may be a lenghty, if gratifying, legal process.

    Sluggeaux December 5, 2016 at 9:28 am

    Pass the popcorn! Mr. Moody is a terrific lawyer. I just hope that if Aurora Advisors winds up owning ScAmazon, the workers and suppliers start getting treated decently!

    craazyboy December 5, 2016 at 9:37 am

    It would really be cool if Mr. Moody was doing this "pro bono" – as in give 'em a royal hosing just for the fun of it.

    Jim December 5, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Good for you Yves. Just the dying gasps of an outdated system (MSM news). Anyone with half a brain knows alt news is the place to go these days.

    tiger December 5, 2016 at 10:33 am

    You're too nice to WaPo Yves, maybe this was incompetence but Bezos and WaPo are terrible and they did too many hit pieces on Trump which included false information, so this is not a coincidence. They are the fake news, and that's terrifying. Good luck and may you destroy them.

    RUKidding December 5, 2016 at 11:10 am

    Good luck. I agree with your demands and hope that they are satisfied.

    I gave up a long time ago on either the tv or mainstream print media as a source of credible or factual news. There are some print publications out there that do a rather decent job at reporting the news more accurately, but the ones I know of are mostly smaller local newspapers with very limited budgets.

    All the Bigs are propaganda pure and simple. I gave up reading the NYT and the WaPoo a long long time ago. It would embarress a parrot to have either on the bottom of their cage to catch their sh*t.

    dcblogger December 5, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    RJ Eskow video The Rise of MSNBC McCarthyism

    John Medcalf December 5, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    Where's Bezos? I'm still speculating this is Bezos' answer to Trump's birthing. Annoy the press like hell. Let them whine and sue. Then save the country.

    susan the other December 5, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    Addressing the Whappo's "incompetence" is genius bec. it cannot shake the label. It will stick with them now, whereas if you had gone for the throat with an accusation of malice the Whappo could have escaped all that disgust and resentment because to prove malice you have to prove intent. Like fraud. It's hard to do.

    Be Prepared December 5, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    It has been a difficult to watch these past 8 years under the continued conversion of whatever was left of MSM being turned to merely a propaganda arm for the Executive branch. It is absolutely hilarious that they had the audacity to write the article in the first place since MSM is the only "real" fake news outlet. I do believe it will be a difficult road to achieve a full retraction or even an acknowledgement because they will hide behind the concepts of editorial content. Nothing they write is vetted or researched because they merely conjure articles to fit their preconceptions. If nothing else, pushing back is still the right thing to do . just remember to not let it consume you to the detriment of your continued good work on this site.

    Isolato December 5, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    Just threw some money in the tip jar. Rip their lungs out.

    Kurt Sperry December 5, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    Does the threat of civil litigation even matter to an organization with Bezos' endless resources to draw on? They would probably love the idea of a war of monetary attrition–they can't lose that game. It seems to me the weak link might be the creators of the website itself. Unlike a hardened target like the WaPo, they are unlikely to have such bottomless resources. The first step may be to use investigation or litigation to strip away the anonymity of the publishers of the site, probably by going after the hosting company, then to attack them directly. And if it turns out that filing website whois papers via a proxy privacy service is 100% surefire, ironclad protection from any legal accountability, then there really is no longer anything like accountability for web publishing. If that is the case then there is nothing stopping you from retaliating in kind, creating an anonymous website accusing Bezos of being a child pornographer or whatever and imploring that he and his lawyers negotiate with you to have the accusations retracted at your pleasure. Either filing whois papers for a domain using a privacy proxy is an unbreakable defense against litigation, or it isn't.

    Jess December 5, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Immediately linked to this post on my FB page. Hope it helps.

    Jess December 5, 2016 at 4:58 pm

    A friend then shared my link on the FB section for former FDL commenters.

    Doly Garcia December 5, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    My experience with journalists (as an organiser of non-profit activities) has convinced me that nowadays they do little to no fact-checking. In one particular case I know of, mainstream UK media including the Independent and the BBC publicized a man that, if they had simply bothered doing a Google search on his name, they'd immediately realize he had zero credibility on the field he was claiming expertise on.

    This should hardly be a surprise to anyone who has followed the story of climate change, with dozens of so-called "climate change" experts being allowed to write opinion pieces on mainstream media, in spite of having no credentials, and sometimes having long credentials of having lobbied for every dubious cause known to mankind, from the health safety of tobacco to the lack of issues with pesticides.

    The real issue is that it's getting damned near impossible for anyone to find out the truth about any controversial issue without spending a long time researching the subject. And most people don't have the time for this, and don't even know that they should regard the news on any controversial issue, from any source, with great suspicion.

    Brad December 5, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    If one is serious about pursuit of a retraction and apology from Wapo, support for NC's cautious approach is in order. It will not help the case being advanced to overstate with inferences about WaPo's motives. Sticking to the already known objective facts will be enough to produce the desired result, public discredit of WaPo by its own hand.

    That's said with full sympathy for the feelings on WaPo, a publication that now ranks with W. R. Hearst's in sheer depths of vileness. And that in general is rightfully laid at the door of its libertardian owner Jeff Bezos, a man whose enterprises mark all that is most evil about US capitalism today. But none of this belongs in the retraction / apology effort. As I see it, the effort is designed to produce a specific effect from specific cause. That effort is best supported by not second-guessing it at this point and over-loading it with meanings that can't be demonstrated within the context of the effort. Let's give it a chance to run and review / critique the result afterward.

    Finally and for the record, this is said as someone with no sympathy for the Putin regime, one that no leftist should have any truck with, "conscious or unconscious", especially from an "anti-imperialist" POV. The Putin regime is right wing, capitalist, neo-nationalist, revanchist, and neo-imperialist (and not at all "wannabe"). It supports with armed force a regime in Damascus that has destroyed "its own country" to save itself. It IS a regime ideologically congruent with Donald Trump's tendencies. IOW Putin's Russia is a lot like the United States in political coloration right now.

    Nevertheless, residents of the USA must first and foremost act against repression conducted by their own government and its political agents such as WaPo. We can agree to disagree on Putin while showing solidarity against domestic repression, especially of this poisonous neo-McCarthyite type. That is only common sense. Our main opponent is always at home.

    stockbrokher December 5, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    This, 100%.

    Claudia December 5, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    After more than a few decades of educational decline and loss of expertise, we have arrived at the Age of Incompetence. That the WaPo would hire such nitwits is all the proof one needs.

    Fiery Hunt December 5, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Crapification is the Way!

    Thanks, WaPoo!

    DarkMatters December 5, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    The most reasonable hypothesis I can see is that the PropOrNot effort is a response by the MSM to reassert information control, having lost it so spectacularly during the election. The alternative media's counterstory has proven to be more faithful to reality than the picture presented by elite journalists. Elite journalists themselves have been compromised by the Wikileaks revelations. The MSM's reputation is in tatters and SOMETHING MUST BE DONE, at least until enough time has gone by for the public to forget how truly dismally deceptive was their coverage.

    A consistently suspicious pattern of MSM behavior is their incuriousness, and in the present situation, one of the many of the herd of interrogatory elephants in the room is, why isn't the MSM investigating the people who make up PropOrNot? (Or asking any of the questions NS has posed). Would that not be newsworthy?

    Keith Warren December 5, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    I agree with this assessment wholeheartedly. I am afraid that the strategy of the dem establishment and their elite media allies over the next 4 years will be to regain narrative control via censorship, rather than make any attempts at governing like small-d democrats.

    Kim Kaufman December 5, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    The red baiting is popping out from all sides. Last week Amy Goodman interviewed Bernie – the first (she basically ignored him through the primary). She started off with "you were considered a fringe candidate " and he politely reminded her he has been in congress for 25 years. Then she said that he had been red-baited during the primary by Clinton over Castro and the Sandinistas and "could he speak some about Castro and Latin America?" And at every opportunity she reminded the audience he was an independent, not a Democrat, "a socialist."

    I have been told that Sarah Palin blew her chance to be Sec. of Interior, or VA, or whatever it was because she criticized Trump for "crony capitalism" over the Carrier deal.

    I'm totally confused about who our friends are these days.

    Greg Taylor December 5, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    How has "Beall's List" of so-called "predatory" open-access academic research publishers escaped a similar lawsuit? Some of these publishers were shut down as a direct result of being named so the list has undeniably done damage since being published in 2013. There seem to be strong parallels between "Fake News" and "Fake Science" censorship efforts.

    Kim Kaufman December 5, 2016 at 2:39 pm

    I might have called the spoof site: "PoopOrNot." :)

    Daniel December 5, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    I am surprised your attorney has not gone after PropOrNot. I most surely would have

    craazyman December 5, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    It's not unreasonable the Washington Post would confuse Naked Capitalism with a Porn site. But not a Russian porn site, that's just not credible since Naked Capitalism is English.

    They should just admit it they made up fake news. They probably never read anything on the site - or even looked at the pictures of naked animals. Naked pussys. Lots of those. With garish flash photography. It's enough to embarrass anybody with refined aesthetic sensibilities.

    But it isn't Porn and it's not Russian. I've never seen a Russian pussy here. Usually they're American or maybe from England. Sometimes they're even guys. That's kind of confusing, but a cat is a cat to most people. I'm not a veterinarian anyway.

    Fake news is the scourge of the internet. Fake news has been around a long time, as long as there were newspapers in fact. It started in the 1700s and it kept going. Before that it was fake but it was only passed by word of mouth.

    Now there's fake pictures. Fake news with fake pictures can sometimes be art - but only if you see it in the movies, where some drug addled lunatic pretends they're somebody else, then they go into rehab after the movie is made and sometimes before. News should be real, in theory, but in reality it isn't. Somebody makes it up but you don't always know who. That's why jourmalism is so important, because you want the person making it up to be accurate! You don't want them making up Porn and publishing that. Why pay for that? People make that up themselves evidently and don't even need a newspaper.

    So if they fell for the fake Porn angle here - thinking that Naked meant Porn, and from Russia of all places! - that must mean they're either making it up or they don't know what real news is from anywhere. Since it could be from other places besides Russia. If they went to a museum they'd see naked things but not Porn. There's a museum of things but it's not news or porn, it's just whatever. I'm just being honest. It doesn't have to be confusing, even for somebody who writes and takes pictures.

    templar555510 December 5, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    The tendency towards consensus has been apparent in the mainstream media for forty plus years , long before the internet came along and upset things. What has caused mass hysteria in those circles is the sound of these other uncontrolled and uncontrollable voices . Years ago the only comment section of a national newspaper was ' Letters to the Editor ' which the editor had the veto over, never mind editorial responsibility for, and he / she took their job seriously ( in my first hand experience ) . Those days are long gone . Imagine you are a young, or even a seasoned journalist on one of these papers and you think you have the ear of the editor , the temptation to bring forth a story ( ' scoop ' in old – fashioned newspaper speak ) that gives umpteen internet sites a good kicking must be hard to resist. Trouble is the story was trashed before it hit the ground . And so another nail goes in the coffin of the mainstream press .

    SpongeBobSaget December 5, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    The Daily Caller story about this has a survey asking readers if Naked Capitalism is a fake news site or not.

    On my browser it's not possible to check "No: I Never Found A Fake News Story On That Site" Only Yes it's fake can be selected.

    Vichy Chicago December 5, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    Here's a great example of the BBC conducting an unvetted interview.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw4utg42yCI

    /sarc

    [Dec 05, 2016] Is war the health of state ?

    Notable quotes:
    "... I keep trying to point out that these nations are proxies for the global plutocrats that own private finance and everything else. That is the social cancer we need to eliminate. The British people are not all bad any more than all Americans but all of private finance is bad and has been for centuries. ..."
    Dec 03, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    james | Dec 3, 2016 11:39:28 AM | 2

    sst comment -

    "b

    Well, if you looked at it and decided against it why am I wasting my time? "unlike the U.S. military which is used to destroys foreign cities without much thought of the aftermath" Always with the nasty, sneering, condescending attitude toward us. I remind you that it was the BRITISH army that destroyed your grandparents house, not the US Army. pl"

    and the usa has learned and followed the British in so many of it's imperialist ways carrying the mantel for empire building forward into the 20th and 21st century.. enough of British or American bullshit..

    psychohistorian | Dec 3, 2016 12:10:21 PM | 4
    @ james who wrote " and the usa has learned and followed the british in so many of it's imperialist ways caring the mantel for empire building forward into the 20th and 21st century.. enough of british or american bullshit."

    I keep trying to point out that these nations are proxies for the global plutocrats that own private finance and everything else. That is the social cancer we need to eliminate. The British people are not all bad any more than all Americans but all of private finance is bad and has been for centuries.

    okie farmer | Dec 3, 2016 12:15:14 PM | 5
    "the state made war and war made the state."

    Lords of 'Pride and Plunder' by Robert Bartlett

    The Crisis of the Twelfth Century: Power, Lordship, and the Origins of European Government by Thomas N. Bisson Princeton University Press, 677 pp., $39.50

    One of the major institutions of pre-industrial society, and one that makes it hard for people in the modern Western world fully to grasp the past, is lordship. Lordship means a personal bond, reciprocal but not equal, tying inferiors to superiors, bringing the latter a power over the former that modern democratic and egalitarian ideologies would abhor. We are not accustomed to address others as "Master" or "Mistress," "My Lord" or "My Lady."

    Of course modern Western societies are not communities of equals. Vast differences in wealth and access to education exist. But the world of lordship embraced and endorsed those differences. Hierarchy was a valued ideal, and some people considered themselves better born than others-remember those nineteenth-century novels with characters "of good family." The aristocrats ("aristocracy" means "rule by the best") did not court their inferiors. They ruled them, and, if they were just and well disposed, they protected them and furthered their interests. This is what "good lordship" meant. Not all lords, of course, were good. Submission to cruel, arbitrary, or unhinged masters could mean misery or death. Much of the savagery of the French Revolution is to be explained by the fact that thousands of peasants had suffered just such a submission.

    Thomas Bisson's new book concerns itself with lordship, that all-pervasive institution, in a formative period of European history, the twelfth century (or rather the "long twelfth century," starting well before 1100 and continuing after 1200). It is an age that evokes for many the majesty of the great cathedrals, like Chartres and Canterbury, the rise of a new kind of intellectual inquiry, embodied in the questing spirit of Abelard or the emergence of the first universities, and the flourishing of the love lyrics of the troubadours and the tales of Arthurian romance. There is even the (now well established but initially paradoxical) notion of "the Twelfth-Century Renaissance." This book, however, presents a different, and much darker, twelfth century.

    Bisson, professor of medieval history emeritus at Harvard, is one of the leading historians of the Middle Ages. His early work concentrated on Catalonia, a region with particularly rich archival sources from this period; he has continually expanded both his geographical range and the breadth of the historical questions he asks. In the 1990s he was a participant in a lively debate on the so-called "Feudal Revolution," the theory that a transformation in the patterns of power and authority took place in Europe in the decades around the year 1000. In those years it was argued that older, official, and public structures of justice and administration were replaced by new, more violent, and more localized forms, based on strongmen and their fortresses.

    In his new book many of the elements of that "Feudal Revolution" recur, now extended to a later period. Bisson's summary of developments in Catalonia in the years 1020 to 1060 presents such a picture very clearly: there was "a terrifying collapse of public justice and the imposition of a new order of coercive lordship over an intimidated peasantry." Moving on into the twelfth century, the model is still recognizable: there is an "old passing world" ruled by a few nobles, and a "burgeoning new world" of "vicious men," castle-lords and knights prepared to use violence against the despised peasantry. This book is indeed an extended discussion of the issues arising from that earlier debate. Bisson acknowledges that it is "not a systematic treatise, still less a textbook," and those unfamiliar with the period may soon be lost. The book is an interpretation, an individual assessment of European history of that period, one that takes a stand on a dozen debated issues, often in implicit dialogue with other scholars. The main topics are lordship, violence, and the state.

    Lordship was a building block of most societies until relatively recently -- serfdom was abolished in Russia only in 1861. Such societies were distinguished by extreme inequalities, made visible by costume and gestures, like bowing and doffing of hats, and often supported by belief in hereditary superiority and inferiority of blood. Collective groupings existed, but were not powerful, and conflict and ambition were channeled more by vertical than horizontal solidarities: retainers, servants, and other followers and dependants sought patronage from the great, not action alongside their peers. At the highest level, lesser aristocrats became followers of great aristocrats, who themselves would be competing for the ruler's favor. Costume dramas set in Tudor England, like Shakespeare in Love and Elizabeth, convey some of the flavor of such a world.

    It was the prevalence of lordship that complicates any discussion of the medieval state. Bisson repeatedly uses the far from standard formulations "lord-king," "lord-ruler," and even "lord-archbishop" to convey the point that every ruler of this time was also a lord, a master of men, a patriarch of some kind, possessing his position as inheritance or property, rather than (or as well as) holding it as an office-indeed, he writes, "there is no sign that European people in the twelfth century thought of lordship and office as contrasting categories."

    Kings were lords, but also more than lords. Like the great barons, their power was patrimonial: that is, inherited, dynastic, based on ideas of property we might call "private." A king's kingdom was his in the same way that a baron's landed estates were his. Transmission of power was through father-to-son inheritance, not by election. Hence marriages, births, and deaths were the great punctuating points of medieval politics, not caucuses and ballots. Yet a king was also more than just the greatest of the barons. Both the Church and a long secular tradition saw him as having special duties as a ruler, duties that might be called "public."

    This dualism of lordship and the state meant that medieval rulership had two distinct faces, which were close to being opposites: on the one hand, the grand promises made at coronation by kings and emperors, to ensure justice and the protection of the weak and the Church; on the other hand, the reality of being a warlord trained in mounted warfare, a leader of proud, hard men, used to wielding lethal edged weapons, and the center of a court full of envy, ambition, and suspicion.

    Europe in the eleventh and twelfth centuries was a militarized world: it was "an age of castles," when "those astride horses and bearing weapons routinely injured or intimidated people" -- although, of course, they were still doing it in the thirteenth century, fourteenth century, fifteenth century, and beyond. The Cossacks were still doing it in the twentieth century. This raises a problem. In the absence of even a hint of dependable statistics, it is virtually impossible to weigh up the relative violence of different periods and places of the past. We know all the difficulties involved in dealing with modern crime figures; for the past we rarely have figures of any kind, but must rely on stories told by chroniclers (often ecclesiastical) and interested parties (usually plaintiffs). Historians read the laments, the individual accounts of plunder, murder, and rape, and try to assess whether this was the way life was then, or whether it simply reflects a very bad moment in that world. And while there can be little doubt that levels of violence were higher in the medieval period than in modern Western peacetime societies, we, who live in the aftermath of the worst genocidal atrocities in recorded history, should not make that claim with any complacency.

    It is not difficult to gather stories of local violence and oppression from the eleventh and twelfth centuries. But if we put these twelfth-century tales alongside those of the sixth-century historian-bishop Gregory of Tours, whose History of the Franks reveals a world of monstrous cruelty, we might wonder if things had really gotten much worse in the intervening six hundred years. On one occasion, Gregory writes, a noble discovered that two of his serfs had married without his consent: he supposedly said how delighted he was that they had at least not married serfs from another lordship; he promised that he would not separate them, and then kept his word by having them buried alive together. And was the twelfth century any more full of violence than, say, late medieval France, a happy hunting ground for mercenaries and freebooters during the Hundred Years' War?

    The rulers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries were trained in, and glorified, war, and expected to live off it, as well as off the tribute of a subjugated peasantry. If such rulers formed "the state" of their day, what are the implications? The state engages in violence; it takes away our property. How then does it differ from a criminal enterprise? This was a question that went back at least as far as Saint Augustine in the fourth century:

    What are robber gangs, except little kingdoms? If their wickedness prospers, so that they set up fixed abodes, occupy cities and subjugate whole populations, they then can take the name of kingdom with impunity.

    Augustine's ponderings stem from the worrying doubt that states and kingdoms, indeed all lawfully constituted governments, are just the most successful of the robber gangs. This idea, that the state and the criminal gang are but larger and smaller versions of the same thing, was one recurrent strand in medieval thinking. In the words of Gregory VII, the reformist pope of the eleventh century:

    Who does not know that kings and dukes had their origin in men who disregarded God and, with blind desire and intolerable presumption, strove to dominate their equals, that is, other men, through pride, plunder, perfidy, homicides, and every kind of crime, under the inspiration of the lord of this world, the devil?

    Westerns (like Sam Peckinpah's Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid) often explore the thin line between the gunslinger and the sheriff, or the poignancy of the bandit turned law officer; and the thinness of that line is clear in the Middle Ages. In the fourteenth century the kings of France, wishing to concentrate their forces against the English, called upon their barons to curtail their own feuds and vendettas: "We forbid anyone to wage war (guerre) during our war (guerre)." What the king does and what the feuding nobles do is the same kind of thing-"war." Nowadays, we make a sharper distinction. For instance, in the modern world, someone who takes our property away is either a criminal or a tax collector. If the latter, then it is the state taking our property away, and most people, of most political outlooks, distinguish the lawmakers from the lawbreakers.

    Traditionally the state took away people's property in order to finance war. In Charles Tilly's phrase, "the state made war and war made the state." The war-making, tax-raising state is indeed the standard, familiar political unit of modern world history. If we go back in time, do we reach a period when such an entity did not exist?

    Bisson is not a scholar who throws the term "state" around freely. Indeed, the conceptual vocabulary of his book is worth a mention. On the one hand, Bisson is happy to use the traditional but deeply contested terms "feudal" and "feudalism," both of which even have entries in his glossary at the end of the book. He can write of "a massive feudalizing of England by the Normans." Some historians would do away with these concepts altogether. Even if some kinds of estates were called "fiefs" (feoda), they argue, why should that fact lead us to a characterization of a whole society? Perhaps a touch of self-questioning is visible in Bisson's embrace of the terminology: "'Feudal monarchy': is this the right concept?" he asks.
    In contrast to his acceptance of this traditional terminology, Bisson has a marked tendency to use large conceptual terms with a peculiar, even personal, connotation. "Political" is an example. The bishops of this period, he says, "vied with one another for visible precedence," yet such struggles "were not political disputes; they were concerned with status, not process." A footnote refers us to an infamous incident when the archbishop of York, noticing that the archbishop of Canterbury had a seat higher than his, kicked it over and refused to be seated until he had a seat as high. Now, one might reasonably class this as a nursery tantrum, but why should not a public dispute over precedence count as "political"?
    This wariness about the term "political" (usually in scare quotes in the book) is based on the idea that lordship "was personal, affective, and unpolitical in nature." Might it not be clearer to say that the politics of that time was not the same as the politics of ours? It may be that we have here an example of a recurrent dilemma, either to say that the power relations of long ago are not politics at all, or to say that they are, but that we must differentiate between medieval and modern politics. Similarly, we may say that the superior authorities of that time cannot be called states at all; or we can argue that they were, but that we must distinguish medieval and modern states.

    One of the most important examples of Bisson's idiosyncratic use of general terms is his treatment of the word "government." He is reluctant even to apply the term to Norman England. "Royal lordship" was not the same thing as "government." Sometimes government is completely absent. Late-twelfth-century Europe was "an ungoverned society," although there were also "proto-governments" at this time; by the mid-thirteenth century "something like government hovered." This unwillingness to see the rulers of the central Middle Ages as constituting "governments" is to be explained partly because, in Bisson's view, the people of that time lacked any understanding of the state as distinct from lordship, but also because there are certain criteria for government, as distinct from lordship, that the rulers did not meet. He identifies three: accountability, official conduct, and social purpose.

    "Accountability" is an important term in Bisson's historical vocabulary. Sometimes it means quite literally the rendering of financial accounts, like the Catalan fiscal records which Bisson himself has edited. He emphasizes the birth, in the twelfth century, of "a newly searching and flexible accountability," as simple surveys of resources and fixed revenues, which can be found from early in the Middle Ages, were supplemented by balance sheets of incoming and outgoing assets. The English Pipe Rolls, annual audits of income and expenditures of the royal sheriffs, are a classic example. The English Dialogue of the Exchequer of 1178, or thereabouts, reveals a department of government that is professional, with its own technical expertise, and (in the Dialogue) its own handbook or manual. Slightly later, in 1202, there appears what has been called "the first budget of the French monarchy."

    But Bisson also uses the word in a broader sense: accountability means official responsibility, answerability. He associates it with the idea of office. Record-keeping is in fact one test of official status. And true government is "the exercise of power for social purpose," "social purpose" perhaps to be glossed here as "the common good." It is the emergence of "official conduct aimed at social purpose," linked, interestingly, with the rise of public taxation, that, for Bisson, signals the shift of the balance from lordship to government in the thirteenth century.

    However, the chronology of state formation in the Middle Ages is a disputed issue. Some historians talk as if there were a stateless period at some point in the central Middle Ages. Others hold the view that, to take one notable example, the kingdom of England of the year 1000 was not only a state but a strong, centralized, and pervasive state. If taxation and a standardized coinage are, in Bisson's words, parts of "a new model of associative power" around the year 1200, then the uniform land tax and centralized currency of eleventh-century England show that that model already existed in some places two hundred years earlier.

    What cannot be disputed is that over the course of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, the state became increasingly bureaucratic. The documents produced by the English government in the eleventh century could be placed on one large table (even given that monumental oddity, Domesday Book, the extensive survey of land ownership made in 1086 under William the Conqueror). The documents produced by the English government in the thirteenth century fill whole rooms and could never be read in one person's lifetime. Written records supplemented or replaced older oral forms of information gathering, testimony, or command (Michael Clanchy's 1979 masterpiece, From Memory to Written Record, analyzes this development for precociously bureaucratic England in the Norman and Plantagenet period). But more bureaucratic government does not necessarily mean less violent, or even less arbitrary, government.

    Historians like bureaucracy, because it feeds their hunger for written sources, the raw material with which they work; but the bond between historians and government is deeper than that. The historical profession grew up in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in close symbiosis with government. Not only was the heart of historical study usually the archives produced by past governments, but many of the students and teachers in those generations, the first to study history as a discipline, entered government service. Charles Homer Haskins, the founding father of American medieval scholarship, was an adviser to Woodrow Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.

    He was also the teacher of Joseph Strayer, himself the teacher of Bisson. Such academic genealogies can be overplayed, but there is no doubt that all three great medievalists, Haskins, Strayer, and Bisson, demonstrate a deep-rooted concern with the techniques and records of administration, with the procedures of the bureaucrats and officials. Strayer was as familiar with the modern as with the medieval version, since he worked for the CIA One of his most vigorous pieces of work is entitled On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (1970; one might notice the emphasis on both the "origins" and the "modern"; we live in the modern state; its origins go back a long way, but the state of those days was not the state of ours). The book contains Strayer's cogent definition of feudalism as "public powers in private hands," with that confident assurance that these adjectives, "public" and "private," convey a simple and evident distinction that will arouse no intellectual discomfort in readers. By contrast, Bisson's book is generated in part by his wrestling with such concepts and their implications.

    Bisson's book is called The Crisis of the Twelfth Century. "Crisis" means a vitally important or decisive stage in the progress of anything. But in that sense, any century of human history is a crisis. One might even say that this is simply the condition of human life-we are always in an Age of Crisis (although the situation might not always be as alarming as today's). Bisson acknowledges that "'crisis' was not a common word in the verbiage of the day," and the one instance he cites of the contemporary use of the word (in its Latin form discrimen) refers to a succession crisis in Poland in 1180. He wishes to see the various distinct political crises he discusses (such as the Saxon revolt of 1075, the communal insurrection in Laon in 1111, the "anarchy" of King Stephen's reign) as part of "the same wider crisis of multiplied knights and castles."

    However, a case can be made that the levels of violence and disorder in this period were largely dictated by the patterns of high politics rather than by a deep-seated structural malaise. Disputed successions, or the accession of a child-king, could indeed upset the world of knights and castles, unleashing the strongmen and their castle-based predatory attacks. Yet a regime of knights and castles could also form the basis for fairly stable feudal monarchies, such as one sees in France and England for most of the thirteenth century. If this is so, there were, of course, crises in the twelfth century, but no Crisis.

    The violence and greed of European knights of this period were directed beyond the local victims. Bisson's "long twelfth century" was not only an age of predatory lords in their castles bullying their peasantry but also an age of expansionary, one could say colonialist, violence. Christian armies, led by these predatory lords, crossed into Muslim lands, capturing Toledo in 1085, Jerusalem in 1099, and landing in North Africa in 1148; they destroyed the last remnants of West Slav paganism in the Baltic in 1168; they even turned their formidable fighting strength against their estranged Christian cousins in the Greek East, and sacked Constantinople in 1204. The energies generated in the conflicts between mounted men in the West, and the expertise they acquired in subjugating and fleecing the local peasantry, could be exported. The story of European violence is far from unique, but it was in the central Middle Ages that it took a form that shaped the subsequent history of the world.

    A traditional view of the development of European society in the central Middle Ages, a view to be found in textbooks past and present, is that the empire of Charlemagne (747–814) and his successors had important elements of public authority, in the form of officials with delegated powers and courts open to all free men, but that this regime was replaced, around the year 1000, with a heavily militarized and violent world of strongmen in castles, lording it over peasants. Over the course of time this world was, in its turn, transformed by the persistent efforts of the kings of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries into a network of more centralized and bureaucratic states, which led ultimately to modern systems of government. Like every model at this level of generality, as long as people who know something about the subject have created it, there must be some truth in this picture, however little it can be the whole truth. But we might have questions. Was the "old public order" of Charlemagne and his successors so public and so ordered? Was the subsequent regime so close to anarchy?

    Bisson adds to this traditional account by thinking deeply about the benefits and disadvantages of government. He is very aware of the inhumanity of the past he studies. He refers, with allusion to the words of the twelfth-century cleric John of Salisbury, to "hunter-lords." John was talking about the way that aristocrats were obsessed with the chase, but we might apply his phrase in a wider sense. Since some theorists believe that human society is imprinted with its origins in hunting packs and the mentality of the pack, the predatory lordship of the central Middle Ages could be conceived of as just such a hunting pack-but its prey being fellow human beings, rather than beasts.

    Confronting this world of hunter and hunted, Bisson is inspired by attractively humane impulses. In an earlier book, Tormented Voices, a microhistorical analysis of complaints raised by Catalan peasants in the twelfth century, he stated explicitly that he was attempting "an essay in compassionate history." Likewise in this book. And he looks for public, accountable, official remedies for suffering and oppression. He seems sympathetic to the idea that "power is rightly oriented towards the social needs of people." "If ever government was the solution, not the problem," he writes, "it was so for European peoples in the twelfth century." Is the modern world so happy in its governments? Whether we should endure the violence of the state, as a defense against the yet more fearful violence of our neighbors, and whether there comes a point where the violence of the state must be resisted are great recurrent questions of moral and political life. The questions raised by Bisson's book remain open.

    james | Dec 3, 2016 1:03:24 PM | 6
    @4 psychohistorian.. and i agree with you in that too.. it has to do with the packaging and a tendency in people to identify with the packaging - in this example 'made in the usa' as some sort of rationale for that social sickness many suffer from called 'patriotism'.. it seems to be especially prevalent in the worst nations, the usa at this point in time being the focal point for much of this marketing...
    psychohistorian | Dec 3, 2016 1:28:39 PM | 8
    @ okie farmer who added a loooong comment that contained the following about the definition of government:
    "
    He identifies three: accountability, official conduct, and social purpose.
    "

    The narrative provided did not get into a discussion of "social purpose" but I think that it is an important concept. The example I would posit is the original humanistic motto of the US, E Pluribus Unum which was instantiated by government creations of the time like the pony express....true socialism, if you need an ism to cling to. Social Security INSURANCE is another example of an instantiation of social purpose.

    The original US motto was replaced by In God We Trust in the mid 1950's which, IMO, destroyed the social purpose concept of government and instead tells you to trust the leaders and religious institutions.....reversion to kings and feudalism.

    You get the government you demand. What sort of world do you want to pass to the children?

    ben | Dec 3, 2016 2:01:32 PM | 10
    Why is the U$A addicted to war?

    read the books online. don't let the books format fool you, massive thought, with footnotes.

    http://www.addictedtowar.com/

    [Dec 05, 2016] The Real Story of How America Became an Economic Superpower

    Notable quotes:
    "... Rather than join the struggle of imperial rivalries, the United States could use its emerging power to suppress those rivalries altogether. ..."
    "... "a power unlike any other. It had emerged, quite suddenly, as a novel kind of 'super-state,' exercising a veto over the financial and security concerns of the other major states of the world." ..."
    "... Peter Heather, the great British historian of Late Antiquity, explains human catastrophes with a saying of his father's, a mining engineer: "If man accumulates enough combustible material, God will provide the spark." So it happened in 1929. The Deluge that had inundated the rest of the developed world roared back upon the United States. ..."
    "... "The originality of National Socialism was that, rather than meekly accepting a place for Germany within a global economic order dominated by the affluent English-speaking countries, Hitler sought to mobilize the pent-up frustrations of his population to mount an epic challenge to this order." ..."
    "... He could not accept subordination to the United States because, according to his lurid paranoia, "this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death." ..."
    "... By 1944, foreigners constituted 20 percent of the German workforce and 33 percent of armaments workers (less than 9 percent of the population of today's liberal and multicultural Germany is foreign-born). ..."
    "... The Hitlerian vision of a united German-led Eurasia equaling the Anglo-American bloc proved a crazed and genocidal fantasy. ..."
    www.theatlantic.com

    The United States might claim a broader democracy than those that prevailed in Europe. On the other hand, European states mobilized their populations with an efficiency that dazzled some Americans (notably Theodore Roosevelt) and appalled others (notably Wilson). The magazine founded by pro-war intellectuals in 1914, The New Republic, took its title precisely because its editors regarded the existing American republic as anything but the hope of tomorrow.

    Yet as World War I entered its third year-and the first year of Tooze's story-the balance of power was visibly tilting from Europe to America. The belligerents could no longer sustain the costs of offensive war. Cut off from world trade, Germany hunkered into a defensive siege, concentrating its attacks on weak enemies like Romania. The Western allies, and especially Britain, outfitted their forces by placing larger and larger war orders with the United States. In 1916, Britain bought more than a quarter of the engines for its new air fleet, more than half of its shell casings, more than two-thirds of its grain, and nearly all of its oil from foreign suppliers, with the United States heading the list. Britain and France paid for these purchases by floating larger and larger bond issues to American buyers-denominated in dollars, not pounds or francs. "By the end of 1916, American investors had wagered two billion dollars on an Entente victory," computes Tooze (relative to America's estimated GDP of $50 billion in 1916, the equivalent of $560 billion in today's money).

    That staggering quantity of Allied purchases called forth something like a war mobilization in the United States. American factories switched from civilian to military production; American farmers planted food and fiber to feed and clothe the combatants of Europe. But unlike in 1940-41, the decision to commit so much to one side's victory in a European war was not a political decision by the U.S. government. Quite the contrary: President Wilson wished to stay out of the war entirely. He famously preferred a "peace without victory." The trouble was that by 1916, the U.S. commitment to Britain and France had grown-to borrow a phrase from the future-too big to fail.

    Tooze's portrait of Woodrow Wilson is one of the most arresting novelties of his book. His Wilson is no dreamy idealist. The president's animating idea was an American exceptionalism of a now-familiar but then-startling kind. His Republican opponents-men like Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Elihu Root-wished to see America take its place among the powers of the earth. They wanted a navy, an army, a central bank, and all the other instrumentalities of power possessed by Britain, France, and Germany. These political rivals are commonly derided as "isolationists" because they mistrusted the Wilson's League of Nations project. That's a big mistake. They doubted the League because they feared it would encroach on American sovereignty. It was Wilson who wished to remain aloof from the Entente, who feared that too close an association with Britain and France would limit American options. This aloofness enraged Theodore Roosevelt, who complained that the Wilson-led United States was "sitting idle, uttering cheap platitudes, and picking up [European] trade, whilst they had poured out their blood like water in support of ideals in which, with all their hearts and souls, they believe."

    Wilson was guided by a different vision: Rather than join the struggle of imperial rivalries, the United States could use its emerging power to suppress those rivalries altogether. Wilson was the first American statesman to perceive that the United States had grown, in Tooze's words, into "a power unlike any other. It had emerged, quite suddenly, as a novel kind of 'super-state,' exercising a veto over the financial and security concerns of the other major states of the world."

    Wilson hoped to deploy this emerging super-power to enforce an enduring peace. His own mistakes and those of his successors doomed the project, setting in motion the disastrous events that would lead to the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, and a second and even more awful world war.

    What went wrong? "When all is said and done," Tooze writes, "the answer must be sought in the failure of the United States to cooperate with the efforts of the French, British, Germans and the Japanese [leaders of the early 1920s] to stabilize a viable world economy and to establish new institutions of collective security. Given the violence they had already experienced and the risk of even greater future devastation, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain could all see this. But what was no less obvious was that only the US could anchor such a new order." And that was what Americans of the 1920s and 1930s declined to do-because doing so implied too much change at home for them: "At the hub of the rapidly evolving, American-centered world system there was a polity wedded to a conservative vision of its own future."

    Widen the view, however, and the "forgotten depression" takes on a broader meaning as one of the most ominous milestones on the world's way to the Second World War. After World War II, Europe recovered largely as a result of American aid; the nation that had suffered least from the war contributed most to reconstruction. But after World War I, the money flowed the other way.

    Take the case of France, which suffered more in material terms than any World War I belligerent except Belgium. Northeastern France, the country's most industrialized region in 1914, had been ravaged by war and German occupation. Millions of men in their prime were dead or crippled. On top of everything, the country was deeply in debt, owing billions to the United States and billions more to Britain. France had been a lender during the conflict too, but most of its credits had been extended to Russia, which repudiated all its foreign debts after the Revolution of 1917. The French solution was to exact reparations from Germany.

    Britain was willing to relax its demands on France. But it owed the United States even more than France did. Unless it collected from France-and from Italy and all the other smaller combatants as well-it could not hope to pay its American debts.

    Americans, meanwhile, were preoccupied with the problem of German recovery. How could Germany achieve political stability if it had to pay so much to France and Belgium? The Americans pressed the French to relent when it came to Germany, but insisted that their own claims be paid in full by both France and Britain.

    Germany, for its part, could only pay if it could export, and especially to the world's biggest and richest consumer market, the United States. The depression of 1920 killed those export hopes. Most immediately, the economic crisis sliced American consumer demand precisely when Europe needed it most. True, World War I was not nearly as positive an experience for working Americans as World War II would be; between 1914 and 1918, for example, wages lagged behind prices. Still, millions of Americans had bought billions of dollars of small-denomination Liberty bonds. They had accumulated savings that could have been spent on imported products. Instead, many used their savings for food, rent, and mortgage interest during the hard times of 1920-21.

    But the gravest harm done by the depression to postwar recovery lasted long past 1921. To appreciate that, you have to understand the reasons why U.S. monetary authorities plunged the country into depression in 1920.

    Grant rightly points out that wars are usually followed by economic downturns. Such a downturn occurred in late 1918-early 1919. "Within four weeks of the Armistice, the [U.S.] War Department had canceled $2.5 billion of its then outstanding $6 billion in contracts; for perspective, $2.5 billion represented 3.3 percent of the 1918 gross national product," he observes. Even this understates the shock, because it counts only Army contracts, not Navy ones. The postwar recession checked wartime inflation, and by March 1919, the U.S. economy was growing again.

    As the economy revived, workers scrambled for wage increases to offset the price inflation they'd experienced during the war. Monetary authorities, worried that inflation would revive and accelerate, made the fateful decision to slam the credit brakes, hard. Unlike the 1918 recession, that of 1920 was deliberately engineered. There was nothing invisible about it. Nor did the depression "cure itself." U.S. officials cut interest rates and relaxed credit, and the economy predictably recovered-just as it did after the similarly inflation-crushing recessions of 1974-75 and 1981-82.

    But 1920-21 was an inflation-stopper with a difference. In post-World War II America, anti-inflationists have been content to stop prices from rising. In 1920-21, monetary authorities actually sought to drive prices back to their pre-war levels. They did not wholly succeed, but they succeeded well enough. One price especially concerned them: In 1913, a dollar bought a little less than one-twentieth of an ounce of gold; by 1922, it comfortably did so again.

    ... ... ...

    The American depression of 1920 made that decision all the more difficult. The war had vaulted the United States to a new status as the world's leading creditor, the world's largest owner of gold, and, by extension, the effective custodian of the international gold standard. When the U.S. opted for massive deflation, it thrust upon every country that wished to return to the gold standard (and what respectable country would not?) an agonizing dilemma. Return to gold at 1913 values, and you would have to match U.S. deflation with an even steeper deflation of your own, accepting increased unemployment along the way. Alternatively, you could re-peg your currency to gold at a diminished rate. But that amounted to an admission that your money had permanently lost value-and that your own people, who had trusted their government with loans in local money, would receive a weaker return on their bonds than American creditors who had lent in dollars.

    Britain chose the former course; pretty much everybody else chose the latter.

    The consequences of these choices fill much of the second half of The Deluge. For Europeans, they were uniformly grim, and worse. But one important effect ultimately rebounded on Americans. America's determination to restore a dollar "as good as gold" not only imposed terrible hardship on war-ravaged Europe, it also threatened to flood American markets with low-cost European imports. The flip side of the Lost Generation enjoying cheap European travel with their strong dollars was German steelmakers and shipyards underpricing their American competitors with weak marks.

    Such a situation also prevailed after World War II, when the U.S. acquiesced in the undervaluation of the Deutsche mark and yen to aid German and Japanese recovery. But American leaders of the 1920s weren't willing to accept this outcome. In 1921 and 1923, they raised tariffs, terminating a brief experiment with freer trade undertaken after the election of 1912. The world owed the United States billions of dollars, but the world was going to have to find another way of earning that money than selling goods to the United States.

    That way was found: more debt, especially more German debt. The 1923 hyper-inflation that wiped out Germany's savers also tidied up the country's balance sheet. Post-inflation Germany looked like a very creditworthy borrower. Between 1924 and 1930, world financial flows could be simplified into a daisy chain of debt. Germans borrowed from Americans, and used the proceeds to pay reparations to the Belgians and French. The French and Belgians, in turn, repaid war debts to the British and Americans. The British then used their French and Italian debt payments to repay the United States, who set the whole crazy contraption in motion again. Everybody could see the system was crazy. Only the United States could fix it. It never did.

    Peter Heather, the great British historian of Late Antiquity, explains human catastrophes with a saying of his father's, a mining engineer: "If man accumulates enough combustible material, God will provide the spark." So it happened in 1929. The Deluge that had inundated the rest of the developed world roared back upon the United States.

    ... ... ...

    "The United States has the Earth, and Germany wants it." Thus might Hitler's war aims have been summed up by a latter-day Woodrow Wilson. From the start, the United States was Hitler's ultimate target. "In seeking to explain the urgency of Hitler's aggression, historians have underestimated his acute awareness of the threat posed to Germany, along with the rest of the European powers, by the emergence of the United States as the dominant global superpower," Tooze writes.

    "The originality of National Socialism was that, rather than meekly accepting a place for Germany within a global economic order dominated by the affluent English-speaking countries, Hitler sought to mobilize the pent-up frustrations of his population to mount an epic challenge to this order." Of course, Hitler was not engaged in rational calculation. He could not accept subordination to the United States because, according to his lurid paranoia, "this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death." He dreamed of conquering Poland, Ukraine, and Russia as a means of gaining the resources to match those of the United States.

    The vast landscape in between Berlin and Moscow would become Germany's equivalent of the American west, filled with German homesteaders living comfortably on land and labor appropriated from conquered peoples-a nightmare parody of the American experience with which to challenge American power.

    Could this vision have ever been realized? Tooze argues in The Wages of Destruction that Germany had already missed its chance. "In 1870, at the time of German national unification, the population of the United States and Germany was roughly equal and the total output of America, despite its enormous abundance of land and resources, was only one-third larger than that of Germany," he writes. "Just before the outbreak of World War I the American economy had expanded to roughly twice the size of that of Imperial Germany. By 1943, before the aerial bombardment had hit top gear, total American output was almost four times that of the Third Reich."

    Germany was a weaker and poorer country in 1939 than it had been in 1914. Compared with Britain, let alone the United States, it lacked the basic elements of modernity: There were just 486,000 automobiles in Germany in 1932, and one-quarter of all Germans still worked as farmers as of 1925. Yet this backward land, with an income per capita comparable to contemporary "South Africa, Iran and Tunisia," wagered on a second world war even more audacious than the first.

    The reckless desperation of Hitler's war provides context for the horrific crimes of his regime. Hitler's empire could not feed itself, so his invasion plan for the Soviet Union contemplated the death by starvation of 20 to 30 million Soviet urban dwellers after the invaders stole all foodstuffs for their own use. Germany lacked workers, so it plundered the labor of its conquered peoples. By 1944, foreigners constituted 20 percent of the German workforce and 33 percent of armaments workers (less than 9 percent of the population of today's liberal and multicultural Germany is foreign-born).

    On paper, the Nazi empire of 1942 represented a substantial economic bloc. But pillage and slavery are not workable bases for an industrial economy. Under German rule, the output of conquered Europe collapsed. The Hitlerian vision of a united German-led Eurasia equaling the Anglo-American bloc proved a crazed and genocidal fantasy.

    How the Great War Shaped the World

    [Dec 05, 2016] Peggy Noonan What We Lose if We Give Up Privacy by Peggy Noonan

    Notable quotes:
    "... A loss of the expectation of privacy in communications is a loss of something personal and intimate, and it will have broader implications. ..."
    "... Mr. Hentoff sees the surveillance state as a threat to free speech, too ..."
    "... An entrenched surveillance state will change and distort the balance that allows free government to function successfully. ..."
    "... "When you have this amount of privacy invasion put into these huge data banks, who knows what will come out?" ..."
    "... Asked about those attempts, he mentions the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Red Scare of the 1920s and the McCarthy era. Those times and incidents, he says, were more than specific scandals or news stories, they were attempts to change our nature as a people. ..."
    "... What of those who say they don't care what the federal government does as long as it keeps us safe? The threat of terrorism is real, Mr. Hentoff acknowledges. Al Qaeda is still here, its networks are growing. But you have to be careful about who's running U.S. intelligence and U.S. security, and they have to be fully versed in and obey constitutional guarantees. ..."
    "... Mr. Hentoff notes that J. Edgar Hoover didn't have all this technology. "He would be so envious of what NSA can do." ..."
    Aug 16, 2013 | WSJ

    ...Among the pertinent definitions of privacy from the Oxford English Dictionary: "freedom from disturbance or intrusion," "intended only for the use of a particular person or persons," belonging to "the property of a particular person." Also: "confidential, not to be disclosed to others." Among others, the OED quotes the playwright Arthur Miller, describing the McCarthy era: "Conscience was no longer a private matter but one of state administration."

    Privacy is connected to personhood. It has to do with intimate things-the innards of your head and heart, the workings of your mind-and the boundary between those things and the world outside.

    A loss of the expectation of privacy in communications is a loss of something personal and intimate, and it will have broader implications. That is the view of Nat Hentoff, the great journalist and civil libertarian. He is 88 now and on fire on the issue of privacy. "The media has awakened," he told me. "Congress has awakened, to some extent." Both are beginning to realize "that there are particular constitutional liberty rights that [Americans] have that distinguish them from all other people, and one of them is privacy."

    Mr. Hentoff sees excessive government surveillance as violative of the Fourth Amendment, which protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires that warrants be issued only "upon probable cause . . . particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    But Mr. Hentoff sees the surveillance state as a threat to free speech, too. About a year ago he went up to Harvard to speak to a class. He asked, he recalled: "How many of you realize the connection between what's happening with the Fourth Amendment with the First Amendment?" He told the students that if citizens don't have basic privacies-firm protections against the search and seizure of your private communications, for instance-they will be left feeling "threatened." This will make citizens increasingly concerned "about what they say, and they do, and they think." It will have the effect of constricting freedom of expression. Americans will become careful about what they say that can be misunderstood or misinterpreted, and then too careful about what they say that can be understood. The inevitable end of surveillance is self-censorship.

    All of a sudden, the room became quiet. "These were bright kids, interested, concerned, but they hadn't made an obvious connection about who we are as a people." We are "free citizens in a self-governing republic."

    Mr. Hentoff once asked Justice William Brennan "a schoolboy's question": What is the most important amendment to the Constitution? "Brennan said the First Amendment, because all the other ones come from that. If you don't have free speech you have to be afraid, you lack a vital part of what it is to be a human being who is free to be who you want to be." Your own growth as a person will in time be constricted, because we come to know ourselves by our thoughts.

    He wonders if Americans know who they are compared to what the Constitution says they are.

    Mr. Hentoff's second point: An entrenched surveillance state will change and distort the balance that allows free government to function successfully. Broad and intrusive surveillance will, definitively, put government in charge. But a republic only works, Mr. Hentoff notes, if public officials know that they-and the government itself-answer to the citizens. It doesn't work, and is distorted, if the citizens must answer to the government. And that will happen more and more if the government knows-and you know-that the government has something, or some things, on you. "The bad thing is you no longer have the one thing we're supposed to have as Americans living in a self-governing republic," Mr. Hentoff said. "The people we elect are not your bosses, they are responsible to us." They must answer to us. But if they increasingly control our privacy, "suddenly they're in charge if they know what you're thinking."

    This is a shift in the democratic dynamic. "If we don't have free speech then what can we do if the people who govern us have no respect for us, may indeed make life difficult for us, and in fact belittle us?"

    If massive surveillance continues and grows, could it change the national character? "Yes, because it will change free speech."

    What of those who say, "I have nothing to fear, I don't do anything wrong"? Mr. Hentoff suggests that's a false sense of security.

    "When you have this amount of privacy invasion put into these huge data banks, who knows what will come out?"

    Or can be made to come out through misunderstanding the data, or finagling, or mischief of one sort or another.

    "People say, 'Well I've done nothing wrong so why should I worry?' But that's too easy a way to get out of what is in our history-constant attempts to try to change who we are as Americans."

    Asked about those attempts, he mentions the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Red Scare of the 1920s and the McCarthy era. Those times and incidents, he says, were more than specific scandals or news stories, they were attempts to change our nature as a people.

    What of those who say they don't care what the federal government does as long as it keeps us safe? The threat of terrorism is real, Mr. Hentoff acknowledges. Al Qaeda is still here, its networks are growing. But you have to be careful about who's running U.S. intelligence and U.S. security, and they have to be fully versed in and obey constitutional guarantees.

    "There has to be somebody supervising them who knows what's right. . . . Terrorism is not going to go away. But we need someone in charge of the whole apparatus who has read the Constitution."

    Advances in technology constantly up the ability of what government can do. Its technological expertise will only become deeper and broader.

    "They think they're getting to how you think. The technology is such that with the masses of databases, then privacy will get even weaker."

    Mr. Hentoff notes that J. Edgar Hoover didn't have all this technology. "He would be so envious of what NSA can do."

    [Dec 05, 2016] The internet is at risk of transforming from an open platform to myriad national networks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Far from being seen as the guardian of a free and open online medium, the US has been painted as an oppressor, cynically using its privileged position to spy on foreign nationals. The result, warn analysts, could well be an acceleration of a process that has been under way for some time as other countries ringfence their networks to protect their citizens' data and limit the flow of information. ..."
    "... At the most obvious level, the secret data-collection efforts being conducted by the US National Security Agency threaten to give would-be censors of the internet in authoritarian countries rhetorical cover as they put their own stamp on their local networks. ..."
    "... But the distrust of the US that the disclosures are generating in the democratic world, including in Europe , are also likely to have an impact. From the operation of a nation's telecoms infrastructure to the regulation of the emerging cloud computing industry, changes in the architecture of networks as countries seek more control look set to cause a sea change in the broader internet. ..."
    www.ft.com

    Revelations about US surveillance of the global internet – and the part played by some of the biggest American internet companies in facilitating it – have stirred angst around the world.

    Far from being seen as the guardian of a free and open online medium, the US has been painted as an oppressor, cynically using its privileged position to spy on foreign nationals. The result, warn analysts, could well be an acceleration of a process that has been under way for some time as other countries ringfence their networks to protect their citizens' data and limit the flow of information.

    "It is difficult to imagine the internet not becoming more compartmentalised and Balkanised," says Rebecca MacKinnon, an expert on online censorship. "Ten years from now, we will look back on the free and open internet" with nostalgia, she adds.

    At the most obvious level, the secret data-collection efforts being conducted by the US National Security Agency threaten to give would-be censors of the internet in authoritarian countries rhetorical cover as they put their own stamp on their local networks.

    But the distrust of the US that the disclosures are generating in the democratic world, including in Europe, are also likely to have an impact. From the operation of a nation's telecoms infrastructure to the regulation of the emerging cloud computing industry, changes in the architecture of networks as countries seek more control look set to cause a sea change in the broader internet.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Stiglitz Blasts Outrageous TPP as Obama Campaigns for Corporate-Friendly Deal Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the

    Notable quotes:
    "... Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade." ..."
    "... The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it , but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and " vehement advocate for the TPP "-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team. ..."
    "... Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said , "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country." ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.commondreams.org
    Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has reiterated his opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), saying on Tuesday that President Barack Obama's push to get the trade deal passed during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress is "outrageous" and "absolutely wrong."

    Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute, made the comments on CNN's "Quest Means Business."

    His criticism comes as Obama aggressively campaigns to get lawmakers to pass the TPP in the Nov. 9 to Jan. 3 window-even as resistance mounts against the 12-nation deal.

    Echoing an argument made by Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot, Stiglitz said, "At the lame-duck session you have congressmen voting who know that they're not accountable anymore."

    Lawmakers "who are not politically accountable because they're leaving may, in response to promises of jobs or just subtle understandings, do things that are not in the national interest," he said.

    Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade."

    "The advocates of trade said it was going to benefit everyone," he added. "The evidence is it's benefited a few and left a lot behind."

    Stiglitz has previously spoken out against the TPP before, arguing that it "may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades;" that it would mean "if you pass a regulation that restricts ability to pollute or does something about climate change, you could be sued and could pay billions of dollars;" and previously said that the president's TPP push "is one of Obama's biggest mistakes."

    Stiglitz has also been advising the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it, but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and "vehement advocate for the TPP"-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team.

    Opposition to the TPP also appeared Tuesday in Michigan and Florida, where union members and lawmakers criticized what they foresee as the deal's impacts on working families.

    Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said, "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country."

    [Dec 05, 2016] Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Tulsi Gabbard - Fighting for the people.

    Aug 01, 2016 | www.votetulsi.com

    We cannot allow this agreement to forsake the American middle class, while foreign governments are allowed to devalue their currency and artificially prop-up their industries.

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is a bad deal for the American people. This historically massive trade deal -- accounting for 40 percent of global trade -- would reduce restrictions on foreign corporations operating within the U.S., limit our ability to protect our environment, and create more incentives for U.S. businesses to outsource investments and jobs overseas to countries with lower labor costs and standards.

    Over and over we hear from TPP proponents how the TPP will boost our economy, help American workers, and set the standards for global trade. The International Trade Commission report released last May (https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf) confirms that the opposite is true. In exchange for just 0.15 percent boost in GDP by 2032, the TPP would decimate American manufacturing capacity, increase our trade deficit, ship American jobs overseas, and result in losses to 16 of the 25 U.S. economic sectors. These estimates don't even account for the damaging effects of currency manipulation, environmental impacts, and the agreement's deeply flawed Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process.

    There's no reason to believe the provisions of this deal relating to labor standards, preserving American jobs, or protecting our environment, will be enforceable. Every trade agreement negotiated in the past claimed to have strong enforceable provisions to protect American jobs -- yet no such enforcement has occurred, and agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has called TPP "NAFTA on steroids." The loss of U.S. jobs under the TPP would likely be unprecedented.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fC0qppnK_U

    Watch: Tulsi restates the need for transparency in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on the House floor.

    [Dec 05, 2016] BuzzFeed Exposes Corporate Super Courts That Can Overrule Government

    Corporations are "one-dollar-one-vote" top-down systems. They consider "one-person-one-vote" democracy illegitimate
    Notable quotes:
    "... Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special " corporate courts " in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings. ..."
    "... Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). ..."
    "... International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat. ..."
    "... ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands, however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | Back to (our) Future

    BuzzFeed is running a very important investigative series called "Secrets of a Global Super Court." It describes what they call "a parallel legal universe, open only to corporations and largely invisible to everyone else."

    Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special "corporate courts" in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings.

    The 2014 post "Corporate Courts - A Big Red Flag On "Trade" Agreements" explained the origin and rationale for these corporate courts:

    Picture a poor "banana republic" country ruled by a dictator and his cronies. A company might want to invest in a factory or railroad - things that would help the people of that country as well as deliver a return to the company. But the company worries that the dictator might decide to just seize the factory and give it to his brother-in-law. Agreements to protect investors, and allowing a tribunal not based in such countries (courts where the judges are cronies of the dictator), make sense in such situations.

    Here's the thing: Corporate investors see themselves as legitimate "makers" and see citizens and voters and their governments - always demanding taxes and fair pay and public safety - to be illegitimate "takers." Corporations are all about "one-dollar-one-vote" top-down systems of governance. They consider "one-person-one-vote" democracy to be an illegitimate, non-functional system that meddles with their more-important profit interests. They consider any governmental legal or regulatory system to be "burdensome." They consider taxes as "theft" of the money they have "earned."

    To them, any government anywhere is just another "banana republic" from which they need special protection.

    "Trade" Deals Bypass Borders

    Investors and their corporations have set up a way to get around the borders of these meddling governments, called "trade" deals. The trade deals elevate global corporate interests above any national interest. When a country signs a "trade" deal, that country is agreeing not to do things that protect the country's own national interest - like impose tariffs to protect key industries or national strategies, or pass laws and regulations - when those things interfere with the larger, more important global corporate "trade" interests.

    Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

    Secrets of a Global Super Court

    BuzzFeed's series on these corporate courts, "Secrets of a Global Super Court," explains the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in the "trade" deals that have come to dominate the world economy. These provisions set up "corporate courts" that place corporate profits above the interests of governments and set up a court system that sits above the court systems of the countries in the "trade" deals.

    Part One, "Inside The Global "Club" That Helps Executives Escape Their Crimes," describes, "A parallel legal universe, open only to corporations and largely invisible to everyone else, helps executives convicted of crimes escape punishment."

    In a little-noticed 2014 dissent, US Chief Justice John Roberts warned that ISDS arbitration panels hold the alarming power to review a nation's laws and "effectively annul the authoritative acts of its legislature, executive, and judiciary." ISDS arbitrators, he continued, "can meet literally anywhere in the world" and "sit in judgment" on a nation's "sovereign acts."

    [. . .]

    Reviewing publicly available information for about 300 claims filed during the past five years, BuzzFeed News found more than 35 cases in which the company or executive seeking protection in ISDS was accused of criminal activity, including money laundering, embezzlement, stock manipulation, bribery, war profiteering, and fraud.

    Among them: a bank in Cyprus that the US government accused of financing terrorism and organized crime, an oil company executive accused of embezzling millions from the impoverished African nation of Burundi, and the Russian oligarch known as "the Kremlin's banker."

    One lawyer who regularly represents governments said he's seen evidence of corporate criminality that he "couldn't believe." Speaking on the condition that he not be named because he's currently handling ISDS cases, he said, "You have a lot of scuzzy sort-of thieves for whom this is a way to hit the jackpot."

    Part Two, "The Billion-Dollar Ultimatum," looks at how "International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat."

    Of all the ways in which ISDS is used, the most deeply hidden are the threats, uttered in private meetings or ominous letters, that invoke those courts. The threats are so powerful they often eliminate the need to actually bring a lawsuit. Just the knowledge that it could happen is enough.

    [. . .] ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands, however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. Especially for nations struggling to emerge from corrupt dictatorships or to lift their people from decades of poverty, the mere threat of an ISDS claim triggers alarm. A single decision by a panel of three unaccountable, private lawyers, meeting in a conference room on some other continent, could gut national budgets and shake economies to the core.

    Part Three, "To Bankers, It's Not Just A Court System, It's A Gold Mine," exposes how "Financial companies have figured out how to turn a controversial global legal system to their own very profitable advantage."

    Indeed, financiers and ISDS lawyers have created a whole new business: prowling for ways to sue nations in ISDS and make their taxpayers fork over huge sums, sometimes in retribution for enforcing basic laws or regulations.

    The financial industry is pushing novel ISDS claims that countries never could have anticipated - claims that, in some instances, would be barred in US courts and those of other developed nations, or that strike at emergency decisions nations make to cope with crises.

    ISDS gives particular leverage to traders and speculators who chase outsize profits in the developing world. They can buy into local disputes that they have no connection to, then turn the disputes into costly international showdowns. Standard Chartered, for example, bought the debt of a Tanzanian company that was in dire financial straits and racked by scandal; now, the bank has filed an ISDS claim demanding that the nation's taxpayers hand over the full amount that the private company owed - more than $100 million. Asked to comment, Standard Chartered said its claim is "valid."

    David Dayen explains this last point, in "The Big Problem With The Trans-Pacific Partnership's Super Court That We're Not Talking About": "Financiers will use it to bet on lawsuits, while taxpayers foot the bill."

    But instead of helping companies resolve legitimate disputes over seized assets, ISDS has increasingly become a way for rich investors to make money by speculating on lawsuits, winning huge awards and forcing taxpayers to foot the bill.

    Here's how it works: Wealthy financiers with idle cash have purchased companies that are well placed to bring an ISDS claim, seemingly for the sole purpose of using that claim to make a buck. Sometimes, they set up shell corporations to create the plaintiffs to bring ISDS cases. And some hedge funds and private equity firms bankroll ISDS cases as third parties - just like billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan in his lawsuit against Gawker Media.

    Part Four of the great BuzzFeed series, "Secrets of a Global Super Court," is expected to be published later this week.

    PCCC Statement

    The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) released this statement on the ISDS provisions in TPP:

    "Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Wall Street would be allowed to sue the government in extrajudicial, corporate-run tribunals over any regulation and American taxpayers would be on the hook for damages. This is an outrage. We need more accountability and fairness in our economy – not less. And we need to preserve our ability to make our own rules.

    "It's time for Obama to take notice of the widespread, bipartisan opposition to the TPP and take this agreement off the table before he causes lasting political harm to Democrats with voters."

    [Dec 05, 2016] No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3." ..."
    "... To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer). ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Joe Hunter , August 31, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    " http://www.defenddemocracy.press/whole-game-containing-russisa-china/

    A response to Hillary Clinton's America Exceptionalist Speech:

    1. America Exceptionalist vs. the World..
    2. Brezinski is extremely dejected.
    3. Russia-China on the march.
    4. "There will be blood. Hillary Clinton smells it already ."

    clarky90 , August 31, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3."

    http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20160829/1044733257/russia-china-game-brics.html

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , August 31, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer).

    [Dec 05, 2016] In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have trotted out a new argument: we have come too far , our national credibility would be damaged if we stop now.

    Aug 27, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    L , August 26, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    Regarding the push to pass the TPP and TISA I've been needing to get this off my chest and this seems to be as good a time as any:

    In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have trotted out a new argument: "we have come too far", "our national credibility would be damaged if we stop now." The premise of which is that negotiations have been going on so long, and have involved such effort that if the U.S. were to back away now we would look bad and would lose significant political capital.

    On one level this argument is true. The negotiations have been long, and many promises were made by the negotiators to secure to to this point. Stepping back now would expose those promises as false and would make that decade of effort a loss. It would also expose the politicians who pushed for it in the face of public oppoosition to further loss of status and to further opposition.

    However, all of that is voided by one simple fact. The negotiations were secret. All of that effort, all of the horse trading and the promise making was done by a self-selected body of elites, for that same body, and was hidden behind a wall of secrecy stronger than that afforded to new weapons. The deals were hidden not just from the general public, not from trade unions or environmental groups, but from the U.S. Congress itself.

    Therefore it has no public legitimacy. The promises made are not "our" promises but Michael Froman's promises. They are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government but only by the words of a small body of appointees and the multinational corporations that they serve. The corporations were invited to the table, Congress was not.

    What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make good.

    When that minor loss is laid against the far greater fact that the terms of these deals are bad, that prior deals of this type have harmed our real economies, and that the rules will further erode our national sovreignity, there is no contest.

    Michael Froman's reputation has no value. Our sovreignity, our economy, our nation, does.

    flora , August 26, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    +1

    grizziz , August 26, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    Thank you for your comment. +1

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 26, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    "We've gone too far."

    Whaddaya mean, "we"?

    ambrit , August 26, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    The imperial "We."
    I just had a soul corroding vision of H Clinton done up as Victoria Regina. Ouch!!! Go get the butter!

    Jim Haygood , August 26, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    In modern parlance, she's Victoria Rejayjay. :-0

    JohnnyGL , August 26, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Good comment .

    "What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make good."

    Yes! And the victory will taste so sweet when we bury this filthy, rotten, piece of garbage. Obama's years of effort down the drain, his legacy tarnished and unfinished.

    I want TPP's defeat to send a clear message that the elites can't count on their politicians to deliver for them. Let's make this thing their Stalingrad! Leave deep scars so that they give up on TISA and stop trying to concoct these absurd schemes like ISDS.

    abynormal , August 26, 2016 at 3:10 pm

    sorry but i don't see it that way at all. 'they' got a propaganda machine to beat all 'they' make n break reps all the time. i do see a desperation on a monetary/profit scale. widening the 'playing field' offers more profits with less risk. for instance, our Pharams won't have to slash their prices at the risk of sunshine laws, wish-washy politicians, competition, nor a pissed off public. jmo tho')

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , August 26, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    LOL "America's credibility" LOL, these people need to get out more. In the 60's you could hike high up into the Andes and the sheep herder had two pics on the wall of his hut: Jesus and JFK. America retains its cachet as a place to make money and be entertained, but as some kind of beacon of morality and fair play in the world? Dead, buried, and long gone, the hype-fest of slogans and taglines can only cover up so many massive, atrocious and hypocritical actions and serial offenses.

    Synoia , August 26, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    his legacy tarnished and unfinished.

    And his post-presidential money small .

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 26, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    Clinton Inc was mostly Bill helping Epstein get laid until after Kerry lost. If this was the reelection of John Edwards, Kerry's running mate, and a referendum on 12 years of Kerronomics, Bill and Hill would be opening night speakers at the DNC and answers to trivia questions.

    My guess is Obama is dropped swiftly and unceremoniously especially since he doesn't have much of a presence in Washington.

    John Wright , August 26, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    The must preserve American credibility argument on the line again.

    Here is a quote from NYT's Nicholas Kristoff from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/opinion/kristof-reinforce-a-norm-in-syria.html

    "It looks as if we'll be firing Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria in the coming days, and critics are raising legitimate concerns:"

    "Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious behavior like genocide or the use of chemical weapons. Since President Obama established a "red line" about chemical weapons use, his credibility has been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."

    Obama did back down.

    NIcholas Kristof, vigilant protector of American credibility through bombing Syria.

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    he's just another syncophantic punk .in a long line of syncophantic punks

    ..oh..that includes Kristof too

    RabidGandhi , August 26, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    Ah yes the credibility of our élites. With their sterling record on Nafta's benefits, Iraq's liberation, Greece's rebound, the IMF's rehabilitation of countries

    We must pass TPP or Tom Friedman will lose credibility, what?

    polecat , August 26, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    yeah but will he have to shave off his 'stache' ??

    Propertius , August 26, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    Well said!

    HopeLB , August 26, 2016 at 8:36 pm

    Wonderful (and credible) assessment.

    [Dec 05, 2016] Framing Votes for TPP as the Surrender of National Sovereignty (i.e., Treason) naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. ..."
    "... Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ..."
    "... I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Why the Proponents of TPP Are Traitors

    There are two reasons: First, they consciously seek to weaken the national defense. And second, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system is a surrender of national sovereignty .

    National Defense

    This might be labeled the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since we're informed that Paul Singer and Augustus Cole's techno-thriller has really caught the attention of the national security class below the political appointee level, and that this is a death blow for neoliberalism. Why? "The multi-billion dollar, next generation F-35 aircraft, for instance, is rendered powerless after it is revealed that Chinese microprocessor manufacturers had implanted malicious code into products intended for the jet" ( Foreign Policy ). Clearly, we need, well, industrial policy, and we need to bring a lot of manufacturing home. From Brigadier General (Retired) John Adams :

    In 2013, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board put forward a remarkable report describing one of the most significant but little-recognized threats to US security: deindustrialization. The report argued that the loss of domestic U.S. manufacturing facilities has not only reduced U.S. living standards but also compromised U.S. technology leadership "by enabling new players to learn a technology and then gain the capability to improve on it." The report explained that the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing presents a particularly dangerous threat to U.S. military readiness through the "compromise of the supply chain for key weapons systems components."

    Our military is now shockingly vulnerable to major disruptions in the supply chain, including from substandard manufacturing practices, natural disasters, and price gouging by foreign nations. Poor manufacturing practices in offshore factories lead to problem-plagued products, and foreign producers-acting on the basis of their own military or economic interests-can sharply raise prices or reduce or stop sales to the United States.

    The link between TPP and this kind of offshoring has been well-established.

    And, one might say, the link between neo-liberal economic policy "and this kind of offshoring has been well-established" as well.

    So, when I framed the issue as one where pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. Note that re-industrializing America has positive appeal, too: For the right, on national security grounds; and for the left, on labor's behalf (and maybe helping out the Rust Belt that neoliberal policies of the last forty years did so much to destroy. Of course, this framing would make Clinton a traitor, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. (Probably best to to let the right, in its refreshingly direct fashion, use the actual "traitor" word, and the left, shocked, call for the restoration of civility, using verbiage like "No, I wouldn't say she's a traitor. She's certainly 'extremely careless' with our nation's security.")

    ISDS

    The Investor-State Dispute Settlement system is a hot mess (unless you represent a corporation, or are one of tiny fraternity of international corporate lawyers who can plead and/or judge ISDS cases). Yves wrote :

    What may have torched the latest Administration salvo is a well-timed joint publication by Wikileaks and the New York Times of a recent version of the so-called investment chapter. That section sets forth one of the worst features of the agreement, the investor-state dispute settlement process (ISDS). As we've described at length in earlier posts, the ISDS mechanism strengthens the existing ISDS process. It allows for secret arbitration panels to effectively overrule national regulations by allowing foreign investors to sue governments over lost potential future profits in secret arbitration panels. Those panels have been proved to be conflict-ridden and arbitrary. And the grounds for appeal are limited and technical.

    (More from NC on the ISDS panels , the TPP clauses on ISDS , the "code of conduct" for lawyers before the ISDS, pending ISDS settlements , and the potential constitutional challenges to the ISDS system.)

    Here again we have a frame that appeals to both right and left. The very thought of surrendering national sovereignty to an international organization makes any good conservative's back teeth itch. And the left sees the "lost profits" doctrine as a club to prevent future government programs they would like to put in place (single payer, for example). And in both cases, the neoliberal doctrine of putting markets before anything else makes pro-TPP-ers traitors. To the right, because nationalism trumps internationalism; to the left, because TPP prevents the State from looiking after the welfare of its people.

    The Political State of Play

    All I know is what I read in the papers, so what follows can only be speculation. That said, there are two ways TPP could be passed: In the lame duck session, by Obama, or after a new President is inaugurated, by Clinton (or possibly by Trump[1]).

    Passing TPP in the Lame Duck Session

    Obama is committed to passing TPP (and we might remember that the adminstration failed to pass the draft in Maui , then succeeded in Atlanta . And the House killed Fast Track once , before voting for it (after which the Senate easily passed it, and Obama signed it). So the TPP may be a "heavy lift," but that doesn't mean Obama can't accomplish it. Obama says :

    [OBAMA:] And hopefully, after the election is over and the dust settles, there will be more attention to the actual facts behind the deal and it won't just be a political symbol or a political football. And I will actually sit down with people on both sides, on the right and on the left. I'll sit down publicly with them and we'll go through the whole provisions. I would enjoy that, because there's a lot of misinformation.

    I'm really confident I can make the case this is good for American workers and the American people. And people said we weren't going to be able to get the trade authority to even present this before Congress, and somehow we muddled through and got it done. And I intend to do the same with respect to the actual agreement.

    So how would Obama "muddle through"? One way is to appeal to legislators who won't have to face voters again :

    So it is looking like a very close vote. (For procedural and political reasons, Obama will not bring it to a vote unless he is sure he has the necessary votes). Now let's look at one special group of Representatives who can swing this vote: the actual lame-ducks, i.e., those who will be in office only until Jan. 3. It depends partly on how many lose their election on Nov. 8, but the average number of representatives who left after the last three elections was about 80.

    Most of these people will be looking for a job, preferably one that can pay them more than $1 million a year. From the data provided by OpenSecrets.org, we can estimate that about a quarter of these people will become lobbyists. (An additional number will work for firms that are clients of lobbyists).

    So there you have it: It is all about corruption, and this is about as unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal cash under a literal table. These are the people whom Obama needs to pass this agreement, and the window between Nov. 9 and Jan. 3 is the only time that they are available to sell their votes to future employers without any personal political consequences whatsoever. The only time that the electorate can be rendered so completely irrelevant, if Obama can pull this off.

    (The article doesn't talk about the Senate, but Fast Track passed the Senate with a filibuster-proof super-majority, so the battle is in the House anyhow. And although the text of TPP cannot be amended - that's what fast track means! - there are still ways to affect the interpretation and enforcement of the text, so Obama and his corporate allies have bargaining chips beyond Beltway sinecures.[2])

    Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ( Remember , "[T]he preferences of economic elites have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.") However, if the anti-TPP-ers raise the rhetorical stakes from policy disagreement to treason, maybe a few of those 80 representatives will do the right thing (or, if you prefer, decide that the reputational damage to their future career makes a pro-TPP vote not worth it. Who wants to play golf with a traitor?)

    Passing TPP after the Inaugural

    After the coronation inaugural, Clinton will have to use more complicated tactics than dangling goodies before the snouts of representatives leaving for K Street. (We've seen that Clinton's putative opposition to TPP is based on lawyerly parsing; and her base supports it. So I assume a Clinton administration would go full speed ahead with it.) My own thought has been that she'd set up a "conversation" on trade, and then buy off the national unions with "jobs for the boys," so that they sell their locals down the river. Conservative Jennifer Rubin has a better proposal , which meets Clinton's supposed criterion of not hurting workers even better:

    Depending on the election results and how many pro-free-trade Republicans lose, it still might not be sufficient. Here's a further suggestion: Couple it with a substantial infrastructure project that Clinton wants, but with substantial safeguards to make sure that the money is wisely spent. Clinton gets a big jobs bill - popular with both sides - and a revised TPP gets through.

    Finally, an even more radical proposal, again from a conservative source :

    What Clinton needs is a significant revision to TPP that she can tout as a real reform to trade agreements, one that satisfies some of the TPP's critics on the left. A minor tweak is unlikely to assuage anyone; this change needs to be a major one. Fortunately, there is a TPP provision that fits the bill perfectly: investor state dispute settlement (ISDS), the procedure that allows foreign investors to sue governments in an international tribunal. Removing ISDS could triangulate the TPP debate, allowing for enough support to get it through Congress.

    Obama can't have a conversation on trade, or propose a jobs program, let alone jettison ISDS; all he's got going for him is corruption.[3] So, interestingly, although Clinton can't take the simple road of bribing the 80 represenatives, she does have more to bargain with on policy. Rubin's jobs bill could at least be framed as a riposte to the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since both are about "jawbs," even if infrastructure programs and reindustrialization aren't identical in intent. And while I don't think Clinton would allow ISDS to be removed ( her corporate donors love it ), at least somebody's thinking about how to pander to the left. Nevertheless, what does a jobs program matter if the new jobs leave the country anyhow? And suppose ISDS is removed, but the removal of the precautionary principle remains? We'd still get corporate-friendly decisions, bilaterally. And people would end up balancing the inevitable Clinton complexity and mush against the simplicity of the message that a vote for TPP is a vote against the United States.

    Conclusion

    I hope I've persuaded you that TPP is still very much alive, and that both Obama in the lame duck, and Clinton (or even Trump) when inaugurated have reasonable hopes of passing it. However, I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results (especially when the result comes from a letter to your Congress critter). Interestingly, Buzzfeed just published tonight the first in a four-part series, devoted to the idea that ISDS is what we have said it is all along: A surrender of national sovereignty. Here's a great slab of it :

    Imagine a private, global super court that empowers corporations to bend countries to their will.

    Say a nation tries to prosecute a corrupt CEO or ban dangerous pollution. Imagine that a company could turn to this super court and sue the whole country for daring to interfere with its profits, demanding hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars as retribution.

    Imagine that this court is so powerful that nations often must heed its rulings as if they came from their own supreme courts, with no meaningful way to appeal. That it operates unconstrained by precedent or any significant public oversight, often keeping its proceedings and sometimes even its decisions secret. That the people who decide its cases are largely elite Western corporate attorneys who have a vested interest in expanding the court's authority because they profit from it directly, arguing cases one day and then sitting in judgment another. That some of them half-jokingly refer to themselves as "The Club" or "The Mafia."

    And imagine that the penalties this court has imposed have been so crushing - and its decisions so unpredictable - that some nations dare not risk a trial, responding to the mere threat of a lawsuit by offering vast concessions, such as rolling back their own laws or even wiping away the punishments of convicted criminals.

    This system is already in place, operating behind closed doors in office buildings and conference rooms in cities around the world. Known as investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, it is written into a vast network of treaties that govern international trade and investment, including NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Congress must soon decide whether to ratify.

    That's the stuff to give the troops!

    NOTE

    [1] Trump: "I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers." Lotta wiggle room there, and the lawyerly parsing is just like Clinton's. I don't think it's useful to discuss what Trump might do on TPP, because until there are other parties to the deal, there's no deal to be had. Right now, we're just looking at Trump doing A-B testing - not that there's anything wrong with that - which the press confuses with policy proposals. So I'm not considering Trump because I don't think we have any data to go on.

    [2] In-Depth News explains the mechanisms:

    To pacify [those to whom he will corrupt appeal], Obama will have to convince them that what they want will anyway be achieved, even if these are not legally part of the TPP because the TPP text cannot be amended.

    He can try to achieve this through bilateral side agreements on specific issues. Or he can insist that some countries take on extra obligations beyond what is required by the TPP as a condition for obtaining a U.S. certification that they have fulfilled their TPP obligations.

    This certification is required for the U.S. to provide the TPP's benefits to its partners, and the U.S. has previously made use of this process to get countries to take on additional obligations, which can then be shown to Congress members that their objectives have been met.

    In other words, side deals.

    [3] This should not be taken to imply that Clinton does not have corruption going for her, too. She can also make all the side deals Obama can.

    [Dec 05, 2016] US Faces Major Setback As Europeans Revolt Against TTIP

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states. ..."
    "... These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. ..."
    "... "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    TTIP negotiations have been ongoing since 2013 in an effort to establish a massive free trade zone that would eliminate many tariffs. After 14 rounds of talks that have lasted three years not a single common item out of the 27 chapters being discussed has been agreed on. The United States has refused to agree on an equal playing field between European and American companies in the sphere of public procurement sticking to the principle of "buy American".

    The opponents of the deal believe that in its current guise the TTIP is too friendly to US businesses. One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states.

    In Europe thousands of people supported by society groups, trade unions and activists take to the streets expressing protest against the deal. Three million people have signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped. For instance, various trade unions and other groups have called for protests against the TTIP across Germany to take place on September 17. A trade agreement with Canada has also come under attack.

    US presidential candidate Donald Trump has promoted protectionist trade policies, while rival Hillary Clinton has also cast doubt on the TTIP deal. Congressional opposition has become steep. The lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have railed against free trade agreements as unfair to US companies and workers.

    These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. The chances are really slim.

    silverer •Sep 5, 2016 9:51 AM

    "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Nuclear war our likely future as Russia China would not accept US hegemony, Reagan official warns

    Notable quotes:
    "... "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests." ..."
    "... "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda." ..."
    "... "How America Was Lost" ..."
    "... "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance." ..."
    "... "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." ..."
    "... "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony." ..."
    "... "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," ..."
    "... "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future." ..."
    "... "historical turning point," ..."
    "... "the Chinese were there in their place," ..."
    "... "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," ..."
    "... "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht." ..."
    "... "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'" ..."
    "... "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'" ..."
    "... "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," ..."
    "... "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," ..."
    May 13, 2015 | RT News
    The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the "world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.

    The former US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his blog that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."

    Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."

    The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance."

    Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."

    "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.

    He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future."

    Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.

    A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents – 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.

    "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."

    The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate and alienate Russia.

    Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'"

    The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"

    While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.

    Read more Perverted history: Europeans think US army liberated continent during WW2

    Read more US mulls sending military ships, aircraft near South China Sea disputed islands – report

    [Dec 04, 2016] Chilcot: Intelligence reports confirm Iraq war created ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. " ..."
    "... A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). " ..."
    "... " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. " ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Intelligence reports examined and now released by the Chilcot inquiry appear to confirm Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) was created by the Iraq war, a view now apparently backed by Britain's Tory Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. The reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), which were previously classified, tell the story of the security services' increasing concern that the war and occupation was fuelling ever more extremism in Iraq.

    The evidence also appears to debunk repeated claims by former PM Tony Blair that IS began in the Syrian civil war and not Iraq, positioning the brutal group's rise clearly within Iraq's borders.

    The Chilcot findings were backed up Thursday by serving Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond. He told The Foreign Affairs Committee " many of the problems we see in Iraq today stem from that disastrous decision to dismantle the Iraqi army and embark on a program of de-Baathification ."

    " That was the big mistake of post-conflict planning. If we had gone a different way afterwards we might have been able to see a different outcome, " he said.

    Hammond conceded that many members of Saddam's armed forces today filled top roles in IS.

    " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. "

    The documents show that by 2006 – three years into the occupation – UK intelligence chiefs were increasingly concerned about the rise of Sunni jihadist resistance to the Western-backed regime of Shia President Nouri Al-Maliki.

    A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). "

    Many leading Al-Qaeda figures had been pro-regime Baathists and members of the former Iraqi Army disbanded by the occupation. They are broadly accepted to have later formed the basis for IS.

    The report describes AQ-I as being " in the vanguard. "

    " Its strategic main effort is the prosecution of a sectarian campaign designed to drag Iraq into civil war " at the head of a number of other Sunni militia groups.

    " We judge its campaign has been the most effective of any insurgent group, having significant impact in the past year, and poses the greatest immediate threat to stability in Iraq. The tempo of mass-casualty attacks on predominantly Shia targets has been relentless, " the spies argue.

    Chillingly, an earlier report from 2006 appears to echo some of the realizations made late in the Vietnam War that there were also strong elements of nationalism driving the insurgency.

    " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. "

    The reports appear to suggest that the conditions also somewhat echo the Afghanistan war, which by that time was already underway, in that the anti-coalition forces displayed a mix of ideological and economic drivers to resist the occupation.

    " Their motivation is mixed: some are Islamist extremists inspired by the AQ agenda, others are simply hired hands attracted by the money, " the spies warn.

    The religious sectarianism involved, however, was distinctly Iraqi and reflected the power battle between the deposed Sunni forces and the US-installed Shia regime which replaced it.

    They also appeared to believe that AQ-I was composed of local and not, as was claimed at the time, foreign fighters.

    " We judge Al-Qaida in Iraq is the largest single insurgent network and although its leadership retains a strong foreign element, a large majority of its fighters are Iraqi.

    " Some are drawn in by the opportunity to take on Shia militias: the jihadists' media effort stresses their role as defenders of the Sunni ," the report concludes.

    Prophetically, even before IS began to germinate in Iraq, one now-declassified Foreign Office memo from January 2003 warned "all the evidence from the region suggests that coalition forces will not be seen as liberators for long, if at all. Our motives are regarded with huge suspicion. "

    AHHA -> Blue Car 7 Jul

    No there was a documentary on the rise of IS months ago on Dutch television coming to the same conclusion. Kicking all Baath party members (all Sunni people) out of the army, leaving only Shiite in created IS. Baath militairy specialists did it out of revenge. One former high Baath militairy officer even went up to the room of the American leadership on Irak to tell him that if they would kick Baath people out he would have no other option than to start fighting America. Because what would all those people have to live of. And they did not just kick them out of the army but out of all government posts. But the Americans and making one group less equal to another by treating them different, does that ring any bells. ?
    AHHA -> Blue Car 8 Jul
    It was not Fox, I loath them. It was a well built Dutch documentary not praising the Americans for a change but being real True, together with Bush and the rest of their accomplices, of the most horrific mass killings based on lies (more than a million innocent people have perished because of their deceitful actions)! We should all demand Justice for the sake of humanity, and also because it is the only way to deter feature self-righteous leaders like them from leading our world to more blood sheds and catastrophic destructions! No one should be above the law!
    Blue Scissors -> Red Snow 7 Jul
    No, Bush and Cheney are the biggest terrorist. Blair just followed behind them, like a sheep.
    Linx 7 Jul
    Its clear that the U.S. government was the instigator of the war in Iraq based on 911and WMD. Blair in his ambition to reached the top lied to his parliament because there is noway they did not have the intelligence there not WMDs. In a stunning but little-known speech from 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark claims America underwent a "policy coup" at the time of the 9/11 attacks. In this video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. He was told: "We learned that we can use our military without being challenged . We've got about five years to clean up the Soviet client regimes before another superpower comes along and challenges us." "This was a policy coup these people took control of policy in the United States. The interview is still available in the internet.
    Orange Tag 7 Jul
    What I want to be informed about is the ICC court date set for Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the generals ordering the killings of innocent people in Iraq. It's time for the west to wake up and provide all and every help that Syrian legitimate government needs, and for west to stop the support of Saudis, Qatari and others alike regimes whom are the providers and are state sponsors of terrorism as Isis and others a like called " "moderates terrorist". Look you fly the Emirates you pay for the costs of their terrorism in Middle East.
    keghamminas 7 Jul Edited
    Very true about the blind destructive policy of the US-Nato that should have attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq .The same faults are committed now against Syria and it's legal government ; the total destruction of this country will lead to more anarchy and new terrorist movements as what's happenning in Iraq. All the puppets ,like the UK are guilty by their criminal participation.
    Malcolm stark 7 Jul
    Yet another problem caused by Washington and Co and yet their are still people even here who say Russia, Russia, Russia. And will make excuses for the problems caused without blaming their own government.
    CyanDog 7 Jul
    Sexton: What a surprise. An investigation designed to whitewash the criminal activities of our beloved Western leaders turned out to be eminently successful. A playful slap on the wrist for Mr Blair, but basically the Western criminals made to look like good guys although a few unintentional mistakes were made. From now on the West can continue business as usual. I wonder which countries the West has currently set its future sights on? I would suggest that Iran, Russia and China should keep their powder dry. The Westerners are playing for keeps, and they do not care who gets hurt on either side.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Trump: Obama and Hillary Created ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... ISIS is al-Qaeda re-branded and is supported by Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Western military alliance. Obama didn't technically 'create' them. Nor did he do anything to stop them. When ISIS first emerged, the US State Department said they were caught completely "flat -footed". ISIS emerged like a mirage in the Iraq desert, fully equipped, fully armed and driving a convoy of matching Toyota trucks! ..."
    "... I would like to say that Obama and Hillary Clinton were too weak or complacent to stop the Neoconservatives/Zionists/Establishment from creating ISIS. It was their way of toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and helping Israel to tighten the grip over stolen land. ..."
    "... I would like to say watch the "Yuri Bezmenov" interviews, and realize there is no difference between the democrats and establishment GOP, they are the same thing. ..."
    "... I was able to see through GW Bush, other establishment RINOs, and was honest enough to see the fraud. ..."
    www.infowars.com

    Allen Highsmith 7 months ago

    We have been saying that for years that Isis was created and funded by the US ( Obama) he should have been impeached years ago and to this day he needs to impeached and locked up for life for all the lives he has killed and for all the crooked deals he has done behind our backs! He is not even a citizen of the US! Please God help us all!

    ISIS is al-Qaeda re-branded and is supported by Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Western military alliance. Obama didn't technically 'create' them. Nor did he do anything to stop them. When ISIS first emerged, the US State Department said they were caught completely "flat -footed". ISIS emerged like a mirage in the Iraq desert, fully equipped, fully armed and driving a convoy of matching Toyota trucks!

    At least Trump is telling part of the truth.

    Two of a Kind Turds 7 months ago
    We all know why Hillary and Obama get away with literally murder and treason. The reason is that it is leverage over them by their puppet masters to ensure they stay on course with the New World Order agenda. When it is feared that they are getting a bit off script leaks occur of their heinous crimes and they get back on script. Both of these pathetic scum bags know what awaits them if they turn away from their puppet master's wishes. At the least prison for life and the worse is death in so many possible ways that it would be a replay of Kennedy with different patsies. This is why Hillary has a Cheshire cat grin and Obama plays more golf than any other president. They know they have a get out of jail free pass.
    Mahboob Khan 7 months ago
    I would like to say that Obama and Hillary Clinton were too weak or complacent to stop the Neoconservatives/Zionists/Establishment from creating ISIS. It was their way of toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and helping Israel to tighten the grip over stolen land.
    Elapoides Mahboob Khan 7 months ago
    I would like to say watch the "Yuri Bezmenov" interviews, and realize there is no difference between the democrats and establishment GOP, they are the same thing. The cancer of the democrat party bled into the GOP, hence the establishment, and organ of the democrat party. I was able to see through GW Bush, other establishment RINOs, and was honest enough to see the fraud.

    I used my intellect, my brains, to see what was going on, and left the republican party many years ago. YOU are still defending the democrat party, Obama, and Hillary. Pathetic.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Bernie Sanders launches presidential campaign

    Unfortunatly, under neoliberalism it's not people who vote. It's only large corporations which use two party system to put forward two canditates that will follow thier agenda. quote "Unfortunately the US propaganda system is now so entrenched and so heavily financed by the financial elites that such campaigns as that by Sanders, admirable as it is, have no chance of changing the US system. The only thing that will is violent revolution and that is highly unlikely given the monopoly of legitimate force commanded by those elites."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Bernie Sanders is the first candidate since Carter to actually project a sense of positive values and integrity. ..."
    "... Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box. ..."
    "... The function of the sheepdog candidate is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there's a place of influence for them inside the Democratic party,... ..."
    May 26, 2015 | http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/26/bernie-sanders-launches-presidential-campaign
    Nad Gough
    This is a good man. He is Independent, running as a Democrat as 3rd party candidates are doomed from the start. He is elderly, so choosing his running mate will be extremely important in terms of his electibility. Elizabeth Warren? If she won't run for President, maybe this is the ticket?

    So far this is the ONLY candidate whose desire for "change" matches what folks want. The other potential candidates are known sleight of hand change artists. And I use the word "artist" in the way one might describe someone who draws stick figures. Badly.

    lutesongs
    Bernie Sanders is the first candidate since Carter to actually project a sense of positive values and integrity. He is the frontrunner for most Americans who care about fairness and a sustainable future. Don't allow the corporate media to marginalize him by innuendo or non-coverage. Don't allow the Democratic Party to turn a blind eye to the issues. Don't allow the Repubs to steal another election through blatant electronic voter fraud, hacking the voting machines and gaming the results. Start a campaign for voters to photograph their results and compile independent vote counts. An honest election would likely favor a populist with integrity. Bernie Sanders is the one.
    BabyLyon
    The country is ruled by greedy corporation, all governmental authorities are corrupted to the limit, unstoppable wars and overall torpidity and all these candidates are able to offer is doubtful solutions for two-or three "serious" problems. Either they're blind or just fool American people.
    PhilippeOrlando

    This population is too stupid to elect a guy like Sanders. With a median household income of 50K/year it will vote, one more time, for people who don't represent it. The only two running candidates who represents 99% of the population are Sanders and Stein, the Green candidate. All others will cater first to the wealthy. Clinton will be chosen over Sanders because for some weird reason 'mericans vote for the guy they think will fight for who they think they'll be one day, not for whom they are now. I think it's about time to stop feeling sorry for most Americans, half of them won't bother to go vote anyway, and a huge majority will keep voting for the wrong guys.
    Justin Weaver -> PhilippeOrlando
    I totally get you, but I think that a lot of Americans truly believe that they ARE prosperous even if they have minimal savings, no job security, and are only one medical disaster away from bankruptcy. Many American's have really bought the American dream narrative even if they have little chance of achieving it.
    patimac54
    Bernie's brother Larry, long time UK resident, stood for the Green Party in my constituency in the recent elections. He has spent his adult life working for others, particularly carers, and is a man of great integrity and intelligence. Of course he didn't win but was by far the most impressive candidate at the local hustings, and thereby exposed the audience to a viewpoint most will not have experienced previously.
    If Bernie is half the man his brother is, US voters have a fine candidate, and similarly he may open up the electorate's eyes to the idea that it is possible to believe in something better.
    amorezu
    A man that openly calls himself a 'democratic socialist' will never win in the USA. People here have an allergy to the word 'socialism'. Unfortunately that allergy is causing them to be OK with living in a de-facto oligarchy.
    Observer453
    Something I love about Bernie Sanders is that he is straight forward, honest in his views and cannot be bought. I imagine he's something of a mystery to the many 'politicians', as Barack Obama recently described himself.

    Someone that actually thinks about what is best for the people, not for himself. Bernie calls himself a Socialist, if that is what Socialism means - and caring for the environment - sign me up.

    jdanforth
    Part of an analysis of the Sanders campaign, written three weeks ago by Bruce A. Dixon:

    Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box.

    1984 and 88 the sheepdog candidate was Jesse Jackson. In 92 it was California governor Jerry Brown. In 2000 and 2004 the designated sheepdog was Al Sharpton, and in 2008 it was Dennis Kucinich. This year it's Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. The function of the sheepdog candidate is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there's a place of influence for them inside the Democratic party,...

    Doro Wynant jdanforth

    Except:

    1. Not one of the candidates cited had the legislative background that Sanders has -- not the duration in office, not the proven appeal to a diverse constituency, not the proven ability to work respectfully with unlike-minded peers.

    2. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson clearly never had a chance; they're not at all in the same category.

    3. Poverty is at a 50-year high in the US, and many once-middle-class, educated, professional persons (myself included) are -- thanks to the recession -- part of the nouveau poor. Even the formerly-non-activist-types are angry, and they're paying attention to his talk of income inequality -- and Sanders has more credibility as a potential reformer than does wealthy insider HRC.

    4. What Dixon condescendingly refers to as "left activists and voters [who have no influence in the party]" are in fact people with mainstream ideas about building and maintaining a stable society. The right, having skewed the debate over the past 25 years, luvvvvvs to pretend that these centrist, humane ideas are wacky and way-out when in fact they're, well, mainstream ideas. Who among us doesn't want a safe, clean world in which to live, love, work, raise our families?

    Not only is that not a wacky idea, it's a very -- GASP -- Christian idea/ideal!

    Jon Phillips

    If you vote for Hillary you are accepting that America is now an oligarchy. How else can you explain the amount of time the Bush & Clinton families have occupied the White House?

    300 million Americans and 2 families have occupied the White House for 20 of the last 28 years........

    RickyRat

    This business comes down to just two choices: You can vote for Pennywise the Clown in either his Republican or her Democratic persona, along with the creature's Robber Baron backers, or you can vote for Sanders. You could cast a protest vote somewhere else, but doing that will just further the cause of the Robber Barons. Let's take back the wheel of the American political process!

    Bertmax RickyRat

    That is a fallacy called "false equivalency". It is wrong to say that both parties are to blame. Sure, both have their share of corruption, but at least the Democrats are pushing legislation that actually benefits the 90%. I am a member of neither party, since I don't believe in supporting only a narrow set of ideals one way or the other, but the GOP are the true scourge of my country. People like Sanders and Warren actually care about this country.

    Doro Wynant Needsmorecow

    This site links you to legislation he sponsored or co-sponsored, to his bio, and to his website:
    https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-/bernie_sanders.S000033

    Chris Plante
    A recent poll had Bernie "lagged behind the favorite by a margin of 63% to 13%" Is that among the fake people "Hillary Who" has supporting her?

    He's probably doing much better among real people.

    RickyRat Chris Plante
    There is a machine out there, running full blast. Sanders is the wrench the machine's owners fear.
    Jeannie Parker
    I take offense at the suggestion he's from far left field. It's absurd to say in the least. He's been drafted by us. He's running for us. All of us. I admin on few Bernie Sanders' pages on FB and I can tell you with all certainty that the folks getting behind this man and his campaign are coming from across the political spectrum.

    The beauty of it is, he has a thirty some odd years long record that cannot be altered.
    This man has and always will work for the interests of everyone.

    No one can listen to him and his policy positions and not get behind him.

    Bernie Sanders is coming and a revolution is coming with him.

    No amount of money can sway us or turn us from our goal of seeing this fine gentleman ascend to the highest office of our Land. Cheers.

    [Dec 04, 2016] Much-disputed Iranian nuclear bomb

    An interesting warning about possible return of neocons in Hillary administration. Looks like not much changed in Washington from 2005 and Obama more and more looks like Bush III. Both Hillary and Trump are jingoistic toward Iran. Paradoxically Trump is even more jingoistic then Hillary.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal. ..."
    "... And not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier by Ira Chernus on a graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and still viewable ). ..."
    "... Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective, and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium, generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues for their insights and suggestions." ..."
    "... What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. ..."
    "... In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs. From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director of national intelligence. ..."
    "... Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjŕ vu . They are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement. ..."
    "... So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago. Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well, you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped. ..."
    Sep 22, 2005 | www.washingtonpost.com
    That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal.

    As Los Angeles Times reporter Douglas Frantz wrote at one point, "Though Israel is a democracy, debating the nuclear program is taboo A military censor guards Israel's nuclear secrets." And this "taboo" has largely extended to American reporting on the subject. Imagine, to offer a very partial analogy, if we all had had to consider the Cold War nuclear issue with the Soviet, but almost never the American nuclear arsenal, in the news. Of course, that would have been absurd and yet it's the case in the Middle East today, making most strategic discussions of the region exercises in absurdity.

    I wrote about this subject under the title, Nuclear Israel , back in October 2003, because of a brief break, thanks to Frantz, in the media blackout on the subject. I began then, "Nuclear North Korea, nuclear Iraq, nuclear Iran - of these our media has been full for the last year or more, though they either don't exist or hardly yet exist. North Korea now probably has a couple of crude nuclear weapons, which it may still be incapable of delivering. But nuclear Israel, little endangered Israel? It's hard even to get your head around the concept, though that country has either the fifth or sixth largest nuclear arsenal in the world." And not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier by Ira Chernus on a graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and still viewable ).

    Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective, and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium, generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues for their insights and suggestions." Now, read on. ~ Tom

    Attacking Iran: I Know It Sounds Crazy, But...

    By Ray McGovern

    "'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.'

    "(Short pause)

    "'And having said that, all options are on the table.'

    "Even the White House stenographers felt obliged to note the result: '(Laughter).'"

    ( The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin on George Bush's February 22 press conference)

    For a host of good reasons -- the huge and draining commitment of U.S. forces to Iraq and Iran's ability to stir the Iraqi pot to boiling, for starters -- the notion that the Bush administration would mount a "preemptive" air attack on Iran seems insane. And still more insane if the objective includes overthrowing Iran's government again, as in 1953 -- this time under the rubric of "regime change."

    But Bush administration policy toward the Middle East is being run by men -- yes, only men -- who were routinely referred to in high circles in Washington during the 1980s as "the crazies." I can attest to that personally, but one need not take my word for it.

    According to James Naughtie, author of The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency , former Secretary of State Colin Powell added an old soldier's adjective to the "crazies" sobriquet in referring to the same officials. Powell, who was military aide to Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger in the early eighties, was overheard calling them "the f---ing crazies" during a phone call with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw before the war in Iraq. At the time, Powell was reportedly deeply concerned over their determination to attack -- with or without UN approval. Small wonder that they got rid of Powell after the election, as soon as they had no more use for him.

    If further proof of insanity were needed, one could simply look at the unnecessary carnage in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003. That unprovoked attack was, in my view, the most fateful foreign policy blunder in our nation's history...so far.

    It Can Get Worse

    "The crazies" are not finished. And we do well not to let their ultimate folly obscure their current ambition, and the further trouble that ambition is bound to bring in the four years ahead. In an immediate sense, with U.S. military power unrivaled, they can be seen as "crazy like a fox," with a value system in which "might makes right." Operating out of that value system, and now sporting the more respectable misnomer/moniker "neoconservative," they are convinced that they know exactly what they are doing. They have a clear ideology and a geopolitical strategy, which leap from papers they put out at the Project for the New American Century over recent years.

    The very same men who, acting out of that paradigm, brought us the war in Iraq are now focusing on Iran, which they view as the only remaining obstacle to American domination of the entire oil-rich Middle East. They calculate that, with a docile, corporate-owned press, a co-opted mainstream church, and a still-trusting populace, the United States and/or the Israelis can launch a successful air offensive to disrupt any Iranian nuclear weapons programs -- with the added bonus of possibly causing the regime in power in Iran to crumble.

    But why now? After all, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency has just told Congress that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon until "early in the next decade?" The answer, according to some defense experts, is that several of the Iranian facilities are still under construction and there is only a narrow "window of opportunity" to destroy them without causing huge environmental problems. That window, they say, will begin to close this year.

    Other analysts attribute the sense of urgency to worry in Washington that the Iranians may have secretly gained access to technology that would facilitate a leap forward into the nuclear club much sooner than now anticipated. And it is, of course, neoconservative doctrine that it is best to nip -- the word in current fashion is "preempt" -- any conceivable threats in the bud. One reason the Israelis are pressing hard for early action may simply be out of a desire to ensure that George W. Bush will have a few more years as president after an attack on Iran, so that they will have him to stand with Israel when bedlam breaks out in the Middle East.

    What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. For me, this evokes a painful flashback to the early eighties when "intelligence," pointing to "moderates" within the Iranian leadership, was conjured up to help justify the imaginative but illegal arms-for-hostages-and-proceeds-to-Nicaraguan-Contras caper. The fact that the conjurer-in-chief of that spurious "evidence" on Iranian "moderates," former chief CIA analyst, later director Robert Gates, was recently offered the newly created position of director of national intelligence makes the flashback more eerie -- and alarming.

    George H. W. Bush Saw Through "The Crazies"

    During his term in office, George H. W. Bush, with the practical advice of his national security adviser Gen. Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker, was able to keep "the crazies" at arms length, preventing them from getting the country into serious trouble. They were kept well below the level of "principal" -- that is, below the level of secretary of state or defense.

    Even so, heady in the afterglow of victory in the Gulf War of 1990, "the crazies" stirred up considerable controversy when they articulated their radical views. Their vision, for instance, became the centerpiece of the draft "Defense Planning Guidance" that Paul Wolfowitz, de facto dean of the neoconservatives, prepared in 1992 for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. It dismissed deterrence as an outdated relic of the Cold War and argued that the United States must maintain military strength beyond conceivable challenge -- and use it in preemptive ways in dealing with those who might acquire "weapons of mass destruction." Sound familiar?

    Aghast at this radical imperial strategy for the post-Cold War world, someone with access to the draft leaked it to the New York Times , forcing President George H. W. Bush either to endorse or disavow it. Disavow it he did -- and quickly, on the cooler-head recommendations of Scowcroft and Baker, who proved themselves a bulwark against the hubris and megalomania of "the crazies." Unfortunately, their vision did not die. No less unfortunately, there is method to their madness -- even if it threatens to spell eventual disaster for our country. Empires always overreach and fall.

    The Return of the Neocons

    In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs. From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director of national intelligence.

    Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjŕ vu . They are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement.

    Why dwell on this? Because it is second in importance only to the portentous reality that the earth is running out of readily accessible oil – something of which they are all too aware. Not surprisingly then, disguised beneath the weapons-of-mass-destruction smokescreen they laid down as they prepared to invade Iraq lay an unspoken but bedrock reason for the war -- oil. In any case, the neocons seem to believe that, in the wake of the November election, they now have a carte-blanche "mandate." And with the president's new "capital to spend," they appear determined to spend it, sooner rather than later.

    Next Stop, Iran

    When a Special Forces platoon leader just back from Iraq matter-of-factly tells a close friend of mine, as happened last week, that he and his unit are now training their sights (literally) on Iran, we need to take that seriously. It provides us with a glimpse of reality as seen at ground level. For me, it brought to mind an unsolicited email I received from the father of a young soldier training at Fort Benning in the spring of 2002, soon after I wrote an op-ed discussing the timing of George W. Bush's decision to make war on Iraq. The father informed me that, during the spring of 2002, his son kept writing home saying his unit was training to go into Iraq. No, said the father; you mean Afghanistan... that's where the war is, not Iraq. In his next email, the son said, "No, Dad, they keep saying Iraq. I asked them and that's what they mean."

    Now, apparently, they keep saying Iran ; and that appears to be what they mean.

    Anecdotal evidence like this is hardly conclusive. Put it together with administration rhetoric and a preponderance of other "dots," though, and everything points in the direction of an air attack on Iran, possibly also involving some ground forces. Indeed, from the New Yorker reports of Seymour Hersh to Washington Post articles , accounts of small-scale American intrusions on the ground as well as into Iranian airspace are appearing with increasing frequency. In a speech given on February 18, former UN arms inspector and Marine officer Scott Ritter (who was totally on target before the Iraq War on that country's lack of weapons of mass destruction) claimed that the president has already "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June in order to destroy its alleged nuclear weapons program and eventually bring about "regime change." This does not necessarily mean an automatic green light for a large attack in June, but it may signal the president's seriousness about this option.

    So, again, against the background of what we have witnessed over the past four years, and the troubling fact that the circle of second-term presidential advisers has become even tighter, we do well to inject a strong note of urgency into any discussion of the "Iranian option."

    Why Would Iran Want Nukes?

    So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago. Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well, you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped.

    Recovering quickly and realizing that he could not just leave the word "Israel" hanging there, Lugar began again: "Well, Israel is alleged to have a nuclear capability."

    Is alleged to have ? Lugar is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and yet he doesn't know that Israel has, by most estimates, a major nuclear arsenal, consisting of several hundred nuclear weapons? (Mainstream newspapers are allergic to dwelling on this topic, but it is mentioned every now and then, usually buried in obscurity on an inside page.)

    Just imagine how the Iranians and Syrians would react to Lugar's disingenuousness. Small wonder our highest officials and lawmakers -- and Lugar, remember, is one of the most decent among them -- are widely seen abroad as hypocritical. Our media, of course, ignore the hypocrisy. This is standard operating procedure when the word "Israel" is spoken in this or other unflattering contexts. And the objections of those appealing for a more balanced approach are quashed.

    If the truth be told, Iran fears Israel at least as much as Israel fears the internal security threat posed by the thugs supported by Tehran. Iran's apprehension is partly fear that Israel (with at least tacit support from the Bush administration) will send its aircraft to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, just as American-built Israeli bombers destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981. As part of the current war of nerves, recent statements by the president and vice president can be read as giving a green light to Israel to do just that; while Israeli Air Force commander Major General Eliezer Shakedi told reporters on February 21 that Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran "in light of its nuclear activity."

    US-Israel Nexus

    The Iranians also remember how Israel was able to acquire and keep its nuclear technology. Much of it was stolen from the United States by spies for Israel. As early as the late-1950s, Washington knew Israel was building the bomb and could have aborted the project. Instead, American officials decided to turn a blind eye and let the Israelis go ahead. Now Israel's nuclear capability is truly formidable. Still, it is a fact of strategic life that a formidable nuclear arsenal can be deterred by a far more modest one, if an adversary has the means to deliver it. (Look at North Korea's success with, at best, a few nuclear weapons and questionable means of delivery in deterring the "sole remaining superpower in the world.") And Iran already has missiles with the range to hit Israel.

    Israeli Prime Minister Sharon has for some time appeared eager to enlist Washington's support for an early "pre-emptive" strike on Iran. Indeed, American defense officials have told reporters that visiting Israeli officials have been pressing the issue for the past year and a half. And the Israelis are now claiming publicly that Iran could have a nuclear weapon within six months -- years earlier than the Defense Intelligence Agency estimate mentioned above.

    In the past, President Bush has chosen to dismiss unwelcome intelligence estimates as "guesses" -- especially when they threatened to complicate decisions to implement the neoconservative agenda. It is worth noting that several of the leading neocons – Richard Perle, chair of the Defense Policy Board (2001-03); Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and David Wurmser, Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney -- actually wrote policy papers for the Israeli government during the 1990s. They have consistently had great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel and those of the US -- at least as they imagine them.

    As for President Bush, over the past four years he has amply demonstrated his preference for the counsel of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who, as Gen. Scowcroft said publicly , has the president "wrapped around his little finger." (As Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board until he was unceremoniously removed at the turn of the year, Scowcroft was in a position to know.) If Scowcroft is correct in also saying that the president has been "mesmerized" by Sharon, it seems possible that the Israelis already have successfully argued for an attack on Iran.

    When "Regime Change" Meant Overthrow For Oil

    To remember why the United States is no favorite in Tehran, one needs to go back at least to 1953 when the U.S. and Great Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Premier Mohammad Mossadeq as part of a plan to insure access to Iranian oil. They then emplaced the young Shah in power who, with his notorious secret police, proved second to none in cruelty. The Shah ruled from 1953 to 1979. Much resentment can build up over a whole generation. His regime fell like a house of cards, when supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini rose up to do some regime change of their own.

    Iranians also remember Washington's strong support for Saddam Hussein's Iraq after it decided to make war on Iran in 1980. U.S. support for Iraq (which included crucial intelligence support for the war and an implicit condoning of Saddam's use of chemical weapons) was perhaps the crucial factor in staving off an Iranian victory. Imagine then, the threat Iranians see, should the Bush administration succeed in establishing up to 14 permanent military bases in neighboring Iraq. Any Iranian can look at a map of the Middle East (including occupied Iraq) and conclude that this administration might indeed be willing to pay the necessary price in blood and treasure to influence what happens to the black gold under Iranian as well as Iraqi sands. And with four more years to play with, a lot can be done along those lines. The obvious question is: How to deter it? Well, once again, Iran can hardly be blind to the fact that a small nation like North Korea has so far deterred U.S. action by producing, or at least claiming to have produced, nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear Is the Nub

    The nuclear issue is indeed paramount, and we would do well to imagine and craft fresh approaches to the nub of the problem. As a start, I'll bet if you made a survey, only 20% of Americans would answer "yes" to the question, "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" That is key, it seems to me, because at their core Americans are still fair-minded people.

    On the other hand, I'll bet that 95% of the Iranian population would answer, "Of course Israel has nuclear weapons; that's why we Iranians need them" -- which was, of course, the unmentionable calculation that Senator Lugar almost conceded. "And we also need them," many Iranians would probably say, "in order to deter 'the crazies' in Washington. It seems to be working for the North Koreans, who, after all, are the other remaining point on President Bush's 'axis of evil.'"

    The ideal approach would, of course, be to destroy all nuclear weapons in the world and ban them for the future, with a very intrusive global inspection regime to verify compliance. A total ban is worth holding up as an ideal, and I think we must. But this approach seems unlikely to bear fruit over the next four years. So what then?

    A Nuclear-Free Middle East

    How about a nuclear-free Middle East? Could the US make that happen? We could if we had moral clarity -- the underpinning necessary to bring it about. Each time this proposal is raised, the Syrians, for example, clap their hands in feigned joyful anticipation, saying, "Of course such a pact would include Israel, right?" The issue is then dropped from all discussion by U.S. policymakers. Required: not only moral clarity but also what Thomas Aquinas labeled the precondition for all virtue, courage. In this context, courage would include a refusal to be intimidated by inevitable charges of anti-Semitism.

    The reality is that, except for Israel, the Middle East is nuclear free. But the discussion cannot stop there. It is not difficult to understand why the first leaders of Israel, with the Holocaust experience written indelibly on their hearts and minds, and feeling surrounded by perceived threats to the fledgling state's existence, wanted the bomb. And so, before the Syrians or Iranians, for example, get carried away with self-serving applause for the nuclear-free Middle East proposal, they will have to understand that for any such negotiation to succeed it must have as a concomitant aim the guarantee of an Israel able to live in peace and protect itself behind secure borders. That guarantee has got to be part of the deal.

    That the obstacles to any such agreement are formidable is no excuse not trying. But the approach would have to be new and everything would have to be on the table. Persisting in a state of denial about Israel's nuclear weapons is dangerously shortsighted; it does nothing but aggravate fears among the Arabs and create further incentive for them to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.

    A sensible approach would also have to include a willingness to engage the Iranians directly, attempt to understand their perspective, and discern what the United States and Israel could do to alleviate their concerns.

    Preaching to Iran and others about not acquiring nuclear weapons is, indeed, like the village drunk preaching sobriety -- the more so as our government keeps developing new genres of nuclear weapons and keeps looking the other way as Israel enhances its own nuclear arsenal. Not a pretty moral picture, that. Indeed, it reminds me of the Scripture passage about taking the plank out of your own eye before insisting that the speck be removed from another's.

    Lessons from the Past...Like Mutual Deterrence

    Has everyone forgotten that deterrence worked for some 40 years, while for most of those years the U.S. and the USSR had not by any means lost their lust for ever-enhanced nuclear weapons? The point is simply that, while engaging the Iranians bilaterally and searching for more imaginative nuclear-free proposals, the U.S. might adopt a more patient interim attitude regarding the striving of other nation states to acquire nuclear weapons -- bearing in mind that the Bush administration's policies of "preemption" and "regime change" themselves create powerful incentives for exactly such striving. As was the case with Iraq two years ago, there is no imminent Iranian strategic threat to Americans -- or, in reality, to anyone. Even if Iran acquired a nuclear capability, there is no reason to believe that it would risk a suicidal first strike on Israel. That, after all, is what mutual deterrence is all about; it works both ways.

    It is nonetheless clear that the Israelis' sense of insecurity -- however exaggerated it may seem to those of us thousands of miles away -- is not synthetic but real. The Sharon government appears to regard its nuclear monopoly in the region as the only effective "deterrence insurance" it can buy. It is determined to prevent its neighbors from acquiring the kind of capability that could infringe on the freedom it now enjoys to carry out military and other actions in the area. Government officials have said that Israel will not let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon; it would be folly to dismiss this as bravado. The Israelis have laid down a marker and mean to follow through -- unless the Bush administration assumes the attitude that "preemption" is an acceptable course for the United States but not for Israel. It seems unlikely that the neoconservatives would take that line. Rather

    "Israel Is Our Ally."

    Or so said our president before the cameras on February 17, 2005. But I didn't think we had a treaty of alliance with Israel; I don't remember the Senate approving one. Did I miss something?

    Clearly, the longstanding U.S.-Israeli friendship and the ideals we share dictate continuing support for Israel's defense and security. It is quite another thing, though, to suggest the existence of formal treaty obligations that our country does not have. To all intents and purposes, our policymakers -- from the president on down -- seem to speak and behave on the assumption that we do have such obligations toward Israel. A former colleague CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris , has put it this way: "The Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight the ropes binding the American Gulliver to Israel and its policies."

    An earlier American warned:

    "A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.... It also gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country." ( George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796 )

    In my view, our first president's words apply only too aptly to this administration's lash-up with the Sharon government. As responsible citizens we need to overcome our timidity about addressing this issue, lest our fellow Americans continue to be denied important information neglected or distorted in our domesticated media.

    Ray McGovern served as a CIA analyst for 27 years -- from the administration of John F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. During the early 1980s, he was one of the writers/editors of the President's Daily Brief and briefed it one-on-one to the president's most senior advisers. He also chaired National Intelligence Estimates. In January 2003, he and four former colleagues founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

    Copyright 2005 Ray McGovern

    [Dec 04, 2016] Obama has normalized the idea that Us presidents get to have secret large-scale killing programs at their disposal

    Dec 02, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    jfl | Nov 30, 2016 6:07:04 PM | 141

    @126 quentin, 'He is trying to divert us from---well, from Donald Trump.'

    Bingo. There is no 'there' there. Just an endless stream of incendiary statements to keep the man in the 'news'.

    More on "not a dime's worth of difference" ... not from the TNC msm.

    Obama extends global reach of US Special Operations death squads


    "Obama has normalized the idea that presidents get to have secret large-scale killing programs at their disposal."

    Obama was at pains, in his first post-election statement, to dismiss the bitter vituperation of the election campaign, declaring that the electoral struggle between the Democrats and Republicans was merely "an intramural scrimmage." This is profoundly true: both parties represent the same class, the American financial aristocracy, and its global interests, defended in the final analysis by death and destruction inflicted by the American military machine.

    ... what you get for your dime is that, for instance, Trump huffs and he puffs before he blows your door in, while with Obama and the TNC media, people can claim that they didn't know what hit them.

    I wonder how wsws.org missed the Pro-Porno-t(eam)'s 'initial set of sites that 'reliably echo Russian propaganda'? Probably didn't want to draw attention to it.

    [Dec 02, 2016] There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and global social democrats – a pseudo left.

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and global social democrats – a pseudo left. ..."
    Dec 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ejp November 29, 2016 at 7:41 am

    There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and global social democrats – a pseudo left.

    The countries where Marxist class analysis was supposedly adopted were not industrial countries where "alienation" had brought the "proletariat" to an inevitable communal mentality. The largest of these countries killed millions in order to industrialize rapidly – pretending the goal was to get to that state.

    The terms left and right may not be adequate for those of us who want an egalitarian society but also see many of the obstacles to egalitarianism as human failings that are independent of and not caused by ruling elites – although they frequently serve the interests of those elites.

    Bigotry. Identity centered thinking. Neither serves egalitarianism. But people cling to them. "I gotta look out for myself first." And so called left thinkers constantly pontificate about "benefits" and "privileges" that some class, sex, and race confer. Hmmm. The logic is that many of us struggling daily to keep our jobs and pay the bills must give up something in order to be fair, in order to build a better society. Given this thinking it is no surprise that so many have retreated into the illusion of safety offered by identity based thinking.

    Hopefully those of us who yearn for an egalitarian movement can develop and articulate an alternate view of reality.

    [Dec 02, 2016] Fascism or national-chauvinism is a tool purposefully utilized by the neoliberal center to divert economic discontent that might otherwise find a home on the left.

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the end of the day Trump isn't a real national-chauvinist, the compromise term I'll settle for here instead of you-know-what. He's a backbench member of the neoliberal ruling class, and a participant in the ongoing game in which two neoliberal electoral blocs make vague rhetorical overtures toward leftism and national-chauvinism while taking turns implementing different aspects of a thoroughly neoliberal governing agenda. ..."
    "... the greater danger this US election season was Democrats' decision to validate and legitimize the so-called "moderate Republicans" who for decades have been laying the groundwork for Trump and all the future Trumps to come. ..."
    "... In that vein, MisterMr touches on the crucial point that fascism or national-chauvinism is a tool purposefully utilized by the liberal center to divert economic discontent that might otherwise find a home on the left. ..."
    "... Politics is about priorities. You don't need a policy statement "dropping" someone to drop them. All you have to do is make them one of your lowest priorities. ..."
    Dec 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    Patrick 12.01.16 at 6:34 pm 88

    "Since the collapse of faith in neoliberalism following the Global Financial Crisis, the political right has been increasingly dominated by tribalism. "

    And the political left has been increasingly dominated by neoliberalism.

    WLGR 12.01.16 at 7:02 pm 89 ( 89 )

    faustusnotes, to blur the divide between the neoliberal center and the socialist left is to fall totally and completely into the trap. At the end of the day Trump isn't a real national-chauvinist, the compromise term I'll settle for here instead of you-know-what. He's a backbench member of the neoliberal ruling class, and a participant in the ongoing game in which two neoliberal electoral blocs make vague rhetorical overtures toward leftism and national-chauvinism while taking turns implementing different aspects of a thoroughly neoliberal governing agenda.

    The fact that all these "never Trump" Republicans are now clamoring for roles in what's predictably shaping up as a neoliberal administration with a national-chauvinist veneer should validate what the left has been saying all along: that Trump as a politician is not in any meaningful sense unprecedented, his rhetoric proceeds logically or even inevitably from the long (and bipartisan) tradition of national-chauvinist ideology in US electoral politics, and if anything the greater danger this US election season was Democrats' decision to validate and legitimize the so-called "moderate Republicans" who for decades have been laying the groundwork for Trump and all the future Trumps to come.

    ... ... ...

    In that vein, MisterMr touches on the crucial point that fascism or national-chauvinism is a tool purposefully utilized by the liberal center to divert economic discontent that might otherwise find a home on the left.

    ... ... ...

    Sebastian H 12.02.16 at 8:03 am 93 ( 93 )

    "WLGR, where is the democratic policy statement that they are "dropping" the interests of blue collar workers?"

    This isn't a clear way of analyzing the problem. Politics is about priorities. You don't need a policy statement "dropping" someone to drop them. All you have to do is make them one of your lowest priorities.

    [Nov 30, 2016] Why no New Hampshire recount? So good job Stein, you just destroyed the only credible left alternative

    So Clintons bought Jill Stein. Nice...
    www.moonofalabama.org
    bigmango | Nov 29, 2016 1:52:16 PM | 22

    @Jack Smith | Nov 29, 2016 12:50:24 PM | 10

    Correct. Many of the people (me included) who voted Green for obvious anti-Clinton reasons were also very suspicious of Trump. So Green made sense. But all of these people now feel utterly betrayed by Stein's greed or fronting for the Clintons. Why no New Hampshire recount? So good job Stein, you just destroyed the only credible left alternative while the Dems are mortally wounded on the their left flank and the Clinton mob are taking resumes for a new sheepdog to get the wayward Sandernistas back into their stinking little corner of Hillary's big tent where they belong.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 29, 2016 6:03:01 PM | 44

    @32 follow-up

    ...This recount is serious business. The Greens don't have the organizational aptitude or money to have accomplished what needed to be done within days. That indicates that Democrats/Clinton cronies are behind this. And the Clinton press corps have been engaged as well.

    Noirette | Nov 30, 2016 12:58:53 PM | 115

    Now Stein has allowed the dems to buy her ass, one has to wonder - why? Debs is dead at 60.

    Because carreerism, because her position was always to get ahead in a major party (not Repub. obviously), to capitalise on her popularity.

    Many Greens are like that all over the OECD world. They get 'splinter support', often quite high in votes, using seductive discourse, to then join the Top Brass promoting "renewables" using all kinds of inclusive and enviro-friendly, vague but marginal, leftist discourse, avoiding the 'economy' and 'real numbers' and for that matter deeper politics e.g. "sustainable communities" , "sharing", "grass roots initiatives", "husbanding energy", "respecting traditional ways of life", "integrating people", "developping solar", "promoting electric cars" and forbidding plastic bags, etc. etc.

    The powerful party apparatus integrates them as a 'voice' for whatever is the gout-du-jour memes and everyone, including the dominant energy conglomerates are all happy. The person earns potentially well a lot.

    Sorry to be so cynical and negative but I have seen Greens do this time and time again.

    I don't hate or dislike Jill Stein. Just, that is the general trend and from what I have seen (maybe superficial) she is not different from the mold.

    The ways of the world and Nature bats last...

    [Nov 30, 2016] For those interested, here is a short vid on the EC.

    www.moonofalabama.org

    h | Nov 30, 2016 10:16:00 AM | 106

    "Every four years it seems U.S. voters need to be reminded how the Electoral College works and how it serves the Republic. Prager University Foundation provides this short video on what the Electoral College is, its purpose, how it works and why America's Founders made it a bedrock in U.S. Presidential elections"...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU

    [Nov 30, 2016] How the Global Left Destroyed Itself

    Notable quotes:
    "... Each of these was based fundamentally upon the principle that language was the key to all power. That is, that language was not a tool that described reality but the power that created it, and s/he who controlled language controlled everything through the shaping of "discourse", as opposed to the objective existence of any truth at all ..."
    "... When you globalise capital, you globalise labour. That meant jobs shifting from expensive markets to cheap. Before long the incomes of those swimming in the stream of global capital began to seriously outstrip the incomes of those trapped in old and withering Western labour markets. As a result, inflation in those markets also began to fall and so did interest rates. Thus asset prices took off as Western nation labour markets got hollowed out, and standard of living inequality widened much more quickly as a new landed aristocracy developed. ..."
    "... With a Republican Party on its knees, Obama was positioned to restore the kind of New Deal rules that global capitalism enjoyed under Franklin D. Roosevelt. ..."
    "... But instead he opted to patch up financialised capitalism. The banks were bailed out and the bonus culture returned. Yes, there were some new rules but they were weak. There was no seizing of the agenda. No imprisonments of the guilty. The US Department of Justice is still issuing $14bn fines to banks involved yet still today there is no justice. Think about that a minute. How can a crime be worthy of a $14bn fine but no prison time?!? ..."
    "... Alas, for all of his efforts to restore Wall Street, Obama provided no reset for Main Street economics to restore the fortunes of the US lower classes. Sure Obama fought a hostile Capitol but, let's face it, he had other priorities. ..."
    "... This comment is a perfect example of the author's (and Adolf Reed's) point: that the so-called "Left" is so bogged down in issues of language that it has completely lost sight of class politics. ..."
    "... It's why Trump won. He was a Viking swinging an ax at nuanced hair-splitters. It was inelegant and ugly, but effective. We will find out if the hair-splitters win again in their inner circle with the Democratic Minority Leader vote. I suspect they missed the point of the election and will vote Pelosi back in, thereby missing the chance for significant gains in the mid-term elections. ..."
    "... One of the great triumphs of Those Who Continue To Be Our Rulers has been the infiltration and cooptation of 'the left', hand in hand with the 'dumbing down' of the last 30+ years so few people really understand what is going on. ..."
    "... That the Global Left appears to be intellectually weak regarding identity politics and "political correctness" vs. class politics, there is no doubt. But to skim over Global Corporate leverage of this attitude seems wrong to me. The right has also embraced identity politics in order to keep the 90% fully divided in order to justify it's continual economic rape of both human and physical ecology. ..."
    "... Every "identity politics" charge starts here, with one group wanting a more equitable social order and the other group defending the existing power structure. Identity politics is adjusting the social order and rattling the power structure, which is why it is so effective. ..."
    "... I think it can be effectively argued that Trump voters in PA, WI, OH, MI chose to rattle the power structure and you could think of that as identity politics as well. ..."
    "... On the contrary, the (Neo-)Liberal establishment uses identity politics to co-opt and neutralise the left. It keeps them occupied without threatening the real power structure in the least. ..."
    "... Hillary (Neoliberal establishment) has many supporters who think of themselves as 'left' or 'liberal'. The Democratic Party leadership is neither 'left' nor 'liberal'. It keeps the votes and the love of the 'liberals' by talking up harmless 'liberal' identity politics and soft peddling the Liberal power politics which they are really about. ..."
    "... Just from historical perspective, the right wing had more money to forward its agenda and an OCD like affliction [biblical] to drive simple memes relentlessly via its increasing private ownership of education and media. Thereby creating an institutional network over time to gain dominate market share in crafting the social narrative. Bloodly hell anyone remember Bush Jr Christian crusade after politicizing religion to get elected and the ramifications – neocon – R2P thingy . ..."
    "... Its not hard once neoliberalism became dominate in the 70s [wages and productivity diverged] the proceeds have gone to the top and everyone else got credit IOUs based mostly on asset inflation via the Casino or RE [home and IP]. ..."
    "... Foucault in particular advanced a greatly expanded wariness regarding the use of power. It was not just that left politics could only lead to ossified Soviet Marxism or the dogmatic petty despotism of the left splinters. Institutions in general mapped out social practices and attendant identities to impose on the individual. His position tended to promote a distrust not only of "grand narratives" but of organizational bonds as such. As far as I can tell, the idea of people joining together to form an institution that would enhance their social power as well as allow them to become personally empowered/enhanced was something of a categorial impossibility. ..."
    "... There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and global social democrats – a pseudo left. The countries where Marxist class analysis was supposedly adopted were not industrial countries where "alienation" had brought the "proletariat" to an inevitable communal mentality. The largest of these countries killed millions in order to industrialize rapidly – pretending the goal was to get to that state. ..."
    "... Bigotry. Identity centered thinking. Neither serves egalitarianism. But people cling to them. "I gotta look out for myself first." And so called left thinkers constantly pontificate about "benefits" and "privileges" that some class, sex, and race confer. Hmmm. The logic is that many of us struggling daily to keep our jobs and pay the bills must give up something in order to be fair, in order to build a better society. Given this thinking it is no surprise that so many have retreated into the illusion of safety offered by identity based thinking. ..."
    "... "Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and rebranded every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself back to new emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated itself instead to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference that capitalism turned into a cultural supermarket." ..."
    "... But why does the Dem estab embrace the conservative neoliberal agenda? The Dem estab are smart people, can think on multiple levels, are not limited in scope, are not racist. So, why then does the Dem estab accept and promote the conservative GOP neoliberal economic agenda? ..."
    "... Because the Dem estab isn't very smart. ..."
    "... Conservative is: private property, capitalism, limited taxes and transfer payments plus national security and religion. ..."
    "... Liberalism is not in opposition to any of that. Identity politics arose at the same time the Ds were purging the reds (socialists and communists) from their party. Liberalism/progressivism is an ameliorating position of conservatism (progressive support of labor unions to work within a private property/corporatist structure not to eliminate the system and replace it with public/employee ownership) Not too far, too fast, maybe toss out a few more crumbs. ..."
    "... There is a foundation for identity politics on the liberal-left (see what I did there?) – it rests in the sense of moral superiority of just this liberal-left, which superiority is then patronisingly spread all over the social world – until it meets those who deny the moral superiority claim, whereupon it becomes murderous (in, of course, the name of humanity and humanitarianism). ..."
    "... This is why the 1% continue to prevail over the 99%. If the 1% wasn't so incompetent this would continue forever. They know how to divide, conquer and rule the 99%, however they don't know how to run a society in a sustainable way. ..."
    "... But I will say one thing for the Right over the Left: they have taken the initiative and are now the sole force for change. Granted, supporting a carnival barker for president is an act of desperation. Nevertheless he was the only option for change and the Right took it. Perhaps the Left offering little to nothing in the way of change reflects its lack of desperation. ..."
    "... Excellent comment, EoinW! You just summed up years of content and commentary on this site. Obviously as the "Left" continues to defend the status quo as you describe it stops being "Left" in any meaningful way anymore. ..."
    "... The Koch brothers are economically to the very right. They are socially to the left, perhaps even more socially liberal than many of your liberal friends. No joke. There's a point here, if I can figure out what it is. ..."
    "... Trump isn't Right or Left. Trump is a can of gasoline and a match. His voters weren't voting for a Left or Right agenda. They were voting for a battering ram. That is why he got a pass on racist, misogynist, fascist statements that would have killed any other candidate. ..."
    "... PC is a parody of the 20th Century reform movements. ..."
    "... In the 70's the feminists worked against legal disabilities written into law. Since the Depression, the unions fought corporate management create a livable relationship between management and labor. Real struggles, real problems, real people. ..."
    "... What's interesting is that in an article pushing class over identity. he never tried to set his class ethos in order to convince working class people or the bourgeoisie why they should listen to him. ..."
    "... "This site, along with the MSM, has flown way off the handle since the election loss." ..."
    "... "Our nation's problems can be remedied with one dramatic change" ..."
    "... Bringing C level pay packages at major corporations in line with the real contributions of the recipients would be great. How would we do it? With laws or regulations or executive orders banning the federal government from doing business with any firm that failed to comply with some basic guidelines? ..."
    "... It's an academic point right now in any event. The Trump administration – working together with the Ryan House – is not going to make legislation or sign executive orders to do anything remotely like this. Which is one of the many reasons why bashing Democrats has taken off here I suspect. This election was theirs to lose, and they did everything in their power to toss it. ..."
    "... You do realize that the wealthy are both part of and connected to the legislative branch of every single country on this planet right? As long as that remains so (as it has since the dawn of humans) then good luck trying to cap any sort of hording behavior of the wealthy. ..."
    "... The post-structural revolution transpired [in the U.S.] before and during the end of the Cold War just as the collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison detre. ..."
    "... Foucault was not entirely sympathetic to the Left, at least the unions, but he was trying to articulate a politics that was just as much about liberation from capitalism as classic Marxism. To that end, discourse analysis was the means to discovering those subtle articulations of power in human relations, not an end in itself as it was for, say, Barthes. ..."
    "... Imagine inequality plotted on two axes. Inequality between genders, races and cultures is what liberals have been concentrating on. This is the x-axis and the focus of identity politics and the liberal left. ..."
    "... On the y-axis we have inequality from top to bottom. 2014 – "85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world" 2016– "Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population" ..."
    "... The neoliberal view L As long as everyone, from all genders, races and cultures, is visiting the same food bank this is equality. ..."
    "... You can see why liberals love identity politics. ..."
    "... labor is being co-opted by the right: the Republican Workers Party I think this rhymes with Fascist. But then, in a world soon to be literally scrambling for high ground and rebuilding housing for 50 million people the time honored "worker" might actually have a renaissance. ..."
    "... But the simple act of writing checks cost me n-o-t-h-i-n-g in terms of time, energy, education, physical or mental exertion. ..."
    "... A much more nuanced discussion of the primacy of identity politics on the Left in Britain and the US is http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/29/prospects-for-an-alt-left/ "Prospects for an Alt-Left," November 29, 2016, by Elliot Murphy, who teaches in the Division of Psychology and Language Sciences at University College, London. ..."
    "... The electorate is angry (true liberals at the Dems, voters in select electoral states at "everything"). If democracy is messy, then that's what we've got; a mess. Unfortunately, it's coming at the absolutely wrong time (Climate Change, lethal policing, financial elite impunity). ..."
    "... But certainly the fall of the USSR was the thing that forced capitalism's hand. At that point capitalism had no choice but to step up and prove that it could really bring a better life to the world. ..."
    "... A Minsky event of biblical proportions soon followed (it only took about 10 years!) and now all is devastation and nobody has clue. But the 1990 effort could have been in earnest. Capitalists mean well but they are always in denial about the inequality they create which finally started a chain reaction in "identity politics" as reactions to the stress of economic competition bounced around in every society like a pinball machine. A tedious and insufferable game which seems to have culminated in Hillary the Relentless. I won't say capitalism is idiotic. But something is. ..."
    "... Left and Right only really make sense in the context of the distribution of power and wealth, and only when there is a difference between them about that distribution. This was historically the case for more than 150 years after the French Revolution. By the mid-1960s, there was a sense that the Left was winning, and would continue to win. Progressive taxation, zero unemployment, little real poverty by today's standards, free education and healthcare . and many influential political figures (Tony Crosland for example) saw the major task of the future as deciding where the fruits of economic growth could be most justly applied. ..."
    "... So until class-based politics and struggles over power and money re-start (if they ever do) I respectfully suggest that "Left" and "Right" be retired as terms that no longer have any meaning. ..."
    "... powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone weaker than you, which is why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force, with a vested interest in the problems it has chosen to identify ..."
    "... Identity politics is a disaster ongoing for the Democratic Party, for reasons they seem to have overlooked. First, the additional identity group is white. We already see this in the South, where 90% of the white population in many states votes Republican. ..."
    "... When that spreads to the rest of the country, there will be a permanent Republican majority until the Republicans create a new major disaster. ..."
    "... So soon we forget the Battle of Seattle. The Left has been opposed to globalization, deregulation, etc., all along. Partly he's talking about an academic pseudo-left, partly confusing the left with the Democrats and other "center-left," captured parties. ..."
    "... I mean, Barack Obama was our first black president, but most blacks didn't do very well. George W. Bush was our first retard president, and most people with cognitive handicaps didn't do very well. ..."
    "... But we can boil it all down to something even simpler and more primal: divide and conquer. ..."
    Nov 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Yves here. This piece gives a useful, real-world perspective on the issues discussed in a seminal Adolph Reed article . Key section:

    race politics is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature. An integral element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do. As I have argued, following Walter Michaels and others, within that moral economy a society in which 1% of the population controlled 90% of the resources could be just, provided that roughly 12% of the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were LGBT people. It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that expresses more unambiguously the social position of people who consider themselves candidates for inclusion in, or at least significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class.

    This perspective may help explain why, the more aggressively and openly capitalist class power destroys and marketizes every shred of social protection working people of all races, genders, and sexual orientations have fought for and won over the last century, the louder and more insistent are the demands from the identitarian left that we focus our attention on statistical disparities and episodic outrages that "prove" that the crucial injustices in the society should be understood in the language of ascriptive identity.

    My take on this issue is that the neoliberal use of identity politics continue and extends the cultural inculcation of individuals seeing themselves engaging with other in one-to-one transactions (commerce, struggles over power and status) and has the effect of diverting their focus and energy on seeing themselves as members of groups with common interests and operating that way, and in particular, of seeing the role of money and property, which are social constructs, in power dynamics.

    By David Llewellyn-Smith, founding publisher and former editor-in-chief of The Diplomat magazine, now the Asia Pacific's leading geo-politics website. Originally posted at MacroBusiness

    Let's begin this little tale with a personal anecdote. Back in 1990 I met and fell in love with a bisexual, African American ballerina. She was studying Liberal Arts at US Ivy League Smith College at the time (which Aussies may recall was being run by our Jill Kerr Conway back then). So I moved in with my dancing beauty and we lived happily on her old man's purse for a year.

    I was fortunate to arrive at Smith during a period of intellectual tumult. It was the early years of the US political correctness revolution when the academy was writhing through a post-structuralist shift. Traditional dialectical history was being supplanted by a new suite of studies based around truth as "discourse". Driven by the French post-modern thinkers of the 70s and 80s, the US academy was adopting and adapting the ideas Foucault, Derrida and Barthe to a variety of civil rights movements that spawned gender and racial studies.

    Each of these was based fundamentally upon the principle that language was the key to all power. That is, that language was not a tool that described reality but the power that created it, and s/he who controlled language controlled everything through the shaping of "discourse", as opposed to the objective existence of any truth at all .

    ... ... ...

    The post-structural revolution transpired before and during the end of the Cold War just as the collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison detre. But its social justice impulse didn't die, it turned inwards from a notion of the historic inevitability of the decline of capitalism and the rise of oppressed classes, towards the liberation of oppressed minorities within capitalism, empowered by control over the language that defined who they were.

    Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and rebranded every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself back to new emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated itself instead to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference that capitalism turned into a cultural supermarket.

    As the Left turned inwards, capitalism turned outwards and went truly, madly global, lifting previously isolated nations into a single planet-wide market, pretty much all of it revolving around Americana replete with its identity-branded products.

    But, of course, this came at a cost. When you globalise capital, you globalise labour. That meant jobs shifting from expensive markets to cheap. Before long the incomes of those swimming in the stream of global capital began to seriously outstrip the incomes of those trapped in old and withering Western labour markets. As a result, inflation in those markets also began to fall and so did interest rates. Thus asset prices took off as Western nation labour markets got hollowed out, and standard of living inequality widened much more quickly as a new landed aristocracy developed.

    Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased. Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some losers in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence. Indeed, it went further. So satisfied was it with human progress, and so satisfied with its own role in producing it, that it turned the power of language that it held most dear back upon those that opposed the new order. Those losers in Western labour markets that dared complain or fight back against the free movement of capital and labour were labelled and marginalised as "racist", "xenophobic" and "sexist".

    This great confluence of forces reached its apogee in the Global Financial Crisis when a ribaldly treasonous Wall St destroyed the American financial system just as America's first ever African American President, Barack Obama, was elected . One might have expected this convergence to result in a revival of some class politics. Obama ran on a platform of "hope and change" very much cultured in the vein of seventies art and inherited a global capitalism that had just openly ravaged its most celebrated host nation.

    But alas, it was just a bit of "retro". With a Republican Party on its knees, Obama was positioned to restore the kind of New Deal rules that global capitalism enjoyed under Franklin D. Roosevelt. A gobalisation like the one promised in the brochures, that benefited the majority via competition and productivity gains, driven by trade and meritocracy, with counter-balanced private risk and public equity.

    But instead he opted to patch up financialised capitalism. The banks were bailed out and the bonus culture returned. Yes, there were some new rules but they were weak. There was no seizing of the agenda. No imprisonments of the guilty. The US Department of Justice is still issuing $14bn fines to banks involved yet still today there is no justice. Think about that a minute. How can a crime be worthy of a $14bn fine but no prison time?!?

    Alas, for all of his efforts to restore Wall Street, Obama provided no reset for Main Street economics to restore the fortunes of the US lower classes. Sure Obama fought a hostile Capitol but, let's face it, he had other priorities. And so the US working and middle classes, as well as those worldwide, were sold another pup. Now more than ever, if they said say so they were quickly shut down as "racist", "xenophobic", or "sexist".

    Thus it came to pass that the global Left somehow did a complete back-flip and positioned itself directly behind the same unreconstructed global capitalism that was still sucking the life from the lower classes that it always had. Only now it was doing so with explicit public backing and with an abandon it had not enjoyed since the roaring twenties.

    Which brings us back to today. And we wonder how it is that an abuse-spouting guy like Donald Trump can succeed Barack Obama. Trump is a member of the very same "trickle down" capitalist class that ripped the income from US households. But he is smart enough, smarter than the Left at least, to know that the decades long rage of the middle and working classes is a formidable political force and has tapped it spectacularly to rise to power.

    And, he has done more. He has also recognised that the Left's obsession with post-structural identity politics has totally paralysed it. It is so traumatised and pre-occupied by his mis-use of the language of power – the "racist", "sexist" and "xenophobic" comments – that it is further wedging itself from its natural constituents every day.

    Don't get me wrong, I am very doubtful that Trump will succeed with his proposed policies but he has at least mentioned the elephant in the room, making the American worker visible again.

    Returning to that innocent Aussie boy and his wild romp at Smith College, I might ask what he would have made of all of this. None of the above should be taken as a repudiation of the experience of racism or sexism. Indeed, the one thing I took away from Smith College over my lifetime was an understanding at just how scarred by slavery are the generations of African Americans that lived it and today inherit its memory (as well as other persecuted). I felt terribly inadequate before that pain then and I remain so today.

    But, if the global Left is to have any meaning in the future of the world, and I would argue that the global Right will destroy us all if it doesn't, then it must get beyond post-structural paralysis and go back to the future of fighting not just for social justice issues but for equity based upon class. Empowerment is not just about language, it's about capital, who's got it, who hasn't and what role government plays between them.

    All sex is not rape, but most poverty is.

    Big River Bandido November 29, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    This comment is a perfect example of the author's (and Adolf Reed's) point: that the so-called "Left" is so bogged down in issues of language that it has completely lost sight of class politics. Essentially, the comment vividly displays the exact methodology the author lambasts in the piece - it hijacks the discussion about an economic issue, attempts to turn it into a mere distraction about semantics, and in the end contributes absolutely nothing of substance to the "discourse".

    rd November 29, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    It's why Trump won. He was a Viking swinging an ax at nuanced hair-splitters. It was inelegant and ugly, but effective. We will find out if the hair-splitters win again in their inner circle with the Democratic Minority Leader vote. I suspect they missed the point of the election and will vote Pelosi back in, thereby missing the chance for significant gains in the mid-term elections.

    Dave Patterson November 29, 2016 at 7:00 am

    One of the great triumphs of Those Who Continue To Be Our Rulers has been the infiltration and cooptation of 'the left', hand in hand with the 'dumbing down' of the last 30+ years so few people really understand what is going on.

    Explained in more detail here if anyone interested in some truly 'out of the box' perspectives – It's not 'the left' trying to take over the world and shut down free speech and all that other bad stuff – it's 'the right'!! http://tinyurl.com/h4h2kay .

    JCC November 29, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Although I haven't yet read the article you posted, my "feeling" as I read this was that the author inferred that the right was in the mix somehow, but it was primarily the fault of the left.

    That the Global Left appears to be intellectually weak regarding identity politics and "political correctness" vs. class politics, there is no doubt. But to skim over Global Corporate leverage of this attitude seems wrong to me. The right has also embraced identity politics in order to keep the 90% fully divided in order to justify it's continual economic rape of both human and physical ecology.

    anonymouse November 29, 2016 at 10:15 am

    >The right has also embraced identity politics

    So many people critiquing the Dems' use of identity politics seem to miss this point.

    Art Eclectica November 29, 2016 at 11:23 am

    Exactly. My guess is that this plays out somewhat like this:

    Dems: This group _____ should be free to have _____ civil right.

    Reps: NO. We are a society built on _____ tradition, no need to change that because it upends our patriarchal, Christian, Caucasian power structure.

    Every "identity politics" charge starts here, with one group wanting a more equitable social order and the other group defending the existing power structure. Identity politics is adjusting the social order and rattling the power structure, which is why it is so effective.

    I think it can be effectively argued that Trump voters in PA, WI, OH, MI chose to rattle the power structure and you could think of that as identity politics as well.

    Grebo November 29, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    Identity politics is adjusting the social order and rattling the power structure, which is why it is so effective.

    On the contrary, the (Neo-)Liberal establishment uses identity politics to co-opt and neutralise the left. It keeps them occupied without threatening the real power structure in the least.

    jrs November 29, 2016 at 5:57 pm

    When have they ever done any such thing? Vote for Hillary because she's a woman isn't even any kind of politics it's more like marketing branding. It's the real thing. Taste great, less filling. I'm loving it.

    Grebo November 29, 2016 at 8:04 pm

    Hillary (Neoliberal establishment) has many supporters who think of themselves as 'left' or 'liberal'. The Democratic Party leadership is neither 'left' nor 'liberal'. It keeps the votes and the love of the 'liberals' by talking up harmless 'liberal' identity politics and soft peddling the Liberal power politics which they are really about.

    They exploit the happy historical accident of the coincidence of names. The Liberal ideology was so called because it was slightly less right-wing than the Feudalism it displaced. In today's terms however, it is not very liberal, and Neoliberalism is even less so.

    Paul Art November 29, 2016 at 7:14 am

    If I was in charge of the DNC and wanted to commission a very cleverly written piece to exonerate the DLC and the New Democrats from the 30 odd years of corruption and self-aggrandizement they indulged in and laughed all the way to the Bank then I would definitely give this chap a call. I mean, where do we start? No attempt at learning the history of neoliberalism, no attempt at any serious research about how and why it fastened itself into the brains of people like Tony Coelho and Al From, nothing, zilch. If someone who did not know the history of the DLC read this piece, they would walk away thinking, 'wow, it was all happenstance, it all just happened, no one deliberately set off this run away train'. Sometime in the 90s the 'Left' decided to just pursue identity politics. Amazing. I would ask the Author to start with the Powell memo and then make an investigation as to why the Democrats then and the DLC later decided to merely sit on their hands when all the forces the Powell memo unleashed proceeded to wreak their havoc in every established institution of the Left, principally the Universities which had always been the bastion of the Progressives. That might be a good starting point.

    skippy November 29, 2016 at 7:38 am

    My response at MB

    Sigh . the left was marginalized and relentlessly hunted down by the right [grab bag of corporatists, free marketers, neocons, evangelicals, and a whole cornucopia of wing nut ideologists (file under creative class gig writers)].

    Just from historical perspective, the right wing had more money to forward its agenda and an OCD like affliction [biblical] to drive simple memes relentlessly via its increasing private ownership of education and media. Thereby creating an institutional network over time to gain dominate market share in crafting the social narrative. Bloodly hell anyone remember Bush Jr Christian crusade after politicizing religion to get elected and the ramifications – neocon – R2P thingy .

    Its not hard once neoliberalism became dominate in the 70s [wages and productivity diverged] the proceeds have gone to the top and everyone else got credit IOUs based mostly on asset inflation via the Casino or RE [home and IP].

    ...

    flora November 29, 2016 at 8:12 am

    Yes, it's interesting that the academic "left" (aka liberals), who so prize language to accurately, and to the finest degree distinguish 'this' from 'that', have avoided addressing the difference between 'left' and 'liberal' and are content to leave the two terms interchangable.

    JTFaraday November 29, 2016 at 11:28 am

    The reason for that is that when academic leftists attempted a more in depth critique, of one sort or another, of the actually existing historical liberal welfare state, the liberals threw the "New Deal-under-siege" attack at them and attempted to shut them down.

    There is very little left perspective in public. All this whining about identity politics is not left either. It is reactionary. I can think of plenty of old labor left academics who have done a much better job of wrapping their minds around why sex, gender, and race matter with respect to all matters economic than this incessant childish whine. The "let me make you feel more comfortable" denialism of Uncle Tom Reed.

    Right now, I would say that these reactionaries don't want to hear from the academic left any more than New Deal liberals did. Not going to stop them from blaming them for all their problems though.

    Maybe people should shoulder their own failures for a change. As for the Trumpertantrums, I am totally not having them.

    hemeantwell November 29, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    Since the writer led off talking about an academic setting, it would be useful to flesh out a bit more how trends in academic theoretical discussion in the 70s and 80s reflected and reinforced what was going on politically. He refers to postructuralism, which was certainly involved, but doesn't give enough emphasis to how deliberately poststructuralists - and here I'm lumping together writers like Lyotard, Foucault, and Deleuze and Guattari - were all reacting to the failure of French Maoism and Trotskyism to, as far as they were concerned, provide a satisfactory alternative to Soviet Marxism.

    As groups espousing those position flailed about in the 70s, the drive to maintain hope in revolutionary prospects in the midst of macroeconomic stabilization and union reconciliation to capitalism frequently brought out the worst sectarian tendencies. While writers like Andre Gorz bid adieu to the proletariat as an agent of change and tried to tread water as social democratic reformists, the poststructuralists disjoined the critique of power from class analysis.

    Foucault in particular advanced a greatly expanded wariness regarding the use of power. It was not just that left politics could only lead to ossified Soviet Marxism or the dogmatic petty despotism of the left splinters. Institutions in general mapped out social practices and attendant identities to impose on the individual. His position tended to promote a distrust not only of "grand narratives" but of organizational bonds as such. As far as I can tell, the idea of people joining together to form an institution that would enhance their social power as well as allow them to become personally empowered/enhanced was something of a categorial impossibility.

    When imported to US academia, traditionally much more disengaged from organized politics than their European counterparts, these tendencies flourished. Aside from being socially cut off from increasingly anodyne political organizations, poststructuralists in the US often had backgrounds with little orientation to history or social science research addressing class relations. To them the experience of a much more immediate and palpable form of oppression through the use of language offered an immediate critical target. This dovetailed perfectly with the legalistic use of state power to end discrimination against various groups, A European disillusionment with class politics helped to fortify an American evasion or ignorance of it.

    ejp November 29, 2016 at 7:41 am

    There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and global social democrats – a pseudo left. The countries where Marxist class analysis was supposedly adopted were not industrial countries where "alienation" had brought the "proletariat" to an inevitable communal mentality. The largest of these countries killed millions in order to industrialize rapidly – pretending the goal was to get to that state.

    The terms left and right may not be adequate for those of us who want an egalitarian society but also see many of the obstacles to egalitarianism as human failings that are independent of and not caused by ruling elites – although they frequently serve the interests of those elites.

    Bigotry. Identity centered thinking. Neither serves egalitarianism. But people cling to them. "I gotta look out for myself first." And so called left thinkers constantly pontificate about "benefits" and "privileges" that some class, sex, and race confer. Hmmm. The logic is that many of us struggling daily to keep our jobs and pay the bills must give up something in order to be fair, in order to build a better society. Given this thinking it is no surprise that so many have retreated into the illusion of safety offered by identity based thinking.

    Hopefully those of us who yearn for an egalitarian movement can develop and articulate an alternate view of reality.

    flora November 29, 2016 at 8:04 am

    "Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and rebranded every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself back to new emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated itself instead to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference that capitalism turned into a cultural supermarket."


    "Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased. Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some losers in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence. Indeed, it went further. So satisfied was it with human progress, and so satisfied with its own role in producing it, that it turned the power of language that it held most dear back upon those that opposed the new order. Those losers in Western labour markets that dared complain or fight back against the free movement of capital and labour were labelled and marginalised as "racist", "xenophobic" and "sexist". "

    Great post. Thanks.

    JTFaraday November 29, 2016 at 11:40 am

    That is not it at all. The real reason is the right wing played white identity politics starting with the southern strategy, and those running into the waiting arms of Trump today, took the poisoned bait. Enter Bill Clinton.

    People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions, and stop blaming the academics and the leftists and the wimmins and the N-ers.

    JTFaraday November 29, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    And THAT is why "race" has a primary place in American political discourse, however maladaptive a response today's D-Party partisans may present.

    Conservatives put over their neoliberal agenda BECAUSE RACISM.

    flora November 29, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    But why does the Dem estab embrace the conservative neoliberal agenda? The Dem estab are smart people, can think on multiple levels, are not limited in scope, are not racist. So, why then does the Dem estab accept and promote the conservative GOP neoliberal economic agenda?

    UserFriendly November 29, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    Because the Dem estab isn't very smart. I doubt more than half of them could define neoliberalism much less describe how it has destroyed the country. They are mostly motivated by the identity politics aspects.

    Propertius November 29, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Because the Dem estab isn't very smart.

    No, but they make up for it with arrogance.

    Waldenpond November 29, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    Conservative is: private property, capitalism, limited taxes and transfer payments plus national security and religion.

    Liberalism is not in opposition to any of that. Identity politics arose at the same time the Ds were purging the reds (socialists and communists) from their party. Liberalism/progressivism is an ameliorating position of conservatism (progressive support of labor unions to work within a private property/corporatist structure not to eliminate the system and replace it with public/employee ownership) Not too far, too fast, maybe toss out a few more crumbs.

    witters November 29, 2016 at 6:00 pm

    There is a foundation for identity politics on the liberal-left (see what I did there?) – it rests in the sense of moral superiority of just this liberal-left, which superiority is then patronisingly spread all over the social world – until it meets those who deny the moral superiority claim, whereupon it becomes murderous (in, of course, the name of humanity and humanitarianism).

    EoinW November 29, 2016 at 8:09 am

    We live in a society where no one gets what they want. The Left sees the standard of living fall and is powerless to stop it. The Right see the culture war lost 25 years ago and can't even offer a public protest, let alone move things in a conservative direction. Instead we get the agenda of the political Left to sell out at every opportunity. Plus we get the agenda of the political Right of endless war and endless security state. Eventually the political Left and Right merge and support the exact same things. Now when will the real Left and Right recognize their true enemy and join forces against it? This is why the 1% continue to prevail over the 99%. If the 1% wasn't so incompetent this would continue forever. They know how to divide, conquer and rule the 99%, however they don't know how to run a society in a sustainable way.

    But I will say one thing for the Right over the Left: they have taken the initiative and are now the sole force for change. Granted, supporting a carnival barker for president is an act of desperation. Nevertheless he was the only option for change and the Right took it. Perhaps the Left offering little to nothing in the way of change reflects its lack of desperation.

    After all, the Left won the culture war and continues to push its agenda to extremes(even though such extremes will guarantee a back lash that will send people running back to their closets to hide). The Left still has the MSM media on its side when it comes to cultural issues. Thus the Left is satisfied with the status quo, with gorging themselves on the crumbs which fall from the 1% table. Consequently, you not only have a political Left that has sold out, you also have the rest of the Left content to accept that sell out so long as they get their symbolic victories over their ancient enemy – the Right.

    Until the Left recognize its true enemy, the fight will only come from the Right. During that process more people will filter from the Left to the Right as the latter will offer the only hope for change.

    integer November 29, 2016 at 8:27 am

    I think left and right as political shorthand is too limited. Perhaps the NC commentariat could define up and down versions of each of these political philosophies (ie. left and right) and start to take control of the framing. Hence we would have up-left, down-left, up-right, and down-right. I would suggest that up and down could relate to environmental viewpoints.

    Just a thought that I haven't given much thought, but it would be funny (to me at least) to be able to quantify one's political stance in terms of radians.

    Minnie Mouse November 29, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    Left and Right are two wings on the same bird and the bird is a turkey. Where is the hard perpendicular?

    Ed November 29, 2016 at 8:28 am

    Excellent comment, EoinW! You just summed up years of content and commentary on this site. Obviously as the "Left" continues to defend the status quo as you describe it stops being "Left" in any meaningful way anymore.

    Katharine November 29, 2016 at 9:19 am

    This seems to assume that change is an intrinsic good, so that change produced by the right will necessarily be improvement. Unfortunately, change for the worse is probably more likely than change for the better under this regime. Equally unfortunately, we may have reached the point where that is the only thing that will make people reconsider what constitutes a just society and how to achieve it. In any case, this is where we are now.

    flora November 29, 2016 at 10:06 am

    The economic left sees its standard of living fall. The social right sees its cultural verities fall.

    The Koch brothers are economically to the very right. They are socially to the left, perhaps even more socially liberal than many of your liberal friends. No joke. There's a point here, if I can figure out what it is.

    susan the other November 29, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    Gary Johnson claims the libertarian mantra is what I used to think was the liberal mantra: economically conservative, socially liberal.

    flora November 29, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    One of Koch brothers, David Koch, was the 1980 Libertarian Party's VP candidate.

    Karl November 29, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    "He [Trump] was the only option for change and the Right took it."

    You forget Bernie. The Left tried, and Bernie bowed out, not wanting to be another "Nader" spoiler. Now, for 2020, the Left thinks it's the "their turn."

    The problem is, the Left tends to blow it too (e.g. McGovern in 1972), in part because their "language" also exudes power and tends to alienate other, more moderate, parts of the coalition with arcane (and rather elitist) arguments from Derrida et. al.

    Lambert Strether November 29, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    > not wanting to be another "Nader" spoiler.

    And a good thing, too.

    rd November 29, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Trump isn't Right or Left. Trump is a can of gasoline and a match. His voters weren't voting for a Left or Right agenda. They were voting for a battering ram. That is why he got a pass on racist, misogynist, fascist statements that would have killed any other candidate.

    Trump is starting out with some rallies in the near-future. The Republicans in Congress think they are going to play patty-cake on policy to push the Koch Brothers agenda. We are going to see a populist who promised jobs duke it out publicly with small government austerity deficit cutters. It will be interesting to see what happens when he calls out Republican Congressmen standing in the way of his agenda by name.

    scraping_by November 29, 2016 at 8:48 am

    PC is a parody of the 20th Century reform movements. I n the 60's the Black churches and the labor unions fought Jim Crow laws and explicit institutional discrimination. In the 70's the feminists worked against legal disabilities written into law. Since the Depression, the unions fought corporate management create a livable relationship between management and labor. Real struggles, real problems, real people.

    [Tinfoil hat on)]

    At the same time the reformist subset was losing themselves in style points, being 'nice', and passive aggressive intimidation, the corporate community was promoting the anti-government screech for the masses. That is, at the same time the people lost sight of government as their counterweight to capital, the left elite was becoming the vile joke Limbaugh and the other talk radio blowhards said they were. This may be coincidental timing, or their may be someone behind the French connection and Hamilton Fish touring college campuses in the 80's promoting subjectivism. It's true the question of 'how they feel' seems to loom large in discussions where social justice used to be.

    [Tinfoil hat off]

    There are many words but no communication between the laboring masses and the specialist readers. Fainting couch feminists have nothing to say to wives and mothers, the slippery redefinitions out of non-white studies turn off people who work for a living, and the promotion of smaller and more neurotic minorities are just more friction in a society growing steeper uphill.

    Ulysses November 29, 2016 at 8:52 am

    "She was studying Liberal Arts at US Ivy League Smith College at the time (which Aussies may recall was being run by our Jill Kerr Conway back then). So I moved in with my dancing beauty and we lived happily on her old man's purse for a year."

    I hate to be overly pedantic, but Smith College is one of the historically female colleges known as the Seven Sisters: Barnard College, Bryn Mawr College, Mount Holyoke College, Radcliffe College, Smith College, Vassar College, and Wellesley College. While Barnard is connected to Columbia, and Radcliffe to Harvard, none of the other Sisters has ever been considered any part of the Ancient Eight (Ivy League) schools: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale.

    I find it highly doubtful that someone, unaware of this elementary fact, actually lived off a beautiful bisexual black ballerina's (wonderful alliteration!) "old man's purse," for a full year in Northampton, MA. He may well have dated briefly someone like this, but it strains credulity that– after a full year in this environment– he would never have learned of the distinction between the Seven Sisters and the Ivy League.

    The Trumpening November 29, 2016 at 9:24 am

    The truth of the matter is not so important. The black ballerina riff had two functions. First it helped push an ethos for the author of openness and acceptance of various races and sexual orientations. This is a highly charged subject and so accusations of racism, etc, are never far away for someone pushing class over identity.

    Second it served as a nice hook to get dawgs like me to read through the whole thing; which was a very good article. Kind of like the opening paragraph of a Penthouse Forum entry, I was hoping that the author would eventually elaborate on what happened when she pirouetted over him

    What's interesting is that in an article pushing class over identity. he never tried to set his class ethos in order to convince working class people or the bourgeoisie why they should listen to him.

    Ulysses November 29, 2016 at 10:10 am

    I have never, ever known Brits to claim an "Oxbridge education" if they haven't attended either Oxford or Cambridge. Similarly, over several decades of knowing quite well many alumnae from Wellesley, Smith, etc. I have never once heard them speak of their colleges as "Ivy League."

    I do get your point, however. Perhaps Mr. Llewellyn-Smith was deliberately writing for a non-U.S. audience, and chose to use "Ivy League" as synonymous with "prestigious." I have seen graduates of Stanford, for example, described as "Ivy Leaguers" in the foreign press.

    PlutoniumKun November 29, 2016 at 10:31 am

    I have never, ever known Brits to claim an "Oxbridge education" if they haven't attended either Oxford or Cambridge

    As a graduate of OBU, I've heard it several times (but usually, it must be said, tongue in cheek).

    7 November 29, 2016 at 9:54 am

    Lisa gives a good tour

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hElhGMkRtyM

    PlutoniumKun November 29, 2016 at 9:58 am

    I think the gradual process whereby the left, or more specifically, the middle class left, have been consumed by an intellectually vacant went hand in hand with what I found the bizarre abandonment of interest by the left in economics and in public intellectualism. The manner in which the left simply surrendered the intellectual arguments over issues like taxes and privatisation and trade still puzzles me. I suspect it was related to a cleavage between middle class left wingers and working class activists. They simple stopped talking the same language, so there was nobody to shout 'stop' when the right simply colonised the most important areas of public policy and shut down all discussion.*

    A related issue is I think a strong authoritarianist strain which runs through some identity politics. Its common to have liberals discuss how intolerant the religious or right wingers are of intellectual discussion, but even try to question some of of the shibboleths of gender/race discussions and you can immediately find yourself labelled a misogynist/homophobe/racist. Just see some of the things you can get banned from the Guardian CIF for saying.

    LA Mike November 29, 2016 at 10:14 am

    This site, along with the MSM, has flown way off the handle since the election loss. Democrat-bashing is the new pastime.

    Our nation's problems can be remedied with one dramatic change:

    Caps on executive gains in terms of multiples in both public and private companies of a big enough size. For example, the CEO at most can make 50 times the average salary. Something to that effect. And any net income gains at the end of the year that are going to be dispersed as dividends, must proportionally reach the internal laborers as well. Presto, a robust economy.

    All employees must share in gains. You don't like it? Tough. The owner will still be rich.

    Historically, executives topped out at 20-30 times average salary. Now it's normal for the number to reach 500-2,000. It's absurd. As if a CEO is manufacturing products, marketing, and selling them all by himself/herself. As if Tim Cook assembles iPhones and iMacs by hand and sells them. As if Leslie Moonves writes, directs, acts in, and markets each show.

    Put the redistributive mechanism in the private sphere as well as in government. Then America will be great again.

    integer November 29, 2016 at 10:22 am

    "This site, along with the MSM, has flown way off the handle since the election loss."

    I presume you forgot to add "in my opinion" to the end of this sentence.

    "Our nation's problems can be remedied with one dramatic change"

    Ha!

    FluffytheObeseCat November 29, 2016 at 11:16 am

    Bringing C level pay packages at major corporations in line with the real contributions of the recipients would be great. How would we do it? With laws or regulations or executive orders banning the federal government from doing business with any firm that failed to comply with some basic guidelines?

    It's an academic point right now in any event. The Trump administration – working together with the Ryan House – is not going to make legislation or sign executive orders to do anything remotely like this. Which is one of the many reasons why bashing Democrats has taken off here I suspect. This election was theirs to lose, and they did everything in their power to toss it.

    inhibi November 29, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    You do realize that the wealthy are both part of and connected to the legislative branch of every single country on this planet right? As long as that remains so (as it has since the dawn of humans) then good luck trying to cap any sort of hording behavior of the wealthy.

    Michael November 29, 2016 at 10:21 am

    As someone who grew up in and participated in those discussions:

    1) It was "women's studies" back then. "Gender studies" is actually a major improvement in how the issues are examined.

    2) We'd already long since lost by then, and we were looking to make our own lives better. Creating a space where we could have good sex and a minimum of violence was better. Reagan's election, and his re-election, destroyed the Left.

    3) We live in a both/and world.

    Uahsenaa November 29, 2016 at 10:58 am

    I feel like this piece could use the yellow waders as well. Instead of simply repeating myself every time these things come up, I proffer an annotation of a important paragraph, to give a sense of what bothers me here.

    The post-structural revolution transpired [in the U.S.] before and during the end of the Cold War just as the collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison detre. But its social justice impulse didn't die, [a certain, largely liberal tendency in the North American academy] turned inwards from a notion of the historic inevitability of the decline of capitalism and the rise of oppressed classes, towards the liberation of oppressed minorities within capitalism[, which, if you paid close attention to what was being called for, implied and sometimes even outright demanded clear restraints be placed upon the power of capital in order to meet those goals], empowered by control over the [images, public statements, and widespread ideologies–i.e. discourse {which is about more than just language}] that defined who they were.

    The post-structural turn was just as much about Derrida at Johns Hopkins as it was about Foucault trying to demonstrate the subtle and not-so-subtle effects of power in the explicit context of the May '68 events in France. The economy ground to a halt, and at one point de Gaulle was so afraid of a violent revolution that he briefly left the country, leaving the government helpless to do much of anything, until de Gaulle returned shortly thereafter.

    Foucault was not entirely sympathetic to the Left, at least the unions, but he was trying to articulate a politics that was just as much about liberation from capitalism as classic Marxism. To that end, discourse analysis was the means to discovering those subtle articulations of power in human relations, not an end in itself as it was for, say, Barthes.

    A claim is being made here regarding the "global left" that clearly comes from a parochial, North American perspective. Indian academics, for one, never abandoned political economy for identity politics, especially since in India identity politics, religion, regionalism, castes, etc. were always a concern and remain so. It seems rather odd to me that the other major current in academia from the '90s on, namely postcolonialism, is entirely left out of this story, especially when critiques of militarism and political economy were at the heart of it.

    The Trumpening November 29, 2016 at 11:36 am

    The saddest point of the events of '68 is that looking back society has never been so equal as at that point in time. That was more or less the time of peak working class living standard relative to the wealthy classes. It is no accident, at least in my book, that these mostly bourgeois student activists have a tard at the end of their name in French: soixante-huitards.

    In the Sixites the "Left" had control of the economic levers or power - and by Left I mean those interested in smaller differences between the classes. There is no doubt the Cold War helped the working classes as the wealthy knew it was in their interest to make capitalism a showcase of rough egalitarianism. But during the 60's the RIght held cultural sway. It was Berkeley pushing Free Speech and Lenny Bruce trying to break boundaries while the right tried to keep the Overton Window as tight and squeaky clean as possible.

    But now the "Right" in the sense of those who want to increase the difference between rich and poor hold economic power while the Left police culture and speech. The provocateurs come from the right nowadays as they run roughshod over the PC police and try to smash open the racial, gender. and sexual orientation speech restrictions put in place as the left now control the Overton Window.

    Sound of the Suburbs November 29, 2016 at 11:19 am

    The Left and Liberal are two different things entirely.

    In the UK we have three parties:

    Labour – the left
    Liberal – middle/ liberal
    Conservative – the right

    Mapping this across to the US:

    Labour – X
    Liberal – Democrat
    Conservative – Republican

    The US has been conned from the start and has never had a real party of the Left.

    At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century US ideas changed and the view of those at the top was that it would be dangerous for the masses to get any real power, a liberal Democratic party would suffice to listen to the wants of the masses and interpret them in a sensible way in accordance with the interests of the wealthy.

    We don't want the masses to vote for a clean slate redistribution of land and wealth for heaven's sake.

    In the UK the Liberals were descendents of the Whigs, an elitist Left (like the US Democrats).

    Once everyone got the vote, a real Left Labour party appeared and the Whigs/Liberals faded into insignificance.

    It is much easier to see today's trends when you see liberals as an elitist Left.

    They have just got so elitist they have lost touch with the working class.

    The working class used to be their pet project, now it is other minorities like LGBT and immigration.

    Liberals need a pet project to feel self-righteous and good about themselves but they come from the elite and don't want any real distribution of wealth and privilege as they and their children benefit from it themselves.

    Liberals are the more caring side of the elite, but they care mainly about themselves rather than wanting a really fair society.

    They call themselves progressive, but they like progressing very slowly and never want to reach their destination where there is real equality.

    The US needs its version of the UK Labour party – a real Left – people who like Bernie Sanders way of thinking should start one up, Bernie might even join up.

    In the UK our three parties all went neo-liberal, we had three liberal parties!

    No one really likes liberals and they take to hiding in the other two parties, you need to be careful.

    Jeremy Corbyn is taking the Labour party back where it belongs slowly.

    left – traditional left
    liberal – elitist left

    Sound of the Suburbs November 29, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Imagine inequality plotted on two axes. Inequality between genders, races and cultures is what liberals have been concentrating on. This is the x-axis and the focus of identity politics and the liberal left.

    On the y-axis we have inequality from top to bottom. 2014 – "85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world" 2016– "Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population"

    Doing the maths and assuming a straight line .
    5.4 years until one person is as wealthy as poorest half of the world.

    This is what the traditional left normally concentrate on, but as they have switched to identity politics this inequality has gone through the roof. They were over-run by liberals.

    Some more attention to the y-axis please.

    The neoliberal view L As long as everyone, from all genders, races and cultures, is visiting the same food bank this is equality.

    left – traditional left – y-axis inequality
    liberal – elitist left – x -axis inequality (this doesn't affect my background of wealth and privilege)

    You can see why liberals love identity politics.

    UserFriendly November 29, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    https://www.politicalcompass.org/counterpoint-20161110

    The main page has a test you can take but that is a nice little post mortem.

    susan the other November 29, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    labor is being co-opted by the right: the Republican Workers Party I think this rhymes with Fascist. But then, in a world soon to be literally scrambling for high ground and rebuilding housing for 50 million people the time honored "worker" might actually have a renaissance.

    UserFriendly November 29, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Identity politics does make democrats lose. The message needs to be economic. It can have the caveat that various sub groups will be paid special attention to, but if identity is the only thing talked about then get used to right wing governments.

    TK421 November 29, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    If identity politics is a winning issue, where are the wins?

    readerOfTeaLeaves November 29, 2016 at 12:04 pm

    Empowerment is not just about language, it's about capital, who's got it, who hasn't and what role government plays between them.

    Empowerment is very much about capital, but the Left has never had the cajones to stare down and take apart the Right's view of 'capital' as some kind of magical elixir that mysteriously produces 'wealth'.

    I ponder my own experiences, which many here probably share:

    First: slogging through college(s), showing up to do a defined list of tasks (a 'job', if you will) to be remunerated with some kind of payment/salary. That was actual 'work' in order to get my hands on very small amounts of 'capital' (i.e., 'money').

    Second: a few times, I just read up on science or looked at the stock pages and did a little research, and then wrote checks that purchased stock shares in companies that seemed to be exploring some intriguing technologies. In my case, I got lucky a few times, and presto! That simple act of writing a few checks made me look like a smarty. Also, paid a few bills. But the simple act of writing checks cost me n-o-t-h-i-n-g in terms of time, energy, education, physical or mental exertion.

    Third: I have also had the experience of working (start ups) in situations where - literally!!! - I made less in a day in salary than I'd have made if I'd simply taken a couple thousand dollars and bought stock in the place I was working.

    To summarize:
    - I've had capital that I worked long and hard to obtain.
    - I've had capital that took me a little research, about one minute to write a check, and brought me a handsome amount of 'capital'. (Magic!)
    - I've worked in situations in which I created MORE capital for others than I created for myself. And the value of that capital expanded exponentially.

    If the Left had a spine and some guts, it would offer a better analysis about what 'capital' is, the myriad forms it can take, and why any of this matters.

    Currently, the Left cannot explain to a whole lot of people why their hard work ended up in other people's bank accounts. If they had to actually explain that process by which people's hard work turned into fortunes for others, they'd have a few epiphanies about how wealth is actually created, and whether some forms of wealth creation are more sustainable than other forms.

    IMVHO, I never saw Hillary Clinton as able to address this elemental question of the nature of wealth creation. The Left has not traditionally given a shrewd analysis of this core problem, so the Right has been able to control this issue. Which is tragic, because the Right is trapped in the hedge fund mentality, in the tight grip of realtors and mortgage brokers; they obsess on assets, and asset classes, and resource extraction. When your mind is trapped by that kind of thinking, you obsess on the tax code, and on how to use it to generate wealth for yourself. Enter Trump.

    Matthew G. Saroff November 29, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    One small correction: Smith is not an Ivy League school, it is one of the "Seven Sisters:
    Ivy League:
    Brown
    Columbia
    Cornell
    Dartmouth
    Harvard
    Penn
    Princeton
    Yale

    Seven Sisters:
    Barnard
    Bryn Mawr
    Mount Holyoke
    Radcliffe
    Smith
    Vassar
    Wellesley

    Theo November 29, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    A much more nuanced discussion of the primacy of identity politics on the Left in Britain and the US is http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/29/prospects-for-an-alt-left/ "Prospects for an Alt-Left," November 29, 2016, by Elliot Murphy, who teaches in the Division of Psychology and Language Sciences at University College, London.

    And let's not forget that identity politics arose in the first place because of genuine discrimination, which still exists today. In forsaking identity politics in favor of one of class, we should not forget the original reasons for the rise of the phenomena, however poorly employed by some of its practitioners, and however mined by capitalism to give the semblance of tolerance and equality while obscuring the reality of intolerance and inequality.

    Lambert Strether November 29, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    Trivially, I would think the last thing to do is adopt the "alt-" moniker, thereby cementing the impression in the mind of the public that the two are in some sense similar.

    Adamski November 29, 2016 at 6:22 pm

    The blogger Lord Keynes at Social Democracy for the 21st Century at blogspot suggests Realist Left instead of alt-left. I think how people are using the term "identity politics" at the moment isn't "actual anti-racism in policy and recruitment" but "pandering to various demographics to get their loyalty and votes so that the party machine doesn't have to try and gain votes by doing economic stuff that frightens donors, lobbyists and the media". Clinton improved the female vote for Democratic president by 1 percentage point, and the black and Latino shares of the Republican were unchanged from Romney in 2012. Thus, identity politics is not working when the economy needs attention, even against the most offensive opponent.

    Trigger warning November 29, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    So to repress class conflicts, the kleptocracy splintered them into opposition between racists and POC, bigots and LGBTQ, patriarchal oppressors and women, etc., etc. The US state-authorized parties used it for divide and rule. The left fell for it and neutered itself. Good. Fuck the left.

    Outside the Western bloc the left got supplanted with a more sensible opposition: between humans and the overreaching state. That alternative view subsumes US-style identity politics in antidiscrimination and cultural rights. It subsumes traditional class struggle in labor, migrant, and economic rights. It reforms and improves discredited US constitutional rights, and integrates it all into the concepts of peace and development. It's up and running with binding law and authoritative institutions .

    So good riddance to the old left and the new left. Human rights have already replaced them in the 80-plus per cent of the world represented by UNCTAD and the G-77. That's why the USA fights tooth and nail to keep them out of your reach.

    Anon November 29, 2016 at 1:05 pm

    To All Commenters: thanks for the discussion. Many good, thoughtful ideas/perspectives.

    Mine? Living in California (a minority white populace, broad economic engine, high living expenses (and huge homeless population) and a leader in alternative energy: Trump is what happens when you don't allow the "people" to vote for their preferred candidates (Bernie) and don't listen to a select few voters in key electoral states (WI,MI,PA).

    The electorate is angry (true liberals at the Dems, voters in select electoral states at "everything"). If democracy is messy, then that's what we've got; a mess. Unfortunately, it's coming at the absolutely wrong time (Climate Change, lethal policing, financial elite impunity).

    Hold this same election with different (multiple) candidates and the outcome is likely different. In the end, we all need to work and demand a more fair and Just society. (Or California is likely to secede.)

    Jerry Denim November 29, 2016 at 1:20 pm

    "Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased. Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some losers in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence."

    I can only imagine the glee of the wealthy feminists at Smith while they witnessed the white, lunch pailed, working class American male thrown out of work and into the gutter of irrelevance and despair. The perfect comeuppance for a demographic believed to be the arch-nemesis of women and minorities. Nothing seems quite so fashionable at the moment as hating white male Republicans that live outside of proper-thinking coastal enclaves of prosperity. Unfortunately I fail to see how this attitude helps the country. Seems like more divide and conquer from our overlords on high.

    TK421 November 29, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    You might find this interesting: link

    Anon November 29, 2016 at 9:06 pm

    just more whining from the Weekly Standard. While men may have been disproportionately displaced in jobs that require physical strength, many women (nurses?) likely lost their homes during the Great Financial Scam and its fallout.

    The enemy is a rigged political, financial, and judicial system.

    susan the other November 29, 2016 at 1:37 pm

    Identity Politics gestated for a while before the 90s. Beginning with a backlash against Affirmative Action in the 70s, the Left began to turn Liberal. East Coast intellectuals who were anxious they would be precluded from entering the best schools may have been the catalyst (article from Jacobin I think).

    But certainly the fall of the USSR was the thing that forced capitalism's hand. At that point capitalism had no choice but to step up and prove that it could really bring a better life to the world.

    A Minsky event of biblical proportions soon followed (it only took about 10 years!) and now all is devastation and nobody has clue. But the 1990 effort could have been in earnest. Capitalists mean well but they are always in denial about the inequality they create which finally started a chain reaction in "identity politics" as reactions to the stress of economic competition bounced around in every society like a pinball machine. A tedious and insufferable game which seems to have culminated in Hillary the Relentless. I won't say capitalism is idiotic. But something is.

    David November 29, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    "Perhaps the NC commentariat could define up and down versions of each of these political philosophies (ie. left and right) and start to take control of the framing."

    Well, I'll have a first go, since I was around at the time.

    Left and Right only really make sense in the context of the distribution of power and wealth, and only when there is a difference between them about that distribution. This was historically the case for more than 150 years after the French Revolution. By the mid-1960s, there was a sense that the Left was winning, and would continue to win. Progressive taxation, zero unemployment, little real poverty by today's standards, free education and healthcare . and many influential political figures (Tony Crosland for example) saw the major task of the future as deciding where the fruits of economic growth could be most justly applied.

    Three things happened that made the Left completely unprepared for the counter-attack in the 1970s. First, simple complacency. When Thatcher appeared, most people thought she'd escaped from a Monty Python sketch. The idea that she might actually take power and use it was incredible.

    Secondly, the endless factionalism and struggles for power within the Left, usually over arcane points of ideology, mixed with vicious personal rivalries. The Left loves defeats, and picks over them obsessively, looking for someone else to blame.

    Third, the influence of 1968 and the turning away from the real world, towards LSD and the New Age, and the search for dark and hidden truths and structures of power in the world. Fueled by careless and superficial readings of bad translations of Foucault and Derrida, leftists discovered an entire new intellectual continent into which they could extend their wars and feuds, which was much more congenial, since it involved eviscerating each other, rather than seriously taking on the forces of capitalism and the state.

    And that's the very short version. We've been living with the consequences ever since. The Left has been essentially powerless, and powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone weaker than you, which is why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force, with a vested interest in the problems it has chosen to identify continuing, or it would have no reason to exist.

    So until class-based politics and struggles over power and money re-start (if they ever do) I respectfully suggest that "Left" and "Right" be retired as terms that no longer have any meaning.

    FluffytheObeseCat November 29, 2016 at 6:20 pm

    " powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone weaker than you, which is why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force, with a vested interest in the problems it has chosen to identify "

    Yes. As long as the doyens of identity politics don't have any real fear of being homeless they can happily indulge in internecine warfare. It's a lot more fun than working to get $20/hour for a bunch of snaggle-toothed guys who kind of don't like you.

    integer November 29, 2016 at 6:48 pm

    Very interesting. Thank you.

    George Phillies November 29, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    I read: "Traditional dialectical history was being supplanted by a new suite of studies based around truth as "discourse". Driven by the French post-modern thinkers of the 70s and 80s, the US academy was adopting and adapting the ideas Foucault, Derrida and Barthe to a variety of civil rights movements that spawned gender and racial studies."

    Of course, I have been a college professor since the late 1970s. On the other hand, I am a physicist. The notion that truth is discourse is, in my opinion, daft, and says much about the nature of the modern liberal arts, at least as understood by many undergraduates. I have actually heard of the folks referenced in the above, and to my knowledge their influence in science, engineering, technology, and mathematics–the academic fields that are in this century actually central*–is negligible.

    *Yes, I am in favor of a small number of students becoming professional historians, dramatists, and composers, but the number of these is limited.

    Identity politics is a disaster ongoing for the Democratic Party, for reasons they seem to have overlooked. First, the additional identity group is white. We already see this in the South, where 90% of the white population in many states votes Republican.

    When that spreads to the rest of the country, there will be a permanent Republican majority until the Republicans create a new major disaster.

    Second, some Democratic commentators appear to have assumed that if your forebearers spoke Spanish, you can not be white. This belief is properly grouped with the belief that if your forebearers spoke Gaelic or Italian, you were from one of the colored races of Europe (a phrase that has faded into antiquity, but some of my friends specialize in American history of the relevant period), and were therefore not White.

    Identity politics is a losing strategy, as will it appears be noticed by the losers only after it is too late.

    Oregoncharles November 29, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    An extremely important point, but overblown in a way that may reflect the author's background and is certainly rhetorical.

    So soon we forget the Battle of Seattle. The Left has been opposed to globalization, deregulation, etc., all along. Partly he's talking about an academic pseudo-left, partly confusing the left with the Democrats and other "center-left," captured parties.

    That doesn't invalidate his point. If you want to see it in full-blown, unadorned action, try Democrat sites like Salon and Raw Story. A factor he doesn't do justice to is the extreme self-righteousness that accompanies it, supported, I suppose, by the very real injustices perpetrated against minorities – and women, not a minority.

    The whole thing is essentially a category error, so it would be nice to see a followup that doesn't perpetuate the error. But it's valuable for stating the problem, which can be hard to present, especially in the face of gales of self-righteousness.

    TG November 29, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    Well said. An excellent attack on 'identity politics.'

    I mean, Barack Obama was our first black president, but most blacks didn't do very well. George W. Bush was our first retard president, and most people with cognitive handicaps didn't do very well.

    But we can boil it all down to something even simpler and more primal: divide and conquer.

    [Nov 30, 2016] Trump Loves to Win, But American Generals Have Forgotten How

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. His most recent book is ..."
    "... So, yes, Trump's critique of American generalship possesses merit, but whether he knows it or not, the question truly demanding his attention as the incoming commander-in-chief isn't: Who should I hire (or fire) to fight my wars? Instead, far more urgent is: Does further war promise to solve any of my problems? ..."
    "... As a candidate, Trump vowed to "defeat radical Islamic terrorism," destroy ISIS, "decimate al-Qaeda," and "starve funding for Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah." Those promises imply a significant escalation of what Americans used to call the Global War on Terrorism. ..."
    "... In that regard, his promise to "quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS" offers a hint of what is to come. ..."
    "... To a very considerable extent, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, preferred candidate of the establishment, because he advertised himself as just the guy disgruntled Americans could count on to drain that swamp. ..."
    "... Were Trump really intent on draining that swamp - if he genuinely seeks to "Make America Great Again" - then he would extricate the United States from war. His liquidation of Trump University, which was to higher education what Freedom's Sentinel and Inherent Resolve are to modern warfare, provides a potentially instructive precedent for how to proceed. ..."
    "... Celebrity Apprentice ..."
    "... Which brings us, finally, to that third question: To the extent that deficiencies at the top of the military hierarchy do affect the outcome of wars, what can be done to fix the problem? ..."
    "... The most expeditious approach: purge all currently serving three- and four-star officers; then, make a precondition for promotion to those ranks confinement in a reeducation camp run by Iraq and Afghanistan war amputees, with a curriculum designed by Veterans for Peace . Graduation should require each student to submit an essay reflecting on these words of wisdom from U.S. Grant himself: "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword." ..."
    "... this is the double failure of Washington. You might give them some credit if they were competent imperialists. But they are the worst of all worlds. They are reckless imperialists who can't even achieve their own stated aims with a modicum of competence. Real imperialists of the past would be rolling around laughing at this lot. ..."
    "... They're not imperialists, they're corporatists. Graft is the object, and given that construction companies like Halliburton and mercs like Xe don't bankroll Ds, and since bombing campaigns are easy to keep up/out of the news, the money has now shifted to drones. ..."
    "... I think they are imperialists in the sense that, as William Appleman Williams and others have argued, their primary orienting goal is to extend and sustain the US dominance of a world market. ..."
    "... If you read what US foreign policy and military planners were saying in after WW2, that's an inescapable conclusion. Your focus on the corporation takes as a given what those planners have felt they need to strategically and militarily secure. Bacevich consistently avoids this issue and so ends up promoting a naive and implicitly hopeful view of US motives and the flexibility with which they can be pursued. ..."
    "... It's really quite something to go back and read Dean Acheson testifying to a congressional committee that, unlike the Soviet Union, the US requires steady expansion of the world market to survive. He sounds like Rosa Luxemburg. ..."
    "... The US is a nation of racketeers, which are perfecting the corruption of services into means of converting tax revenue into private profits. Some of these services are in fact essential, all have been – at least until recently – unassailable regardless of merit. Examples are housing, education, health care, private transportation and of course "national security". The rackets trace back to the exceptional US economic circumstances of WW2, and the leading racket was well established at the end of the Eisenhower presidency (his CYA address notwithstanding). ..."
    "... For the "self-licking ice-cream cone" of military/security/intelligence/public safety expenditures to continue to grow exponentially, it is not only unnecessary for the tax-purchased services and goods to be functional, let alone deliver results – it is positively counterproductive. The question is not whether any captured government institution is dysfunctional, the question is merely whether and how the profitability it delivers to the "accounting control frauds" in charge of the incumbents can be increased. ..."
    "... Success in any enterprise requires the definition of a goal. I believe that the goal of U.S. military action in MENA is two-fold: display fealty to Israel and the kings of the Arabian Peninsula; and to grow the corporate coffers of the MIC here at home. Defined in that way, the U.S. military has "hit it outta da park." Winning? Winning was a pipe dream of the likes of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Cheney knew better and took GWB along for a ride. ..."
    "... I am highly suspicious that publicly stated goals of the wars were the actual targets. My take is that the actual goal has always been to keep those places in chaos; on US terms and under its control. with a safe US military base to punch those second-rate nations if necessary; By that measure, I believe both the Iraq and Afghan invasions were a success but they cannot pat each other's backs publicly. ..."
    "... I think that may have been his point, albeit delivered obliquely, as in his statement that "some wars should not be fought"; his quote from Grant, "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword", as well as elsewhere in the piece. ..."
    "... Drain the swamp indeed, extricate the military from our national misadventures and retire the top brass more intent on career advancement that the true needs of the nation. Problems solved and we can move on as a nation. Will the world fall apart, if true men and women of honor step forward, I highly doubt it. ..."
    "... Pretty radical stuff actually, but something that resonates with many people, people without a voice. Change will come from within the military, and it is refreshing to hear words of sanity form those inside the military system-Tulsi Gabbard for one. ..."
    "... There isn't too much of an incentive to win if you're a careerist either which many of them are since the military is a giant welfare program/bureaucracy largely based on licking boots to advance. It might be nice to add another accolade to that fat stack of attendance ribbons on their chests but that's all it is. Also, even if you were super serious about winning the war look at what happened to Shinseki when he clashed with the civilian leadership over the numbers of troops needed to pacify Iraq post-war. He was marginalized and finally canned altogether. ..."
    "... James P. Levy , Ph.D. FRHistS, a man who never hid behind a goddamned nom de plume ..."
    "... Bacevich has made the point (as have others) that when the draft was eliminated voters no longer had skin in the game and became ambivalent which is why the founding fathers set up the system with the citizen soldier as a cornerstone principle. ..."
    "... Andrew Bacevich, as usual, writes a great article. But Grant and Sherman benefited from having a war with a clear goal: destroy the Confederate army and its government. I hesitate to call anything happening with the US in the Middle East or North Africa or SE Asia a "war" of that nature. There are no clear objectives. There are no criteria for an end of the conflict. ..."
    "... Instead, this looks a whole lot more like the North's occupation of the South during Reconstruction. We all know how that ended: the North had to pull itself out after an economic depression, more or less leading to a reign of terror through Jim Crow. ..."
    "... You make a good, concise case for what the real objectives are for these unending expensive wars. Of course, this level of clarity re these goals are seldom stated to the populace at large. Rather we're mostly fed bullshit about terrrrists and being kept "safe" and other noodleheaded claptrap. ..."
    "... Yes, as I said above, the neocons objective have been an abject failure. They display incompetence at all levels. And yet nobody pays the price. And the fact that the neocons don't try to fire the generals who failed (as numerous political leaders in the past have done) is a reflection of both their incompetence and the fact that the wars have become the ultimate in self licking ice creams. ..."
    "... Ordinary people make the mistake of believing that the current crop of leaders have their interests in mind at all. They do not. If Clintons Public/Private mumbo jumbo didn't clear you of that thinking I don't know what will. ..."
    "... The proper way to think about these things is the neocon plan is succeeding wonderfully but they are truly too short sighted- i.e. stupid in the long term- to understand the consequences. They understand short term profit completely and how to dispense physical power but little else. Consequences and payback are externalized in their world ..."
    "... 30 years in lockup for Chelsea Manning is a warning for those, I suspect, who want to say "enough is enough." I also believe that your ability to move up the hierarchy to make those decisions to keep fighting is determined by your willingness to continue to see through the neoliberal project. ..."
    "... I disagree to the extent that the ideological neocons had a very clearly stated and unambiguous strategic purpose – re-engineering the world as America's corporate playground, with any possible competitor (i.e. Russia and China) firmly penned in. This meant replacing all the mid-size States which were still refusing to be part of the Washington Consensus. ..."
    "... Its no secret or mystery about what they were seeking. In this, they have failed – Afghanistan remains in chaos, Iraq is more Iran controlled than US controlled, Iran still refuses to come to heel, and Russia and China are making increasing inroads to Central Asia, eastern Europe, Africa and South America. The neocon project is slowly unravelling, with Trump hopefully about to put it out of its misery. ..."
    "... There are now more people in Washington who's job depends on finding more wars to fight than there are people employed to stop wars. This is the neocons fault, but its not the neocons project – they are just useful idiots for the profiteers. ..."
    "... I don't make a distinction between the neocons and the profiteers. The worst possible outcome from this neocon disaster would be for the profiteers, the rentiers, to be able to reconstitute their hold over society- or to hold onto it for that matter. What will it take, complete destruction of the biosphere for people to understand that cooperation is the only means of survival? ..."
    "... Part of the problem with the U.S military is that the Army sees enemy #2 as the Air Force and Navy. Gotta get those dollars. Another problem is that the U.S fails at the oft quote dictum of Sun Tzu, know yourself and know your enemy. ..."
    "... In America's defense they are great at logistics side of war. ..."
    "... Generals and admirals are all adept politicians and bureaucrats. they have to be to get to that level in the structure. War-fighters, no so much, with few exceptions, https://fabiusmaximus.com/2008/01/14/millennium-challenge/ . ..."
    "... It's long seemed to me one of the many failings of the species is that some of us produce wise counsel that actually looks to the horizon and beyond, like the fundamental questions articulated by Sun Tzu about whether to commit the peasants who pay for it to a prolonged foreign war with long supply lines that will bankrupt the nation - http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html . And then the idiot few that gain, psychically or monetarily, from conflict, blow that kind of fundamental test of wisdom off and "go to war" or more accurately "send other people to hack and blast each other while the senders get rich." ..."
    "... So is it just the inevitable case that Empires rise up, loot, murder, grow the usual huge corrupt capitals and the militaries to support the looting and keep the mopes in line, and finally succumb to some kind of wasting disease where all the corruption and interest-seeking honeycombs and finally collapses the structure? Is there no other way for humans to organize, because so many of us have the drive to dominate and to grab all the pleasure and stuff we can get away with? ..."
    "... I've grown up hearing commentaries that echo this one as relating to our foreign policy adventures since WWII, and if you take a results oriented approach, they're probably true. But having gone to school for foreign policy work and talking to people who were involved with the foreign policy apparatus (doing the leg work, not the people at the top who basically have no idea what they're doing), I've become more and more convinced that it's simply incompetence. ..."
    "... I think that the people dictating policy are basically a bunch of Tom Friedmans, who are utterly convinced that their empirically wrong views about how policy is executed are correct. Look at Iraq in the aftermath. Not only did they get not understand that the Sunnis and Shia might not have the best of intentions towards each other, but US companies aren't even getting all the plum oil contracts. Now surely a country that guarantees the security of the Iraqi elite could ensure that it's own companies got the best deals? ..."
    "... First and foremost the US is the greatest spender in weapons, and why does anyone spend in weapons if there is not plan to use them? The first objective is to use the weapons and avoid piling a dusting mountain of missiles, bombs, or any other kind of armament. Many wars are mainly the testing battlefields for new weaponry. ..."
    "... Spreading fear might not be the best strategy but is has clearly been one of the main objectives in some cases, particularly Iraq. ..."
    "... The best case of a president looking for an excuse to use the weapons and spread fear was G.W. Bush and Iraq v2.0. The fact that Bush excuses were clumsily manufactured and exposed without shame in the UN is a feature. It means: when we decide that we will attack you nothing will stop us. No democratic control and no international rules can stop us. ..."
    "... The Bush Administration arrogantly assumed that all peoples are enough alike that they can be rescued the same way as Western Europeans were - after the Nazis were driven off. This premis was an epic error for the ages. The entire Washington establishment - to include the Pentagon - and the MSM went along with this premis. In many ways they STILL buy into it. ..."
    "... You never read MSM articles questioning whether Iraqis or Afghans can buy into republican democracy. The assumption is that the whole world is waiting with baited breath to achieve this Western political-cultural ideal. ..."
    "... The correct solution, in 2009, was to NOT expand Afghan operations. I spent many an hour arguing the folly of said expansion. It was inevitable that after any expansion there would be a massive draw down - which would destablize the Kabul government. ..."
    "... Pull out of Syria entirely. Stop funding al Nusrah - which is an acknowledged branch of al Qaeda. Egypt has entered the conflict on the side of Assad, Iran and Russia, most recently. The "White Hats" are a fraud. ..."
    "... US is caught in a typical occupation trap, where they want a subservient regime that is under their control. Subservient regimes are subservient because they lack a large power base and are dependent on their foreign backers. A subservient regime with a power base does not stay subservient for long, they quickly develop an independent streak at which point you have to overthrow them and install a different, weaker regime. ..."
    "... Stabilizing a subservient regime with a weak power base requires US presence and boots on the ground. A subservient regime with a strong power base that can support itself quickly stops being subservient and has to be replaced. A "victory", where US troops would not be necessary for the regime support, means loss of control over the regime. ..."
    "... So US is stuck in a loop. Political considerations force them to build up a regime to a point of independence, only to have to tear it down when it looks like it might go against American interests. US military takes the blame because they have to fight the latest insurgent group CIA built up to effect regime change. ..."
    "... I would never gainsay that many technocratic, careerist general officers might be looking for ways to enhance their glory and bid up their asking price for CNN slots and board positions at Lockheed Martin. But the swamp you seek to drain has an apex predator; wealthy and powerful civilians. I seem to recall some generals, Eric Shinseki and Jay Garner come to mind, who tried to bring a little truth to power and avoid the biggest mistakes of the Iraq war. ..."
    "... Eisenhower's prophecy has metastasized so deeply into the body politic, only a profound change in the views of the citizenry could possibly make a difference. Short of economic or military upheaval, it's hard to see how do we do this when our best paying jobs are strategically sprinkled across the country, making every procurement and every base sacrosanct to even the most liberal, libertarian or even peace-nick politicians? So, isn't the swamp much larger that the military officer corps? Drain this one part, and it would fill back in rather quickly if that was the main thrust of our attack on this nightmare. ..."
    "... I suspect Trump is headed to the White House partly because a significant number of people concluded that social upheaval will be hastened by his administration, and that the consequences, whatever they may be, will be worth bearing so that we can rebuild on the ashes of the neoliberal/neoconservative era. ..."
    "... Trump played the rubes about safety with his vitriolic Anti-Muslim rhetoric. Although Trump claimed not to want to continue the wars, I seriously doubt he'll do one damn thing to make improvements in this regard. ..."
    "... Only Mussolini and Goering had a leg up on MacArthur regarding bling. ..."
    "... Unfolding the Future of the Long War, a 2008 RAND Corporation report, was sponsored by the US Army Training and Doctrine Command's Army Capability Integration Centre. It set out US government policy options for prosecuting what it described as "the long war" against "adversaries" in "the Muslim world," who are "bent on forming a unified Islamic world to supplant Western dominance". ..."
    "... Well, the US military's performance in WW1 and WW2, often against weak opposition, was less than stunning. They won their battles with massively superior firepower, for the most part. ..."
    "... But the real problem does, indeed, lie in Washington; Accepting that the US strategy in Iraq, for example, was indeed to create a pliable, pro-western democratic state, it's not clear that there was actually much the military could do when it started to unravel because of the inherent stupidity of the idea. ..."
    "... Nor should we overlook the resulting body count. Since the autumn of 2001, something like 370,000 combatants and noncombatants have been killed in the various theaters of operations where U.S. forces have been active. Although modest by twentieth century standards, this post-9/11 harvest of death is hardly trivial. ..."
    "... A dozen terrorism scholars gave a wide range of answers when asked to estimate how many members there are, how the numbers have changed during al Qaeda's lifespan and how many countries the group operates in. Analysts put the core membership at anywhere from 200 to 1,000 ..."
    "... Instead it was scaled up into stupid endless Perpetual War without achievable objectives. In retrospect divide $5T by 200-1,000 and consider how little it may have cost if 9/11 had been treated as a criminal act by non-state actors, instead of sticking our foot into the role of destabilizing other sovereign countries, killing /antagonizing the citizens and generally fking up their countries?? ..."
    "... I think the US is falling into the old imperialist trap of thinking of these places as countries with capital cities and leaders recognized as such by the population. The British had that issue in the 1770s when they captured the capital(s) of the new US but the revolution didn't stop. External superpower (French) support was able to keep the resistance functioning and the British eventually gave up. Both of those superpowers kept duking it out on other battlefields for another 30 years. ..."
    "... The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the imposition of the Spanish Empire; total destruction of native culture and replacement with Roman forms. The places the Spanish controlled are still broken, so don't look for success in this endeavor anytime soon ..."
    "... The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the imposition of the Spanish Empire ..."
    "... Say what you want about the British Empire, but they did leave behind functioning legal and political systems in most of the countries they controlled. In India's case, they also left them a common language since there are so many languages there. Many of the countries remained in the Commonwealth after independence which is something that none of the other colonial powers achieved. ..."
    "... I think the key was the British focused on empire as an extension of commerce, not ideology (they already knew they were superior, so they didn't have to prove it, which allows for pragmatism). In the end, when it was clear that they couldn't hold on, they backed out more gracefully than many other empires. ..."
    "... The military-industrial complex has perfected the art of putting parts of the design, manufacturing, testing, and deployment of these programs into just about Congressional District so that everybody wants their constituents to have a shot at one part of the trough. ..."
    "... This is how empires fall. Asymmetrical economic and military warfare against entrenched bureaucracies and corruption. ..."
    "... Sounds like the lament of an aging mafia don that's forgotten what he's talking about is illegal. "Why can't our generals pull off a good old-fashioned smash and grab like they used to? They must be incompetent!" ..."
    "... So I don't think an old-fashioned smash & grab has been the goal for a long time. For decades (ever since WWII?) we've been trying to regime change our way to the goal of every Hollywood mad scientist and super-villian: everlasting world dominance. ..."
    "... So while China and Russia aim for Eurasian integration, we're all about it's disintegration. We're also determined to keep the EU from ever threatening our dominance. South America is slipping the yoke, but we haven't given up. ..."
    "... Here in the "Homeland" (genuflects), on the "home front," in the domestic "battle space," it's important to realize that when the Pentagon says "full-spectrum dominance," that means us, comrades. Wall-to-wall surveillance? Check. POTUS power to execute or disappear dissidents? Check. Torture enshrined in secret laws and the public mind? Check. ..."
    "... Obama never renounced FSD. AFAIK it's still the strategy. Why doesn't the esteemed colonel frame his analysis in terms of our official defense posture? Are we any closer to FSD, or not? ..."
    "... I'll be impressed when the colonel starts calling our wars crimes against humanity and for their immediate cessation and full reparations. "Moar better generals" will not succeed at accomplishing a basically insane strategy. Until then, I'll file Bacevich under "modified limited hangout." ..."
    "... Agreed. I was surprised, too. Of course, it's the working class children in the flyover states who join the military and go to war, and come back maimed or with PTSD to a rotten job market. So that may have been politically astute on Trump's part and, if so, good for him. ..."
    "... Let's be brutally frank. The US both wants an empire, but also wants to pretend it is encouraging democracy everywhere. Objectives where the result is deceitful and duplicitous behavior. Ask the Indians about the methods, or the beneficiaries of the "Monroe Doctrine." The British wanted an empire. A simple objective. If you are not England, you are a colony, and we, the English, make the rules. At the heart of American activities is a kernel of deceit. Self determination for people, but only if you do what we say. The kernel of deceit poisons every walk of life connected to Washington. Every single one. ..."
    "... The US is called the empire of chaos. It could also be called the empire of Deceit. Do as we say, but we are not taking any responsibility for you if you do what we say. Don't do what we say, and we will fund your opposition until they stuff a dagger up you ass. ..."
    "... Think about Democrats using identity politics to claim religious fervor and war used to show being strong on defense. With both political parties using corruption to align power and control at home and abroad. Choosing your enemies carefully, for you will become them. ..."
    "... The US military was the first part of the government to be turned into a business, the first neo-liberal institution created in America. The real problem is that the US military is run by managers and not soldiers. The Germans used to make fun of the British Army in WWI by calling it an army of lions led by donkeys. The US military is an army of lions led by managers. ..."
    "... If Andrew is looking for a denouement to the Military Industrial complex then one need look no further than the British empire – specifically what made it shrink and shrivel very rapidly. WWI and WWII. The decimation of the economy and the inability to keep spending money to maintain empire is what reversed the entire machine. It will be the same with the US as well. ..."
    Nov 30, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on November 29, 2016 by Yves Smith By Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. His most recent book is America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History. Originally published at TomDispatch

    President-elect Donald Trump's message for the nation's senior military leadership is ambiguously unambiguous. Here is he on 60 Minutes just days after winning the election.

    In reality, Trump, the former reality show host, knows next to nothing about ISIS, one of many gaps in his education that his impending encounter with actual reality is likely to fill. Yet when it comes to America's generals, our president-to-be is onto something. No doubt our three- and four-star officers qualify as "great" in the sense that they mean well, work hard, and are altogether fine men and women. That they have not "done the job," however, is indisputable - at least if their job is to bring America's wars to a timely and successful conclusion.

    Trump's unhappy verdict - that the senior U.S. military leadership doesn't know how to win - applies in spades to the two principal conflicts of the post-9/11 era: the Afghanistan War, now in its 16th year, and the Iraq War, launched in 2003 and (after a brief hiatus) once more grinding on. Yet the verdict applies equally to lesser theaters of conflict, largely overlooked by the American public, that in recent years have engaged the attention of U.S. forces, a list that would include conflicts in Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.

    Granted, our generals have demonstrated an impressive aptitude for moving pieces around on a dauntingly complex military chessboard. Brigades, battle groups, and squadrons shuttle in and out of various war zones, responding to the needs of the moment. The sheer immensity of the enterprise across the Greater Middle East and northern Africa - the sorties flown , munitions expended , the seamless deployment and redeployment of thousands of troops over thousands of miles, the vast stockpiles of material positioned, expended, and continuously resupplied - represents a staggering achievement. Measured by these or similar quantifiable outputs, America's military has excelled. No other military establishment in history could have come close to duplicating the logistical feats being performed year in, year out by the armed forces of the United States.

    Nor should we overlook the resulting body count. Since the autumn of 2001, something like 370,000 combatants and noncombatants have been killed in the various theaters of operations where U.S. forces have been active. Although modest by twentieth century standards, this post-9/11 harvest of death is hardly trivial.

    Yet in evaluating military operations, it's a mistake to confuse how much with how well . Only rarely do the outcomes of armed conflicts turn on comparative statistics. Ultimately, the one measure of success that really matters involves achieving war's political purposes. By that standard, victory requires not simply the defeat of the enemy, but accomplishing the nation's stated war aims, and not just in part or temporarily but definitively. Anything less constitutes failure, not to mention utter waste for taxpayers, and for those called upon to fight, it constitutes cause for mourning.

    By that standard, having been "at war" for virtually the entire twenty-first century, the United States military is still looking for its first win. And however strong the disinclination to concede that Donald Trump could be right about anything, his verdict on American generalship qualifies as apt.

    A Never-Ending Parade of Commanders for Wars That Never End

    That verdict brings to mind three questions. First, with Trump a rare exception, why have the recurring shortcomings of America's military leadership largely escaped notice? Second, to what degree does faulty generalship suffice to explain why actual victory has proven so elusive? Third, to the extent that deficiencies at the top of the military hierarchy bear directly on the outcome of our wars, how might the generals improve their game?

    As to the first question, the explanation is quite simple: During protracted wars, traditional standards for measuring generalship lose their salience. Without pertinent standards, there can be no accountability. Absent accountability, failings and weaknesses escape notice. Eventually, what you've become accustomed to seems tolerable. Twenty-first century Americans inured to wars that never end have long since forgotten that bringing such conflicts to a prompt and successful conclusion once defined the very essence of what generals were expected to do.

    Senior military officers were presumed to possess unique expertise in designing campaigns and directing engagements. Not found among mere civilians or even among soldiers of lesser rank, this expertise provided the rationale for conferring status and authority on generals.

    In earlier eras, the very structure of wars provided a relatively straightforward mechanism for testing such claims to expertise. Events on the battlefield rendered harsh judgments, creating or destroying reputations with brutal efficiency.

    Back then, standards employed in evaluating generalship were clear-cut and uncompromising. Those who won battles earned fame, glory, and the gratitude of their countrymen. Those who lost battles got fired or were put out to pasture.

    During the Civil War, for example, Abraham Lincoln did not need an advanced degree in strategic studies to conclude that Union generals like John Pope, Ambrose Burnside, and Joseph Hooker didn't have what it took to defeat the Army of Northern Virginia. Humiliating defeats sustained by the Army of the Potomac at the Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville made that obvious enough. Similarly, the victories Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman gained at Shiloh, at Vicksburg, and in the Chattanooga campaign strongly suggested that here was the team to which the president could entrust the task of bringing the Confederacy to its knees.

    Today, public drunkenness , petty corruption , or sexual shenanigans with a subordinate might land generals in hot water. But as long as they avoid egregious misbehavior, senior officers charged with prosecuting America's wars are largely spared judgments of any sort. Trying hard is enough to get a passing grade.

    With the country's political leaders and public conditioned to conflicts seemingly destined to drag on for years, if not decades, no one expects the current general-in-chief in Iraq or Afghanistan to bring things to a successful conclusion. His job is merely to manage the situation until he passes it along to a successor, while duly adding to his collection of personal decorations and perhaps advancing his career.

    Today, for example, Army General John Nicholson commands U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan. He's only the latest in a long line of senior officers to preside over that war, beginning with General Tommy Franks in 2001 and continuing with Generals Mikolashek, Barno, Eikenberry, McNeill, McKiernan, McChrystal, Petraeus, Allen, Dunford, and Campbell. The title carried by these officers changed over time. So, too, did the specifics of their "mission" as Operation Enduring Freedom evolved into Operation Freedom's Sentinel. Yet even as expectations slipped lower and lower, none of the commanders rotating through Kabul delivered. Not a single one has, in our president-elect's concise formulation, "done the job." Indeed, it's increasingly difficult to know what that job is, apart from preventing the Taliban from quite literally toppling the government.

    In Iraq, meanwhile, Army Lieutenant General Stephen Townsend currently serves as the - count 'em - ninth American to command U.S. and coalition forces in that country since the George W. Bush administration ordered the invasion of 2003. The first in that line, (once again) General Tommy Franks, overthrew the Saddam Hussein regime and thereby broke Iraq. The next five, Generals Sanchez, Casey, Petraeus, Odierno, and Austin, labored for eight years to put it back together again.

    At the end of 2011, President Obama declared that they had done just that and terminated the U.S. military occupation. The Islamic State soon exposed Obama's claim as specious when its militants put a U.S.-trained Iraqi army to flight and annexed large swathes of that country's territory. Following in the footsteps of his immediate predecessors Generals James Terry and Sean MacFarland, General Townsend now shoulders the task of trying to restore Iraq's status as a more or less genuinely sovereign state. He directs what the Pentagon calls Operation Inherent Resolve, dating from June 2014, the follow-on to Operation New Dawn (September 2010-December 2011), which was itself the successor to Operation Iraqi Freedom (March 2003-August 2010).

    When and how Inherent Resolve will conclude is difficult to forecast. This much we can, however, say with some confidence: with the end nowhere in sight, General Townsend won't be its last commander. Other generals are waiting in the wings with their own careers to polish. As in Kabul, the parade of U.S. military commanders through Baghdad will continue.

    For some readers, this listing of mostly forgotten names and dates may have a soporific effect. Yet it should also drive home Trump's point. The United States may today have the world's most powerful and capable military - so at least we are constantly told. Yet the record shows that it does not have a corps of senior officers who know how to translate capability into successful outcomes.

    Draining Which Swamp?

    That brings us to the second question: Even if commander-in-chief Trump were somehow able to identify modern day equivalents of Grant and Sherman to implement his war plans, secret or otherwise, would they deliver victory?

    On that score, we would do well to entertain doubts. Although senior officers charged with running recent American wars have not exactly covered themselves in glory, it doesn't follow that their shortcomings offer the sole or even a principal explanation for why those wars have yielded such disappointing results. The truth is that some wars aren't winnable and shouldn't be fought.

    So, yes, Trump's critique of American generalship possesses merit, but whether he knows it or not, the question truly demanding his attention as the incoming commander-in-chief isn't: Who should I hire (or fire) to fight my wars? Instead, far more urgent is: Does further war promise to solve any of my problems?

    One mark of a successful business executive is knowing when to cut your losses. It's also the mark of a successful statesman. Trump claims to be the former. Whether his putative business savvy will translate into the world of statecraft remains to be seen. Early signs are not promising.

    As a candidate, Trump vowed to "defeat radical Islamic terrorism," destroy ISIS, "decimate al-Qaeda," and "starve funding for Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah." Those promises imply a significant escalation of what Americans used to call the Global War on Terrorism.

    Toward that end, the incoming administration may well revive some aspects of the George W. Bush playbook, including repopulating the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and "if it's so important to the American people," reinstituting torture. The Trump administration will at least consider re-imposing sanctions on countries like Iran. It may aggressively exploit the offensive potential of cyber-weapons, betting that America's cyber-defenses will hold.

    Yet President Trump is also likely to double down on the use of conventional military force. In that regard, his promise to "quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS" offers a hint of what is to come. His appointment of the uber-hawkish Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as his national security adviser and his rumored selection of retired Marine Corps General James ("Mad Dog") Mattis as defense secretary suggest that he means what he says. In sum, a Trump administration seems unlikely to reexamine the conviction that the problems roiling the Greater Middle East will someday, somehow yield to a U.S.-imposed military solution. Indeed, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, that conviction will deepen, with genuinely ironic implications for the Trump presidency.

    In the immediate wake of 9/11, George W. Bush concocted a fantasy of American soldiers liberating oppressed Afghans and Iraqis and thereby " draining the swamp " that served to incubate anti-Western terrorism. The results achieved proved beyond disappointing, while the costs exacted in terms of lives and dollars squandered were painful indeed. Incrementally, with the passage of time, many Americans concluded that perhaps the swamp most in need of attention was not on the far side of the planet but much closer at hand - right in the imperial city nestled alongside the Potomac River.

    To a very considerable extent, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, preferred candidate of the establishment, because he advertised himself as just the guy disgruntled Americans could count on to drain that swamp.

    Yet here's what too few of those Americans appreciate, even today: war created that swamp in the first place. War empowers Washington. It centralizes. It provides a rationale for federal authorities to accumulate and exercise new powers. It makes government bigger and more intrusive. It lubricates the machinery of waste, fraud, and abuse that causes tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to vanish every year. When it comes to sustaining the swamp, nothing works better than war.

    Were Trump really intent on draining that swamp - if he genuinely seeks to "Make America Great Again" - then he would extricate the United States from war. His liquidation of Trump University, which was to higher education what Freedom's Sentinel and Inherent Resolve are to modern warfare, provides a potentially instructive precedent for how to proceed.

    But don't hold your breath on that one. All signs indicate that, in one fashion or another, our combative next president will perpetuate the wars he's inheriting. Trump may fancy that, as a veteran of Celebrity Apprentice (but not of military service), he possesses a special knack for spotting the next Grant or Sherman. But acting on that impulse will merely replenish the swamp in the Greater Middle East along with the one in Washington. And soon enough, those who elected him with expectations of seeing the much-despised establishment dismantled will realize that they've been had.

    Which brings us, finally, to that third question: To the extent that deficiencies at the top of the military hierarchy do affect the outcome of wars, what can be done to fix the problem?

    The most expeditious approach: purge all currently serving three- and four-star officers; then, make a precondition for promotion to those ranks confinement in a reeducation camp run by Iraq and Afghanistan war amputees, with a curriculum designed by Veterans for Peace . Graduation should require each student to submit an essay reflecting on these words of wisdom from U.S. Grant himself: "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword."

    True, such an approach may seem a bit draconian. But this is no time for half-measures - as even Donald Trump may eventually recognize.

    DanB November 29, 2016 at 9:05 am

    As much s I have appreciated Bacevich's views over the past decade, my reaction to this is that he's asking the wrong questions. Just what would a "victory" in these imperial interventions look like? Does he really think our military is protecting our nation? I don't.

    PlutoniumKun November 29, 2016 at 10:21 am

    I believe his point is narrower. Victory in Afghanistan and Iraq would (in the eyes of the establishment) have involved the pacification of those countries with pro-capitalist and pro-western nominally democratic governments in charge (i.e. puppets). That is what the explicit and implicit aim of those invasions was to be. The military was charged with achieving those ends, and they failed (as they've failed elsewhere). And yet, even by the criteria set by the establishment, there has been zero accountability.

    And this is the double failure of Washington. You might give them some credit if they were competent imperialists. But they are the worst of all worlds. They are reckless imperialists who can't even achieve their own stated aims with a modicum of competence. Real imperialists of the past would be rolling around laughing at this lot.

    Colonel Smithers November 29, 2016 at 11:37 am

    Thank you. Well said. You are right to make the distinction between competent, incompetent and real imperialists. My parents came to the UK from a colony in the mid-1960s and talk about the colonial officials they came across. It was the same with my grandparents. I have come across the aspiring neo-cons on the make (and on the take) in the City, marking time until they can be parachuted into a safe seat.

    Few, if any, speak a foreign language and / or spent much time abroad. They give the impression of playing chess from Tory Central Office or some "think tank", but with other countries and lives of people they know nothing, much less care, about. As we watched Obama being crowned in 2009, one (an aspiring Tory MP and former central office staffer) forecasted that Obama would go down as the worst president in history and added that Bush would go down as one of the greats. I made my excuses and went home.

    Foppe November 29, 2016 at 11:54 am

    They're not imperialists, they're corporatists. Graft is the object, and given that construction companies like Halliburton and mercs like Xe don't bankroll Ds, and since bombing campaigns are easy to keep up/out of the news, the money has now shifted to drones.

    As such, they're not failing, except insofar as they are losing access to markets. And that isn't really the case either, since the iraqi don't form a market that matters; whereas the notional 'rebuilding effort' - which did provide opportunities for looting - is/was pretty much over anyway, once it became impossible to deny it "failed".

    hemeantwell November 29, 2016 at 3:06 pm

    I think they are imperialists in the sense that, as William Appleman Williams and others have argued, their primary orienting goal is to extend and sustain the US dominance of a world market.

    If you read what US foreign policy and military planners were saying in after WW2, that's an inescapable conclusion. Your focus on the corporation takes as a given what those planners have felt they need to strategically and militarily secure. Bacevich consistently avoids this issue and so ends up promoting a naive and implicitly hopeful view of US motives and the flexibility with which they can be pursued.

    It's really quite something to go back and read Dean Acheson testifying to a congressional committee that, unlike the Soviet Union, the US requires steady expansion of the world market to survive. He sounds like Rosa Luxemburg.

    Crosley Bendix November 29, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    Do you have a source for that Dean Acheson quote?

    b. November 29, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    Close but not quite there yet who benefits?

    The US is a nation of racketeers, which are perfecting the corruption of services into means of converting tax revenue into private profits. Some of these services are in fact essential, all have been – at least until recently – unassailable regardless of merit. Examples are housing, education, health care, private transportation and of course "national security". The rackets trace back to the exceptional US economic circumstances of WW2, and the leading racket was well established at the end of the Eisenhower presidency (his CYA address notwithstanding).

    For the "self-licking ice-cream cone" of military/security/intelligence/public safety expenditures to continue to grow exponentially, it is not only unnecessary for the tax-purchased services and goods to be functional, let alone deliver results – it is positively counterproductive. The question is not whether any captured government institution is dysfunctional, the question is merely whether and how the profitability it delivers to the "accounting control frauds" in charge of the incumbents can be increased.

    There are many aspects of this particular proud strain of dysfunction capitalism – US weapon exports, "foreign aid" to Israel or Saudi Arabia, support for proxy forces, actual direct expenditure of armaments, and of course force modernization and extension are some of the many flavors. The fuel cost alone for moving men and materiel "fuels" entire industries. It would not at all be surprising to find that those 700 bases maintained – and expanded – are completely useless – if not even significant liabilities – while at the same time improving the bottom line of many suppliers. PMC's and the growing industry supporting ever-increasing logistical "needs" are another vector of the disease. Terrorism, of course, and the market for global and domestic surveillance and "public safety", is both a consequence and a pretext. The perfect racket produces its own justification while profit shares increase and "product" cost decrease.

    It is the privilege of the continental US that, wedged between two oceans, a colony of the crown and a failed state, that it is largely insulated from the blowback of the various theaters of war profiteering (this is, after all, the major advantage the national security racket has over the competing domestic leeches). It stand to reason that the weaker the coupling to the fallout from profitable dysfunction, the longer trends that cannot continue will.

    Iraq 2003 might well have been the last time that any of the major industries involved had any earnest intention to profit from the theater itself. Libya, Syria, Yemen etc. are in the main write-offs, pretexts that open profit channels but not part of it. It is usually ignored that the main issue China and Russia have with the US and its minion states is the abrogation of the concept of sovereign nation stages, going all the way back to Clinton's interventions in the Balkans. By accident or design, US foreign policy is one of scorched earth, preferring failed states to nations capable of resistance. This, too, is a consequence of that "splendid insulation".

    steelhead23 November 29, 2016 at 7:18 pm

    Bravo – spot on.

    Seth November 29, 2016 at 9:24 pm

    Yes. As Gen John Smedley Butler said, "War is a racket."

    JTMcPhee November 30, 2016 at 8:15 am

    Thank you, b., for saying clearly what so many of us perceive dimly through the fog of propaganda, and struggle to name.

    Next question: is there a prayer of catalyzing a healthier political economy, or do we ordinary people just live until we die, as best we can manage? Maybe "judiciously studying the actions" and talking learnedly about them among our percipient selves, until even that illusion of action is finally blocked?

    "In the end, he found he could not help himself: He loved Big Brother."

    steelhead23 November 29, 2016 at 7:10 pm

    The truth is that some wars aren't winnable and shouldn't be fought.

    Success in any enterprise requires the definition of a goal. I believe that the goal of U.S. military action in MENA is two-fold: display fealty to Israel and the kings of the Arabian Peninsula; and to grow the corporate coffers of the MIC here at home. Defined in that way, the U.S. military has "hit it outta da park." Winning? Winning was a pipe dream of the likes of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Cheney knew better and took GWB along for a ride.

    Let us pray that President Trump's small mind and loose tongue substantially degrades the willingness of the U.S.'s partners to continue to play along. May he make America un-great again. Amen.

    john bougearel November 30, 2016 at 7:23 am

    In the US today, we have raised a whole generation of kids where "winning matters not." To that extent we, and our generals – whether imperialistic or corporatistic, are all "special snowflakes" that deserve "participation trophy's" so we don't cry and act out over not winning. I say give all our general's another star for starting and participating in wars that can't be won to begin with. Where participation and not winning is the objective. Three cheers: hip, hip, hooray!

    Kemal Erdogan November 30, 2016 at 5:51 am

    I am highly suspicious that publicly stated goals of the wars were the actual targets. My take is that the actual goal has always been to keep those places in chaos; on US terms and under its control. with a safe US military base to punch those second-rate nations if necessary; By that measure, I believe both the Iraq and Afghan invasions were a success but they cannot pat each other's backs publicly.

    However, they must now admit that they did not think the case of Iraq through, and the case of Syria is a complete failure, raising the stature of Russia to a super power again, while slowly but surely losing influence on Iraq and Egypt. But, that, arguably, could not have been realistically expected of the generals of the time to predict.

    Lee November 29, 2016 at 10:35 am

    I think that may have been his point, albeit delivered obliquely, as in his statement that "some wars should not be fought"; his quote from Grant, "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword", as well as elsewhere in the piece.

    NotTimothyGeithner November 29, 2016 at 11:15 am

    Grant's rise from drunk who couldn't get a job in 1861 and W Scott's efforts to recruit Bobby Lee, a guy who was out of the army for years by that point, are indications the general class was never particularly competent.

    Norb November 29, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    I think you need to re-read the post again. He is asking the right questions and provides a history lesson besides. The beginning paragraphs could be interpreted as the standard, we need victory fare, but all is designed to lead to his final prescription for action- all the while being very diplomatic and appreciative to those who serve in the military.

    Drain the swamp indeed, extricate the military from our national misadventures and retire the top brass more intent on career advancement that the true needs of the nation. Problems solved and we can move on as a nation. Will the world fall apart, if true men and women of honor step forward, I highly doubt it.

    Pretty radical stuff actually, but something that resonates with many people, people without a voice. Change will come from within the military, and it is refreshing to hear words of sanity form those inside the military system-Tulsi Gabbard for one.

    Could Trump shake up the gridlock, we shall see. Like a toxic mine tailing pit, once the retaining walls are breached, the effluence tends to spill out very quickly.

    Whine Country November 29, 2016 at 9:22 am

    Silly question: Does the fault lie in our generals or in our commander in chief? Which leads to another silly question: Who does our commander in chief answer to?

    tony November 29, 2016 at 10:20 am

    The Praetorian Guard. aka the CIA and associates.

    neo-realist November 29, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    In addition to the Praetorian Guard, uber wealthy plutocrats and corporations.

    Pete November 29, 2016 at 9:24 pm

    The generals seem to be only as effective as the policy they are prescribed to carry out. They ultimately answer to the President. So if they're ordered to carry out an impossible task they will obviously fail and they will kick the can down the road to save their own reputations.

    There isn't too much of an incentive to win if you're a careerist either which many of them are since the military is a giant welfare program/bureaucracy largely based on licking boots to advance. It might be nice to add another accolade to that fat stack of attendance ribbons on their chests but that's all it is. Also, even if you were super serious about winning the war look at what happened to Shinseki when he clashed with the civilian leadership over the numbers of troops needed to pacify Iraq post-war. He was marginalized and finally canned altogether.

    ambrit November 29, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    Yes, the good doctor should resolutely shoulder the burden of "opposition party spokesman" and return to the fray. If we all took every slight and injury offered online to heart, there would be nary a rational word communicated, and, we would have much recourse to the suppressed Rogers Profanisaurus.
    Besides, Upstate New York must be cold now, and the Professor spending a lot of time being housebound.

    integer November 29, 2016 at 7:37 pm

    I stood in James' corner once or twice as he started lashing out, as I thought he was just having a few bad days. It went on and I simply ran out of patience with him when he wrote his farewell screed and signed off with: James P. Levy , Ph.D. FRHistS, a man who never hid behind a goddamned nom de plume

    Colonel Smithers November 29, 2016 at 9:38 am

    It will be interesting to hear from readers if they have colleagues who are former service men and women. There has been an influx in the City since the crisis, but they were always there in fewer numbers. Some thrive in admin / COO roles, but many are frustrated and last no more than a couple of years. Dad retired from the Royal Air Force in March 1991 after 25 years. He found it difficult to settle in civilian life (employed as a doctor at St Mary's hospital in west London) and left at the end of 1991 for a development project in southern Africa (a year or so of being a middle class welfare junkie masquerading as a Foreign Office adviser) and twenty years working for Persian Gulf despots around MENA.

    Whine Country November 29, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    I'm a Vietnam vet and I did respond but it has been ignored as usual. The point of my post was that the generals do what they are ordered to do by the commander in chief and the problem lies with whoever that is at any given time. From that flows the logical point that we elect the commander in chief and don't really pay much attention to what he orders. The fault lies with the electorate. Bacevich has made the point (as have others) that when the draft was eliminated voters no longer had skin in the game and became ambivalent which is why the founding fathers set up the system with the citizen soldier as a cornerstone principle. The president at any given time just does what he wants and the only possible means of accountability is through the voting booth. Our wars last stopped when the populace had skin in the game and made it extremely clear to Nixon that we wanted an end. We have met the enemy and he is us.

    weinerdog43 November 29, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    The fault lies partly with the electorate, but also with Congress. For more than a decade, Charlie Rangel has been introducing bills to reinstate the draft. Crickets from Congress.

    I'm a former member of the Selective Service Board, and yes, they still exist. A draft in order to be effective, cannot offer deferments (a la Dick Cheney) and still be fair. Only until those who order the wars have family members (including women) subject to a draft, will we cease our idiotic imperialist impulses.

    Norb November 29, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    While all you say is true, 40 years of corporate evolution in the political sphere has changed the equation. As the last election cycle has shown, any attempt to alter current relationships will need political activism intended to change the system not just gaining office to make slight course corrections. We as a people are too far off course for that. The Vietnam era was a turning point and business interests mobilized to never let that fiasco- people power- take root again. They have been very successful in their mission, but now they have to deal with the problem of an unwanted and underused population. The unemployable if you will.

    Re-instituting the draft is no longer necessary and would be counterproductive to the corporate mission. As long as our current standing army can be paid off, why bother with a draft, it is no longer necessary. You avoid the military coup problem also. Our military continues to be bought off and as long as the economic incentives supporting an excessively large military remain unchallenged, the draft is unnecessary. Unnecessary from the maintenance of corporate power that is. Corporate power must be minimized first, then talk of a draft will make more sense. What values are learned in the military today? USA has ben turned into a corporate brand.

    Being poor, unemployable, or one illness away form such a fate is the new skin in the game. While national service is a force that must be worked into our social responsibilities, its true meaning for strengthening and protecting the people has been subverted into a tool for corruption. Voices within the military that call for a return to the ideal of a citizen soldier instead of a mercenary warrior is what I think Bacevich has in mind.

    voxhumana November 29, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    "now they have to deal with the problem of an unwanted and underused population. The unemployable if you will."

    I call them the "discontinued."

    cocomaan November 29, 2016 at 10:01 am

    Andrew Bacevich, as usual, writes a great article. But Grant and Sherman benefited from having a war with a clear goal: destroy the Confederate army and its government. I hesitate to call anything happening with the US in the Middle East or North Africa or SE Asia a "war" of that nature. There are no clear objectives. There are no criteria for an end of the conflict.

    Instead, this looks a whole lot more like the North's occupation of the South during Reconstruction. We all know how that ended: the North had to pull itself out after an economic depression, more or less leading to a reign of terror through Jim Crow.

    The United States is trying to do Reconstruction in a whole lot of spheres and is failing at that because it's generally an impossible enterprise.

    PlutoniumKun November 29, 2016 at 10:26 am

    I would disagree that there were no clear objectives. The objective was to turn Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, etc., in to countries like Egypt or Jordan or Indonesia – weakened pro-western (or at least western-dependent) puppets with a sheen of democratic respectability, where US corporations could roam free. I don't think there is any need to read anything else into the objectives – that is the 'ideal' for the neocons, and that was their objective, both stated and unstated.

    RUKidding November 29, 2016 at 11:11 am

    You make a good, concise case for what the real objectives are for these unending expensive wars. Of course, this level of clarity re these goals are seldom stated to the populace at large. Rather we're mostly fed bullshit about terrrrists and being kept "safe" and other noodleheaded claptrap.

    Given your definition, however, with which I agree, the Generals have still FAILED. And again, where's the accountability? There is none.

    Trump plans to give himself and all the other Oligarchs, and the corporations giant tax cuts. There will be some in the middle class who experience a tax increase. Yet we're supposed to bloat the MIC budget by some huge amount for what purpose?? So Trump can build hotels, golf courses and casinos in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq? Not being all that snarky.

    PlutoniumKun November 29, 2016 at 11:41 am

    Yes, as I said above, the neocons objective have been an abject failure. They display incompetence at all levels. And yet nobody pays the price. And the fact that the neocons don't try to fire the generals who failed (as numerous political leaders in the past have done) is a reflection of both their incompetence and the fact that the wars have become the ultimate in self licking ice creams.

    Norb November 29, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    While a plan might not be 100% successful, I don't see how you characterize the neocon program an abject failure. It is chugging along just fine. If waste and chaos are states of being that directly benefit your program, they are probably 90% successful.

    If war is a racket, then the good times roll on and talking about failed generals being replaced, or accountability will be served by getting hold of better generals, those sentiments must make them chuckle when they are discussing their private positions. Win/Win for the neocons.

    Ordinary people make the mistake of believing that the current crop of leaders have their interests in mind at all. They do not. If Clintons Public/Private mumbo jumbo didn't clear you of that thinking I don't know what will.

    The proper way to think about these things is the neocon plan is succeeding wonderfully but they are truly too short sighted- i.e. stupid in the long term- to understand the consequences. They understand short term profit completely and how to dispense physical power but little else. Consequences and payback are externalized in their world. If you live in the moment, who cares about the future. As the illuminist Karl Rove once stated, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

    Well, people don't stay passive actors forever. Just as nature cannot absorb carelessness forever. A day of reckoning will come- it alway does. Failure is in the mind of the beholder. It depends on perspective. As the neocons double, tripple, quadruple down on their policies, they will be able to ride the flaming mess into the ground. Think Clinton.

    It is up to us- the sane- to realize the success of the neoliberal program and want out- or off- or whatever phrase makes sense. In our wars of misadventure, it will be those in the military that finally say enough is enough. If someone pulls that off, it would be viewed as the most courageous act in decades.

    neo-realist November 29, 2016 at 3:30 pm

    In our wars of misadventure, it will be those in the military that finally say enough is enough. If someone pulls that off, it would be viewed as the most courageous act in decades.

    30 years in lockup for Chelsea Manning is a warning for those, I suspect, who want to say "enough is enough." I also believe that your ability to move up the hierarchy to make those decisions to keep fighting is determined by your willingness to continue to see through the neoliberal project.

    PlutoniumKun November 29, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    I disagree to the extent that the ideological neocons had a very clearly stated and unambiguous strategic purpose – re-engineering the world as America's corporate playground, with any possible competitor (i.e. Russia and China) firmly penned in. This meant replacing all the mid-size States which were still refusing to be part of the Washington Consensus.

    Its no secret or mystery about what they were seeking. In this, they have failed – Afghanistan remains in chaos, Iraq is more Iran controlled than US controlled, Iran still refuses to come to heel, and Russia and China are making increasing inroads to Central Asia, eastern Europe, Africa and South America. The neocon project is slowly unravelling, with Trump hopefully about to put it out of its misery.

    The issue of war profiteering is something that I see as something entirely different. What the neocons failed to anticipate was that their Clash of Civilisations would result in a hugely powerful military-industrial process which has become self replicating. There are now more people in Washington who's job depends on finding more wars to fight than there are people employed to stop wars. This is the neocons fault, but its not the neocons project – they are just useful idiots for the profiteers.

    Norb November 30, 2016 at 1:09 pm

    I don't make a distinction between the neocons and the profiteers. The worst possible outcome from this neocon disaster would be for the profiteers, the rentiers, to be able to reconstitute their hold over society- or to hold onto it for that matter. What will it take, complete destruction of the biosphere for people to understand that cooperation is the only means of survival?

    While I agree with what you are saying, if desiring a peaceful world is on your agenda, then every effort must be made to not allow the rentiers to take the position of, well now, we overstepped somewhat, will do better next time.

    Making neat divisions is the reason humanity is in the predicament we find ourselves in the first place. We have dissected the whole into so many parts, it is no longer recognizable.

    Modernity has been a dissecting force- a unifying force is needed.

    Brian M November 30, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    I agree with so much of the analysis here. But why do people insist still (especially given his recent appointments) that Trump has any interest at all in putting "it" out of our misery? Color me skeptical.

    cocomaan November 29, 2016 at 11:40 am

    Hey Kim, as RUKidding says, I wouldn't argue that those are clear objectives, because the generals that are being talked about above aren't being told up front that they are working toward that goal.

    Don't get me wrong, I think you're exactly right about those being the objectives.

    visitor November 29, 2016 at 1:44 pm

    Those are the ultimate political goals and the ends of the wars - but generals are never given them as objectives in this form. Concisely, the objectives of any general are threefold:

    1) destroy the enemy forces;
    2) break their will to fight;
    3) control the territory under dispute.

    They learned that at the military academy - after all, these were the fundamental principles articulated by Carl von Clausewitz almost 200 years ago. Well, in those purely military terms, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yemen and Syria are total failures.

    Trump is correct on this point: job not done. At all.

    River November 29, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Glad you brought up Carl von Clausewitz. I remember the Newsweek article when Gen. Tommy Franks said there were 9 centers of gravity in Iraq. The article took this as some type of wisdom. It was clear that Franks hadn't even read the Cliff notes version of On War as there is only one center of gravity according to Carl von C in which you focus your effort on.

    Probably one reason when Franks was put on the Outback Steakhouse board of directors it did so poorly and was pulled out of Canada. He was a great strategist after all /sarc.

    Part of the problem with the U.S military is that the Army sees enemy #2 as the Air Force and Navy. Gotta get those dollars. Another problem is that the U.S fails at the oft quote dictum of Sun Tzu, know yourself and know your enemy.

    The U.S seems to create the enemy they would like to fight rather than the one that's actually there and as a nation has no sense of self anymore. They don't understand their limitations or even their strengths it seems. It seems the Pentagon and the Gov. thinks throwing money equals effectiveness. I'd argue that the unlimited money is the problem. Actual innovation often stems from being limited in some way. Mother is the necessity of invention and all that. Look the German assault teams that were born out of desperation in the final days of WWI. This concept helped tremendously in WW2 and it wasn't unlimited money that created them.

    In America's defense they are great at logistics side of war.

    H. Alexander Ivey November 30, 2016 at 6:10 am

    To further this thread as to why the generals have failed:

    If the point of these wars is to install a pro-Western style (aka USA business friendly) society and government, a point to which I agree is the reason for the US's fighting, then how, in God's name!, are you going to do that when the point of a military is to destroy things and kill people? (words taken from the cover of DoD's documents). The US military is not to build things and help people! The generals are asked to do what their own training prevents them and those they direct from doing.

    JTMcPhee November 29, 2016 at 3:55 pm

    Generals and admirals are all adept politicians and bureaucrats. they have to be to get to that level in the structure. War-fighters, no so much, with few exceptions, https://fabiusmaximus.com/2008/01/14/millennium-challenge/ .

    From all I can see, it's all about looking, emphasize "looking," STRAC, a term from my callow military youth: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=STRAC , a pejorative applied to ambitious second lieutenants and Real Lifer Troopers with those creases in their fatigues and dress greens you could cut your finger on. And sucking up. And kicking down. and feathering one's nest, both now ("Petraeus scandal puts four-star general lifestyle under scrutiny," https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-scandal-puts-four-star-general-lifestyle-under-scrutiny/2012/11/17/33a14f48-3043-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_story.html ) and "going forward" (generals never retreat - they "execute strategic rearward advances to previously prepared positions," as in "Pentagon's revolving door in full swing," http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/department-of-defenses-revolving-door-in-full-swing-098813 )

    Anyone remember this 2010 bit of PowerPoint-ia? "'When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war:' US generals given baffling PowerPoint presentation to try to explain Afghanistan mess," http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269463/Afghanistan-PowerPoint-slide-Generals-left-baffled-PowerPoint-slide.html (And note the Brass Balls of the contractor, PA Knowledge Group Ltd, claiming a COPYRIGHT over this obvious work-for-hire.) This kind of stuff is the daily grist of the strategic/tactical mill that grinds out body counts, serial deployments in search of missions, and the endless floods of corrupt cash, destabilizing weapons and internal and external subterfuges, along with a lot of wry humor and a large helping of despair for the Troops and the mope civilians who "stand too close to Unlawful Enema Combatants ™".

    It's long seemed to me one of the many failings of the species is that some of us produce wise counsel that actually looks to the horizon and beyond, like the fundamental questions articulated by Sun Tzu about whether to commit the peasants who pay for it to a prolonged foreign war with long supply lines that will bankrupt the nation - http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html . And then the idiot few that gain, psychically or monetarily, from conflict, blow that kind of fundamental test of wisdom off and "go to war" or more accurately "send other people to hack and blast each other while the senders get rich."

    There's a fundamental problem that to me gets too little attention: What the Empire is doing is an entirely Barmicide game. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/barmecide Our rulers here in the Empire are pretty good at the procurement, deployment and logistical mechanics of Milo Minderbinder's complex Enterprise, the "war as a racket" thing, the extracting of public wealth to build shiny or stealthy or smart "systems." But as Bacevitch notes, they get to completely escape from the consequences of Only-tool-in-the-box monomania, of applying the big hammer of "War" to the subtle tasks of creating and maintaining a survivable space for the species. Which patently is not the "goal" in any event. And never answered, as pointed out, is the daring question of "what is the goal/are the goals, and what actions or refraining from actions are likely to get there?"

    The talk about "asymmetric warfare" is mostly whining about little wogs who dare to adopt the wisdoms of other ambitious and thoughtful humans, like the Afghans and, yes, even ISIS, on how to defeat (within the terms of the game they are playing and understand that the Empire does NOT understand the terrain or the rules or moves) invaders and colonialists and even corporatists. Though the latter are often victorious in the after-conflict processes, if you can't clobber your enemy, corrupt him! works too.) There are wheels within wheels, of course, and "we mopes" in the Imperial homeland are too busy eking out a survival locally to even try to contemplate let alone understand the complexities of even the Middle East, let alone the Great Game being played out again with Russia and China and the aggressive and Teutonic bosses of the Eurozone All while the "defence" establishment figures out ever more exotic ways to kill humans, via code (genetic and cyber) and "smart weapons" like autonomous killing robots "on land, in air, at sea "

    So is it just the inevitable case that Empires rise up, loot, murder, grow the usual huge corrupt capitals and the militaries to support the looting and keep the mopes in line, and finally succumb to some kind of wasting disease where all the corruption and interest-seeking honeycombs and finally collapses the structure? Is there no other way for humans to organize, because so many of us have the drive to dominate and to grab all the pleasure and stuff we can get away with?

    pictboy3 November 29, 2016 at 11:51 am

    I've grown up hearing commentaries that echo this one as relating to our foreign policy adventures since WWII, and if you take a results oriented approach, they're probably true. But having gone to school for foreign policy work and talking to people who were involved with the foreign policy apparatus (doing the leg work, not the people at the top who basically have no idea what they're doing), I've become more and more convinced that it's simply incompetence.

    I think that the people dictating policy are basically a bunch of Tom Friedmans, who are utterly convinced that their empirically wrong views about how policy is executed are correct. Look at Iraq in the aftermath. Not only did they get not understand that the Sunnis and Shia might not have the best of intentions towards each other, but US companies aren't even getting all the plum oil contracts. Now surely a country that guarantees the security of the Iraqi elite could ensure that it's own companies got the best deals?

    I think the most probable explanation is that they believed their own propaganda. They believed that the Iraqis wanted to be a liberal democracy with a free market, and that US firms would obviously be the most competitive in a bid for the oil contracts. People like Kerry believe in the ideas of human rights and war crimes, condemning the Russians for bombing Aleppo even though we do the exact same thing with a ever so slightly less flimsy justification.

    RUKidding November 29, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    Yes, again, good points, esp in re to the fact that US companies aren't even getting the plum oil contracts. We were told by feckless Cheney via W that there would be that magical mythical Iraqi "Oil Dividend" that would not only pay for the War on Iraq – essentially giving us back the money we spent on it (conveniently ignoring the collateral damage of many US combatant deaths, and many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizen deaths, but who cares about that piddling, trifling detail) – as well as getting more besides.

    Eh? And then what? Well that Dick, Cheney, got very very rich offa US taxpayer dollars, and no doubt some other Oligarchs did as well. But we never ever got paid back for our "investment" in "freeing" the Iraqi's from their oppressor, Saddam.

    And that salient detail was flushed down the memory hole, and duly noted, that at least the Oligarchs did learn ONE lesson from that bullshit, which is to never ever again even go so far as to make a promise that the hapless proles in the USA will ever see one thin dime from these foreign misadventures.

    PlutoniumKun November 29, 2016 at 12:53 pm

    I can't talk from personal experience but I've read plenty of foreign policy publications of the type taken seriously by academics and politicians, and I'd agree with you. Some are laughably stupid, they don't know the first thing about the countries they are talking about. It wasn't just Bush jnr in 2002 who didn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, I strongly suspect that many 'experts' consulted had only the faintest knowledge of what they were dealing with. There are a scary number of second and third rate intellects roaming around sharing their 'knowledge'.

    I think the standard textbook for this should be Graham Greenes 'The Quiet American' . I've always been amazed at the prescience of that book (he pretty much predicted the arc of the Vietnam War in 1959), but I always think of the main character, Pyle, when I see yet another Middle Eastern mess. Pyle is a generally well meaning young man with far too much power, who is convinced by some academic that he has the key to sorting out the whole Vietnam mess. Needless to say, lots of innocents die because of his half baked ideas. The establishment is full of Pyles, although many I think are not quite so well meaning.

    Ignacio November 29, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    I would like to agree with you, but I don't. First and foremost the US is the greatest spender in weapons, and why does anyone spend in weapons if there is not plan to use them? The first objective is to use the weapons and avoid piling a dusting mountain of missiles, bombs, or any other kind of armament. Many wars are mainly the testing battlefields for new weaponry. For that reason, having endless localized wars can be quite useful. Besides using it, the second objective is spread fear. I have it, I have the will to use it, and I am well trained. Spreading fear might not be the best strategy but is has clearly been one of the main objectives in some cases, particularly Iraq.

    The best case of a president looking for an excuse to use the weapons and spread fear was G.W. Bush and Iraq v2.0. The fact that Bush excuses were clumsily manufactured and exposed without shame in the UN is a feature. It means: when we decide that we will attack you nothing will stop us. No democratic control and no international rules can stop us.

    All the rest is palaver.

    Mark P. November 29, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    'why does anyone spend in weapons if there is not plan to use them?'

    And yet the U.S.'s recent, most stupendously expensive weapons systems are unusable. Literally , they cannot be used for most practical purposes in combat.

    The F-35, for instance, has trouble flying and would be bested by air fighters of the previous generation in combat. The Littoral Combat Ship's aluminum superstructure would burn down to the waterline if ever one were hit by a missile (among other problems). And there are other projects that are almost equally ridiculous.

    The point is, of course, that with their cost overruns and sheer unusability, these projects continue precisely because they're stupendously profitable. The American economic system is utterly dependent on such military Keynesianism, which is a principle means of redistribution from rich U.S. states to small ones. And consequently we live in a world reminiscent of the world of useless wepfash designers - weapons fashions designers - envisaged by Philip K. Dick's The Zap Gun.

    One takeaway may be that the U.S. can either have the largest level of military Keynesianism in history or win its wars. It apparently cannot do both.

    voteforno6 November 29, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Remember when Trump threatened to fire a bunch of generals? That really upset a lot of people in Washington. Replacing a flag officer is a very complicated affair – they have a whole rotation system set up, to move them from one job to another. That's certainly reflected in the combat commands as well. They all need to check that box, in order to burnish their credentials. It seems to be just achieving that rank is the real accomplishment. Measuring their performance afterward is irrelevant – in that way, it's very similar to how CEOs are treated in the corporate world. It would be nice if Trump fired a bunch of generals, just because we have too many of them already. I don't see that happening, though.

    Bill Smith November 29, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    Generals get removed. Mattis was retired a year early because he didn't get along with Obama. Whatever "get along' means. Flynn left early. Remember McChrystal?

    Enquiring Mind November 29, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    Rotation may have benefits of exposure to new areas and skill development opportunities. It may also hide failures, and demonstrate the military equivalent of the "dance of the lemons" that shuffles incompetent, corrupt or lazy principals around to different schools. There is more of a meritocracy in the military, with less overt politicization, although the politics takes different forms. I write that sadly as one from a family that supports the military and has many veterans.

    American discussions about military are sidetracked easily by any number of stakeholders. Politicians posture for patriotism (alliteration intended to elicit Porky Pig), while collecting campaign cash. They are only the most visible of those that would shout down or hijack any objective discussion of mission failures or weapons systems debacles such as the F-35. Their less visible neo-con enablers, dual loyalty pundits and effective taskmasters all have their snouts in the trough and their rear ends displayed to the citizens. If there is no other change in DC than to unmask those Acela bandits, then many will applaud.

    Eureka Springs November 29, 2016 at 11:03 am

    War is failure. Do not engage. And for dawgs sake do not arm, train, fund al Q types. I think the last point in re Trumps way of doing things will be most telling. That would be victory.

    Jim Haygood November 29, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    Precisely. The US is situated in the safest neighborhood on the planet - oceans on two sides; Canada and Mexico on the other two. All of the other dozens of nations in the western hemisphere get along just fine without a global network of military bases and a 350-ship navy.

    What the f*** is our problem? As history demonstrates, a value-subtracting global empire is an infallible recipe for economic decline.

    a different chris November 29, 2016 at 11:04 am

    To try to look at the bright side, here's the thing about military people who are "uber hawkish", or actually managed to get a nickname like "Mad Dog" . they like decisive, "clean" (funny word to use for blowing people and the landscape to smithereens, but that's what people label it as) engagements where bad guys are taken out and good guys rejoice.

    If they are, and I'm sure they are, smart enough to see that this is exactly not what the Middle East messes are, they may well tell Trump "let's just get our stuff and go home".

    What we have been trying to do in the ME is not, and has never been (going back to before us, the Russians in Afghanistan) anything where a military makes any sense at all. It's police+political work at best, and despite what we've been turning the police departments into at home, police work is very, very different from military work. Hopefully the warrior types see this, whereas the Hillary Clintons of the world simply won't.

    Again, no more than just hoping

    Plenue November 30, 2016 at 3:16 am

    The US can win any standup fight. We quickly smashed the Taliban's military, and Saddam didn't last long at all. It's the long, grinding guerrilla war that comes after that we inevitably lose. And even there we will win 99% of the engagements (if all else fails, drop a giant bomb on them) and yet sooner or later we'll run home with our tail between our legs.

    blert November 30, 2016 at 5:03 am

    Washington is addicted to gold-plated occupations. Whereas the only route to success is minimalist, an economy of force strategy. That also entails economy of injuries. Occupying forces ought to spend most of their time like Firemen - in their bunks back at the barracks. That's how success was achieved in the 19th Century. ( British Empire, American nation, French Empire. )

    Such a scheme is still working wonders in South Korea. Not a whole lot of casualties that way.

    Nation building is crazy all across the ummah. They won't suffer it. You would NOT believe the amount of infrastructure blown up by our Iraqi allies - as a financial hustle.

    It took forever for the American Army to figure out that the reason the power system kept crashing was that the fellow building it up was corrupt and cashing in hugely by re-doing the same work five times over. He would pull security off the power grid at point X so that his cousins could dynamite the towers. Yes, he fled when the jig was up.

    With his departure, the system started to work. This fiasco was an extreme embarrassement to the US Army and the Iraqi officials. The perp had his whole clan involved. (!) Yes, this story is suppressed. Guess why ?

    The dollar figures involved are staggering.

    There were hundreds of Shia grifters, too.

    Synoia November 29, 2016 at 11:14 am

    1. The Generals have won. They are Generals.
    2. The Military does not win wars, it prolongs the stalemate until the enemy's economy collapses.
    3. With no public definition of win (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria), what is win?
    4. The MIC is very lucrative. There are man, many winners there.

    Mark P. November 29, 2016 at 5:30 pm

    All correct.

    blert November 29, 2016 at 11:21 am

    The Bush Administration arrogantly assumed that all peoples are enough alike that they can be rescued the same way as Western Europeans were - after the Nazis were driven off. This premis was an epic error for the ages. The entire Washington establishment - to include the Pentagon - and the MSM went along with this premis. In many ways they STILL buy into it.

    You never read MSM articles questioning whether Iraqis or Afghans can buy into republican democracy. The assumption is that the whole world is waiting with baited breath to achieve this Western political-cultural ideal.

    But Islam proscribes democracy, and these lands are emotionally Islamic in the extreme. When queried, virtually every man demands Shariah law, under Islam.

    Changing Afghan culture is what doomed the Soviet 'project.' So the Pentagon was not ever going to touch cultural issues. This has proved very controvesial as Afghans practice pederasty on a grand scale. Likewise, the NATO nations were not going to 'touch' the opium trade.

    They were also wholly dependent upon Pakistan for logistics. Ultimately, a second rail route was established at horrific expense across Russia. But no military specific goods could travel by that route.

    So the entire campaign was both necessary - to punish al Qaeda and the Taliban - and unwinnable in a WWII sense. There never was a thought about expanding the scope of the conflict up to WWII purportions, of course.

    The problem is not that of Pentagon leadership.

    The folly starts at the strategic level - straight out of the White House.

    It was a mistake for Bush to be so optomistic, grandiose.

    It was a mistake for Obama to run away from Iraq. A corps sized garrison force would've permitted him enough influence to stop Maliki from sabotaging his own army - with crony appointments. ( The Shia simply did not have enough senior talent. So he over promoted his buddies and his tribe. This set the stage for ghost soldiers and a collapse in morale across entire divisions. )

    The correct solution, in 2011, was to endure - like we have in South Korea.

    The correct solution, in 2009, was to NOT expand Afghan operations. I spent many an hour arguing the folly of said expansion. It was inevitable that after any expansion there would be a massive draw down - which would destablize the Kabul government.

    The correct solution for both was a steady-state, economy of operations mode - with the US Army largely standing idle in their barracks - letting the locals run all day to day operations.

    You end up with the best of all worlds, low American casualties, low interference with the locals, yet a psychological back-bone for young governments – – who are financial cripples.

    At this time, the best route is to cut off Pakistan from all Western aid, and to entirely stop Pakistani immigration to the West. Islamabad is as much an enemy of the West as Riyadh or Tehran.

    This would also help calm Pakistan down, as it's the cultural embarrassment vis a vis the West that's driving Pakistanis crazy. Let them interact with their blood cousins, the Hindus of India. That'll be plenty enough modernity for Islamabad and Riyadh.

    Pull out of Syria entirely. Stop funding al Nusrah - which is an acknowledged branch of al Qaeda. Egypt has entered the conflict on the side of Assad, Iran and Russia, most recently. The "White Hats" are a fraud.

    voislav November 29, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Comparing "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan with Civil War or such conflicts confuses the issue and shifts the responsibility from the policy makers to the military. Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars, they are occupations and as such are unwinnable.

    US is caught in a typical occupation trap, where they want a subservient regime that is under their control. Subservient regimes are subservient because they lack a large power base and are dependent on their foreign backers. A subservient regime with a power base does not stay subservient for long, they quickly develop an independent streak at which point you have to overthrow them and install a different, weaker regime.

    US imposed regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan are classic examples of this. Al-Maliki in Iraq was a marginal figure before becoming prime minister, similar to Karzai in Afghanistan. The new leaders, Ashraf Ghani as the new Afghan president and Haider Al-Abadi as the Iraqi prime minister are both ex-pats that only returned to the country after US occupation. Both Al-Maliki and Karzai have been in power long enough that they were starting to develop a power base and show signs of breaking away from the US, so they had to be replaced.

    Stabilizing a subservient regime with a weak power base requires US presence and boots on the ground. A subservient regime with a strong power base that can support itself quickly stops being subservient and has to be replaced. A "victory", where US troops would not be necessary for the regime support, means loss of control over the regime.

    So US is stuck in a loop. Political considerations force them to build up a regime to a point of independence, only to have to tear it down when it looks like it might go against American interests. US military takes the blame because they have to fight the latest insurgent group CIA built up to effect regime change.

    Mick Steers November 29, 2016 at 11:27 am

    I would never gainsay that many technocratic, careerist general officers might be looking for ways to enhance their glory and bid up their asking price for CNN slots and board positions at Lockheed Martin. But the swamp you seek to drain has an apex predator; wealthy and powerful civilians. I seem to recall some generals, Eric Shinseki and Jay Garner come to mind, who tried to bring a little truth to power and avoid the biggest mistakes of the Iraq war.

    Ideologues in the administration had other plans. The first being the original sin of the war itself, supported by a vast industry of defense, finance and media interests who knew opportunity when they saw it. As for now, what the hell is the mission that the military is supposed to win? I get the sense we will have our next big, proper war on account of using the military to solve problems that no military could, like say a GWOT.

    Eisenhower's prophecy has metastasized so deeply into the body politic, only a profound change in the views of the citizenry could possibly make a difference. Short of economic or military upheaval, it's hard to see how do we do this when our best paying jobs are strategically sprinkled across the country, making every procurement and every base sacrosanct to even the most liberal, libertarian or even peace-nick politicians? So, isn't the swamp much larger that the military officer corps? Drain this one part, and it would fill back in rather quickly if that was the main thrust of our attack on this nightmare.

    I suspect Trump is headed to the White House partly because a significant number of people concluded that social upheaval will be hastened by his administration, and that the consequences, whatever they may be, will be worth bearing so that we can rebuild on the ashes of the neoliberal/neoconservative era.

    I sympathize, but with three college aged daughters, I was willing to work for, wait for, another shot at a Bernie Sanders shaped attack on the system rather than throwing a Trump grenade. Trump will only disrupt the system by accident, and absolutely unpredictably. His family's interests are superbly served by the status quo, give or take a tax break or another busted union. It's madness not to see his run for presidency as a vanity project run amok. If his cabinet and congress play him right, it's pedal to the metal for the most reactionary, avaricious, vindictive and bellicose impulses in this country.

    Someone might get hurt, and with bugger all to show for it.

    Leigh November 29, 2016 at 11:30 am

    Isn't victory the one thing we seek to avoid ? If there were victory anywhere, it would mean "the end", and everyone knows arm sales cannot, should not, must not, end. After all, it is the only industrial endeavor we are still good at.

    RUKidding November 29, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    Yes, well there's that as well. And that's not an insignificant issue. So again, the witless proles are fed endless propaganda about terrrrrists and being "safe" in order to keep on keeping on. Trump played the rubes about safety with his vitriolic Anti-Muslim rhetoric. Although Trump claimed not to want to continue the wars, I seriously doubt he'll do one damn thing to make improvements in this regard.

    Colonel Smithers November 29, 2016 at 11:40 am

    Have readers seen / thought of the amount of decorations modern US generals and admirals wear in comparison to their WW2 equivalents? I know Uncle Sam has been in permanent war for a long time, but does beating up Grenada and Panama count? The other lot to wear a lot of bling are the welfare junkies occupying Buck House.

    NotTimothyGeithner November 29, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    Compared to Ike and Bradley, but Beedle wrote a book where he claimed credit for single-handedly winning the war. West Point is ultimately a self selective group which poses a set of problems. What kind of kid wants to be a soldier for 30 to 40 years at age 16 when they need to start the application process? No one accidentally winds up at West Point or the other academies anymore. What kind of kid in 1810 thought he could carry on for Washington at age 16? I bet he's arrogant and loves pomp and pageantry.

    I'm convinced we need to draft the officer corp from college bound seniors.

    rd November 29, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    Only Mussolini and Goering had a leg up on MacArthur regarding bling.

    Fec November 29, 2016 at 11:48 am

    From Nafeez Ahmed , last year:

    Unfolding the Future of the Long War, a 2008 RAND Corporation report, was sponsored by the US Army Training and Doctrine Command's Army Capability Integration Centre. It set out US government policy options for prosecuting what it described as "the long war" against "adversaries" in "the Muslim world," who are "bent on forming a unified Islamic world to supplant Western dominance".

    susan the other November 29, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    Interesting. Rand was enlisted to write up a report almost a decade later on a decision that was made in 2000 when Little George decided to run for office. Making it appear to have just evolved into this situation today, no doubt. Remember Rumsfeld's name for the ME war in 2002 was "Odyssey Dawn". When he first tried to call it a "Crusade" he horrified everyone and had to find something more genteel. But Odyssey Dawn clearly says it all – it will be a very long war and it will carry us around the world and we will stagger in confusion but in the end we will find our way. Not the kind of war you can win by "bombing the shit out of em," as Donald might do. The victory we will get from Odyssey Dawn will be the benefits of attrition and engagement. But the devastation we cause will never be worth it.

    Chauncey Gardiner November 29, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    Bacevich: "Yet here's what too few of those Americans appreciate, even today: war created that swamp in the first place. War empowers Washington. It centralizes. It provides a rationale for federal authorities to accumulate and exercise new powers. It makes government bigger and more intrusive. It lubricates the machinery of waste, fraud, and abuse that causes tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to vanish every year. When it comes to sustaining the swamp, nothing works better than war."

    Appreciated Bacevich's three questions, particularly the second. Far past time to come clean on the real strategy in MENA. The mission and "the job" of military leaders has NOT been to bring America's wars to a timely and successful conclusion. Instead, there is a strategy to balkanize that region, keep it in chaos, keep the American people in perpetual wars and "support our troops" mode, threaten Europeans with a flood of immigrants, assure profits for the MIC and access for oil majors, and simply keep the military and other agencies occupied. "Winning a war" (and subsequent occupation) in terms of "bringing conflicts to a prompt and successful conclusion" doesn't appear to be high on the priority list of those who set the nation's geopolitical and military strategy. Project for a New American Century indeed.

    In terms of "draining the swamp" that war has created, as Bacevich points out, the names mentioned as prospective appointees as national security adviser and defense secretary are not cause for optimism that the incoming administration will implement policies that will lead to resolution rather than perpetuating this mess.

    David November 29, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    Well, the US military's performance in WW1 and WW2, often against weak opposition, was less than stunning. They won their battles with massively superior firepower, for the most part. But many of the same criticisms that Bacevich makes could be, and indeed were, made of the Vietnam War, which is an odd omission from his article. If anything, the level of generalship then was probably worse than it is today.

    But the real problem does, indeed, lie in Washington; Accepting that the US strategy in Iraq, for example, was indeed to create a pliable, pro-western democratic state, it's not clear that there was actually much the military could do when it started to unravel because of the inherent stupidity of the idea. At what the military call the "operational" level of war, there seems to have been a complete thought vacuum in Washington. I can imagine successive generals asking the political leadership "yes, but what exactly do you want me to do " and never getting a coherent answer.

    optimader November 29, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    Nor should we overlook the resulting body count. Since the autumn of 2001, something like 370,000 combatants and noncombatants have been killed in the various theaters of operations where U.S. forces have been active. Although modest by twentieth century standards, this post-9/11 harvest of death is hardly trivial.

    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    figure ~$5T squandered to date

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903285704576560593124523206
    A dozen terrorism scholars gave a wide range of answers when asked to estimate how many members there are, how the numbers have changed during al Qaeda's lifespan and how many countries the group operates in. Analysts put the core membership at anywhere from 200 to 1,000

    My recollection is toward the low end ( towards 200ppl) at the time of GWB addle-minded decision to pull the relatively modest special forces resources out of Tora Bora in Afghanistan that had the AlQ Principles in the crosshairs. Instead GWB pursued a bizarre and unrelated non-sequitur mission of tipping over SH in Iraq– allegedly because Saddam had threatened his Dad?

    What was a reasonable response with explicit objectives to remedy a criminal act (as well at the time with fairly unanimous sympathies of other Countries) could have been accomplished with a modest Military footprint before getting the fk out of Afghanistan.

    Instead it was scaled up into stupid endless Perpetual War without achievable objectives. In retrospect divide $5T by 200-1,000 and consider how little it may have cost if 9/11 had been treated as a criminal act by non-state actors, instead of sticking our foot into the role of destabilizing other sovereign countries, killing /antagonizing the citizens and generally fking up their countries??

    Am I missing something here?

    annie moose November 29, 2016 at 1:04 pm

    oooo ooooo hand flailing wildly I want to build the next 43 million dollar gas station!

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/02/pentagon-afghanistan-gas-station-boondoggle/75037032/

    rd November 29, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    I think the US is falling into the old imperialist trap of thinking of these places as countries with capital cities and leaders recognized as such by the population. The British had that issue in the 1770s when they captured the capital(s) of the new US but the revolution didn't stop. External superpower (French) support was able to keep the resistance functioning and the British eventually gave up. Both of those superpowers kept duking it out on other battlefields for another 30 years.

    Yugoslavia was a temporary post-WW II construct based on a personality cult of Tito. When he died, the real Yugoslavia turned out to be a bunch of tribes that really, really hated each other and it all went to pieces.

    North America is unusual with a huge moat around it other than a little isthmus at the south end. Even so, there are millions of illegal immigrants that come over that isthmus or cross over the southern moat (Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean) over the years. Only three countries (Mexico, US, Canada) are in play and those borders have been stable for over a century. This was after the US fought a massive civil war to keep that basic structure instead of having another country. Even so, Quebec has come close to secession, Texas and California mumble about it periodically, and Mexico effectively has a civil war with drug cartels. However, this is VERY stable compared to nearly anywhere else in the world, so it leads us to false equivalencies about how other parts of the world should work.

    Putting in corrupt leaders with no popular support doesn't work as we have recently proved again in Afghanistan and Iraq after having proved it previously in Vietnam and Cuba (pre-Castro). The Afghanistan outcome may have worked better if the concept of Afghanistan disappeared and NATO had worked with each region to come up with rational boundaries based on historical tribal alliances. T.E. Lawrence had drawn a map like that for Iraq c.1918 but it did not fit the colonial power requirements.. Turkey vs. the Kurds and Iran linking with the Shiites ensured that natural map wasn't going to happen in 2003 either.

    So, it is not clear what victory means in these areas. I think in many cases our concept of victory is very different than what the locals think is acceptable. It appears that Assad, Russia, and Iran may be "victorious" in Syria because it is clear they are willing to wipe out the village to save it. They may find that there is nobody left there to rule though, so they will repopulate those areas with allies, thereby probably sowing the seeds for another future war.

    Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg November 29, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the imposition of the Spanish Empire; total destruction of native culture and replacement with Roman forms. The places the Spanish controlled are still broken, so don't look for success in this endeavor anytime soon

    optimader November 29, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the imposition of the Spanish Empire

    At least the Spanish had a quantifiable, albeit indefensible objective (resource extraction) that drove their predatory behavior. Our quizzical form of imperialism is a net resource drag with fuzzy morphing objectives

    rd November 29, 2016 at 4:38 pm

    Say what you want about the British Empire, but they did leave behind functioning legal and political systems in most of the countries they controlled. In India's case, they also left them a common language since there are so many languages there. Many of the countries remained in the Commonwealth after independence which is something that none of the other colonial powers achieved.

    I think the key was the British focused on empire as an extension of commerce, not ideology (they already knew they were superior, so they didn't have to prove it, which allows for pragmatism). In the end, when it was clear that they couldn't hold on, they backed out more gracefully than many other empires.

    Ranger Rick November 29, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    If there's one thing we can hope for in a Trump presidency, it's going to be Trump looking at the disaster of biblical proportions that continues to unfold in the arena of government contracting. It doesn't matter which sector his gaze falls upon, he's going to find an appalling failure in contract negotiation: the F-35, the Zumwalt, the LCS, the KC-46, the B-21 (really, just the idea of cost-plus contracts in general), the SLS, the FCC's Universal Service Fund, the EPA's Superfund, the Department of Education's "Race to the Top" and "No Child Left Behind" mandates, the ACA, the dollar value on whatever classified contract the telecommunications industry has to spy on the American people, the private contractors presently employed by the military to perform its duties - the list is endless.

    rd November 29, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    The military-industrial complex has perfected the art of putting parts of the design, manufacturing, testing, and deployment of these programs into just about Congressional District so that everybody wants their constituents to have a shot at one part of the trough.

    This is how empires fall. Asymmetrical economic and military warfare against entrenched bureaucracies and corruption.

    dcblogger November 29, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    the only way to win is to not play the game

    jo6pac November 29, 2016 at 4:26 pm

    potus wants to make money giving speeches after office and also needs $$$$$$$$$$$ for his lieberry.
    The merchants of death will hire him for those speeches and send money for lieberry.
    The generals of today help the merchants of death make money so when the retire they can go to work for the merchants of death.
    The idea is to never win so there is always an enemy so the merchants of death can continue to profit.
    The easy way to control a country is to have chaos all the time. This makes easier to steal resources and keep citizens from pulling their own levers of justice. We only have to look at Amerika but other countries around the globe have the same going on. austerity for all.

    The .01% would like to thank you for staying at each others throats.

    Joaquin Closet November 29, 2016 at 5:14 pm

    I matriculated at one of the U.S. Military Service Academies. I had my share of classes on "War Footing," "War Strategies" and "War, War, War – The Scarlet O'Hara Doctrine." (That last one was mine and mine alone.)

    And then I took the typical post-grad Naval War College assortment of "think-tanked" war symposiums. All for naught, I must say.

    Then came my time in the field. Most of my peers were good soldiers, junior officers and even a few were leaders. But no one I knew had the stomach for the orders passed down – they were seen just as watered-down "march-in-place" bullshit until the next wave of senior leadership flew in.

    We junior officers were in the field just as much as our men – I'd say half (or more) of my squadrons were comprised of men and women on their second, third, fourth – or more – tours of duty. I'm so glad they didn't hear the bullshit we had to listen to. In fact, to this day, my greatest gift to my men and women was the translation and humanizing effect of taking bullshit orders and making them palatable for them.

    No, we haven't won a war since WWII for many reasons; but, in my humble estimation, the two biggest culprits are politics and logistics. For one, our politicians don't know what it's like to wage war, what it's like for the combatants or the civilians seemingly always caught in the middle. Or what the hell we're going to do in the off-chance that we win one of these puppies.

    No, the Generals have not forgotten how to win wars – in fact, there are no generals alive now who ever had the good fortune to win one. So the Generals don't know how to win wars.

    Oh, by the way – this was during Vietnam. Nothing has changed.

    Wombat November 29, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    Glad to read a comment from someone with first hand experience. Generals know how to win conventional wars, where success is measured based on % enemy destroyed or seizing an objective. One could argue Norman Schwarzkopf won the 1st Gulf War, only difference is that U.S. Generals weren't left to perform humanitarian functions after. As the author eludes to - but still doesn't stray from attacking the competence of senior military leaders– without an objective can success be determined? If one's mission as a Colonel is to lead a Brigade security operation on a Forward Operating Base for a year, can he/she be successful based on the author's arbitrary standards of success? I would argue with minimal casualties and no breaches over the year, the mission would be a success, but these everyday successes are neglected. Accordingly, if a Component Combatant Commander leads coalition operations in Iraq for two years with 0.05% coalition casualties and no FOBs being breached, shouldn't that be a success?

    It's too bad that General's success can't be measured like their CEO equivalents based on an quarterly earnings, instead they have to answer to often ill-informed civilian leadership being judged by vacant metrics and arbitrary standards by those like Bakevich. At least the military's top executives (Generals) make about 4x their median worker's salary. These men and women could take far better jobs in the MIC or the Corporate Realm, many I'm sure stay for noble reasons to lead their servicemembers.

    knowbuddha November 29, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    Sounds like the lament of an aging mafia don that's forgotten what he's talking about is illegal. "Why can't our generals pull off a good old-fashioned smash and grab like they used to? They must be incompetent!"

    That's so last millennium. We've moved on, don. Smash & grabs are penny ante. Now the game is Full-Spectrum Dominance.

    Joint Vision 2020 Emphasizes Full-spectrum Dominance

    So I don't think an old-fashioned smash & grab has been the goal for a long time. For decades (ever since WWII?) we've been trying to regime change our way to the goal of every Hollywood mad scientist and super-villian: everlasting world dominance.

    What have they actually accomplished? Hard to say, from my vantage point. "Insufficient data," as the old Star Trek computer said.

    I know that one of the main goals is to prevent there from ever being any threat to our dominance. So while China and Russia aim for Eurasian integration, we're all about it's disintegration. We're also determined to keep the EU from ever threatening our dominance. South America is slipping the yoke, but we haven't given up.

    At the very least, our generals are doing a smashing job of spreading chaos. And then there's weaponized economics.

    Here in the "Homeland" (genuflects), on the "home front," in the domestic "battle space," it's important to realize that when the Pentagon says "full-spectrum dominance," that means us, comrades. Wall-to-wall surveillance? Check. POTUS power to execute or disappear dissidents? Check. Torture enshrined in secret laws and the public mind? Check.

    On what level are the relevant decisions being made: public discourse, or top security? We're not privy to the councils where super secret intelligence is discussed and the big decisions are made. We're out here, on the receiving end of weapons-grade PSYOPS.

    So what are we talking about, here? I don't think analyses based in kayfabe will ever arrive at real insight. Analyzing events in terms of the cover stories meant to dupe us is much ado about nothing.

    The above article was published in 2000. Obama never renounced FSD. AFAIK it's still the strategy. Why doesn't the esteemed colonel frame his analysis in terms of our official defense posture? Are we any closer to FSD, or not?

    But I must say, nice job of framing the debate. /s

    As far as any hope for change under the new don, I don't see any. He'd have to publicly renounce FSD, wind down the empire of bases, and find something to do with all those now in its employ, all while "pivoting" to climate change and rejuvenating the economy, to actually respond to our actual conditions. The Don is many things, but a martyr for peace and Mother Earth ain't one.

    I'll be impressed when the colonel starts calling our wars crimes against humanity and for their immediate cessation and full reparations. "Moar better generals" will not succeed at accomplishing a basically insane strategy. Until then, I'll file Bacevich under "modified limited hangout."

    integer November 30, 2016 at 12:28 am

    Great comment. Thanks.

    ewmayer November 29, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    "But can he do anything about it?" - Don't go to war without a damn good reason seems like it might be a pretty good start. Despite his typically being all over the map on this – e.g. tough-on-terrorism-and-ISIS – I found myself repeatedly surprised during the primary season at Trump being the only major-party candidate – even including Bernie – to consistently talk good sense on Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Russia.

    Lambert Strether November 30, 2016 at 3:30 am

    Agreed. I was surprised, too. Of course, it's the working class children in the flyover states who join the military and go to war, and come back maimed or with PTSD to a rotten job market. So that may have been politically astute on Trump's part and, if so, good for him.

    VietnamVet November 29, 2016 at 8:00 pm

    Andrew Bacevich is correct if one wears blinders and looks strictly at DoD Generals. The reality is that there is a Western Imperium that is intent only on short term profits and has degenerated into looting its own people and destroying sovereign nations. The Vietnam War showed that colonial wars could not be fought with a conscript army. The volunteer US Army is too small to put a platoon of soldiers in every village and town square in Afghanistan let alone Iraq. The endless wars were unwinnable from the get go. The globalist empire is supremely efficient in looting taxpayers, trashing Deplorables and spreading regime change campaigns across the world. The forever wars are being fought by proxy forces with Western military support without a single thought for their deadly consequences to make money.

    Synoia November 29, 2016 at 8:32 pm

    Let's be brutally frank. The US both wants an empire, but also wants to pretend it is encouraging democracy everywhere. Objectives where the result is deceitful and duplicitous behavior. Ask the Indians about the methods, or the beneficiaries of the "Monroe Doctrine." The British wanted an empire. A simple objective. If you are not England, you are a colony, and we, the English, make the rules. At the heart of American activities is a kernel of deceit. Self determination for people, but only if you do what we say. The kernel of deceit poisons every walk of life connected to Washington. Every single one.

    The US is called the empire of chaos. It could also be called the empire of Deceit. Do as we say, but we are not taking any responsibility for you if you do what we say. Don't do what we say, and we will fund your opposition until they stuff a dagger up you ass.

    medon November 29, 2016 at 11:40 pm

    I don't understand why we're in the Middle East at all. The US seems taken by the 4000 year old, 5th grade concept of controlling the "Fertile Crescent." Why don't we just buy the oil we want at prevailing prices.

    Winning for the Boykin-ites is when the Middle East becomes Christian! lol As Smedley said. "It's a racket." Whatever, then there's Israel's push to steal Palestinian gas and pipe it thru Syria and Turkey to markets in the Europe.

    blert November 30, 2016 at 4:51 am

    1) You've got Qatar crossed up with the West Bank.

    2) Israel has plenty of its own natural gas it wants to export.

    Helping out Wahhabist Qatar is not in the playbook.

    Wahhabish ~ Nazisim in all but name.

    They line up almost perfectly right down the line starting with pathological Jew-hatred.

    JTMcPhee November 30, 2016 at 10:12 am

    HJi, blurt - Can you spell "Hasbarah"?

    Davidt November 29, 2016 at 11:49 pm

    Think about Democrats using identity politics to claim religious fervor and war used to show being strong on defense. With both political parties using corruption to align power and control at home and abroad. Choosing your enemies carefully, for you will become them.

    Dick Burkhart November 30, 2016 at 4:37 am

    Right on, Andrew!

    Let's just pull out of the Middle East and do everything we can to de-escalate these wars: especially to keep the other great powers out too, unless called back in as a true UN peacekeeping force after the locals have found a way to cool things down.

    Clark Landwehr November 30, 2016 at 6:01 am

    The US military was the first part of the government to be turned into a business, the first neo-liberal institution created in America. The real problem is that the US military is run by managers and not soldiers. The Germans used to make fun of the British Army in WWI by calling it an army of lions led by donkeys. The US military is an army of lions led by managers.

    fresno dan November 30, 2016 at 7:07 am

    War on Crime.
    War on Poverty.
    War on Cancer.
    War on Drugs.
    War on Terror.

    So many, many wars .so little victory.
    A cynic might suggest its all a PR campaign

    S Haust November 30, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    Oddly enough, Tomdispatch does not appear to be on (drum roll)

    THE LIST

    Are they that stupid and careless or is it meaningful?

    Paul Art November 30, 2016 at 3:40 pm

    If Andrew is looking for a denouement to the Military Industrial complex then one need look no further than the British empire – specifically what made it shrink and shrivel very rapidly. WWI and WWII. The decimation of the economy and the inability to keep spending money to maintain empire is what reversed the entire machine. It will be the same with the US as well.

    As long as the dollar is high and Wall Street keeps it that way, there will be no pressure to do anything different. When people start going hungry and jobless and start getting the bejesus bombed out of them as happened during the blitz then they begin to understand what war truly means. In America there has been no war for too long and the people here know nothing about war's sufferings and privations. There was a little window via the draft during 'Nam' but that's about it. Nothing will happen until a majority of the populace start hurting real bad.

    [Nov 30, 2016] Collapse of neoliberalism means rise of neofascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think tribalism is a bad term to describe this phenomenon. In reality what we see should be properly called "far right nationalism". And in several countries this is a specific flavor of far right nationalism which is called neofascism ..."
    "... Brexit is just a symptom of growing resistance to neoliberalism, and the loss of power of neoliberal propaganda. Much like "Prague Spring" was in the past. ..."
    "... the sustainability of modern far right nationalism depends mainly on continuation of austerity policies and uncontrolled neoliberal globalization with its outsourcing of local manufacturing, services and replacing well paying jobs with McJobs. Which cannot be stopped without betraying of fundamental tenets of neoliberalism as an ideology and economic theory. ..."
    "... Thanks to "neoliberalism achievements" far right nationalism already achieved the status of mass movement with own political party(ies) in most EU countries. Trump_vs_deep_state in the USA is pretty modest demonstration of the same trend in comparison with EuroMaydan (Yanukovich government was a typical corrupt neoliberal government). And first attempts might fail (as they failed in Ukraine) ..."
    Nov 30, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    likbez 11.29.16 at 2:17 am 6

    John Quiggin on November 28, 2016:

    Since the collapse of faith in neoliberalism following the Global Financial Crisis, the political right has been increasingly dominated by tribalism

    The sustainability of tribalism as a political force will depend, in large measure, on the perceived success or failure of Brexit.

    I see it differently. I think tribalism is a bad term to describe this phenomenon. In reality what we see should be properly called "far right nationalism". And in several countries this is a specific flavor of far right nationalism which is called neofascism , if we understand neofascism as

    neofascism = fascism 
        – physical violence as the main tool of controlling opposition
        – attempts to replace parliamentary democracy with the authoritarian rule
        + some degree of acceptance of "unearned income" and financial oligarchy 
        + weaker demands for social protection of middle class and Drang nach Osten 

    Brexit is just a symptom of growing resistance to neoliberalism, and the loss of power of neoliberal propaganda. Much like "Prague Spring" was in the past.

    And the sustainability of modern far right nationalism depends mainly on continuation of austerity policies and uncontrolled neoliberal globalization with its outsourcing of local manufacturing, services and replacing well paying jobs with McJobs. Which cannot be stopped without betraying of fundamental tenets of neoliberalism as an ideology and economic theory.

    Thanks to "neoliberalism achievements" far right nationalism already achieved the status of mass movement with own political party(ies) in most EU countries. Trump_vs_deep_state in the USA is pretty modest demonstration of the same trend in comparison with EuroMaydan (Yanukovich government was a typical corrupt neoliberal government). And first attempts might fail (as they failed in Ukraine)

    In other words neoliberalism is digging its own grave, but not the way Marx assumed.

    [Nov 30, 2016] Welcome to the world of Europes far-right - Al Jazeera English

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moreover, the use of labels such as "populist right" are not really helping. Populism is not an ideology. The widespread use of the term by the majority of commentators distracts from the true nature of far-right parties. ..."
    "... Are we then really sure that these movements moderated their agenda? In fact, they promote a narrow concept of community, that excludes all the "different" and foreigners. ..."
    "... "Our European cultures, our values and our freedom are under attack. They are threatened by the crushing and dictatorial powers of the European Union. They are threatened by mass immigration, by open borders and by a single European currency," ..."
    "... The Austrian Freedom Party , on a similar line, "supports the interests of all German native speakers from the territories of the former Habsburg monarchy" and the "right of self-determination" of the German-speaking Italian bordering region of South Tyrol. ..."
    "... On the other hand, Marine Le Pen, president of the French National Front, promotes a principle of "national priority" for French citizens in many areas, from welfare to jobs in the public sector. ..."
    Nov 30, 2016 | www.aljazeera.com
    Around a decade ago, Columbia University historian Robert Paxton rightly pointed out how "a fascism of the future - an emergency response to some still unimagined crisis - need not resemble classical fascism perfectly in its outward signs and symbols ... the enemy would not necessarily be Jews.

    An authentically popular fascism in America would be pious, anti-black, and, since September 11, 2001, anti-Islamic as well; in Western Europe it would be secular and, these days, more likely anti-Islamic than anti-Semitic; and in Russia and Eastern Europe it would be religious, anti-Semitic, Slavophile, and anti- Western.

    New fascisms would probably prefer the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and time." Does any of this sound familiar across the Atlantic?

    Moreover, the use of labels such as "populist right" are not really helping. Populism is not an ideology. The widespread use of the term by the majority of commentators distracts from the true nature of far-right parties.

    Are we then really sure that these movements moderated their agenda? In fact, they promote a narrow concept of community, that excludes all the "different" and foreigners.

    There is also a sense of decline and threat that was widely exploited by interwar fascism, and by these extreme-right parties, which - after 1945 - resisted immigration on the grounds of defending the so-called "European civilization".

    The future of Europe?

    The future of European societies could, however, follow these specific lines: "Our European cultures, our values and our freedom are under attack. They are threatened by the crushing and dictatorial powers of the European Union. They are threatened by mass immigration, by open borders and by a single European currency," as Marcel de Graaff, co-president of the Europe of Nations and Freedom group in the European Parliament, declared.

    Another fellow party, the Belgian Vlaams Belang , calls for an opposition to multiculturalism. It "defends the interests of the Dutch-speaking people wherever this is necessary", and would "dissolve Belgium and establish an independent Flemish state. This state ... will include Brussels", the current capital of the EU institutions.

    The Austrian Freedom Party , on a similar line, "supports the interests of all German native speakers from the territories of the former Habsburg monarchy" and the "right of self-determination" of the German-speaking Italian bordering region of South Tyrol.

    On the other hand, Marine Le Pen, president of the French National Front, promotes a principle of "national priority" for French citizens in many areas, from welfare to jobs in the public sector.

    She also wants to renegotiate the European treaties and establish a " pan-European Union " including Russia.

    At the end of these inward-looking changes, there will be no free movement of Europeans across Europe, and this will be replaced with a reconsolidation of the sovereignty of nation states.

    Resentments among regional powers might rise again, while privileges will be based on ethnic origins - and their alleged purity. In sum, this is how Europe will probably look if one follows the "moderate" far-right policies. The dream of building the United States of Europe will become an obsolete memory of the past. And the old continent will be surely less similar to the post-national one which guaranteed peace and - relative - prosperity after the disaster of World War II.

    Andrea Mammone is a historian of modern Europe at Royal Holloway, University of London. He is the author of "Transnational Neofascism in France and Italy". He is currently writing a book on the recent nationalist turn in Europe.

    The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

    See also:

    rickstersherpa November 30, 2016 11:35 am

    I note that some of your factual assumptions e.g. "Immigrants are disproportionate users of welfare" appear to be wrong and may be drawn from corrupt sources (FAIR and/or AIC, in particular Steve Camarota). See https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-they-fund-it .

    Exception of course are refugees (which one could say we have some moral responsibility to rescue since our 15 year war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria (since we are bombing quite a bit in Syria), and many other places has more than done or bit fan disorder and violence from which the refugees flee rather than die, ditto the children fleeing Mexico and Central America where our war on (some people) who use drugs has created both right wing Governments and drug gangs and associated violence.)

    I think it is bad form when left wing sites repeat right-wing memes (falsehoods and half-truths), particularly when the new right-wing authoritarian kleptocrats who are taking over the Government are talking about rounding up, placing in concentration camps, and deporting millions of people, citizens and non-citizens alike..

    rickstersherpa, November 30, 2016 11:46 am

    Just out curiosity, since Mr. Kimel used the example of Iran, there was a huge Iranian immigration to the U.S. In sense they both support (since many of the these people were high skill immigrants) and rebut his point (since they came from a culture he marks as particularly "foreign" to U.S. culture. http://xpatnation.com/a-look-at-the-history-of-iranian-immigrants-in-the-u-s/ It has actually been an amazingly successful immigration, with many now millionaires (a mark of "success" that I find rather reflects the worse part of America, the presumption by Americans, Rich, Middle, or poor, that if you are not rich, you are nothing, a loser; but still it appears to be a marker that Mr. Kimel is using.

    Beverly Mann, November 30, 2016 3:47 pm

    To add to Rickstersherpa's comments, I'll also point out that among the Muslim immigrants who've committed acts of terrorism in this country, none to my knowledge was on welfare nor were their parents on welfare, None.

    This post is just the latest in what is now many-months-long series of white supremacist/ white nationalist posts by Kimel, whose original bailiwick at this blog was standard left-of-center economics but obviously is something close to the opposite now. He left the blog for two or three years, and came back earlier this year unrecognizable and with a vengeance. Literally.

    I was a blogger here for six-and-a-half years until earlier this month, and was among regulars who comment in the Comments threads who repeatedly expressed dismay. Kimel's last few posts, lik this one, are published directly under his name. Before that Dan Crawford and run75441 were posting them for him and crediting him with the posts.

    In my comments int those threads, I've suggested as you did here that this blogger belongs at Breitbart, or more accurately, you say that this blog is providing the same type of voice as Breitbart.

    But at least Breitbart hasn't been known as left-of-center blog. Allowing these posts on a blog that has misleads readers into thinking, if only for a moment, that maybe this guy's saying something that you're missing, or not saying something that you think he's saying. It's really jarring.

    The Rage November 30, 2016 3:49 pm

    Sorry, but leftists were the originators of anti-immigration. They blasted classical liberals and their "open borders" to buy talent on the market rather than "building within" and using the state to develop talent.

    "right wing" Christians are some of the worst people in terms of helping the underground railroad for immigrants in the US.

    The Rage November 30, 2016 3:54 pm

    Beverly, Breitbart loves illegal immigration and wants it to stay, indeed quite illegal.

    You represent the problem of modern politics. Anyone you don't agree with, you start making dialectical points rather than going under the hood to find out the point.

    Jack November 30, 2016 4:24 pm

    Kimel,
    Your points leave out any consideration of the cultural variabilities of this host country. Given that the USofA is a country made up of immigrants from a wide variety of places across the globe I would think that there is some benefit to varying the sources of immigration in the present given the past. Some of the cultural distinctions that you suggest as different from our own are not homogeneous within our own culture. For example, I wouldn't choose to live in some parts of the US because of the degree of antisemitism that I might find even though I am what one might call an agnostic Jew. There are many Americans that don't make that distinction.

    Face it Mike, there is probably a place for just about anyone from any place that would be suitable for their emigration within the US. We don't all have to share the same values with the new comer. We don't share values amongst ourselves as it is. We've got large numbers of immigrants and their off spring from the Far East, South East Asia, Africa, South America and the middle East. We even have many Europeans. Keep in mind that that last category is made up of people who have spent the past two thousand years trying as hard as possible to kill one another. So who is to say what immigrant group is best for the US? We've been moving backwards for the past several decades. Maybe we need some new blood to get thinks going forward again.

    Beverly Mann November 30, 2016 4:27 pm

    Apparently you aren't able to distinguish between racist proclamations and fears unrelated to racism and ethnicity bias masquerading as "cultural" differences, on the one hand, and immigrants willing to work for lower wages irrespective of their race and ethnicity, on the other hand, The Rage. Even when the writer is extremely open, clear, and repetitive about his claims.

    Rickstersherpa and I are able to make that distinction, and have done so.

    Beverly Mann November 30, 2016 4:34 pm

    CORRECTED COMMENT: Apparently, The Rage, you aren't able to distinguish between racist proclamations masquerading as "cultural" differences, on the one hand, and fears unrelated to racism and ethnicity bias, that immigrants willing to work for lower wages will put downward pressure on wages in this country, irrespective of the race and ethnicity or the immigrant willing to work for the low wages. Even when the writer is extremely open, clear, and repetitive about his claims.

    Rickstersherpa and I are able to make that distinction, and have done so.

    (Definitely a cut-and-paste issue there with that first comment, which I accidentally clicked "Post Comment" for before it was ready for posting.)

    Jack, November 30, 2016 4:45 pm

    I will accept one category of immigrant for exclusion. No identifiable criminals allowed. We haven't always done so well on that trait. So let's do a better job of excluding those seeking admission who can be shown to be actively involved with any form of criminal behavior. That goes for Euros, Russians, Chinese, South Americans, etc. That also includes very wealthy criminals whose wealth is the result of their positions of authority in their home country.

    "The fact that there is homegrown dysfunction isn't a good argument for importing more dysfunction." What manner of dysfunction beyond criminality did you have in mind?

    " it makes sense to be selective, both for our sake and the sake of those who are unlikely to function well and would become alienated and unable to fend for themselves in the US." Please define "unlikely to function well" more precisely. Remember that the goal of our immigration quotas is to allow a reasonable balance of people from varying countries to achieve admission.

    "To be blunt, some people have attitudes that allow them to function well in the West. Typically they are dissidents in non Western countries." That statement is generally problematic. What measure of attitude do we use here? Is it the rabble rousers that you want to give preference to? Then why only from non Western countries?

    [Nov 27, 2016] Given America's history over the last couple of decades, perhaps we can guess where Berezovsky got his idea for his a clever Russian two parties political scheme.

    www.unz.com
    We always ridicule the 98 percent voter support that dictatorships frequently achieve in their elections and plebiscites, yet perhaps those secret-ballot results may sometimes be approximately correct, produced by the sort of overwhelming media control that leads voters to assume there is no possible alternative to the existing regime. Is such an undemocratic situation really so different from that found in our own country, in which our two major parties agree on such a broad range of controversial issues and, being backed by total media dominance, routinely split 98 percent of the vote? A democracy may provide voters with a choice, but that choice is largely determined by the information citizens receive from their media.

    Most of the Americans who elected Barack Obama in 2008 intended their vote as a total repudiation of the policies and personnel of the preceding George W. Bush administration. Yet once in office, Obama's crucial selections-Robert Gates at Defense, Timothy Geither at Treasury, and Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve-were all top Bush officials, and they seamlessly continued the unpopular financial bailouts and foreign wars begun by his predecessor, producing what amounted to a third Bush term.

    Consider the fascinating perspective of the recently deceased Boris Berezovsky, once the most powerful of the Russian oligarchs and the puppet master behind President Boris Yeltsin during the late 1990s. After looting billions in national wealth and elevating Vladimir Putin to the presidency, he overreached himself and eventually went into exile. According to the New York Times, he had planned to transform Russia into a fake two-party state-one social-democratic and one neoconservative-in which heated public battles would be fought on divisive, symbolic issues, while behind the scenes both parties would actually be controlled by the same ruling elites. With the citizenry thus permanently divided and popular dissatisfaction safely channeled into meaningless dead-ends, Russia's rulers could maintain unlimited wealth and power for themselves, with little threat to their reign. Given America's history over the last couple of decades, perhaps we can guess where Berezovsky got his idea for such a clever political scheme.

    [Nov 27, 2016] Washington Post Promotes Shadowy Website That Accuses 200 Publications of Being Russian Propaganda Plants

    This idea of McCarthy style attack turned in promotion with some sites having large flow of donations from outrages readers.
    Notable quotes:
    "... By Max Blumenthal, a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of Goliath and Republican Gomorrah. His most recent book is The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal. Originally published at Alternet ..."
    "... it was created about three months ago when the Red baiting was already in full swing in the media. ..."
    "... it now has a wikipedia page as of 15 Nov. ..."
    "... Congratulations! That site is like a who's who of influential critical reporting. I suspect, as with so many of the bubble-dwellers attempts, that this slapdash but probably overpriced effort will drive traffic to those sites while reducing the credibility of its promoters. An instant classic own-goal. I look forward to the inevitable and embarassing revelations about their founders and funding. ..."
    "... Under general tenets of defamation law (statutory and in common law), it is not just the original entity or person defaming (including defamation "per se") another that is liable for such torts, but others who carelessly or recklessly repeat the original defamatory statements/claims (in this case, both The Washington Post & New York Times bear similar potential liability as PropOrNot). ..."
    "... Requires actual malice since it's the media you're suing – but that can be proven by reckless indifference to the truth which this might actually meet the standard of, especially since the site isn't making this claim based on anything other than the content of the views espoused by the sites. ..."
    "... i vaguely thought the actual malice requirement was tied to the target being a public figure; maybe running a blog qualifies. ..."
    "... Propornot is directly accusing NC and the rest of a crime (espionage), which constitutes defamation per se, so I think the only issue before the court would be whether it was done with reckless indifference. ..."
    "... The MSM did such a fine job reporting the news during the campaign. (16 anti-Sanders stories in 16 hours from the WaPo. A new record.) Are small news/opinion sites cutting into their online advertising revenue. ;) ..."
    "... Second, had you bothered to read the actual PropOrNot site, it accuses all of the sites listed as being "propaganda outlets" under the influence of "coordinators abroad" (#11 in its FAQ). ..."
    "... And under #7, PropOrNot asserts that "some" of the sites are guilty of violating the Espionage Act and the Foreign Agent Registration Act, as in accusing them of being spies and calling for investigation (by implication of all, since how do you know which is or isn't) by the FBI and DoJ. ..."
    "... Their MSM propaganda isn't working and they see it. They already heavily censor comments on their MSM sites. Other MSM sights such as Bloomberg closed down comments altogether. Expect more of that. ..."
    "... what weakens people's confidence in their leaders is their not addressing people's issues and lying about their inability to do so. Despite protestations from the likes of much of our 'intelligentsia', mainstream media, and most of our political class, the majority of people are not stupid. There is a reason why terms like 'lame stream media' resonate with a large number of people. ..."
    "... For instance when Obama is out there talking about a recovery and people know that there is no such thing in their lives, their communities then HE has lost their confidence – not someone giving an interview on RT. ..."
    "... Or to put it another way the problem isn't someone going on RT and saying the emperor isn't wearing clothes, the problem is that the emperor isn't wearing clothes. ..."
    "... Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do. ..."
    "... How do you know any of this? how would you know would Russian intelligence's goals are, or how they think of Steve Keen? this is all just McCarthyism 2016, accusing the left of being dupes or willing agents of Russia. McCarthy had his 200 communists in the state department, this website and the Washington Post have their 200 Russian propaganda websites. Why are you catapulting this bullshit? ..."
    "... James do you happen to remember when those intelligence agencies reported Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.? How about when North Korea hacked Sony? Both of which were inaccurate and dare I say it propaganda intended to mislead the American public. ..."
    "... Why does Naval Intelligence have anything to do with this investigation? ..."
    "... Why were 17 agencies watching the DNC? ..."
    "... The immediate claims that Russia hacked the DNC were never credible to any one with even a bit of knowledge about high level hacking. The 17 agency thing was outright laughable once you asked the simple question of what most of them had to do with this investigation. And USA Today was and is the print equivalent of the Yahoo front page. ..."
    "... oh so now you're an intelligence expert, but somehow you still don't have any evidence, because the "17 intelligence agencies" don't have any evidence either. they didn't have evidence of wmd's but i bet you fell for that, too. i think the most dishonest line in your post is this: You should wander out of the alt-left echo chamber once in a while and stop thinking that any criticism of Russia is 'red-baiting' and propaganda ..."
    "... If Russia is actively trying to influence American politics, then they have been far more effective than the US and get a much bigger bang for their buck. For one thing, they didn't have to drop a single bomb to effect a regime change. So assuming you are correct, the noise is just a hysterical regime change envy. ..."
    "... So are RT and Sputnik propaganda outlets? Sometimes they are, but sometimes they report the truth that our MSM, having given up the last shreds of their journalistic integtity in return for access, won't report. ..."
    "... Given the widespread funding of media (including government-owned media) by Western governments, I would say that US and Euro hysteria about Russian propaganda, real and imagined, is yet another off-putting display of noxious American exceptionalism. ..."
    "... I grew up listening to broadcasts of RFE and VOA behind the Iron Curtain, and mixed in with honest reporting was a heavy dose of propaganda aimed at weakening Eastern European governments. Now, it is the America For Bulgaria Foundation that funds several media outlets in the country. What they all have in common is rabid Russophobia-driven editorial stances, and one can easily conclude that it is driven by the almighty dollar rather than by honest, deeply held convictions. So, America can do it but whines like a toddler when it is allegedly done to it?! What a crock. ..."
    "... The worst thing is that regardless of whatever propaganda wars are going on, this list constitutes a full frontal attack on free speech in the alleged "Land of the Free." Besides NC, there are number of sites distinguished by thorough, quality reporting of the kind that WaPo and NYT no longer engage in. Having grown up behind the Iron Curtain, this is chilling to me. Dissident voices speaking against the endless wars for profit and neoliberalism are in effect being intimidated and smeared by anonymous thugs. This, while the militarized local police and federal agencies, closely coordinated by "fusion centers", have ruthlessly put down a number of citizen protests, have engaged in spying on all of us, and have gone after whistleblowers for exposing the reach and scope of the surveillance state. These are the hallmarks of dictatorships, not of the alleged "world's greatest democracy and beacon of freedom." What the eff happened to America, and why are you equating challenging the oppressive and exploitative status quo with being "unwitting Russian dupes?" Seems to me that the useful idi0t here is you, with all due respect. ..."
    "... American intelligence uses exactly the same tactics, and has since at least WW1. Selling the American public on the Iraq war is a classic example. Remember that all news is biased, some much more so than others (we report, you decide.) ..."
    "... The advent of the internet and the subsequent broadening of readily available news of all slants has made it much harder for any intelligence agency of any specific country to control the news( but it has made it extremely easy for them to monitor what we are reading). ..."
    "... . The normal tell for this is being state sponsored, or having a big sugar daddy providing the funding, and Yves doesn't have any of that. ..."
    "... Some of us happen to believe that 'lambast[ing] the American political establishment and weaken[ing] the public's confidence in its leaders' is in the best interests of everyone on the planet, including the American public. If that constitutes propaganda, I'm not about to look that gift horse in the mouth. RT isn't perfect – I personally find their relentless cheerleading for economic growth rather wearying – but it knocks spots off the competition and consistently sends me scurrying to the internet to chase up on new faces and leads. I'm grateful for that. ..."
    "... Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious ..."
    "... It is obvious that Russia has been trying to influence American politics. The very existence of RT makes that obvious. What is not obvious is why modestly left-of-center Americans' political concerns should be subject to McCarthyite attacks in our most influential news outlets. We've been subject to internally generated far-right propaganda for decades now and have seen minimal, feeble 'mainstream' efforts to counter it. The far right has done tremendous damage to our nation and is poised to do much more now that its doyens control all branches of the federal government. ..."
    "... What I interpret this as is a strike by 'think tank' grifters against those who are most likely to damage their incomes, their prestige and their exceedingly comfortable berths on the Acela corridor. It's a slightly panicky, febrile effort by a bunch of heels who are looking at losing their mid-6-figure incomes . and becoming like so many of the rest of us: over-credentialed, under-paid and unable to afford life in the charming white parts of our coastal metropolises. ..."
    "... You've just libeled me. You have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim. Nor do you have any evidence that Russia has been "aggressively" trying to influence US politics. This is one of many hysterical lines offered by Team Dem over the course of this election, up there with depicting all Trump voters as racist yahoos. ..."
    "... "Russia is aggressively trying to influence American politics" Apparently with the help of Hillz. Was her decision to use a private email server made with the help of Putin? ..."
    "... If you'd like, take a trip in the Wayback Machine to 1959. Then you'll find many criticisms of US society by the Civil Rights movement sharing the same sinister tone as criticisms made by Soviet new outlets. Then you'll also find a gaggle of US pols and their minions claiming on that basis that the Civil Rights movement is communist inspired, funded, and run. Then you'll also find many people who don't bother to distinguish source from story and end up enjoying the official Kool Aid. ..."
    "... It reminds me of a story from Northern Ireland in the 1960's when the leader of a civil rights march was asked by a BBC reporter 'is it true that your organisation has been infiltrated by radicals and communists?' His reply was to sigh and say 'I f**king wish it was true'. ..."
    "... @hemeantwell – This same claim of communist inspiration and connection was also thrown at the anti-war movement. I remember arguing with a friend of my parents in the summer of 1969, after my freshman year at college where I was active in the anti-war and anti-draft movements. After countering all of the arguments made by this gentleman, he was left with nothing to say but "Well, that's the Commie's line " as a final dismissal. ..."
    "... Right up to his death on 4 Apr 1968, Martin Luther King was accused by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI of "knowingly, willingly and regularly cooperating with and taking guidance from communists." Now there's a US national holiday in King's honor. ..."
    "... It's all propaganda of one sort or another. I exhort you to read Plato and understand that the Sophists for which Socrates held so much ire are much the same as anon and administration sources for so much of what drives journalism. ..."
    "... NC separates the wheat from the chaff. ..."
    "... Verdict on PropOrNot: Looks like Prop to me. Getting really sloppy, Oligarchy ..."
    "... This has all the earmarks of an effort by the Nuland Neocons that joined Camp Hillary, and now in defeat constitute a portion Hillary's professional dead enders. ..."
    "... Camp Hillary, as you call it, has decamped and is on the march. It has powerful allies in the intelligence community, the media and actors on the world stage who deem Trump to be an existential threat to America and world. The story of Russian inspired fake news is paving the way for regime change, an HRC specialty. The recount is the tip of the spear. If they can pull this coup off, sites like this will move from the useful idiot category to the enemy of the state category overnight. ..."
    "... Manfred Keeting November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am If you weren't on the Nixon's enemies list, there was something wrong with you ..."
    "... First as tragedy, then as farce. People literally killed themselves because of McCarthyism. No one is going to kill themselves over this farce. ..."
    "... Aha, I have solved the mystery. It is elementary my dear Watson! The PropOrNot site is itself a Russian propaganda ploy on the part of the KGB! What? errr, ok, the FSB then. ..."
    "... But Max himself is an interesting character. I've been scratching my head wondering how a guy one step removed (Sidney Blumenthal) from the Clintons' inner circles is ambitious about exposing the ludicrous claims made by those same people regarding Palestine and Syria. ..."
    "... I like the idea some commenter had (too lazy to find it right now) that all these strategems were long-prepared, and in place for a Clinton victory. Now the Clinton faction in the political class is deploying them anyhow. They'd better hurry, because influence peddling at the Clinton Foundation isn't as lucrative as it once was . ..."
    "... For long time readers this russian(chinese) propaganda should be obvious. And it is ok, get used to it. Great opportunity to learn "how to read between the lines", and when you understand, solidifying into a basic skill. ..."
    "... Be careful NC. MSM are in panic. They see that their propaganda is less and less effective and start targeting those who offer an alternative against their obsolete narratives. Be prepared: when they will realize that these don't work at all, their fake democracy will become an open dictatorship. ..."
    "... The US MSM is all propaganda all the time-every bit as bad as Pravda ever was. RT now is the "anti-propaganda." They were even carrying Jesse Ventura and other Americans who are blacklisted by the MSM. ..."
    "... This is a "hail mary pass." ..."
    "... A hail mary pass that was intercepted by the opposing team and run back for a touchdown. ..."
    "... What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I feel like I missed some important public dis somewhere that would explain it all. Condoleeza Rice's general dated anti-Soviet attitude I could understand, but that doesn't explain the escalating bigotry pouring out of Obama and Clinton (and their various surrogates). Is it a case of a bomb in search of a war? ..."
    "... Looks to me like it came out of the HRC campaign. ..."
    "... What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I think it can be traced back to this . ..."
    "... I don't think there is an easy answer to your question, but I think it goes around to the failed Ukrainian coup (well, partially failed) and the realisation within a certain element of the neocon establishment that Putin had been inadvertently strengthened by their policy failures in the Ukraine and Syria. I think there was a concerted element within the Blob to refocus on 'the Russian threat' to cover up their failures in the Middle East and the refusal of the Chinese to take the bait in the Pacific. ..."
    "... This rolled naturally into concerns about cyberwar and it was a short step from there to using Russian cyberespionage to cover up the establishments embarrassment over wikileaks and multiple other failures exposed by outsiders. As always, when a narrative suits (for different reasons) the two halves of the establishment, the mainstream media is always happy to run it unquestioningly. ..."
    "... So in short, I think its a mixture of genuine conspiracy, mixed in with political opportunism. ..."
    "... Listen to Gore Vidal (in 1994!) and find out why: https://www.c-span.org/video/?61333-1/state-united-states ..."
    "... That is very good question and it does not have a simple answer. I have been pondering this for 8 years now. The latest bout of Russia-hatred began as Putin began to re-assert their sovereignty after the disastrous Yeltsin years. This intensified after Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. In adddition the US was preprogrammed to hate Russia for historical reasons. Mostly because of the Soviet era but also when the US inherited the global empire from the Brits we also got some of their dislike of the Russian empire dating back to the 19th century. ..."
    "... It all started when Putin arrested the Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, when Putin put a stop to the shock therapy looting of Russia by the Harvard mafia and Jeffrey Sachs. Didn't he know that oligarch's are above the law? They are in the US. Didn't he know that money can buy you immunity from prosecution like it does in Europe and the US? Can't have that, hence the Ukraine, deprive him of his warm water naval base. Then there was the Crimean referendum. Out smarted again! Can't have that! ..."
    "... And so the Democratic Party ends, not with a bang, but with a McCarthyite lynch mob. ..."
    "... Didn't we used to call "fake news" rumors? And when did newspapers stop printing rumors? ..."
    "... Based on the evidence of above mentioned link, this "PropOrNot" can be part of a project of U.S. government to manipulate media to create an anti-Russia climate or more likely another method of attack on what they consider "Left" so status quo in economic policies of U.S. can be maintained. ..."
    "... it scares the pants off me ..."
    "... I'm with you Tom Stone. There is nothing funny about this. The MSM at this point is the greatest purveyor of fake news on the planet, I am talking about not just CNN and Fox, but the BBC, France24 and so on. ..."
    "... Pretty much everything they have said and every video they has shown on east Aleppo is either a lie or a fake. As someone noted the other day (I can't remember who) if the stories about east Aleppo were actually true, then the Russians and Syrians have destroyed approximately 900 hospitals – including the 'last pediatric hospital in east Aleppo' which has been completely demolished on at least three separate occasions in the last few months. The main stream outlets don't even try to be consistent. ..."
    "... It's 90 hospitals not 900, but 90 is just as ridiculous given the whole country of Syria only has 88 hospitals/clinics. ..."
    "... Weapons of Mass Distraction. Another nail in the coffin of credibility of the NYT and WaPo. Recall after the Stupid War and how there were zero weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq that the NYT and Wapo declined to mention or explore their own culpability in beating the drums of war. This will be more of the same. ..."
    "... I suspect that PropOrNot's outburst was developed during the campaign by well heeled and connected Hilary supporters to be unveiled after the election to muzzle increasingly influential web sites including NC. As it stands PropOrNot shot a blank. If Hilary had won the campaign against "fake news" would probably have taken on a more ominous tone. ..."
    "... PropOrNot is asserting that the sites on the 'List", both right and left, were responsible for the Clinton loss by spreading false Russian propaganda. This would make more sense, as a political project, if Clinton had won. Asking the Trump DOJ and Trump's/Comey's FBI to investigate the asserted causes of Trump's win is bizarre. ..."
    "... Excellent observation, preparation for a post Killery election purge of the alternate media. ..."
    "... Lots of panic for the Washington regime. The clownish asshole loser that they carefully groomed proved less repulsive than their chosen Fuehrer Clinton. Now they are distraught to see that their enemy Russia sucks much less than the USA. ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Jill Stein has embarrassed herself with this effort. I gave money to her until she made her final vp choice – Baraka called Bernie a white supremacist! I did vote for her and now feel it really was a wasted vote. 1% in the national totals. Ok. Being a useful idiot for the Clintons – no way. ..."
    "... When the rot is complete and the edifice tumbles? Or when TINA wins, and the voices go silent? My bet is on the later. Collectively, the money got all 4 aces (and a few more hidden up their sleaves and a few more hidden in their boots, etc – no end of aces.) ..."
    "... Charles Hugh-Smith's response to the "list": "The Washington Post: Useful-Idiot Shills for a Failed, Frantic Status Quo That Has Lost Control of the Narrative" ..."
    Nov 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Yves here. As indicated in Links, we'll have more to say about this in due course. Note, however, that as Blumenthal points out, some of the sites that are listed as PropOrNot allies receive US government funding. As Mark Ames pointed out via e-mail, "The law is still clear that US State Dept money and probably BBG money cannot be used to propagandize American audiences." So if these sites really are "allies" in terms of providing hard dollars or other forms of support (shared staff, research), this site and its allies may be in violation of US statutes.

    By Max Blumenthal, a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of Goliath and Republican Gomorrah. His most recent book is The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal. Originally published at Alternet

    A shady website that claims "Russia is Manipulating US Opinion Through Online Propaganda" has compiled a blacklist of websites its anonymous authors accuse of pushing fake news and Russian propaganda. The blacklist includes over 200 outlets, from the right-wing Drudge Report and Russian government-funded Russia Today, to Wikileaks and an array of marginal conspiracy and far-right sites. The blacklist also includes some of the flagship publications of the progressive left, including Truthdig, Counterpunch, Truthout, Naked Capitalism, and the Black Agenda Report, a leftist African-American opinion hub that is critical of the liberal black political establishment.

    Called PropOrNot, the blacklisting organization was described by the Washington Post's Craig Timberg as "a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds." The Washington Post agreed to preserve the anonymity of the group's director on the grounds that exposure could result in their being targeted by "Russia's legions of skilled hackers." The Post failed to explain what methods PropOrNot relied on to conclude that "stories planted or promoted by the Russian disinformation campaign were viewed more than 213 million times." (Timberg also cited a report co-authored by Aaron Weisburg, founder of the one-man anti-Palestinian "Internet Haganah" operation, who has been accused of interfering in federal investigations, stealing the personal information of anarchists, online harassment, and fabricating information to smear his targets.)

    Despite the Washington Post's charitable description of PropOrNot as a group of independent-minded researchers dedicated to protecting the integrity of American democracy, the shadowy group bears many of the qualities of the red enemies it claims to be battling. In addition to its blacklist of Russian dupes, it lists a collection of outlets funded by the U.S. State Department, NATO and assorted tech and weapons companies as "allies." PropOrNot's methodology is so shabby it is able to peg widely read outlets like Naked Capitalism, a leading left-wing financial news blog, as Russian propaganda operations.

    Though the supposed experts behind PropOrNot remain unknown, the site has been granted a veneer of credibility thanks to the Washington Post, and journalists from the New York Times, including deputy Washington editor Jonathan Weissman to former Obama senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer , are hailing Timberg's story as Pulitzer-level journalism. "Russia appears to have successfully hacked American democracy," declared Sahil Kapur, the senior political reporter for Bloomberg. The dead-enders of Hillary Clinton's campaign for president have also seized on PropOrNot's claims as proof that the election was rigged, with Clinton confidant and Center For American Progress president Neera Tanden declaring , "Wake up people," as she blasted out the Washington Post article on Russian black ops.

    PropOrNot's malicious agenda is clearly spelled out on its website. While denying McCarthyite intentions, the group is openly attempting to compel "formal investigations by the U.S. government, because the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal authoritarian oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business." The group also seeks to brand major progressive politics sites (and a number of prominent right-wing opinion outlets) as "'gray' fake-media propaganda outlets" influenced or directly operated by Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB). It can then compel Facebook and Google to ban them , denying them the ad revenue they rely on to survive.

    Though PropOrNot's hidden authors claim, "we do not reach our conclusions lightly," the group's methodology leaves more than enough room to smear an outlet on political grounds. Among the criteria PropOrNot identifies as clear signs of Russian propaganda are, "Support for policies like Brexit, and the breakup of the EU and Eurozone" and, "Opposition to Ukrainian resistance to Russia and Syrian resistance to Assad."

    By these standards, any outlet that raises the alarm about the considerable presence of extreme right-wing elements among the post-Maidan Ukrainian government or that questions the Western- and Saudi-funded campaign for regime change in Syria can be designated a Russia dupe or a paid agent of the FSB. Indeed, while admitting that they have no idea whether any of the outlets they blacklisted are being paid by Russian intelligence or are even aware they are spreading Russian propaganda, PropOrNot's authors concluded that any outlets that have met their highly politicized criteria "have effectively become tools of the Russian intelligence services, and are worthy of further investigation."

    Among the most ironic characteristics of PropOrNot is its claim to be defending journalistic integrity, a rigorous adherence to the facts, and most of all, a sense of political levity. In fact, the group's own literature reflects a deeply paranoid view of Russia and the outside world. According to PropOrNot's website , Russia is staging a hostile takeover of America's alternative online media environment "in order to Make Russia Great Again (as a new 'Eurasian' empire stretching from Dublin to Vladisvostok), on the other. That means preserving Russian allies like Bashar al-Assad in Syria, breaking up the 'globalist' EU, NATO, and US-aligned trade and defense organizations, and getting countries to join 'Eurasianist' Russian equivalents Or else."

    The message is clear: Stamp out the websites blacklisted by PropOrNot,or submit to the malevolent influence of Putin's "new global empire."

    Among the websites listed by PropOrNot as "allies" are a number of groups funded by the U.S. government or NATO. They include InterpreterMag, an anti-Russian media monitoring blog funded through Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, an arm of the U.S. government, which is edited by the hardline neoconservative Michael Weiss. Polygraph Fact Check, another project of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty aimed at Russian misinformation, is listed as an "ally." So is Bellingcat, the crowdsourced military analysis blog run by Elliot Higgins through the Atlantic Council, which receives funding from the U.S. State Department, various Gulf monarchies and the weapons industry. (Bellingcat is directly funded by Google, according to Higgins.)

    Unfortunately for PropOrNot's mysterious authors, an alliance requires the consent of all parties involved. Alerted to his designation on the website, Bellingcat's Higgins immediately disavowed it: "Just want to note I hadn't heard of Propornot before the WP piece and never gave permission to them to call Bellingcat 'allies,'" he wrote .

    As scrutiny of PropOrNot increases, its credibility is rapidly unraveling. But that has not stopped Beltway media wiseguys and Democratic political operatives from hyping its claims. Fake news and Russian propaganda have become the great post-election moral panic, a creeping Sharia-style conspiracy theory for shell-shocked liberals. Hoping to punish the dark foreign forces they blame for rigging the election, many of these insiders have latched onto a McCarthyite campaign that calls for government investigations of a wide array of alternative media outlets. In this case, the medicine might be worse than the disease.

    Daryl November 26, 2016 at 1:38 am

    The PropOrNot domain was registered on August 21st. It's hosted on Blogger.

    Seems pretty legit to me.

    Daryl November 27, 2016 at 1:30 am

    What I meant by my sarcastic remark is that there seems to be absolutely no reason to trust anything it says, from its content, to the fact that it was created about three months ago when the Red baiting was already in full swing in the media.

    begob November 27, 2016 at 9:00 am

    And it now has a wikipedia page as of 15 Nov. Plus discussion on non-deletion:

    Skip Intro November 26, 2016 at 1:53 am

    Congratulations! That site is like a who's who of influential critical reporting. I suspect, as with so many of the bubble-dwellers attempts, that this slapdash but probably overpriced effort will drive traffic to those sites while reducing the credibility of its promoters. An instant classic own-goal. I look forward to the inevitable and embarassing revelations about their founders and funding.

    JEHR November 26, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Yes, now I know where to go to read good critical analyses (the list).

    jrs November 26, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    The full list was a mix of really good sites and the unknown personal blogs of some whack-a -doodles producing "content" of little value. I see the list linked to is smaller.

    "Collectively, this propaganda is undermining our public discourse by providing a warped view of the world, where Russia can do no wrong, and America is a corrupt dystopia that is tearing itself apart."

    Meanwhile publicans even they would deem credible like the L.A. times report there are 63,000 homeless youths in los angeles. Corrupt dystopia? No it can not be.

    "It is vital that this effort be exposed for what it is: A coordinated attempt to deceive U.S. citizens into acting in Russia's interests."

    look idiots, the truth as I understand it is neither Russian interest NOR US government interests are necessarily in my interest

    kimsarah November 26, 2016 at 2:09 am

    Meanwhile, the Clintonoids still trying to twist the arms of electoral college voters. What stage of grief is this?
    http://www.goupstate.com/news/20161125/sc-electors-besieged-by-requests-not-to-cast-votes-for-trump

    Daryl November 26, 2016 at 3:14 am

    I believe it's "bargaining." But don't look out for "acceptance" any time soon or ever.

    wheresOurTeddy November 26, 2016 at 4:05 am

    So much kvetching pre-nov 8 about Trump not accepting results of election.

    Because what kind of person would do that?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef November 26, 2016 at 11:41 am

    No defeat, no soul-searching.

    So far, she is still undefeated, and the dying working class votes have not repudiated her yet.

    "Let's not be premature."

    AnonymousCounsel November 26, 2016 at 2:22 am

    I am an attorney. I am not soliciting or advising any entity or person, but those identified by PropOrNot, including Naked Capitalism, should consult competent legal counsel, having appropriate and specific experience regarding defamation law (maybe even in a "pooled," co-ordinated effort with others' among the over 200 entities named by PropOrNot) to seek a legal opinion as to whether there exists a viable defamation claim against The Washington Post, and also, via Weisburg, The New York Times, as both publications repeated potentially defamatory claims made by PropOrNot.

    Under general tenets of defamation law (statutory and in common law), it is not just the original entity or person defaming (including defamation "per se") another that is liable for such torts, but others who carelessly or recklessly repeat the original defamatory statements/claims (in this case, both The Washington Post & New York Times bear similar potential liability as PropOrNot).

    hunkerdown November 26, 2016 at 6:14 am

    Understanding the distinction between an attorney, and *my* attorney, and as a matter of general interest, I am curious: What about individual posters in their capacities as employees, contractors, or just rabble?

    Romancing The Loan November 26, 2016 at 9:29 am

    Requires actual malice since it's the media you're suing – but that can be proven by reckless indifference to the truth which this might actually meet the standard of, especially since the site isn't making this claim based on anything other than the content of the views espoused by the sites. /also an attorney but the wrong specialty. I'd be pleased to help if I can though – all of the sites I read regularly are on the list and whoever's propaganda op the site is the whole concept of what it represents scares the pants off me.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 11:48 am

    i vaguely thought the actual malice requirement was tied to the target being a public figure; maybe running a blog qualifies.

    Romancing The Loan November 26, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    All private individual gets you is compensatory damages – and everyone's readership and donations have increased.

    "We hold that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual. But this countervailing state interest extends no further than compensation for actual injury. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the States may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages, at least when liability is not based on a showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth."

    Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347-349 (1974).

    Propornot is directly accusing NC and the rest of a crime (espionage), which constitutes defamation per se, so I think the only issue before the court would be whether it was done with reckless indifference.

    Seriously, Yves, please feel free to contact me offlist – I would be delighted to pro bono the heck out of this including at the direction of whoever you hire.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 10:44 pm

    thanks for enlightening me. it's such an obvious smear, and the post as far as i can see didn't vet the organization or its claims at all.

    skippy November 26, 2016 at 2:54 am

    Kudos

    flora November 26, 2016 at 3:31 am

    The MSM did such a fine job reporting the news during the campaign. (16 anti-Sanders stories in 16 hours from the WaPo. A new record.) Are small news/opinion sites cutting into their online advertising revenue. ;)

    James November 26, 2016 at 3:32 am

    I like you and your blog, but I'm almost positive your site has been guilty of accidently publishing Russian propaganda at some point. You've probably linked to stories that sound legit but can be traced all the way back to some Russian operation like RT, even though the third party source you got the story from seemed ok.

    The creator of the app never said all the sites on the list knowingly did it.

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 4:37 am

    First the fact that a story appeared on RT does not make it propaganda. We featured videos from Ed Harrison on the RT program Boom/Bust, which is about the US economy and has featured respected US and foreign academics, like Steve Keen.

    What Steve Keen has to say is not suddenly propaganda by virtue of appearing on RT.

    If you read Eddy Bernay's book Propaganda, he defines it as an entity or cause promoting its case. Thus when a news organization that is government-affiliated, like Voice of America or RT, presents a news story that is straight up reporting, that does not qualify as propaganda either (like "Marine Le Pen Gains in French Polls"). In fact, for a government site to be seen as credible when it does present propaganda, it has to do a fair bit of reasonably unbiased reporting.

    Second, had you bothered to read the actual PropOrNot site, it accuses all of the sites listed as being "propaganda outlets" under the influence of "coordinators abroad" (#11 in its FAQ).

    Several individuals on Twitter called this out as libel with respect to NC. And under #7, PropOrNot asserts that "some" of the sites are guilty of violating the Espionage Act and the Foreign Agent Registration Act, as in accusing them of being spies and calling for investigation (by implication of all, since how do you know which is or isn't) by the FBI and DoJ.

    And you defend this witch hunt? Seriously? Do you have any idea of what propaganda consists of? Hint: it is not reporting accurately and skeptically.

    John November 26, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Their MSM propaganda isn't working and they see it. They already heavily censor comments on their MSM sites. Other MSM sights such as Bloomberg closed down comments altogether. Expect more of that.

    And they will take every measure to close down any other independent sites people have turned to get some truth which millions of us know we aren't getting from the MSM.

    Those of us who have a grasp on what is going on in this country will find #7 is very disturbing.
    As it tells us what they have in mind to discredit and close down independent sites.

    James November 26, 2016 at 10:51 am

    As you know, propaganda doesn't have to [be] false. It can be more about selectively reporting certain facts or emphasizing certain facts over others to smear your target and mislead people. Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do.

    And the site clearly states that some sites are knowingly coordinating with Russian agents (like RT) and some are likely unaware that they are being influenced. They likely think NC falls into the unaware category.

    I think they should be more specific as to what sites they believe fall into the 'knowingly' and 'unknowingly' categories, but I also don't believe the app is an entirely crazy idea. Russia is aggressively trying to influence American politics as we saw in the most recent US election and coming up with a response is a good idea even if this particular one should be improved.

    Pat November 26, 2016 at 11:07 am

    Um, James what weakens people's confidence in their leaders is their not addressing people's issues and lying about their inability to do so. Despite protestations from the likes of much of our 'intelligentsia', mainstream media, and most of our political class, the majority of people are not stupid. There is a reason why terms like 'lame stream media' resonate with a large number of people.

    For instance when Obama is out there talking about a recovery and people know that there is no such thing in their lives, their communities then HE has lost their confidence – not someone giving an interview on RT.

    Or to put it another way the problem isn't someone going on RT and saying the emperor isn't wearing clothes, the problem is that the emperor isn't wearing clothes.

    Pretending not to notice doesn't mean that no one has noticed. Considering the Washington/NY/California bubble, most people probably have and have been screaming at their television that he needs to get dressed.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 11:12 am

    what did we see in "the most recent election"? what is your evidence that Russia is "aggressively trying to influence American politics?"

    Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do.

    How do you know any of this? how would you know would Russian intelligence's goals are, or how they think of Steve Keen? this is all just McCarthyism 2016, accusing the left of being dupes or willing agents of Russia. McCarthy had his 200 communists in the state department, this website and the Washington Post have their 200 Russian propaganda websites. Why are you catapulting this bullshit?

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mccarthy-says-communists-are-in-state-department

    pebird November 26, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    But it's obvious, clearly. If you think otherwise, you are an unobvious.

    ChrisPacific November 26, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    Well put. I could equally well argue that it's in Russia's interests that American leadership not be questioned, if it's following policies that are clearly stupid and likely to weaken America's position in the world. So the PropOrNot site might actually be a double blind backed by Russia, using fear of Russian influence to manipulate people into uncritical acceptance of their leaders and prevent questioning of poor decisions, thereby weakening America. (ALERT: If it's not obvious to readers, this is sarcasm).

    If your methodology is gazing into the tea leaves to figure out what Russia's position is, then smearing anybody that advocates a similar position, then that's such a ridiculously flimsy veneer of logic that it can be used to reach pretty much any conclusion you like (as my example above demonstrates). Tell me again who is guilty of propaganda in this scenario?

    James November 26, 2016 at 8:46 pm

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

    I suppose all 17 intelligence agencies could be wrong.

    And RT has a pattern of inviting dissidents that have extremely negative views of American leadership. You can say this negative view justified but that doesn't negate the fact that Russia wants to amplify that discontent as much as possible.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 10:35 pm

    i suppose they still haven't provided any evidence whatsoever. just like you. What 17 agencies? what evidence are they relying on? Why does Obama say the election was not fixed by Russia, that there was no ramping up of cyber attacks?

    You could be working for David Brock at correct the record. the way you blindly accept the talking points of the Clinton campaign indicates that. you just keep repeating them, and don't respond to the criticisms of propornot as a source, or the reporter who uncritically accepted their little mccarthyite hit list. linking to a usa today article that blindly repeats the same talking points, again sans evidence, does not support your argument.

    James November 27, 2016 at 3:44 am

    I was not claiming Russia fixed the election results. I was referring to the email hacking directed at the Clinton camp during the election campaign.

    And my claim that Russia was likely involved in the email hacking is backed up by 17 intelligence agencies and reporting from various independent news outlets. If you had bothered to read the article, which you apparently didn't, you would know that the 17 agencies are the 'Office of the Director of National Intelligence' plus the 16 agencies listed in the link available in the article I provided.

    Here is the link in question: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/intelligence-community/members-of-the-ic

    If USA Today reporting is not credible to you but Russia Today's reporting is, then I'm afraid your trust of Kremlin created propaganda outlets over independent news outlets only underscores my point that Russian information warfare has been very successful at influencing and shaping parts of American public opinion.

    I also don't think US intelligence agencies would make this accusation publicly if they were not confident. They could have just as easily made this accusation against China but have not because it doesn't fit China's MO. Russia has engaged in similar types of email hacking operations in former Eastern European countries it has been seeking to control and influence.

    And comparing an app to McCarthyism is absurd. McCarthysim was the state targeting individuals and organizations. This is private citizens compiling a list by their own accord, which they are free to do. When a left wing blog makes a list of the top ten most right-wing and GOP influenced websites, are they also engaging in 'McCarthism'? Is the left engaging in 'McCarthyism' when it accuses Fox News of being GOP influenced propaganda? C'mon.

    Regardless, I am done with this conversation for now. You can think what you want.

    Pat November 27, 2016 at 4:24 am

    James do you happen to remember when those intelligence agencies reported Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.? How about when North Korea hacked Sony? Both of which were inaccurate and dare I say it propaganda intended to mislead the American public.

    Short of watching the hacking in real time there is no way those agencies would have been able to trace any competent hacker.So here are some very serious questions for you. Do you think the Russians hire script kiddies? Why does Naval Intelligence have anything to do with this investigation? Same with at least half of those agencies?

    Why were 17 agencies watching the DNC? Don't they have anything better to do, like figuring out who hacked the State Department, the IRS and Social Security?

    The immediate claims that Russia hacked the DNC were never credible to any one with even a bit of knowledge about high level hacking. The 17 agency thing was outright laughable once you asked the simple question of what most of them had to do with this investigation. And USA Today was and is the print equivalent of the Yahoo front page.

    You say you are done, but I sincerely hope so e of what was said here percolates in your thoughts. Most of us here understand propaganda, misinformation, and yes confirmation bias. You seem to need to learn to look critically at your usual sources as well as those you have warned about.

    James November 27, 2016 at 6:04 am

    Being wrong about something in the past doesn't mean you are always wrong. In fact, the CIA and FBI have been on the money about countless things in the past, but I'm sure you know this and are just trying to deflect. And it's not true that NK being involved in the Sony hack has been debunked. Opinion is mixed among independent security analysts. Look it up.

    And I think you should take your own advice as far as confirmation bias and understanding propaganda are concerned. Nobody who relies on FSB cut outs like RT for information and analysis has room to talk about their intelligence and critical thinking. NC and other alternative 'anti-establishment' news sources you consume are full of their own bias. You should wander out of the alt-left echo chamber once in a while and stop thinking that any criticism of Russia is 'red-baiting' and propaganda. Mr. Putin isn't a damsel in distress that needs your defending.

    integer November 27, 2016 at 6:52 am

    You can think what you want.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 6:58 am

    There are so many straw men in this I don't know where to begin. So I'm not going to. Not feeding trolls is one of my policies.

    pretzelattack November 27, 2016 at 9:14 am

    oh so now you're an intelligence expert, but somehow you still don't have any evidence, because the "17 intelligence agencies" don't have any evidence either. they didn't have evidence of wmd's but i bet you fell for that, too. i think the most dishonest line in your post is this: You should wander out of the alt-left echo chamber once in a while and stop thinking that any criticism of Russia is 'red-baiting' and propaganda

    while you're searching for evidence to back up the rancid propaganda exposed by glenn greenwald's article in the intercept, you can look for one single post expressing this conviction. just one.

    after all the lies by our intelligence agencies, using the same methods as this smear, to uncritically accept anonymous quotes betrays either a great naďveté or intellectual dishonesty.

    David Lamy November 26, 2016 at 11:31 am

    Gee, if only there were some North American country that would try to influence foreign elections, for example say Russian or Ukrainian ones.
    But let me extend James's thought above by advocating for our leaders to obtain public encryption keys so that we may send our grievances privately without enabling any foreign interference. Won't that just invigorate our democracy?

    OIFVet November 26, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    If Russia is actively trying to influence American politics, then they have been far more effective than the US and get a much bigger bang for their buck. For one thing, they didn't have to drop a single bomb to effect a regime change. So assuming you are correct, the noise is just a hysterical regime change envy.

    So are RT and Sputnik propaganda outlets? Sometimes they are, but sometimes they report the truth that our MSM, having given up the last shreds of their journalistic integtity in return for access, won't report.

    Given the widespread funding of media (including government-owned media) by Western governments, I would say that US and Euro hysteria about Russian propaganda, real and imagined, is yet another off-putting display of noxious American exceptionalism.

    I grew up listening to broadcasts of RFE and VOA behind the Iron Curtain, and mixed in with honest reporting was a heavy dose of propaganda aimed at weakening Eastern European governments. Now, it is the America For Bulgaria Foundation that funds several media outlets in the country. What they all have in common is rabid Russophobia-driven editorial stances, and one can easily conclude that it is driven by the almighty dollar rather than by honest, deeply held convictions. So, America can do it but whines like a toddler when it is allegedly done to it?! What a crock.

    The worst thing is that regardless of whatever propaganda wars are going on, this list constitutes a full frontal attack on free speech in the alleged "Land of the Free." Besides NC, there are number of sites distinguished by thorough, quality reporting of the kind that WaPo and NYT no longer engage in. Having grown up behind the Iron Curtain, this is chilling to me. Dissident voices speaking against the endless wars for profit and neoliberalism are in effect being intimidated and smeared by anonymous thugs. This, while the militarized local police and federal agencies, closely coordinated by "fusion centers", have ruthlessly put down a number of citizen protests, have engaged in spying on all of us, and have gone after whistleblowers for exposing the reach and scope of the surveillance state. These are the hallmarks of dictatorships, not of the alleged "world's greatest democracy and beacon of freedom." What the eff happened to America, and why are you equating challenging the oppressive and exploitative status quo with being "unwitting Russian dupes?" Seems to me that the useful idi0t here is you, with all due respect.

    Glen November 26, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    American intelligence uses exactly the same tactics, and has since at least WW1. Selling the American public on the Iraq war is a classic example. Remember that all news is biased, some much more so than others (we report, you decide.)

    The advent of the internet and the subsequent broadening of readily available news of all slants has made it much harder for any intelligence agency of any specific country to control the news( but it has made it extremely easy for them to monitor what we are reading).

    Naked capitalism uses a wide variety of sources, and obviously has no coordination with any intelligence agency. The normal tell for this is being state sponsored, or having a big sugar daddy providing the funding, and Yves doesn't have any of that.

    As always, it's up to the reader to use their critical thinking skills and form their own opinions.

    Atalanta69 November 26, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    Some of us happen to believe that 'lambast[ing] the American political establishment and weaken[ing] the public's confidence in its leaders' is in the best interests of everyone on the planet, including the American public. If that constitutes propaganda, I'm not about to look that gift horse in the mouth. RT isn't perfect – I personally find their relentless cheerleading for economic growth rather wearying – but it knocks spots off the competition and consistently sends me scurrying to the internet to chase up on new faces and leads. I'm grateful for that.

    FluffytheObeseCat November 26, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    " Steve Keen is great, and I love his work, but it's also obvious "

    Damning with faint praise. A dainty smear tactic noted as such since the days of .. Shakespeare.

    It is obvious that Russia has been trying to influence American politics. The very existence of RT makes that obvious. What is not obvious is why modestly left-of-center Americans' political concerns should be subject to McCarthyite attacks in our most influential news outlets. We've been subject to internally generated far-right propaganda for decades now and have seen minimal, feeble 'mainstream' efforts to counter it. The far right has done tremendous damage to our nation and is poised to do much more now that its doyens control all branches of the federal government.

    And yet this libelous attack is more focused on left-leaning opinion sites than on the ultra-right. The latter were thrown into this list almost as window dressing. Conceivably because the far right is very adept at self-defense. But more because the prestige and financial well-being of the center-"left" is endangered by the rise of an adversarial, econo-centric left. The insiders from this branch of our duopoly never have been harmed by their historic "opposition" (Tea Party kooks + corrupt Beltway Republicans).

    What I interpret this as is a strike by 'think tank' grifters against those who are most likely to damage their incomes, their prestige and their exceedingly comfortable berths on the Acela corridor. It's a slightly panicky, febrile effort by a bunch of heels who are looking at losing their mid-6-figure incomes . and becoming like so many of the rest of us: over-credentialed, under-paid and unable to afford life in the charming white parts of our coastal metropolises.

    Brad November 26, 2016 at 6:34 pm

    Correct. The Democratic party liberals perform only one objective function: Attack the Left. That is what they are "there" for.

    nippersdad November 26, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    I was wondering what Brock has been up to since the dissolution of "Correct the Record."

    Has it been dissolved or has it morphed into something else? This looks like too seamless a transition from the Clinton campaign strategy we have all grown to love to the revenge strategy we have come to expect from such people. I look forward to the discovery portions of the libel suits to come. Hopefully Yves and Lambert will be taking up a collection for so worthy an enterprise soon.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    since you ask: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/david-brock-donald-trump-donor-network-231588 I think the term is "doubling down."

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 6:12 pm

    You've just libeled me. You have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim. Nor do you have any evidence that Russia has been "aggressively" trying to influence US politics. This is one of many hysterical lines offered by Team Dem over the course of this election, up there with depicting all Trump voters as racist yahoos.

    Ed Harrison, who is the producer of the show and replied later in this thread, is the one who booked Keen and interviewed and other economists and firmly disputes your assertion that his show has anything to do with promoting an anti-US line. And as a former diplomat, Harrison would be far more sensitive than most to that sort of issue. I'm repeating his comment below:

    Hi Naked Capitalism. I haven't been on this site for some time. But I felt it necessary to comment due to an ad hominem attack from a commenter "James" regarding the show I produce at RT called Boom Bust.

    From my vantage point as producer at RT, I have been able to see the whole anti-Russia campaign unfold in all its fury. I have a lot of thoughts on this but I want to restrict my comments to the specific argument James makes. here:

    "it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do."

    Since I produce the show that Steve Keen appears on, I am well-placed to give you a view on this. James' comment is flat out false. What James writes is something he has fabricated in his imagination – connecting dots he believes should be connected based on no first hand evidence whatsoever.

    What actually happens on Boom Bust is this:

    Since no one I work with at RT has a sophisticated background in economics, finance or financial reporting, they give us a wide berth in putting together content for our show with nearly no top down dictates at all. That means we as American journalists have a pretty much free hand to report economic news intelligently and without bias. We invite libertarian, mainstream, non-mainstream, leftist, Democratic commentators, Republican commentators – you name it. As for guests, they are not anti-American in any way shape or form. They are disproportionately non-mainstream.

    We have no pro-Russian agenda. And that is in part because Russia is a bit player on the economic stage, frankly. Except for sanctions, it has mostly been irrelevant on our show since inception.

    Let me share a strange anecdote on that. We had a guest on our show about three years ago, early in my tenure. We invited him on because he had smart things to say about the UK economy. But he had also written some very negative things about Putin and Russia. Rather than whitewash this we addressed it specifically in the interview and asked him an open-ended question about Russia, so he could say his piece. I was ASTONISHED when he soft-pedaled his response and made no forceful case as he had done literally days ago in print. This guy clearly self-censored – for what reason I don't know. But it is something that has stayed with me ever since.

    The most important goal from a managerial perspective has been that our reporting is different i.e. covers missing and important angles of the same storyline that are missing in the mainstream media or that it covers storylines that are missing altogether.

    Neither Steve Keen nor any other guest on our show appears "because he lambasts the American political establishment". This is false. He appears on our show because he is a credible economist who provides a differentiated view on economics and insight that we believe will help our viewers understand the global economy. If Paul Krugman had something to say of that nature and would appear on our show, we would welcome him. In fact, I and other producers have reached out to him many times to no avail, especially after we had Gerald Friedman give his take on the dust-up surrounding Bernie Sanders' economic plan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yna275KzuDQ

    Look, I understand the scepticism about RT and its motives. It IS a state-funded news outlet with news story angles that sometimes contrast sharply with western media. And it has not been critical of the Russian government as far as I can tell. But you can't ascribe nefarious motives to individual economists or reporters based on inaccurate or false third hand accounts. You are just making things up, creating a false narrative based on circumstantial evidence. This is just adding to the building peer pressure associated with what almost seems like an orchestrated campaign to discredit non-mainstream sources of news.

    bob November 26, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    "Russia is aggressively trying to influence American politics" Apparently with the help of Hillz. Was her decision to use a private email server made with the help of Putin?

    Brad November 26, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    James, we get it. We US citizens are not to be permitted to criticize our own government or corporations as that might "weaken public confidence" in our Dear Leaders.

    We cannot be trusted to think for ourselves in discerning what is and is not propaganda, for after all we would be able to discern the same coming from the US side.

    The overt stifling of dissent that was such an outrageous feature of the Clinton campaign "is clearly a goal" of your side.

    Who needs Putin when we have mindless ClintonBots to do all the dirty work here?

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:22 am

    > weakens the public's confidence in its leaders*

    Assumes facts not in evidence. See Pew Research :

    This is a secular trend, a great wave. If Steve Keen were going on Tass 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Live!!! With ***Nude*** WOMBATS!!!!, undermining confidence in neoliberal economists - let me pause to gasp in horror - it would be the merest bit of froth on that wave. Taking Jame's view as a proxy for the views of the intelligence community, if they really believe this - and it's not just a ploy for budget time - then the country truly is doomed.

    NOTE * Note the authoritarian followership of "leaders." So my response with institutions is not precisely on point.

    Pat November 27, 2016 at 8:04 am

    The idea that banks were trusted more than organized labor was troublesome to me till I remembered the labor leaders like Trumka and the continued betrayals of membership by the likes of the AFL CIO. At that point I got it really was a toss up.

    Synoia November 26, 2016 at 9:38 pm

    This is a Bezos hostile takeover – aka:

    My revenue is suffering because my rag is bullshit, but all these alternatives are unfair competition - please Mr Government shut them done, because I, the one and only Great Bezos (or Great Bozo), is loosing money.

    Boo Hoo, boo hoo boo hoo .

    davidly November 26, 2016 at 5:41 am

    almost positive = have a vague notion based on nothing but conditioning
    In other words, you are a small-time useful ijit

    hemeantwell November 26, 2016 at 8:51 am

    If you'd like, take a trip in the Wayback Machine to 1959. Then you'll find many criticisms of US society by the Civil Rights movement sharing the same sinister tone as criticisms made by Soviet new outlets. Then you'll also find a gaggle of US pols and their minions claiming on that basis that the Civil Rights movement is communist inspired, funded, and run. Then you'll also find many people who don't bother to distinguish source from story and end up enjoying the official Kool Aid.

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 9:23 am

    It reminds me of a story from Northern Ireland in the 1960's when the leader of a civil rights march was asked by a BBC reporter 'is it true that your organisation has been infiltrated by radicals and communists?' His reply was to sigh and say 'I f**king wish it was true'.

    John Zelnicker November 26, 2016 at 9:47 am

    @hemeantwell – This same claim of communist inspiration and connection was also thrown at the anti-war movement. I remember arguing with a friend of my parents in the summer of 1969, after my freshman year at college where I was active in the anti-war and anti-draft movements. After countering all of the arguments made by this gentleman, he was left with nothing to say but "Well, that's the Commie's line " as a final dismissal.

    Jim Haygood November 26, 2016 at 10:52 am

    'US pols and their minions claiming that the Civil Rights movement is communist inspired, funded, and run.'

    Right up to his death on 4 Apr 1968, Martin Luther King was accused by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI of "knowingly, willingly and regularly cooperating with and taking guidance from communists." Now there's a US national holiday in King's honor.

    That same year, my dad visited Moscow and Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring. After he returned, we started receiving crudely mimeographed newsletters from Moscow - actual Soviet propaganda , delivered right to our mailbox in Texas.

    So laden were they with hoary old Marxist rhetoric that we started satirizing it in our underground student newspaper, mocking the public school administration as "capitalist running dogs" and "colonialist oppressors." (This did not go over well.)

    To his regret, my dad sent one of the Soviet flyers to the FBI, but never got a reply. He suspected that they put him on a watch list, rather than investigating how the Soviets were distributing their crude invective through the US mail.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:16 am

    So laden were they with hoary old Marxist rhetoric that we started satirizing it in our underground student newspaper, mocking the public school administration as "capitalist running dogs" and "colonialist oppressors." (This did not go over well.)

    No capitalistic pigs?????
    – OINK!

    EGrise November 26, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Are you sure the newsletter wasn't printed by the FBI?

    Titus Pullo November 26, 2016 at 9:52 am

    They link American propaganda all the time. If you take off your blinders, you'll find that most news is just propaganda, because the basis for most news stories is what person X says. What's sad is that people like you believe there is some kind of "objective" news source in the "free world" that is telling it like it is. There isn't and there never has been.

    It's all propaganda of one sort or another. I exhort you to read Plato and understand that the Sophists for which Socrates held so much ire are much the same as anon and administration sources for so much of what drives journalism.

    NC separates the wheat from the chaff.

    Stick November 26, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Yep Sputnik News is a regular feature in Links.

    Yves Smith Post author November 27, 2016 at 12:08 am

    No, it isn't and I'm the one who puts links together. Shame on you.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:25 am

    Surely this is irony?

    flora November 26, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    You assume, without evidence, that the claims are true. I think in econ that's called "assume a can opener."

    anonymous in Southfield, MI November 26, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    I have identified a motif that pretty much always gives away a Hillary bot- it was used about several dozen thousand times as part of 'Correct the Record' during the runup to November 8. And here we have it again. It goes like this: I was always in favor of – – – – – – – (fill in the blank with the supposed offenders name) until I found out this 'truth'.

    Also, why not just admit you are a Clinton Supporter who finds it convenient that a lot of the sites could be trashed for being critical of HRC

    Spring Texan November 26, 2016 at 8:07 pm

    Yes, that motif was EVERYWHERE . . . you couldn't escape it!!

    Brad November 26, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    NC is likely "far more guilty" in accidentally republishing your American propaganda, since the Russian variety is so obvious.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:05 am

    Let me just make a list of the weasel words (setting aside the famous "I like you, but ____" trope, which I have never yet seen used in good faith in all my many years of blogging, partly because of the assumption that whether a random commenter "likes" the blog is important.

    1. almost positive
    2. guilty of accidentally
    3. at some point
    4. probably linked (but with no evidence)
    5. can be traced (but not by James!)
    6. some . operation like

    The ginormous pile of steaming innuendo and faux reasonableness aside, James seems to think that the NC readership has no critical thinking skills at all. Apparently, NC readers are little children who need expert guidance from James and his ilk - bless their hearts! - to distinguish crap from not crap.

    Adding "

    KnotRP November 26, 2016 at 3:47 am

    If there is any take away from this foul
    Bernays-inspired campaign season, it is
    that fear can and will overrule reason completely.
    Half of the voters (whichever lost) were set up
    for a cognitive dissonance cork blowing episode.
    No one should expect reason to be an effective defense against cognitive attempts to rectify that dissonance .neither side can be unplugged
    from their self-selected news matrix, without
    blowing their cork. It will not matter that this list
    is comical, because it is a dog whistle to the
    audience preloaded with fear (and the other side would've done a variation of the thene if they had lost).

    (pretty funny of them to list your site though..I guess
    the Russians must've also been quite upset by all
    the American mortage fraud in housing bubble #1
    and felt a need to •head explodes•)

    I suppose this comment will add me to some list maintained by some very frightened but misguided people? What's the line "lighten up, Francis"?

    wheresOurTeddy November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am

    Verdict on PropOrNot: Looks like Prop to me. Getting really sloppy, Oligarchy

    Benedict@Large November 26, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    This has all the earmarks of an effort by the Nuland Neocons that joined Camp Hillary, and now in defeat constitute a portion Hillary's professional dead enders.

    RenoDino November 26, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Camp Hillary, as you call it, has decamped and is on the march. It has powerful allies in the intelligence community, the media and actors on the world stage who deem Trump to be an existential threat to America and world. The story of Russian inspired fake news is paving the way for regime change, an HRC specialty. The recount is the tip of the spear. If they can pull this coup off, sites like this will move from the useful idiot category to the enemy of the state category overnight.

    The brilliance of this move will eliminate all possibly of civil unrest since America democracy will be saved from a Russia threat that requires a declaration of war and severe restrictions on media freedom.

    I can guarantee you Trump is looking over his shoulder and sees it coming and is working furiously to build a case for his own legitimacy. He is doing his best to sound normal.

    Obama has relegated himself to the sidelines. He hates conflict, but will back Hillary if she can pull it off.

    We will know in two weeks one way or the other.

    bob November 26, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    "Camp Hillary, as you call it, has decamped and is on the march." True that. Even a lost election can't stop them. Heard over the holiday- Andrew Cuomo for prez. So the same people who didn't show up to vote for Hillz can now not show up to vote for her waterboy/bagman.

    Manfred Keeting November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am

    Yet Mike Shedlock was not listed. If I were he, I'd be pissed. I'd write to the site demanding to know why!

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 4:17 am

    His post yesterday says pretty much that.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:18 am

    Manfred Keeting November 26, 2016 at 4:01 am If you weren't on the Nixon's enemies list, there was something wrong with you

    Synoia November 26, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    Or not important enough. I seem to remember those years, and my focus was on:

    1. The next Beer
    2. The next female
    3. The next Party
    4. Going to work
    5. I need to pee (see 1)

    All of which changed priority at a whim of what I had to do next.

    begob November 27, 2016 at 7:52 am

    I think sicsempertyrannis was omitted too. Some comments on there are informative on Syria.

    Propertius November 26, 2016 at 4:27 am

    Down in the 8th Circle of hell, I assume Joe McCarthy is getting a chuckle out of this.

    a different chris November 26, 2016 at 10:29 am

    For sure. The "history doesn't repeat but it rhymes" is suddenly sickeningly applicable here.

    I hope they've bitten off more than they can chew in this case. There is that argument that we are "siloing" in our little corners of the web, however – everybody read the newspapers and listed to the radio back then. Which means a very, very small subset of the population set the agenda. Nowadays, the "far-left" and "far-right" are only a click away from each other (and they always did seem to have more in common with each other than the center which has gone from mushy to absolutely rotten). A unified pushback on this is not impossible and who knows where it might lead?

    Gabriel November 26, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    "First as tragedy, then as farce"

    Plenue November 26, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    First as tragedy, then as farce. People literally killed themselves because of McCarthyism. No one is going to kill themselves over this farce.

    The Rev Kev November 26, 2016 at 4:28 am

    Aha, I have solved the mystery. It is elementary my dear Watson! The PropOrNot site is itself a Russian propaganda ploy on the part of the KGB! What? errr, ok, the FSB then. By adding sites such as the Naked Capitalism site to the list, it will be discredited in its entirety thus letting the nefarious Russian propaganda websites be given a free pass. Mystery solved! And sorry Max but "Naked Capitalism" a leading left-wing financial news blog"? I'd rather label it a practical and empirical financial news blog myself.

    Seriously, I am wondering if something else is going on here ("tin-foil hat" mode on) with this piece of trash. No doubt people here have heard all the cries of "fake news" since the election. This was on top of months of claims of Russian hacking of the election which is still ongoing (cough cough, Jill Stein). Now Merkel is screaming blue murder of probable Russian hacking of the German elections next year and just this week the EU Parliament has passed a resolution which in part states that Russian media exists to "undermine the very notion of objective information or ethical journalism," and one of its methods is to cast all other information "as biased or as an instrument of political power."

    I am given to understand that the military use the term "preparing the battlefield" and that is what I think that we are seeing here. There have already been calls for FaceBook and Google to implement censorship of "fake news" which will amount to censorship of social and news feeds – the same media Trump used to bf the entire news establishment in this years election. Could we be seeing the beginnings of calls to censor the internet? All to fight terrorism and black propaganda of course. The Left would have absolutely no problem with this and if was used to get rid of sites that contrasted the mainstream media's narrative, more people would be forced to use the mainstream media for their news which would make them happy. Something to think about.

    rusti November 26, 2016 at 5:01 am

    And sorry Max but "Naked Capitalism" a leading left-wing financial news blog"? I'd rather label it a practical and empirical financial news blog myself.

    While the level of discussion here is generally at a much deeper level than most sites and commenters don't fit into neat little ideological boxes, I don't think it's a particularly egregious generalization to call a site with readers that overwhelmingly support things like financial regulation, single-payer health care and post-office banking "left-wing".

    But Max himself is an interesting character. I've been scratching my head wondering how a guy one step removed (Sidney Blumenthal) from the Clintons' inner circles is ambitious about exposing the ludicrous claims made by those same people regarding Palestine and Syria.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 5:22 am

    The list of news sites on the said fact-free, unsourced, anonymous webpage are all, so far as I can tell, news sites that have disagreed with neocon foreign policy preferences on several occasions.

    JEHR November 26, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    I am so tired of the use of "left" and " right" and "progressive" and "libertarian" that when I see these words I go off into a daze. These words are bandied about in so many different ways for so many different reasons, that they have almost become meaningless. I would rather that people or organizations be described in detail who supposedly have these "left" "right" etc. characteristics, then I would know what was being claimed.

    clincial wasteman November 26, 2016 at 11:47 pm

    yes, and one good way to that sort of detailed description is to read here regularly for a while: there's hardly any political self-tagging or confessional drama going on, but any one person's comments over a few months do add up to a picture of how her/his life experience, unlabelled political principles, intellectual ( not the same as academic!) background and style of spontaneous reaction (yes Mr Mencken, 'humor!) all fit together. And this gradually reveals a lot more than Left-Right status updates or biographical oversharing ever could: not so much about the person - who has a right to all the unknownness s/he wants - but about the experiences and reasoning that might connect a statement that delights you and another that leaves you aghast when both come from the same person and within about a dozen lines. And all this with no fuzzy-fake "consensus" in sight: mutual respect across abyssal differences is hard-won and correspondingly cared for.

    "The internet" still gets blamed for "ruining face-to-face interaction" by people who probably flatter themselves about the richness of their past social lives. But I can't imagine when I'll ever have a spare few years and some mysterious money (not to mention some "social skills" and a valid passport ) with which to visit Maine, Oregon, Arizona, Buenos Aires (etc etc etc) for extended casual conversations there. In the absence of that option, whatever you all have the patience to write here counts as THE escape route out of political parochialism and geographical niche.

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:37 am

    > preparing the battlefield

    I like the idea some commenter had (too lazy to find it right now) that all these strategems were long-prepared, and in place for a Clinton victory. Now the Clinton faction in the political class is deploying them anyhow. They'd better hurry, because influence peddling at the Clinton Foundation isn't as lucrative as it once was .

    KK November 26, 2016 at 4:29 am

    Surely any site that accepts donations could be funded by a foreign power without knowing?
    ps A couple of my students make 50p a post for challenging negative posts on travel websites by making up how great was their experience.

    a different chris November 26, 2016 at 10:34 am

    And, um, so what? They can waste money anywhere they want. How much has the US spent over my lifetime propagandizing the Middle East and how did that work out?

    rusti November 26, 2016 at 4:50 am

    The Neera Tandeen tweet is revealing in that it shows how hypocritical all the pearl-clutching was over Trump's complete lack of discretion in pushing bogus and fabricated stories. A cursory glance through the rest of her feed shows a bunch of equally thoroughly scrutinized claims that the Putin/Comey/Deplorables triumvirate conspired to steal the election from the forces of Good.

    z November 26, 2016 at 5:21 am

    For long time readers this russian(chinese) propaganda should be obvious. And it is ok, get used to it. Great opportunity to learn "how to read between the lines", and when you understand, solidifying into a basic skill.

    "The only way to get smarter is by playing a smarter opponent." and now you have a good ones, not a cheap wapo columnist but organised, educated, trained information warfare hacks.

    we are on the early days, more to come, much worse to come.

    nmb November 26, 2016 at 5:25 am

    Be careful NC. MSM are in panic. They see that their propaganda is less and less effective and start targeting those who offer an alternative against their obsolete narratives. Be prepared: when they will realize that these don't work at all, their fake democracy will become an open dictatorship.

    Steve H. November 26, 2016 at 10:26 am

    President-elect Trump calling them liars may have unsettled them.

    It's good to know we have a strong leader protecting our backs!

    /s? Time will tell.

    David N November 26, 2016 at 5:31 am

    I loved naked capitalism's election coverage, but here is an anecdote of how it angered conventional liberals.

    I read a particle physics blog by Columbia mathematician Peter Woit, who wrote an election post-mortem (he occasionally writes about politics). Not Even Wrong is one of the most popular blogs in theoretical physics, I've several excellent physicists post in the comments to previous entries. I was very surprised to see Woit blame naked capitalism (and others) for the electoral defeat of Hillary Clinton, he's a very conventional thinker normally so I would have expected him to not even know about naked capitalism. I'm still surprised he knew about it.

    My guess? There is a lot of communication in the country between people who do read some of these 200 news media organizations, with the vast majority who stick to conventional sources such as the NYT, the WSJ, and who think that Vox and The Atlantic are intellectual sources. When people get exposed to alternative media for the first time, even educated people, their most likely response is some combination of anger, laughter, and asking if the writer also believes that 9/11 is an inside job.

    Anyway, this is what it looked like: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8906

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 7:35 am

    I hate to get tin foily, but that blog is typical of a few I've seen – expressing real anger at the amorphous 'left' for not getting on board the Hilary train. There is an element of vengefulness in some of the writing and combined with the evidence of the article above, it seems there is an element within the establishment (the losing half) who are in full on McCarthy mode – and of course the first stage of a purge is to accuse the targets of being traitors and in the pay of foreign interests. Trump and the people around him are dangerous of course, but I think a defeated neolib/neocon establishment is equally dangerous. We are in worrying times, and its not just the far right we have to be worried about.

    john bougearel November 26, 2016 at 11:17 am

    Even normally level-headed Bill Black posted some rather biased opinionated op-eds here about P-Elect Trump. Which surprised me.

    Synoia November 26, 2016 at 9:44 pm

    he's a very conventional thinker

    And he is in the field of Physics research? Does that make it a Oxy-Moron or the dear Prof a complete Moron?

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:34 am

    > some rather biased opinionated op-eds

    Let's parse this

    1) Throw away the weasel words

    some rather biased opinionated op-eds -> biased opinionated op-eds

    2) Throw away the evidence-free

    biased opinionated op-eds -> opinionated op-eds

    3) Expand the abbreviations

    opinionated op-ed -> opinionated opinion editorial

    4) Eliminate redundancy

    opinionated opinion editorial -> opinion editorial

    So Bill Black wrote an "opinion editorial." Is there a problem with that?

    Marco November 26, 2016 at 8:37 am

    Woit also includes the NYT in his list of culprits so I don't know what planet he resides. Also interesting to note his jetting off to Paris as tonic. Oh the humanity!!

    craazyman November 26, 2016 at 8:40 am

    It's incredible how many otherwise smart people can't think for themselves.

    It's hard to know what to believe! You can believe your own eyes, but even your mind connects the dots without you knowing it.

    This is not the Washington Post's finest hour - although they probably haven't had one of those for years at this point. I'm down to the Redskins coverage in the WaPo, which is still quite good actually.

    I used to be a Washington Post paper boy, so I'l put one last quote from Charles Osgood

    It was while making newspaper deliveries, trying to miss the bushes and hit the porch, that I first learned about accuracy in journalism
    -Charles Osgood

    (All quotes from quotegarden.com)

    shinola November 27, 2016 at 12:05 am

    More people should read the historical "rantings" of Mark Twain, Mike Royko & Molly Ivins

    Joseph P. November 26, 2016 at 9:15 am

    I notice that Woit has disabled comments on this particular post (all other posts have comments enabled). Probably he justifies it by telling himself that he is running a physics related blog and isn't interested in promoting discussion on non-physics related matters like politics (but he still wants to promote his own political opinions on his physics blog!). It's typical of the fingers-in-the-ears reaction that ivory tower liberals to Trump's win.

    lyman alpha blob November 26, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    I am protesting his column by believing in string theory – that should teach him.

    David N November 26, 2016 at 7:05 pm

    One doesn't need string theory to explain the lyman-alpha forest though, just lambda-CDM cosmology :-)

    ggm November 26, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    Calling Susan out by name, misrepresenting her viewpoints, and then turning of comments is completely indefensible.

    I always felt he has needlessly politicized string theory research l by making his case against it primarily in popular science books and on his blog rather than in peer-reviewed journals and academic papers. Since when is it a good idea to let public perception influence our scientific whims? Whether or not his arguments are valid is beside the point, it wasn't the right way to go about attempting to influence the field.

    Sammy November 26, 2016 at 5:35 am

    I am re-posting the following from an insightful comment on the Liberty Blitzkrieg report on this scam site:

    "The anonymous "executive director" of the Propornot website, quoted by the Washington Post, was mostly a likely a "senior military intelligence" impostor cum serial teen pornographer named Joel Harding. He is facing a lawsuit over the copyright infringement of Internet-distributed (teen) pornography (Case No. 1:16-cv-00384-AJT-TCB) in the US District Court for the eastern district of Virginia, Alexandria division. This is in the public domain.

    BTW, Harding's fellow trolls have been known to ascribe the rank of Brig Gen to their pathetic troll leader in private messages to the unsuspecting.

    No wonder Joel Harding wished to remain the anonymous "executive director" whose laughably scientific work was quoted by Washington Post. But why didn't Washington Post's Craig Timberg check this up? Basic journalistic checks thrown out of the mixed gender bathroom window? Details of Harding's trolling activities are available on the very Internet that is trolled by Joel Harding through his 3,000-odd troll sites.

    And to think that I used to be an avid reader of Washington Post's science and Technology reports now galls me.

    There is a growing assumption that the patriotic paranoid activities of Joel Harding and associates are a cover for their Ukrainian teen pornography distribution business."

    EndOfTheWorld November 26, 2016 at 5:41 am

    Sigmund Freud called this "projection".

    The US MSM is all propaganda all the time-every bit as bad as Pravda ever was. RT now is the "anti-propaganda." They were even carrying Jesse Ventura and other Americans who are blacklisted by the MSM.

    This is a "hail mary pass."

    Pavel November 26, 2016 at 8:02 am

    A hail mary pass that was intercepted by the opposing team and run back for a touchdown.

    Methinks the WaPo, "PropOrNot", and the rest of the MSM involved with this stunt are going to have a lesson in The Streisand Effect. Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg (whom I greatly admire BTW) has said he already has many new followers and donors.

    EndOfTheWord November 26, 2016 at 8:39 am

    The hail mary pass was intercepted and run back for a touchdown. Ha, ha, ha. That's a good one, Mr. Pavel.

    hunkerdown November 26, 2016 at 6:18 am

    There's a Chrome addon in beta! Wow. I must say I'm impressed. It's like a porn blocker for liberals in crisis.

    This demands popcorn and much Nietzschean weaponized laughter.

    sd November 26, 2016 at 6:34 am

    Serious question here.

    What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I feel like I missed some important public dis somewhere that would explain it all. Condoleeza Rice's general dated anti-Soviet attitude I could understand, but that doesn't explain the escalating bigotry pouring out of Obama and Clinton (and their various surrogates). Is it a case of a bomb in search of a war?

    EndOfTheWorld November 26, 2016 at 6:58 am

    Looks to me like it came out of the HRC campaign. LOL James Carville was talking about the KGB tampering with the vote tally .not knowing they've been out of business since 1991. The whole thing makes absolutely no sense, and it won't fly with the American public, many of whom watch RT, or may be married to or dating Russians. Even Randy Newman likes Putin enough to write a song about him.

    John November 26, 2016 at 9:17 am

    The funny thing is it's been an open secret that the Democratic party has known about electronic voting fraud (always swinging to the Right) for years but refuses to go near the subject publicly supposedly because they didn't want people to lose faith in election results and stop voting.

    John November 26, 2016 at 9:47 am

    Even today they are defending the results
    U.S. Officials Defend Integrity of Vote, Despite Hacking Fears
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/us/politics/hacking-russia-election-fears-barack-obama-donald-trump.html?_r=0

    tgs November 26, 2016 at 10:26 am

    The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election , it has concluded that the results "accurately reflect the will of the American people."

    From the NYT article you mention. It is now axiomatic that the Putin government was actively attempting to subvert our election. This despite the fact that absolutely no compelling evidence has ever been given.

    integer November 26, 2016 at 7:37 am

    What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late? I think it can be traced back to this .

    z November 26, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    After the nineties opening foreign influence was accepted and russia started integrating into the western world. Some years later the resurged nationalist kicked out western companies, broke cultural-social contacts.

    West is made on free trade-free business-free ideas flow. if russia not trading on common terms, west gonna take it by force. and russia holds one-fourth of fresh water, one-fifth of world forests, one sixth of arable but never before used land, and never before properly explored mineral wealth. All these can help to secure a prosperous 21.century for the west.

    Same like before the american conquest, only difference now local indigenous people wield nuclear weapons and have unlimited chinese support, so no rush let them make mistakes. (and they do, ukraine-syria-azerbaijan just the latest)

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 2:45 am

    I bet your funders can't wait to "properly explore" that Russian mineral wealth.

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 7:41 am

    I don't think there is an easy answer to your question, but I think it goes around to the failed Ukrainian coup (well, partially failed) and the realisation within a certain element of the neocon establishment that Putin had been inadvertently strengthened by their policy failures in the Ukraine and Syria. I think there was a concerted element within the Blob to refocus on 'the Russian threat' to cover up their failures in the Middle East and the refusal of the Chinese to take the bait in the Pacific.

    This rolled naturally into concerns about cyberwar and it was a short step from there to using Russian cyberespionage to cover up the establishments embarrassment over wikileaks and multiple other failures exposed by outsiders. As always, when a narrative suits (for different reasons) the two halves of the establishment, the mainstream media is always happy to run it unquestioningly.

    So in short, I think its a mixture of genuine conspiracy, mixed in with political opportunism.

    Dirk77 November 26, 2016 at 8:44 am

    +1

    cocomaan November 26, 2016 at 8:53 am

    Don't forget Snowden and Assange. The intelligence community is, I'm sure, furious about those two. With Snowden still in Russia, it's basically a weeping sore on the intelligence community's face. Those people do not like exposure at all.

    I remember that, shortly after Snowden's revelations, the war drums really started to beat for Syria.

    a different chris November 26, 2016 at 10:43 am

    In all success* is the seeds of failure. Once upon a time, the "beating of war drums" was a great distraction from whatever ill's were currently affecting a nation. But the US now has such an overwhelming military that not only is there absolutely no threat to the US land mass, but for a given person there are at least two degrees of freedom between them and anybody actually involved in these wars themselves. We lost a soldier – ONE soldier – on Thanksgiving day and sure it was all over the news but how many USians actually know even a member of his family, let alone him? About zero to a first approximation.

    So it just isn't working as a distraction. TPTB I don't think really get that yet.

    *the word success here is used in a morally neutral sense

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    Likewise don't forget Chelsea/Bradley Manning! He was the one who put WikiLeaks on the map and is now paying a horrible price for his courage and love of humanity. His name is constantly dropped from the list of whistle blower heroes. Why? Because of his gender ambiguity? Whatever his gender Manning is an American hero worth remembering.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:29 am

    PlutoniumKun
    November 26, 2016 at 7:41 am

    I think that's about right PlutoniumKun but I would add your moniker – the US is gonna spend a FORTUNE (I TRILLION dollars using Austin Powers voice) updating our nuclear arsenal. Can't really justify using ISIS, so the Soviet boogyman has to be resurrected .

    Lurker November 26, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    YES! You need a big bad enemy to justify expenditures on big bad weapons. ISIS ain't gonna cut it.

    integer November 26, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    Plutonium kun : "I'm hardly absorbed by your stomach or intestines and I'm expelled by your body, so in fact I can't kill people at all"

    (Curiosity finally got the better of me)

    grayslady November 26, 2016 at 8:30 am

    A friend of mine is convinced that Obama and the Beltway crowd have never gotten over Russia giving asylum to Edward Snowden. If you look at the timing between Snowden's revelations and the U.S. ginning up its anti-Russia talk and activities, there is some correlation.

    cocomaan November 26, 2016 at 8:54 am

    haha, I literally just posted this two inches above! +1

    I think the intelligence community, all those northern virginia folks, hate the fact that every day there's a traitor who has an outlet on twitter.

    witters November 26, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    Listen to Gore Vidal (in 1994!) and find out why: https://www.c-span.org/video/?61333-1/state-united-states

    ToivoS November 26, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    What exactly is the origin of the Russia bashing that's been going on as of late?

    That is very good question and it does not have a simple answer. I have been pondering this for 8 years now. The latest bout of Russia-hatred began as Putin began to re-assert their sovereignty after the disastrous Yeltsin years. This intensified after Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. In adddition the US was preprogrammed to hate Russia for historical reasons. Mostly because of the Soviet era but also when the US inherited the global empire from the Brits we also got some of their dislike of the Russian empire dating back to the 19th century.

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 7:49 pm

    It all started when Putin arrested the Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, when Putin put a stop to the shock therapy looting of Russia by the Harvard mafia and Jeffrey Sachs. Didn't he know that oligarch's are above the law? They are in the US. Didn't he know that money can buy you immunity from prosecution like it does in Europe and the US? Can't have that, hence the Ukraine, deprive him of his warm water naval base. Then there was the Crimean referendum. Out smarted again! Can't have that!

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 2:53 am

    Yes. There was a Michael Hudson piece posted here in 2014 that lays it all out. Apparently those wanting to bring "democratic institutions" to Russia haven't given up yet.

    This Propornot outfit has all the makings of a National Endowment for Democracy scam, including its sudden appearance in the Post, which has been publishing crazy regime-change-esque editorials on Russia for more than two years now.

    It's all so depressing.

    Mark Alexander November 26, 2016 at 6:37 am

    It's all my fault. I studied Russian in high school (4 years) and college (1 year), and even subscribed to Pravda briefly in college (as did all of my classmates) to improve reading skills. I also spent a month in Russia in 1971. This is how I became a dirty commie. By commenting on NC a half dozen times in the past, I have forever tainted it. Sorry!

    BTW, what is the W3C approved sarcasm tag? /sarc or /s?

    Disturbed Voter November 26, 2016 at 8:28 am

    I also took 4 years of Russian in HS. When in the Cold War, it is best to understand your opponents (not enemies), rather than be ignorant. That is how one can play chess and win and yes, it is as much a matter of intimidation and annoyance, as it is cold calculation. Bobby Fischer vs Boris Spassky. States have no enemies. Former allies become opponents and vice versa pragmatism rules.

    pebird November 26, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    Sometimes it isn't necessary.

    allan November 26, 2016 at 6:54 am

    " the kind of folks who make propaganda for brutal authoritarian oligarchies are often involved in a wide range of bad business."

    Sounds like half of the D.C. economy. And so the Democratic Party ends, not with a bang, but with a McCarthyite lynch mob.

    The Vole November 26, 2016 at 7:03 am

    Wow this is straight out of John LeCarre.

    divadab November 26, 2016 at 7:03 am

    Well Joe McCarthy was a Republican so this is yet another example of Democrats taking on that mantle of paranoid fear and war-mongering. Flipping Clintons, the best Republican President and candidate the Dems could come up with.

    Kathleen Smith November 26, 2016 at 7:45 am

    The MSM can no longer fool the people that there has been an economic recovery, that is why nobody believes the media anymore and that is why Donald Trump won the election. Watching news today is like watching a bad puppet show. The masses are finally waking up to the fact that their government has sold them down the river to big corporations and predatory bankers. Took the sheeple long enough.

    Kokuanani November 26, 2016 at 7:52 am

    I was dismayed to see a reference to this rotten WaPo article on Bill Moyers' Facebook. Usually he's much better than that.

    And based on the comments, folks are believing this junk.

    Escher November 26, 2016 at 8:21 am

    It's an idiotic new red scare, and I can tell you the well credentialed, supposedly smart liberals in my circles will eat it right up. Their critical thinking is completely out the window at this point, and they'll accept apparently anything to avoid coming to terms with Clinton having lost to Trump. It's terrifying.

    knowbuddhau November 26, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    Bummer. I'll always have a fondness for him from the Power of Myth interviews.

    Was surprised to find PoN recommended in an article on In These Times.

    http://inthesetimes.com/article/19658/20-lessons-from-the-20th-century-on-how-to-survive-in-trumps-america

    9. Investigate. Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on your screen is there to harm you. Bookmark PropOrNot and other sites that investigate foreign propaganda pushes.

    It was so jarring I kept reading that last sentence, thinking I'd missed the snark. Fully expected it to end with "as an example," not to lend it cred.

    Harold November 26, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    The article you mention in In These Times is by Timothy Snyder :), who despite being a well-known historian is no mean propagandist himself, having suggested that the Ukrainians not the Soviets liberated Auschwitz. http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/03/07/crimea-putin-vs-reality/

    OIFVet November 26, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    Timothy Snyder is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. That he would recommend PoN is at least a small indication of who stands behind it. Snyder is has given bad odor to the term "historian" over the past three years. He is to objective history what Bernays was to objective journalism.

    Harold November 26, 2016 at 8:26 pm

    Snyder: "The army group that liberated Auschwitz was called the First Ukrainian Front." The NYR of Books has suppressed the comment section on its blog, probably to spare Snyder the embarrassment of having his howlers pointed out by readers.

    knowbuddhau November 26, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    Ah so, thanks to you both. Two tells made me suspicious: lots of apparently good advice, then the little drop of poison just nonchalantly dropped in the mix; and Yale historian ;) .

    My comment there hasn't made it out of moderation yet. But someone else tore into him for the same reason I did, recommending PoN:

    Because you have no idea who the hell they are, anymore than anyone else does, they've just released a list of non-MSM news sites that they disagree with. They smear long running and well trusted sites as "propaganda" outlets without offering any evidence or stating any sort of methodology. You have litereally abandoned the professional ethic which ought to go along with being a published.historian and University professor purely because it makes you FEEL BETTER.

    I just asked him, as a Yale historian, to please tell us how the list was compiled, or at least give some reason for his unqualified recommendation. I went on to say that I read several of the sites listed, esp. Counterpunch and of course, NC. Even helpfully provided a link to this article, saying the idea that NC pushes foreign propaganda is ludicrous, and the WaPo article was being thoroughly debunked here.

    Ended with "I call upon the author to explain! (h/t Nick Cave)"

    inode_buddha November 26, 2016 at 8:22 am

    WaPo Has been sounding increasingly shrill for the last year. Makes you wonder what they're hiding or what truth they're running from.

    polecat November 26, 2016 at 5:11 pm

    Hit em where it hurts .. PROFITS --

    **BOYCOTT AMAZON & The WASHINGTON POST !!

    ** Any and all who spew this crap

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 9:38 am

    More likely, what "truth" 'they' are trying to manufacture. (When did the new 'owners' take up the reins at WaPo? There might be a correlation, and a causation involved)

    Inode_buddha November 26, 2016 at 10:29 am

    This is why I'm looking forward to any legal cases that may arise out of this - I plan to follow such *very* closely. Would love to see discovery documents upon the editorial and ownership staff . the legal equivalent of a public enema, "you shall have no more secrets "

    After all, didn't Fox News win a case essentially stating that it was OK to flat out lie and fabricate from whole cloth? Then why can't Democrat media organs do likewise?

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 10:46 am

    Why didn't I think of that earlier? "Political Infotainment." If my reading serves me right, I was under the impression that newspapers of a hundred years ago and earlier displayed their political allegiances openly. A reader could easily work out the underlying story from separating "story" from "interpretation." Now, news outlets are supposedly impartial and pure of heart. Yet another cherished myth bites the dust. Perhaps it is better this way.

    John November 26, 2016 at 10:52 am

    Yes Fox Lies did win such a case. And if any fake "news" outlet should be on the list it is them.

    pebird November 26, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    Didn't we used to call "fake news" rumors? And when did newspapers stop printing rumors?

    Disturbed Voter November 26, 2016 at 8:24 am

    Per FDR .. sometimes we are better known by our enemies, than by our friends.

    Vedant Desai November 26, 2016 at 8:30 am

    Just check this out :

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

    Based on the evidence of above mentioned link, this "PropOrNot" can be part of a project of U.S. government to manipulate media to create an anti-Russia climate or more likely another method of attack on what they consider "Left" so status quo in economic policies of U.S. can be maintained.

    Susan C November 26, 2016 at 8:32 am

    What is going on with the press/MSM lately? It is like one big game of mind control. Is that what journalism is for – to persuade people to do what the system wants them to do and I hope I am not stretching here but a la Bernays? I mean when I think about this it is really sort of terrifying as the MSM has done little else but constantly broadcast to people that life in America is just fine and everyone is happy when in fact the opposite is true – there is a lot of hardship out there since the financial crisis, a lot of people never recovered, millions or tens of millions. So how can people not be drawn to alternative news sites which thankfully are quite abundant now and want political change? It just seems like the WaPo, NYT are living in this one little sliver of opulence and prosperity while the rest of us just shake our heads and wonder what has happened to this country, especially as we see their darling was not voted in as President. So now they are striking out and attempting to smear the reputations of good sites, And what is this fake news thing – I am not on social media and have no idea what the fake news is – is it about the pizza places? And why are the social media sites being censored – I had read on zh that when the Comey story hit before the election that that news was not trending at all which was very strange according to those who would know better.

    I don't know where all this fear is coming from in the MSM but I imagine they have lost their grasp of the American mind. I worry every time I tune in that I am being lied to and misled for a reason. A political reason. I grew up in the 50's and remember real journalism and I want it back. I want to know what is really going on. Everywhere.

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    It has worked for a hundred years, since WWI and the Creel Commission, the destruction of a vibrant American Left. Imagine the panic in the boardroom suites, the millennials no longer think that socialism is a bad word, and supported an aging leftist for president. OMFG! It's all Russia's fault providing an alternate plausible narrative. Can't have that. Outsourcing jobs to Asia, burdening college students with immense debts, incredible corruption personified by the Queen of Wall Street couldn't have anything to do with it. All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's finally happened, they have over reached and are about to fall off the edge. Relish the panic.

    Escher November 26, 2016 at 8:41 am

    So this WaPo story is an example of the "fake news" we're supposed to be on the lookout for, right?

    cocomaan November 26, 2016 at 8:46 am

    When everything hits the fan, I'll be glad to have you other filthy propagandists in the FEMA camp alongside me, breaking rocks, eating gruel, and discussing the path to insanity.

    I really wish that reporters like those at the Post and the Times had done us all a favor and walked into the ocean after their abysmal election coverage. Why anyone listens to these outlets anymore is a question that I ponder at night, staring at the ceiling, wondering what the hell happened to my country.

    Butch In Waukegan November 26, 2016 at 9:04 am

    On PropOrNot's list is usslibertyveterans.org, which might be an indication its neocon origins.

    The site has few articles, no comments and its visit counter shows under 3,800 hits. It looks like it was created 4 months ago. It is propaganda because?

    Their stats page shows that ProOrNot's strategy might backfire. Yesterday was a record day for hits.

    Or maybe usslibertyveterans.org is a fishing lure.

    Jagger November 26, 2016 at 10:24 am

    Who could possibly have a problem with a site on the USS Liberty? Certainly narrows down the list of suspects considerably, assuming it wasn't a deliberate false track. For those not familiar with the USS Liberty, it was the USN ship attacked, nearly sunk with heavy casualties, by Israel in 1967. A lot of military still have bitterness towards Israel and the American leadership due to the lack of justice and cover-up over that incident.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

    integer November 26, 2016 at 9:10 pm

    The surrounding of "Russian propaganda" with the letter 'y' reminds me a bit of this :

    (((Echo))) is a symbol used by anti-Semitic members of the alt-right to identify certain individuals as Jewish by surrounding their names with three parentheses on each side. The symbol became a subject of online discussions and media scrutiny in June 2016 after Google removed a browser extension that automatically highlights Jewish surnames in the style.

    Note that Israel has a lot to lose if Trump pulls the US out of the Middle East. Here's some Russian propaganda on the issue:

    Jagger November 26, 2016 at 10:32 pm

    Recent tweet by PropOrNot per Greenwald.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

    Tila Tequila's Descent Into Nazism Is A Long Time Coming

    The self-proclaimed "alt-reich queen" has a long history of anti-Semitism, and an even longer one of internet trolling.

    Again unless this is a false lead, these guys are looking more and more Israeli or Israeli sympathizers. Other tweets per Greenwald at same link also suggest a pretty low maturity level. Possibly kids or college level??

    Old Hickory November 26, 2016 at 9:20 am

    The WaPo story is in today's Greensboro (N.C.) News & Record. Front page, above the fold. Sheesh.

    Tom Stone November 26, 2016 at 9:26 am

    This is a lot worse than "Yellow Cake" and it scares the pants off me. This is the "Official line", signed off on by the editors of WaPo. Think about that for a minute. And then think about the campaign to get the EC to enthrone HRC.

    Trump dissed the MSM and they are pissed off, so are their masters who wanted Obama to slide through TPP in the period between Hillary's win and the inauguration. They blew more than $1Billion on a loser and they may have decided that losing is not acceptable and that it will be HRC on the throne, whatever it takes. The recklessness displayed by the MSM here is breathtaking at a moment when the USA is more divided than it has been since the election of 1860.

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 9:48 am

    Add this to the "YouTube Heros" project,
    see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh_1966vaIA
    and the nascent "fake news site" purge program,
    see: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-facebook-crack-down-adverts-appearing-fake-news-sites-us-election-trump-2016-11
    and one sees a coordinated meta project to "sanitize" the public's sources of information.
    I'm leaning towards your take on this. Joe McCarthy had nothing on these present "operators."

    Patricia November 26, 2016 at 4:43 pm

    Hero youtube vid ("mass flag videos!") has 918K dislikes to 29k likes. Encouraging

    tgs November 26, 2016 at 10:36 am

    it scares the pants off me

    I'm with you Tom Stone. There is nothing funny about this. The MSM at this point is the greatest purveyor of fake news on the planet, I am talking about not just CNN and Fox, but the BBC, France24 and so on.

    Pretty much everything they have said and every video they has shown on east Aleppo is either a lie or a fake. As someone noted the other day (I can't remember who) if the stories about east Aleppo were actually true, then the Russians and Syrians have destroyed approximately 900 hospitals – including the 'last pediatric hospital in east Aleppo' which has been completely demolished on at least three separate occasions in the last few months. The main stream outlets don't even try to be consistent.

    The people who run things here and in Europe are apparently desperate – and this latest move is an indication of how desperate they actually are. It is indeed scary.

    HBE November 26, 2016 at 11:11 am

    It's 90 hospitals not 900, but 90 is just as ridiculous given the whole country of Syria only has 88 hospitals/clinics.

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:36 am

    tgs
    November 26, 2016 at 10:36 am

    I am publicly apologizing to Sarah Palin who I used to think was a dingbat for all of her criticism of the MSM aka Lame stream media. She was far, far more correct than I ever thought possible.

    But look at the silver lining – how many people like me who thought that the large media got the essential facts correct can now see how much we're being fed pure propaganda .how much of what you see depends on what your looking for .

    MRLost November 26, 2016 at 9:54 am

    Weapons of Mass Distraction. Another nail in the coffin of credibility of the NYT and WaPo. Recall after the Stupid War and how there were zero weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq that the NYT and Wapo declined to mention or explore their own culpability in beating the drums of war. This will be more of the same.

    John Wright November 26, 2016 at 11:11 am

    The Times had a retrospective on their actions on May 26,2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html

    "Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all."

    So the Times DID admit some culpability, but it wasn't as if the Times volunteered to donate a portion of their profits(deepen their losses?) to help Iraqi victims or US soldiers and their families.

    And given the Times Syria coverage, where even the sanctimonious Nick Kristof (August 28, 2013) called on for Obama to bomb Syria for credibility reasons, nothing has changed at the Times.

    "Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious behavior like genocide or the use
    of chemical weapons. Since President Obama established a "red line" about chemical weapons use, his
    credibility has been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."

    The Times playbook is to parrot what TPTB wants to do and then if the readers subsequently revolt in disgust, apologize later.

    After I quit my digital subscription to the Times, it seems I'm limited to 10 articles/month. This might be more than the safely recommended monthly dose of the NYTimes.

    clarky90 November 26, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    The dissimulation, the feigned ignorance (the irony). During the 1930s, the New York Times actually acted as propaganda agents for Stalin. They collaborated with the Soviet Security Services to prevent the rescue of millions of Ukrainian peasants (deplorables).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty

    "In 1932 Duranty received a Pulitzer Prize for a series of reports about the Soviet Union, 11 of them published in June 1931. He was criticized then and later for his denial of widespread famine (1932–33) in the USSR, most particularly the mass starvation in Ukraine. Years later, there were calls to revoke his Pulitzer; The New York Times, which submitted his work for the prize in 1932, wrote that his articles constituted "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper."

    Elizabeth Burton November 26, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    Editors were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper.

    And there you have it, boys and girls, the one driving force behind journalism as practiced in the corporate media. If I had been paid for every time I was told to fudge a story lest the local broadcast stations break it first, I would have been able to pay my mortgage.

    The Trumpening November 26, 2016 at 10:06 am

    This whole Russian propaganda campaign is nothing more then elites attempting to slam shut the Overton Window that the Trump campaign has pried open a bit this year. This article explains why they will most likely fail:

    http://thefutureprimaeval.net/the-overton-bubble/

    simjam November 26, 2016 at 10:11 am

    I suspect that PropOrNot's outburst was developed during the campaign by well heeled and connected Hilary supporters to be unveiled after the election to muzzle increasingly influential web sites including NC. As it stands PropOrNot shot a blank. If Hilary had won the campaign against "fake news" would probably have taken on a more ominous tone.

    Mel November 26, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Wolf mentioned that the list will function as a dog-whistle for money - that is, advertisers - telling them about the dangerous places. Maybe not shooting a blank in the short run. In the long run, of course, advertisers will follow the eyeballs anywhere.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    maybe David Brock is still correcting the record? ;) http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/david-brock-donald-trump-donor-network-231588

    Oil Dusk November 26, 2016 at 10:14 am

    The MSM became so biased during the Presidential election, it drove many Americans toward social media where you could at least view campaign speaches unfiltered. The same process is now being applied in the support of manmade climate change alarmism with hopefully the same result

    witters November 26, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    Go away. Stop smearing NC with climate denialism. You, sir, are a troll.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    i think you meant the same process is applied in the support of oil company propaganda. the msm slavishly supported the pro fracking clinton, slavishly acted for years as if there were an actual scientific debate, instead of fossil fuel shills vs scientists.

    Uahsenaa November 26, 2016 at 10:15 am

    I really hope this doesn't get buried in the comments, because it's important to note that Ames is actually incorrect. He would have been right as recently as 3 years ago but no longer is.

    The provisions of the Smith-Mundt act that prevented materials produced by the BGG from being used for domestic purposes were repealed by the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (actually passed in 2013, when incorporated into the NDAA), which states:

    The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are authorized to use funds appropriated or otherwise made available for public diplomacy information programs to provide for the preparation, dissemination, and use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers, instructors, and other direct or indirect means of communication.

    It also contains a provision that supposedly prevents the BBG from influencing domestic public opinion, yet also says the following.

    Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure.

    Worth noting: passed under Obama and discounted at the time but venues such as Mother Jones, who did the heavy lifting of telling progressives they were paranoid.

    Uahsenaa November 26, 2016 at 10:18 am

    Mother Jones link .

    Katharine November 26, 2016 at 11:36 am

    Thanks for this information!

    I am guessing the proviso you quote may have been intended to cover the possibility of people in places like Florida hearing broadcasts aimed at Cuba or other targets, but it certainly raises questions.

    What I find most despicable in all this is the cowardice of these people making up their accusations and refusing to say who they are. Beneath contempt.

    Uahsenaa November 26, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    As a loophole it's not perfect (the intent of the primary provision it qualifies seems rather clear on its face), but we're talking about people who wrote elaborate memos justifying torture and extra judicial murder, and who went before Congress (i.e. Holder) to claim that "due process" does not necessarily mean "judicial process." A loophole like that is more than enough to judge such activities legal enough. I certainly can't imagine anyone in the current administration prosecuting it.

    Yves Smith Post author November 27, 2016 at 12:13 am

    Ames tells me Pando has a legal opinion to the contrary.

    lyman alpha blob November 26, 2016 at 10:19 am

    In regards to all this 'fake news' and 'Russian propaganda' hysteria, one potential problem I keep seeing mentioned is that certain sites could be banned from FleeceBook thereby destroying these sites' page hits and ad revenue.

    I don't use the FleeceBook so I guess I don't understand how this works. I can come to this or any other website any time I want so why would I care that it's been banned by FleeceBook? I don't remember exactly how I first heard of NC but I'm guessing I followed a link from one of the other left-leaning sites I read regularly (which coincidentally also are authored by Boris Badinov according to the WaPo). Is FB sort of like AOL back in the day where AOL users thought they were surfing the intertubes but in reality were in some sort of AOL-approved pen? And if that's the case I have to wonder how long it will be before FB becomes just like AOL is today, ie mainly used by the less internet savvy. I already hear rumors that the youngsters consider FB something only old people use.

    I am genuinely interested if anyone can explain this – would it really hurt websites that much to be banned by FB? Wouldn't there be a backlash against FB for doing so?

    PS: The thing that made me start using NC as my go-to source for news besides the excellent original financial reporting was the fact that you guys started including regular links to sites like BAR, Counetrpunch, etc that I was already reading anyway. I feel like I can read here without missing out on what was going on elsewhere – there's only so much one can read in a day. Keep up the great work!

    Yves Smith Post author November 26, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    I would assume that's how they intend to hurt these sites, but we get virtually no traffic from Facebook. However, being banned from FB would seriously dent out policy influence.

    Jess November 26, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    The thing is, it would prevent people like me from linking to NC stories in our personal posts, or in replies to posts from our FB friends.

    polecat November 26, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    Well now they gotcha were they want ya

    don't .. use Faceborg -- .. see that was easy .

    same with GooGOO, TWITTED etc. .

    Jess November 26, 2016 at 8:09 pm

    Unfortunately, Faceborg is the best way for me to stay in touch with certain people. For example, it has a closed group called FDL-LLN which is limited to former commenters on FireDogLake. (LLN stands for Late Late Night, which was a subforum for people to post music and discuss musical artists; the LLN heading was used for the FB group out of, I believe, both nostalgia and the friendships that many formed as FDL "pups".)

    In addition, if you post an NC link on FB, it gets seen by many people who might not otherwise become aware of the site.

    polecat November 27, 2016 at 2:20 am

    well .. by all means go ahead and continue to be used as product, because THAT"S the only thing of import by the likes of zuckerberg.

    homeroid November 27, 2016 at 2:39 am

    Ah Jess I miss LLN and Suz an Tut and all the rest. But not enough to go Faceborg. Somethings are lost some remain. I still have a phone which i use every so often.
    Bob.

    skippy November 27, 2016 at 3:44 am

    After a few years of FB econ sites, hashing things out with the usual suspects, things began to increasingly change as the primaries got to the wire. Once solid commenters replete with knowlage and experience began to mimic the very people and camps they once railed against.

    It was on then when I took on these people for such actions that I started to get the FB treatment, ending in privacy washing.

    Disheveled Marsupial . especially when noting Hillary's history and bad side, sad to think it might have been one of the old gang that put in a complaint to FB.

    WhatsNotToLike November 26, 2016 at 10:20 am

    There is something bizarre about this whole scenario.

    PropOrNot is asserting that the sites on the 'List", both right and left, were responsible for the Clinton loss by spreading false Russian propaganda. This would make more sense, as a political project, if Clinton had won. Asking the Trump DOJ and Trump's/Comey's FBI to investigate the asserted causes of Trump's win is bizarre.

    It only makes sense, IMHO, if this project was already in the works pre-election anticipating a Clinton win, where it would have had the benefit of targeting both the right and the left and continuing the drum beat for war. If that is the case, the losers appear to be too shell-shocked or committed, financially or ideologically, to think through the implications of letting this go forward.

    I do like the idea of NC, and other left-wing sites, forming a coalition with right-wing sites to take legal action. Ralph Nader's "Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State" comes to mind.

    Skip Intro November 26, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    The site was apparently registered on Aug. 21 2016, when the establishment still felt confident that the ascension of the empress was a done deal.

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 3:09 am

    Wasn't the reality of Russia intervention in Syria well underway by that time as well? Wasn't the whole US Syrian ploy dependent on everybody selling the people a clear distinction between evil Assad, evil ISIS, and good moderates (ahem al-quaeda)?

    That narrative was clearly no longer believed even by the journalists writing it. Why? Sites like this one and others. Why does it matter? Because aim was to get rid of Assad to cut Russia out of Mideast, having failed to achieve that goal two years earlier in Ukraine. Cui bono?

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    Excellent observation, preparation for a post Killery election purge of the alternate media.

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    ah, that makes sense. and why waste a good purge even if plan a doesn't quite work out?

    nippersdad November 26, 2016 at 8:13 pm

    Good points. Also, IIRC, internet governance is due to be turned over to a non-governmental organization in the not too distant future. Might this not be a way of achieving the elimination of net neutrality during a Democratic Administration that would not want to be seen as sticking the knife in themselves?

    In that scenario, it would look a lot like the present Administration is secretly working the refs in the same way that they tried to push the TPP and its' associated ISDS provisions before the whistle was blown on them.

    Light a Candle November 26, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Wow, this is surreal. Edward Bernays on steroids.

    This whole bizarre "fake news" meme along with the and the Russians are coming is getting widespread media traction including Vanity Fair. It's getting repeated in Canadian media too.

    Now PropOrNot not is not credited as the source but the more plausible sounding Foreign Policy Research Institute and lots of references to the Washington Post's "reporting".

    I think this is a deliberate campaign to discredit progressive and independent news sources. God forbid that citizens should read a variety of sources and make up their own minds.

    jo6pac November 26, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Yes eddy b. meets Eric Hoffers True Believers.

    NC Please keep up the wonderful work done here.

    Stephanie November 26, 2016 at 10:40 am

    I have wondered for about a year now if someone is handing out anti-Russian story quotas – or maybe anti-Russian story cash, with a bonus for anything that goes viral. I'm not sure how else you explain stuff like this from a Gawker site that was mainly focused on minimum wage law and whether the Tilted Kilt could legally fire you for being too fat.

    This current listicle feels very much the same, except with less professionalism and more credulity. Either someone is getting paid enough not to care how asinine this looks, or the inmates really are running the media asylum.

    S Haust November 26, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Thanks a lot for noticing this.
    Provides me a one-click route to a long list of my favorite sources.
    Don't need to bother with bookmarks anymore.

    OIFVet November 26, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Naked Capitalism is in great company: BAR, Counterpunch, Antiwar, Consortium News. I didn't need to read these sites to come to my views though, all they did is to confirm what I had come to believe all on my own: that Hillary is a corrupt warmonger, that the American government has been captured by the moneyed elites, that the Democrat Party is a rat nest of neoliberal infestation. And while I was naturally predisposed toward Russia by virtue of where I was born and by Bulgarian history, my college career was marked by my support for all of the bad policies that brought us the new Cold War with Russia: NATO expansion, the bombing of Serbia, the economic ruin of Russia, the unipolar world order. I was young, stupid, and ambitious. Later on I simply settled into profound indifference toward Russia and a general anti-war attitude brought about by my own service. It wasn't until the hysterical MSM crapstorm of breathless smears about Sochi that I began to notice the US policies against Russia. So for me, the most effective pro-Russia propaganda outlets proved to be US MSM, WaPo and NYT being the most effective of all. Just one of life's little ironies. So WaPo wants to sling mud and go on a witch hunt? I suggest that they indict themselves first and foremost, for being a mindless disseminators of US government propaganda.

    Dave November 26, 2016 at 11:10 am

    Naked Capitalism is my home page and the first thing I read. If it's Russian Propaganda, I would like to offer a big Thank You to Russia. -sarc.

    Consider the Bezor's attack a positive, he will introduce thousands of new readers to this site.

    S Haust November 26, 2016 at 11:12 am

    "a new 'Eurasian' empire stretching from Dublin to Vladisvostok"

    Why Dublin? With a flick of the finger, they could have had the flyover terrain between there and Shannon.

    And why Vladivostock? You can go a lot farther East than that and still be in Russia.

    For Pete's sake, why have they not included Sapporo and the rest of Japan. Aren't they vulnerable too?

    And the Aleutians; for that matter, why not the rest of Alaska too? After all, we only bought it from them at a knock-down price. Anyone knows they got
    a raw deal. Shouldn't they want that back too?

    Katharine November 26, 2016 at 11:40 am

    You forget their target audience is ignorant of geography, inter alia. They had to stick to names people might be able to place at least vaguely.

    PlutoniumKun November 26, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    Shannon Airport would have been appropriate as during the Cold War it was Aeroflots main base for flying on to Cuba. Its now only a short drive from Trumps Irish golf course.

    Ted November 26, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Conflicted. On the one hand, as a long time reader of a diversity of listed websites (on the lefty side mostly), this comes across as ham fisted and, frankly, bizarre. Not only the laughable story itself, but that it has been picked up and reposted by a host of other rather mainstream and 'liberal' surrogates.

    It is *bizarre* because Russia today is nothing of what the boogeyman USSR was in times past: an alternative political-economic arrangement to then industrial capitalism. Russia Today (wink, wink) is as capitalist and as democratic as any of the other players on this particular stage (plenty of the former, not so much of the latter). An economic competitor, sure, but no USSR. So the anti-Russia/Putin propaganda just consistently reads hollow to anyone who spends any time just reading run of the mill reporting of goings on in the world (reporting aside from propaganda stories). In other words, if you are a relatively informed reader of diverse sources and traveler, the anti-Russia stuff just comes across as contrived from the get go.

    But then again, I got a chance to visit with some 1000s of academic colleagues at a national convention recently. This is where the 'conflicted' point comes from. As Good Liberals, academics dine daily on a strict NYT, WAPO, NPR diet, with the more 'edgy' types hanging at VOX and HuffPo. And they BELIEVE everything their beloved media tells them through these sources, without reservation (and with the requisite snark and smirk). The academy is nearly completely captured and now so deeply immersed in its echo chamber that any information that might challenge its perception of the world is immediately dismissed as nefarious propaganda (either paid for by the Koch bros, or Putin). Of course, since the elite academy is overwhelmingly Ivy educated, their worldview loops back to their Ivy educated friends at said media outlets. Creating a bubble that is increasingly impenetrable to reason and critical analysis.

    Moose and Squirrel must DIE November 26, 2016 at 11:28 am

    Lots of panic for the Washington regime. The clownish asshole loser that they carefully groomed proved less repulsive than their chosen Fuehrer Clinton. Now they are distraught to see that their enemy Russia sucks much less than the USA.

    Russians get a much better deal than the US subject population. The Russian head of state has approval ratings that US politicians scarcely dream of. Russia complies with the Paris Principles, the gold standard for institutionalized human rights protection under international review. The USA does not. Russia's incorruptible President keeps kleptocrats in check, while the US banana republic installs them in high office. Russia complies with the rule of law: they refrain from use or threat of force and rely on pacific dispute resolution, using proportional and necessary force in compliance with UN Charter Chapter VII. The US shits on rule of law, interpreting human rights instruments in bad faith and flouting jus cogens to maintain impunity for the gravest crimes. In the precise terms of Responsibility to Protect, the US government does not even meet the minimal test for state sovereignty: compliance with the International Bill of Human Rights, the Rome Statute, and the UN Charter. Naturally the US is bleeding legitimacy and international standing, and Russia is going from strength to strength. If Russia invaded, we would strew flowers and sweets.

    The collapse of the USSR did Russia a world of good. Now it's time for the USA to collapse and free America.

    nothing but the truth November 26, 2016 at 11:29 am

    it boils down to Soros vs Putin. Anyone who is not with Soros is with Putin, according to Soros. Soros cannot digest the death threat he was given by Putin, to stay away from Russia or else. Since Soros was born in old communist europe, he seems to believe he has the right to regime change there. And he has been very successful – primarily because he is in bed with the CIA and the Russians are just now waking up again.

    Ignacio November 26, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    So sorry! I am a foreign "propagandist" reader, commenter and contributer from Spain, and I am just shoked to see this! How sad is this, it pretty much looks like McCarthysm again!!!!

    Edward Harrison November 26, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    Hi Naked Capitalism. I haven't been on this site for some time. But I felt it necessary to comment due to an ad hominem attack from a commenter "James" regarding the show I produce at RT called Boom Bust.

    From my vantage point as producer at RT, I have been able to see the whole anti-Russia campaign unfold in all its fury. I have a lot of thoughts on this but I want to restrict my comments to the specific argument James makes. here:

    "it's also obvious that RT invites him on the network because he lambasts the American political establishment and weakens the public's confidence in its leaders. This is clearly a goal of Moscow, and they use people like Steve Keen to do it. I'm sure Steven Keen doesn't think of his role that way, but RT and Russian intelligence certainly do."

    Since I produce the show that Steve Keen appears on, I am well-placed to give you a view on this. James' comment is flat out false. What James writes is something he has fabricated in his imagination – connecting dots he believes should be connected based on no first hand evidence whatsoever.

    What actually happens on Boom Bust is this:

    Since no one I work with at RT has a sophisticated background in economics, finance or financial reporting, they give us a wide berth in putting together content for our show with nearly no top down dictates at all. That means we as American journalists have a pretty much free hand to report economic news intelligently and without bias. We invite libertarian, mainstream, non-mainstream, leftist, Democratic commentators, Republican commentators – you name it. As for guests, they are not anti-American in any way shape or form. They are disproportionately non-mainstream.

    We have no pro-Russian agenda. And that is in part because Russia is a bit player on the economic stage, frankly. Except for sanctions, it has mostly been irrelevant on our show since inception.

    Let me share a strange anecdote on that. We had a guest on our show about three years ago, early in my tenure. We invited him on because he had smart things to say about the UK economy. But he had also written some very negative things about Putin and Russia. Rather than whitewash this we addressed it specifically in the interview and asked him an open-ended question about Russia, so he could say his piece. I was ASTONISHED when he soft-pedaled his response and made no forceful case as he had done literally days ago in print. This guy clearly self-censored – for what reason I don't know. But it is something that has stayed with me ever since.

    The most important goal from a managerial perspective has been that our reporting is different i.e. covers missing and important angles of the same storyline that are missing in the mainstream media or that it covers storylines that are missing altogether.

    Neither Steve Keen nor any other guest on our show appears "because he lambasts the American political establishment". This is false. He appears on our show because he is a credible economist who provides a differentiated view on economics and insight that we believe will help our viewers understand the global economy. If Paul Krugman had something to say of that nature and would appear on our show, we would welcome him. In fact, I and other producers have reached out to him many times to no avail, especially after we had Gerald Friedman give his take on the dust-up surrounding Bernie Sanders' economic plan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yna275KzuDQ

    Look, I understand the scepticism about RT and its motives. It IS a state-funded news outlet with news story angles that sometimes contrast sharply with western media. And it has not been critical of the Russian government as far as I can tell. But you can't ascribe nefarious motives to individual economists or reporters based on inaccurate or false third hand accounts. You are just making things up, creating a false narrative based on circumstantial evidence. This is just adding to the building peer pressure associated with what almost seems like an orchestrated campaign to discredit non-mainstream sources of news.

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    You are in good company with that suspicion of a campaign to "sanitize" the public's sources of information. If one were to consider the Corporate sector as the equivalent of a state, then almost all news sources are liable to extra strong scrutiny. Going back to Bernays, the "shepherding" of the news sources used by the majority of the population is crucial to maintaining control of public perceptions. In that sense, the present struggle for control of the news narrative is understandable.
    Keep up the good work.

    shinola November 26, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    NC " a leading left-wing financial news blog"?

    Isn't that a compliment? I mean it does say "leading" (and I have to agree).

    As for "left-wing", well NC does frequently feature articles by Bill Black & others associated with the University of Mo. Kansas City; and UMKC has long been known for its lefty, socialist/commie leanings – I know because my 81 y.o. mother told me so (and I had a prof. there teaching "History of Economic Thought" who came right out & claimed to be a Socialist – horrors!)

    DJG November 26, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Lambert foresaw that there would be a witch hunt after the election. He indicated that it would come from the Democratic Party and the conserva-Dem establishment. And, ecco!, a witch hunt. So what could possibly be the source?

    I am noticing on my Facebook feeds that the ooshy liberals are in a feeding frenzy: They believe that they are victims of some breakdown in information. The shocker was that the news being passed around in DemPartyLandia was that the Democrats were on the verge of retaking both houses of Congress and the presidency. Meanwhile, Water Cooler showed that the neither house of Congress was truly in play and the presidential race was a dead heat. After the election, various lists began to circulate. The one cited by Yves isn't the first. I saw one list that included The Onion, The Daily Currant, and Duffel Blog. You mean Duffel Blog's story on U.S. soldiers trying en masse to join the Canadian army isn't true?

    Further, much of liberaldom is now deep into trying to flip the Electoral College or amend the Constitution immediately, as well as the Trump as Fascist meme.

    Yes, America, land of self-proclaimed bad-asses, turns out to be the realm of panic. And many policies and stances are going to have to be suddenly revised: Ooshy liberals, who supported charter schools for years, are suddenly shocked that DeVos of Amway is a charter-school addict. The disastrous foreign-policy adventures of the last few years have to be offloaded very soon on Trump, so that Obama can be thanked for being scandal-free.

    And, evidently, the conspiracy is now so big that it can't be blamed solely on Al-Jazeera.

    flora November 26, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    yes. a lot of people have stopped thinking straight, or stopped thinking:
    http://www.gocomics.com/michaelramirez/2016/11/19

    Ignacio November 26, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Isn't this a good run to autodestruction?
    -I mean, Dem party autodestruction?

    susan the other November 26, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    This means we need more outlets besides Google and Facebook; outlets impervious to witch hunts – maybe offshore enterprises, after all that's the trend. The more the merrier for manufacturing dissent – in a good sense. What Russia does cannot harm us but it is always good to hear their take; and China is interesting as well. We get such gobbledegook from MSM we would never understand a single issue without alternative news. It's a little late for them to be all hysterical about losing their grip – they've been annoying us and boring us to death for 5 decades; and selling us down the river. I'm amazed they have a following at all.

    Isolato November 26, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    I was horrified to hear this regurgitated on NPR last night w/o the slightest question. Proof? We don' need no steenkin' proof!

    Lambert Strether November 27, 2016 at 7:43 am

    If you have an NPR tote bag, demand a refund!

    TedWa November 26, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    The military industrial complex and all the elites are behind all this massive propaganda stuff and fake news. They want war and nothing is going to stand in their way – not the democrats, not the republicans, no one. HRC knew this – hence her "paranoia" about Russia. It's crazy. I hope Trump has the balls to stand up against them. Thanks NC for being here --

    Rostale November 26, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    With the Washington Post at least, there is a pretty handy avenue of response. Namely that its CEO Jeff Bezos, who clearly approves of the editorial policy, is also owner of Amazon.com If you don't approve of Mr. Bezos using his media platform to revive McCarthyism and Yellow Journalism, keep that in mind when doing your holiday shopping, and when you see that item you were thinking of buying on amazon, take a moment to see about buying it elsewhere, even if it costs a bit more to do so. If Mr. Bezos want to use the Washington Post to promote censorship of media control, make him pay for it in a drop in Amazon's stock price.

    Calvin madamombe November 26, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    "Information globalism is a free flow of information across the world irrespective of race, source geography. Its up to a competent reader being selective- choosing what sort of information they want consuming. Its the bases of choice, a basic human right."

    Don Lowell November 26, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Surely there is a lot of stuff going on and its good to flush it out. Wisconsin recount is a good place to start

    I think its local hacking as well as the rooskies..

    flora November 26, 2016 at 9:18 pm

    The Clinton campaign announced today they'll be joining the recount effort. Greens start a recount effort, Friday WaPo prints vile rumors, Saturday Clinton campaign announces it is joining the Wisc recount effort. This is banana republic stuff.

    winstonsmith November 26, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Here is Glenn Greenwald's take: Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group . I heartily agree with:

    One of the most egregious examples is the group's inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time Magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired Magazine as a crucial site to follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS' Bill Moyers Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington Post, has now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.

    From the propornot website (deliberately not linking it) the YYY thing is really creepy.

    The YYYcampaignYYY is an effort to crowdsource identifying Russian propaganda outlets and sympathizers. To participate, when you see a social-media account, commenter, or outlet echoing Russian propaganda themes, highlight it with YYYs accordingly!

    Romancing The Loan November 26, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    Reminds me of the (((name of jewish person))) thing that popped up very briefly in the right wing fever swamp only to be instantly proudly self-added by a ton of jewish liberals.

    Elizabeth Burton November 26, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    I have come to the conclusion, based on personal observation, that anyone who includes the words "our leaders" in their narrative is not to be trusted. Granted, it's a personal thing, as I have been advocating whenever possible that we should under no circumstances apply that label to our elected officials but should instead always use their proper designation: "public servants."

    Anyone want to wager a thorough check of the MSM for the last fifty years or more would eventually uncover the first one of their ilk to refer to elected officials as "our leaders"? To then be followed by all of the others?

    Because how better to persuade the voting public that they should just fill in the bubble or push the button without asking a lot of silly questions about issues than by subtly brainwashing them with the implication the people they're voting for are better equipped to deal with the important stuff? Because "our leaders" are clearly better qualified to make the decisions than we are.

    George Phillies November 26, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    Also look for folks who refer to America as the Homeland. Heimatland sounds snazzier in the original German.

    shinola November 27, 2016 at 12:24 am

    "Homeland Security" had a creepy feel to it the 1st time I heard/read it

    Skip Intro November 27, 2016 at 2:28 am

    Good one. And referring to the president as our 'Commander in Chief' is also a pretty revolting tell.

    hunkerdown November 27, 2016 at 12:00 am

    Interesting. Google's n-gram viewer shows that "our leaders" is much more prevalent in books during and after wartime, peaking in 1942-44, with a somewhat steady rise between just before WW1 and the end of WW2 (upon which each war is superimposed), and an odd reversal upward around 1996 whose incline isn't much deflected by 9/11, and which levels off around 2005. It's almost like looking at the Third Way made flesh.

    Elizabeth November 26, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    My ex husband told me that back in the 70s when he was applying for a government job, he had to undergo an extensive FBI check. The fibbies found out he had a subscription to "Soviet Life" (a magazine about cultural, economic stuff in the USSR). As a result, his neighbors, family, past co-workers were all interviewed to see if he was a "subversive." The Russophobia has a long history.

    I agree with many commenters that Pravda's ProPorNet's listing is heading somewhere scary. The MSM got the message that they have no credibility anymore, and they're in a panic, as are the neocons/neolibs. I think after the US backed Ukrainian coup failed to nudge Russia into a war, this "Russian aggression" meme started in earnest. Now that the election is over and the "favored one" lost, it is quite telling to me that the panicked establishment isn't going to go quietly. They were planning on having WWIII, and are furious now.

    I'm too young to remember McCarthyism, but this stuff is frightening.

    sunny129 November 26, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    fyi

    [..]Also included are popular libertarian hubs such as Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute, along with the hugely influential right-wing website the Drudge Report and the publishing site WikiLeaks.

    [..]One of the most egregious examples is the group's inclusion of Naked Capitalism, the widely respected left-wing site run by Wall Street critic Yves Smith. That site was named by Time Magazine as one of the best 25 Best Financial Blogs in 2011 and by Wired Magazine as a crucial site to follow for finance, and Smith has been featured as a guest on programs such as PBS' Bill Moyers Show. Yet this cowardly group of anonymous smear artists, promoted by the Washington Post, has now placed them on a blacklist of Russian disinformation.[..]

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/

    european November 26, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Key line from Greenwald IMO: "The Post story served the agendas of many factions: those who want to believe Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton; those who want to believe that the internet and social media are a grave menace that needs to be controlled, in contrast to the objective truth which reliable old media outlets once issued; those who want a resurrection of the Cold War."

    me: The only way the mainstream media can get its power back is by killing or at least crippling the internet.

    polecat November 26, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    Boycott ANYTHING Bezos related !!!

    sunny129 November 26, 2016 at 5:01 pm

    the biggest peddler of FAKE News!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-25/who%E2%80%99s-biggest-peddler-fake-news

    George Phillies November 26, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    What is happening for which this is a distraction?

    watermelonpunch November 27, 2016 at 12:04 am

    A bunch of people in the U.S. got fed up, and now it means that a lot of people who were used to only having contact with other people like themselves and hanging out at fancy parties are being told they need to start interacting with the general public or get a different job, and they're not happy about it.

    Karl Kolchack November 26, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    Just last week I made my first ever reader contribution to NC–now I wish I had waited a few days so my donation could be interpreted as an "FU" to ProporNot. :)

    Optimader November 26, 2016 at 5:30 pm

    My comment waz very bad and had a time, then marched out behind the barn an waz shotz

    Sluggeaux November 26, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    This Washington Post piece is so insidious as to make my blood run cold. We've seen in "education reform" how the Gates Foundation and Walton Foundation would place un-sourced propaganda in articles by friendly reporters in the WaPost and the NYTimes and then reference the news outlets as proving their propaganda to be "fact."

    As some know, I am a professional conspiracy theorist, having served as a local-level criminal prosecutor for over 32 years. I see a grave threat to the First Amendment when an anonymous source suspected to have ties to the military-industrial complex calls for the government to investigate news sources for espionage.

    I also find it interesting that The Intercept didn't make the list, despite the presence of Glenn Greenwald. Given Pierre Omidyar's closeness to the current administration (was FirstLook created to take Greenwald and Taibbi out of circulation during the 2012 election?), is there some sort of "tell" here about where this attack on Free Speech is coming from?

    Those on this blacklist should pool resources to pursue retraction, repudiation, and an admission by the Post editorial board that Timberg's outrageously un-sourced "reporting" is libelous and was published with an at best reckless and at worst intentional disregard for the truth.

    Yves Smith Post author November 27, 2016 at 12:24 am

    They've listed only sites that they think lack the $ to sue them. That is clearly one of the criteria.

    WJ November 27, 2016 at 3:21 am

    Probably true, though also worth noting that (as has been observed frequently here), the Intercept's regular reporting on Ukraine and Syria was often little better than mainstream outlets.

    LifelongLib November 27, 2016 at 3:22 am

    David Stockman's site is on the list. Wonder if he still has any pull

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    What is even more alarming, this seems to be coordinated with Jane Harmon's recent advocacy of a FISA drone court which also targets "enemy" web sites. Is this a prelude to shutting down dissenting web sites based on their status as foreign agents of our arch enemy "Russia" which the European Parliament has equated with Daesh. There is a sense of impending revolution world wide, is this the first step to preempt such? Is martial law the next step? There seemed to be a lot of projection involved when the neo-libs accused Trump of fascism and not accepting election results. Who is now not accepting election results and who are the real fascists calling for the shutting down of news outlets?

    Kevin November 26, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    Instead of "most of all, a sense of political levity", maybe Max meant to say something like political heft, political gravitas?

    Paul Jurczak November 26, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    Yet another reason why political establishment got what it deserved this election cycle. They still think that a bit of propaganda denied them a victory and there is nothing wrong with their policies

    flora November 26, 2016 at 9:06 pm

    WaPo is now too vile to read.
    McClatchy is still a fairly good news source. And, oh, look at this: Clinton campaign will join recount effort in Wisconsin. Not surprising.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article117235428.html#storylink=latest_side

    flora November 26, 2016 at 9:10 pm

    adding: I think Stein and the Greens have been played.

    tgs November 26, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    Jill Stein has embarrassed herself with this effort. I gave money to her until she made her final vp choice – Baraka called Bernie a white supremacist! I did vote for her and now feel it really was a wasted vote. 1% in the national totals. Ok. Being a useful idiot for the Clintons – no way.

    Allegorio November 26, 2016 at 11:50 pm

    Ah yes, one more chance to steal the election. Syria must fall and be partitioned. Russia must be driven from the Ukraine, the internet must be cleansed of dissent. Patent and Copyright monopolies must be imposed on the world. This election took TPTB by surprise, they are surprised no longer. Trump does not want to be President, he's scared to death. The consensus is that the results will not change. Don't be so sure. There may yet be a coronation and then the shit will hit the proverbial fan. Apparently it was not enough for TPTB to control both parties, they also control the minor parties. Et tu Jill Stein!

    flora November 27, 2016 at 1:31 am

    recounts + planted stories on Russkie interference + pressure on electors to change their votes. that looks like the plan. in my foil bonnet opinion.

    Kim Kaufman November 26, 2016 at 9:46 pm

    Here's James Corbett's response to being on the list: What I Learned From the "PropOrNot" Propaganda List https://www.corbettreport.com

    integer November 26, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    Did you see this comment? It certainly seems plausible to me that cybersponse are involved. https://cybersponse.com/solutions/government

    integer November 26, 2016 at 11:42 pm

    FWIW I also checked that the registration address was correct. https://whois.icann.org/en/lookup?name=propornot.com

    Contact details: General Inquiries | Support – 480.646.3006 | [email protected]

    Reify99 November 26, 2016 at 10:37 pm

    Hillary and her handlers had the choice to lose to Bernie or to Trump. They chose Trump.
    (OK, maybe not consciously.)

    Now, they are are NOT happy with the result but please notice that Bernie is looking better, has more news coverage, even appearing on The View, for crying out loud! Yes veal pen, "outreach", whatever. Doesn't matter what they Think They are crafting.

    If they keep up the Rooskie angle they will be amazed how good Bernie starts to look.
    A little FB censorship. Ditto! Shut down some international protests. (In North Dakota) Bingo!
    Drive people into the street! Whoooee!

    They, DNC, Bezos et al, will pine for him before this is all over. Because he is the symbol for what could have happened if they had followed the law and had gone peacefully.

    They can't see it yet.

    BTW, RT has a 30 minute segment with Chris Hedges at Standing Rock circulating now.
    Seems legit to me. Decide for yourself.

    RBHoughton November 26, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    Yves stand up and take a bow. You have been noticed by the filth. One of the many reassuring signs to come from the corridors of power lately. Is it possible change really is coming?

    RBHoughton November 27, 2016 at 12:11 am

    I have just learned of a group in the European Parliament led by a Polish MEP and member of the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformers in Europe that is likewise attempting to create a fear of "fake news" from those sites that don't follow the MSM Editors' example of restraint in publication.

    It has this week received a huge injection of public money to extend its work. It seems that North America and Europe are in lockstep on the need to keep the people ignorant.

    John Day November 26, 2016 at 11:21 pm

    I have emailed whoever is at Propornot and politely requested to be added to their list. Johnday's Blog http://www.johndayblog.com/ , though modest and unnoticed, links mostly to sites on their list. http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html

    If this site is seriously trying to help snowflakes create information-safe-places, then it needs to protect them from my blog, too. Fair is fair. I deserve recognition.

    I also think Ilargi @ The Automatic Earth is being snubbed through their non-inclusion of that site. Everybody should email them and demand that all worthy blogs get included in their precious list.

    Roquentin November 26, 2016 at 11:58 pm

    When's this shit going to end? Every time I think these big media outlets have hit rock bottom, they find a way to sink even lower.

    makedoanmend November 27, 2016 at 1:22 am

    "When's this shit going to end?"

    When the rot is complete and the edifice tumbles? Or when TINA wins, and the voices go silent? My bet is on the later. Collectively, the money got all 4 aces (and a few more hidden up their sleaves and a few more hidden in their boots, etc – no end of aces.)

    Then the silence reigns and TINA is happy. Despair is walled offed into its own echo chamber and silence is taken for acquiescence and indifference.

    Until it doesn't.

    Human history just keeps playing the same music. Mind you, big nature might be adding a new wrinkle to march-of-death tune. Interesting times, very interesting.

    Dugh November 27, 2016 at 3:58 am

    Charles Hugh-Smith's response to the "list": "The Washington Post: Useful-Idiot Shills for a Failed, Frantic Status Quo That Has Lost Control of the Narrative"

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blognov16/useful-idiots11-16.html?fullweb=1

    [Nov 27, 2016] NEO-FASCISM IN AMERICA by Eugene L. Mendonsa

    Notable quotes:
    "... Fascism is authoritarian political ideology that promotes nationalism and glorifies the state. It is a totalitarian in orientation, meaning that those benefiting from the system work to exclude any challenges to state hegemony. Generally state leaders prefer a single-party state, but nascent fascism can exist in a two-party state, as in the United States with one party attempting to dominate politically in order to bring to the fore the essentialist views of its leaders. ..."
    "... They want a solidified nation that fights degeneration and decadence as defined by them. They seek a rebirth of and a return to traditional values. In the modern context it is politically incorrect to openly espouse an ideal of racial purity, so neo-fascists stress the need for cultural unity based on ancestry and past values as idealized in their exclusionist ideology. ..."
    "... In fascism a strong leader is sought to exemplify and promote this singular collective identity. This leader and his cohort are committed to maintain national strength and are willing to wage war and create systems of national security, such as the Patriot Act, to keep the nation unified and powerful. Opposition to the state and its idealized values is defined as heretical. Militarism is defined as being essential to maintaining the nation's power and the military industrial complex becomes sacrosanct in the pursuit of national defense. ..."
    "... Neo-fascist rhetoric is being propagated during a time when global capitalism is creating a gaping chasm between the super rich and the masses of humanity, ecological degradation and widespread violence. ..."
    openanthcoop.ning.com
    Fascism is authoritarian political ideology that promotes nationalism and glorifies the state. It is a totalitarian in orientation, meaning that those benefiting from the system work to exclude any challenges to state hegemony. Generally state leaders prefer a single-party state, but nascent fascism can exist in a two-party state, as in the United States with one party attempting to dominate politically in order to bring to the fore the essentialist views of its leaders.

    Today this force is the Republican Party, now infiltrated by Tea Party radicals. Those views stress past values, nationalist spirit and strong cultural unity. Neo-fascists tend to exclude ideas and changes that they see as threatening their cherished value system.

    They want a solidified nation that fights degeneration and decadence as defined by them. They seek a rebirth of and a return to traditional values. In the modern context it is politically incorrect to openly espouse an ideal of racial purity, so neo-fascists stress the need for cultural unity based on ancestry and past values as idealized in their exclusionist ideology.

    Nonetheless, in the United States this idealized viewpoint has overtones of racism and tends to focus around Christianity as the source of needed values. For instance, one slogan of the Tea Party is "Regular Folks United – The Bully Pulpit for Regular Folks." Irregulars need not apply.

    In fascism a strong leader is sought to exemplify and promote this singular collective identity. This leader and his cohort are committed to maintain national strength and are willing to wage war and create systems of national security, such as the Patriot Act, to keep the nation unified and powerful. Opposition to the state and its idealized values is defined as heretical. Militarism is defined as being essential to maintaining the nation's power and the military industrial complex becomes sacrosanct in the pursuit of national defense.

    In present-day America such neo-fascist ideas are combatively percolating in national politics and are exemplified in the rhetoric of such radical figures as Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh and Michele Bachmann.

    Neo-fascist rhetoric is being propagated during a time when global capitalism is creating a gaping chasm between the super rich and the masses of humanity, ecological degradation and widespread violence. Furthermore, global capitalism is advancing at a time when, according to Oxfam, by 2050, the global population is forecast to rise by one-third to more than 9 billion, while demand for food will rise even higher – by 70 percent – as more prosperous economies demand more calories and crop production continues to fall relative to population.

    The British charity projects that prices of staple foods could more than double in the next 20 years, pushing millions of people deeper into poverty. The effects of a combination of population growth and the growing numbers of unemployed and impoverished people in the world is creating international crises, most recently in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen; but the emergency is global and we face a crisis of humanity. The world is a powder keg and the fuse is burning.

    Fascists use this time of great upheavals and uncertainties as their raison d'etre to return to an imagined world where such problems did not exist. Uneducated people are prone to heed their simplistic slogans and ideas.

    [Nov 26, 2016] Obama changes his mind on Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... BHO was hired to read speeches as they all have been, since Reagan, at least. The System filters out anyone with a genuinely positive agenda, a mind of his/her own and a corruption-free (secret) history. We should be focused on the Unelected (ie Actual) Rulers instead. ..."
    "... For Obama – read Kissinger/Brzezinski change his mind for him – it seems to me – to lay the diplomatic groundwork for Trump to pivot away from a 'unipolar' world (where the American hegemon is in direct conflict with Russia and China – the classic Cold War scenario) – to the 'multipartner' world – where America foments chaos, then under a banner of shared responsibility draws in Russia and China and lets them fight it out like two moles in a bag over the Middle East. America then picks off the last one standing. ..."
    "... Obama, Cameron, Johnson, H. Clinton, Nuland, McCain, Holland, Poroshenko, Merkel, the WMSM – the list of the damned goes on and on ..."
    "... "constant since I first came into office" Indeed you have Mr President, a constant disappointment, a constant liar, a constant weakling who failed to stand up to the US Jewish lobby, a constant war criminal, in fact a complete and total constant failure. Bravo! ..."
    Nov 26, 2016 | off-guardian.org
    It's been quite a progression, hasn't it?

    Part One: Weak, Regional, Failing

    Netherlands, 25 March 2014

    " Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors - not out of strength but out of weakness.

    Economist interview, 2 August 2014

    " But I do think it's important to keep perspective. Russia doesn't make anything. Immigrants aren't rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity. The life expectancy of the Russian male is around 60 years old. The population is shrinking. And so we have to respond with resolve in what are effectively regional challenges that Russia presents. We have to make sure that they don't escalate where suddenly nuclear weapons are back in the discussion of foreign policy. And as long as we do that, then I think history is on our side.

    State of the Union Address, 20 January 2015

    " Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, as we were reinforcing our presence with frontline states, Mr. Putin's aggression it was suggested was a masterful display of strategy and strength. That's what I heard from some folks. Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated with its economy in tatters. That's how America leads - not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve. (Applause.)

    Part Two: Maybe not

    Washington, 18 October 2016

    " The bottom line is, is that we think that Russia is a large important country with a military that is second only to ours, and has to be a part of the solution on the world stage, rather than part of the problem.

    Part Three: Powerful, Worldwide

    Berlin, 17 November 2016

    " With respect to Russia, my principal approach to Russia has been constant since I first came into office. Russia is an important country. It is a military superpower. It has influence in the region and it has influence around the world. And in order for us to solve many big problems around the world, it is in our interest to work with Russia and obtain their cooperation.


    "constant since I first came into office"

    StAug says November 25, 2016

    BHO was hired to read speeches as they all have been, since Reagan, at least. The System filters out anyone with a genuinely positive agenda, a mind of his/her own and a corruption-free (secret) history. We should be focused on the Unelected (ie Actual) Rulers instead.
    BigB says November 25, 2016
    Excellent comment!

    For Obama – read Kissinger/Brzezinski change his mind for him – it seems to me – to lay the diplomatic groundwork for Trump to pivot away from a 'unipolar' world (where the American hegemon is in direct conflict with Russia and China – the classic Cold War scenario) – to the 'multipartner' world – where America foments chaos, then under a banner of shared responsibility draws in Russia and China and lets them fight it out like two moles in a bag over the Middle East. America then picks off the last one standing.

    Not much of a plan – especially as Russia and China are both 'eyes wide open' – but it is the best the two senile old twats – who are both overdue in the mortuary – can come up with. Obama of course has no mind of his own. Trumps pick for Secretary of State may indicate his.

    Kissinger once said that "the elderly are useless eaters" – maybe it is time for him to take his own counsel and move on. Perhaps he could take Soros and Brzezinski with him?

    StAug says November 25, 2016
    Indeed! If only we could pop some corn and watch from a safe space on another planet
    tutisicecream says November 25, 2016
    Should be titled "Putin's Progress".

    During this tale many of the would be pretenders have fallen or are falling by the wayside.

    Obama, Cameron, Johnson, H. Clinton, Nuland, McCain, Holland, Poroshenko, Merkel, the WMSM – the list of the damned goes on and on

    Their Faustian Bargain seems to have failed them and given rise to Mephistopheles incarnate Trump.

    Řystein Blix says November 25, 2016
    Putin, at least, seems to have a spine

    DavidKNZ says November 24, 2016

    What a lesson this man has been.
    Came in with soaring rhetoric, a promise of a new beginning, and a Nobel peace prize.
    Failed to deliver on any of these, but did deliver:
    Death by drone, without trial
    Death by military misadventure in the middle east
    Death of a civil economy via unaccountable military spending

    And now trying to 'burnish' his 'legacy' of lies. With more lies.

    At least Russia's Putin, ruthless as he is, does seem to have a moral compass

    Amer Hudson says November 24, 2016
    He's been worked like a ventriloquist's dummy. And badly at that.
    Alec says November 24, 2016
    "constant since I first came into office" Indeed you have Mr President, a constant disappointment, a constant liar, a constant weakling who failed to stand up to the US Jewish lobby, a constant war criminal, in fact a complete and total constant failure. Bravo!

    [Nov 26, 2016] Wayne Madsen The CIA Has Always Served the Interests of Wall Street by Mohsen Abdelmoumen

    Notable quotes:
    "... The term conspiracy theorist was developed by the CIA in the mid-1960s to ridicule those who believed there was a wide government role in the assassination of President Kennedy. It has been used ever since to describe legitimate researchers into Iran-Contra, 9/11, and other deep state crimes. ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | ahtribune.com

    Mohsen Abdelmoumen : According to you, when we see the numerous demonstrations anti-Trump in the United States after the election of Donald Trump at the presidency, are we witnessing a colored revolution?

    Wayne Madsen: It is classic Soros-funded color revolution. Soros is financing MoveOn.org, Black Lives Matter, Demos, and other of his groups to turn out protesters and is even running ads in papers looking for paid drivers and protest coordinators.

    In your very relevant books devoted to George Soros: "Soros: Quantum of Chaos", you reveal the true face of this figure who is the spearhead of several destabilization operations in the world. From where does all the power come that this criminal holds and why is he untouchable?

    Soros is very wealthy and actually a frontman for an even more powerful and wealthy person, Evelyn de Rothschild, along with his family. They are all the true puppet masters of the world.

    Soros remains a major element in the anti-Trump device. Can Trump resist him?

    Trump is actually now being surrounded by people who will serve in his administration who will be loyal to the Soros-Rothschild puppet masters and certainly not to Trump.

    Can we say that the occult world is more powerful than legal institutions?

    Secret societies with their crazy rituals have been the bane of human existence since the time of the Sanhedrin and Pharisees in Palestine and the Dionysian cults of the Nile Valley and the Mediterranean region.

    In your book " ISIS is US - The Shocking Truth Behind the Army of Terror", you detail the relations between the USA and ISIS/Daesh. What is the triggering element that has put you on this trail?

    Trump's national security adviser retired Lt Gen Michael Flynn revealed that the US was supporting ISIS and then he was forced to resign. My own sources in the Middle East confirmed this long before Flynn made his public statement and was fired as Defense Intelligence Agency chief by Obama.

    You mention Western Sahara and the involvement of the Clintons in a deal with the Kingdom of Morocco while this case is under the authority of UN. Aren't the Clintons outlaws such Bonnie and Clyde by supporting Morocco against the Sahrawi people and the UN's resolutions?

    The Clintons received at least $12 million from the Moroccan government in return for buying their loyalty to Morocco's agenda, which includes permanently annexing Western Sahara as the "Southern Province." Morocco and Israel share the same policy on annexing illegally-occupied territories.

    According to your diverse very interesting analysis, can we assert that the World Government or the false prophets of the New World Order are the real decision-makers of this world?

    I mentioned a few already, Soros/Rothschild. Others are the Bilderbergs, Bohemian Club, and the Council on Foreign Relations and their counterparts.

    You know very well some American intelligence agencies like the NSA. Do these intelligence agencies serve the US' interests or, rather, the oligarchy's interests?

    The CIA has always served the interests of Wall Street. NSA now serves the interests of the global security network it leads.

    You were an officer in the US Navy. Was the whistleblower you are today born after your military career or before?

    Before. I was an FBI-Navy whistleblower in 1982 and helped to uncover a major pedophile ring in the US Navy that reached into the Reagan-Bush White House and was ultimately exposed in The Washington Times in 1988-89. My whistleblowing cost me my Navy career, however, and a subsequent series of fairly bad jobs.

    In the recent US election, we saw the mass media bankruptcy despite their manipulations and their fake polls. Didn't one of the pillars of world oligarchy collapse under our eyes? Don't we witness a historic moment announcing the end of the New World Order and its purely capitalist product, globalization?

    99 percent of major newspapers endorsed Clinton. Many alternative news sources supported Trump. We are seeing a massive shift away from newspapers and corporate TV and websites to the alternative media, of which WayneMadsenReport.com has been prominent since its founding in 2005.

    Snowden has denounced the Prism program and you have denounced Echelon, both of which serve the interests of the world's oligarchic caste. What is known is not only the immersed part of the iceberg?

    What is still relatively unknown is the close cooperation between NSA and private companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, and major telecommunications companies. It is much greater than even Snowden's documents describe.

    The quantity and especially the quality of your reports reveal to us a world unknown by millions of human beings. How all these truths have been hidden?

    The major media cooperates with the government in covering up news events.

    I advise everyone to read the Wayne Madsen Report as well as your books and follow your various interventions in the alternative media. How do you explain that we, who are resisting to what I call the fascist oligarchic caste, are called conspiracy theorists? Is this concept the only weapon of the fascist imperialists to reduce to silence all those who resist them and to reinforce the ranks of those whose who have been brainwashed?

    The term conspiracy theorist was developed by the CIA in the mid-1960s to ridicule those who believed there was a wide government role in the assassination of President Kennedy. It has been used ever since to describe legitimate researchers into Iran-Contra, 9/11, and other deep state crimes.

    Your book " The Star and The Sword " is one of the few to talk about intimate and opaque links between the Zionist entity of Israel and Saudi Arabia. You claim that they organize false flag attacks, including the 9/11. What is the origin and nature of this Israeli-Saudi strategic alliance? Do you think that the JASTA law will succeed or will it be countered by the Zionist allies of Saudi Arabia? Do the fact that the USA and the Westerners turn a blind eye on the criminal war led by the Saudis to Yemen isn't due to the weight of the lobby Zionist?

    The Zionist-Wahhabi/Saudi alliance goes back to Ibn Saud who wrote the British and Zionist leaders that he did not oppose a Jewish homeland in Palestine so long as it did not lay claim to Saudi territory on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba. The relationship has always been close, except for the time of King Faisal, who was conveniently shot in the face and killed by a relative.

    Do you undergo pressure or threats in relation to the remarkable work you do? If so, how do you live it?

    I was forced to move my domicile from Washington because the outgoing Obama administration put pressure on some media organizations I did work for. These included RT (contributor agreement canceled) and Al Jazeera America (which is now defunct).

    The FBI entered my apartment in Washington at least twice and I've had three visits by them at my new home in Florida. I was informed of 3 personal threats in Washington. I ignore all these pressures and continue to exercise the freedom of the press. Are you optimistic or do you think that the Satanist project of the oligarchy still has a nuisance capacity that can plunge the world into chaos?

    As with cockroaches, which detest light, the shadow figures of covert power cannot stand what is known as the disinfectant of sunshine. Light has always fought against darkness and will continue to do so.

    Interview realized by Mohsen Abdelmoumen

    Wayne Madsen is an American journalist, television news commentator, online editor of Wayne Madsen Report.com , investigative journalist and author specializing intelligence and international affairs.Starting in 1997, after his military service as a U.S. Navy lieutenant assigned to Anti-Submarine Warfare duties and to the National Security Agency as a COMSEC analyst, he applied his military intelligence training to investigative journalism.He has since written for many daily, weekly, and monthly publications including The Progressive , The Village Voice , Counterpunch , Philadelphia Inquirer , Houston Chronicle , Allentown Morning Call , Juneau Empire , Cleveland Plain Dealer , Real Clear Politics , Danbury Newstimes , Newsday and many others.Throughout his journalistic career, he has been a television commentator on many programs, including 60 Minutes , Russia Today , Press TV , and many others.He has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared on ABC , NBC , CBS , PBS , CNN , BBC , Al Jazeera , and MS-NBC .

    He has been invited to testify as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and a terrorism investigation judicial inquiry of the French government. Wayne Madsen has some thirty-five years experience in security issues. As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. He subsequently worked for the National Security Agency, the Naval Data Automation Command, Department of State, RCA Corporation, and Computer Sciences Corporation. Wayne Madsen was a Senior Fellow for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a privacy public advocacy organization. Mr. Madsen is a member of the National Press Club.

    Wayne Madsen is the author of The Handbook of Personal Data Protection (London: Macmillan, 1992), an acclaimed reference book on international data protection law; Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999 (Edwin Mellen Press, 1999); co-author of America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II ( Dandelion, 2003); Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy, Saudi Arabia and the Failed Search for bin Laden ; author of Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops & Brass Plates ; Overthrow a Fascist Regime on $15 a Day ; The star and the sword ; The Manufacturing of a President: the CIA's Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House ; L'Affaire Petraeus ; and National Security Agency Surveillance: Reflections and Revelations ; Soros: Quantum of Chaos (2015); Unmasking ISIS: The Shocking Truth (2016).

    His website: http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

    [Nov 25, 2016] Anti Russian warriors created valuable set of sites that fight neocon/neoliberal propaganda

    For them neocon/neoliberal propaganda 24/7 is OK, but anti-neoliberalism, anti-neoconservatism information, which sometimes is pro-Russian propaganda is not. Viva to McCarthyism! The hint is that you do not have a choice -- Big Brother is watching you like in the USSR. Anti-Russian propaganda money in action. It is interesting that Paul Craig Roberts who served in Reagan administration is listed as "left-wing"... Tell me who is your ally ( Bellingcat) and I will tell who you are...
    As Moon of Alabama noted "I wholeheartedly recommend to use the list that new anonymous censorship entity provides as your new or additional "Favorite Bookmarks" list. It includes illustrious financial anti-fraud sites like Yves Smith's Naked Capitalism , Wikileaks , well informed libertarian sites like Ron Paul and AntiWar.com and leftish old timers like Counterpunch . Of general (non-mainstream) news sites Consortiumnews , run by Robert Parry who revealed the Iran-contra crimes, is included as well as Truthdig and Truth-out.org ."
    Extended list is here It a real horror to see how deep pro Russian propaganda penetrated the US society ;-) This newly minted site lists as allies, and with such allies you can reliably tell who finance it
    www.propornot.com
    Name Domain Primary Target Audience Interests Review Article Absurd Pro-Russia Content Source? Repeater?
    Infowars / Alex Jones infowars.com Conspiracy Example Example Major Major
    Zerohedge zerohedge.com Finance Example Example Major Major
    True Activist trueactivist.com Left-wing Example Example Minor Major
    Natural News naturalnews.com Health Example Example Major Major
    Ending The Fed endingthefed.com Right-wing Example Example Minor Major
    Corbett Report corbettreport.com Geopolitics Example Example Major Minor
    Washington's Blog washingtonsblog.com General Example Example Major Major
    Before It's News beforeitsnews.com General Example Example No Major
    Counterpunch counterpunch.org Left-wing Example Example Major Minor
    Ron Paul Institute ronpaulinstitute.org Right-Wing Example Example Major Major
    Hang the Bankers hangthebankers.com Finance Example Example Minor Major
    The Activist Post activistpost.com Left-wing Example Example Major Minor
    The Anti-Media theantimedia.org Anti-Media Example Example Major Minor
    Veterans Today veteranstoday.com Veterans Example Example Major Major
    Southfront southfront.org Military Example Example Major Major
    Your Newswire yournewswire.com General Example Example Major Major
    America's Freedom Fighters americasfreedomfighters.com Right-wing Example Example Minor Minor
    Global Research globalresearch.ca General Example Example Major Major
    Paul Craig Roberts paulcraigroberts.org Left-wing Example Example Major Minor

    List of allies:

    [Nov 25, 2016] Recommended links that fight neocon/neoliberal propaganda

    Look like some guys from Soviet Politburo propaganda department make it to the USA :-) The site definitely smells with McCarthyism -- the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. Which was the standard way of suppressing dissidents in the USSR. So this is really "Back in the USSR" type of sites.
    But the list definitely has value: the sites listed are mostly anti-establishment, anti status-quo, anti-neocon/neolib sites not so much pro-Russian. After all Russia is just another neoliberal state, although they deviate from Washington consensus and do not want to be a puppet of the USA, which is the key requirement for the full acceptable into the club of "Good neoliberal states". Somehow this list can be called the list of anti US Imperialism sites or anti--war sites. And this represents the value of the list as people may not know about their existence.
    The new derogatory label for the establishment for information they don't want you to see has become "fake news." Conspiracy theories do nto work well anymore. That aqures some patina of respectability with age :-). "Since the election's "surprise" outcome, the corporate media has railed against their alternative competitors labeling them as "fake" while their own frequently flawed, misleading, and false stories are touted as "real" news. World leaders have now begun calling out "fake news" in a desperate attempt to lend legitimacy to the corporate media, which continues to receive dismal approval ratings from the American public. Out-going US president Barack Obama was the first to speak out against the danger of "misinformation," though he failed to mention the several instances where he himself lied and spread misinformation to the American public."
    The most crazy inclusion is probably Baltimore Gazette. Here how editors define its mission: "Baltimore Gazette is Baltimore's oldest US news source and one of the longest running daily newspapers published in the United States. With a focus on local content, the Gazette thrives to maintain a non-partisan newsroom making their our content the most reliable source available in print and across the web."
    Nov 25, 2016 | www.propornot.com
    PropOrNot is an independent team of concerned American citizens (an independent from whom? Concerned about what ? Looks like they are very dependent and so so much concerned, Playing pro-establishment card is always safe game -- NNB) with a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy, and national security affairs. We are currently volunteering time and skills to identify propaganda - particularly Russian propaganda - targeting a U.S. audience. We collect public-record information connecting propaganda outlets to each other and their coordinators abroad, analyze what we find, act as a central repository and point of reference for related information, and organize efforts to oppose it. 2 We formed PropOrNot as an effort to prevent propaganda from distorting U.S. political and policy discussions (they want it to be distorted in their own specific pro-neoliberal way --NNB).

    We hope to strengthen our cultural immune systems against hostile influence (there is another name for that -- it is usually called brainwashing --NNB) and improve public discourse generally. However, our immediate aim at this point is to empower the American voter and decrease the ability of Russia to influence the ensuing American election.

    [Nov 25, 2016] Is Obama presiding over a national security state gone rogue? by Michael Cohen

    National security state gone rogue is fascism. Frankly, I don't see evidence of huge abuse of US liberties. But I do see our foreign policy distorted by a counter-terror obsession
    Notable quotes:
    "... the government's interpretation of that law ..."
    "... "One reports a crime; and one commits a crime." ..."
    "... but does not include differences of opinion concerning public policy matters ..."
    Jun 21, 2013 | The Guardian

    Jump to comments (118)

    Two weeks ago, the Guardian began publishing a series of eye-opening revelations about the National Security Agency and its surveillance efforts both in the United States and overseas. These stories raised long-moribund and often-ignored questions about the pervasiveness of government surveillance and the extent to which privacy rights are being violated by this secret and seemingly unaccountable security apparatus.

    However, over the past two weeks, we've begun to get a clearer understanding of the story and the implications of what has been published – informed in part by a new-found (if forced upon them) transparency from the intelligence community. So here's one columnist's effort to sort the wheat from the chaff and offer a few answers to the big questions that have been raised.

    These revelations are a big deal, right?

    To fully answer this question, it's important to clarify the revelations that have sparked such controversy. The Guardian (along with the Washington Post) has broken a number of stories, each of which tells us very different things about what is happening inside the US government around matters of surveillance and cyber operations. Some are relatively mundane, others more controversial.

    The story that has shaped press coverage and received the most attention was the first one – namely, the publication of a judicial order from the Fisa court to Verizon that indicated the US is "hoovering" up millions of phone records (so-called "metadata") into a giant NSA database. When it broke, the story was quickly portrayed as a frightening tale of government overreach and violation of privacy rights. After all, such metadata – though it contains no actual content – can be used rather easily as a stepping-stone to more intrusive forms of surveillance.

    But what is the true extent of the story here: is this picture of government Big Brotherism correct or is this massive government surveillance actually quite benign?

    First of all, such a collection of data is not, in and of itself, illegal. The Obama administration was clearly acting within the constraints of federal law and received judicial approval for this broad request for data. That doesn't necessarily mean that the law is good or that the government's interpretation of that law is not too broad, but unlike the Bush "warrantless wiretapping" stories of several years ago, the US government is here acting within the law.

    The real question that should concern us is one raised by the TV writer David Simon in a widely cited blogpost looking at the issues raised by the Guardian's reporting, namely:

    "Is government accessing the data for the legitimate public safety needs of the society, or are they accessing it in ways that abuse individual liberties and violate personal privacy – and in a manner that is unsupervised."

    We know, for example, that the NSA is required to abide by laws that prevent the international targeting of American citizens (you can read more about that here). So, while metadata about phone calls made can be used to discover information about the individuals making the calls, there are "minimization" rules, procedures and laws that guide the use of such data and prevent possible abuse and misuse of protected data.

    The minimization procedures used by the NSA are controlled by secret Fisa courts. In fact, last year, the Fisa court ruled that these procedures didn't pass constitutional muster and had to be rewritten.

    Sure, the potential for abuse exists – but so, too, does the potential for the lawful use of metadata in a way that protects the privacy of individual Americans – and also assists the US government in pursuit of potential terrorist suspects. Of course, without information on the specific procedures used by the NSA to minimize the collection of protected data, it is impossible to know that no laws are being broken or no abuse is occurring.

    In that sense, we have to take the government's word for it. And that is especially problematic when you consider the Fisa court decisions authorizing this snooping are secret and the congressional intelligence committees tasked with conducting oversight tend to be toothless.

    But assumptions of bad faith and violations of privacy by the US government are just that assumptions. When President Obama says that the NSA is not violating privacy rights because it would be against the law, we can't simply disregard such statements as self-serving. Moreover, when one considers the privacy violations that Americans willingly submit to at airports, what personal data they give to the government in their tax returns, and what is regularly posted voluntarily on Facebook, sent via email and searched for online, highly-regulated data-mining by the NSA seems relatively tame.

    Edward Snowden: is he a hero or a traitor?

    One of the key questions that have emerged over this story is the motivation of the leaker in question, Edward Snowden. In his initial public interview, with Glenn Greenwald on 9 June, Snowden explained his actions, in part, thus:

    "I'm willing to sacrifice because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."

    Now, while one can argue that Snowden's actions do not involve personal sacrifice, whether they are heroic is a much higher bar to cross. First of all, it's far from clear that the US government is destroying privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world. Snowden may sincere about being "valiant for truth", but he wouldn't be the first person to believe himself such and yet be wrong.

    Second, one can make the case that there is a public interest in knowing that the US is collecting reams of phone records, but where is the public interest – and indeed, to Snowden's own justification, the violation of privacy – in leaking a presidential directive on cyber operations or leaking that the US is spying on the Russian president?

    The latter is both not a crime it's actually what the NSA was established to do! In his recent online chat hosted by the Guardian, Snowden suggested that the US should not be spying on any country with whom it's not formally at war. That is, at best, a dubious assertion, and one that is at odds with years of spycraft.

    On the presidential directive on cyber operations, the damning evidence that Snowden revealed was that President Obama has asked his advisers to create a list of potential targets for cyber operations – but such planning efforts are rather routine contingency operations. For example, if the US military drew up war plans in case conflict ever occurred between the US and North Korea – and that included offensive operations – would that be considered untoward or perhaps illegitimate military planning?

    This does not mean, however, that Snowden is a traitor. Leaking classified data is a serious offense, but treason is something else altogether.

    The problem for Snowden is that he has now also leaked classified information about ongoing US intelligence-gathering efforts to foreign governments, including China and Russia. That may be crossing a line, which means that the jury is still out on what label we should use to describe Snowden.

    Shouldn't Snowden be protected as a whistleblower?

    This question of leakers v whistleblowers has frequently been conflated in the public reporting about the NSA leak (and many others). But this is a crucial error. As Tara Lee, a lawyer at the law firm DLA Piper, with expertise in defense industry and national security litigation said to me there is an important distinction between leakers and whistleblowers, "One reports a crime; and one commits a crime."

    Traditionally (and often technically), whistleblowing refers to specific actions that are taken to bring to attention illegal behavior, fraud, waste, abuse etc. Moreover, the US government provides federal employees and contractors with the protection to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. In the case of Snowden, he could have gone to the inspector general at the Department of Justice or relevant congressional committees.

    From all accounts, it appears that he did not go down this path. Of course, since the material he was releasing was approved by the Fisa court and had the sign-off of the intelligence committee, he had good reason to believe that he would have not received the most receptive hearing for his complaints.

    Nevertheless, that does not give him carte blanche to leak to the press – and certainly doesn't give him carte blanche to leak information on activities that he personally finds objectionable but are clearly legal. Indeed, according to the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), whistleblowers can make complaints over matter of what the law calls "urgent concern", which includes "a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinion concerning public policy matters [my italics]."

    In other words, simply believing that a law or government action is wrong does not give one the right to leak information; and in the eyes of the law, it is not considered whistleblowing. Even if one accepts the view that the leaked Verizon order fell within the bounds of being in the "public interest", it's a harder case to make for the presidential directive on cyber operations or the eavesdropping on foreign leaders.

    The same problem is evident in the incorrect description of Bradley Manning as a whistleblower. When you leak hundreds of thousands of documents – not all of which you reviewed and most of which contain the mundane and not illegal diplomatic behavior of the US government – you're leaking. Both Manning and now Snowden have taken it upon themselves to decide what should be in the public domain; quite simply, they don't have the right to do that. If every government employee decided actions that offended their sense of morality should be leaked, the government would never be able to keep any secrets at all and, frankly, would be unable to operate effectively.

    So, like Manning, Snowden is almost certainly not a whistleblower, but rather a leaker. And that would mean that he, like Manning, is liable to prosecution for leaking classified material.

    Are Democrats hypocrites over the NSA's activities?

    A couple of days ago, my Guardian colleague, Glenn Greenwald made the following assertion:

    "The most vehement defenders of NSA surveillance have been, by far, Democratic (especially Obama-loyal) pundits. One of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy has been the transformation of Democrats from pretend-opponents of the Bush "war on terror" and national security state into their biggest proponents."

    This is regular line of argument from Glenn, but it's one that, for a variety of reasons, I believe is not fair. (I don't say this because I'm an Obama partisan – though I may be called one for writing this.)

    First, the lion's share of criticism of these recent revelations has come, overwhelmingly, from Democrats and, indeed, from many of the same people, including Greenwald, who were up in arms when the so-called warrantless wiretapping program was revealed in 2006. The reality is that outside a minority of activists, it's not clear that many Americans – Democrats or Republicans get all that excited about these types of stories. (Not that this is necessarily a good thing.)

    Second, opposition to the Bush program was two-fold: first, it was illegal and was conducted with no judicial or congressional oversight; second, Bush's surveillance policies did not occur in a vacuum – they were part of a pattern of law-breaking, disastrous policy decisions and Manichean rhetoric over the "war on terror". So, if you opposed the manner in which Bush waged war on the "axis of evil", it's not surprising that you would oppose its specific elements. In the same way, if you now support how President Obama conducts counter-terrorism efforts, it's not surprising that you'd be more inclined to view specific anti-terror policies as more benign.

    Critics will, of course, argue – and rightly so – that we are a country of laws first. In which case it shouldn't matter who is the president, but rather what the laws are that govern his or her conduct. Back in the world of political reality, though, that's not how most Americans think of their government. Their perceptions are defined in large measure by how the current president conducts himself, so there is nothing at all surprising about Republicans having greater confidence in a Republican president and Democrats having greater confidence in a Democratic one, when asked about specific government programs.

    Beyond that, simply having greater confidence in President Obama than President Bush to wield the awesome powers granted the commander-in-chief to conduct foreign policy is not partisanship. It's common sense.

    George Bush was, undoubtedly, one of the two or three worst foreign policy presidents in American history (and arguably, our worst president, period). He and Dick Cheney habitually broke the law, including but not limited to the abuse of NSA surveillance. President Obama is far from perfect: he made the terrible decision to surge in Afghanistan, and he's fought two wars of dubious legality in Libya and Pakistan, but he's very far from the sheer awfulness of the Bush/Cheney years.

    Unless you believe the US should have no NSA, and conduct no intelligence-gathering in the fight against terrorism, you have to choose a president to manage that agency. And there is nothing hypocritical or partisan about believing that one president is better than another to handle those responsibilities.

    Has NSA surveillance prevented terrorist attacks, as claimed?

    In congressional testimony this week, officials from the Department of Justice and the NSA argued that surveillance efforts stopped "potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11". Having spent far too many years listening to public officials describe terrifying terror plots that fell apart under greater scrutiny, this assertion sets off for me a set of red flags (even though it may be true).

    I have no doubt that NSA surveillance has contributed to national security investigations, but whether it's as extensive or as vital as the claims of government officials is more doubtful. To be honest, I'm not sure it matters. Part of the reason the US government conducts NSA surveillance in the first place is not necessarily to stop every potential attack (though that would be nice), but to deter potential terrorists from acting in the first place.

    Critics of the program like to argue that "of course, terrorists know their phones are being tapped and emails are being read", but that's kind of the point. If they know this, it forces them to choose more inefficient means of communicating, and perhaps to put aside potential attacks for fear of being uncovered.

    We also know that not every terrorist has the skills of a Jason Bourne. In fact, many appear to be not terribly bright, which means that even if they know about the NSA's enormous dragnet, it doesn't mean they won't occasionally screw up and get caught.

    Yet, this gets to a larger issue that is raised by the NSA revelations.

    When is enough counter-terrorism enough?

    Over the past 12 years, the US has developed what can best be described as a dysfunctional relationship with terrorism. We've become obsessed with it and with a zero-tolerance approach to stopping it. While the former is obviously an important goal, it has led the US to take steps that not only undermine our values (such as torture), but also make us weaker (the invasion of Iraq, the surge in Afghanistan, etc).

    To be sure, this is not true of every anti-terror program of the past dozen years. For example, the US does a better job of sharing intelligence among government agencies, and of screening those who are entering the country. And military efforts in the early days of the "war on terror" clearly did enormous damage to al-Qaida's capabilities.

    In general, though, when one considers the relatively low risk of terrorist attacks – and the formidable defenses of the United States – the US response to terrorism has been one of hysterical over-reaction. Indeed, the balance we so often hear about when it comes to protecting privacy while also ensuring security is only one part of the equation. The other is how do we balance the need to stop terrorists (who certainly aspire to attack the United States) and the need to prevent anti-terrorism from driving our foreign policy to a disproportionate degree. While the NSA revelations might not be proof that we've gone too far in one direction, there's not doubt that, for much of the past 12 years, terrorism has distorted and marred our foreign policy.

    Last month, President Obama gave a seminal speech at the National Defense University, in which he essentially declared the "war on terror" over. With troops coming home from Afghanistan, and drone strikes on the decline, that certainly seems to be the case. But as the national freakout over the Boston Marathon bombing – and the extraordinary over-reaction of a city-wide lockdown for one wounded terrorist on the loose – remind us, we still have a ways to go.

    Moreover, since no politician wants to find him- or herself in a situation after a terrorist attack when the criticism "why didn't you do more?" can be aired, that political imperative of zero tolerance will drive our counterterrorism policies. At some point, that needs to end.

    In fact, nine years ago, our current secretary of state, John Kerry, made this exact point; it's worth reviewing his words:

    "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

    What the NSA revelations should spark is not just a debate on surveillance, but on the way we think about terrorism and the steps that we should be willing to take both to stop it and ensure that it does not control us. We're not there yet.

    007Prometheus

    No GCHQ - MI5 - MI6 - NSA - CIA - FBI etc........... ad nausem!

    How many Billions / Trillions are spent on these services? If 11/9 and 7/7 were homegrown attacks, then i think, they will take us all down with them.

    NOTaREALmerican

    @007Prometheus

    Re: How many Billions / Trillions are spent on these services?

    The wonderful thing about living in a "Keynesian" perpetually increasing debt paradise is you NEVER have to say you can't afford anything. (Well, unless you want to say it, but if you do it's just political bullshit).

    So, to answer your question... A "Keynesian" never asks how much, just how much do you want.

    bloopie2

    "Frankly, I don't see evidence of huge abuse of US liberties"

    Just wait until they come for you.

    bloopie2

    "When one considers the privacy violations that Americans willingly submit to at airports, what personal data they give to the government in their tax returns, and what is regularly posted voluntarily on Facebook, sent via email and searched for online, highly-regulated data-mining by the NSA seems relatively tame."

    Dear Sir: Please post your email addresses, bank accounts, and passwords. We'd like to look at everything.

    Got a problem with that?

    Tonieja

    "When one considers the privacy violations that Americans willingly submit to at airports, what personal data they give to the government in their tax returns, and what is regularly posted voluntarily on Facebook, sent via email and searched for online [...]"

    Wow! I don't really care about my personal email. I do care about all political activists, journalists, lawyers etc. That a journalist would support Stasi style surveillance state is astonishing.

    gisbournelove

    I wish I had the time to go through this article and demolish it sentence by sentence as it so richly deserves, but at the moment I don't. Instead, might I suggest to the author that he go to the guardian archive, read every single story about this in chronological order and then read every damn link posted in the comment threads on the three most recent stories.

    Most especially the links in the comment threads. If after that, he cannot see why we "civil libertarian freaks" are not just outraged, but frightened, he frankly lacks both historical knowledge and any ability to analyze the facts that are staring him in the face. I can't believe I am going to have to say this again but here goes: YOU do not get to give away my contitutional rights, Mr. Cohen.

    I don't give a shit how much you trust Obama compared to dubya. The Bill of Rights states in clear, unambiguous language what the Federal government may NOT do do its citizens no matter WHO is president.

    goodkurtz

    Michael Cohen
    Frankly, I don't see evidence of huge abuse of US liberties.

    Well of course you wont see them.
    But the abuses are very probably already happening on a one to one basis in the same shadows in which the intelligence was first gathered.

    [Nov 24, 2016] Trumps National Security Adviser Facilitated the Murder of Civilians in Afghanistan

    Nov 24, 2016 | www.truth-out.org
    But as an investigation published by Truthout in 2011 revealed , the target list that JSOC used for its "night raids" and other operations to kill supposed Taliban was based on a fundamentally flawed methodology that was inherently incapable of distinguishing between Taliban insurgents and civilians who had only tangential contacts with the Taliban organization. And it was Flynn who devised that methodology.

    The "night raids" on Afghan homes based on Flynn's methodology caused so much Afghan anger toward Americans that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, acknowledged the problem of Afghan antagonism toward the entire program publicly in a March 2010 directive.

    The system that led to that Afghan outrage began to take shape in Iraq in 2006, when Flynn, then-intelligence chief for JSOC, developed a new methodology for identifying and locating al-Qaeda and Shia Mahdi Army members in Iraq. Flynn revealed the technologies used in Iraq in an unclassified article published in 2008.

    At the center of the system was what Flynn called the "Unblinking Eye," referring to 24-hour drone surveillance of specific locations associated with "known and suspected terrorist sites and individuals." The drone surveillance was then used to establish a "pattern of life analysis," which was the main tool used to determine whether to strike the target. We now know from reports of drone strikes in Pakistan that killed entire groups of innocent people that "pattern of life analysis" is frequently a matter of guesswork that is completely wrong.

    Flynn's unclassified article also revealed that "SIGINT" (signals intelligence), i.e., the monitoring of cell phone metadata, and "geo-location" of phones were the other two major tools used in Flynn's system of targeting military strikes. JSOC was using links among cell phones to identify suspected insurgents.

    Flynn's article suggested that the main emphasis in intelligence for targeting in Iraq was on providing analysis of the aerial surveillance visual intelligence on a target to help decide in real time whether to carry out a strike on it.

    But when McChrystal took command of US forces in Afghanistan in mid-2009 and took Flynn with him as his intelligence chief, Flynn's targeting methodology changed dramatically. JSOC had already begun to carry out "night raids" in Afghanistan -- usually attacks on private homes in the middle of the night -- and McChrystal wanted to increase the tempo of those raids. The number of night raids increased from 20 per month in May 2009 to 90 per month six months later. It reached an average of more than 100 a month in the second half of 2009 and the first half of 2010.

    At this point, the targets were no longer Taliban commanders and higher-ups in the organization. They included people allegedly doing basic functions such as logistics, bomb-making and propaganda.

    In order to rapidly build up the highly secret "kill/capture" list (called the "Joint Prioritized Effects List," or JPEL) to meet McChrystal's demands for more targets, Flynn used a technique called "link analysis." This technique involved the use of software that allowed intelligence analysts to see the raw data from drone surveillance and cell phone data transformed instantly into a "map" of the insurgent "network." That "map" of each network associated with surveillance of a location became the basis for adding new names to the JPEL.

    Flynn could increase the number of individual "nodes" on that map by constantly adding more cell phone metadata for the computer-generated "map" of the insurgency. Every time JSOC commandos killed or captured someone, they took their cell phones to add their metadata to the database. And US intelligence also gathered cell phone data from the population of roughly 3,300 suspected insurgents being held in the Afghan prison system, who were allowed to use mobile phones freely in their cells.

    What the expansion of cell phone data surveillance meant was that an ever-greater proportion of the targets on Flynn's "kill/capture list" were not identified at all, except as mobile phone numbers. As Matthew Hoh, who served as the senior US civilian official in Zabul Province until he quit in protest in September 2009, explained to me, "When you are relying on cell phones for intelligence, you don't get the names of those targeted."

    There was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed as cell phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.

    What made Flynn's methodology for expanding the kill/capture list even riskier was that there was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed as cell phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.

    Using such a methodology in the Afghan socio-political context guaranteed that a high proportion of those on the kill/capture list were innocent civilians. As former deputy to the European Union special representative to Afghanistan Michael Semple (one of the few genuine experts in the world on the Taliban movement) explained to me, most Afghans in the Pashtun south and east of Afghanistan "have a few Taliban commander numbers saved to their mobile phone contacts" as a "survival mechanism."

    Nader Nadery, a commissioner of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission in 2010, estimated that the total civilian deaths for all 73 night raids about which the commission had complaints that year was 420. But the commission acknowledged that it didn't have access to most of the districts dominated by the Taliban. So the actual civilian toll may well have been many times that number -- meaning that civilians may have accounted for more than half of the 2,000 alleged "Taliban" killed in JSOC's operations in 2010.

    The percentage of innocent people among those who were captured and incarcerated was even higher. In December 2010, the US command in Afghanistan leaked to a friendly blogger that 4,100 "Taliban" had been captured in the previous six months. But an unclassified February 5, 2011, internal document of the Combined Joint Inter-Agency Task Force responsible for detention policy in Afghanistan, which I obtained later in 2011, showed that only 690 Afghans were admitted to the US detention facility at Parwan during that six-month period. Twenty percent of those were later released upon review of their files. So alleged evidence of participation in the Taliban insurgency could not have existed for more than 552 people at most, or 14 percent of the total number said to have been captured. But many of those 552 were undoubtedly innocent as well. basarov 9 hours ago

    Porter is either a paid CIA/dimocrat party shill or perhaps extraordinarily stupid.
    It was OBAMA who implemented the vaunted 'surge" and flooded Afghanistan with an extra 30,000 US mercenaries. And I believe that obama was the US leader in 2009. To whine about a 3 star general, under orders to carry out an obama policy and then blame Trump by association reminds one of a 3 year old trying to make sense of Kabuki....surreal or simply delusional?

    We see that america needs a police state oligarchy; americans cannot distinguish between bovine excreta and caviar.

    Karl Rowley 19 hours ago
    Obama facilitated the murder of civilians in Afghanistan too. Are you outraged about that?
    DofG Karl Rowley 13 hours ago
    And so did the American people by sitting in the passive bubble of patriotism while we continue to scorch the Earth with imperialism abroad while having a surveillance state at home. We are ALL guilty!
    Ando Arike 20 hours ago
    Ultimately, isn't it Obama, as commander-in-chief, who's responsible for the dirty work of his team of assassins in JSOC? As far as I know, Obama is not out of office yet...
    Michael Valentine a day ago
    Gee I thought we were doing a swell job of killing folks in Afghanistan, that's what we are there for right?
    DofG Michael Valentine a day ago
    We are there to keep the poppy crops going which the Taliban had destroyed! You know that heroin/opiates thing.
    max's pad Michael Valentine a day ago
    I don't know why we are there or in Iraq. It was the Saudi families and Saudi funding that created the terrorism of 9-11. It was the Bush Admin NeoCons and the Neoliberal philosopy that created the longest war in our history. It is entirely coincidental that this war like Vietnam inflicts its greatest toll on a bunch of impoverished villagers.
    Francis max's pad 6 hours ago
    Max - the Saudi's may have helped finance 911 but they certainly were not the ones that pulled it off.blockquote>Jethro_T

    max's pad a day ago

    Thanks for mentioning Viet Nam. Flynn appears to have been cut from the same cloth as Gen. Wm. Westmoreland, who first brought us "victory" by body count.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Recounts in states, when the total vote difference is in the single digit and where hundreds of thousands votes were cast should be mandatory

    Notable quotes:
    "... I was one of those recounting the votes by hand and when all was said and done we wound up counting over 100 votes more than the machines had counted and we only recounted ballots that contained votes for the 2nd and 3rd place candidates so there were potentially and quite probably an even higher number of ballots that weren't counted the first time around. A rough estimate is that 1-2% of the initial votes weren't counted at all by the machines. ..."
    "... The ballots that were initially counted weren't marked in any way so we had no way of knowing which ballots had been previously counted by the machines and which hadn't however we were able to make some educated guesses after looking through thousands of ballots. ..."
    "... After the recount we picked up some votes but not enough to change the results which was actually pretty reassuring as the extra votes tallied were in the same proportion for each candidate to what the machines initially tallied which is what you'd expect over a large sample size. ..."
    "... What we found is that while these particular machines did accurately count the ballots they were able to count, they cannot count all of them due to user error which is pretty difficult to eradicate – some people simply won't follow directions properly no matter how clear they are. ..."
    "... We caught some flak when asking for the recount about the presumed large cost to the taxpayer however the cost turned out to be minimal. Each candidate had 8 volunteers plus 8 more election clerks who were paid $11/hr by the city to supervise the volunteers. Our 8 teams of 3 managed to go through around 12K ballots in about 5 hours. ..."
    "... The solution is to have all ballots for every election counted by hand in public immediately after the polls close. It isn't rocket science, it's not that expensive and it's the only way to ensure that everyone's vote is actually counted. ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Regarding recounts, when the total vote difference is in the single digit thousands in large states where hundreds of thousands or more votes were cast, the candidates shouldn't have to ask for a recount, it should be mandatory*.

    I've been asking my city to do a recount to verify the accuracy of the machines for several years and was told that the state law would not allow for a recount simply for accuracy's sake (unbelievable!) and the only way for a recount to happen would be after a close election.

    Well my significant other stood for election in a city race this year, and how ironic, came within about 50 votes of winning and we got to ask for a recount! This was an odd race where voters chose two out of seven candidates for the two open seats. One candidate won by a clear margin and 2nd and 3rd place were separated by about 50 votes. I was one of those recounting the votes by hand and when all was said and done we wound up counting over 100 votes more than the machines had counted and we only recounted ballots that contained votes for the 2nd and 3rd place candidates so there were potentially and quite probably an even higher number of ballots that weren't counted the first time around. A rough estimate is that 1-2% of the initial votes weren't counted at all by the machines.

    The ballots that were initially counted weren't marked in any way so we had no way of knowing which ballots had been previously counted by the machines and which hadn't however we were able to make some educated guesses after looking through thousands of ballots.

    After the recount we picked up some votes but not enough to change the results which was actually pretty reassuring as the extra votes tallied were in the same proportion for each candidate to what the machines initially tallied which is what you'd expect over a large sample size.

    What we found is that while these particular machines did accurately count the ballots they were able to count, they cannot count all of them due to user error which is pretty difficult to eradicate – some people simply won't follow directions properly no matter how clear they are.

    We caught some flak when asking for the recount about the presumed large cost to the taxpayer however the cost turned out to be minimal. Each candidate had 8 volunteers plus 8 more election clerks who were paid $11/hr by the city to supervise the volunteers. Our 8 teams of 3 managed to go through around 12K ballots in about 5 hours.

    The solution is to have all ballots for every election counted by hand in public immediately after the polls close. It isn't rocket science, it's not that expensive and it's the only way to ensure that everyone's vote is actually counted.

    * Lest anyone accuse me of trying to get Clinton in, I say all of this as someone who would rather be shot in the face by Dick Cheney than cast a ballot for any of the Clinton's or their spawn, legitimate or otherwise.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Trump will have as many problems with Ayn Ryan Congress as Obama/Clinton on economic issues

    Nov 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Cry Shop November 23, 2016 at 6:16 pm

    Bankers & Trump

    Bankers know you capture catch more flies with money honey.

    ewmayer November 23, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    "The Trump campaign, meanwhile, delved into message tailoring, sentiment manipulation and machine learning." - Oh, please, this sounds like a stereotypical Google-centric view of things. They of course left out the most important part of the campaign, the key to its inception, which could be described in terms like "The Trump campaign, meanwhile, actually noticed the widespread misery and non-recovery in the parts of the US outside the elite coastal bubbles and DC beltway, and spotted a yuuuge political opportunity." In other words, not sentiment manipulation – that was, after all, the Dem-establishment-MSM-wall-street-and-the-elite-technocrats' "America is already great, and anyone who denies it is deplorable!" strategy of manufactured consent – so much as actual *reading* of sentiment. Of course if one insisted on remaining inside a protective elite echo chamber and didn't listen to anything Trump or the attendees actually said in those huge flyover-country rallies that wasn't captured in suitably outrageous evening-news soundbites, it was all too easy to believe one's own hype.

    " former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who has known Trump socially for decades and is currently advising the president-elect on foreign policy issues " - I really, really hope this is just Hammerin' Hank tooting his own horn, as he and his sycophants in the FP establishment and MSM are wont to do.

    Brad November 23, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    "Trump dumps the TPP: conservatives rue strategic fillip to China" (Guardian)

    Another wedge angle for Trumps new-found RINO "friends" to play. Trump will have as many problems with Ayn Ryan Congress as Obama/Clinton on economic issues.

    "The TPP excludes China, which declined to join, proposing its own rival version, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which excludes the US." You see, it is all China's fault. No info presented on why China "declined" to join.

    And if Abe's Japan were really an independent country, they'd pick up the TPP baton and sell it to China.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Guillotine Watch, Nov 23, 2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nicholas Kristof's Burden: First class travel and $30,000 speakers fee makes reporting on poverty easier to endure ..."
    "... Kristof's wife worked at Goldman Sachs ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    " Nicholas Kristof's Burden: First class travel and $30,000 speakers fee makes reporting on poverty easier to endure " [ Washington Babylon ].

    I had no idea Kristof's wife worked at Goldman Sachs . How nice for both of them.

    [Nov 23, 2016] War hungry Samantha Power out as UN Ambassador. Trump appoints Nikki Haley to top spot at United Nations

    Notable quotes:
    "... "humanitarian wars" ..."
    Nov 23, 2016 | theduran.com

    Luckily a neocon is not going to be heading to the United Nations, and Power, who championed US "humanitarian wars" is being shown the exit door and it could not come soon enough.

    ... ... ...

    In what has been dubbed a "remarkable" shift in the president-elect's mindset, Trump's selection of Haley caps a dramatic year for their political relationship. They started 2016 with a fight and are ending it as allies in a nascent Trump administration, suggesting that far from bearing grudges Trump is willing to reconcile in the name of national interests.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Affluent women voters apparently had NO IDEA that much of the country has been ravaged by Democratic Party neoliberal policies

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Pelham

    "(and maybe we could replace the insulting euphemism "low information voters" with "differently-informationed voters." Or something)."

    How about "insufficiently bamboozled voters"?

    aab

    Given that all these nice, affluent women voters who apparently had NO IDEA much of the country has been ravaged by Democratic Party policies, they are the people who should have the "low information" label hung around their necks for the foreseeable future. They also seem to have very little understanding how how elections work, how American government works, etc.

    Low Information, High Credential voters (LIHC): ugly acronym, uglier impact.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Expect the Unexpected

    Nov 23, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    This unadmitted ignorance was previously displayed for those with eyes to see it in the Libya debacle, perhaps not coincidentally Clinton's pet war. Cast by the Obama White House as a surgical display of "smart power" that would defend human rights and foster democracy in the Muslim world, the 2011 Libyan intervention did precisely the opposite. There is credible evidence that the U.S.-led NATO campaign prolonged and exacerbated the humanitarian crisis, and far from creating a flourishing democracy, the ouster of strongman Muammar Qaddafi led to a power vacuum into which ISIS and other rival unsavories surged.

    The 2011 intervention and the follow-up escalation in which we are presently entangled were both fundamentally informed by "the underlying belief that military force will produce stability and that the U.S. can reasonably predict the result of such a campaign," as Christopher Preble has argued in a must-read Libya analysis at Politico . Both have proven resoundingly wrong.

    Before Libya, Washington espoused the same false certainty in advance of intervention and nation-building Iraq and Afghanistan. The rhetoric around the former was particularly telling: we would find nuclear weapons and "be greeted as liberators," said Vice President Dick Cheney. The whole thing would take five months or less, said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It would be a "cakewalk." As months dragged into years of nation-building stagnation, the ignored truth became increasingly evident: the United States cannot reshape entire countries without obscene risk and investment, and even when those costly commitments are made, success cannot be predicted with certainty.

    Nearly 14 years later, with Iraq demonstrably more violent and less stable than it was before U.S. intervention, wisdom demands we reject Washington's recycled snake oil.

    Recent polls (let alone the anti-elite backlash Trump's win represents ) suggest Americans are ready to do precisely that. But a lack of public enthusiasm has never stopped Washington from hawking its fraudulent wares-this time in the form of yet-again unfounded certainty that escalating American intervention in Syria is a sure-fire solution to that beleaguered nation's woes.

    We must not let ourselves be fooled. Rather, we "should understand that we don't need to overthrow distant governments and roll the dice on what comes after in order to keep America safe," as Preble, reflecting on Libya, contends . "On the contrary, our track record over the last quarter-century shows that such interventions often have the opposite effect."

    And as for the political establishment, let Trump's triumph be a constant reminder of the necessity of expecting the unexpected and proceeding with due (indeed, much overdue) prudence and restraint abroad. If Washington so grossly misunderstood the direction of its own heartland-without the muddling, as in foreign policy, of massive geographic and cultural differences-how naďve it is to believe that our government can successfully play armed puppet-master over an entire region of the world?

    Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities. She is a weekend editor at The Week and a columnist at Rare , and her writing has also appeared at Time , Politico , Relevant , The Hill , and other outlets.

    [Nov 23, 2016] Money for ENDLESS WAR - no problem! Money for housing, health, education, environment - how the hell can we find money for that?

    Notable quotes:
    "... how the hell can we find money for that? ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Pavel

    That "Navy ship that broke down in the Panama Canal" - it cost $4.4 *billion* dollars. And there is a second one just finishing construction with a third coming in at the basement bargain price of $3.7B:

    The Zumwalt cost more than $4.4bn and was commissioned in October in Maryland. It also suffered a leak in its propulsion system before it was commissioned. The leak required the ship to remain at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia longer than expected for repairs.

    The ship is part of the first new class of warship built at Bath Iron Works in more than 25 years.

    The second Zumwalt-class destroyer, which also cost more than $4.4bn, was christened in a June ceremony during which US Rep Bruce Poliquin called it an "extraordinary machine of peace and security". The third ship is expected to cost a bit less than $3.7bn.

    [My emphasis]

    US navy's most expensive destroyer breaks down in Panama Canal

    Well, I understand that these are magnificent "machines of peace and security" but it seems rather a shame that some of that money couldn't be spent on delivering, say, clean water to residents of Flint and elsewhere.

    US Dems and Republicans both:

    Money for ENDLESS WAR - no problem!
    Money for housing, health, education, environment - how the hell can we find money for that?

    River

    Given that the ammo is one million a shell, $3.7 billion is a bargain of sorts.

    It isn't a shame that money couldn't be used elsewhere. It's a God Damn outrage.

    PlutoniumKun

    Well, not quite a million, but $800,000 a shell according to Stars and Stripes magazine. And each ship is supposed to carry 600 of them. The Zumwelt is basically a very expensive mobile artillery ship, with no clear military purpose. The Navy have pretty much confirmed this by cancelling the system (there were originally to be 38 of them). The worst thing is that despite it having no clear purpose and costing vast sums of money, nobody seems willing to call anyone to account for having blown billions on an entirely worthless defence system.

    [Nov 22, 2016] Does Clinton's Defeat Mean the Decline of US Interventionism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Did the United States not know that intervening in "the lands of Islam" would act as a catalyst for Jihad? Was it by chance that the United States intervened only in secular states, turning them into manholes of religious extremism? Is it a coincidence that these interventions were and are often supported by regimes that sponsor political Islam? Conspiracy theory, you say? No, these are historical facts. ..."
    "... The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions of the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are a way to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3) ..."
    "... What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state. (5) ..."
    "... At the moment of this writing, any speculation as to the policy choices of Trump's foreign policy is premature. ..."
    "... Like Donald Trump, George W. Bush was a conservative Republican non-interventionist. He advocated "America First," called for a more subdued foreign policy and adopted Colin Powell's realism "to attend without stress" (7) with regard to the Near and Middle East. But his policy shifted to become the most aggressive and most brutal in the history of the United States. Many international observers argue that this shift came as a response to the September 11 attacks, but they fail to note that the aggressive germs already existed within Bush's cabinet and advisers: the neo-conservatives occupied key functions in his administration. ..."
    "... Up until now, Trump's links with the neo-cons remain unclear. The best-known neo-cons, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, and Robert Kagan, appear to have lost their bet by supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy. But others, less prominent or influential, seem to have won it by supporting Trump: Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, and James Woolsey, his adviser and one of the architects of the wars in the Middle East. ..."
    "... it is more realistic to suppose that as long as the United States has interests in the countries of the South and the Near and Middle East, so long it will not hesitate to intervene. ..."
    "... In this context, Trump's defeat and Clinton's accession are not sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism -- the end of an era and the beginning of another. ..."
    "... (Translated from the French by Luciana Bohne) ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    ... ... ...

    If the discourse of humanitarianism seduced the North, it has not been so in the South, even less in the Near and Middle East, which no longer believe in it. The patent humanitarian disasters in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have disillusioned them.

    It is in this sense that Trump's victory is felt as a release, a hope for change, and a rupture from the policy of Clinton, Bush, and Obama. This policy, in the name of edifying nations ("nation building"), has destroyed some of the oldest nations and civilizations on earth; in the name of delivering well-being, it has delivered misery; in the name of liberal values, it has galvanized religious zeal; in the name of democracy and human rights, it has installed autocracies and Sharia law.

    Who is to blame?

    Did the United States not know that intervening in "the lands of Islam" would act as a catalyst for Jihad? Was it by chance that the United States intervened only in secular states, turning them into manholes of religious extremism? Is it a coincidence that these interventions were and are often supported by regimes that sponsor political Islam? Conspiracy theory, you say? No, these are historical facts.

    Can the United States not learn from history, or does it just doom itself to repeat it? Does it not pose itself the question of how al-Qaeda and Daesh originated? How did they organize themselves? Who trained them? What is their mobilizing discourse? (1) Why is the US their target? None of this seems to matter to the US: all it cares about is projecting its own idealism. (2)

    The death of thousands of people in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya or Syria, has it contributed to the well being of these peoples? Or does the United States perhaps respond to this question in the manner of Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, who regretted the death of five-hundred-thousand Iraqi children, deprived of medications by the American embargo, to conclude with the infamous sentence, "[But] it was worth it "?

    Was it worth it that people came to perceive humanitarian intervention as the new crusades? Was it worth it that they now perceive democracy as a pagan, pre-Islamic model, abjured by their belief? Was it worth it that they now perceive modernity as deviating believers from the "true" path? Was it worth that they now perceive human rights as human standards as contrary to the divine will? Was it worth it that people now perceive secularism as atheism whose defenders are punishable by beheading?

    Have universal values become a problem rather than a solution? What then to think of making war in their name? Has humanitarian intervention become punishment rather than help?

    The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions of the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are a way to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3)

    What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state. (5)

    The end of interventionism?

    But are Clinton's defeat and Trump's accession to power sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism?

    Donald Trump is a nationalist, whose rise has been the result of a coalition of anti-interventionists within the Republican Party. They professe a foreign policy that Trump has summarized in these words: "We will use military force only in cases of vital necessity to the national security of the United States. We will put an end to attempts of imposing democracy and overthrowing regimes abroad, as well as involving ourselves in situations in which we have no right to intervene." (6)

    But drawing conclusions about the foreign policy of the United States from unofficial statements seems simplistic. At the moment of this writing, any speculation as to the policy choices of Trump's foreign policy is premature. One can't predict his policy with regard to the Near and Middle East, since he has not yet even formed his cabinet. Moreover, presidents in office can change their tune in the course of their tenure. The case of George W. Bush provides an excellent example.

    Like Donald Trump, George W. Bush was a conservative Republican non-interventionist. He advocated "America First," called for a more subdued foreign policy and adopted Colin Powell's realism "to attend without stress" (7) with regard to the Near and Middle East. But his policy shifted to become the most aggressive and most brutal in the history of the United States. Many international observers argue that this shift came as a response to the September 11 attacks, but they fail to note that the aggressive germs already existed within Bush's cabinet and advisers: the neo-conservatives occupied key functions in his administration. (8)

    Up until now, Trump's links with the neo-cons remain unclear. The best-known neo-cons, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, and Robert Kagan, appear to have lost their bet by supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy. But others, less prominent or influential, seem to have won it by supporting Trump: Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, and James Woolsey, his adviser and one of the architects of the wars in the Middle East.

    These indices show that nothing seems to have been gained by the South, still less by the Near and Middle East. There appears to be no guarantee that the situation will improve.

    The non-interventionism promised by Trump may not necessarily equate to a policy of isolationism. A non-interventionist policy does not automatically mean that the United States will stop protecting their interests abroad, strategic or otherwise. Rather, it could mean that the United States will not intervene abroad except to defend their own interests, unilaterally -- and perhaps even more aggressively. Such a potential is implied in Trump's promise to increase the budget for the army and the military-industrial complex. Thus, it is more realistic to suppose that as long as the United States has interests in the countries of the South and the Near and Middle East, so long it will not hesitate to intervene.

    In this context, Trump's defeat and Clinton's accession are not sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism -- the end of an era and the beginning of another. The political reality is too complex to be reduced to statements by a presidential candidate campaigning for election, by an elected president, or even by a president in the course of performing his office.

    No one knows what the future will bring.

    Marwen Bouassida is a researcher in international law at North African-European relations, University of Carthage, Tunisia. He regularly contributes to the online magazine Kapitalis.

    (Translated from the French by Luciana Bohne)

    [Nov 21, 2016] A Brief History of Vote-Rigging

    Notable quotes:
    "... Harris later learned that the lever machine companies and technicians had all been convicted of election fraud, going back to the 1880s, all over the US. Lever machine tampering was also discovered not long ago that changed election results, resulting from a single "miscalibrated" machine that it turned out had been producing anomalous results for over a decade. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    TheCatSaid November 20, 2016 at 9:59 am

    [Response to Ulysses' comment] This begs the question of whether those votes were cast or counted accurately. In my early days of learning about election fraud (particularly at the Black Box Voting.org website and discussion threads), a topic that came up time and again was that there was extensive history of election fraud associated with union elections. IIRC, as electronic voting machines were being actively promoted, one of the avid supporters of using these methods was trade unions.

    A couple articles that touch on some of the history (though not specifically in relation to unions) are this one by Victoria Collier written in 2012 but with some important history, and chapter 4, "A Brief History of Vote-Rigging" from Bev Harris' book (available free online).

    Harris later learned that the lever machine companies and technicians had all been convicted of election fraud, going back to the 1880s, all over the US. Lever machine tampering was also discovered not long ago that changed election results, resulting from a single "miscalibrated" machine that it turned out had been producing anomalous results for over a decade. Richard Hayes Phillips in his lectures and book about the theft of the OH 2004 election (and thus the presidency) describes with detail how one of the methods used was altering the punch cards or sending voters to the wrong precinct machine, so their ballot would end up with undervotes or overvotes and not be counted.

    It would be interesting to know about the election procedures for that union election, particularly the Canadian vote. Was it on machines? Paper? How secure was the chain of custody of the ballots?

    [Nov 21, 2016] If Berlusconi is like Trump, what can Italy teach America?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Many of these people voted for Obama in 2012. The reason they abandoned the Democrats this time is that they hadn't seen any improvement in their lives in the last 4 years. When Trump said Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street, they agreed. They were right: she is. ..."
    "... Berlusconi allied himself both with the nascent Lega and the remains of the neo-fascist MSI, members of which went on to hold high positions in his governments. The effects of this alliance were seen in spectacular fashion at the Genoa G8 meeting, which was used very effectively to outlaw street protest or at least to rebrand anyone protesting against government as 'extremist' (he similarly labelled anyone to his left as 'communist'). ..."
    "... The Guardian's Trump nervous breakdown continues apace.... what would you talk about if he didn't exist?? ..."
    "... As far as the part of non-deplorable voters are concerned, it is relatively clear what they want: economic security and perspective rather than the choice between unemployment and MacJobs, public services working reasonably well rather than garbage piling up in the streets, respectable political culture rather than corruption and nepotism. ..."
    "... Obviously, and not without reason, the confidence of many voters in the ability of the political establishment has faded to a degree allowing exploitation by tycoons presented as 'can-do' strongmen. Neither crying nor shouting at the voters nor agreeing that the N-word is ok will change that. ..."
    "... Trump wasn't as bad as Berlusconi however at the end of the day ordinary people are more concerned about their jobs, their own local economies, their hospitals, schools, local taxes, housing costs so in that respect they look to see change not the same oppressive status quo ..."
    "... It's why Sarkozy was rejected yesterday outright as people don't want a fake offer and the neoliberal Establishment serving corporates, a bent media and banking interests at the cost to themselves and their families. ..."
    Nov 21, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    by Stephanie Kirchgaessner

    Berlusconi was Italy's longest serving post war PM. Like Bill Clinton he was a talented totally corrupt, sexually obsessed politician.
    Derrick Hibbett 9m ago

    People voted for Trump for a variety of reasons. Some wanted abortion made illegal, some were KKK racists. It is pointless trying to "understand their concerns"; they will never support the left.

    Others voted for Trump because they believe he provide them with a secure job, with a salary which allows them to support themselves and their families. Many of these people voted for Obama in 2012. The reason they abandoned the Democrats this time is that they hadn't seen any improvement in their lives in the last 4 years. When Trump said Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street, they agreed. They were right: she is.

    The problem is that in the absence of a strong labour movement they were prey to a trickster who has no intention of challenging the corporations.

    nadaward 22m ago

    Something the article doesn't mention was Berlusconi's bringing of the far right out of the political cupboard.

    Berlusconi allied himself both with the nascent Lega and the remains of the neo-fascist MSI, members of which went on to hold high positions in his governments. The effects of this alliance were seen in spectacular fashion at the Genoa G8 meeting, which was used very effectively to outlaw street protest or at least to rebrand anyone protesting against government as 'extremist' (he similarly labelled anyone to his left as 'communist').

    I'm not sure that apart from a sort of desire for privatization of the state apparatus Berlusconi has or had strong political views. I think questions such as immigration were used in an instrumental fashion.

    It's often said that Berlusconi also brought what in Italy is called the language of the 'Bar Sport' into the political arena. In other words he cancelled the veneer of respectability in political language, with great help from the Lega. There was a sort of 'naughty boy' factor involved in this taboo breaking that had enormous appeal outside of the 'educated classes'. People suddenly felt entitled to let it all hang out and say what they wanted. A sort of nine-year stag night. The more people objected to his version of 'pussy grabbing' the more they could be successfully labelled stuck-up do-gooders.

    On the question of the Church and its complicity, I think that had a lot to do with the conservative papacies of the times.

    pfcbg 23m ago

    I love Donald Donny T. He is a phenomenal leader. Unlike Hillary, he isn't going to ally himself with Islamists of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but in fact, might crush them. I love Donald Donny T. He might unite with Russia crush Islamists.

    qpdarloboy 25m ago

    Berlusconi was a front man for the mafia. It's no coincidence that Forza Italia was launched immediately after the judicial investigations into corruption in the existing political parties looked set to wipe out the mafia's hold over Italian politics

    Nick Pers 32m ago

    it seems like the title of this article is inverted, Trump is like Berlusconi not the other way around. At least chronologically Berlusconi's political engagement was much prior to Trump and even on the financial level according to Forbes magazine Berlusconi is more than twice richer than Trump and obviously had much more media influence, but I do not see how the contrary is true as the title seems to suggest????

    Hurrellr 1h ago

    The Guardian's Trump nervous breakdown continues apace.... what would you talk about if he didn't exist?? Actually perhaps nervous breakdown is the wrong metaphor, perhaps its more like an orgasm ... he hits the sweet spot, you can protest endlessly... years and years lie ahead of you blathering on about Trump being the devil. The ultimate orgasmic showcasing of virtue. Christmas has come early!

    carlygirl 2h ago

    While it has received scant attention, Trump has also promised to repeal a 1954 ban that prevents tax-exempt organisations like churches from getting involved in politics, a change that could give churches an even more powerful role in US politics.

    Pure idiocy. Putting cults that believe in 'invisible men' in charge of political policy - it would be like the Taliban taking control of Afghanistan.

    pollyp57 -> carlygirl 22m ago

    The American religious right has a great deal in common with the Taliban - they aren't mad keen on science, they want to impose their own version of social control and they both absolutely agree that women should lip up and get on with the housework.

    Peter Krall 2h ago

    try and seriously understand what his voters want

    What is this supposed to mean? Understanding that some deplorables feel terrorised by the 'p.c.-police' if using the N-word is deprecated and bowing to them? Sorry, no! It may be possible to win the votes of these people by pursuing Trump's/Berlusconi's agenda but if this agenda is to be pursued: why not just let them do it?

    As far as the part of non-deplorable voters are concerned, it is relatively clear what they want: economic security and perspective rather than the choice between unemployment and MacJobs, public services working reasonably well rather than garbage piling up in the streets, respectable political culture rather than corruption and nepotism.

    Understanding this is the easy part. The problem is delivering. Obviously, and not without reason, the confidence of many voters in the ability of the political establishment has faded to a degree allowing exploitation by tycoons presented as 'can-do' strongmen. Neither crying nor shouting at the voters nor agreeing that the N-word is ok will change that.


    Streatham 2h ago

    And don't let's forget Berlusconi's pal Blair, he of the 'eye-catching initiatives' like the destruction of Iraq. Trump and Berlusconi together will never be responsible for as much evil as the billionaire Blair - close friend as well, of course, of Bill 'The Sleaze' Clinton.

    SpiderJerusalem01 2h ago

    People aren't that concerned with tabloid journalism. They worry about jobs, taxes, the economy. You know, the real stuff. But then, when you don't have those worries I guess you can indulge in fluff pieces.

    That's why the jig is up for you elitists. The world is changing, and not in your favour. Heh.


    Dimitri 3h ago

    Of course this whole nightmare can be avoided if the electoral collage actually decides to select the candidate who won the popular vote by over a million and a half...'such stuff as dreams are made on.'...

    tictactom -> Dimitri 3h ago

    Careful. You'll get ticked off for listening to MSM propaganda talking like that!

    FishDog -> Dimitri 3h ago

    They will state by state.

    Somefing Looms -> Dimitri 2h ago

    Clinton stole votes in several large urban areas - those where the returns were abnormally slow to be returned.

    imo, Clinton lost the popular vote by millions if a true vote were recorded.

    But, even if she didn't, without the Electoral College, a handful of states and even large cities would be choosing the POTUS every term in perpetuity, irrespective of the wishes of those elsewhere in the county.

    Why do you think that's a good idea?

    shaftedpig 3h ago

    Trump wasn't as bad as Berlusconi however at the end of the day ordinary people are more concerned about their jobs, their own local economies, their hospitals, schools, local taxes, housing costs so in that respect they look to see change not the same oppressive status quo .

    It's why Sarkozy was rejected yesterday outright as people don't want a fake offer and the neoliberal Establishment serving corporates, a bent media and banking interests at the cost to themselves and their families. If you want to know who the culprit politicos are look at people like Schauble who are openly threatening us and the democracy we voted for. This guy wasn't even elected by us but feels he has a right to dictate to us as one of his political ancestors once tried.

    https://mishtalk.com/2016/11/19/wolfgang-schauble-turns-to-threats-and-extortion/

    [Nov 21, 2016] Chuck Baldwin -- Trump Supporters Must Not Go To Sleep

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
    "... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
    "... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
    "... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
    "... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
    "... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
    "... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
    "... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
    Nov 17, 2016 | www.newswithviews.com

    After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump] plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

    If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony, he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.

    And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House chief strategist.

    Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee. If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment, thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out at worst.

    On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it.

    To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack.

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential administration.

    Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration, I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.

    Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of what we need to know.

    What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.

    There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian, pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.

    The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected.

    I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly, if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Obama helped to create ISIS by turning a bling eye on US intelligence reports

    Notable quotes:
    "... Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful decision." ..."
    "... Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?" ..."
    "... Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing, You have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very confusing." ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    THIS IS "CHANGE"

    The successor of Susan Rice:

    Hasan (Interviewer) (From 11.15 onwards into the interview): "In 2012, your agency was saying, quote: "The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda in Iraq [(which ISIS arose out of)], are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." In 2012, the US was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups. Why did you not stop that if you're worried about the rise of Islamic extremism?"

    Flynn: "Well I hate to say it's not my job, but my job was to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be, and I will tell you, it goes before 2012. When we were in Iraq, and we still had decisions to be made before there was a decision to pull out of Iraq in 2011, it was very clear what we were going to face."

    Hasan (Interviewer): You are basically saying that even in government at the time, you knew those groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?"

    Flynn: "I think the administration."

    Hasan (Interviewer): "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"

    Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful decision."

    Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?"

    Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing, You have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very confusing."

    Former US Intelligence Chief Admits Obama Took "Willful Decision" to Support ISIS Rise

    http://journal-neo.org/2015/08/13/former-us-intelligence-chief-admits-obama-took-willful-decision-to-support-isis-rise/

    [Nov 21, 2016] Ron Paul Reveals Hit List Of Alleged Fake News Journalists

    Notable quotes:
    "... CNN is Paul's biggest alleged culprit, with nine entries, followed by the NY Times and MSNBC, with six each. The NY Times has recently come under fire from President-elect Donald Trump, who accuses them of being "totally wrong" on news regarding his transition team, while describing them as "failing." ..."
    "... CNN's Wolf Blitzer is also amongst those named on the list. In an email from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) released by WikiLeaks, the DNC staff discusses sending questions to CNN for an interview with Donald Trump. ..."
    "... So-called 'fake news' has been recently attacked by US President Barack Obama, who claimed that false news shared online may have played a role in Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election. ..."
    Nov 21, 2016 | www.infowars.com

    "This list contains the culprits who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and lied us into multiple bogus wars,"according to a report on his website, Ron Paul Liberty Report. Paul claims the list is sourced and "holds a lot more water" than a list previously released by Melissa Zimdars, who is described on Paul's website as "a leftist feminist professor."

    "These are the news sources that told us 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,'" he said. "They told us that Hillary Clinton had a 98% of winning the election. They tell us in a never-ending loop that 'The economy is in great shape!'"

    Paul's list includes the full names of the "fake news" journalists as well as the publications they write for, with what appears to be hyperlinks to where the allegations are sourced from. In most cases, this is WikiLeaks, but none of the hyperlinks are working at present, leaving the exact sources of the list unknown.

    CNN is Paul's biggest alleged culprit, with nine entries, followed by the NY Times and MSNBC, with six each. The NY Times has recently come under fire from President-elect Donald Trump, who accuses them of being "totally wrong" on news regarding his transition team, while describing them as "failing."

    The publication hit back, however, saying their business has increased since his election, with a surge in new subscriptions.

    CNN's Wolf Blitzer is also amongst those named on the list. In an email from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) released by WikiLeaks, the DNC staff discusses sending questions to CNN for an interview with Donald Trump.

    Also listed is NY Times journalist Maggie Haberman, whom leaked emails showed working closely with Clinton's campaign to present the Democratic candidate in a favorable light.

    So-called 'fake news' has been recently attacked by US President Barack Obama, who claimed that false news shared online may have played a role in Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election.

    Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg has now said that the social media site may begin entrusting third parties with filtering the news.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Chuck Baldwin -- Trump Supporters Must Not Go To Sleep

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
    "... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
    "... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
    "... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
    "... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
    "... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
    "... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
    "... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
    Nov 17, 2016 | www.newswithviews.com

    After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump] plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

    If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony, he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.

    And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House chief strategist.

    Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee. If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment, thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out at worst.

    On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it.

    To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack.

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential administration.

    Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration, I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.

    Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of what we need to know.

    What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.

    There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian, pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.

    The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected.

    I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly, if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Apples iCloud retains the entire call history of every iPhone for as long as four months, making it an easy target for law enforcement and surveillance

    Nov 17, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Rusty tell us of Android hacking by the Chinese and today we learn the iphone has issues too

    http://bgr.com/2016/11/17/iphone-security-secret-call-history-icloud/

    "Russian security firm says iPhone secretly logs all your phone calls"

    By Mike Wehner...Nov 17, 2016...10:36 AM

    "A Russian security firm is casting doubt on just how big of an ally Apple is when it comes to consumer privacy. In a new report, the company alleges that Apple's iCloud retains the entire call history of every iPhone for as long as four months, making it an easy target for law enforcement and surveillance.

    The firm, Elcomsoft, discovered that as long as a user has iCloud enabled, their call history is synced and stored. The log includes phone numbers, dates and durations of the calls, and even missed calls, but the log doesn't stop there; FaceTime call logs, as well as calls from apps that utilize the "Call History" feature, such as Facebook and WhatsApp, are also stored.

    There is also apparently no way to actually disable the feature without disabling iCloud entirely, as there is no toggle for call syncing.

    "We offer call history syncing as a convenience to our customers so that they can return calls from any of their devices," an Apple spokesperson told The Intercept via email."Device data is encrypted with a user's passcode, and access to iCloud data including backups requires the user's Apple ID and password. Apple recommends all customers select strong passwords and use two-factor authentication."

    But security from unauthorized eyes isn't what users should be worrying about, according to former FBI agent and computer forensics expert Robert Osgood. "Absolutely this is an advantage [for law enforcement]," Osgood told The Intercept. ""Four months is a long time [to retain call logs]. It's generally 30 or 60 days for telecom providers, because they don't want to keep more [records] than they absolutely have to."

    If the name Elcomsoft sounds familiar, it's because the company's phone-cracking software was used by many of the hackers involved in 2014's massive celebrity nudes leak. Elcomsoft's "Phone Breaker" software claims the ability to crack iCloud backups, as well as backup files from Microsoft OneDrive and BlackBerry."

    [Nov 21, 2016] Michael Flynn Should Remember Truths He Blurted Out Last Year by DavidSwanson

    Notable quotes:
    "... New York Times ..."
    www.washingtonsblog.com

    Michael Flynn, expected to advise Donald Trump on counterproductive killing operations misleading labeled "national security," is generally depicted as a lawless torturer and assassin. But, whether for partisan reasons or otherwise, he's a lawless torturer and assassin who has blurted out some truths he shouldn't be allowed to forget.

    For example:

    "Lt. Gen. Flynn, who since leaving the DIA has become an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, charges that the White House relies heavily on drone strikes for reasons of expediency, rather than effectiveness. 'We've tended to say, drop another bomb via a drone and put out a headline that "we killed Abu Bag of Doughnuts" and it makes us all feel good for 24 hours,' Flynn said. 'And you know what? It doesn't matter. It just made them a martyr, it just created a new reason to fight us even harder.'"

    Or even more clearly:

    "When you drop a bomb from a drone you are going to cause more damage than you are going to cause good. The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just fuels the conflict."

    Will Flynn then advise Trump to cease dropping bombs from drones? Or will he go ahead and advise drone murders, knowing full well that this is counterproductive from the point of view of anyone other than war profiteers?

    From the same report:

    "Asked . . . if drone strikes tend to create more terrorists than they kill, Flynn . . . replied: 'I don't disagree with that,' adding: 'I think as an overarching strategy, it is a failed strategy.'"

    So Trump's almost inevitable string of drone murders will be conducted under the guidance of a man who knows they produce terrorism rather than reducing it, that they endanger the United States rather than protecting it. In that assessment, he agrees with the vast majority of Americans who believe that the wars of the past 15 years have made the United States less safe, which is the view of numerous other experts as well.

    Flynn, too, expanded his comments from drones to the wars as a whole:

    "What we have is this continued investment in conflict. The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just fuels the conflict. Some of that has to be done but I am looking for the other solutions."

    Flynn also, like Trump, accurately cites the criminal 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as critical to the creation of ISIS:

    "Commenting on the rise of ISIL in Iraq, Flynn acknowledged the role played by the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. 'We definitely put fuel on a fire,' he told Hasan. 'Absolutely there is no doubt, history will not be kind to the decisions that were made certainly in 2003. Going into Iraq, definitely it was a strategic mistake."

    So there will be no advice to make similar strategic mistakes that are highly profitable to the weapons industry?

    Flynn, despite perhaps being a leading advocate of lawless imprisonment and torture, also admits to the counterproductive nature of those crimes:

    "The former lieutenant general denied any involvement in the litany of abuses carried out by JSOC interrogators at Camp Nama in Iraq, as revealed by the New York Times and Human Rights Watch, but admitted the US prison system in Iraq in the post-war period 'absolutely' helped radicalise Iraqis who later joined Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its successor organisation, ISIL."

    Recently the International Criminal Court teased the world with the news that it might possible consider indicting US and other war criminals for their actions in Afghanistan. One might expect all-out resistance to such a proposal from Trump and his gang of hyper-nationalist war mongers, except that . . .

    "Flynn also called for greater accountability for US soldiers involved in abuses against Iraqi detainees: 'You know I hope that as more and more information comes out that people are held accountable History is not going to look kind on those actions and we will be held, we should be held, accountable for many, many years to come.'"

    Let's not let Flynn forget any of these words. On Syria he has blurted out some similar facts to those Trump has also articulated:

    "Publicly commenting for the first time on a previously-classified August 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo, which had predicted 'the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria ( ) this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want' and confirmed that 'the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and [Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,' the former DIA chief told Head to Head that 'the [Obama] Administration' didn't 'listen' to these warnings issued by his agency's analysts. 'I don't know if they turned a blind eye,' he said. 'I think it was a decision, I think it was a willful decision.'"

    Let that sink in. Flynn is taking credit for having predicted that backing fighters in Syria could lead to something like ISIS. And he's suggesting that Obama received this information and chose to ignore it.

    Now, here's a question: What impact will "bombing the hell" out of people have? What good will "killing their families" do? Spreading nukes around? "Stealing their oil"? Making lists of and banning Muslims? Is it Flynn's turn to willfully ignore key facts and common sense in order to "advise" against his better judgment a new president who prefers to be advised to do what he was going to do anyway?

    Or can Flynn be convinced to apply lessons learned at huge human cost to similar situations going forward even with a president of a different party, race, and IQ?

    [Nov 21, 2016] Belgiums Dutroux Pedophile, Child Rape Affair A Road Map for Deep-State Criminality

    Nov 20, 2016 | www.newnationalist.net
    Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, controlled press and a mere token opposition party.

    1. Dummy up . If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

    2. Wax indignant . This is also known as the "how dare you" gambit.

    3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."

    4. Knock down straw men . Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

    5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot" and, of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned.

    6. Impugn motives . Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money.

    7. Invoke authority . Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

    8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

    9. Come half-clean . This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.

    10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

    11. Reason backward , using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report it.

    12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.

    13. Change the subject . This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.

    [Nov 21, 2016] Obama crosses the line in hypocrisy when he start talking about the values of democracy, and free speech, and international norms, and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity. What about Libya, Syria and Yemen we would like ask this hypocrite

    www.moonofalabama.org

    Ghostship | Nov 17, 2016 10:09:56 PM | 47

    At least with Trump I expect him to talk crap but Obama talks crap as well when he should know better:

    The values that we talked about -- the values of democracy, and free speech, and international norms, and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity -- those things are not something that we can set aside.

    The unbridled hypocrisy makes me want to puke.

    [Nov 21, 2016] The Deciders The American Conservative by John Hay

    Notable quotes:
    "... The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals. ..."
    "... Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. ..."
    "... Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe." ..."
    "... To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues. ..."
    "... Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. ..."
    "... This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review." ..."
    "... I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers. ..."
    "... Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad." ..."
    "... illustration by Michael Hogue ..."
    Oct 27, 2015 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration unwittingly unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.

    The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar instances, but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences have been even more disastrous.

    The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle, who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the leader of postwar Iraq.

    On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career diplomat who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal experience of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer issued two orders that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them.

    The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The Washington Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed to be the head of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification and the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to fueling extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York Times reported in 2007:

    The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.

    This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men to do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs." Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead of signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."

    Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies, they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What is more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted. In November 2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings, one on March 10 and another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification policy and a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi military to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush later told biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't happen."

    So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In 2007, Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all the researchers look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be in the thick of it and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written, it is time to establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.

    The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals.

    ♦♦♦

    At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer. The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year earlier. For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June 2002 we conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts of means to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and that if they did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's leadership, "Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best way to rebuild the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad with his plan."

    In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however, showed up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.

    In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling his wife that:

    I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration in 'post-hostility' Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked expertise in high-level diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills and experience for that position.

    Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany.

    Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed, "What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."

    Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,

    The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith to hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers. A week later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted by the Pentagon.

    In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his own on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As the new CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."

    The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of the people we're bringing on."

    Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."

    What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe. He writes in his memoir:

    To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues.

    In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough, in November 2003 the Washington Post reported:

    The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed,' Slocombe said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this.'

    Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12, Slocombe's statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the request of Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the Iraqi army; in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting in early March spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But this is not what happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith attributes to Slocombe and Bremer:

    Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army back might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.

    Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going, they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview, "We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party structure, his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority."

    Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding the army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion of "careful consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed," Bremer and Slocombe's notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong impression that they are hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps Washington Post journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation for this confusion in his book Imperial Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite the leaflets instructing them to go home, Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their garrisons. Now he figured that calling them back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned, the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive." This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the policy the president had agreed to in the NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.

    ♦♦♦

    Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably, Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the Bush administration ('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was in chaos-socially, politically and economically')."

    Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a punching bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't understand its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration is ironic, given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.) On September 4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper exculpatory letters supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But the Times concluded, "the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew much about it. Mr. Bremer referred only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details." Moreover, the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant reference to a major decision that a number of American military officials in Iraq strongly opposed." Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed, "the policy was carefully considered by top civilian and military members of the American government." And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."

    Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of the policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I don't know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe told PBS's "Frontline,"

    What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this, do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job from my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington end, with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output. And how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel was from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.

    It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences, he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't know how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post that the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other words, the decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year, and even in the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.

    This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review."

    The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld, and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said, "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible."

    Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:

    I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers.

    In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance," musing that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism, he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important, it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad."

    This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in the same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:

    Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary, unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets, and to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals that the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.

    But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives' sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people in mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not spend money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the administration makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.

    ♦♦♦

    Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors takes policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president. But the case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has a unique importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for them.

    Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other party's fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's 2007 "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after President Obama fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the Democratic counterpart to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than Bushes are susceptible to this personnel problem.

    Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically with the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against al-Qaeda and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what the surge did or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil war that raged there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification and disbanding policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces that Bremer, Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.

    When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no one has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about the Islamic State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making in the Iraq War.

    This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated, active, ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of his policies," it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion. But for those who have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible to undermine a president, then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally stand in judgment. But now that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.

    John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.

    The Deciders

    The disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were not President Bush's.

    By John Hay October 27, 2015

    illustration by Michael Hogue

    In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration unwittingly unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.

    The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar instances, but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences have been even more disastrous.

    The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle, who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the leader of postwar Iraq.

    On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career diplomat who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal experience of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer issued two orders that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them.

    The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The Washington Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed to be the head of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification and the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to fueling extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York Times reported in 2007:

    The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.

    This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men to do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs." Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead of signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."

    Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies, they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What is more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted. In November 2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings, one on March 10 and another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification policy and a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi military to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush later told biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't happen."

    So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In 2007, Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all the researchers look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be in the thick of it and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written, it is time to establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.

    The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals.

    ♦♦♦

    At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer. The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year earlier. For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June 2002 we conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts of means to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and that if they did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's leadership, "Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best way to rebuild the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad with his plan."

    In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however, showed up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.

    In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling his wife that:

    I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration in 'post-hostility' Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked expertise in high-level diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills and experience for that position.

    Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed, "What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."

    Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,

    The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith to hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers. A week later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted by the Pentagon.

    In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his own on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As the new CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."

    The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of the people we're bringing on."

    Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."

    What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe. He writes in his memoir:

    To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues.

    In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough, in November 2003 the Washington Post reported:

    The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed,' Slocombe said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this.'

    Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12, Slocombe's statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the request of Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the Iraqi army; in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting in early March spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But this is not what happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith attributes to Slocombe and Bremer:

    Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army back might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.

    Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going, they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview, "We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party structure, his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority."

    Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding the army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion of "careful consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed," Bremer and Slocombe's notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong impression that they are hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps Washington Post journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation for this confusion in his book Imperial Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite the leaflets instructing them to go home, Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their garrisons. Now he figured that calling them back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned, the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive." This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the policy the president had agreed to in the NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.

    ♦♦♦

    Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably, Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the Bush administration ('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was in chaos-socially, politically and economically')."

    Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a punching bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't understand its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration is ironic, given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.) On September 4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper exculpatory letters supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But the Times concluded, "the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew much about it. Mr. Bremer referred only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details." Moreover, the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant reference to a major decision that a number of American military officials in Iraq strongly opposed." Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed, "the policy was carefully considered by top civilian and military members of the American government." And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."

    Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of the policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I don't know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe told PBS's "Frontline,"

    What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this, do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job from my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington end, with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output. And how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel was from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.

    It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences, he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't know how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post that the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other words, the decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year, and even in the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.

    This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review."

    The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld, and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said, "They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible."

    Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:

    I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers.

    In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance," musing that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism, he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important, it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad."

    This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in the same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:

    Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary, unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets, and to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals that the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.

    But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives' sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people in mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not spend money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the administration makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.

    ♦♦♦

    Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors takes policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president. But the case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has a unique importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for them.

    Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other party's fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's 2007 "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after President Obama fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the Democratic counterpart to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than Bushes are susceptible to this personnel problem.

    Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically with the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against al-Qaeda and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what the surge did or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil war that raged there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification and disbanding policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces that Bremer, Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.

    When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no one has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about the Islamic State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making in the Iraq War.

    This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated, active, ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of his policies," it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion. But for those who have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible to undermine a president, then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally stand in judgment. But now that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.

    John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 28, 2015 at 10:57 pm
    "In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly assigned responsibilities not doing their job."

    1. I am not sure what your point is here. Whether anyone wanted the events to occur is not really the question. The issue is simly the behavior of the staff at the embassy in relation to their superiors. The Sec. of State failed to respond to a request for more security. That is her fault – directly. She took no steps based on the record. She ignored the real time assessments. That is not the executive's fault. That is hers. Period. That isn't a tactical failure, that is a supply failure. That is a leadership failre. It is not as if she was not inflrmed.

    2. The Pres. of the US cannot be held directly accountable for 9/11 because neither the previous admin. not the releveant organizations informed of very specicif data sets that have changed the history of that day.

    The failure rests:

    a. the previous admin
    b. the agencies responsible for immigration management
    the FBI
    c. CIA
    d the airlines

    Well as previously noted. Back to your tactical failure. Well, Libya was foolish on its face. We shuld have informed the UK that under the circumstances further destabilizing the region would be distaterous at best. The tactical problem, weponizing fighters over who we had no command and control. Here again, the utter failure of the State Dept. and the CIA to comprehend who the players were and their capabilities. There's plenty more, but let's leave it at that - again, a major player was the Sec of State. The same could said of Egypt, Syria all areas in which the supposed expertise would come from the CIA and the State Deprtment - That's on Sec. Hillary Clinton – directly. That even playing the tactical and strategic game you intend to muddy the waters of responsibility with were explicated - the fault lies on her desk.

    mojrim , says: October 29, 2015 at 10:35 am
    Pure Bush/Cheney apologia.

    "If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"

    No. Just no.

    Jim Houghton , says: October 29, 2015 at 4:19 pm
    " it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack the policy process "

    Especially when you have a president who's more interested in taking time off and clearing brush, purposely allowing others to do his job. An administration with real leadership at the top is not nearly so vulnerable to this kind of hijacking.

    Harold MacCaughey , says: October 29, 2015 at 7:44 pm
    Irresponsible people in responsible positions, such as the neocons so note, the bankers who bet the farm with our money, and pols on the take for reelection largesse need to do time.
    EliteCommInc. , says: October 30, 2015 at 5:08 am
    "If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"

    I am not sure you are reading the same article I read. I guess one could make the case you are advancing if they addressed some specifics, but that is not the case.

    But there are credible reasons to beleive that the occupation would have been vastly different, despite the civil conflict that had broken as the Us military rolled toward Bagdad.

    cityeyes , says: November 1, 2015 at 11:17 am
    If one was brilliant, one would not be a neocon.
    Mike Schilling , says: November 1, 2015 at 7:11 pm
    James Fallows has written about this at length, his point being that the Bush administration (at all levels) refused to believe that any planning for the post-war was necessary, which is why they were improvising. See, for example, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/01/blind-into-baghdad/302860/ .
    SteveJ , says: November 6, 2015 at 4:25 pm
    Hay insinuates that there were things that could have been done AFTER the invasion that would have prevented problems.

    This is problematic.

    The real army under Saddam Hussein, the Republican Guard, was Sunni. Shiites were used as the fodder.

    A Sunni army was not going to follow orders from a Shiite ruler - a Shiite ruler being the inevitable result of elections. And a Shiite ruler was not going to tolerate a Sunni army or police forces.

    Bremer must have recognized this eventually, and went for a strategy of kicking the can down the road.

    I refer you to an article by General Odom some years back, and point out with regard to this article Myth Number 2.

    http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=146

    Fran Macadam , says: October 27, 2015 at 1:16 am
    Neo con men.
    Mike Alexander , says: October 27, 2015 at 6:47 am
    Bush was 100% at fault. He chose to appoint Rumsfeld and Cheney as top members of his administration. These were strong-willed men who had both served his father well. The problem was Bush Jr. was not his father. The old man was older and more experienced than either of his underlings AND he was the President. As a result these strong personalities were truly subordinate to Bush Sr. Both men were older and vastly more experienced than the son, and he was no match for them.

    Hence the Iraq policy was not a coherent policy set by the office of the POTUS but many strategies, often conflicting, because POTUS was absent. Some (Garner) were working to replace Saddam with someone better, leaving the government in place, to facilitate a quick exit. Others (Bremer) thought they were working to establish a capitalist democracy in the Middle East. And some I suppose some (Kay) thought the war had been about WMDs.

    jefemt , says: October 27, 2015 at 7:58 am
    Wah wah, Bush was a victim. Yeepers. My takeaway: the minions, advisors, apparatchik melt away, and Bush- as those before him, and inevitably those to follow – somehow are also given a free pass through plausible deniability. No man is an island, and one only need look at an aerial photo of DC to realize that there are a LOT of moving parts, many folks with impact, and a ton money floating around to lubricate the whole deal. Little Versailles on the Potomac , with lethal global consequences.
    Response , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:10 am
    It is crucially important that we identify, fire, and shame those whose bad faith, corruption, and/or incompetence did so much to wreck the Middle East and damage America.

    Articles like this are a step in that direction. Please publish more of them.

    JR , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:38 am
    I knew the moment that Bush chose Cheney as his vp back in 00 that we were going to go to war and Bush's humble foreign policy was going to be flushed down the toilet.
    Kurt Gayle , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:41 am
    The heading of "The Deciders" claims that "The disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were not President Bush's."

    You're joking?

    How were these pivotal, publicly-announced policies not Bush's?

    Bush was President!

    The May 16, 2003 CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government and the May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. "In short, Baath party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them."

    John Hay says that considering the discussions of these two areas of Iraq occupation policy at two National Security Council meetings, (March 10 and March 12) "it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted."

    But when two such vitally important polices were announced on May 16th and May 23rd, if the President had seen that the announced policies were contrary to the policies he favored – and that Order Number 1 and Order Number 2 represented in effect a mid-level mutiny within his administration's chain of command – it was certainly Bush's duty as President to immediately rescind those policies and to fire all of those responsible.

    But President Bush didn't rescind the policies.

    He didn't fire those who had issued policies allegedly contrary to his own.

    Instead, he said nothing contrary to either CPA Order Number 1 or CPA Order Number 2 and allowed the orders to stand.

    I have no idea why the heading of this John Hay article claims that "the disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were not President Bush's" when in fact those policies WERE President Bush's.

    Again, Bush was President!

    Johann , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:52 am
    I said at the time, it was obvious these clueless people were re-living WWII, and that it was completely inappropriate, as are most historical comparisons. Rumsfeld even looked and talked like someone out of the 1940s. It was comical in a sad sort of way. Virtually everyone in Saddam's government was required to be a Baathist, down to the lowest levels. And there simply was not the depth of education in the general population to be able to throw out an entire government, including all of the working bureaucrats and to be able to quickly recruit new qualified people and ramp up a new government effectively. It was not a developed country like Germany or Japan. And just think about it. People who had spent their working lives in the Iraq government were dumped out on the streets. And we thought they would consider us liberators?
    SDS , says: October 27, 2015 at 9:56 am
    When the story of America is written it will say that the fall came, not due to external aggression, but to our own banal incompetence, prideful ignorance and hubris ..

    Another way of saying we get the government we deserve and we're gonna' get it; good and hard.

    Ken T , says: October 27, 2015 at 10:11 am
    So your point is that George "I am the Decider" Bush should not be blamed because all of the people that he hand-picked and then trusted implicitly with no oversight are the ones who really screwed up, is that it?

    Don't get me wrong – I'm all in favor of naming the names of all the advisors down the line, and holding them appropriately responsible (seeing as how they all continue to be employed as advisors to the current candidates); but that in no way lets W off the hook for his own incompetence as a leader.

    Clint , says: October 27, 2015 at 10:32 am
    "Political progress has come to a near standstill, and most of the established benchmarks for progress – including provincial elections, the passage of de-Baathification laws, and a plan for oil revenue-sharing – are far from reach." – Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, January 10, 2008.

    Two days before the Iraqi parliament unanimously passed the "Accountability and Justice" de-Baathification law.

    balconesfault , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:26 am
    I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast a ballot for GW Bush in 2000.

    After all – not only Bush's lack of foreign policy experience, but his inability to really speak in depth on foreign policy during the campaign, constituted huge red flags. Yet voters lined up to vote for this man who not only was inexperienced but seemed disinterested in foreign policy – a complete lightweight – because as I heard over and over they were confident that he would surround himself with "smart people" who would guide him.

    So basically – everyone who voted for Bush deliberately voted for those self-same "smart people", instead of the highly experienced and clearly well informed Gore, had served in Vietnam, had served on the House Intelligence Committee (and introduced and arms control plan), had sat on the Senate Homeland Security and Armed Services Committees, and had a record of trying to pull US support for Saddam back in the 80's, when the Reagan Administration was still sending arms and money (Reagan threatened a veto of his bill).

    The GOP voters chose Bush knowing full well that guys like Bremer, Feith, Wolfowitz, Libby, Pearle, and of course Cheney were going to be the ones doing all the heavy lifting on our foreign policy.

    JamesDDean , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:31 am
    Whether he knew it or not Bush '43 inherited a mess left by his father and Clinton. All of those PNAC members believed they could subjugate Iraq and the rest would fall in line were mistaken. The men and women who died in the Middle East from 1990 thru today were wasted.
    Chris G , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:35 am
    I think the headline and tagline actually do a disservice to this otherwise excellent article. They bring the reader in with the assumption that the author is trying exculpate Bush by distancing him from these terrible policies, but that assumed intent is not borne out by the actual text ("while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush "). I think this is a very informative chronicle of how government can be co-opted by mid-level bureaucrats, and perhaps a title change might better reflect this focus.
    William Dalton , says: October 27, 2015 at 11:59 am
    There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were inspired by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany. For one of the lessons of that era was that the policy of removing all Nazi Party members from positions of authority was foolish and made governing Germany unmanageable. In due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and many functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were happy to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and the transition out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state, a member of the anti-Soviet alliance, in the West was successfully accelerated. It was only late in the Twentieth Century, with the rise of the neo-cons in American politics, that this history was revised and the wisdom of even bringing ex-Nazi scientists to the U.S., who enabled us to develop a new generation of weapons and win the "space race" with the Soviet Union, began to be questioned. Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which tolerates it.

    I agree with those above who note that Bush was no more ignorant of the policies being implemented by his government in Iraq than were the American people who heard it reported. He has no excuse for not countermanding orders which were not his. He is responsible for all of them.

    JR , says: October 27, 2015 at 1:18 pm
    This was without a doubt Bush's fault and his decision. He was just not intellectually strong enough to challenge or question the expertise of others. So he just let things flow as they did without giving them the resistance and or rejections.

    By pure coincidence I have been reading Woodward's book State of Denial mentioned in this article for the last several weeks and the key players don't share the view that Bush was left out of these decisions. It's a very compelling read.

    MJRay , says: October 27, 2015 at 1:54 pm
    If you've read Greg Palast's 2006 book "Armed Madhouse", where he talked about the State Department's and National Security Council's pre-9/11 Plan A (which would have kept the Baathist power structure pretty much intact) and the neocons' post-9/11 Plan B (which purged the Baathists from the military and government), then you already know about all of this.
    Kelly Smith , says: October 27, 2015 at 2:11 pm
    I vividly remember being laughed at, as far back as 2002, when I asserted that this entire bit of inevitable, impending foolishness was due to half of Bush's Cabinet being drawn from the ranks of PNAC.

    The media (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, et al) only report the "news" that is "print to fit." They have no knowledge of the truth (or no desire to report it).

    Project for the New American Century . . . it isn't difficult; simply spend some time reading the contents of their website. Why NOT learn all you can about the members of the President's Cabinet?

    The mainstream media isn't going to do it. It's up to us.

    Sam , says: October 27, 2015 at 2:19 pm
    Pat Buchanan got it right in these very pages with "Whose War Anyway?".
    Ken Hoop , says: October 27, 2015 at 3:23 pm
    Saddam had left a Mao-styled revolution of guerilla nature in place before the invasion even started. The work of Ali Ballout a journalist confirmed this in 2003.
    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ballout1.html

    There was no manner of invasion and occupation which would not have resulted in some type of multi-pronged insurgencies and medium if not long term chaos.
    Yes, the neocons assumed none of this, but they don't care much as long as they are not charged with war crimes, their specific reputations are not harmed, and Israel is not threatened.

    Chris Chuba , says: October 27, 2015 at 3:25 pm
    I absolutely hate the entire premise of the Iraq war but to play devil's advocate, are Conservative non-interventionists saying that it would have been a success had we kept Saddam's army intact? Certainly disbanding it was a disaster but I kind of shudder at the thought that this war can somehow be justified on the basis that the occupation was simply botched.
    Kurt Gayle , says: October 27, 2015 at 3:25 pm
    On November 4, 1960 a group of us from my high school went to hear Dr. Wernher von Braun, who was a featured speaker at the 76th Annual Convention of the Virginia Education Association in Richmond. At the time von Braun was serving as director of the newly formed Marshall Space Flight Center where he was the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that would eventually propel the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.

    Dr. von Braun gave a very inspiration address and those in our group – most of whom were already interested in a career in math, the sciences, and engineering-were thrilled.

    The next week in school some of the teaching staff discussed with some of us who had attended the speech the fact that Dr. von Braun had worked in Germany's rocket development program, where he helped design and develop the V-2 at Peenemünde; during that time he had been a member of the Nazi Party and the SS and had at times been involved in the selection and supervision of some of the forced labor that was used in the V-2 program at Peenemünde. We all knew that, obviously, Dr. von Braun and other German rocket scientists brought to the US after the war were exceptions to the general US/Allied policy of de-Nazification. We, both students and teachers, had such an interesting series of discussions with speakers on both sides of the issue.

    William Dalton writes that "in due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and many functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were happy to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and the transition out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state."

    I agree with two important points that William Dalton makes:

    (1) "Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which tolerates it."

    (2) "There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were inspired by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany."

    Rock Sash , says: October 27, 2015 at 4:09 pm
    Without the de-Baathification, we may have ended up with a stable Iraqi government. That means one that would now be headed by someone similar to Saddam Hussein. Until the people of Iraq can resolve their differences – and they don't show any evidence of approaching this point – only a despotic ruler can keep any order. The problem is that we don't want order. We want to chase idealistic dreams. If we had any rational assessment of the situation in the Middle East, we wouldn't have gone there in the first place. So the de-Baathification was logically consistent with the misguided nature of our overall mission.
    balconesfault , says: October 27, 2015 at 4:31 pm
    It is useful to remember the real goal behind deBaathification. And it wasn't because it was strategic from a military/security standpoint. It was strategic from a purely ideological standpoint.

    After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know – both countries flourished economically in the coming decades.

    The Bush Administration was filled with Heritage vetted appointees who wanted Iraq to be a new model – of what would happen if you took all the Heritage wet dreams and stick them into a country and the moribund economy after the last decade of sanctions took off? It was to be a perfect laboratory to demonstrate that right wing economic policies were the way to go. A flat tax, sale of government assets to private companies, opening Iraq up to international corporations with little or no regulation, dismantling Saddam's socialist economic infrastructure – these were seemingly prioritized more by the people the Bush Administration sent to Iraq that security concerns. Dedication to Heritage/free market principles was valued for Reconstruction authorities over knowledge and experience in Middle Eastern geopolitics.

    And you had to deBaathify Iraq, totally cleanse the government of Baathist officials and laws, to make the Heritage Foundation's dream come true. In their mind, the deck was stacked – oil revenues would guarantee success for their experiment, and provide a counter-narrative to the post-war economic successes of Germany and Japan.

    Alas – supply side economics can never fail – it can only be failed. See Kansas today.

    The Other Sands , says: October 27, 2015 at 4:39 pm
    "Nobody elected your family
    And we didn't elect your friends
    No one voted for your advisors
    And nobody wants amends

    You're the one we voted for
    So you must take the blame
    For handing out authority
    To men who were insane"

    Arlo Guthrie, Presidential Rag

    Lenny , says: October 27, 2015 at 6:05 pm
    So Bush is not to blame for this, but Clinton is responsible for Benghazi?
    balconesfault , says: October 27, 2015 at 6:12 pm
    @The Other Sands:

    "You're the one we voted for
    So you must take the blame
    For handing out authority
    To men who were insane"

    And again – those who voted for Bush in 2000 absolutely knew he was going to be handing out that authority. They knowingly turned our foreign policy over to those "bureaucrats".

    http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/16/world/2000-campaign-advisor-bush-s-foreign-policy-tutor-academic-public-eye.html?pagewanted=all

    "Mr. Bush has unabashedly shown his dependence on Ms. Rice Ms. Rice's role is all the more critical because Mr. Bush doesn't like to read briefing books on the nuts-and-bolts of national security, and his lack of experience in foreign affairs has raised questions about his preparedness for the White House. "

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/24/president.2000/foreign.policy/

    "While the junior Bush may lack his father's resume - CIA director, ambassador to China, architect of the Gulf War victory - George W. has inherited some of his father's top aides, and with little experience of his own, Bush says he will rely on their advice. "

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/dec/13/uselections2000.usa9

    "Mr Bush has shown little interest in getting to know the world beyond Texas, where he is governor, having travelled abroad only three times in his adult life, excluding visits to neighbouring Mexico. He has not even visited Canada. This means that Mr Bush, if he takes the White House, will inevitably rely on more seasoned advisers in formulating America's future defence and foreign policy."

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 27, 2015 at 7:01 pm
    "I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast a ballot for GW Bush in 2000."

    I voted for G.W Bush for the Executive Office. And I have no issues taking responsibility for my vote. I will also take responsibility for my failure in convincing him not to support:

    1. the long term application of the PA

    2. Invading Afghanistan as opposed to treating the matter as a course of law, thereby putting the processes of the FBI, in conjunction with the State Department and if need be, the CIA, Special Ops. – using an incision instead of a cudgel.

    3. Not invading Iraq at all

    I completely and utterly failed. That failure resides quite deep in my being. However, being a conservative is not really responsible for the decisions made. In fact, if anything conservative thought would have steered a far different course.
    _____________________

    I do not think for a minute that the author is denying where the ultimate responsibility lies. To say that the "buck" stops at the executive office goes without saying.

    The article dissects the failure to its managers. It's like Benghazi. Sure the executive must ultimately bare responsibility. However, understanding how the director of the State Department mismanaged matters is important in understanding government. Especially in terms of accountability. And at its core is one of the reasons that big government (scale and efficiency) is problematic to any organization. The ability of senior and midlevel managers to avoid responsibility for their choices by blaming the upper echelons.

    The lines of ownership get blurred through weak "delegated" accountability. It's similar to the arguments made about 9/11. Nothing in the Admin. was available for them to act in CONUS on the actors involved because that information was not passed on by the agencies that had it. The general "hair on fire" threat analysis did not include known terrorists that had made it to the US. It did not include data that the same were learning to fly airliners minus landing and take offs(?). Any of the knowledgeable agencies could have acted minus direct involvement of the WH, but they did not. Those agencies: CIA, FBI, State Department and the airlines application of "no fly lists".

    Sure September 11 occurred while Pres. Bush was in office, but there is a reason why one delegates authority.

    As to Iraq, absolutely, heads should have rolled. All of which is a matter of management style within an organizations culture and environment. And on a scale this large - anyone who doesn't comprehend that vital errors are only covered by chance more often than not, doesn't get this article in my view.

    I will skip the sad tales of the Iraqi government being Nazi's, by way of Chalabi and company. But an examination of large scale conflicts, such as WWII, for example will reveal managerial disasters that cost lost lives needlessly.

    The Iraq example has one over riding reality. We never should invaded in the first place. Here I think the Pres. ignored his instincts. My opinion despite the "cowboy" image, Pres. Bush is not a decisive gunslinger and given the 9/11 scenarios. He needn't have been. I think no small number of choices were undermined by others.

    Still those choices were his to make.

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 27, 2015 at 7:08 pm
    While I certainly appreciate sanctimonious retorts. The emotional anger and dismay experienced by most of the country played no small roll in the decisions, including that of no small number of democrats and liberals.

    Forget the WH and Congress, trying explaining in sane language why actions taken should not have been to members of the public was tantamount to treason.

    So taking a cue from the vote for Pres. Bush to blame. How about anyone who supported the use of the military in both campaigns.

    Complicity in the act -

    Paul Windels , says: October 28, 2015 at 8:17 am
    The article makes telling points against Bremer, Feith, et al., but that does not and should not absolve GWB. He was President, and the buck stopped with him.

    I would add two points. First that wars are always messy affairs. Anyone who talks of surgical wars is either a fool or a fraud (if not both). Second, this whole chain of events started with GHW Bush's decision to go to war in 1990.

    BTW is John Hay a nom de plume?

    Chris Chuba , says: October 28, 2015 at 8:54 am
    Rock Sash, I don't know if you were responding to my post but just in case you were thank you, it provides a good explanation. In short, the more rational management of Iraq leads us closer to the pre-invasion Iraq version of Iraq which of course means that we should not have invaded.
    No one is suggesting that Saddam was a good guy and in fact, now that they have been birthed, I wish the current govt of Iraq well. As someone who respects the sovereignty of nations I am appalled at those who want to meddle further in Iraq by partitioning their country into three separate countries to fix a problem that we created because we don't like that the Shiites are the majority and are predictably aligned with Iran. No, let's leave them alone and let them re-take the Sunni portion of Iraq and try to re-integrate it back into their country. If we meddle and try to create 'Sunnistan' then the geniuses in our country are going to discover that it will be harder than they think to keep it from becoming ISI(S-) 2.
    Connecticut Farmer , says: October 28, 2015 at 9:31 am
    If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum. And still are i.e. Benghazi. And it was probably always thus, no matter whose administration was in charge. This suggests the presence of some deep-seated structural problems not only within the Executive Department but with the very way in which we presume to govern ourselves as a country.
    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 10:35 am
    @Connecticut Farmer
    If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum.

    It seems to me that inmates running the asylum has been a feature of GOP foreign policy for awhile (eg – Iran/Contra and Ollie North April Glaspie's assurances to Saddam that his border dispute with Kuwait was not a concern to the US )

    OTOH – Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to want to link Benghazi to everything.

    Steve J , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:05 am
    It's an interesting piece. I'm not sure what anyone was supposed to do after the invasion that would have prevented fragmentation.

    I am inclined to agree with a piece by General Odom some time back - in particular myth number 2.

    http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=146

    Ken Hoop , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:08 am
    Chris Chuba

    "Conservative non-interventionists" worthy of the name would not attempt to justify the war, period.

    As far as voters owning a share of the guilt, I believe anyone who votes for candidates of either of the corrupt duopoly rather than helping build alternative parties run the likely risk of sharing
    in any unjustified intervention ultimately carried out.
    Granted this belief rests on the assumption both the GOP and Dems are either irredeemable or a viable multiparty system is necessary to nudge them into redemption.

    Kurt Gayle , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:34 am
    @ balconesfault who wrote: "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities."

    You're right, balconesfault, that the "socialists" of the National Socialist German Workers Party - like the "socialists" of the Union of Soviet "Socialist" Republics - banned membership in all unions that were not under government control and they outlawed all strikes.

    But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions. One of the means by which the Nazis maintained strong popular support was through a generous welfare state that particularly benefitted German lower classes. Hitler implemented price and rent controls, higher corporate taxes, much higher taxes on capital gains, and subsidies to German farmers to protect them from weather and price fluctuations. The Nazi government increased pension benefits substantially and put in place a state-run health care system.

    MIke Glatt , says: October 28, 2015 at 11:38 am
    Imagine if Obama had presided over this cluster$#@% and
    then tried to blame his policymakers.
    Johann , says: October 28, 2015 at 12:14 pm
    baconesfault – "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know – both countries flourished economically in the coming decades."

    Why must you always look at the world through donkey colored glasses?

    Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included price controls is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers of Ordo-liberalism, Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms. Erhard in particular, as Economics minister defied the occupation authority and abolished the price controls and other economic controls that were in place, and at the same time introduced the deutsche mark, replacing the reichsmark. A hard money policy is a tenet of Ordoliberalism. They reject the concept of economic stimulus.

    Ordo-liberalism is a system that is a "third way" system between classical liberalism and the socialist system. Its based on free market economics, but the adherents believe government is required to ensure free markets remain free from monopolies and other manipulations that may occur that would destroy a free market.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism

    PermReader , says: October 28, 2015 at 12:53 pm
    Russian chief tale of a good tsar and bad boyars.
    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 1:06 pm
    @Johann Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included price controls is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers of Ordo-liberalism, Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms.

    OK – that's nice. You still did nothing to address the thesis.

    Useful reading:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6930.htm

    The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war's ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush's Republicans are, in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist environmentalists.

    Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions.

    Emilio , says: October 28, 2015 at 1:37 pm
    Great comments. I'll reiterate what I said previously about the general topic:

    I don't think there are enough sane "mid-level" Republicans in DC to properly staff any incoming administration, even a Paul one. I know that sounds harsh, but I know it in my gut, is that fair? By all available lights, Cheney/Rumsfeld types and their lackeys still dominate the GOP on foreign policy, hell, if even the Democrats are compromised, it is beyond me how anyone can believe that a newly moderate and sensible GOP foreign policy staff has magically materialized in the last eight years but is somehow still keeping largely silent. Where are they? Where's the proof that the risks have been mitigated?

    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 1:58 pm
    @Kurt Gayle But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions.

    I did not say that the Nazi's did not have a welfare state (although they did limit beneficiaries to those of Aryan blood). I merely noted that the reconstruction authorities incorporated strong welfare provisions into the post-war laws of Germany and Japan, and that those countries economies (and quality of life) flourished in subsequent years.

    Johann , says: October 28, 2015 at 2:27 pm
    baconesfault – I don't think we are in much disagreement regarding the disaster that was Iraq's occupation. I do not take issue with the fact that the Iraq economic disaster was set up by the Bush administration. I don't think it was a failure of capitalism though. It was a long term Christmas present for major corporations. And according to a friend of mine who was there as a civilian working for the US Army Corps of Engineers, it was worse than crony capitalism. Outright theft by contractors was rampant and purposely overlooked. I would not call that a failure of capitalism. It was a predictable result of crony capitalism corruption and the lack of the rule of law.
    EliteCommInc. , says: October 28, 2015 at 3:05 pm
    "Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to want to link Benghazi to everything."

    I am unclear if you understand the concept here. It is not generally referred to as surgical warfare, though I get why you use the term. It's surgical "strike".

    Those uses of force with very specific objectives and generally limitted goals. Ten tears too late and anti-climatic at best, the capture of Bin Laden would be considred such an operation.

    The Benghazi matter is simple. The executive in the WH delegatese State Deapt operations to the Sec of State. While he is ultimately responsible because he sits at the head. The immediate responsibility rests with those to whom he delegates authority. The Embassy personnnel send tepetaed dispatches that the security environment in Libya id deteriorating and doing so quickly. They dispatch the need for help. The State department misjudges, mischaracterizes or ignors the on the scene damage reports and the call for help. Instead choosing to focus on the political response to Libyan violence. Embassy is attacked and personnel are killed.

    The Sec of State is immediately responsible. We now no so much more based on the details of events. That anyone in the State Department should be ashamed for blaiming the matter on internet videos or anything else other than our support for a rebellion, that backfired.

    On the larger question, to accountability - Executives can mullify the impact by taking corrective action and or holding his delegates responsible. I think the perception here is that no one has been held accountable in either admin.

    Perhaps, Sec. Clinton lost her position at the state department as consequence. But the accountability for failed leadership in several disasterous foreign policy advances seems to be a bid for the WH. Which begs the question - what does accountability mean.

    In either admin. it seems to hold no value. I think the article demonstrates the issues very well.

    Myron Hudson , says: October 28, 2015 at 3:42 pm
    Very interesting article. I understand that it is not an apology or an excuse for W. Rather, it is a deconstruction of the antics of what The Economist once referred to as "this most inept of administrations".

    It makes sense. So much attention is paid to the Executive that not enough is paid to the coterie that comes with him. In W's case the was Cheney, Rove and those whom Bush Sr. referred to as "the crazies in the basement".

    Considering the role that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith et al played in ginning up the war, it is not surprising that they and their cohort proceeded to screw it up once they got it.

    It was ill conceived and poorly executed and rightly stands as our most disastrous foreign policy bungle ever. The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived, only poorly executed, shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing.

    Lenny , says: October 28, 2015 at 4:34 pm
    Is this serious?
    If so, why would any sane person ever vote for a Republican candidate?
    balconesfault , says: October 28, 2015 at 5:44 pm
    @EliteCommInc – I think the confusion I have here is over accountability for strategy, versus accountability for tactics.

    The de-Baathification of Iraq was a strategy. It was an enormous, ground changing plan, and one would expect accountability for this to run directly to the Chief Executive, not only for the giving responsibility for designing the strategy, but for approving the strategy itself.

    Similarly, for the examples I brought up – Iran/Contra was a strategy. Selling weapons to Iran and using money to fund insurgents in Nicaragua wasn't simply a matter of tactics. Again, it was the responsibility of the POTUS to know this was going on, and Reagan failed on this count. Whether or not the US had an interest in preserving the integrity of Kuwait's borders with Iraq was a strategy, and not simply a tactic, and the President should have been involved in approving any communications with Saddam on that point.

    Benghazi was a tactical failure. In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly assigned responsibilities not doing their job.

    To the extent that someone dropped the ball with Benghazi, this wasn't due to mid-level bureaucrats making their own policies independent of the POTUS. Our involvement in Libya itself was a strategy, and Mr. Larison has repeatedly pointed out how it's a shame that the Benghazi committee has microfocused on the tactics of protecting the consulate and the responsibility for failure to do so, rather than on the strategy that put our diplomatic personnel in the middle of that tinderbox in the first place.

    That said, President Obama has clearly taken responsibility for the strategy. Our air cover for Libyan rebels, and our subsequent diplomatic efforts, are on his plate.

    Carol , says: October 28, 2015 at 7:35 pm
    Excuse me, but I knew before! the invasion that toppling Hussein and installing a Shiite regime would unsettle that country and lead to civil war. I erred in thinking the civil war part would happen sooner than it has. I am simply an informed housewife and librarian. George Bush should have known, too, without any advisers telling him. Don't give me the both sides do it malarkey.
    Hosea McAdoo , says: October 28, 2015 at 8:00 pm
    He was President and Commander-in-Chief therefore totally responsible.
    EliteCommInc. , says: October 28, 2015 at 9:16 pm
    In the above cases within the strategy or tactic, it's remains the case of indivual failure.

    ________________
    "The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived, only poorly executed, shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing."

    In one of my rare defenses, I think you are dancing with an unknown. Whether the Iraq invasion was wise or not is not really part of the question here. While one can acknowledge it's overall veracity, ther is value in examining the details of what transpired afterwards that made matters worse.

    And i think disbanding the military was a huge contributor to subsequent events. And obviously so. For the message was that members of the military were essentially now enemies of the state they once fought to protect and as such they were on their own aort from state function. Excuse me but departing weapons in hand to fight back against any reprisals or making the efforts of the US and their newly established system makes perfect sense.

    AHd they not disbanded the military which includes the admin. bureacracy, despite the head having been dismantled would have vital foundational systems in place upon which basic services would have remained functional, including and not the least of which was running water, electricty and basic policing.

    Whether one agrees or disagrees with the invasion. Making assessments about subsequent decisions and implementation are valuable in understanding what happened during the occupation. No doubt that Iraqis patrolling the streets, who the people, the language, customs and had some legtmate established authority would have been less problematic than US servicemen and, especially women playingthat role.

    [Nov 21, 2016] REVEALED The Real Fake News List

    Warning: The table was scanned from the picture might contain errors
    www.ronpaullibertyreport.com

    Ron Paul Liberty Report

    We've seen the make-shift "fake news" list created by a leftist feminist professor. Well, another fake news list has been revealed and this one holds a lot more water.

    This list contains the culprits who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and lied us into multiple bogus wars. These are the news sources that told us "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." They told us that Hillary Clinton had a 98% of winning the election. They tell us in a never-ending loop that "The economy is in great shape!"

    This is the real Fake News List (and it's sourced):

    Journalist Outlet Source
    Cecilia Vega ABC WikiLeaks
    David Muir ABC WikiLeaks
    Diane Sawyer ABC WikiLeaks
    George Stephanopoulos ABC WikiLeaks
    Jon Kail ABC WikiLeaks
    John Heillman Bloomberg WikiLeaks
    Mark Halperin Bloomberg WikiLeaks
    Norah О'Donnell CBS WikiLeaks
    Vicki Gordon CBS WikiLeaks
    John Harwood CNBC WikiLeaks
    Brianna Keilar CNN WikiLeaks
    David Chalian CNN WikiLeaks
    Gloria Borger CNN WikiLeaks
    Jeff Zeleny CNN WikiLeaks
    John Berman CNN WikiLeaks
    Kate Bouldan CNN WikiLeaks
    Mark Preston CNN WikiLeaks
    Sam Feist CNN WikiLeaks
    Wolf Blitzer CNN WikiLeaks
    Jackie Kucinich Daily Beast WikiLeaks
    Whitney Snyder Huffington Post WikiLeaks
    Betsy Fisher Martin MORE WikiLeaks
    Alex Wagner MSNBC WikiLeaks
    Beth Fouhy MSNBC WikiLeaks
    Chuck Todd MSNBC WikiLeaks
    Phil Griffin MSNBC WikiLeaks
    Rachel Maddow MSNBC WikiLeaks
    Rachel Racusen MSNBC WikiLeaks
    Savannah Gutherie NBC WikiLeaks
    Jamil Smith New Republic WikiLeaks
    Amy Chozik New York Times WikiLeaks
    Gail Collins New York Times WikiLeaks
    Jonathan Martin New York Times WikiLeaks
    Maggie Habennan New York Times DNC leak
    Mark Leibovich New York Times WikiLeaks
    Pat Healey New York Times WikiLeaks
    Ryan Liza New Yorker WikiLeaks
    Sandia Sobieraj Westfall PEOPLE WikiLeaks
    Glenn Thrush POLITICO WikiLeaks
    Kenneth Vogel POLITICO WikiLeaks
    Mike Allen POLITICO WikiLeaks
    Jessica Valenti The Guardian WikiLeaks
    Monisha Rajesh The Guardian WikiLeaks
    Sidy Doyle The Guardian WikiLeaks
    Brent Budowskv The Hill WikiLeaks
    Alyssa Mastramonoco VICE WikiLeaks
    Jon Allen VOX WikiLeaks
    Karen Tumults Washington Post WikiLeaks

    [Nov 21, 2016] Beppe Grillo The Amateurs Are Conquering The World Because The Experts Destroyed It

    An interesting variant of rotation of elite...
    Notable quotes:
    "... echo chamber ..."
    "... With Trump, exactly the same thing has happened as with my Five Star Movement, which was born of the Internet: the media were taken aback and asked us where we were before. We gathered millions of people in public squares and they marvelled. We became the biggest movement in Italy and journalists and philosophers continued to say that we were benefitting from people's dissatisfaction. ..."
    "... the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies. ..."
    "... If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is ..."
    "... Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it." ..."
    "... Until now, these anti-establishment movements have come face-to-face with their own limits: as soon as they come to power they seem to lose their capabilities and reason for being. Alexis Tsipras, in Greece, for example ..."
    "... President Juncker suggested modifying the code of ethics and lengthening the period of abstinence from any private work for former Commission members to three years. Is that enough? ..."
    "... I have serious doubts about a potential change in the code of ethics being made by a former minister of a tax haven. ..."
    "... We've always maintained this idea of total autonomy in decision-making, but we united over the common idea of a different Europe, a mosaic of autonomies and sovereignties. ..."
    "... If he wants to hold a referendum on the euro, he'll have our support. If he wants to leave the Fiscal Stability Treaty – the so-called Fiscal Compact – which was one of our battles, we'll be there ..."
    "... Renzi's negotiating power will also depend on the outcome of the constitutional referendum in December. We'll see whether he sinks or swims. ..."
    "... Neoliberal Trojan Horse Obama has quite a global legacy. ..."
    "... Maybe it's time for the Europeans to stop sucking American cock. Note that we barely follow your elections. It's time to spread your wings and fly. ..."
    "... "The Experts* Destroyed The World" - Beppe Grillo. Never a truer word spoken, Beppe! YOU DA MAN!!! And these "Experts" - these self-described "ELITE" - did so - and are STILL doing so WITH MALICIOUS INTENT - and lining their pockets every fking step of the way! ..."
    "... As the Jason Statham character says in that great Guy Richie movie "Revolver": "If there's ONE thing I've learnt about "Experts", it's that they're expert in FUCK ALL!" ..."
    "... Apart from asset-stripping the economy & robbing the populace blind that is - and giving their countries away to the invader so indigenous populations cant fight back... or PURPOSELY angling for WW3 to hide their criminality behind the ULTIMATE & FINAL smokescreen. ..."
    "... It NATO collapses so will the Euro project. The project was always American from the start. In recent years it has become a mechanism by which the Poles (and other assorted Eastern Europeans) can extract war guarantees out of the USA, UK and France. It is a total mess and people like Grillo add to the confusion by their flawed analysis. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Whatever the reason, we agree with the next point he makes, namely the overthrow of "experts" by amateurs.

    euronews: "Do you think appealing to people's emotions is enough to get elected? Is that a political project?"

    Beppe Grillo: "This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don't have a political project, you're not capable, you're imbeciles, amateurs And yet, the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies. If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we have today, it means the European dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it."

    Bingo, or as Nassim Taleb put its, the "Intellectual-Yet-Idiot" class. It is the elimination of these so-called "experts", most of whom have PhDs or other letters next to their name to cover their insecurity, and who drown every possible medium with their endless, hollow, and constantly wrong chatter, desperate to create a self-congratulatory echo chamber in which their errors are diluted with the errors of their "expert" peers, that will be the biggest challenge for the world as it seeks to break away from the legacy of a fake "expert class" which has brought the entire world to its knees, and has unleashed the biggest political tsunami in modern history.

    One thing is certain: the "experts" won't go quietly as the "amateurs" try to retake what is rightfully theirs.

    ... ... ...

    Beppe Grillo, Leader of the Five Star Movement
    "It's an extraordinary turning point. This corn cob – we can also call Trump that in a nice way – doesn't have particularly outstanding qualities. He was such a target for the media, with such terrifying accusations of sexism and racism, as well as being harassed by the establishment – such as the New York Times – but, in the end, he won.

    "That is a symbol of the tragedy and the apocalypse of traditional information. The television and newspapers are always late and they relay old information. They no longer anticipate anything and they're only just understanding that idiots, the disadvantaged, those who are marginalised – and there are millions of them – use alternative media, such as the Internet, which passes under the radar of television, a medium people no longer use.

    "With Trump, exactly the same thing has happened as with my Five Star Movement, which was born of the Internet: the media were taken aback and asked us where we were before. We gathered millions of people in public squares and they marvelled. We became the biggest movement in Italy and journalists and philosophers continued to say that we were benefitting from people's dissatisfaction. We'll get into government and they'll ask themselves how we did it."

    euronews
    "There is a gap between giving populist speeches and governing a nation."

    Beppe Grillo
    "We want to govern, but we don't want to simply change the power by replacing it with our own. We want a change within civilisation, a change of world vision.

    "We're talking about dematerialised industry, an end to working for money, the start of working for other payment, a universal citizens revenue. If our society is founded on work, what will happen if work disappears? What will we do with millions of people in flux? We have to organise and manage all that."

    euronews
    "Do you think appealing to people's emotions is enough to get elected? Is that a political project?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don't have a political project, you're not capable, you're imbeciles, amateurs

    "And yet, the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies.

    "If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we have today, it means the European dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it."

    euronews
    "Until now, these anti-establishment movements have come face-to-face with their own limits: as soon as they come to power they seem to lose their capabilities and reason for being. Alexis Tsipras, in Greece, for example "

    Beppe Grillo
    "Yes, I agree."

    euronews
    "Let's take the example of Podemos in Spain. They came within reach of power, then had to backtrack. Why?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "Because there's an outdated way of thinking. Because they think power is managed by forming coalitions or by making agreements with others.

    "From our side, we want to give the tools to the citizens. We have an information system called Rousseau, to which every Italian citizen can subscribe for free. There they can vote in regional and local elections and check what their local MPs are proposing. Absolutely any citizen can even suggest laws in their own name.

    "This is something never before directly seen in democracy and neither Tsipras nor Podemos have done it."

    euronews
    "You said that you're not interested in breaking up the European Union, but rather in profoundly changing it. What can a small group of MEPs do to put into motion such great change?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "The little group of MEPs is making its voice heard, but there are complications In parliament, there are lobby groups and commissions. Parliament decides, but at the same time doesn't decide.

    "We do what we can, in line with our vision of a world based on a circular economy. We put forward the idea of a circular economy as the energy of the future and the proposal has been adopted by the European parliament."

    euronews

    "One hot topic at the Commission at the moment is the problem of the conflicts of interest concerning certain politicians.

    "President Juncker suggested modifying the code of ethics and lengthening the period of abstinence from any private work for former Commission members to three years. Is that enough?"

    Beppe Grillo

    "I have serious doubts about a potential change in the code of ethics being made by a former minister of a tax haven."

    euronews
    "You don't think the Commission is legitimate?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "Absolutely not. Particularly because it's a Commission that no one has actually elected. That's what brought us closer to Nigel Farage: a democracy coming from the people."

    euronews
    "You don't regret being allied with Farage?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "It was an alliance of convenience, made to give us enough support to enter parliament. We've always maintained this idea of total autonomy in decision-making, but we united over the common idea of a different Europe, a mosaic of autonomies and sovereignties.

    "I'm not against Europe, but I am against the single currency. Conversely, I am for the idea of a common currency. The words are important: 'common' and 'single' are two different concepts.

    "In any case, the UK has demonstrated something that we in Italy couldn't even dream of: organising a clear 'yes-no' referendum."

    euronews
    "That is 'clear' in terms of the result and not its consequences. In reality, the population is torn. Many people's views have done u-turns."

    Beppe Grillo
    "Whatever happens, the responsibility returns entirely to the British. They made the decision."

    euronews
    "Doesn't it bother you that Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is playing the spoilsport in Europe? Criticising European institutions was your battle horse and now he is flexing his muscles in Brussels."

    Beppe Grillo
    "Renzi has to do that. But he's just copying me and in doing so, strengthens the original."

    euronews
    "Whatever it may be, his position at the head of the government can get him results."

    Beppe Grillo
    "Very well. If he wants to hold a referendum on the euro, he'll have our support. If he wants to leave the Fiscal Stability Treaty – the so-called Fiscal Compact – which was one of our battles, we'll be there."

    euronews
    "In the quarrel over the flexibility of public accounts due to the earthquake and immigration, who are you supporting?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "On that, I share Renzi's position. I have nothing against projects and ideas. I have preconceptions about him. For me, he is completely undeserving of confidence."

    euronews
    "Renzi's negotiating power will also depend on the outcome of the constitutional referendum in December. We'll see whether he sinks or swims."

    Beppe Grillo
    "It's already lost for him."

    euronews
    "If he doesn't win, will you ask for early elections?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "Whatever happens, we want elections because the government as it stands is not legitimate and, as a consequence, neither are we.

    "From this point onwards, the government moves forward simply by approving laws based on how urgent they are. And 90 percent of laws are approved using this method. So what good will it do to reform the Senate to make the process quicker?"

    euronews
    "Can you see yourself at the head of the Italian government?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "No, no. I was never in the race. Never."

    euronews
    "So, Beppe Grillo is not even a candidate to become prime minister or to take on another official role, if one day the Five Star Movement was to win the elections?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "The time is fast approaching."

    euronews
    "Really? A projection?"

    Beppe Grillo
    "People just need to go and vote. We're sure to win."

    BabaLooey -> Nemontel •Nov 21, 2016 6:27 AM

    euronews: "You don't think the Commission is legitimate?"

    Beppe Grillo: "Absolutely not. Particularly because it's a Commission that no one has actually elected. That's what brought us closer to Nigel Farage: a democracy coming from the people."

    BOILED DOWN - THAT IS ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID.

    Blackhawks •Nov 21, 2016 3:15 AM

    Neoliberal Trojan Horse Obama has quite a global legacy. People all over the world are voting for conmen and clowns instead of his endorsed candidates and chosen successor. Having previously exposed the "intellectual-yet-idiot" class, Nassim Taleb unleashes his acerbic tone in 3 painfully "real news" tweets on President Obama's legacy...

    Obama:
    Protected banksters (largest bonus pool in 2010)
    "Helped" Libya
    Served AlQaeda/SaudiBarbaria(Syria & Yemen) https://t.co/bcNMhDgmuo

    - NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb) November 19, 2016

    2) (Cont) But in the end what Obama did that is unforgivable is increasing centralization in a complex system.

    - NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb) November 19, 2016

    3) Don't fughet Obama is leaving us a Ponzi scheme, added ~8 trillions in debt with rates at 0. If they rise, costs of deficit explode...

    - NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb) November 20, 2016

    LetThemEatRand •Nov 21, 2016 3:20 AM

    Maybe it's time for the Europeans to stop sucking American cock. Note that we barely follow your elections. It's time to spread your wings and fly.

    Yen Cross -> LetThemEatRand •Nov 21, 2016 3:27 AM

    Amen~ The" European Toadies" should also institute " term limits" so those Jean Paul & Draghi][JUNKERS[]- technocratic A-Holes can be done away with!

    NuYawkFrankie •Nov 21, 2016 5:07 AM

    "The Experts* Destroyed The World" - Beppe Grillo. Never a truer word spoken, Beppe! YOU DA MAN!!! And these "Experts" - these self-described "ELITE" - did so - and are STILL doing so WITH MALICIOUS INTENT - and lining their pockets every fking step of the way!

    As the Jason Statham character says in that great Guy Richie movie "Revolver": "If there's ONE thing I've learnt about "Experts", it's that they're expert in FUCK ALL!"

    Apart from asset-stripping the economy & robbing the populace blind that is - and giving their countries away to the invader so indigenous populations cant fight back... or PURPOSELY angling for WW3 to hide their criminality behind the ULTIMATE & FINAL smokescreen.

    Yep -THAT is how F'KING sick they are. These, my friends, are your "Experts", your self-decribed "Elite" - and Soros is at the head of the parade.

    lakecity55 -> NuYawkFrankie •Nov 21, 2016 6:18 AM

    You know the old saying, "an expert's a guy from more than 20 miles outside of town."

    tuetenueggel •Nov 21, 2016 5:17 AM

    Which experts do you mean Beppe ?

    All I Kow is that those "experts" are too stupid to piss a hole in the snow.

    Oettinger ( not even speaking his mother tongue halfways correct )

    Jean clown Juncker ( always drunk too is a kind of well structured day )

    Schulz capo (who was too stupid as mayor of a german village so they fucked him out)

    Hollande ( lefts are always of lower IQ then right wing people )

    Blair ( war criminal )

    and thousands more not to be named her ( due to little space availlable )

    caesium •Nov 21, 2016 6:35 AM

    It NATO collapses so will the Euro project. The project was always American from the start. In recent years it has become a mechanism by which the Poles (and other assorted Eastern Europeans) can extract war guarantees out of the USA, UK and France. It is a total mess and people like Grillo add to the confusion by their flawed analysis.

    The bedrock of Italy was always the Catholic faith which the country has abandoned. "The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith" said Hilaire Belloc. A reality that Grillo is unable to grasp.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Most individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling.

    www.moonofalabama.org
    Posted by: Circe | Nov 19, 2016 8:37:46 PM | 23

    95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.

    And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job. He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get the death penalty for treason.

    Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,".

    That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up the Iran deal.

    Many of you here are extremely naďve regarding Trump.

    b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run by a deep-state faction that found the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.

    Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet.The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon-unfriendly President was elected.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 10:20:57 PM | 26

    Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The 'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to fund security agencies and buy arms.

    And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the "peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.

    What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.

    And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh?

    The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:

    >> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?

    >> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only check on elites are other elite factions? An enormous cultural failure that has produced a brittle social fabric.

    >> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow the another to gain power?

    Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction or a real attempt at a 'color revolution'.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Speculation: Trump Promotes NSA Boss Rogers To DNI Because He Leaked The Clinton Emails

    Notable quotes:
    "... Putin has been supporting right-wing movements across the West in order to weaken NATO ..."
    "... prepare ourselves ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Speculation: Trump Promotes NSA Boss Rogers To DNI Because He Leaked The Clinton Emails

    If some investigative journos start digging into the issue this story could develop into a really interesting scandal:

    Pentagon and intelligence community chiefs have urged Obama to remove the head of the NSA

    The heads of the Pentagon and the nation's intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.

    The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
    ...
    The news comes as Rogers is being considered by President-Elect Donald Trump to be his nominee for DNI, replacing Clapper as the official who oversees all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower.

    Adm. Michael S. Rogers recently claimed in reference to the hack of the Democratic National Council emails that Wikileaks spreading them is "a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He obviously meant Russia.

    Compare that with his boss James Clapper who very recently said (again) that the "intelligence agencies don't have good insight on when or how Wikileaks obtained the hacked emails."

    Emails of the DNC and of Clinton's consigliere John Podesta were hacked and leaked. Additionally emails from Clinton's private email server were released. All these influenced the election in favor of Trump.

    Wikileaks boss Assange says he does not know where the emails come from but he does not think they came from Russia.

    Clapper and Carter wanted Rogers fired because he was generally disliked at the NSA, because two big breaches in the most secret Tailored Access Organization occurred on his watch even after the Snowden case and because he blocked, with the help of Senator McCain, plans to split the NSA into a spying and a cyber war unit.

    Now let me spin this a bit.

    Rogers obviously knew he was on the to-be-fired list and he had good relations with the Republicans.

    Now follows some plausible speculation:

    Some Rogers trusted dudes at the NSA (or in the Navy cyber arm which Rogers earlier led) hack into the DNC, Podesta emails and the Clinton private email server. An easy job with the tools the NSA provides for its spies. Whoever hacked the emails then pushes what they got to Wikileaks (and DCleaks , another "leak" outlet). Wikileaks publishes what it gets because that is what it usually does. Assange also has various reasons to hate Clinton. She was always very hostile to Wikileaks. She allegedly even mused of killing Assange by a drone strike.

    Rogers then accuses Russia of the breach even while the rest of the spying community finds no evidence for such a claim. That is natural to do for a military man who grew up during the cold war and may wish that war (and its budgets) back. It is also a red herring that will never be proven wrong or right unless the original culprit is somehow found.

    Next we know - Trump offers Rogers the Clapper job. He would replace the boss that wanted him fired.

    Rogers support for the new cold war will also gain him favor with the various weapon industries which will eventually beef up his pension.

    Some of the above is speculation. But it would make sense and explain the quite one-sided wave of leaks we saw during this election cycle.

    Even if it isn't true it would at least be a good script for a Hollywood movie on the nastiness of the inside fighting in Washington DC.

    Let me know how plausible you find the tale.

    Posted by b on November 19, 2016 at 02:14 PM | Permalink

    Comments woogs | Nov 19, 2016 2:29:47 PM | 1
    As the song goes, "Aim high, shoot low".

    Not sure about the speculation. There's justification for military spending beyond the cold war. Actually, the cold war could be sacrificed in order to re-prioritize military spending.

    In any case, Trump's proposed picks are interesting. I especially like the idea of Dana Rohrabacher as Secretary of State if it comes to pass.

    One thing for sure .... there's been so much 'fail' with the Obama years that there's an abundance of low-hanging fruit for Trump to feather his cap with success early on, which will give him a template for future successes. That depends largely on who his picks for key posts are, but there has seldom been so much opportunity for a new President as the one that greets Trump.

    It's there to be had. Let's hope that Trump doesn't blow it.

    jo6pac | Nov 19, 2016 2:36:32 PM | 2
    Sounds about right and this just means a new criminal class has taken over the beltway. That doesn't do anything for us citizens, just more of the same.

    Everything is on schedule and please there's nothing to see here.

    Jen | Nov 19, 2016 2:37:52 PM | 3
    I wonder if Rogers' statement appearing to implicate Russian government hackers in leaking DNC information to Wikileaks at that link to Twitter was made after the Democratic National Convention itself accused Russia of hacking into its database. In this instance, knowing when Rogers made his statement and when the DNC made its accusation makes all the difference.

    If someone at the NSA had been leaking information to Wikileaks and Rogers knew of this, then the DNC blaming Russia for the leaked information would have been a godsend. All Rogers had to do then would be to keep stumm and if questioned, just say a "nation state" was responsible. People can interpret that however they want.

    GoraDiva | Nov 19, 2016 2:38:45 PM | 4
    Any of the scenarios you mention could be right. The one thing that is certain - Russia was not the culprit. Not because Russians would not be inclined to hack - I think it is plausible that everyone hacks everyone (as someone said) - but Russians would not likely go to Wikileaks to publicize their prize. They'd keep it to themselves... in that way, they are probably like LBJ, who knew that Nixon had sabotaged the end-of-war negotiations in Paris in 1968, but said nothing for fear of shocking the "system" and the people's trust in it... (didn't work out too well in the end, though). Putin was right when he said (referring to the 2016 US election) that it all should somehow be ... more dignified.

    karlof1 | Nov 19, 2016 2:52:16 PM | 5
    Makes me wonder who populates the Anonymous group of loosely affiliated hackers and if they were used. The tale has probability; it would be even more interesting if the motive could be framed within the hacker's fulfilling its oath of obligation to the Constitution. Le Carre might be capable of weaving such a tale plausibly. But what about the Russia angle? IMO, Russia had the biggest motive to insure HRC wouldn't become POTUS despite all its denials and impartiality statements. Quien Sabe? Maybe it was Chavez's ghost who did all the hacking; it surely had an outstanding motive.

    PavewayIV | Nov 19, 2016 3:14:56 PM | 6
    I'll add some color on Rogers in another post, but I just want to preface any remarks with one overriding aspect of the leaks. From the details of most of these leaks, speculation on tech blogs (and as far as anyone knows for certain):

    There are many parties that had great incentive to acquire and leak the emails, but I have to insist with the utmost conviction (without a string of expletives) that a junior high school kid could have performed the same feat using hacking tools easily found on the internet . There was absolutely nothing technically sophisticated or NSA-like in someone's ability to get into the DNC server or grab Podesta's emails. It was a matter of opportunity and poor security. If anyone has a link to any other reasoning, I would love to see it. The DNC and Hillary leaks (among other hacks) were due to damn amateurish security practices. The reason you don't outsource or try to get by on the cheap for systems/network security is to reduce the risk of this happening to an acceptable cost/benefit level.

    So the presumption of Wikileaks source being (or needing to be) a state actor with incredibly sophisticated hacking tools is utter nonsense. Yes, it could have been the Russian FSB or any one of the five-eyes intelligence agencies or the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. But it could have just as plausibly been Bart Simpson pwning the DNC from Springfield Elementary School and sending everything to Wikileaks, "Cool, I just REKT the Clintons!"

    WikiLeaks doesn't care if the leak comes from the head of a western intel agency or a bored teenager in New Jersey. It cares that the material is authentic and carefully vets the content, not the source. At least until they kidnapped Assange and took over WikiLeaks servers a couple of weeks ago, but that's for a different tin-foil hat thread.

    Carol Davidek-Waller | Nov 19, 2016 3:18:02 PM | 7
    Is Trump that much of a deep thinker? Rebellious teenager who chooses anyone that the last administration didn't like seems more plausible to me. It doesn't matter who they are or what their record is. I don't think Trump plans to surrender any of his undeserved power to anyone. He'll be running the whole show. They'll do what he wants or be shown the door.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 3:42:42 PM | 8
    Here is another tale I find very plausible:

    rufus (aka "rufie") the MoA Hillbot uses a new persona - "Ron Showalter" - to attack Trump post-election. rufie/Ron conducts a false flag attack on MoA (making comments that are pages long) so that his new persona can claim that his anti-Trump views are being attacked by someone using his former persona.

    See here , here , and here .

    nmb | Nov 19, 2016 4:01:23 PM | 9
    One thing Trump could do immediately to signal that he is not with the establishment

    Qoppa | Nov 19, 2016 4:12:16 PM | 10
    I generally dislike "theories" that go too much into speculation, -- however this one sounds actually quite plausible!

    As for "Russia did it", this was obvious bullshit right from the start, not least because of what GoraDiva #4 says:
    I think it is plausible that everyone hacks everyone (as someone said) - but Russians would not likely go to Wikileaks to publicize their prize. They'd keep it to themselves

    Allegations against Russia worked on confusing different levels: hacking -- leaking -- "rigging".


    It was all like this :-)
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwI-ThzWIAApRki.jpg


    This picture encapsulates IMO the full absurdity this election campaign had come down to:
    MSM constantly bashing Trump for "lies", "post-factual", "populist rage", "hate speech", -- while themselves engaging in the same on an even larger level, in a completely irresponsible way that goes way beyond "bias", "preference" or even "propaganda".
    I understand (and like) the vote for Trump mainly as a call to "stop this insanity!"

    ~~~

    Some more on the issue:

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/10/really-really-upset-foreign-office-security-services/
    I left Julian [Assange] after midnight. He is fit, well, sharp and in good spirits. WikiLeaks never reveals or comments upon its sources, but as I published before a fortnight ago, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not any Russian state actor or proxy that gave the Democratic National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks.


    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/10/russia-hack-dnc-really.html


    And here about an inconspicuous detail suggesting one hacker actually planned to set up "Russians" as the source:
    https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/the-yandex-domain-problem-2076089e330b#

    Nice summary on Sputnik
    https://sputniknews.com/us/201610261046768902-dnc-hack-speculation-carr-interview/


    Qoppa | Nov 19, 2016 4:35:36 PM | 11
    btw, the "inside job" theory goes quite nicely with what we know about alleged traces to "Russians":

    https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/

    The following week, two cybersecurity firms, Fidelis Cybersecurity and Mandiant, independently corroborated Crowdstrike's assessment that Russian hackers infiltrated DNC networks, having found that the two groups that hacked into the DNC used malware and methods identical to those used in other attacks attributed to the same Russian hacking groups.

    But some of the most compelling evidence linking the DNC breach to Russia was found at the beginning of July by Thomas Rid, a professor at King's College in London, who discovered an identical command-and-control address hardcoded into the DNC malware that was also found on malware used to hack the German Parliament in 2015. According to German security officials, the malware originated from Russian military intelligence. An identical SSL certificate was also found in both breaches.

    Sooooo .... these "traces" all show known Russian methods (whether true or not). If they are known they can be faked and used by someone else.


    Now who is the no. 1 organisation, worldwide, in having and being capable to use such information?


    @b, your speculation gets better and better the more one thinks about it.


    IhaveLittleToAdd | Nov 19, 2016 4:58:27 PM | 12
    I'm out of my depth on cyber forensics, but would the NSA, and thus Clapper, know who hacked and leaked these documents? Or would the NSA be in the dark, as they suggest?

    Just watched Oliver Stone's "Snowden". Awesome. Can't believe after seeing it that Clapper has survived all these years. Just another Hoover.

    Posted by: Mina | Nov 19, 2016 5:18:42 PM | 13

    Just watched Oliver Stone's "Snowden". Awesome. Can't believe after seeing it that Clapper has survived all these years. Just another Hoover.

    Posted by: Mina | Nov 19, 2016 5:18:42 PM | 13

    Manne | Nov 19, 2016 6:35:17 PM | 14
    Sheer conspiracy talk, besides b are wrong on Assange, Assange know who leaked it and have denied that a nation is behind it!

    james | Nov 19, 2016 6:50:23 PM | 15
    thanks b.. i like the idea of it being an inside job.. makes a lot of sense too.

    i like @3 jens question about the timing as a possible aid to understanding this better.

    @4 gordiva comment - everyone hacks everyone comment..ditto. it's another form of warfare and a given in these times..

    i agree with @6 paveway, and while it sounds trite, folks who don't look after their own health can blame all the doctors.. the responsibility for the e mail negligence rests with hillary and her coterie of bozos..

    @7 carol. i agree.

    @8 jr.. did you happen to notice a few posts missing from the thread from yesterday and who it was that's been removed? hint : poster who made the comment "more popcorn" is no longer around. they have a new handle today..

    @20 manne.. you can say whatever you want and be speculative too, but i don't share your view on assange knowing who leaked it..

    stumpy | Nov 19, 2016 7:00:28 PM | 16
    Except that you have to consider the targeting. I've suspected an insider all along, given the pre-packaged spin points coordinated with the release vectors. Not that the Russies, Pakistanis, or Chinese wouldn't know more about the US than the US knows about itself, but the overall nuance really hits the anti-elitist spurned sidekick chord. This clashes a bit with b's interagency pissing match scenario, but, then again, you step on the wrong tail... Someone didn't get their piece of pie, or equally valid, someone really really disapproves of the pie's magnitude and relative position on the table.

    Curious how Weenergate led to the perfectly timed 650K emails on that remarkably overlooked personal device.

    MadMax2 | Nov 19, 2016 7:01:17 PM | 17
    @20 Manne
    Yes I think on this case Assange does know, if I remember correctly, he spoke to RT and said something to the effect of 'it's not Russia, we don't reveal our sources but if the DNC found out who it was they would have "egg on their faces"' ...and easy access, copy, paste, send job, my hunch it was the DNC staffer who was suicided.

    Manne | Nov 19, 2016 7:05:51 PM | 18
    James

    Its what Assange himself says, do your homework, as someone else said here, Wikileaks wont reveal the source, that doesnt mean they dont know who leaked it.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 19, 2016 7:05:53 PM | 19
    Is Trump that much of a deep thinker? Rebellious teenager who chooses anyone that the last administration didn't like seems more plausible to me. It doesn't matter who they are or what their record is. I don't think Trump plans to surrender any of his undeserved power to anyone. He'll be running the whole show. They'll do what he wants or be shown the door.
    Posted by: Carol Davidek-Waller | Nov 19, 2016 3:18:02 PM | 7

    I agree.
    Trump's got charm and a good memory and doesn't need to be a deep thinker in order to network efficiently and listen carefully. Nor does he need to be a mathematician to figure out that 1 + 1 = 2.

    james | Nov 19, 2016 7:07:22 PM | 20
    @24 manne.. okay, thanks..

    Oddlots | Nov 19, 2016 7:32:04 PM | 21
    Has anyone else got the feeling that much of the panic inside Washington is due to the possibility that the crimes of the Obama administration might be exposed?

    One of the most uncanny moments I've experienced watching the Syria crisis unfold is seeing the "Assad gasses his people" operation launched, fail miserably, then - mostly - interest is lost. I know: the lie, once asserted, has done most of its work already, debunked or not. I also understand that the western press is so in the tank for the establishment, so "captured" that it shouldn't surprise anyone that no follow up is offered. My point is, rather, that if you think back over just the Ukrainian and Syrian debacle the amount of dirt that could be exposed by a truly anti-establishment figure in the White House is mind boggling.

    Just off the top of my head:

    - the sabotage of the deal to save the Ukrainian constitutional order brokered by Putin, Merkel and Hollande c/o of the excuisitely timed and staged sniper shootings (otherwise known as the "most obvious coup in history")
    - the farce that is the MH17 inquiry (and the implication: another false flag operation with a cut-out that killed, what was it, 279 innocents?)
    - the Kherson pogrom and the Odessa massacre
    - the targeting of both Libya and Syria with outright lies and with all the propaganda perfectly reflecting the adage that, in dis- info operations, the key is to accuse your enemies of all the crimes you are committing or planning to
    - highlights of the above might include: Robert Ford's emails scheming to create "paranoia" in Damascus while completely justifying same; the "rat-lines" and Ghoutta gas operation; the farcically transparent White Helmets Psy-op *

    And on and on...

    If you or the institution that pays you had a closet full to bursting with skeletons like this and you were facing an incoming administration that seems to relish and flaunt it's outsider status wouldn't you be freaking out?

    To ice the cake the latest Freudian slip is the crusade against "fake news." Seriously, if I were in their shoes that's the last phrase I would want people ruminating over. I think it was R. D. Laing who said "we always speak the truth." One way or another.


    * This comes with the delicious irony that the operation's own success offers proof of the adage that sometimes you can succeed too well. The fact that the Omran photo was plastered across every paper in the west is good evidence of how completely "fake" our news has become. My favourite is this farcical interview between Amanpour and Lavrov: https://youtu.be/Tx8kiQyEkHc

    MadMax2 | Nov 19, 2016 7:53:11 PM | 22
    @27 Oddlots
    Most of those are pretty easy picking under a firm rule of law - plenty of underling rats willing to squeal with even gentle pressure, I'm sure.

    His legacy is horrific.

    Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years... It would be sweet, sweet poetry to see him nailed... his 'white papers', formed in secret courts that no one can see, no oversight in the light of day... phony legal documents that allowed him to incinerate fellow humans via drone without charge, without trial...

    Some brother, some nobel prize...

    Circe | Nov 19, 2016 8:37:46 PM | 23
    95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.

    And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job. He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get the death penalty for treason.

    Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,".

    That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up the Iran deal.

    Many of you here are extremely naďve regarding Trump.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 8:53:09 PM | 24
    James @21 I noticed the different handle but b hasn't commented on the attack. I assumed that this meant that b didn't know for sure who did the attack.

    As I wrote, rufus/Ron made himself the prime suspect when he described the attack as an attempt to shut down his anti-Trump message. Some of us thought that it might be a lame attempt to discredit rufus but only "Ron" thought that the attack was related to him.

    If one doesn't believe - as I do - that Ron = rufus then you might be less convinced that rufus did the deed.

    Gaianne | Nov 19, 2016 9:43:45 PM | 25
    @20 Manne--

    Yes, it is important to remember that Assange, though he did not state that he knew who provided the DNC emails, implied that he did, and further implied--but did not state--that it was Seth Rich. Assange's statement came shortly after Rich's death by shooting. Assange stated he specifically knew people had people had risked their lives uploading material, implying that they had in fact lost them.

    --Gaianne

    Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 10:20:57 PM | 26
    b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run by a deep-state faction that found the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.
    Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet.The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon -unfriendly President was elected.

    Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The 'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to fund security agencies and buy arms.

    And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the "peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.

    What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military) , the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.

    And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh?

    The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:

    >> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?

    >> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only check on elites are other elite factions? An enormous cultural failure that has produced a brittle social fabric.

    >> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow the another to gain power?

    Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction or a real attempt at a 'color revolution'.

    ben | Nov 19, 2016 11:33:40 PM | 27
    Plausible as hell b.

    b said also.."Rogers support for the new cold war will also gain him favor with the various weapon industries which will eventually beef up his pension."


    That's the long game for most of the "Hawks" in DC. Perpetual war is most profitable.

    And, that game transcends both parties.

    Circe | Nov 19, 2016 11:52:44 PM | 28
    @32

    What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.

    Oh please! Trump is stacking his cabinet with Iran-obsessed Islam haters! Nominal enemy , my ass! And was every candidate for spending a Trillion more on defense??? Did you even read Trump's plan to build up the military?

    You do Netanyahu proud with your deflection. What? Nothing regarding Pompeo's blistering comments on Russia or Ed Snowden?

    Why are you trying to diminish the threat to Iran with the hawks, Islam-haters, and Iran-obsessed team that Trump cobbled together so far?

    Trump's Israel adviser David Friedman is known to be more extreme than even Netanyahu.

    No doubt Netanyahu has unleashed an army of IDF hasbara to crush criticism of Trump and his Iran-obsessed cabinet because he must be elated with his choices and wants to make them palatable to the American sheeple.

    Netanyahu is the first leader Trump spoke with on the phone. Trump praised Netanyahu from day one. PNAC and Clean Break were war manifestos for rearranging the Middle East with the ultimate goal of toppling Iran.

    Trump and his cabinet are all about tearing up the deal and assuming a much more hostile position with Iran. Tearing up the deal is a precursor to a casus belli. What more proof is there that Trump is doing the bidding of Zionist Neocons??? Oh, but you don't want more, do you?

    Your comment reeks of duplicity and sophistry.

    psychohistorian | Nov 20, 2016 1:28:45 AM | 29
    I always try to "follow the money" concept.

    As chipnik noted in a comment, Iran is one of the only countries that is yet to be under the control of private finance (see my latest Open Thread comments, please)

    I personally see all this as obfuscation covering for throwing Americans under the bus by the global plutocrats. The elite can see, just like us, that the US empire's usefulness is beyond its "sold by" date and are acting accordingly. America and its Reserve Currency status are about to crash and the elites are working to preserve their supra-national private finance base of power/control while they let America devolve to who knows what level.

    Too much heat and not enough light here...or if you prefer, the noise to signal ratio is highly skewed to noise.

    psychohistorian | Nov 20, 2016 1:31:46 AM | 30
    And in support of my noise to signal comment there is this comment I made recently in the MoA Fake News posting:

    So is this real or fake news? Trump meeting with folks this week to expand his personal business interests in India....EGAD!

    http://www.ebhsoc.org/journal/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/6/6

    Crimes involving moral turpitude have an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, or depravity with respect to a person's duty to another or to society in general.

    Given the above Trump would not be allowed to immigrate to the US.....just saying...

    Manne | Nov 20, 2016 3:50:10 AM | 31

    Assange: No state actor behind the leak.
    http://fortune.com/2016/11/03/julian-assange-wikileaks-russia-podesta-emails/

    the pair | Nov 20, 2016 3:55:42 AM | 32
    the shadowbrokers say they have NSA malware/tools and to prove it after their auction was met with crickets riding tumbleweeds they released some teaser info on NSA servers used for proxy attacks and recon. of course a few just happened to be "owned" boxes in russia (and china and some other places for that matter). add their russian IP addresses to some (mostly useless) sigantures associated with supposedly russian-designed malware and you've got some good circumstantial evidence.

    also: an email address associated with one or more attacks is from a russian site/domain but whoever registered was directed to the .com domain instead of the .ru one. this probably means someone got sloppy and didn't remember to check their DNS for fail.

    in general these hacks look less like russians and more like someone who wants to look like russians. the overpaid consultants used by the DNC/clinton folks can put "bear" in the names and claim that a few bits of cyrillic are a "slam dunk" but all the "evidence" is easily faked. not that anyone in the "deep state" would ever fake anything.

    Harry | Nov 20, 2016 5:35:50 AM | 33
    @ Jackrabbit | 26

    Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran.

    I worry about it as well. Trump said he'll tear up nuclear agreement, and the people he is choosing also have rabid anti-Iranian agenda.

    Nice start for Trump:

    Thursday US House voted to stop civilian aircraft sales to Iran by both Boeing and Airbus.

    Few days before - US extending economic sanctions against Iran through 2026.

    Of course Trump can block it, but will he? Even if he does, he might blackmail Iran for something in return, etc. Iran is by no means off the hook for neocons and Israel, and I wouldnt be surprised if Trump follows the suit.

    Trump will (or might) have better relations with Russia, but this cordiality doesnt extend to Iran. Or as Jackrabbit says, US neocons will simply switch the targeted state and Iran may soon become "worse threat to humanity than ISIS", again.

    FecklessLeft | Nov 20, 2016 7:12:24 AM | 34
    @33

    I doubt separating the animosity towards Russia and Iran is even possible. Truth be told his comments towards Russia during the election seemed more like he was woefully unaware of the reality of the Russo-American situation in the Mideast than about being ready to negotiate major US power positions and accept Russia as anything more than enemy. Sounded very off the cuff to me. Maybe he thought he'd 'get along great with Putin' at the time but after realizing later that means making nice with Iran and giving up a large measure of US influence in the MENA he has reconsidered and taken the party line. It'd certainly be understandable for a noncareer politician. I'd imagine he'd be more interested now in currying favour with the MIC and the typical Republican party hawks than with Russia/Putin given his statements on military spending. Back when I saw him bow down at the altar of AIPAC earlier in the season I had trouble reconciling that with how he hoped to improve relationships with Russia at the same time given their radical differences wrt their allies. He's made a lot of those type of statements too, it was hard to read where he stood on most any issue during election season.

    I imagine as he's brought into the fold and really shown the reality of how US imperialist power projection he'll change his mind considerably. I think we, as readers and amateur analysts of this type of material, take for granted how hard some of this knowledge is to come by without looking for it directly. When we hear someone is going to make nice with Russia we want to think "well he says that as he must surely recognize the insanity and destructive forces at work." Maybe it's more of a case where the person speaking actually thinks we're in Syria to fight ISIS - that they have very little grasp of how things really work over there.

    In my eyes the names he's been considering are reason for much worry for those hoping Trump would be the one to usher in a multipolar world and end the cold war. I never had much hope in that regard (but I'm still praying for the best).

    Oui | Nov 20, 2016 7:45:56 AM | 35
    Figment of imagination ...

    Putin has been supporting right-wing movements across the West in order to weaken NATO

    Care to back this statement with arguments, examples ar a link to an excellent article?

    Looking at most of "New Europe", it's the other way around ... fascist states allied with Nazi Germany against communism, participating in massacres of Jewish fellow citizens and functioning as a spearhead for US intelligence against communism after the defeat of Nazi Germany – see Gladio. Now used by the CIA in the coup d'état in Ukraine in Februari 2014.

    Ahhh ... searched for it myself, a paper written earlier in 2016 ... how convenient!

    Putinism and the European Far Right | IMR|

    The paper, authored by Alina Polyakova , Ph.D., deputy director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council , was originally presented at the 2015 ASEEES Annual Convention.

    Policy set by the Atlantic Council years ago: make Russia a pariah state . Written about it many times. BS and more western propaganda. The West has aligned itself with jihadists across the globe, Chechnya included. Same as in Afghanistan, these terrorists were called "freedom fighters". See John McCain in northern Syria with same cutthroats.

    Absolutely outrageous! See her twitter account with followers/participants Anne Applebaum and former and now discredited Poland's FM Radoslaw Sikorski .

    Pitiful and so uninformed!

    Posted earlier @BT - To the Stake .. Burn the Heretic

    Yonatan | Nov 20, 2016 7:58:10 AM | 36
    "Emails of the DNC and of Clinton's consigliere John Podesta were hacked and leaked. Additionally emails from Clinton's private email server were released. All these influenced the election in favor of Trump."

    Not necessarily so. An informal poll of people in blue collar flyover country about their voting intentions prior to the election expressed 4 common concerns

    i) The risk of war.
    ii) The Obamacare disaster especially recent triple digit percent increase in fees.
    iii) Bringing back jobs.
    iv) Punishing the Democrat Party for being indistinguishable from the Republicans.

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/when-shouting-stops.html

    Newsboy | Nov 20, 2016 8:23:05 AM | 37
    Fascists usually start off doing a lot of good work in the honeymoon-period.
    Here we go!

    Jackrabbit | Nov 20, 2016 9:03:25 AM | 38
    Circe @28

    We shouldn't take Trump's bluster at face value. For example, Trump said that he'd eliminate Obamacare. Now he has backed off that saying that some elements of Obamacare are worthwhile.

    Trump called for a strong military while attacking Hillary as "trigger happy" . The implication is clear - Trump would not be looking for wars like Hillary would.

    That the Israeli head of state is one of the first foreign leaders that any President-elect speaks to is no surprise. That you harp on what is essentially nonsense is telling.

    In my view Trump is not anti-Jewish. He is anti-neocon/anti-Zionist. As Bannon said, America has been getting f*cked.

    john | Nov 20, 2016 9:18:04 AM | 39
    Oddlots @ 21 says:

    To ice the cake the latest Freudian slip is the crusade against "fake news."

    i see it more as another mindfucking meme than a Freudian slip. another paean to Discordia, the goddess of chaos. we've lived with 'fake news,' heretofore advertised by reliable sources , since forever. baptizing this bastardized melange only sinks us deeper into dissonant muck.

    Jules | Nov 20, 2016 10:12:03 AM | 40
    One would hope if that is true - Trump recognises this and fires him as well rather than promoting him.

    However, if he were instrumental in getting Trump elected it is understandable if Trump decided to promote him.

    It's well-known and clear Trump rewards those who have done him favours.

    Let us hope it is not true.

    The first thing Trump must do when elected is declassify all material related to MH17. This can be done in late January/ February as one of his first orders of business.

    It's important to do this quickly - at least before the Dutch Elections in March 2017.

    #MH17truth

    If Trump does this he will do a number of things.

    1 - Likely reveal that it was the Ukrainians who were involved in shooting down MH17. I say likely because it's possible this goes deeper than just Ukraine - if that's the case - more the better.

    2. He will destroy the liar Porky Poroshenko and his corrupt regime with him. He will destroy Ukraine's corrupt Government's relationship with Europe.

    3. He will destroy the sell-out traitor to his own people Mark Rutte of Netherlands. This will ensure an election win for a key Trump ally - Geert Wilders.

    If Rutte is discredited for using the deaths of 200 Dutch citizens for his own political gain - he is finished and might end up in jail.

    4. He will destroy Merkel utterly. Her chances of re-election (which she just announced she will stand!) will be utterly destroyed.

    5. He will restory Russia-USA relations in an instant.

    Trump must also do this ASAP because this is the kind of thing that could get him killed if he doesn't do it ASAP when he's inaugurated.

    Of course - until then - he should keep his mouth shut about it - but the rest of us should be shouting it all around the Internet.

    #MH17truth
    #MH17truth
    #MH17truth
    #MH17truth
    #MH17truth

    Then - after that - he can move to do the same for September 11.

    MH17 must come first ASAP because of the Dutch Elections and the chance to remove that globalist traitor to his own people Rutte.

    Denis | Nov 20, 2016 10:19:43 AM | 41
    b: "Let me know how plausible you find the tale."

    Very, very, very plausible. Yes! (Fist-pump)

    And very well documented, too. Sort of like the theory that 9/11 was carried out by the Boy Scouts of America. After all, the boost in jingoism and faux-patriotism gave the BSA a boost in revenue and membership, so that pretty well proves it, eh?

    And if you dig deep enough I'm sure you'll find that on 9/10 the BSA shorted their stocks in United.

    Yo! (Double fist-pump)

    Jules | Nov 20, 2016 10:35:24 AM | 42
    Re: Posted by: Oddlots | Nov 19, 2016 7:32:04 PM | 21

    Totally agree Oddlots and that is why Trump must be on the front foot immediately.

    Exposing MH17 and destroying Poroshenko, Rutte & Merkel - and Biden & Obama by the way and a bunch of others is absolutely key.

    Blow MH17 skyhigh and watch Russia-USA relations be restored in a nanosecond.

    It will be especially sweet to watch the Dutch traitor to his own people Rutte destroyed in the midst of an election campaign such that he might end up in jail charged with treason and replaced by Geert Wilders - the Dutch Donald Trump if ever there was one - within a matter of weeks.

    However, a word of caution, it is precisely because of these possibilities that there has to be a high chance Trump will be assassinated.

    Pence would not walk that line. Not at all.

    There is no doubt Trump's life is in danger. I hope he has enough good people around him who will point the finger in the right direction if and when it happens.

    Because frankly I doubt it.

    juliania | Nov 20, 2016 10:37:15 AM | 43
    I think it's a bit of a stretch. First of all, there are other, deeper areas of investigative matters concerning previous governments of the US, impeachable offenses and international crimes - remember when Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table? Not to mention, what did happen in Benghazi and why? It wouldn't matter who did that hacking of those emails- it's a bit like the exposure of the White House tapes in Nixon's presidency. We didn't worry about who revealed that - we went to the issues themselves. I think that is what Trump is doing as he brings people to his home for conversations. It is the opposite of Obama's 'moving forward, not looking back'. Trump is going to look back. It's not about reinstating the cold war; it's about gathering information.

    Do we want another Obama? I don't think so.


    Jules | Nov 20, 2016 10:43:57 AM | 44
    Re: Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 19, 2016 10:20:57 PM | 26

    I think Saudi Arabia are the ones who should be scared. Trump has implied before he knows who is responsible for September 11.

    My guess is he wants to expose Saudi Arabia and the Bush Family.

    Ever wondered why the Bushes hate and appear frightened of Trump? Because they understand he will expose their complicity in September 11 and potentially have them locked up.

    Or perhaps he'll let Dubya off claiming he didn't know in return for a favour and lock up Dick Cheney instead. Quite possible.

    The Saudis will get thrown down the river and lose any assets they hold in US Dollars - a significant amount I believe!

    Sucks to be a Saudi Royal right about now - they better liquidate their US assets ASAP if they have any brains.

    lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:49:04 AM | 45
    Retired UK ambassador Craig Murray said on his Web site, after meeting with Assange and then traveling to Washington where he met with former NSA officials, that he was 100 percent sure that Wikileaks's source was not the Russians and also suggested that the leaks came from inside the U.S. government.

    lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:52:19 AM | 46
    Pursue the truth about 9/11, and you'll also find guilty paties in Israel (as well as Pakistan). Is Trump willing to do that?

    lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:54:41 AM | 47
    Guilty parties

    Jules | Nov 20, 2016 11:02:05 AM | 48
    Re: Posted by: lysias | Nov 20, 2016 10:52:19 AM | 46

    That would seem to be the truth wouldn't it, but I doubt he'd go that far down the rabbit hole? How would that serve him?

    He'd go as far down as Saudi Arabia & Pakistan - and yes, that would serve his purpose for "enemies".

    It would also serve Israel's interests. I can't imagine he'd go as far as to expose Israel - why would he? His life would then be in danger!

    james | Nov 20, 2016 11:49:01 AM | 49
    @24 jr.. i found the rs guy to be quite repugnant..rufus never came across quite the same way to me, but as always - i could be wrong! i see pac is gone today and been replaced with another name, lol.. and the beat goes on.. b has deleted posts and must be getting tired of them too.

    @31 manne.. thanks.. does that rule out an insider with the nsa/cia as well?

    @34 fecklessleft.. i agree with your last paragraph..

    @36 yonatan.. i agree with that alternative take myself..

    @40 jules.. would be nice to see happen, but most likely an exercise in wishful thinking.. sort of the same with your @44 too.. the saudis need to be taken down quite a few notches.. the usa/israel being in bed with the headchopper cult has all the wrong optics for suggesting anything positive coming from usa/israel..


    Robert Beal | Nov 20, 2016 12:04:35 PM | 50
    #1 election story, from 3 (indirectly 4) separate investigative journalists.

    Also, see Sputnik comments at bottom of:

    https://sputniknews.com/radio_the_bradcast/201611171047576289-us-election-exit-polls/

    h | Nov 20, 2016 12:11:40 PM | 51
    b says 'Next we [can speculate] - Trump offers Rogers the Clapper job. He would replace the boss that wanted him fired.' There, fixed it.

    There appears to be a growing canyon in the intelligence world with some wanting to rid the Office of the National Intelligence agency altogether, while others are lobbying for it to remain.

    Recall the 50+ intelligence analysts who went on record that the higher ups within the spying apparatus were cooking the books on Syria and the Islamic State - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html

    Remember when Obama referred to the rise of the Islamic State as the 'JV team'? That nonchalant attitude by Obama towards the growing threat of the head choppers in Iraq and Syria was squarely placed on senior management within the intelligence community -

    "Two senior analysts at CENTCOM signed a written complaint sent to the Defense Department inspector general in July alleging that the reports, some of which were briefed to President Obama, portrayed the terror groups as weaker than the analysts believe they are. The reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration's public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda's branch in Syria, the analysts claim."

    Who knows, Rogers may very well have been one in senior management who encouraged these 50 analysts to come forward. Maybe the IG investigation is wrapping up and at least internally, the senior management who made intel reports to Obama full of 'happy talk' have been identified and are now leaving on their own.

    Maybe Rogers is a 'White Hat' as is being suggested by the CTH - https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/11/19/shadow-fight-angst-within-obama-admin-as-intel-community-white-hats-align-w-trump/

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 1:25:22 PM | 52
    @38

    We shouldn't take Trump's bluster at face value. For example, Trump said that he'd eliminate Obamacare. Now he has backed off that saying that some elements of Obamacare are worthwhile.

    For crying out loud! I don't give a rat's ass about Obamacare when he outlined a plan to boost the military by a trillion dollars and stacks his cabinet with crazy Iran-obsessed hawks who want to start a world war over effing Iran! And you're deflecting this with freakin' Obamacare -- It's speaks volumes about your credibility!

    Trump is anti-Zionist??? Ha! His adviser to Israel David Friedman is an extreme right-wing Zionist! Or do you just prefer to completely ignore fact and reality???

    And Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo can't stand Putin and their comments and record are there - FACT!

    And Trump didn't only tell Hillary he was going to build up the military; he outlined it later in his plan with facts and figures and it's going to cost about a Trillion dollars, so quit comparing it to a gradual phasing out of Obamacare!

    Okay, you know what? I see right through your little game. Unless you have something cogent with factual backup; I don't wanna read your responses based on pure fantasy and deflection. I look at the cold, hard facts and reality. I look at who Trump is surrounding himself with rabid Islam-haters obsessed with going after Iran and extremist Zionist loons and hawks like Pompeo and Pence making disturbing comments on Russia and Snowden and Trump's plan. So quit pretending you're not trying to obscure fact with fiction meant to deceive!

    Quadriad | Nov 20, 2016 1:37:31 PM | 53
    #23 Circe

    "...and not a regular war where 300,000 people die..."

    - Regular? So, you're calling an aggression on Syria just a 'Regular' war, on par with the course? The very least the Americans have to do, including those given the 'Nobel Peace Prize' (a bloody joke if there ever was one)? And those regular wars are needed to, what, regularly feed and the US MIC Beast? So... Obama and Hillary were just getting on with the inevitable?

    Your other observations regarding Pompeo are more meaningful, but I think you underestimate the power of groupthink under the Clinton-Bush-Obama continuous administration complex. Anyway, if Pompeo doesn't wish to get "reassigned", he might be better off unmounting the neocon horse mindset and getting on better with the Tea Party dogma, where the enemies of thy enemies are more likely to be seen as friends then frenemies.

    #34 Feckless Left

    In a sense you are right, he is not a career politician and he might be underestimating the depth of the abyss. Yet, he has far more street cred than you seem to be giving him credit for. An honest, naive idealist, he is certainly not...

    Lozion | Nov 20, 2016 1:51:14 PM | 54
    Circe, I have addressed your panic about Iran in another thread and you failed to reply so again:

    "Even if true that the future administration would shift its focus against Iran, what can they accomplish militarily against it? Nought. SAA & ISA would send militias to support Iran, nothing would prevent Russia from using Hamedan airbase just as it uses Hmeimim and deploy S-400 et al systems to bolster Iran's already existing ones. Plus on what grounds politically could they intervene? Nobody is buying Bibi's "Bomb" bs seriously anymore. Forget it, with Syria prevailing Iran is safe.."

    Jackrabbit | Nov 20, 2016 1:57:06 PM | 55
    @Circe

    If Trump is so friendly with Zionists, why did they go crazy when Bannon was named as a senior adviser?

    And, neocon angst about the Trump Administration is well summed up by Cohen's tweet :

    After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly.

    S.H.E. | Nov 20, 2016 2:03:31 PM | 56
    Oddlots #21. insightful. you ignored the entire list on the financial side, but they are linked through the profound mutual support between Israel and Wall Street.

    I have been really surprised at the lack of discussion of BHO's impromptu post-election tour of Germany and Greece. It seems to me Egypt flipped and it was met with silence, because WashDC must be secured before the neocons can respond. But the two countries that are game-set-match are Germany and Greece. The Greek navy with German support is a great power in the Mediterranean. How convenient to keep them at each other's throats for a decade. I think BHO was trying desperately to keep them onside. But he would either have to promise them something that he can no longer deliver after Jan 20th...or he has to clue them in to a different timeline than the one we think is playing out. Anyone have a idea why the Prez had to go and talk to Merkel and Tsipras *without intermediaries?*

    Nick | Nov 20, 2016 2:22:33 PM | 57
    Today Putin meeting Obama in Peru. Like, you lost nigga!
    https://cdnbr2.img.sputniknews.com/images/623/35/6233517.jpg

    TheRealDonald | Nov 20, 2016 2:47:05 PM | 58
    28

    Having now founded a central bank in every nation of the world, the Khazars have defeated the Pope and the Caliphate. Only Iran and North Korea don't have a Khazar central bank. And only Iran has the last stash of crown jewels and gold bullion that the Khazars don't already control.

    They want Iran as part of Greater Israel, and they hate Russia for driving them out after the fall of the Soviet Union. The Khazars control the American Union under a Red/Blue Star. Just talking ethnics, not race, religion or creed, since Hebrew is a religion of pure commercial convenience for the Khazars.

    US and IL are therefore aligned against IR and RU. Now we can get rid of all the race, religion or creed crap, and talk New Math set theory: {US,IL} ≠ {IR,RU}

    Who are {US,IL} sanctions against? {IR,RU}. In this new Trump' Administration: {TA} ⊆ {US,IL}, and {TA} ⊄ {IR,RU}. From a chess perspective, Putin just got Kieningered, because the Khazars would have everyone believe that {TA} ❤ {RU}, when in reality, {TA} ∩ {RU} = {Ř}.

    On to {IR}!!

    ben | Nov 20, 2016 2:55:01 PM | 59
    I'm fully expecting a radical change in rhetoric coming from Mr. Trump and his new team, but little else. The REAL movers and shakers who run the U$A have everything moving their direction right now, so why change? I expect "the Donald" to do as he's
    told, like every other POTUS in modern history. They'll let him screw the workers, but, not the REAL owners of the U$A( 1%).

    TheRealDonald | Nov 20, 2016 2:59:20 PM | 60
    55

    You don't know? Before he died, my father told me a trick. Once the bloom was off their marriage, his wife would deliberately provoke his heavy-handed management of the family, by doing whatever he didn't want. So he learned to always 'go crazy' over things, knowing that's exactly what she would do to spite him, ...and in that way, using 'reverse psychology', the Khazars would have you believe that they hate Trump, and Trump loves Russia. They're just putting the Maidan gears into motion.

    Like taking c__ from a (ಥ‸ಥ).

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:14:41 PM | 61
    If Trump is considering Mitt Romney for SoS then you can bet his policy towards Russia will be hostile because the only reason Trump would put someone between himself and Putin, who repeatedly called Russia, America's No. 1 enemy, is because he wants a bad cop on Russia in the State Department, in spite of his supposed good cop remarks regarding Putin. In other words, he wants someone who can put it straight to Putin so he himself can pretend to be the good cop. If Trump were being honest regarding a softening in policy with Russia do you really believe he would ever consider someone like Romney for SoS??? Again, Mitt Romney has made the most scathing comments of anyone against Putin, and then calling Russia the number one geopolitical enemy of the U.S. . Many on the Democratic and even Republican side felt he went overboard and many have since called his comment prophetic and today Romney feels vindicated.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/30/romney-again-makes-case-russia-most-dangerous-foe-amid-syrian-air-strikes.html

    Many analysts on the Democratic side and Republican side are calling Romney prophetic since he made that statement on Russia before Russia messed with U.S. plans for Syria.

    So, my point is this; it's possible, it's very possible that, Mike Pompeo, Trump's choice for CIA Director, who also has a hostile position towards Russia asked Trump to consider Romney because he know doubt also believes that Romney proved good foresight with that comment regarding Russia and urged Trump to give Romney a meeting.

    My 2nd point is this: quit trying to make Trump into what he's not when he's spelling it all out for you in black and white!

    It doesn't look good. This picture that's starting to develop is looking worse by the day. Look at who he's surrounding himself with; look at his actions and forget about his words. This man has sold ice to the eskimos in his business dealings. Look at the facts. Trump is not who you think he is and just because he made some comments favorable in Putin's regard doesn't mean he's not going to turn around and stick it to Putin a year or maybe a few years down the line. Kissinger told Fareed Zakaria today on GPS: One should not insist in nailing Trump to positions he took during the campaign.

    I already wrote that I believe Trump is using this fake softer strategy to get Russia to look sideways on a coming Resolution to invade Iran and then he's going to deal with Putin and Russia.

    If Trump picks someone like Romney for State; he'll have 3 individuals in the most important cabinet positions dealing with foreign policy and foreign enemies who will be hostile to Russia: VP, CIA Director and SoS. Therefore he would be sending his bad cop to deal with Russia and sending a message to Putin like: Don't put your money on whatever I said during the campaign, my positions are changing for the empire's benefit and strategic interests. And even if he doesn't choose Mitt, because on Breitbart where his base convenes they're up in arms about this meeting, I would still be wary of his direction because of the picks he's made already; the majority of his cabinet so far want war with Iran and his VP and CIA Director can't stand Putin and then looking at who's advising him, rabid Neocon Zionists like James Woolsey and David Friedman.

    Look at what Trump does, who he's meeting with, who he's choosing to surround himself with and quit hanging on what he said, because talk is cheap, especially coming from someone who's now in the inner circle of American power.

    @55

    Please don't give me one measly Cohen tweet as fact! The entire Zionist Organization of America came to Bannon's defense and he will be attending their gala! It's been made public everywhere; so quit obscuring the truth.

    @54

    Yes, Russia could come to Iran's defense considering Iran allowed for Russia's use of that air base for Syria and rescued one of the two Russian pilots shot down by Turkey, and is fighting al-Nusra shoulder to shoulder with Russia, but the empire has something up its sleeve to stop Russia from coming to the defense of Iran, should the U.S. and Israel decide to circumvent the Security Council. Something stinks; Trump is top loading his cabinet with crazy, Iran-obsessed hawks and his VP and CIA Direct also have no love for Putin. They're planning something against Iran and I know they're going to do something to tie Putin's hands. Something's up and it's going to lead to war beyond Syria. Look the Russians are already depleting resources in Syria; already that puts Russia in a weakened position. I don't know what they're planning but it's not good. The picture unfolding with Trump's cabinet is very disturbing.

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:35:38 PM | 62
    There's another aspect and maybe it's significant and maybe not that could influence a change in Trump's position on Russia that would have also made him take the extreme step of meeting with Romney while considering the SoS position. Trump is getting the highest level of security briefings now that he's President-elect. You wanna bet that Russia and Putin are mentioned in over 50% of those briefings and ISIS, Iran and others get the other 50% collectively???

    Jackrabbit | Nov 20, 2016 3:41:53 PM | 63
    @Circe

    Hasbara hysteria to undermine Trump. Unrelenting bullshit and innuendo.

    What was Bannon talking about when he said that America is getting f*cked? Globalism vs. Nationalism. Who equates nationalism with nazism? Zionists. Who is butt-hurt over Trump Presidency? Zionists and neocons.

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:47:15 PM | 64
    @63

    Unrelenting bullshit and innuendo.

    Yep, describes your weak deception to a T! ...like I'm going to hang on Bannon's word as gospel when he's going to be wining and dining with Zionists at the ZOA gala.

    Try again.

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 3:54:39 PM | 65
    Oh, and one more thing: Zionists, FYI, relate very well with nationalists and supremacists since they got their own nationalist, supremacist operation in ISRAEL! So I'm only too sure they'll be commiserating and exchanging ideas on how best to secure their nationalist, supremacist vision for the empire. There's a whole lot of common ground for them to cover during the gala, and YOU CAN'T AND DIDN'T DENY THAT BANNON IS ATTENDING THE ZIONIST GALA! Did you???

    So again, quit dogging me, quit presuming I'm some undercover hasbara, that maybe you are, and spare me the bullshit.

    Circe | Nov 20, 2016 4:59:44 PM | 66
    As if we didn't need anymore proof of where Trump is taking the U.S.: Trump tweeted a comment highly praising General James Mattis after their meeting considering him for Secretary of Defense. This is a major, major red flag signalling a very troubling direction in Trump's foreign policy.

    Mattis served for two years as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. Although, he served under Obama, he was against the Iran deal and considers Iran more dangerous that ISIS!

    Mattis is nicknamed "mad-dog mattis" for a reason: he is an extreme hawk and he is MIC incorporated.

    But here's the kicker, Mattis like Pompeo, Pence and Romney has also made blistering comments against Russia, stating that Putin wants to break up NATO, sent "dogs and thugs" into Georgia and has been very critical of Putin's actions in Ukraine and Syria.

    At the beginning of the primaries, Neocons wanted Mattis as a candidate for the Presidency on the Republican side. I like how the following article describes just how much Neocon war hawks salivated over the thought of Mattis in the White House:

    http://original.antiwar.com/daniel-mcadams/2016/04/25/neocons-panting-president-mad-dog-mattis/

    Well folks, Mattis, the darling of Neocons, will be in the White House next to Trump advising him on war strategy! And worst of all this mad-dog Neocon war hawk is going to run the Pentagon, oversee a trillion-dollar military expansion and command the next world war!

    So are you convinced yet that Trump is perpetuating the Neocon PNAC/Clean Break plan or are you still totally blind???

    Harry | Nov 20, 2016 5:17:23 PM | 67
    More and more troubling news from Trump camp and his party, but lets not make snap judgements. We'll see soon enough.

    jfl | Nov 20, 2016 5:24:10 PM | 68
    @34 fl, 'In my eyes the names he's been considering are reason for much worry for those hoping Trump would be the one to usher in a multipolar world and end the cold war. I never had much hope in that regard (but I'm still praying for the best).'

    Trump is in it for Trump. He's a solipsist. We and our 'real world' doesn't exist for Trump. He lives in Trump Tower. The only things he cares about are his personal interests. He'll put in people to 'run the government' who will insulate him and his interests from the consequences of their actions and that'll keep him happy and them in their jobs, no matter the consequences for our 'imaginary' real world. We're back to the mad Caesars. Our government has been steadily walking away from us since Bush XLI. It's on the run now, we're up to Nero. We 'barbarians' need to take care of our real world in its absence, prepare ourselves to pick up the pieces when it's become so unrecognizable that it's finally disappeared.

    [Nov 20, 2016] Trumps Appointment of Pompeo as CIA Chief is Major Fail

    Notable quotes:
    "... Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand. ..."
    "... It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 ..."
    "... If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia. ..."
    "... Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country. ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    CorneliuCodreanu Nov 20, 2016 1:30 AM ,

    Trump's Appointment of Pompeo as CIA Chief is Major Fail

    http://www.newnationalist.net/2016/11/20/trumps-appointment-of-pompeo-as...

    jfb CorneliuCodreanu Nov 20, 2016 8:42 AM ,
    Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand.

    What will eventually happen is an economic implosion and chaos. The "elite" won't be able to finance a repressive force since their "electronic money" will not be trusted, and everything will fall apart.

    And years after, small communities will gradually re-emerge since there will be a need to protect the people with a local police force. But the notion of a super-state or even more of a NWO will not survive, after an initial depopulation we'll have something similar than what you had at the begining of the middle age, a life organized around small independant comunities of 3,000 or 5,000 people.

    Setarcos jfb Nov 20, 2016 9:54 AM ,
    Very close to my thinking ... and a precedent is the demize of the Roman Empire, when Europe devolved into numerous small feudal regions, such as in England for over a thousand years, i.e after numerous internal wars, such as the Wars of the Roses and the reign of Henry VIII, it wasn't until the 1600s and the so-called "Enlightenment" that England was unified ... and it wasn't until the 1700s that Scotland was conquered and "Great Britain" existed, also having incorporated Wales and Ireland, with at least Eire having gained independence during the 1920s, Wales never being really integrated, nor Scotland now moving away from the centre of the whole shebang ... London always.

    It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 despite, or because(?) of Trump and similar phenonema in the West.

    francis scott f... Nov 20, 2016 2:09 AM ,

    BE CAREFUL, MR TRUMP

    If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia.

    And when that is picked up by the arch deceivers at the WaPo, NYT, WSJ etc, it will be embarrassing for Mr Trump and for the foreign policy he campaigned on.

    Lynn Trainor francis scott falseflag Nov 20, 2016 5:53 AM ,
    Mr. Trump, please move closer to Russia - Putin has longed for sane dialogue with the US for the last 8 or more years and has gotten the cold shoulder.
    GraveDancer Nov 20, 2016 3:24 AM ,
    Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country.

    Islam fundamentally is incompatible with a modern society.

    [Nov 20, 2016] The problem with libertarianism as an ideology is that it lacks a full two-thirds of what encompasses a system of belief. Libertarianism is an economic policy masquerading as a political ideology

    Notable quotes:
    "... Governmentally, libertarianism fares slightly better, but even then its copy/pasting leads to a political body that cannot effectively govern in any respect. Libertarians are often said to want "small government" -- which, were it true, is a noble cause -- but libertarianism demands virtually private government, which is definitionally oxymoronic. ..."
    "... Regarding tranquility, libertarianism would remove all noise and behavioral ordinances, as that restricts freedom on a personal level (again, falling back to the absolute "free market" parody). ..."
    "... There are aspects of libertarianism which are commendable. In the broadest sense, their desires for less centralized government control over the economy, providence, and society are commendable, as most of today's governments are, by the reckoning of the Founders, entirely totalitarian. ..."
    "... Libertarianism is most often characterized as being for a completely free market–ending all government subsidies and letting any business, no matter the size or category, fail if its practices lead to failure. Libertarians even fail at free market orthodoxy. There is no free market. Markets operate within parameters set by law. Money itself can push prices... for example, housing prices were pushed during bubble. Bond prices were pushed with QE. ..."
    "... Inelastic markets especially are being privatized by neo-liberal orthodoxy, this then creates a perpetual toll-booth rent extraction for the owners. For example, if ports are owned and not regulated, then the "owners" can take whatever fees they want, which then drives up price. If you have a ship, are you going to sail to the next "competing" port? There are no competing ports, as it is a natural monopoly... a natural geological feature. ..."
    "... So, libertarianism, even in the economic sense is sophomoric, and doesn't deal with economic reality. ..."
    "... The best economic system delivers the lowest PRICE to the most people. To do this, the best system must strip out economic rent... which is unearned income. Libertarianism does not even comprehend rent extraction. ..."
    "... with now over 300 millions, many packed into large metropolitan areas, depending on its definition, a 'libertarian' utopia', as it were, in practical terms is simply out of reach. Unless everybody all at once becomes divinely perfected beings, which on paper is pretty much the only way to avoid government ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Tallest Skil -> ultimate warrior , Nov 19, 2016 10:52 PM
    The problem with libertarianism as an ideology is that it lacks a full two-thirds of what encompasses a system of belief. Libertarianism is an economic policy masquerading as a political ideology. Economy, society, and government comprise the full range of ideological belief, but libertarianism is exclusively an economic school of thought. Economics alone does not a civilization make.

    Libertarianism, economically, feels rather agreeable. A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow and the fruits of his labor. A man has no obligation–legal or moral–to strangers, nor to his neighbors save such behaviors that would make them reciprocate and do well by him. This is why libertarians eschew welfare for systems that would provide jobs to those on welfare so that they may provide for themselves. Libertarianism is most often characterized as being for a completely free market–ending all government subsidies and letting any business, no matter the size or category, fail if its practices lead to failure.

    But that is where libertarianism ends. No regard for social behaviors has been made, and so when libertarians in the political scene are forced to speak of social issues, their only reply is to copy their economic doctrines, change applicable words, and paste them into place with disastrous results. They have translated their wholly free market economy into a wholly free market for the purchase of product. Any product. Under libertarianism, any drug of any sort would be available to anyone with enough currency to procure it, and the price of the drug would be dictated, of course, by the free market. Heroin, ecstasy, marijuana, morphine, vicodin–all drugs–available without script or restriction of quantity. Any and all behaviors–sodomy, pederasty, pedophilia, bestiality–all acceptable. Private ownership of nuclear weaponry -- as well as the raw materials to build and distribute such -- legal. Libertarianism's utter lack of regard for social protection makes it a nigh-genocidal ideology.

    Governmentally, libertarianism fares slightly better, but even then its copy/pasting leads to a political body that cannot effectively govern in any respect. Libertarians are often said to want "small government" -- which, were it true, is a noble cause -- but libertarianism demands virtually private government, which is definitionally oxymoronic. To give an example of libertarianism's lack of government, a typical criticism in this aspect is, "Who would build the roads?"

    The US Constitution stipulates that the government must "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Government organization and implementation of national infrastructure falls under both defense and welfare. Regarding tranquility, libertarianism would remove all noise and behavioral ordinances, as that restricts freedom on a personal level (again, falling back to the absolute "free market" parody).

    There are aspects of libertarianism which are commendable. In the broadest sense, their desires for less centralized government control over the economy, providence, and society are commendable, as most of today's governments are, by the reckoning of the Founders, entirely totalitarian. However, libertarianism fails to comprehend that there is a healthy scope of government–indeed that general well-being is a charge of government itself–and fails in the one thing in which it purports to believe: the freedom of the individual to pursue success, protected -- not from failure -- but from the syndicates, cabals, and individuals who would seek to take that from him.

    MEFOBILLS -> Tallest Skil •Nov 19, 2016 11:09 PM

    Nice job...

    Libertarianism is most often characterized as being for a completely free market–ending all government subsidies and letting any business, no matter the size or category, fail if its practices lead to failure. Libertarians even fail at free market orthodoxy. There is no free market. Markets operate within parameters set by law. Money itself can push prices... for example, housing prices were pushed during bubble. Bond prices were pushed with QE.

    There are different kinds of markets: elastic, inelastic, and mixed. If these markets were completely free, then they would be free for predators to take rents.

    Inelastic markets especially are being privatized by neo-liberal orthodoxy, this then creates a perpetual toll-booth rent extraction for the owners. For example, if ports are owned and not regulated, then the "owners" can take whatever fees they want, which then drives up price. If you have a ship, are you going to sail to the next "competing" port? There are no competing ports, as it is a natural monopoly... a natural geological feature.

    So, libertarianism, even in the economic sense is sophomoric, and doesn't deal with economic reality.

    The best economic system delivers the lowest PRICE to the most people. To do this, the best system must strip out economic rent... which is unearned income. Libertarianism does not even comprehend rent extraction.

    Their intents are good, but good intentions are not good science.

    MEFOBILLS -> Falcon49 •Nov 20, 2016 9:48 AM

    Libertarians believe in a free market...but, that cannot truly exist in today's system which is structured as a predatory system.

    It is hard to let go of a belief system... I get that. Libertarianism is very narrow in its scope.

    The only sector of the market that Libertarianism can apply to is elastic markets. Only there in this one sector... is where price competiton prevails.

    Even then in this one sector - there can be predatory manipulations. For example, when China exported baby formula with Melamine in it. That then made the baby food lower priced. Lower prices should be free market competition.. right? But, then end result was really fraud, and said fraud ended up killing babies.

    Humans are rent-seekers. Humans want to take passive income. This taking of passive income makes for uneven trading relations. How long do the rent seekers want to take passive income? In the case of banksters, they want to take usury forever, and for their families. The Rothchilds even have cousin marriage for crying out loud, that way they can keep it in the family.

    Ergo, there has to be limits in any system, where certain behaviors are out of bounds. Only law, done in advance can code for morality. Free markets are not god. Free markets do not code for morality.

    The very predatory nature Libertarians ascribe to governments is created by the same paradigms they espouse. I call this a form of insanity. Free markets mean rent taking. Predators then usurp government to continue their rents.

    This is the cycle of history descriped by Aristotle. Rents, then Oligarchs. Oligarchs then One King. This one King becomes the King because he can save the people from their debts and taxes. Then the one King has to give freedoms to allow war. These freedoms then return back to some form of democracy to then start the cycle again.

    If one even bothers to find the roots of Libertarianism, one will find shady "banking" and Austrian aristocracy working together. This further goes back to Kings using Jews as tax collectors. Like I said, libertarians are well meaning dupes who don't even know their own history.

    Libertarianism is a dialectic designed to lead one astray.

    inosent -> Tallest Skil •Nov 20, 2016 1:16 AM

    your post is getting mixed reviews. i think it is quite good, but i dont see a clear separation between the state and society. and defining a term like libertarianism isnt easy, which might account for the down votes. wasn't it Paine who said "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. ..."

    with now over 300 millions, many packed into large metropolitan areas, depending on its definition, a 'libertarian' utopia', as it were, in practical terms is simply out of reach. Unless everybody all at once becomes divinely perfected beings, which on paper is pretty much the only way to avoid government

    Regrettably some form of disinterested civil govt arguably must be present.

    What remains is to define the term, and figure out how to structure it to maximize the reward and benefit to those who generally find themselves within the zip code of a credible moral character (not a licentious freak) and puts the heat on their negative counterparts.

    A limited agency with a narrowly defined purpose that is not and cannot be subversive to the interests of productive ppl, and should be so strictly constructed as to negate even the remotest manipulations of the machiavellianites, as well as construct an impenetrable barrier to keep them out.

    Today, and for sometime it has been the zio-jew-cabal, but tomorrow it could take on a different form in pursuit of some other unholy and destructive agenda. and i think if the constitution had not been so fatally composed, we might have averted a lot of trouble.

    ... ... ...

    [Nov 20, 2016] Umberto Eco emphasized the extent to which fascism is ad hoc and opportunistic. Its features include a cult of action for actions sake, where thinking is a form of emasculation ; an intolerance of analytical criticism, where disagreement is condemned; a profound fear of difference, where leaders appeal against intruders ; appeals to individual and social frustration and specifically a frustrated middle class suffering from feelings of political humiliation and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups

    Trump position is somewhat misrepresented. In his speeches he also points out to dominance of financial oligarchy and predatory behaviour of corporation outsourcing jobs to countries with cheaper labour.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A cult of "action for action's sake ..."
    "... Now, let's look at Trump. His campaign revolves around one theme: That the United States is weak, that it loses, and that it needs leadership to become "great again." "We don't have victories anymore," he said in his announcement speech . "When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let's say, China in a trade deal? They kill us. When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity." ..."
    Nov 20, 2016 | www.slate.com

    One of the most-read takes on fascism comes from Italian philosopher and novelist Umberto Eco in an essay for the New York Review of Books titled " Ur-Fascism ." Eco emphasizes the extent to which fascism is ad hoc and opportunistic. It's "philosophically out of joint," he writes, with features that "cannot be organized into a system" since "many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanacticism."

    With that said, it is true that there are fascist movements, and it's also true that when you strip their cultural clothing-the German paganism in Nazism, for example-there are common properties. Not every fascist movement shows all of them, but-Eco writes-"it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it." Eco identifies 14, but for this column, I want to focus on seven. They are: A cult of "action for action's sake ," where "thinking is a form of emasculation"; an intolerance of "analytical criticism," where disagreement is condemned; a profound "fear of difference," where leaders appeal against "intruders"; appeals to individual and social frustration and specifically a "frustrated middle class" suffering from "feelings of political humiliation and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups"; a nationalist identity set against internal and external enemies (an "obsession with a plot"); a feeling of humiliation by the "ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies"; a "popular elitism" where "every citizen belongs to the best people of the world" and underscored by contempt for the weak; and a celebration of aggressive (and often violent) masculinity.

    ... ... ...

    Now, let's look at Trump. His campaign revolves around one theme: That the United States is weak, that it loses, and that it needs leadership to become "great again." "We don't have victories anymore," he said in his announcement speech . "When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let's say, China in a trade deal? They kill us. When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity." He continued: "The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems," and "Our enemies are getting stronger and stronger by the way, and we as a country are getting weaker." This includes unauthorized immigrants, and now refugees, whom he attacks as a menace to ordinary Americans. The former, according to Trump, take jobs and threaten American safety-"They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."-while the latter are a "Trojan horse." But Trump promises action. He will cut new deals and make foreign competitors subordinate. He will deport immigrants and build a wall on the border, financed by Mexico. He will bring " spectacular " economic growth. And Trump isn't an ideologue; he's an opportunist who borrows freely from both parties.

    ... ... ...

    Alone and disconnected, this rhetoric isn't necessarily fascist... In the Europe of the 1920s and '30s, fascist parties organized armed gangs to intimidate political opponents. Despite assaults at Trump events, that still seems unlikely....

    [Nov 19, 2016] Here Ackerman ranks the USA with Belarus and Singapore on the democracy scale and indeed explicitly characterizes it as a Russian-like "soft authoritarian" regime.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Here Ackerman ranks the USA with Belarus and Singapore on the democracy scale and indeed explicitly characterizes it as a Russian-like "soft authoritarian" regime. I've always thought the USA possessed a distinct "Russkieness" to it, not surprising for a continent-country with a historic background of relative labor shortage and rich in natural resources. ..."
    "... Yes, we are a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual empire of continental scope, that acquired contiguous territory by accretion, ruled by a decadent police state. There are many similarities, including waiting in line a a lot, ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Brad November 17, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    OK last one. "Obama urges Trump to stand up to Russia". Obama hasn't read the Bannon transcript apparently. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-russia-231556

    Laugh line: "But Russia also diverges sharply from the U.S. on values like democracy, freedom of speech, international sovereignty and territorial integrity, he noted."

    Obama, and everyone, needs to read Seth Ackerman's piece on the reality of the US political system up on Jacobin:

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democratic-labor-party-ackerman/

    Here Ackerman ranks the USA with Belarus and Singapore on the democracy scale and indeed explicitly characterizes it as a Russian-like "soft authoritarian" regime. I've always thought the USA possessed a distinct "Russkieness" to it, not surprising for a continent-country with a historic background of relative labor shortage and rich in natural resources.

    However, I think the USA's political restrictiveness *does* directly stem for the founders and their constitution. It's an 18th C vintage Whig clique constitution in neo-classical dress.

    Lambert Strether Post author November 17, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    > I've always thought the USA possessed a distinct "Russkieness"

    Yes, we are a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual empire of continental scope, that acquired contiguous territory by accretion, ruled by a decadent police state. There are many similarities, including waiting in line a a lot, and mordant humor.

    JSM November 17, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    JSM was struck by the same line in the Jacobin piece. 'Authoritarian democracy' was making the rounds in the primaries.

    When Jill Stein can be zip-tied to a chair for hours on end, all for merely attending the 2012 presidential debates, why quibble about whether parties are banned by law, or as in the US, laws 'not directly intended' to achieve that de facto result, ruling power conspiracies, and arbitrary police action.

    [Nov 19, 2016] The Democratic party lost its soul. Its time to win it back

    Notable quotes:
    "... For one thing, many vested interests don't want the Democratic party to change. Most of the money it raises ends up in the pockets of political consultants, pollsters, strategists, lawyers, advertising consultants and advertisers themselves, many of whom have become rich off the current arrangement. They naturally want to keep it. ..."
    "... For another, the Democratic party apparatus is ingrown and entrenched. Like any old bureaucracy, it only knows how to do what it has done for years. Its state and quadrennial national conventions are opportunities for insiders to meet old friends and for aspiring politicians to make contacts among the rich and powerful. Insiders and the rich aren't going to happily relinquish their power and perquisites, and hand them to outsiders and the non-rich. ..."
    "... I have been a Democrat for 50 years – I have even served in two Democratic administrations in Washington, including a stint in the cabinet and have run for the Democratic nomination for governor in one state – yet I have never voted for the chair or vice-chair of my state Democratic party. That means I, too, have had absolutely no say over who the chair of the Democratic National Committee will be. To tell you the truth, I haven't cared. And that's part of the problem. ..."
    "... Finally, the party chairmanship has become a part-time sinecure for politicians on their way up or down, not a full-time position for a professional organizer. In 2011, Tim Kaine (who subsequently became Hillary Clinton's running mate in the 2016 election) left the chairmanship to run, successfully, for the Senate from Virginia. ..."
    "... The chair then went to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Florida congresswoman who had co-chaired Clinton's bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. This generated allegations in the 2016 race that the Democratic National Committee was siding with Clinton against Bernie Sanders – allegations substantiated by leaks of emails from the DNC. ..."
    "... So what we now have is a Democratic party that has been repudiated at the polls, headed by a Democratic National Committee that has become irrelevant at best, run part-time by a series of insider politicians. It has no deep or broad-based grass-roots, no capacity for mobilizing vast numbers of people to take any action other than donate money, no visibility between elections, no ongoing activism. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    For one thing, many vested interests don't want the Democratic party to change. Most of the money it raises ends up in the pockets of political consultants, pollsters, strategists, lawyers, advertising consultants and advertisers themselves, many of whom have become rich off the current arrangement. They naturally want to keep it.

    For another, the Democratic party apparatus is ingrown and entrenched. Like any old bureaucracy, it only knows how to do what it has done for years. Its state and quadrennial national conventions are opportunities for insiders to meet old friends and for aspiring politicians to make contacts among the rich and powerful. Insiders and the rich aren't going to happily relinquish their power and perquisites, and hand them to outsiders and the non-rich.

    Most Americans who call themselves Democrats never hear from the Democratic party except when it asks for money, typically through mass mailings and recorded telephone calls in the months leading up to an election. The vast majority of Democrats don't know the name of the chair of the Democratic National Committee or of their state committee. Almost no registered Democrats have any idea how to go about electing their state Democratic chair or vice-chair, and, hence, almost none have any influence over whom the next chair of the Democratic National Committee may be.

    I have been a Democrat for 50 years – I have even served in two Democratic administrations in Washington, including a stint in the cabinet and have run for the Democratic nomination for governor in one state – yet I have never voted for the chair or vice-chair of my state Democratic party. That means I, too, have had absolutely no say over who the chair of the Democratic National Committee will be. To tell you the truth, I haven't cared. And that's part of the problem.

    Nor, for that matter, has Barack Obama cared. He basically ignored the Democratic National Committee during his presidency, starting his own organization called Organizing for America. It was originally intended to marshal grass-roots support for the major initiatives he sought to achieve during his presidency, but morphed into a fund-raising machine of its own.

    Finally, the party chairmanship has become a part-time sinecure for politicians on their way up or down, not a full-time position for a professional organizer. In 2011, Tim Kaine (who subsequently became Hillary Clinton's running mate in the 2016 election) left the chairmanship to run, successfully, for the Senate from Virginia.

    The chair then went to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Florida congresswoman who had co-chaired Clinton's bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. This generated allegations in the 2016 race that the Democratic National Committee was siding with Clinton against Bernie Sanders – allegations substantiated by leaks of emails from the DNC.

    So what we now have is a Democratic party that has been repudiated at the polls, headed by a Democratic National Committee that has become irrelevant at best, run part-time by a series of insider politicians. It has no deep or broad-based grass-roots, no capacity for mobilizing vast numbers of people to take any action other than donate money, no visibility between elections, no ongoing activism.

    [Nov 19, 2016] The Origins of the Republican Media Machine

    The Republican brass degenerated into a bunch to neocon racketeers who want to impoverish regular Americans. That's why Trump won.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Indeed, in an October 1991 letter to Patrick J. Buchanan, Regnery claimed that Americans had been hornswoggled into supporting the war by "the President and those who form public opinion." ..."
    "... Everywhere he looked, the media-newspapers, network radio and television news, magazines, and journals-all seemed locked in a [neo]liberal consensus. . . . If conservatives were going to claw their way back in from the outside, they were going to need to first find a way to impair and offset liberals in the media. ..."
    Oct 16, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
    From: The Origins of the Republican Civil War

    Nicole Hemmer, Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016), 368 pp., $34.95.

    IN DECEMBER 1953, Henry Regnery convened a meeting in Room 2233 in New York City's Lincoln Building. Regnery, a former Democrat and head of Regnery Publishing, had moved sharply to the Right after he became disillusioned with the New Deal. His guests included William F. Buckley Jr.; Frank Hanighen, a cofounder of Human Events ; Raymond Moley, a former FDR adviser who wrote a book called After Seven Years that denounced the New Deal; and John Chamberlain, a lapsed liberal and an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal . Regnery had not called these men together merely to discuss current events. He wanted to reshape them. "The side we represent controls most of the wealth in this country," he said. "The ideas and traditions we believe in are those which most Americans instinctively believe in also." So why was liberalism in the ascendant? Regnery explained that media bias was the problem. Anywhere you looked, the Left controlled the commanding heights-television, newspapers and universities. It was imperative, Regnery said, to establish a "counterintelligence unit" that could fight back.

    In her superb Messengers of the Right , Nicole Hemmer examines the origins of conservative media. Hemmer, who is an assistant professor at the University of Virginia, has performed extensive archival research to illuminate the furthest recesses of the Right, complementing earlier works like Geoffrey Kabaservice's Rule and Ruin . She provides much new information and penetrating observations about figures such as Clarence Manion, William Rusher and Henry Regnery. Above all, she shows that there has been a remarkable consistency to the grievances and positions, which were often one and the same, of the conservative movement over the decades.

    According to Hemmer, the modern Right first took shape in the form of the America First Committee. A number of leading conservatives saw little difference between Adolf Hitler and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Regnery recollected that "both Hitler and Roosevelt-each in his own way -- were masters of the art of manipulating the masses."

    Indeed, in an October 1991 letter to Patrick J. Buchanan, Regnery claimed that Americans had been hornswoggled into supporting the war by "the President and those who form public opinion." Others such as the gifted orator Clarence Manion, a former FDR acolyte, joined the America First Committee in 1941. After the war, Manion became the dean of the Notre Dame Law School and wrote a book called The Key to Peace , which argued that limited government was the key to American greatness, not a quest to "take off for the Mountains of the Moon in search of ways and means to pacify and unify mankind."

    While serving in the Eisenhower administration, he also became a proponent of the Bricker Amendment, which would have subjected treaties signed by the president to ratification by the states. Eisenhower demanded his resignation. An embittered Manion, Hemmer writes, concluded that columnists such as James Reston, Marquis Childs, and Joseph and Stewart Alsop had effectively operated as a united front to ruin him.

    Everywhere he looked, the media-newspapers, network radio and television news, magazines, and journals-all seemed locked in a [neo]liberal consensus. . . . If conservatives were going to claw their way back in from the outside, they were going to need to first find a way to impair and offset liberals in the media.

    In 1954, the Manion Forum of Opinion , which aired on several dozen radio stations, was born. It soon became a popular venue that allowed Manion, who was cochair of a political party called For America, to inveigh against the depredations of liberalism and preach the conservative gospel.

    ... ... ...

    With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the conservative media seemed to have arrived. But as Hemmer notes, a New Right generation of activists that included figures such Terry Dolan of the National Conservative Political Action Committee and Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority had arrived that did not have much in common with the older conservative generation. She points out that leaders of the New Right backed Republican congressman Phil Crane, then former Texas governor John Connally, only supporting Reagan during the general election. Buckley and his cohort, Hemmer writes, saw the New Right paladins as "Johnnies-come-lately to the movement, demanding rigorous fealty to social issues that had only recently become the drivers of politics." Hemmer might have noted that, although Reagan has since become a conservative icon, George F. Will and Norman Podhoretz, among others, lamented what they viewed as Reagan's concessive posture towards Mikhail Gorbachev.

    Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.

    [Nov 19, 2016] The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss of jobs. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun.

    It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
    "... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
    "... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
    "... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
    "... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
    "... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
    "... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
    "... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
    "... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
    "... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
    "... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
    "... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
    "... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
    "... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
    "... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
    "... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
    "... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
    "... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
    "... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
    "... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
    "... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
    "... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
    "... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
    "... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
    "... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
    "... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
    "... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
    "... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
    "... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
    "... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
    "... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
    "... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
    "... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
    "... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
    "... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
    "... Foreign Affairs ..."
    "... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
    "... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
    "... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
    "... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
    "... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
    "... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
    "... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
    "... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
    "... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    dbk 11.18.16 at 6:41 pm 130

    Bruce Wilder @102

    The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?

    I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).

    The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.

    As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return, and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers; 8.7 in allied jobs).

    Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.

    In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.

    I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies. But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism.

    Also: Faustusnotes@100
    For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.

    And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?

    To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?

    kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:32 pm ( 135 )

    Thomas Pickety

    " Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this.

    Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "

    The Guardian

    kidneystones 11.18.16 at 11:56 pm 137 ( 137 )

    What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.

    I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.

    Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA of Japan put crudely.

    I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election. The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.

    I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as 'inferiors.' Many do.

    Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong, I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.

    Faustusnotes 11.19.16 at 12:14 am 138

    Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics.

    It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.

    And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs? Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.

    basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am

    Did this go through?
    Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,

    The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present.

    I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters with chants of USA! USA!

    Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.

    --

    Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote.

    Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?

    I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.

    Why the Working Class was Never 'White'

    The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class' as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.

    .

    This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.

    Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders, including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).

    But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety, we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist, solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same working-class interests.

    Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves, weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal sectarian battles).

    To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable violence of climate change and corporate power.

    *To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference – Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race. And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.

    Hidari 11.19.16 at 8:16 am 152

    FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.

    Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent. If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better, more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .

    In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."

    Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."

    In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'

    http://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed

    Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the camel's back.

    In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power.

    Eventually something is going to break.

    dbk 11.19.16 at 10:39 am ( 153 )

    nastywoman @ 150
    Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking for.

    No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall philosophy. (www.gp.org).]

    I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be tailored to individual communities and regions.

    To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay.

    Soullite 11.19.16 at 12:46 pm 156

    This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it).

    I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself, but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.

    You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all.

    You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.

    mclaren 11.19.16 at 2:37 pm 160

    One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.

    Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay? We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.

    Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.

    None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.

    Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.

    We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon, LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.

    Does anyone notice a pattern here?

    This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.

    Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but nobody else was getting anything.

    This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.

    And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will never, ever happen."

    C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the whole process on.

    So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.

    Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?

    Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered (maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves, and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
    Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.

    Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:

    "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/american-neoliberalism-cornel-west-2016-election

    Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important. He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic elites toward their recent loss:

    "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.'

    "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken."

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/the-stark-contrast-between-the-gops-self-criticism-in-2012-and-the-democrats-blame-everyone-else-posture-now/

    Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:

    "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..)

    " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote.

    "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.

    "In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.

    "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-11-15/global-Trump_vs_deep_state

    efcdons 11.19.16 at 3:07 pm 161 ( 161 )

    Faustusnotes @147

    You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))

    If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood, a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to trump this year to give him his margin of victory).

    trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia) but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work.

    trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept.

    The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part due to the auto bailout.

    trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there.

    "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

    So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life, however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations through the Supreme Court.

    But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples' way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.

    Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/news/economy/hillary-clinton-trade/

    [Nov 19, 2016] 2 presidential electors encourage colleagues to sideline Trump

    Nov 19, 2016 | www.politico.com
    P. Bret Chiafalo, a Washington State elector who has already declared his opposition to Hillary Clinton, and Micheal Baca of Colorado have launched what they've dubbed "Moral Electors," an attempt to persuade 37 of their Republican colleagues to bail on Trump - just enough to block Trump's election and leave the final decision to the House of Representatives. They have the support of a third elector , Washington State's Robert Satiacum.

    Story Continued Below

    "This is a longshot. It's a Hail Mary," Chiafalo said in a phone interview. "However, I do see situations where - when we've already had two or three [Republican] electors state publicly they didn't want to vote for Trump. How many of them have real issues with Donald Trump in private?" Chiafalo, a self-described "regular nerdy dude who works for Microsoft" and Baca, a grad student and Marine Corps veteran, insist they're not seeking the election of Clinton - or even a Democrat. Both, in fact, had already been considering voting against her when the Electoral College meets in five weeks. Rather, they intend to encourage Republican electors to write in Mitt Romney or John Kasich. If enough agree, the election would be sent to the House of Representatives, which would choose from among the top three vote-getters.

    Both men acknowledge that their effort is unlikely to succeed.

    [Nov 19, 2016] The American Conservative Movement Has Ended. The American Right Goes On by Peter Brimelow

    Both Republican Party and Democratic party degenerated into the racket. Neoliberal racket. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket ." It's a racket.
    Notable quotes:
    "... That's because I assumed that everybody realized that America standing up to the Soviet Union was, in some sense, a nationalist resistance. Americans just didn't want to be conquered by Russians. ..."
    "... In contrast to all that, Donald Trump said: ..."
    "... I view the word conservative as a derivative of the word conserve. We want to converse our money. We want to conserve our wealth We want to conserve our country. We want to save our country. ..."
    "... it turned out that American Conservatism was just a transitional phase. And now it's over. ..."
    "... terrified of the neoconservatives who didn't like the emphasis on immigration because of their own ethnic agenda, and he was very inclined to listen to the Congressional Republicans, who didn't want to talk about immigration because they are terrified too-because they are cowards, basically-and also because they have big corporate donors . And, I think that is part of the explanation. ..."
    "... I think that goes to what happened to the American Conservative Movement. It wasn't tortured; it was bought . It was simply bought . I think the dominance of the Donorist class and the Donorist Party is one of the things that has emerged analytically within the past 10 years. ..."
    "... So I think that is the reason for the end of the American Conservative Movement. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket ." It's a racket. ..."
    "... But the good news is, as John Derbyshire said a few minutes ago, that ultimately Conservatism -- or Rightism -- is a personality type. It underlies politics and it will crop up again-just as, to our astonishment, Donald Trump has cropped up. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.unz.com
    The core of conservatism, it seems to me, is this recognition and acceptance of the elemental emotions. Conservatism understands that it is futile to debate the feelings of the mother for her child-or such human instincts as the bonds of tribe , nation , even race . Of course, all are painfully vulnerable to deconstruction by rationalistic intellectuals-but not, ultimately, to destruction. These commitments are Jungian rather than Freudian, not irrational but a-rational-beyond the reach of reason.

    This is one of the problems, by the way, with the American Conservative Movement. I was completely astonished when it fell apart at the end of the Cold War -- I never thought it would. That's because I assumed that everybody realized that America standing up to the Soviet Union was, in some sense, a nationalist resistance. Americans just didn't want to be conquered by Russians.

    But, it turned out that there were people who had joined the anti-Communist coalition who harbored messianic fantasies about "global democracy" and and America as the first "universal nation" (i.e. polity. Nation-states must have a specific ethnic core.) They also had uses for the American military which hadn't occurred to me. But they didn't care about America-about America as a nation-state, the political expression of a particular people, the Historic American Nation. In fact, in some cases, it made them feel uneasy.

    I thought about this this spring when Trump was debating in New Hampshire. ABC's John Muir asked three candidates: "What does it mean to be Conservative?"

    I'm going to quote from John Kasich: blah, blah, blah, blah. Balanced budgets-tax cuts-jobs-"but once we have economic growth I believe we have to reach out to people who live in the shadows." By this he meant, not illegal aliens, although he did favor Amnesty , but "the mentally ill, the drug addicted, the working poor [and] our friends in the minority community."

    That's because the Republican Party has lots of friends in the minority community.

    Marco Rubio said:

    it's about three things. The first is conservatism is about limited government, especially at the federal level It's about free enterprise And it's about a strong national defense. It's about believing, unlike Barack Obama, that the world is a safer and a better place when America is the strongest military and the strongest nation on this planet. That's conservatism.

    Kasich and Rubio's answers, of course, are not remotely "conservative" but utilitarian, economistic, classical liberal. Note that Rubio even felt obliged to justify "strong national defense" in universalistic, Wilsonian terms: it will make the world "a safer and a better place."

    In contrast to all that, Donald Trump said:

    I view the word conservative as a derivative of the word conserve. We want to converse our money. We want to conserve our wealth We want to conserve our country. We want to save our country.

    Now, this caused a considerable amount of harrumphing among Conservative Inc. intellectuals and various Republican politicians. Somebody called John Hart , who writes a thing called Opportunity Lives -has anybody heard of it? It's a very well-funded Libertarianism Inc. website in Washington. Nobody has heard of it? Good. Hart said:

    Trump's answer may have been how conservatives described themselves once: in 1957. But today's modern conservative movement isn't a hoarding or protectionist philosophy. Conservatism isn't about conserving; it's about growth.

    [ Conservatism is Still A Second Language to Donald Trump Opportunity Lives, January 7, 2016]

    "Growth"? Well, I don't think so. And not just because I remember 1957 . As I said, I think it turned out that American Conservatism was just a transitional phase. And now it's over.

    Why did it end? After Buckley purged John O'Sullivan and all of us immigration patriots from National Review in 1997, we spent a lot of time thinking about why he had done this. And there were a lot of complicated psychological explanations: Bill was getting old, he was jealous of his successor, the new Editor, John O'Sullivan, he was terrified of the neoconservatives who didn't like the emphasis on immigration because of their own ethnic agenda, and he was very inclined to listen to the Congressional Republicans, who didn't want to talk about immigration because they are terrified too-because they are cowards, basically-and also because they have big corporate donors . And, I think that is part of the explanation.

    darknessatnoonBut there was a similar discussion in the 1950s and 1960s, which I'm old enough to remember, about why the Old Bolsheviks all testified against themselves in the treason trials during Stalin's Great Purge . They all admitted to the most fantastic things-that they had been spies for the Americans and the British and the capitalist imperialists all along, that they'd plotted to assassinate Comrade Stalin. And there were all kinds of discussions as to why this was, and in fact a wonderful novel, Darkness At Noon [ PDF ] by Arthur Koestler , one of the most remarkable novels in the last century, describing the exquisite psychological process by which an old Bolshevik in prison came to the conclusion that he was going to have to say all these things in the long-term interest of the Revolution.

    Do you agree about Darkness At Noon , Paul? [ Paul Gottfried indicates assent ]

    Good.

    Well, when Nikita Khrushchev got up and denounced Stalin in at the party conference in 1956, he was asked about this. Why did all these Old Bolsheviks turn turtle like this? And his answer was: "Beat, beat, beat."

    In other words, there is no complex psychological explanation : they were just tortured. I think that goes to what happened to the American Conservative Movement. It wasn't tortured; it was bought . It was simply bought . I think the dominance of the Donorist class and the Donorist Party is one of the things that has emerged analytically within the past 10 years.

    When I was first writing about American politics and got involved in American politics–and I started by working for John Ashbrook (not Ashcroft , Ash brook ) against Nixon in 1972 –nobody thought about donors. We have only gradually become conscious of them. And their absolute dominant role, and their ability to prohibit policy discussions, has really only become clear in the last five to ten years.

    I think, in retrospect, with Buckley , who subsidized his lifestyle out of the National Review to a scandalous extent, that there was some financial transaction. I think that now.

    It's an open secret that Rich Lowry did not want to come out and with this anti-Trump issue that they published earlier this year, but he was compelled to do it. That's not the type of thing that Lowry would normally do. He wouldn't take that kind of risk, he's a courtier, he would never take the risk of not being invited to ride in Trump's limousine in the case that Trump won. But, apparently, someone forced him to do it. And I think that someone was a donor and I think I know who it was.

    So I think that is the reason for the end of the American Conservative Movement. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket ." It's a racket.

    But the good news is, as John Derbyshire said a few minutes ago, that ultimately Conservatism -- or Rightism -- is a personality type. It underlies politics and it will crop up again-just as, to our astonishment, Donald Trump has cropped up.

    So, I guess my bottom line here is: " Don't despair ."

    Peter Brimelow [ Email him ] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster , is now available in Kindle format.

    [Nov 19, 2016] British neocons are frustrated that Trump does not consult US neocons

    Speaking to foreign heads of state without briefing papers from neocon bottom feeders from the State Department might be a wise move.
    And meaningful contact with such the nation's foreign policy professionals as Samantha Paul or Victoria Nuland is probably impossible ;-).
    "...turning a blind eye to Russia's designs on Ukraine and its support for the Assad regime in Syria." might be what is really needed for the USA foreigh policy.
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    From: Michael Flynn will be a disaster as national security adviser by Richard Wolffe

    Like his new boss, Flynn appears very comfortable with the current Russian regime, working with Russia Today , the Kremlin's propaganda TV network. He apparently received classified intelligence briefings while running a lobbying firm for foreign clients. He seems to favor working with Russia to combat Islamist terrorists while turning a blind eye to Russia's designs on Ukraine and its support for the Assad regime in Syria.

    ... ... ..

    In the brief time since he won the election, Trump's first call with a world leader was not with a trusted US ally but with the Egyptian dictator President al-Sisi. He sat with prime minister Abe of Japan this week, but his aides told the Japanese not to believe every word Trump said.

    He met with the populist right wing British politician Nigel Farage before meeting the British prime minister Theresa May. But he somehow found time to meet with several Indian real estate developers to discuss his property interests with them, and the Trump Organization signed a Kolkata deal on Friday.

    Amid his many interactions with foreign powers, Trump is speaking without briefing papers from the State Department because his transition team is in such chaos that they have yet to establish meaningful contact with the nation's foreign policy professionals.

    [Nov 19, 2016] The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics by Michael Hudson

    www.counterpunch.org

    What is the Democratic Party's former constituency of labor and progressive reformers to do? Are they to stand by and let the party be captured in Hillary's wake by Robert Rubin's Goldman Sachs-Citigroup gang that backed her and Obama?

    The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics. Its aim was to persuade voters not to think of their identity in economic terms, but to think of themselves as women or as racial and ethnic groups first and foremost, not as having common economic interests. This strategy to distract voters from economic policies has obviously failed...

    This election showed that voters have a sense of when they're being lied to. After eight years of Obama's demagogy, pretending to support the people but delivering his constituency to his financial backers on Wall Street. 'Identity politics' has given way to the stronger force of economic distress. Mobilizing identity politics behind a Wall Street program will no longer work."

    Michael Hudson

    [Nov 19, 2016] M of A - Open Thread (NOT U.S. Election) 2016-39

    Notable quotes:
    "... This "regime change" U$A foreign policy, has been implemented around the globe for many many years now, all in the interests of big corporate profits, and global hegemony. The sad truth seems to be, there are no signs its about to change. ..."
    "... No, you will not be seeing "Maidan". Middle America white (and not only) working class men are extremely well armed and are really angry still. So, if this rioting will come to Washington, who says that good ole' Ford Truck can not run over mountain bike of Tesla? Once the shooting starts (hopefully not) it will be a totally different game than Kiev "Maidan". There is also a trend, call it a hunch--most of US combat veterans from US endless wars tend to lean towards people like Trump. ..."
    "... The coming conflict is between globalism and nationalism. The basic problem is numbers. Rule by monopolistic global corporations, at best, supports 20% of the population in the short term. It enriches the ruling elite and their servants and improvises everyone else. In the long term, climate change or a nuclear war, brought on by the blind needs of greed, will end the world as we know it. Brexit and the Trump Presidency proved that globalism and democracy are incompatible. For globalism to proceed in the middle term, it will require a surveillance police state, total propaganda, reeducation camps and the shutdown of this bar. ..."
    "... Americans don't care who is devastated and destroyed by 'globalization' ... other than themselves. ..."
    Nov 19, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org
    nmb | Nov 18, 2016 1:59:59 PM | 1
    The Podesta emails - After Hillary, John Podesta had been seriously warned about the Syrian chaos

    Stevens | Nov 18, 2016 2:16:40 PM | 2
    Although it is hilarious to see the Hillary supporters throwing a massive tantrum about 'fake news,' it does make it clear just how powerful having direct access to information is in negating money, mainstream media capture and control, and government propaganda.

    I don't know how much the new Trump presidency will change the US intelligence agency culture. But one has to assume they are apoplectic over their failure in Syria. Billions of dollars and years wasted all because people have direct access to information unfiltered out of Syria.

    It should have a completely unremarkable US regime change operation:

    1. Send in the NGOs to agitate locals
    2. Make promises of support for attacks on the government by the sole world superpower
    3. Get selectively edited footage of your collaborators on the ground being attacked by the government(after they attacked the government)
    4. Pump out mass amounts of propaganda based off that footage: "Simple farmers rising up to overthrow a brutal regime!"
    5. Wield the tremendous economic power of the US to ensure the vast majority of smaller countries are on board with military action sanctioned by the UN
    6. Flood the country with arms for anyone no matter how crazy to attack the government
    7. Fake chemical attacks, US intelligence agency compromised UN reports and inspectors, etc.

    All of that derailed by nothing more than people having direct access to information uncensored out of Syria.

    I think it is safe to assume the US intelligence agencies are actively working on ways to make it illegal or impossible for anyone to publish, share, or consume 'unauthorized' information from countries that are targets of regime change.

    The easiest way would be to designate any source of information not actively working with or approved by the US intelligence agencies will be increasingly labeled as 'terror propaganda' and US social media and Internet providers will be required to censor or shutdown any such sources.

    ben | Nov 18, 2016 2:34:13 PM | 3
    Stevens @ 2: Great post, thanks.

    This "regime change" U$A foreign policy, has been implemented around the globe for many many years now, all in the interests of big corporate profits, and global hegemony. The sad truth seems to be, there are no signs its about to change.

    ALberto | Nov 18, 2016 3:00:02 PM | 4
    I was watching a travelogue program on PBS. The trip was to Cuba. The narrator traveled by train across the country. A train line that was originally built in the 1870s by Spain to divide the country for defensive and control purposes. The locomotives pulling the passenger cars were 1950s USA manufactured vintage and date to a time when our Federal Government had good economic relations with the Batista Regiem.

    When I think of the cruel and unusual economic punishment dished out to Cuba by our Federal Government all I can see is a bunch of financially poor peasants who bear the brunt of U.S. economic warfare. Just as in the Middle East and now Europe economic sanction wars hurt the farmer, the small business operator, the basic family unit, etc., while rich people get richer. Isn't it about time to back off on the economic war against Cuba and the rest of the Planet? Our collective cruelty seems to know no bounds?

    Just my opinion

    Jen | Nov 18, 2016 3:01:27 PM | 5
    Bernhard, I should think most of us reading and commenting here have pretty much accepted the result of the US presidential elections and are glad that Killer Klinton's ambitions have crashed and her future seems to be in a white house with steel bar columns and uniformed prison guards.

    The focus is now on President-elect Donald Trump's likely cabinet appointments, who are the most likely choices for critical positions like Defense Secretary and State Secretary, what the process is and how that is being carried out (or not carried out), and what that says about Trump's leadership and decision-making style, how he plans on being President and whether his choices are the right choices for his agenda (if it is genuine) of reforming the political culture on Capitol Hill, or "draining the swamp".

    If indeed Trump is intent on bringing changes to Capitol Hill, then there's a strong likelihood that the Soros-funded "Color Revolution" rioting around the US East and West Coasts will come to Washington and we'll be seeing a re-enactment of the Kiev Maidan events there.

    /div>
    james | Nov 18, 2016 3:36:30 PM | 7
    @2 stevens..thanks for your comments. lets hope open access to information continues.. the signs of this happening don't look great, but they remain open still.. thankfully, moa is one of many sites where sharing info is of great benefit and continues..

    M K Bhadrakumar's latest..

    meanwhile obama, merkel, hollandaze and their italian counterpart have all agreed to continue for another year, the sanctions on russia over ukraine.. the bozo head for nato jens stalenbread or however his name is spelled, continues on with the disingenuous musings of an old king about to reenact a version of humpty dumpty..

    meanwhile the witch hunt on acedemics, or anyone associated with gulen continues in turkey.. erdogan was visiting pakistan the past few days and i happened to read this on the usa state dept daily transcript from yesterday in the form of a question.

    Question :"Turkish President Erdogan is in Pakistan today, and he publicly suggested to Pakistan that the West was behind ISIS in order to hurt Muslims, quote, "It is certain that Western countries are standing by Daesh. Now Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many others are suffering from terrorism and separatist terrorism."What's your comment on that? Do you think it's a reasonable statement?

    MR KIRBY: No, I do not."

    it is pretty funny how these daily press briefings highlight usa propaganda in such a distinct and colourful manner.. fortunately the odd journalist asks questions that lift the veil that is constantly being thrown out by these same masters of propaganda..

    SmoothieX12 | Nov 18, 2016 3:49:18 PM | 8
    @5
    If indeed Trump is intent on bringing changes to Capitol Hill, then there's a strong likelihood that the Soros-funded "Color Revolution" rioting around the US East and West Coasts will come to Washington and we'll be seeing a re-enactment of the Kiev Maidan events there.

    No, you will not be seeing "Maidan". Middle America white (and not only) working class men are extremely well armed and are really angry still. So, if this rioting will come to Washington, who says that good ole' Ford Truck can not run over mountain bike of Tesla? Once the shooting starts (hopefully not) it will be a totally different game than Kiev "Maidan". There is also a trend, call it a hunch--most of US combat veterans from US endless wars tend to lean towards people like Trump.

    /div>
    VietnamVet | Nov 18, 2016 4:56:50 PM | 17
    The coming conflict is between globalism and nationalism. The basic problem is numbers. Rule by monopolistic global corporations, at best, supports 20% of the population in the short term. It enriches the ruling elite and their servants and improvises everyone else. In the long term, climate change or a nuclear war, brought on by the blind needs of greed, will end the world as we know it. Brexit and the Trump Presidency proved that globalism and democracy are incompatible. For globalism to proceed in the middle term, it will require a surveillance police state, total propaganda, reeducation camps and the shutdown of this bar.

    lysias | Nov 18, 2016 4:58:30 PM | 18
    Who decides which news is fake? Sounds like an easy way to limit freedom of speech and of the press.

    Why can't people be allowed to decide for themselves which news is fake?

    lysias | Nov 18, 2016 5:01:17 PM | 19
    As a retired officer of the U.S. Navy, I would be very disappointed if a majority of the officer corps supported Hillary. It would be very disappointing if they put their increased chances of promotion in new wars over the good of the country. Disappointing, but not exactly surprising.

    /div>
    peter | Nov 18, 2016 5:16:47 PM | 21
    It's great that there's some dialog between Trump and Putin. I think at least Western Syria will be cleansed of jihadis as a result.

    But Trump might be a little more hard nosed in the future. After the tensions are dialed down and having the score at basically Russia 1, US 0, he's not going to be so pliable. He sure as fuck isn't going to throw Israel under a bus. He's not going to roll over on all American commitments in the region.

    Trump's been getting a complete rundown on the big picture. It's no secret that until recently he couldn't have found Damascus on a map. Now he knows about the Shiite Crescent and how the arms can flow from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon in volumes like never before and how upsetting that is for Israel.

    Now there's action towards taking Raqqa by the Kurds and who knows who else. The US and its posse will provide the air cover and logistics plus lots of special ops once it kicks in. I'm surprised the Kurds bit again after taking it up the arse from the US a couple of months ago They're not going all in right now as things are ongoing in Mosul and will be for a while. But you don't hear Assad and the Russians squawking much about it. It's like they both know that parts of Eastern Syria are bye-bye.

    Trump's good will towards Russia certainly doesn't extend to Iran. And no American will ever call Hezbollah anything bur a terrorist organization after the Marine barracks truck bombing in Beirut all those years ago. If Putin and Trump are going to come to a general understanding in the ME there's going to have to be some give and take.

    Putin's done quite a turnaround in taking Russia from a pariah state a couple of years ago to the player on the world sage that it is now. It's looking good for him to keep his man in power in Syria and to establish a permanent presence in the ME with Khmeimim and Tartus. Once Trump is fully up to speed on the totality of American interests in the region he is bound by his office not to walk away from them. There will have to be some serious deal-making.

    SmoothieX12 | Nov 18, 2016 5:28:28 PM | 22
    Putin's done quite a turnaround in taking Russia from a pariah state a couple of years ago to the player on the world sage that it is now.

    Your timeline is a bit off. The coming of Putin was a direct result of NATO's 1999 aggression against Yugoslavia, while War of 08-08-08 was the start of Russia's return into big league. So, it is not a "couple of years". Results of War of 080808 actually stunned DC's neocon interventionist cabal.

    jdmckay | Nov 18, 2016 5:47:15 PM | 23
    Who decides which news is fake?

    Buzzfeed did some analysis on Social media generated fake news during the election. An awful lot of it was simply false. You can look at some of those headlines and judge for yourself.

    Ironically, Paul Horner (guy behind "fake news empire" I linked in prior post) said:

    He said he didn't do it for ideological reasons. "I hate Trump," he told The Post. "I thought I was messing with the campaign, maybe I wasn't messing them up as much as I wanted - but I never thought he'd actually get elected."

    Just happens 70% + of fake news this election cycle (according to Buzzfeed) was anti-Clinton.

    chipnik | Nov 18, 2016 5:52:07 PM | 24
    ....and how the arms can flow from Libya and Zio-Ukraine to ISIS in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon in volumes like never before and how 'upsetting'(sic) that is for Israel.

    Yeah, 'upsetting' to the Israel Likud former-Soviet mafia which fully supports ISIS and maintains 'Hezbullah' straw dog, to keep UN forces out of Greater Israel and torpedo the Two-State Solution and the Right-of-Return agreements which Netanyahu freely boasted he lied about supporting.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/02/07/when-reagan-cut-and-run/

    MoA isn't another Likud psyop disinformation campaign for the new Trump-Israel First Regime. Remember it was your team's counterfeit Yellow Cake Big Lie that assassinated the Baathists, and paved the way for Shi'ia's defensive action against the Bush-Cheney IL Wahhabi's usurpers and crusaders. You theory will do much better on Breitbart.

    /div>
    karlof1 | Nov 18, 2016 7:20:53 PM | 29
    Ted Rall makes the important distinction that Trump's fascism will continue and build upon Obama's fascism, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/18/trumps-fascism-picks-up-where-obamas-left-off/

    Liberal Fascism is the hallmark of the Outlaw US Empire since its inception.

    /div>
    Brad | Nov 18, 2016 7:39:57 PM | 31
    http://www.rferl.org/a/us-house-votes-renew-iran-sanctions-sanction-syrian-backers-iran-russia/28119954.html

    Trump getting forced by Obama and deep state

    jfl | Nov 18, 2016 7:45:28 PM | 32
    @2 Stevens, 'All of that derailed by nothing more than people having direct access to information uncensored out of Syria.'

    The US/GCC/NATO were on track and heading in for the kill before Russia stepped in. Americans don't care who is devastated and destroyed by 'globalization' ... other than themselves. Bernie's candidacy was proof of that: not a word on foreign policy. All the information in the world won't change that. Americans don't put people living outside the US in the same category as themselves. God put them all those others 'out there' to be killed by Americans ... when they 'need' killin'.

    Julian | Nov 18, 2016 9:18:56 PM | 40
    Italian Referendum next up - Renzi on the way out?

    In a sense it's a bit of a pity because to me Renzi seems the least objectionable of the leaders of the EU Big 6 - Merkel, Hollande, May, Rajoy, Rutte & Renzi.

    He actually looks good when compared to the rest of them!

    dh | Nov 18, 2016 9:23:16 PM | 41
    The House Foreign Affairs Committee pushing for war. This is what Trump has to deal with....

    "The bill also sets the stage for the implementation of so-called safe zones and a no-fly zone over Syria. It requires the administration to "submit to the appropriate congressional committee" a report that "assesses the potential effectiveness, risks and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part of all of Syria." Further, the bill calls for the administration to detail the "operational and legal requirements for US and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria."

    https://www.thenation.com/article/the-dangerous-and-shortsighted-push-to-contain-iran/

    [Nov 18, 2016] I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia. (My first thought is that like that stupid charitable campaign to Stand Up to Cancer!, another place where the phrase was either meaningless or foolhardy.) ..."
    "... IF Russia ever started actually interfering in our relations with our neighbors or attempted to get us thrown out of our legal bases in foreign nations, I would say that Barack Obama might have a point. Since we are the party guilty of such actions, he would do better to clean up his own administration's relations with Russia, apologize to Russia, and then STFU. ..."
    "... 'Obama Urges Trump to Maintain Pointless, Hyper-Aggresive Encirclement of Russia Strategy, Acknowledge Nuclear Apocalypse "Inevitable"' ..."
    "... In the best of circumstances, Obama in his post-presidency will be akin to Jimmy Carter and stay out of politics, less or less. (I think he has exhausted all trust and value.) If he goes the Jimmy Carter route; he is bound to do worse and will fade away. I don't think he'll go the Clinton route unless Michelle tries to run for office. ..."
    "... The good people of the US are awaiting DHS' final report on Russia's attempts to hack our elections. We deserve as much. ..."
    "... If there's any basis to the allegations it's about time someone provided it. Up till now it's been unfounded assertions. Highly suspect at that. ..."
    "... My guess is the whole Russian boogeyman was a ploy to attract those "moderate Republicans" who liked Romney. ..."
    "... "My hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach, finding areas where we can cooperate with Russia where our values and interests align, but that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia when they are deviating from our values and international norms," Obama said. "But I don't expect that the president-elect will follow exactly our approach." ..."
    "... Yes, because "U.S. values" as defined by the actions of the last 16 years have been so enlightened and successful and because the U.S. is a sterling example of adhering to international norms ..."
    "... Just how deluded, ignorant or sociopathic does a person need to be that they can say things like that without vomiting? ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Pat November 17, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia. (My first thought is that like that stupid charitable campaign to Stand Up to Cancer!, another place where the phrase was either meaningless or foolhardy.)

    IF Russia ever started actually interfering in our relations with our neighbors or attempted to get us thrown out of our legal bases in foreign nations, I would say that Barack Obama might have a point. Since we are the party guilty of such actions, he would do better to clean up his own administration's relations with Russia, apologize to Russia, and then STFU.

    Which I am sure he will do once everyone recognizes that that is the appropriate thing to do. But as we well know everyone else will have to do the heavy lifting of figuring that out before he will even acknowledge the possibility.

    Katharine November 17, 2016 at 3:26 pm

    The Guardian headline struck me as hilarious:

    Obama urges Trump against realpolitik in relations with Russia
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/17/obama-urges-trump-against-realpolitik-in-relations-with-russia

    I mean, we can't have people actually taking our real interests into consideration in foreign relations, can we? That would be so–unexceptional.

    JSM November 17, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    Why not make it affirmative?

    'Obama Urges Trump to Maintain Pointless, Hyper-Aggresive Encirclement of Russia Strategy, Acknowledge Nuclear Apocalypse "Inevitable"'

    Knot Galt November 17, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    In the best of circumstances, Obama in his post-presidency will be akin to Jimmy Carter and stay out of politics, less or less. (I think he has exhausted all trust and value.) If he goes the Jimmy Carter route; he is bound to do worse and will fade away. I don't think he'll go the Clinton route unless Michelle tries to run for office.

    In this case, Obama is probably too vain and Michelle being the saner of the two might rein him in? Best of any world would, as you say, STFU. (As the Ex Prez. Obamamometer, that is probably not in the cards.)

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL November 18, 2016 at 12:28 am

    Maybe he will end up like Geo Bush, sitting in the bathtub drooling while he paints childish self-portraits
    Or maybe he will end up like OJ, where he tries to go hang out with all his cool friends and they tell him to get lost

    Adamski November 18, 2016 at 5:18 am

    Ppl still mention him as a master orator, etc. Lots of post presidency speaking engagements I suppose. I'd prefer him not to but then again if he makes enough annually from it to beat the Clintons we might get the satisfaction of annoying them

    JTMcPhee November 17, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    "legal bases in foreign nations " Another reason why "we" are Fokked, thinking like that.

    JSM November 17, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    The good people of the US are awaiting DHS' final report on Russia's attempts to hack our elections. We deserve as much.

    Steve C November 17, 2016 at 5:08 pm

    If there's any basis to the allegations it's about time someone provided it. Up till now it's been unfounded assertions. Highly suspect at that.

    NotTimothyGeithner November 17, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    My guess is the whole Russian boogeyman was a ploy to attract those "moderate Republicans" who liked Romney.

    timbers November 17, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    "My hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach, finding areas where we can cooperate with Russia where our values and interests align, but that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia when they are deviating from our values and international norms," Obama said. "But I don't expect that the president-elect will follow exactly our approach." What Obama is saying is he wants Russia to join America in bombing hospitals, schools, children, doctors, public facilities like water treatment plants, bridges, weddings, homes, and civilians to list just few – while arming and supporting terrorists for regime change. And if anyone points this out, Russia like the US is supposed to say "I know you are but what am I?"

    RMO November 17, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    Yes, because "U.S. values" as defined by the actions of the last 16 years have been so enlightened and successful and because the U.S. is a sterling example of adhering to international norms

    Just how deluded, ignorant or sociopathic does a person need to be that they can say things like that without vomiting?

    Lemmy November 17, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    Is this the same Russia that just hacked our election and subverted our fine democracy? Why, President Obama, I believe it behooves you to stand up to Russia yourself. Show President-Elect Trump how it is done sir!

    [Nov 18, 2016] On Clapper resignation

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Top US intelligence official: I submitted my resignation" As of January 20th or so. When he was going to be gone anyway. Just had to get his name in the news one more time. ..."
    "... Clapper has been like a difficult to eradicate sexually transmitted disease in the intelligence community. Unfortunately, I suspect he may have already infected others who will remain and pass it around. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    paulmeli November 17, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    "Top US intelligence official: I submitted my resignation" As of January 20th or so. When he was going to be gone anyway. Just had to get his name in the news one more time.

    Peter Pan November 17, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    Clapper has been like a difficult to eradicate sexually transmitted disease in the intelligence community. Unfortunately, I suspect he may have already infected others who will remain and pass it around.

    fresno dan November 17, 2016 at 6:54 pm

    paulmeli
    November 17, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    So, is Obama gonna pardon him? Silly me, I keep forgetting that indisputable violations of the law are not prosecuted when done by those at the top

    [Nov 18, 2016] Course Correction

    Dimitri Simes is highly questionable historian, mostly producing neocon-charged junk... But some observation about reckless application of the US dominant position in the world after dissolution of the USSR to crush small countries and control their resources (especially oil) by neocon worth reading.
    Notable quotes:
    "... George H. W. Bush administration did not want to deprive the mujahideen of total victory by granting a role to the Soviet Union's Afghan clients. ..."
    "... As late as 1999, during a period of strained U.S.-Russia relations following NATO airstrikes in Serbia, Vladimir Putin proposed U.S.-Russia cooperation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It took until after 9/11, well after Islamist extremism had metastasized throughout the Greater Middle East, for the George W. Bush administration to agree to work in concert with Moscow in Afghanistan. ..."
    "... the Obama administration called for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad's secular authoritarian regime in Damascus ..."
    "... in Libya, where the administration decapitated a repressive regime that had made peace with the United States without planning-or even intending-to assist in establishing order and security on the ground. ..."
    "... Few policies have alarmed Moscow as much as NATO's expansion. Just as George F. Kennan predicted in a letter to the National Interest ..."
    "... After the Cold War, each state chose to disenfranchise the vast majority of its Russian-speaking population as well as other minority groups. Because post-independence Estonia and Latvia were continuations of states that existed between the First and Second World Wars, they asserted, only the descendants of those citizens could become citizens of the new states. Even many third-generation residents-meaning both they and their parents were born in Estonia or Latvia-were given second-class status, denied many jobs and deprived of participation in national politics. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | nationalinterest.org

    ...U.S. interventions have contributed to the menace of radicalism. Indeed, Al Qaeda's origins in Afghanistan are inseparable from U.S. support for radical Islamist fighters resisting the Soviet invasion and U.S. decisions about post-Soviet Afghanistan. Toward the end of the war, Mikhail Gorbachev's Soviet government proposed negotiations to establish a coalition government in Kabul. Sensing Moscow's weak position, the usually pragmatic George H. W. Bush administration did not want to deprive the mujahideen of total victory by granting a role to the Soviet Union's Afghan clients. Once Boris Yeltsin's post-Soviet Russia ceased military support for the Kabul regime, Washington got its wish. Yet the incoming Clinton administration did little to fill the vacuum and allowed the Taliban to assume power and harbor Al Qaeda.

    As late as 1999, during a period of strained U.S.-Russia relations following NATO airstrikes in Serbia, Vladimir Putin proposed U.S.-Russia cooperation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It took until after 9/11, well after Islamist extremism had metastasized throughout the Greater Middle East, for the George W. Bush administration to agree to work in concert with Moscow in Afghanistan.

    Likewise, U.S. policy in Iraq has contributed to new and unnecessary threats. Saddam Hussein was a genocidal dictator, but had no ties to anti-American terrorist groups that could justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq, particularly in the absence of weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, if it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place, it was no less a mistake to abandon a weak government with limited control of its own territory and a recent history of violent internal conflict.

    Outside Iraq, as instability spread from Tunisia to Egypt, Syria and Libya, the Obama administration called for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad's secular authoritarian regime in Damascus. U.S. officials were trying to promote stability on one side of the Iraq-Syria border and regime change on the other-without investing much in either. That ISIS or a group like it would emerge from this was entirely predictable.

    The same can be said of other U.S. choices in the Middle East, as in Libya, where the administration decapitated a repressive regime that had made peace with the United States without planning-or even intending-to assist in establishing order and security on the ground. Why were U.S. and NATO officials surprised that Libya became simultaneously safe for terrorists and unsafe for many of its citizens, who then fled to Europe?

    ... ... ...

    Few policies have alarmed Moscow as much as NATO's expansion. Just as George F. Kennan predicted in a letter to the National Interest in 1998, NATO's relentless expansion along Russia's borders fed a nationalist and militaristic mood across the country's political spectrum. A bold move as this almost literally moved NATO to the suburbs of St. Petersburg, incorporating Estonia and Latvia into NATO was especially difficult for Moscow to stomach. Although today more than 25 percent of Estonia and Latvia's populations are ethnically Russian, this figure was significantly higher at the time of the Soviet collapse. After the Cold War, each state chose to disenfranchise the vast majority of its Russian-speaking population as well as other minority groups. Because post-independence Estonia and Latvia were continuations of states that existed between the First and Second World Wars, they asserted, only the descendants of those citizens could become citizens of the new states. Even many third-generation residents-meaning both they and their parents were born in Estonia or Latvia-were given second-class status, denied many jobs and deprived of participation in national politics.

    Demographics produced political reality in the form of nationalist and anti-Russian governments. Granting those governments NATO membership confirmed Moscow's suspicions that NATO remained what it was during the Cold War: an anti-Russian alliance. Worse for the United States, Washington and its allies extended their security umbrella to these states without assessing how to defend them short of war with a major nuclear power. Even if U.S. policy was guided by a genuine desire to ensure independence for these long-suffering nations, it was unreasonable to think that Washington could expand NATO-not to mention, promise Georgia and Ukraine eventual membership-without provoking Moscow's countermove.

    Few recall that Vladimir Putin originally sought to make Russia a major part of a united Europe. Instead, NATO expansion predictably fueled an us-versus-them mentality in Moscow, encouraging worst-case thinking about U.S. intentions. Russian leaders now see rearmament and the search for new allies as appropriate responses to a U.S. policy that is clearer in its denunciations of Russia than in its contributions to American national security.

    Indeed, how can the United States benefit from new dividing lines in Europe reminiscent of the Cold War? For that matter, how can Latvia or Estonia become more secure as frontline states in a confrontation with an adversarial Russia?

    The recent collapse of U.S.-Russia diplomacy in Syria has only worsened this problem. Moscow had essentially accepted U.S. and Western sanctions as a fact of life following its annexation of Crimea and, for two years, sought to demonstrate that Russia remained open for business on key international issues. However, this posture-an essential ingredient in Russia's support for the Iran nuclear deal-appears to be evaporating and its principal advocate, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, now says that so long as the sanctions remain in effect, Russia will no longer work with the United States where it is to America's advantage.

    AMERICA-RUSSIA tensions are particularly troubling given how maladroitly Washington has approached its other major rival. In contrast to Russia, China is a full-scale superpower with a robust economy and an impressive culture of innovation. Given its underlying strengths, U.S. policy could not realistically have prevented China's emergence as a leading power in the Asia-Pacific region. Still, this does not excuse Washington's ongoing failure to develop a thoughtful long-term approach to the Chinese challenge.

    ... ... ...

    For all their differences, however, Chinese and Russian leaders share the perception that U.S. policy-including Washington's support for their neighbors-amounts to a containment regime designed to keep them down. This perception is not insignificant. Beijing and Moscow can profoundly complicate the conduct of U.S. security and foreign policy without a formal alliance or overt hostility to America. Consider today's realities, including China-Russia diplomatic coordination in the UN Security Council, a more permissive Russian attitude toward the transfer of advanced weapons systems to China, and increasingly large and complex joint military maneuvers. And this may only be the beginning.

    ... ... ...

    If the next president pursues a new strategy, he or she should expect resistance from America's entrenched foreign-policy establishment. Recent fiascos from Iraq to Libya have been bipartisan affairs, and many will seek to defend their records. Similarly, foreign-policy elites in both parties have internalized the notion that "American exceptionalism" is a license to intervene in other countries and that "universal aspirations" guarantee American success.

    Despite the presence of many individuals of common sense and integrity in government, U.S. leaders have too often forgotten that jumping off a cliff is easier than climbing back to safety. Notwithstanding the election of some well-informed and thoughtful individuals to the Senate and House of Representatives, the Congress has largely abdicated its responsibility to foster serious debate on foreign policy and has failed to fulfill its constitutional role as a check on executive power. The mainstream media has become an echo chamber for a misbegotten and misguided consensus.

    Dimitri K. Simes, publisher and CEO of the National Interest, is president of the Center for the National Interest. Pratik Chougule is managing editor of the National Interest. Paul J. Saunders is executive director of the Center for the National Interest.

    [Nov 18, 2016] Economists View Links for 11-17-16

    Notable quotes:
    "... Does Finance care about bigotry? Finance has a history of recognizing bigotry and promoting it if it makes loans more predictable. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    jonny bakho : , November 17, 2016 at 05:26 AM
    Does Finance care about bigotry? Finance has a history of recognizing bigotry and promoting it if it makes loans more predictable.

    Home values could drop if too many blacks moved to a neighborhood so finance created red-lining to protect their investments while promoting bigotry.
    Finance is all in favor of tearing down minority neighborhoods or funding polluters in those neighborhoods to protect investments in gated communities and white sundown towns.

    Finance is often part of the problem, not the solution.

    Peter K. -> jonny bakho... , November 17, 2016 at 06:14 AM
    Thought-provoking question!

    All of what you say is true but I have some contrarian/devil's advocate thoughts.

    Some finance people are smart and have an enlightened self-interest. Think of Robert Rubin, George Soros or Warren Buffet. They often back Democrats. Think of Chuck Schumer. Think of Hillary Clinton's speeches to the banks.

    Finance often knocks down walls and will back whatever makes a profit. Often though as you say it conforms to prejudice and past practices, like red-lining.

    I think of the lines from the Communist Manifesto:

    "The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom - Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

    The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers."

    But the cash nexus isn't enough spiritually or emotionally and when living standards stagnate or decline, anxious people retreat into tribalism.

    DrDick -> jonny bakho... , November 17, 2016 at 07:31 AM
    "Often"? Try "usually".
    JohnH -> jonny bakho... , November 17, 2016 at 07:37 AM
    Sub-prime lenders targeted minorities...bigotry in action.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/nyregion/15subprime.html
    im1dc -> jonny bakho... , November 17, 2016 at 08:57 AM
    'Does Finance care about bigotry?'

    When I first glances at your question I immediately answered your query like you everyone here did, 'no, finance does not care about bigotry except to the degree finance can profit from it.'

    Then I realized there are too many assumptions contained in your question for me to respond b/c I was thinking inside the box and not taking in all that impacts Finance and bigotry.

    Your question assumes "Finance" is Private and for profit. But that is not true is it, since there is Public, NGO, Charity, Socialistic, Communistic, et. al., Finance.

    And, then there is the problem with the word "bigotry."

    Your post makes clear to me that you are referring to American bigotry in housing, but that means you ignore that "bigotry" exists largely from ones individual perspective, which we know depends upon from where one sees it.

    What I mean by that is Russia, China, Syria, Turkey, Iran, etc., all see and proclaim bigotry in the USA but deny bigotry in their own countries.

    If your point is simply that America Finance discriminates against people of color in Housing or that such discrimination perpetuates bigotry then no one can disagree with you, imo, however, your implication that that is done to perpetuate bigotry and racism is probably false since Finance is amoral, looking to secure profit, and not out to discriminate against a particular group such as people of color as long as they can profit.

    [Nov 18, 2016] Democratic Party identity politics stance is a shallow, desperate attempt to stop the Democratic Party being forced to respond to inquality issues – its no coincidence that this identity politics uprising from the hard left occurs at the same time we see a rust belt decination by globalization forces

    Notable quotes:
    "... "He spoke of the need to reform our trade deals so they aren't raw deals for the American people," she said. "He said he will not cut Social Security benefits. He talked about the need to address the rising cost of college and about helping working parents struggling with the high cost of child care. He spoke of the urgency of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and putting people back to work. He spoke to the very real sense of millions of Americans that their government and their economy has abandoned them. And he promised to rebuild our economy for working people." ..."
    "... And economic populists really care about race gender etc, we just think that focusing on social justice as a priority over economic equality inevitably leads to Trump or someone like him. ..."
    "... I don't know who Clinton might represent more than American feminists, and they, or at least the ones over thirty with power and wealth, certainly seemed to feel possessive and empowered by her campaign and possible election. ..."
    "... And white American feminists could not even get 50% of white working class women nationwide, and I suspect the numbers are even worse in the Upper Midwest swing states. In comparison, African-Americans delivered as always, 90% of their vote, across all classes and educational levels. Latinos delivered somewhere around 60-70%. ..."
    "... You seem to have just ignored what Val, small, Helen, faustusnotes have been saying and inserted a straw man into the conversation. No you don't have to be a Marxist to worry about social discrimination, but being sensitive to social discrimination does make you sensitive to injustice in general. Who exactly are these people you are talking about? ..."
    "... Over the past decade, a small but growing movement has realized that the Rube Goldberg neoliberalism of Obamacare–and many other parts of modern Democratic policy–is not sustainable. I've come to that conclusion painfully and slowly. I've taught the law for six years, and each year I get better at explaining how its many parts work, and fit together." ..."
    "... I offered in an earlier comment, that the left looks askance at identity politics because of the recuperation of these – gender emancipation, anti-racism and anti-colonial struggles – by capital and the state. engels, above has offered Nancy Fraser linked here. ..."
    "... I have no argument with the notion that Clinton was an imperfect candidate. Almost all candidates are (even a top-notch one like Obama) ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Hidari 11.17.16 at 7:08 am 50

    The idea that people who are against capitalism (or neoliberalism, if you want) are also not generally against patriarchy and racist colonialism ( as a system ) is obviously false.

    On the contrary it's people who are 'into' identity politics who generally are not against these things (again, as a system). People who are into identity politics are against racism and sexism, sure, but seem to have little if any idea as to why these ideas came into being and what social purposes they serve: they seem to think they are just arbitrary lifestyle choices, like not liking people with red hair, or preferring The Beatles to the Rolling Stones or something. And if this is true, all we have to do is 'persuade' people not to 'be racist' or 'be sexist' and then the problem goes away. Hence dehistoricised (and, let's face it, depoliticised) 'political correctness'. which seems to insist that as long as you don't, personally , call any African-American the N word and don't use the C word when talking about women, all problems of racism and sexism will be solved.

    The inability to look at History, and social structures, and the history of social structures, and the purpose of these structures as a pattern of domination, inevitably leads to Clintonism (or, in the UK, Blairism), which, essentially, equals 'neoliberalism plus don't use the N word'.

    Hidari 11.17.16 at 7:20 am 51 ( 51 )

    I'm not going to argue directly with people because some people are obviously a bit angry about this but the question is not whether or not sexism or homophobia are good things (they obviously aren't): the question is whether or not fighting against these things are necessarily left-wing, and the answer is: depends on how you do it. For example, in both cases we have seen right-wing feminism ('spice girls feminism') and right wing gay rights (cf Peter Thiel, Milo Yiannopoulos) which sees 'breaking the glass ceiling' for women and gays as being the key point of the struggle. I know Americans got terribly excised about having the first American female President and that's understandable for its symbolic value, but here in the UK we now have our second female Prime Minister.

    So what? Who gives a shit? What's changed (not least, what's changed for women?)?. Nothing.

    Eventually you are going to get your first female President. You will probably even someday get your first gay President. Both of them may be Republicans. Think about that.

    nastywoman 11.17.16 at 7:23 am 52

    What's wrong with -(from the NYT):
    'Democrats, who lost the White House and made only nominal gains in the House and Senate, face a profound decision after last week's stunning defeat: Make common cause where they can with Mr. Trump to try to win back the white, working-class voters he took from them

    – while always reminding the people that F face von Clownstick actually is a Fascistic Racist Birther.

    and at the same time (from E. Warren):

    "He spoke of the need to reform our trade deals so they aren't raw deals for the American people," she said. "He said he will not cut Social Security benefits. He talked about the need to address the rising cost of college and about helping working parents struggling with the high cost of child care. He spoke of the urgency of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and putting people back to work. He spoke to the very real sense of millions of Americans that their government and their economy has abandoned them. And he promised to rebuild our economy for working people."

    Faustusnotes 11.17.16 at 7:52 am 53 ( Faustusnotes )

    Straw man much, hidari? Just to pick a random example of someone who thinks these things are important, Ursula le guin Sure she's never made any state,nets about systematic oppression, and economic systems? The problem you have when you try to claim that these ideas "cameo to being" through social and structural factors is that you're wrong.

    Everyone knows rape is as old as sex, the idea it's a product of a distorted economic system is a fiction produced by Beardy white dudes to shut the girls up until after the revolution.

    Which is exactly what you "reformers" of liberalism, who think it has lost its way in the maze of identity politics, want to do. Look at the response of people like rich puchalsky to BLM – trying to pretend it's equivalent to the system of police violence directed against occupy, as if violence against white people for protesting is the same as e murder of black people simply for being in public.

    It's facile, it's shallow and it's a desperate attempt to stop the Democratic Party being forced to respond to issues outside the concerns of white rust belt men – it's no coincidence that this uprising g of shallow complaints against identity politics from the hard left occurs at the same time we see a rust belt reaction against the new left. And the reaction from the hard left will be as destructive for the dems as the rust belt reaction is for the country.

    nastywoman 11.17.16 at 8:04 am

    – and what a 'feast' for historians this whole 'deal' must be? –
    as there are all kind of fascinating thought experiment around this man who orders so loudly and in fureign language a Pizza on you-tube.

    And wasn't it time that our fellow Americans find out that Adolf Hitler not only ordered Pizza or complained about his I-Phone – NO! – that he also is very upset that Trump also won the erection?

    And there are endless possibilities for histerical conferences about who is the 'Cuter Fascist – or what Neo Nazis in germany sometimes like to discuss: What if Hitler only would have done 'good' fascistic things?

    Wouldn't he be the role model for all of US?

    Or – as there are so many other funny hypotheticals

    bob mcmanus 11.17.16 at 8:23 am ( 55 )

    1) And economic populists really care about race gender etc, we just think that focusing on social justice as a priority over economic equality inevitably leads to Trump or someone like him.

    2) I don't know who Clinton might represent more than American feminists, and they, or at least the ones over thirty with power and wealth, certainly seemed to feel possessive and empowered by her campaign and possible election.

    And white American feminists could not even get 50% of white working class women nationwide, and I suspect the numbers are even worse in the Upper Midwest swing states. In comparison, African-Americans delivered as always, 90% of their vote, across all classes and educational levels. Latinos delivered somewhere around 60-70%.

    American feminism has catastrophically, an understatement, failed over the last couple generations, and class had very much to do with it, upper middle class advanced degreed liberal women largely followed Clinton's model, leaned in, and went for the bucks rather than reaching ou to their non-college sisters in the Midwest. Kinda like Mao staying in Shanghai, or Lenin in Zurich and expecting the Feminist Revolution to happen in the countryside while they profit.

    Feminist Philosophers "Us"

    comment, "hbaber":

    Feminism, also playing to its base of upper middle class women, has also shifted its focus from economic and labor force issues, to a range of social and sexuality issues that are of less concern to most women. Personally, I feel betrayed. The male-female wage gap has not narrow appreciably since the 1990s, glass ceilings are still in place and, for me most importantly, horizontal sex segregation in the market for jobs that don't require a college degree, where roughly 2/3 of American women compete, is unabated. I looked at the most recent BLS stats for occupations by gender recently. Of the two aggregated categories of occupations that would be characterized as 'blue collar' work, women represent a little over 2 and 3 percent respectively. For specific occupations under those categories more than half (eyeballing) don't even include a sufficient number of women to report.

    Again, it isn't hard to see why. Upper middle class women can easily imagine themselves, or their daughters, needing abortions. The possibility that that option would not be available is a real fear. They do not worry that they or their daughters would be stuck for most of their adult lives cashiering at Walmart, working in a call center, or doing any of the other boring, dead-end pink-collar work which are the only options most women have. And they don't even think of blue-collar work.

    Which Marxists always have expected and why we strongly prefer that the UMC and bourgeois be kept out of the Party. It's called opportunism and is connected to reformism, IOW, wanting to keep the system, just replace the old bosses with your owm.

    You backed the war-mongering plutocrat and handed the world to fascism. Can you show responsibility and humility for even a week?

    Faustusnotes 11.17.16 at 8:38 am

    aaand bob mansplains how all white feminists think!

    reason 11.17.16 at 8:40 am ( 57 )

    Hidari http://crookedtimber.org/2016/11/15/on-the-national-and-international-causes-of-Trump_vs_deep_state/#comment-698690

    You seem to have just ignored what Val, small, Helen, faustusnotes have been saying and inserted a straw man into the conversation. No you don't have to be a Marxist to worry about social discrimination, but being sensitive to social discrimination does make you sensitive to injustice in general. Who exactly are these people you are talking about?

    reason 11.17.16 at 8:43 am

    Of course Hidari might have had a point if he was making an argument about campaign strategy and emphasis, but he seems to be saying more that that, or are I wrong?

    basil 11.17.16 at 8:51 am ( 59 )

    Thank you for this Eric. Did you see this?

    Frank Pasquale recants calculated support for the ACA

    Over the past decade, a small but growing movement has realized that the Rube Goldberg neoliberalism of Obamacare–and many other parts of modern Democratic policy–is not sustainable. I've come to that conclusion painfully and slowly. I've taught the law for six years, and each year I get better at explaining how its many parts work, and fit together."

    basil 11.17.16 at 9:09 am

    I offered in an earlier comment, that the left looks askance at identity politics because of the recuperation of these – gender emancipation, anti-racism and anti-colonial struggles – by capital and the state. engels, above has offered Nancy Fraser linked here.

    CT's really weird on identity. Whose work are we thinking through? 'Gender'and 'Race' are political constructions that are most explicitly economic in nature. There were no black people before racism made certain bodies available for the inhumanity of enslavement, and thus the enrichment of the slaver class. Commentators oughtn't, I don't think, write as if there are actually existing black and white people. As Dorothy Roberts – Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-Create Race in the 21st Century (and Paul Gilroy – Against Race: Imagining Political Culture beyond the Color Line, and Karen and Barbara Fields – Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life, etc put it, it is racism that creates and naturalises race. Of course liberalism's logics of governance, the necessity of making bodies available for control and exploitation constantly reproduce and entrench race (and gender).

    I offered that racialised people, particularly those gendered as women/queer, the ones who have been refused whiteness, are also super suspicious of these deployments of identity politics, especially by non-subjugated persons who've a political project for which they are weaponising subordinated identities. It really is abusive and exploitative.

    We must listen better. As the racialised and gendered are pointing out, it is incredible that it has taken the threat of Trump, and now their ascension for liberals to tune in to the violence waged against racialised, gendered, queer lives and bodies by White Supremacy. History will remember that #BLM (like the record deportations, the Clintons' actual-existing-but-to-liberals invisible border wall, the Obamacare farce in the OP, de Blasio's undocumented persons list, Rahm in Chicago, the employment of David Brock, Melania's nudes, the crushing poverty of racialised women, the exploitation of those violated by Trump, the re-invasion and desecration of Native American territory) happened under a liberal presidency. That liberal presidency responded to BLM with a Blue Lives Matter law. This is evidence of liberalism's inherently violent attitude towards those it pretends to care about. All this preceded Trump.

    If you are for gender emancipation or anti-race/racism, be against these all the time, not just to tar your temporary electoral foes. Be feminist when dancing Yemenis gendered as women – some of the poorest, most vulnerable humans – are droned at weddings. Be feminist when Mexico's farmers gendered as women are dying at NAFTA's hand. Be feminist when poor racialised queer teens are dying in the streets as you celebrate the right of wealthy gays to marry. Be feminist and reject people who've got multiple sexual violence accusations against them and those who help them cover these up and shame the victims. Be feminist and anti-racist and reject people who glory in making war on poor defenceless people. Be feminist and anti-racist and reject white nationalists gendered female who call racialised groups 'super-predators' to court racists. Reject people who say of public welfare improvements – it will never, ever happen, this is not Denmark. The people who need those services the most are vulnerable humans, racialised and gendered as women. Never say that politicians who put poor migrants in cages on isolated islands are nice people. They absolutely aren't. Some of this is really easy.

    A racialised gendered voice, Mayukh Sen at the bottom has a different take.

    These puerile rhetorical gestures reveal the people for whom 2:30 a.m. on Wednesday was simply a glass ceiling left unbroken by a woman who launched a massive Yemeni bombing campaign. Perhaps as a mechanic of coping, it has become incredibly sexy for a certain class of liberals to dodge any responsibility for the lives they, too, have compromised. They aren't the same ones who have to worry about who will be the first person to call them a terrorist faggot ..For the rest of us, the victory of this fascist is a confirmation of the biases we have known all along, no matter public liberal consciousness's inabilities to wrangle them into submission."

    nastywoman 11.17.16 at 9:17 am ( 61 )

    @55
    and why do we always have to make so many words about 'Cookie Baking'?

    Another Nick 11.17.16 at 9:28 am

    faustusnotes, can you comment on the "identity politics" behind the Dem choice of Lena Dunham for celebrity campaign mascot?

    In what ways might be she have been expected to appeal/not appeal to eg. rural voters?

    How do you think decisions like that played out for the Dems?

    nastywoman 11.17.16 at 9:33 am ( 63 )

    – and just a suggestion I have learned from touring the rust belt – waaay before it was as 'fashionable' as it is right now.

    While we in some hotel room in Scranton fought our Ideological fights -(we had a French Camera Assistant who insisted that America one day will elect 'a Fascist like Hitler') –
    the mechanic we had scheduled to interview about his Camaro SS for the next day – had exchanged all the spark plucks of his car.

    bob mcmanus above,
    I really think social justice and economic justice are bound together, and that Universal Healthcare, for example, as a fundamental right is a basic feminist and anti-racist goal. Most particularly because the vulnerability of these groups, their economic hardship, their very capacity to live, to survive is at stake in a marketised health care system. Racialised outcomes for ACA.

    Similarly with marketised higher education and skills training. How cynical that HRC used HBCUs to argue that racialised people would suffer from free public tertiary education!

    Dorothy Roberts' work for example has interesting perspectives on how race is created in part through the differentiated access to healthcare. They discuss how this plays out for both maternal and child mortality, and for breast cancer survival. 'Oh, the evidence shows that racialised women are more vulnerable to x condition'. Exactly, because a racist and marketised system denies them necessary healthcare.

    Val 11.17.16 at 10:07 am ( 65 )

    A funny thing about the new comment moderation regime is that you can get two people posting in rapid succession saying pretty much opposite things like me then Hidari. It seems as if (although again it's not very clear) Hidari is suggesting capitalism created sexism and racism? Or something like that? I'm definitely on better ground there though: patriarchy and sexism predate capitalism.

    In fairness though, I think I understand what Hidari and engels are getting at. I know lots of young people, women and people of colour, who probably fit their description in a way. They are young, smart, probably a bit naive, and at least some of them probably from privileged backgrounds. They appear driven by desire to succeed in a hierarchical academic system that still tends to be dominated by white men at the upper levels, and they don't seem to question the system much, at least not openly.

    But can I just mention, some of our hosts here are actually fairly high up in that system. Why aren't they being attacked as liberals or proponents of "identity politics"? Why is it only when women or people of colour try to succeed in that very same academic system that it becomes so wrong?

    faustusnotes 11.17.16 at 11:55 am

    Another Nick, yes I can comment on that. I think it's fascinating that the old beardy leftists and berniebros are fixated on Lena Dunham. Who else is fixated on Lena Dunham? The right bloggers, who are inflamed with rage at everything she does. Who else is fixated on identity politics? The right bloggers, who present it as everything wrong with the modern left, PC gone mad, censorship etc. You guys should get together and have a party – you're made for each other.

    Also, the Democrats don't have a "celebrity campaign mascot." So what are you actually talking about?

    Val 11.17.16 at 12:02 pm ( 69 )

    basil @ 64
    basil what in any conceivable world makes you think that feminists on CT don't know about the issues you're talking about? I work in a school of public health and my entire work consists of trying to address those sorts of issues, plus ecological sustainability.

    Seriously this has all gone beyond straw-wo/manning. Some people here are talking to others who exist only in their minds or something. The world's gone mad.

    engels 11.17.16 at 12:06 pm

    Umm Val and FaustusNoted, which part of-

    identity politics isn't the same thing as feminism, anti-racism, LGBT politics, etc. They're all needed now more than ever.

    -was unclear to you?

    I DON'T want to live in a world in which 'patriarchy and racism' are okay, I want to live in a world in which America has a real Left, which represents the working class (black, white, gay, straight, female, male-like other countries do to a greater lesser degree), and which is the only thing that has a shot at stopping its descent into outright fascism.

    engels 11.17.16 at 12:19 pm ( 71 )

    it often gets thrown around as a kind of all-encompassing epithet

    Point taken-but there's really nothing I can do to stop other people misusing terms (until the Dictatorship of the Prolerariat anyway :) )

    Cranky Observer 11.17.16 at 12:27 pm

    = = = faustnotes @ 4:14 am The reason these conservative Dems come from those states is that those states don't support radical welfare provisions – they don't want other people getting a free lunch, and value personal responsibility over welfarism. = = =

    As long as you don't count enormous agricultural, highway, postal service, and military base subsidies as any form of "welfare", sure. And that's not even counting the colossal expenditures on military force and bribes in the Middle East to keep the diesel-fuel-to-corn unroofed chemical factory (i.e. farming) industry running profitably. Apparently the Republicans who hate the US Postal Service with a vengeance, for example, are unaware that in 40% of the land area of the United States FedEx, UPS, etc turn over the 'last hundred mile' delivery to the USPS.

    engels 11.17.16 at 12:29 pm ( 73 )

    Ps I'm kind of surprised this thread has been allowed to go on so long but I'm going to bow out now-feel free to continue trying to smear me behind my back

    bob mcmanus 11.17.16 at 12:35 pm

    Would a real leftist let her daughter marry a hedge-fund trader? I suppose they are a step above serial killers and child molesters, but c'mon. Quotes from Wiki, rearranged in chronological order.

    Beginning in the early 1990s, Mezvinsky used a wide variety of 419 scams. According to a federal prosecutor, Mezvinsky conned using "just about every different kind of African-based scam we've ever seen."[11] The scams promise that the victim will receive large profits, but first a small down payment is required. To raise the funds needed to front the money for the fraudulent investment schemes he was being offered, Mezvinsky tapped his network of former political contacts, dropping the name of the Clinton family to convince unwitting marks to give him money.[12]

    In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 felony charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud

    "In July 2010, Mezvinsky married Chelsea Clinton in an interfaith ceremony in Rhinebeck, New York.[12] The senior Clintons and Mezvinskys were friends in the 1990s ; their children met on a Renaissance Weekend retreat in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina."

    Subsequent to his graduations, he worked for eight years as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs before leaving to join a private equity firm, but later quit. In 2011, he co-founded a Manhattan-based hedge fund firm, Eaglevale Partners, with two longtime partners, Bennett Grau and Mark Mallon.[1][8] In May 2016, The New York Times reported that the Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity Fund is said to have lost nearly 90 percent of its value, [which equated to a 90% loss to investors] and sources say it will be shutting down.[9][10] Emails discovered as part of Wikileaks' release of the "Podesta emails" seemed to indicate that Mezvinsky had used his ties to the Clinton family to obtain investors for his hedge fund through Clinton Foundation events.

    Marcotte, Sady Doyle, Valenti, the Clinton operatives knew this stuff.

    Prioritizing women's liberation over economic populism, just a little bit, doesn't quite cover it. Buying fully into the most rapacious aspects of predatory capitalism is more lie it.

    If Clinton is your champion, and I am still seeing sads at Jezebel, you have zero credilibity on economic issues. She's one of the worst crooks to ever run for President. And we will see how Obama fares on his immediate switch from President to his ambition to be a venture capitalist for Silicon Valley. I'll bet Obama gets very very lucky!

    Yan 11.17.16 at 1:20 pm ( 75 )

    Val @49 &
    "they (at some confused and probably not fully conscious level) do seem to assume that violence and oppression of women and people of colour never used to happen when white men (including white working class men) had 'good jobs' .. patriarchy and racism predate neoliberalism by centuries."
    "patriarchy and sexism predate capitalism."

    I think this framing is misleading, because you're historically comparing forms of oppression with economic systems, rather than varieties of one or the other.

    Wouldn't the more relevant comparison be something like: patriarchy and sexism are coeval with classism and economic inequality?

    What concretely are racism and sexism, after all, but ideologies dependent upon power inequalities, and what are those but inequalities of social position (man, father) and wealth and ownership that make possible that power difference? How could sexism or racism have existed without class or inequality?

    novakant 11.17.16 at 1:32 pm

    I have no argument with the notion that Clinton was an imperfect candidate. Almost all candidates are (even a top-notch one like Obama)

    Strawman (I have heard a lot of times before):

    nobody criticizes Clinton for being imperfect, people criticize her for being a terrible, terrible candidate and the DNC establishment for supporting this terrible, terrible candidate: she lost against TRUMP for goodness' sake.

    Layman 11.17.16 at 1:47 pm ( 77 )

    bob mcmanus: "In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 felony charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud "

    Well, either I'm shocked to discover that Clinton was involved in her daughter's husband's father's crimes some 20 years ago, or you've demonstrated that Clinton's daughter married a man whose father was a crook. I'm guessing the latter, though I'm left wondering WTF that has to do with Clinton's character.

    engels 11.17.16 at 2:03 pm

    One more:

    "we cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of white men and a majority of white women, across class lines, voted for a platform and a message of white supremacy, Islamophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-science, anti-Earth, militarism, torture, and policies that blatantly maintain income inequality. The vast majority of people of color voted against Trump, with black women registering the highest voting percentage for Clinton of any other demographic (93 percent). It is an astounding number when we consider that her husband's administration oversaw the virtual destruction of the social safety net by turning welfare into workfare, cutting food stamps, preventing undocumented workers from receiving benefits, and denying former drug felons and users access to public housing; a dramatic expansion of the border patrol, immigrant detention centers, and the fence on Mexico's border; a crime bill that escalated the war on drugs and accelerated mass incarceration; as well as NAFTA and legislation deregulating financial institutions.

    "Still, had Trump received only a third of the votes he did and been defeated, we still would have had ample reason to worry about our future.

    "I am not suggesting that white racism alone explains Trump's victory. Nor am I dismissing the white working class's very real economic grievances. It is not a matter of disaffection versus racism or sexism versus fear. Rather, racism, class anxieties, and prevailing gender ideologies operate together, inseparably, or as Kimberlé Crenshaw would say, intersectionally."
    https://bostonreview.net/forum/after-trump/robin-d-g-kelley-trump-says-go-back-we-say-fight-back

    Faustusnotes 11.17.16 at 2:38 pm ( 79 )

    Bob, a real feminist would not tell her daughter who to marry.

    You claim to be an intersectional feminist but you say things like this, and you blamed feminists for white dudes voting for trump. Are you a parody account?

    Michael Sullivan 11.17.16 at 2:41 pm

    Mclaren @ 25 "As for 63.7% home ownership stats in 2016, vast numbers of those "owned" homes were snapped up by giant banks and other financial entities like hedge funds which then rented those homes out. So the home ownership stats in 2016 are extremely deceptive."

    There may be ways in which the home ownership statistic is deceptive or fuzzy, but it's hard for me to imagine this being one of them.

    The definition you seem to imply for home ownership (somebody somewhere owns the home) would result in by definition 100% home ownership every year.

    I'm pretty sure that the measure is designed to look at whether one of the people who live in a home actually owns it. Ok, let's stuff the pretty sure, etc. and use our friend google. So turns out that the rate in question is the percentage of households where one of the people in the household owns the apartment/house. If some banker or landlord buys a foreclosure and then rents the house out, that will be captured in the homeownership rate.

    Where that rate may understate issues is that it doesn't consider how many people are in a household. So if lots of people are moving into their parent's basements, or renting rooms to/from unrelated people in their houses, those people won't be counted as renters or homeowners, since the rate tracks households, not people. Where that will be captured is in something called the headship rate, and represents the ratio of households to adults. That number dropped by about 1.5% between the housing bust and the recession, and appears to be recovering or at worst near bottom (mixed data from two different surveys) as of 2013. So, yes, the drop in home ownership rate is probably understated (hence the headline of my source article below) somewhat, but not enormously as you imply, and the difference is NOT foreclosures - unless they are purchased by another owner occupier, they DO show up in the home ownership rate. The difference is larger average households: more adults living with other adults.

    Here's my source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/why-the-homeownership-rate-is-misleading/?_r=0

    Yan 11.17.16 at 3:03 pm ( 81 )

    engels @70, "I DON'T want to live in a world in which 'patriarchy and racism' are okay, I want to live in a world in which America has a real Left, which represents the working class (black, white, gay, straight, female, male-like other countries do to a greater lesser degree), and which is the only thing that has a shot at stopping its descent into outright fascism."

    So many prominent people and such a large majority of voters have be so completely wrong, so many times, on everything, for a year that I really am not confident about making any strong political claims anymore. However, it has opened me to possibilities I wouldn't have previously considered.

    One is this: I'm beginning to wonder (not believe, wonder), if a lot of working class and lower-to-middle middle class Americans, including a lot of the ones who didn't vote or who switched from Obama to Trump (not including those who were always on the right) would already be on board, or in the long run be able of getting on board, with the picture Engels paints at 70.

    That possibility seems outrageous because we assume this general group are motivated *primarily* by resentment against women and people of color. But the more I read news stories that directly interview them–not the rally goers, but the others–the more it seems that they will side with *almost anyone* who they think is on their side, and *against anyone* who they think has contempt or indifference for them. Put another way: they are driven by equal opportunity resentment to whatever prejudices serve their resentment, rather than by a deeply engrained, fixed, rigid, kind of prejudice. (I have in mind a number of recent articles, but one thing that struck me is interviews with racially diverse factory workers, with Latinos and women, who voted for Trump.)

    I also begin to wonder if there is as much, if not more, resistance to wide solidarity among the left than among this group of voters who aren't really committed to either party. I begin to think that many on the left are strongly, deeply, viscerally opposed to the middle range working class, period, and not *just* to the racism and sexism that are all too often found there. I worry the Democrats' class contempt, their conservative disgust for their social, educational, professional, and economic inferiors is growing–partly based in reasonable disgust at the horrendous excesses of the right, but partly class-based, pathological, and subterranean, independent of that reasonable side.

    I say this not to justify Trump voters or non-voters or to vilify Democrats, but actually with a bit of optimism. For a very long time even many on the far left has looked at the old Marxist model of wide solidarity among the proletariat with skepticism. But I'm wondering if that skepticism is still justified. I wonder if what stands in the way of a truly diverse working class movement is not the right but the left. If they're ready, and we've not been paying attention.

    Are we really faced with a working class that rejects diversity? Are we really opposing to them a professional class that truly accepts diversity? Isn't there a kind of popular solidarity appearing, in awkward and sometimes ugly ways, that is destroying the presumptions of that opposition?

    engels 11.17.16 at 3:32 pm Cornel West:

    In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future. What is to be done? First we must try to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering of poor and working people and obsessed with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness to justice. We must ground our truth-telling in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist domination. Third we must remember courageous exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral and spiritual inspiration as we build multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall Street crimes and war crimes, global warming and police abuse – and to protect precious rights and liberties .

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/17/american-neoliberalism-cornel-west-2016-election

    WLGR 11.17.16 at 4:00 pm ( 83 )

    Val: "It seems as if (although again it's not very clear) Hidari is suggesting capitalism created sexism and racism? Or something like that? I'm definitely on better ground there though, patriarchy and sexism predate capitalism."

    If Hidari is coming from a more-or-less mainline contemporary Marxist position, this is a misunderstanding of their argument, which is no more a claim that capitalism "created sexism and racism" than it would be a claim that capitalism created class antagonism. What's instead being suggested is that just as capitalism has systematized a specific form of class antagonism (wage laborer vs. capitalist) as a perceived default whose hegemony and expansion shapes our perception of all other potential antagonisms as anachronistic exceptions, so it has done the same with specific forms of sexism and racism, the forms we might call "patriarchy" and "white supremacy". In fact the argument is typically that antagonisms like white vs. POC and man vs. woman function as normalized exceptions to the normalized general antagonism of wage laborer vs. capitalist, a space where the process known since Marx as "primitive accumulation" can take place through the dispossession of women and POC (up to and including the dispossession of their very bodies) in what might otherwise be considered flagrant violation of liberal norms.

    As theorists like Rosa Luxemburg and Silvia Federici have elaborated, this process of accumulation is absolutely essential to the continued functioning of capitalism - the implication being that as much as capitalism and its ideologists pretend to oppose oppressions like racism and sexism, it can never actually destroy these oppressions without destroying its own social basis in the process. Hence neoliberal "identity politics", in which changing the composition of the ruling elite (now the politician shaking hands with Netanyahu on the latest multibillion-dollar arms deal can be a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name! now the CEO of a company that employs teenaged girls to stitch T-shirts for 12 hours a day can be a woman!) is ideologically akin to wholesale liberation, functions not as a way to destroy racism and sexism but as a compromise gambit to preserve them.

    Another Nick 11.17.16 at 4:01 pm f

    austusnotes, I asked if you could comment on the "identity politics" behind the Dem choice of Lena Dunham for celebrity campaign mascot. ie. their strategy. What they were planning and thinking? And how you think it played out for them?

    Not a list of your favourite boogeymen.

    "So what are you actually talking about?"

    I was attempting to discuss the role of identity politics in the Clinton campaign. I asked about Dunham because she was the most prominent of the celebrities employed by the Clinton campaign to deploy identity politics. ie. she appeared most frequently in the media on their behalf.

    http://www.vulture.com/2016/11/lena-dunham-fake-psa-hillary-clinton-rap-video.html

    Not seeing much discussion about actual policies there, economic or otherwise. It's really just an entire interview based on identity politics. With bonus meta-commentary on identity politics.

    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/nov/11/lena-dunham-election-letter-trump

    Lena blames "white women, so unable to see the unity of female identity, so unable to look past their violent privilege, and so inoculated with hate for themselves," for the election loss.

    Why didn't the majority of white women vote for Hillary? Because they "hate themselves".

    [Nov 18, 2016] Ellison is a dud, Bernie tweets support for Schumer theres nobody I know better prepared and more capable of leading our caucus than Chuck Schumer -- Well theres a good

    Nov 18, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    chunder maker in that statement eh? Hope dashed! jo6pac November 17, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    Lambert you were on to something when you mention his twitter account.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/17/the-skeletons-in-keith-ellisons-display-case/

    I know my Muslim friends would never want to hurt anyone but this guy is as crazy as hillabillie.

    cocomaan November 17, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    Support for Syria and Libya interventions? Gross. No thanks.

    Who else do we got? Wait this is it? WHAT?!!

    uncle tungsten November 18, 2016 at 7:25 am

    Ellison is a dud, Bernie tweets support for Schumer "there's nobody I know better prepared and more capable of leading our caucus than Chuck Schumer"!
    Well there's a good chunder maker in that statement eh? Hope dashed!

    There are no doubt many who are better informed, more progressive and principled, more remote from Wall Street and oligarchic capture than Chuck Schumer and Ellison. So there you have it – this is reform in the Democrats after a crushing defeat.

    Vale democrats, and now the journey becomes arduous with these voices to smother hope. A new party is urgently needed (I know how difficult that is) and these voices of the old machine need to be ignored for the sake of sanity.

    [Nov 18, 2016] A very conservative butcher bill of US neocons that does not include the wounded, the homeless, the refugees, or the cost of the wars to you, who continue to believe that before Trump the world was a nice and comfortable place -- for you Dear Americans

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem to believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious safety and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me, a mirror does not lie. ..."
    "... https://youtu.be/G0R09YzyuCI Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter ..."
    "... Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to repeat history to assured extinction. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Killary PAC | Nov 17, 2016 5:18:20 PM | 33

    Dear Americans,

    I understand some of you are very worried about the election of Donald Trump. But I want you think about this:

    1. First they went for Yugoslavia, and you didn't worry: a country died
    2. Then they went for Afghanistan and you didn't worry: 220,000 Afghans have died.
    3. Then, they went for Iraq, and you didn't worry: 1 million Iraqis died.
    4. Then they went for Libya, and you didn't worry: 30,000 to 50,000 people died. Did you worry when Qaddafi was murdered with a bayonet up his rectum? No. And someone even laughed.
    5. Then they went for Ukraine, and you didn't worry: 10,000 people died and are dying.
    6. Then they went for Syria, and you didn't worry: 250,000 people died
    7. Then they went for Yemen: over 6,000 Yemenis have been killed and another 27,000 wounded. According to the UN, most of them are civilians. Ten million Yemenis don't have enough to eat, and 13 million have no access to clean water. Yemen is highly dependent on imported food, but a U.S.-Saudi blockade has choked off most imports. The war is ongoing.
    8. Then there is Somalia , and you don't worry

    Then there are the countries that reaped the fallout from the collapse of Libya. Weapons looted after the fall of Gaddafi fuel the wars in Mali, Niger, and the Central African Republic.

    Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem to believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious safety and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me, a mirror does not lie.

    Sincerely,

    One who does not worry about you.

    PS By the way the butcher bill I am here presenting is very conservative on the body count and does not include the wounded, the homeless, the refugees, or the cost of the wars to you, who continue to believe that before Trump the world was a nice and comfortable place--for you.

    okie farmer | Nov 17, 2016 5:35:10 PM | 34
    https://youtu.be/G0R09YzyuCI Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter
    Lochearn | Nov 17, 2016 5:35:11 PM | 35
    @ 33 Great comment, but remember the tribe. French revolution, Marxism, Russian revolution, Israel, neoliberalism. I am from the hard "Grapes of Wrath" left. Marxism was a brilliant Jewish ploy to split the left, then identity politics. Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...
    psychohistorian | Nov 17, 2016 7:07:27 PM | 36
    @ Lochearn

    Nice continuation of the Killary Pac comment. I want to take it further.

    Since the Marxism ploy to split the left the folks that own private finance have developed/implemented another ploy to redirect criticism of themselves/their tools by adding goyim to the fringes of private finance to make it look like a respectable cornerstone of our "civilization".

    Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...

    Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to repeat history to assured extinction.

    stumpy | Nov 17, 2016 9:37:19 PM | 45
    @32

    Nicely done. The other image that I find humorous is the dancing W at the Dallas police killings memorial.

    Ghostship | Nov 17, 2016 10:01:11 PM | 46
    >>>>virgile | Nov 17, 2016 3:24:07 PM | 14
    The finance sector and the medias that they support are having problems digesting the 105 millions wasted on Hillary.
    No they're not - that is chicken feed to them. A few hundred dollars each out of their bonuses will cover that, perhaps the cost of a meal out.

    [Nov 18, 2016] The statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes by Bruce Wilder

    Notable quotes:
    "... The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance. ..."
    "... It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. ..."
    "... When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. ..."
    "... Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. ..."
    "... It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics. ..."
    "... This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints. ..."
    "... No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence. ..."
    "... If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. ..."
    "... Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. ..."
    Nov 18, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:07 pm 30

    At the center of Great Depression politics was a political struggle over the distribution of income, a struggle that was only decisively resolved during the War, by the Great Compression. It was at center of farm policy where policymakers struggled to find ways to support farm incomes. It was at the center of industrial relations politics, where rapidly expanding unions were seeking higher industrial wages. It was at the center of banking policy, where predatory financial practices were under attack. It was at the center of efforts to regulate electric utility rates and establish public power projects. And, everywhere, the clear subtext was a struggle between rich and poor, the economic royalists as FDR once called them and everyone else.

    FDR, an unmistakeable patrician in manner and pedigree, was leading a not-quite-revolutionary politics, which was nevertheless hostile to and suspicious of business elites, as a source of economic pathology. The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance.

    It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle.

    In retrospect, though the New Deal did use direct employment as a means of relief to good effect economically and politically, it never undertook anything like a Keynesian stimulus on a Keynesian scale - at least until the War.

    Where the New Deal witnessed the institution of an elaborate system of financial repression, accomplished in large part by imposing on the financial sector an explicitly mandated structure, with types of firms and effective limits on firm size and scope, a series of regulatory reforms and financial crises beginning with Carter and Reagan served to wipe this structure away.

    When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup.

    I don't know what considerations guided Obama in choosing the size of the stimulus or its composition (as spending and tax cuts). Larry Summers was identified at the time as a voice of caution, not "gambling", but not much is known about his detailed reasoning in severely trimming Christina Romer's entirely conventional calculations. (One consideration might well have been worldwide resource shortages, which had made themselves felt in 2007-8 as an inflationary spike in commodity prices.) I do not see a case for connecting stimulus size policy to the health care reform. At the time the stimulus was proposed, the Administration had also been considering whether various big banks and other financial institutions should be nationalized, forced to insolvency or otherwise restructured as part of a regulatory reform.

    Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. Accelerating the financialization of the economy from 1999 on made New York and Washington rich, but the same economic policies and process were devastating the Rust Belt as de-industrialization. They were two aspects of the same complex of economic trends and policies. The rise of China as a manufacturing center was, in critical respects, a financial operation within the context of globalized trade that made investment in new manufacturing plant in China, as part of globalized supply chains and global brand management, (arguably artificially) low-risk and high-profit, while reinvestment in manufacturing in the American mid-west became unattractive, except as a game of extracting tax subsidies or ripping off workers.

    It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics.

    It is conceding too many good intentions to the Obama Administration to tie an inadequate stimulus to a Rube Goldberg health care reform as the origin story for the final debacle of Democratic neoliberal politics. There was a delicate balancing act going on, but they were not balancing the recovery of the economy in general so much as they were balancing the recovery from insolvency of a highly inefficient and arguably predatory financial sector, which was also not incidentally financing the institutional core of the Democratic Party and staffing many key positions in the Administration and in the regulatory apparatus.

    This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints.

    No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence.

    bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:33 pm ( 31 )

    The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying.

    Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.

    likbez 11.18.16 at 4:48 pm 121

    bruce wilder 11.16.16 at 10:07 pm 30

    Great comment. Simply great. Hat tip to the author !

    Notable quotes:

    "… The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable their dominance. …"

    "… It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. …"

    "… When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. … "

    "… Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. …"

    "… It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened, in a meteorological economics. …"

    "… This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints. …"

    "… No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or coherence. …"

    "… If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. …"

    "… Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. …"

    [Nov 18, 2016] Obama, EU leaders agree to keep anti-Russian sanctions over Ukraine

    Final anti-Russian tour by neocon Obama
    Notable quotes:
    "... We [Russia] have never initiated sanctions. These [sanctions] don't prevent us from building dialogue and continuing the dialogue on matters that are of interest to us, to Russia ..."
    "... Russian President Vladimir Putin and outgoing US President Obama are likely to talk informally on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in the Peruvian capital of Lima, Peskov said on Friday. ..."
    "... The two administrations have not agreed on any separate meetings, but we can assume that President Putin and President Obama will cross paths on the sidelines of the forum and will talk ..."
    "... "Russia, breaking international law. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The refugee and migration crisis. International terrorism. Hybrid warfare. And cyber-attacks," ..."
    www.rt.com

    US President Barack Obama and EU leaders have agreed to keep anti-Russian sanctions in place for a further year over the situation in Ukraine.

    President Obama, who is on his final official visit to Europe, met with the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the UK on Friday.

    Among the main topics on the agenda were extending sanctions against Russia, cooperation within the framework of NATO, the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, and possible new anti-Russian sanctions over Moscow's actions in Syria.

    "The leaders also affirmed the importance of continued cooperation through multilateral institutions, including NATO," the White House added.

    Sanctions won't stop Russia from improving its dialogue and ties with other countries, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

    "We [Russia] have never initiated sanctions. These [sanctions] don't prevent us from building dialogue and continuing the dialogue on matters that are of interest to us, to Russia," Peskov said.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and outgoing US President Obama are likely to talk informally on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in the Peruvian capital of Lima, Peskov said on Friday.

    "The two administrations have not agreed on any separate meetings, but we can assume that President Putin and President Obama will cross paths on the sidelines of the forum and will talk," Peskov said.

    Also on Friday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg gave a speech at an event hosted by the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), where he said that Europe and the United States "are close economic and trade partners" and mentioned potential threats for the alliance. "Russia, breaking international law. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The refugee and migration crisis. International terrorism. Hybrid warfare. And cyber-attacks," said Stoltenberg, listing the perceived dangers.

    [Nov 16, 2016] The New Red Scare: Reviving the art of threat inflation

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reviving the art of threat inflation ..."
    "... "Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate, was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis. "I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little levity." ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al , November 16, 2016 at 2:51 am
    Harpers Magazine via Antiwar.com: The New Red Scare
    http://harpers.org/archive/2016/12/the-new-red-scare/?single=1

    Reviving the art of threat inflation

    By Andrew Cockburn

    "Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate, was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis. "I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little levity."

    ####

    While I do have some quibbles with the piece (RuAF pilots are getting much more than 90 hours a year flight time & equipment is overrated and unaffordable in any decent numbers), it is pretty solid.

    [Nov 16, 2016] US Public Opinion Speaks to Anti-Militarism, the Electorate Votes for Warmongers

    Nov 16, 2016 | www.unz.com
    Castigating the US electorate as accomplices and facilitators of wars, or at best describing it as ignorant sheep herded by political elites, speaks only to a partial reality; in public opinion polls, even in ones weighted overwhelmingly to the center-right, the American people consistently opposse militarism and wars, past and present.

    The right and Left, each in their own way, fail to grasp the contradiction that define US political life, namely, the profound gap between the American public and the Washington elite on questions of war and peace, and the electoral process which results in the perpetuation of militarism. We will proceed to analyze the most recent polling of US public opinion and then turn to the electoral outcomes. In the second part we will discuss the contradictions and raise several ways in which the contradiction can be resolved.

    ... ... ...

    Analysis and Perspectives

    On all major issues of foreign policy pertaining to war and peace, the political elite is far more bellicose than the US public; far more likely to ignore wars that threaten national security; more likely to violate the Constitution;and are committed to increasing military spending even as it reduces social programs.

    The political elites are more likely to intervene or become "entangled" in Middle East wars, against the opinion of majoritarian popular opinion. No doubt the decidedly oligarchical military-industrial complexes, Israeli power configuration and mass media publicists, are far more influential than the pro-democracy public.

    The future portends the political elites' continuation of military policies, increasing security threats and diminishing public representation.

    Some Hypothesis on the Contradiction between Popular Opinion and Electoral Outcomes

    There is clearly a substantial gap between the majority of Americans and the political elite regarding the military's role overseas, wars, constitutional prerogives, the demonization of Russia, the deployment of US troops to Syria and the US entanglement in Middle East wars, which it is understood to be Israel.

    Yet it is also a fact that the US electorate votes for the two major political parties that supports wars, back Middle East alliances with warring states, Saudi Arabia and Israel,and sanction Russia as the main threat to US security.

    ORDER IT NOW

    Several hypotheses regarding this contradiction should be considered.

    1. Close to 50% of the electorate abstain from voting in Presidential and Congressional elections, which most likely includes those Americans that oppose the US military role overseas. In other words the war parties 'win' elections with 25% or less of the electorate.

    2. The fact that the mass media vehemently supports one or the other of the two war parties probably influences a minority of the electorate which votes in the elections. However, critics of the mass media have exaggerated their influence because they fail to explain why the majority of the American public respondents are in contrary to the mass media and oppose their militarist propaganda.

    3. Many of the anti-militarism Americans who decide to vote for war parties may be choosing the lesser evil. They may decide there are possible degrees of war mongering.

    4. Americans who oppose militarism may decide to vote for militarist politicians for reasons other than overseas wars. For example, majoritarian Americans may vote for a militarist politician who secures financing for local infrastructure programs, or dairy subsidies or promises of employment, or lowering the public debt or opposing corrupt incumbents.

    5. Americans opposed to militarism may be deceived by demagogic war party presidential candidates who promise peace and who, once in power, escalate wars.

    6. Likewise, 'identity politics' can divert anti-militarist voters into supporting war party candidates who claim office because of their race, ethnicity, gender, loyalties to overseas states and sexual preference.

    7. The war parties block anti-militarist parties from access to the mass media, especially during electoral debates viewed by tens of millions. War parties establish onerous restrictions for registering anti-militarist parties, voters with non-violent prison records or lacking photo identification or transport to voting sites or time-off from work. In other words the electoral process is rigged and imposes 'forced voting' and abstention: limited choices obligate abstention or voting for war parties.

    Only if elections were open and democratic, where anti-militarist parties were allowed equal rights to register and debate in the mass media, and where financial campaigns are equalized will the contradictions between anti-militarist majorities and voters for pro-war elites be resolved.

    [Nov 16, 2016] President Obama Deserves an Oscar by Robert Weissberg

    Pretty biting assessment ...
    Notable quotes:
    "... I can recall tales of insecure Eastern European Jewish immigrants pretending to be WASPS. ..."
    "... To be blunt, Barack Obama was less "a president" than a talented actor playing at being presidential. ..."
    "... Those of us who have encountered this deception are usually aware of its tell-tale signs, though, to be fair, it may have been diligently practiced for so long that it has become a "real" element of the perpetrator's core personality. For those unfamiliar with this deception, let me now offer a brief catalogue of these tactics. ..."
    "... Central is the careful management of outward physical appearances. In theatrical terms, these are props and depending on circumstances, this might be a finely tailored suit, wingtip shoes, a crisp white shirt, a smart silk tie and all the rest that announce business-like competence. ..."
    "... Mastering "white" language is equally critical and in the academy this includes everything from tossing around trendy terms, for example, "paradigmatic," to displaying what appears to be a mastering of disciplinary jargon. Recall how the Black Panthers seduced gullible whites with just a sprinkling of Marxist terminology. ..."
    "... I recall one (white) colleague who gave a little speech praising a deeply flawed dissertation written by a black assistant professor up for tenure. He told the assembled committee that her dissertation reminded him of Newton's Principia Mathematica (can't make that stuff up). ..."
    "... Obama as President repeatedly exhibits these characteristics. It is thus hardly accidental that he relies extensively on canned Teleprompter speeches. According to one compilation published in January 2013, Obama has used Teleprompters in 699 speeches during his first term in office. There is also his aversion to informal off-the-cuff discussions with the press and open mike who-knows-what-will-happen "Town Hall" meetings. Obama is also the first president I've ever seen who often favors a casual blue jacket monogrammed "President of the United States." ..."
    "... I suspect that deep down Obama recognizes that almost everything is an act not unlike Eddy Murphy playing Professor Sherman Klump in The Nutty Professor . It is no wonder, then, that his academic records (particularly his SAT scores) are sealed and, perhaps even more important, many of his fellow college students and colleagues at the University of Chicago where he briefly taught constitutional law cannot recall him. It is hard to imagine Obama relishing the prospect of going head-to-head with his sharp-witted Chicago colleagues. ..."
    "... As a mulatto raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama is not a black American, with no cultural ties to black Americans and slavery, yet he later learned to throw out a black accent to fool the fools. As Stephen Colbert once observed, white Americans love Obama because he was raised the right way, by white people. That was intended as humor, but ..."
    "... Obama has leased an ultra-expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood in DC just like the corrupt Bill Clinton prior to his multi-million dollar speaking and influence peddling efforts. Obama will not return to Chicago to help poor blacks, like Jimmy Carter did elsewhere after he left office. Obama doesn't need an Oscar, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for the same act. ..."
    "... Congratulations on noticing what it takes to be a successful politician in ANY "Western" democracy. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, aquamarine or candy-striped, or whether you are a college professor, an "economist", or a "businessman". It's all bluff and acting. ..."
    "... The single most critical element of a successful con is not the hucksters appearance, or mannerisms, or even the spiel, it is simply making the con something that the sucker wants to believe. ..."
    "... I recognized Obama's type not from academia, but from corporate America. He was the token black higher up. He's smart enough not to obviously do something requiring termination (get drunk and harass a colleague at an office party, shred important document, etc.), and his mistakes can be blamed on team failures, so he gets "black guy's tenure"-a middle or upper management position after only a few years. ..."
    "... This critique applies to almost every Presidential candidate, regardless of ethnicity. ..."
    "... The most successful recent President was a former professional actor and thus well suited for the position. The latest President-elect is also a savvy media figure, and yet mocked for his obvious lack of intellectual heft. But in his case, he's not acting, it's reality TV. ..."
    "... PS. Maybe some Jews around Trump are beginning to feel that China is the real danger to US power in the long run. So, what US should really do is patch things up with Russia for the time being, drive a wedge between China and Russia, and use Russia against China and then go after Russia. ..."
    "... Really! Go after Russia? And how would you do that and why? What would "going after Russia" look like? What about the "horrific Rape of Russia" you spoke of? China and Russia have business to conduct, they're quite through with us, our dollar and our Fed. We'll be lucky if they allow us a piece of the action. Instead of Russia>China>Russia machinations, we might want to figure out strategies for doing some other business than patronizing our arms manufacturers. Hey, cap Jewish influence in the courts and business if you wish, but keeping the U.S. in an endless state of war, economic and otherwise is zero sum and worse for the little people. ..."
    "... I've called him that for years. And Dubya was possibly our first "legacy" president: chosen entirely based on whom he's related to not on any individual qualities that would suit him for such a high office. Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store manager. ..."
    "... Amen to all. The whole deal is a fraud. All successful politicians are imposters, people who've mastered the art of deception. I'd go even further and say that the majority of "authority figures" are probably parasites and frauds to one degree or another. ..."
    "... Overall, the current president has been a deception, a trivial self-absorbed person whose main concern has been himself turned outward onto issues of race and sexual orientation ..."
    "... American politics at this level is fake. Everything is orchestrated, attire is handpicked, speeches are written by professionals and read off the teleprompter, questions from the public are actually from plants and rehearsed prior, armies of PR people are at work everywhere, journalists are just flunky propagandists, ..."
    "... He will be the subject of future dissertations about the failure of the American political process and the influence of media and third parties like Soros. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.unz.com
    As the troubled Obama presidency winds down, the inevitable question is why so many people, including a few smart ones were so easily fooled. How did a man with such a fine pedigree-Columbia, Harvard-who sounded so brilliant pursue such political capital wasting and foolish policies as forcing schools to discipline students by racial quotas? Or obsessing over allowing the transgendered to choose any bathroom? And, of the utmost importance, how can we prevent another Obama?

    I'll begin simply: Obama is an imposter, a man who has mastered the art of deception as a skilled actor deceives an audience though in the case of Obama, most of the audience refused to accept that this was all play-acting. Even after almost eight years of ineptitude, millions still want to believe that he's the genuine article-an authentically super-bright guy able to fix a flawed America. Far more is involved than awarding blacks the intellectual equivalent of diplomatic immunity.

    When Obama first appeared on the political scene I immediately recognized him as an example of the "successful" black academic who rapidly advances up the university ladder despite minimal accomplishment. Tellingly, when I noted the paucity of accomplishment of these black academic over-achievers to trusted professorial colleagues, they agreed with my analysis adding that they themselves had seen several instances of this phenomenon, but admittedly failed to connect the dots.

    Here's the academic version of an Obama. You encounter this black student who appears a liberal's affirmative action dream come true -- exceptionally articulate with no trace of a ghetto accent, well-dressed, personable (no angry "tude"), and at least superficially sufficient brain power to succeed even in demanding subjects. Matters begin splendidly, but not for long. Almost invariably, his or her performance on the first test or paper falls far below expectations. A research paper, for example was only "C" work (though you generously awarded it a "B") and to make matters worse, it exhibited a convoluted writing style, a disregard for logic, ineptly constructed references and similar defects. Nevertheless, you accepted the usual litany of student excuses -- his claim of over-commitment, the material was unfamiliar, and this was his first research paper and so on. A reprieve was granted.

    But the unease grows stronger with the second exam or paper, often despite your helpful advice on how to do better. Reality grows depressing -- what you see is not what you get and lacks any reasonable feel-good explanation. The outwardly accomplished black student is not an Asian struggling with English or a clear-cut affirmation action admittee in over his head. That this student may have actually studied diligently and followed your advice only exacerbates the discomfort.

    To repeat, the way to make sense out this troubling situation is to think of this disappointing black student as a talented actor who has mastered the role of "smart college student." He has the gift of mimicry, conceivably a talent rooted in evolutionary development among a people who often had to survive by their wits (adaptive behavior captured by the phrase "acting white" or "passing"). This gift is hardly limited to blacks. I can recall tales of insecure Eastern European Jewish immigrants pretending to be WASPS.

    But what if the observer was unaware of it being only a theatrical performance and took the competence at face value? Disaster. Russell Crowe as the Nobel Prize winning John Nash in A Beautiful Mind might give a stunning performance as a brilliant economist, but he would not last a minute if he tried to pass himself off as the real thing at a Princeton economic department seminar. To be blunt, Barack Obama was less "a president" than a talented actor playing at being presidential.

    Those of us who have encountered this deception are usually aware of its tell-tale signs, though, to be fair, it may have been diligently practiced for so long that it has become a "real" element of the perpetrator's core personality. For those unfamiliar with this deception, let me now offer a brief catalogue of these tactics.

    Central is the careful management of outward physical appearances. In theatrical terms, these are props and depending on circumstances, this might be a finely tailored suit, wingtip shoes, a crisp white shirt, a smart silk tie and all the rest that announce business-like competence. Future college or foundation president here we come (Obama has clearly mastered this sartorial ploy). But for those seeking an appointment as a professor, this camouflage must be more casual but, whatever the choice, there cannot be any hint of "ghetto" style, i.e., no flashy jewelry, gold chains, purple "pimpish" suits, or anything else that even slightly hints of what blacks might consider authentic black attire.

    Mastering "white" language is equally critical and in the academy this includes everything from tossing around trendy terms, for example, "paradigmatic," to displaying what appears to be a mastering of disciplinary jargon. Recall how the Black Panthers seduced gullible whites with just a sprinkling of Marxist terminology. Precisely citing a few obscure court cases or administrative directives can also do the trick. Further add certain verbal styles common among professors or peppering a presentation with correctly pronounced non-English words. I recall a talk by one black professor from the University of Chicago who wowed my colleagues by just using-and correctly so-a few Yiddish expressions.

    Ironically, self-defined conservatives are especially vulnerable to these well-crafted performances. No doubt, like all good thinking liberals, they desperately want to believe that blacks are just as talented as whites so an Obama-like figure is merely the first installment of coming racial equality. The arrival of this long-awaited black also provides a great opportunity to demonstrate that being "conservative" does not certify one as a racist. Alas, this can be embarrassing and comical if over-done. I recall one (white) colleague who gave a little speech praising a deeply flawed dissertation written by a black assistant professor up for tenure. He told the assembled committee that her dissertation reminded him of Newton's Principia Mathematica (can't make that stuff up).

    Alas, the deception usually unravels when the imposter confronts a complicated unstructured situation lacking a well-defined script, hardly surprising given the IQ test data indicate that blacks usually perform better on items reflecting social norms, less well on abstract, highly "g" loaded items. In academic job presentations, for example, a job candidate's intellectual limits often become apparent during the Q and A when pressed to wrestle with technical or logical abstractions that go beyond the initial well-rehearsed talk. Picture a job candidate who just finished reading a paper being asked whether the argument is falsifiable or how causality might be established? These can be killer questions that require ample quick footed intellectual dexterity and often bring an awkward silence as the candidate struggles to think on his feet (these responses may rightly be judged far more important than what is read from a paper). I recall one genuinely bewildered black job candidate who explained a complicated measurement choice with "my Ph.D. advisor, a past president of the American Political Science Association told me to do it this way."

    Obama as President repeatedly exhibits these characteristics. It is thus hardly accidental that he relies extensively on canned Teleprompter speeches. According to one compilation published in January 2013, Obama has used Teleprompters in 699 speeches during his first term in office. There is also his aversion to informal off-the-cuff discussions with the press and open mike who-knows-what-will-happen "Town Hall" meetings. Obama is also the first president I've ever seen who often favors a casual blue jacket monogrammed "President of the United States."

    Perhaps the best illustration of these confused, often rambling moments occurs when he offers impromptu commentary on highly charged, fast-breaking race-related incidents such as the Louis Henry Gates dustup in Cambridge , Mass ("the police acted stupidly") and the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings. You could see his pained look as he struggles with being a "good race man" while simultaneously struggling to sort out murky legal issues. This is not the usual instances of politicians speaking evasively to avoid controversy; he was genuinely befuddled.

    Similar signs of confused thinking can also be seen in other spontaneous remarks, the most famous example might be his comment about those Americans clinging to their guns and Bibles. What was he thinking? Did he forget that both gun and Bible ownership are constitutionally protected and the word "cling" in this context suggests mental illness? Woes to some impertinent reporter who challenged the President to clarify his oft-repeated "the wrong side of history" quip or explain the precise meaning of, "That's not who were are"? "Mr. President, can you enlighten us on how you know you are on the Right Side of History"?

    I suspect that deep down Obama recognizes that almost everything is an act not unlike Eddy Murphy playing Professor Sherman Klump in The Nutty Professor . It is no wonder, then, that his academic records (particularly his SAT scores) are sealed and, perhaps even more important, many of his fellow college students and colleagues at the University of Chicago where he briefly taught constitutional law cannot recall him. It is hard to imagine Obama relishing the prospect of going head-to-head with his sharp-witted Chicago colleagues.

    Further add his lack of a publication in the Harvard Law Review, a perk as the President of the Law Review (not Editor) and the credible evidence that his two autobiographies where ghost written after their initial rejection as unsuitable for publication. All and all, a picture emerges of an individual who knows he must fake it to convince others of his intellectual talents, and like a skilled actor he has spent years studying the role of "President." President Obama deserves an Academy award (which, of course would also be a step toward diversity, to boot) for his efforts.


    Carlton Meyer says: • Website

    November 16, 2016 at 5:31 am GMT • 300 Words

    This is why I often referred to Obama as a "Pentagon spokesman." Did you know his proposed military budgets each year were on average higher than Bush or Reagan? People forget that is first objective as President was to close our torture camp in Cuba. He could have issued an Executive Order and have it closed in one day. DOJ aircraft could fly all the inmates away within two hours before any court could challenge that, if they dared. It remains open.

    Yet when Congress refused to act to open borders wider, he issued an Executive Order to grant residency to five million illegals. And under Soros direction, he sent DoJ attack dogs after any state or city that questioned the right of men who want to use a ladies room.

    As a mulatto raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama is not a black American, with no cultural ties to black Americans and slavery, yet he later learned to throw out a black accent to fool the fools. As Stephen Colbert once observed, white Americans love Obama because he was raised the right way, by white people. That was intended as humor, but

    Obama has leased an ultra-expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood in DC just like the corrupt Bill Clinton prior to his multi-million dollar speaking and influence peddling efforts. Obama will not return to Chicago to help poor blacks, like Jimmy Carter did elsewhere after he left office. Obama doesn't need an Oscar, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for the same act.


    3.anon says:

    November 16, 2016 at 5:34 am GMT • 100 Words

    What to make of the Michael Eric Dysons and the Cornell Wests of the world ??
    How do they rise up the ranks of academia , become darlings of talk shows and news panels , all the while dressed and speaking ghetto with zero talent or interest in appearing white . And zero academic competency ??


    6.CCZ, November 16, 2016 at 6:08 am GMT

    Our first affirmative action President? I have yet to hear that exact description, even in a nation with 60 million deplorable "racist" voters.

    8.Tom Welsh, November 16, 2016 at 7:00 am GMT • 100 Words

    Congratulations on noticing what it takes to be a successful politician in ANY "Western" democracy. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, aquamarine or candy-striped, or whether you are a college professor, an "economist", or a "businessman". It's all bluff and acting.

    Why does anyone still find this surprising?

    11.Alfa158, November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am GMT • 100 Words

    The single most critical element of a successful con is not the hucksters appearance, or mannerisms, or even the spiel, it is simply making the con something that the sucker wants to believe. White people were desperate for a Magic Negro and they got one. Black people ended up suffering from deteriorating economics and exploding intramural murder rates.

    12.whorefinder, November 16, 2016 at 8:02 am GMT • 300 Words

    Strikes a chord with me, and with Clint Eastwood (recall the 2012 RNC, where Eastwood mocked Obama as an "empty chair").

    I recognized Obama's type not from academia, but from corporate America. He was the token black higher up. He's smart enough not to obviously do something requiring termination (get drunk and harass a colleague at an office party, shred important document, etc.), and his mistakes can be blamed on team failures, so he gets "black guy's tenure"-a middle or upper management position after only a few years.

    He then makes sure he shows up every weekday at 9am, but he's out the door at 5pm-and no weekends for him. He's there for "diversity" drives and is prominently featured on the company brochures, and might even be given an award or honorary title every few years to cover him, but he never brings in clients or moves business positively in anyway. But he's quick to take the boss up on the golfing trips. In short, he's realized he's there to be the black corporate shield, and that's all he does. He's a lazy token and fine with being lazy.

    It's why Obama had little problem letting Pelosi/Reid/Bill Clinton do all the heavy lifting on Obamacare–not only was Obama out of his depth, he was just plain ol' fine with being out of his depth, because someone else would do it for him. So he went golfing instead.

    This is also why that White House press conference where Bill Clinton took over for him halfway speaks volumes. Obama literally had no problem simply walking away from his presidential duties to go party-because someone else would do it for him, as they always had.

    It's also why he seems so annoyed when asked about the race rioting going on as a result of his administration's actions. Hey, why do you think I gotta do anything? I just show up and people tell me I did a great job!

    13.Ramona, November 16, 2016 at 8:04 am GMT

    It's been said for years that Obama amounts to no more than a dignified talk show host. The observation has merit. Oscar-wise, though, only for ironic value.


    15.Realist, November 16, 2016 at 9:50 am GMT • 100 Words

    @Anon

    "I think Obama is pretty smart if not genius. His mother was no dummy, and his father seems to have been pretty bright too, and there are smart blacks."

    Ann Dunham had a PhD in anthropology from a run of the mill university where she literally studied women textile weaving in third world countries. Pure genius .right.


    16.Fran Macadam, November 16, 2016 at 9:54 am GMT • 100 Words

    This critique applies to almost every Presidential candidate, regardless of ethnicity. So few of them have been other than those playing a role assigned by their donors. The most successful recent President was a former professional actor and thus well suited for the position. The latest President-elect is also a savvy media figure, and yet mocked for his obvious lack of intellectual heft. But in his case, he's not acting, it's reality TV.


    17.Jim Christian says:

    November 16, 2016 at 9:59 am GMT • 200 Words
    @Anon

    PS. Maybe some Jews around Trump are beginning to feel that China is the real danger to US power in the long run. So, what US should really do is patch things up with Russia for the time being, drive a wedge between China and Russia, and use Russia against China and then go after Russia.

    Really! Go after Russia? And how would you do that and why? What would "going after Russia" look like? What about the "horrific Rape of Russia" you spoke of? China and Russia have business to conduct, they're quite through with us, our dollar and our Fed. We'll be lucky if they allow us a piece of the action. Instead of Russia>China>Russia machinations, we might want to figure out strategies for doing some other business than patronizing our arms manufacturers. Hey, cap Jewish influence in the courts and business if you wish, but keeping the U.S. in an endless state of war, economic and otherwise is zero sum and worse for the little people.


    20.timalex, November 16, 2016 at 11:58 am GMT

    Americans voted for and elected Obama because it made them feel virtuous in their mind and in the eyes of the world. Obama has always been a psychopath. Psychopaths are good at lying and hiding things,even when Presidents.

    21.The Alarmist , November 16, 2016 at 12:03 pm GMT

    So, you're saying he was an affirmative action hire.


    22.Anon, November 16, 2016 at 12:28 pm GMT

    Yeah and every white person in a position of power and privilege is "authentically intelligent". America is a society run by and for phonies.

    23.War for Blair Mountain, November 16, 2016 at 12:32 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Barack Obama is a creation of the Cold War. His father was imported into the US through an anti-commie Cold War foreign student program for young Africans. Barack Obama's nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc would not exist if the 1965 Immigration Reform Act had not been passed. The 1965 Immigration Reform Act was another creation of the anti-commie Cold War Crusade.

    The anti-commie Cold War Crusade has been a Death sentence for The Historic Native Born White American Majority.

    It is now time to rethink the Cold War .very long overdue..

    24.AndrewR, November 16, 2016 at 12:55 pm GMT • 100 Words

    @CCZ

    I've called him that for years. And Dubya was possibly our first "legacy" president: chosen entirely based on whom he's related to not on any individual qualities that would suit him for such a high office. Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store manager.

    25.Rehmat, November 16, 2016 at 1:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I think after wining Nobel Peace Award without achieving peace anywhere in the world – Obama deserve Oscar more than Nobel Prize for equating Holocaust as a religion with Christianity and Islam in his speech at the UNGA in September 2012.

    Oscar has a long tradition to award top slot for every Holocaust movie produced so far.

    "There's no business like Shoah business," says YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, established by Max Weinreich in Lithuania in 1925.

    More than 70 movies and documentary on Jewish Holocaust have been produced so far to keep Whiteman's guild alive. Holocaust Industry's main purpose is to suck trillions of dollars and moral support for the Zionist entity. Since 1959 movie, The Diary of Anne Frank, 22 Holocaust movies have won at least one Oscar ..

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/10/26/barack-obama-holocaust-is-a-religion/

    27.jacques sheete says: November 16, 2016 at 2:20 pm GMT • 200 Words

    @Tom Welsh

    Amen to all. The whole deal is a fraud. All successful politicians are imposters, people who've mastered the art of deception. I'd go even further and say that the majority of "authority figures" are probably parasites and frauds to one degree or another.

    I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing. Does it exalt dunderheads, cowards, trimmers, frauds, cads? Then the pain of seeing them go up is balanced and obliterated by the joy of seeing them come down. Is it inordinately wasteful, extravagant, dishonest? Then so is every other form of government: all alike are enemies to laborious and virtuous men. Is rascality at the very heart of it? Well, we have borne that rascality since 1776, and continue to survive. In the long run, it may turn out that rascality is necessary to human government, and even to civilization itself – that civilization, at bottom, is nothing but a colossal swindle.

    - H. L. Mencken, Last Words (1926)

    28.anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 2:34 pm GMT • 200 Words

    The bar was set ridiculously low by his predecessor the village idiot Bush who could barely put together a coherent sentence. After eight years of disaster people were hoping for something different. Having a deranged person like McCain as his opposition certainly helped. What choice did the American people have?

    He received a Nobel Peace prize for absolutely nothing although I admit his reluctance to barge into Syria was quite welcome. How many wars would we be in had the war-crazed McCain gotten into office?

    Overall, the current president has been a deception, a trivial self-absorbed person whose main concern has been himself turned outward onto issues of race and sexual orientation.

    American politics at this level is fake. Everything is orchestrated, attire is handpicked, speeches are written by professionals and read off the teleprompter, questions from the public are actually from plants and rehearsed prior, armies of PR people are at work everywhere, journalists are just flunky propagandists, expressions of emotion are calculated, the mass media is the property of the billionaire and corporate class and reflects their interests, and so on down the line. The masses of Americans are just there to be managed and milked. Look back at the history of the US: When haven't they been lying to us?

    29.nsa, November 16, 2016 at 2:44 pm GMT • 100 Words

    President is a very easy job. Almost anyone could fake it even actors, peanut farmers, mulatto community organizers, illegitimate offspring of trailer park whores, haberdashers, developers, soldiers, irish playboys, bicycle riding dry drunks, low rent CA shysters, daft professors.

    Play lots of golf. Hot willing young pussy available for the asking. Anyone call you a name, have them audited. Invite pals onto the gravy train. Everyone kissing your ass and begging for favors. Media nitwits hanging on every word. Afterwards, get filthy rich making speeches and appearances. Tough job .

    30.Anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 3:03 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Manchurian Candidate, or Kenyan Candidate? Whatever he may be called, our current White House resident is a colossal joke perpetrated on the world. Whoever covered all his tracks did a masterful task. He will be the subject of future dissertations about the failure of the American political process and the influence of media and third parties like Soros.

    32.Lorax, November 16, 2016 at 3:17 pm GMT

    Obama's grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, was a "furniture salesman," for which role he deserved an Oscar as well. It takes real acting ability to pull off a lifetime career in Intelligence Service: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/07/obama's-cia-pedigree/

    34.JoeFour, November 16, 2016 at 3:56 pm GMT

    @AndrewR

    "Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store manager."

    AndrewR, I know you didn't mean it, but you have just insulted all of the thousands of hardware store managers in this country.

    [Nov 16, 2016] The Rotation of Imperial Power by Manlio Dinucci

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the 2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street", that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate, the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency. ..."
    "... As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" – an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against Russia. ..."
    "... Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around US-led Nato. ..."
    "... Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. ..."
    "... Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income). ..."
    "... Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically, factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of the US middle class becoming even worse. ..."
    "... It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect], Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich. ..."
    www.voltairenet.org

    Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the 2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street", that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate, the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency.

    How will this change of guard at the White House change US foreign policy? Certainly, the core objective of remaining the dominant global power will remain untouched. [Yet] this position is increasing fragile. The USA is losing ground both within the economic and the political domains, [ceding] it to China, Russia and other "emerging countries". This is why it is throwing the sword onto the scale. This is followed by a series of wars where Hillary Clinton played the [lead] protagonist.

    As her authorized biography reveals, she was the one as First Lady, to convince the President, her consort, to engage in war to destroy Yugoslavia, initiating a series of "humanitarian interventions" against "dictators" charged with "genocide".

    As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" – an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against Russia.

    Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around US-led Nato. But he will of course thump his fists on the table to secure a deeper commitment, particularly on military expenditure from the allies.

    Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

    Such decisions, that will surely open the door for further wars, do not depend on Trump's warrior-like temperament, but on centres of power wherein lies the matrix of command on which the White House itself depends.

    Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income).

    Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically, factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of the US middle class becoming even worse.

    Then you have the giants of the war industry that extract profit from war.

    It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect], Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich.

    [Nov 16, 2016] The my way or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening

    Notable quotes:
    "... The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening. When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!" ..."
    "... On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they acted exactly like us." ..."
    "... I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities." ..."
    "... And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    ucgsblog, November 14, 2016 at 3:50 pm
    Erm, atheist groups are known to target smaller Christian groups with lawsuits. A baker was sued for refusing to bake a cake for a Gay Wedding. She was perfectly willing to serve the couple, just not at the wedding. In California we had a lawsuit over a cross in a park. Atheists threatened a lawsuit over a seal. Look, I get that there are people with no life out there, but why are they bringing the rest of us into their insanity, with constant lawsuits. There's actually a concept known as "Freedom from Religion" – what the heck? Can you imagine someone arguing about "Freedom from Speech" in America? But it's ok to do it to religious folk! And yes, that includes Muslims, who had to fight to build a Mosque in New York. They should've just said it was a Scientology Center

    The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening. When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!"

    The problem with healthcare in the US deserves its own thread, but Obamacare did not fix it; Obamacare made it worse, especially in the rural communities. The laws in schools are fundamentally retarded. A kid was suspended for giving a friend Advil. Another kid suspended for bringing in a paper gun. I could go on and on. A girl was expelled from college for trying to look gangsta in a L'Oreal mask. How many examples do you need? Look at all of the new "child safety laws" which force kids to leave in a bubble. And when they enter the Real World, they're fucked, so they pick up the drugs. In cities it's crack, in farmvilles it's meth.

    Hillary didn't win jack shit. She got a plurality of the popular vote. She didn't win it, since winning implies getting the majority. How many Johnson votes would've gone to Trump if it was based on popular vote, in a safe state? Of course the biggest issue is the attack on the way of life, which is all too real. I encourage you to read this, in order to understand where they're coming from: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

    "Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their cocktail parties, blissfully unaware of where their food is grown. Hey, remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind of weird that a big hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you'd barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and doing an astounding $125 billion in damage. But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy about a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally important. It matters. To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"

    On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they acted exactly like us."

    "They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step outside of the city, and the suicide rate among young people fucking doubles. The recession pounded rural communities, but all the recovery went to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has utterly collapsed."

    ^ That, I'd say, is known as destroying their lives. Also this:

    "In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor, or get a medical degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town, there may be no venues for performing arts aside from country music bars and churches. There may only be two doctors in town - aspiring to that job means waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all of the job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The "downtown" is just the corpses of mom and pop stores left shattered in Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks. There are parts of these towns that look post-apocalyptic.

    I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities."

    And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Black Lives Matter actually means Black Lives Matter First

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Class first" amongst men of the left has always signaled "ME first." What else could it mean? ..."
    "... So "Black Lives Matter" actually means "Black Lives Matter First". Got it. So damn tired of identity politics. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, in the usual way of such things, #BlackLivesMatter hashtag activism became fashionable, as the usual suspects were elevated to celebrity status by elites. Nothing, of course, was changed in policy, and so in a year or so, matters began to bubble on the ground again. ..."
    "... I'm not tired of identity politics. I'm just tired of some identity-groups accusing other identity-groups of "identity-politics". I speak in particular of the Identity Left. ..."
    "... Identity politics, any identity, is going to automatically split voters into camps and force people to 'pick' a side. ..."
    "... The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I and many other writers argued that the bourgeois feminism Clinton represents works against the interests of the vast majority of women. This has turned out to be even more true than we anticipated. That branding of feminism has delivered to us the most sexist and racist president in recent history: Donald Trump. ..."
    "... Hillary spoke to the million-dollar feminists-of-privilege who identified with her multi-million dollar self and her efforts to break her own Tiffany Glass ceiling. And she worked to get many other women with nothing to gain to identify with Hillary's own breaking of Hillary's own Tiffany Glass ceiling. ..."
    "... For me (at least) the essence of the "Left" is justice. When we speak of Class we are putting focus on issues of economic justice. Class is the material expression of economic (and therefore political) stratification. Class is the template for analysing the power dynamics at play in such stratification. ..."
    "... in the absence of economic justice, it's very difficult to obtain ANY kind of justice - whether such justice be of race, gender, legal, religious or sexual orientation. ..."
    "... I find it indicative that the 1% (now) simply don't care one way or another about race or gender etc, PROVIDED it benefits or, has no negative effects on their economic/political interests. ..."
    "... "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." ..."
    "... In ship sinking incidents, where a lot of people are dumped in the water, many adopt the strategy of trying to use others as flotation devices, pushing them under while the "rich class" tootle off in the lifeboats. Sounds like a winner, all right. ..."
    "... The rich class has enlisted the white indentured servants as their Praetorian Guard. The same play as after Bacon's Rebellion. ..."
    "... Is what is actually occurring another Kristallnacht, or the irreducible susurrus of meanness and idiocy that is part of every collection of humans? It would be nice not to get suckered into elevating the painful minima over the importance of getting ordinary people to agree on a real common enemy, and organizing to claim and protect. ..."
    "... If even one single banker had gone to jail for the mess (fed by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) that blew up in 2008, we would be having a different conversation. We are in a huge legitimacy crisis, in part because justice was never served on those who made tens of millions via fraud. ..."
    "... The Malignant Overlords - the King or Queen, the Financial Masters of the Universe,, the tribal witch doctor- live by grazing on the wealth of the natural world and the productivity of their underlings. There are only a few thousand of them but they control finance and the Money system, propaganda organizations (in the USA called the Media) land and agriculture, "educational" institutions and entire armies of Homeland Insecurity police. ..."
    "... Under them there are the sycophants– generals and officers, war profiteers and corporate CEO's, the intelligentsia, journalists, fake economists, and entertainment and sports heroes who grow fat feasting on the morsels left over after the .0001% have fed. And far below the Overlords are the millions of professional Bureaucrats whose job security requires unquestioning servitude. ..."
    "... Race, gender identity, religion, etc. are the false dichotomies by which the oligarchs divide us. Saudi princes, African American millionaires, gay millionaires etc. are generally treated the same by the oligarchs as wasp millionaires. The true dichotomy is class, that is the dichotomy which dare not speak its name. ..."
    "... For Trump it was so easy. He just says something that could be thought of as racist and then his supporters watch as the media morphs his words, removes context, or just ignores any possible non-racist motivations for his words. ..."
    "... Just read the actual Mexican- rapists quote. Completely different then reported by the media. Fifteen years ago my native born Mexican friend said almost exactlly the same thing. ..."
    "... whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn. ..."
    "... Yes, class identity can be a bond that unites. However, in the US the sense of class identity remains underdeveloped. In fact, it is only with the Sanders campaign that large swaths of the American public have had practical and sustained exposure to the concept of class as a political force. For most of the electorate, the language of class is still rather alien, particularly since the "equality of opportunity" narrative even now is not completely overthrown. ..."
    "... It seems inevitable that populist sentiment, which both Sanders and Trump have used to electoral advantage, will spill over into a variety of economic nationalism. ..."
    "... Obama was a perfect identity candidate, i.e., not only capable of getting the dem nomination, but the presidency and than not jailing banksters NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID, OR WILL DO… ..."
    "... One truism about immigration, to pick a topical item, is that uncontrolled immigration leads to overwhelming an area whether city, state or country. Regardless of how one feels about the other aspects of immigration, there are some real, unacknowledged limits to the viability of the various systems that must accommodate arrivals, particularly in the short term. Too much of a perceived ..."
    "... There is an entrenched royal court, not unlike Versailles in some respects, where the sinecures, access to the White House tennis court (remember Jimmy Carter and his forest for the trees issues) or to paid "lunches in Georgetown" or similar trappings. Inflow of populist or other foreign ideas behind the veil of media and class secrecy represents a threat to overwhelm, downgrade (Sayeth Yogi Berra: It is so popular that nobody goes there anymore) or remove those perks, and to cause some financial, psychic or other pain to the hangers-on. ..."
    "... Pretty soon, word filters out through WikiLeaks, or just on the front page of a newspaper in the case of the real and present corruption (What do you mean nobody went to jail for the frauds?). In those instances, the tendency of a populace to remain aloof with their bread and circuses and reality shows and such gets strained. ..."
    "... Some people began noticing and the cognitive dissonance became to great to ignore no matter how many times the messages were delivered from on high. That led to many apparent outbursts of rational behavior ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    pretzelattack November 15, 2016 at 6:03 pm

    if poor whites were being shot by cops at the rate urban blacks are, they would be screaming too. blm is not a corporate front to divide us, any more than acorn was a scam to help election fraud.

    Kukulkan November 15, 2016 at 9:37 pm

    They are. Why #BlackLivesMatter should be #PoorLivesMatter.

    Also available as a video .

    Jay Mani November 15, 2016 at 9:41 am

    It's lazy analysis to suggest Race was a contributing factor. On the fringes, Trump supporters may have racial overtones, but this election was all about class. I applaud sites like NC in continually educating me. What you do is a valuable service.

    JTFaraday November 15, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    "We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future feminine, multiracial American working class. Just a minority."

    Indeed, this site has featured links to articles elaborating the demographic composition of today's "working class". And yet we still have people insisting that appeals to the working class, and policies directed thereof, must "transcend" race and gender.

    JTFaraday November 15, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    And, of course this "class first" orientation became a bone of contention between some loud mouthed "men of the left" during the D-Party primary and "everyone else" and that's why the "Bernie Bro" label stuck. It didn't help the Sanders campaign either.

    "Class first" amongst men of the left has always signaled "ME first." What else could it mean?

    Fieryhunt November 15, 2016 at 6:22 pm

    So "Black Lives Matter" actually means "Black Lives Matter First". Got it. So damn tired of identity politics.

    Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 11:16 pm

    This is, actually, complicated. It's a reasonable position that black lives don't matter because they keep getting whacked by cops and the cops are never held accountable. Nobody else did anything, so people on the ground stood up, asserted themselves, and as part of that created #BlackLivesMatter as an online gathering point; all entirely reasonable. #AllLivesMatter was created, mostly as deflection/distraction, by people who either didn't like the movement, or supported cops, and of course if all lives did matter to this crowd, they would have done something about all the police killings in the first place.

    Meanwhile, in the usual way of such things, #BlackLivesMatter hashtag activism became fashionable, as the usual suspects were elevated to celebrity status by elites. Nothing, of course, was changed in policy, and so in a year or so, matters began to bubble on the ground again.

    Activist time (we might say) is often slower than electoral time. But sometimes it's faster; see today's Water Cooler on the #AllOfUs people who occupied Schumer's office (and high time, too). To me, that's a very hopefully sign. Hopefully, not a bundle of groups still siloed by identity (and if that's to happen, I bet that will happen by working together. Nothing abstract).

    different clue November 16, 2016 at 3:18 am

    I'm not tired of identity politics. I'm just tired of some identity-groups accusing other identity-groups of "identity-politics". I speak in particular of the Identity Left.

    pretzelattack November 15, 2016 at 10:04 pm

    what "men of the left"? the "bernie bro" label only stuck for Clinton supporters who had already had the kool aid. Much like the "putin stooge" label.

    Knot Galt November 15, 2016 at 1:52 pm

    "We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future feminine, multiracial American working class. Just a minority."

    That statement is as myopic a vision as the current political class is today. The statement offends another minority, or even a possible majority. Identity politics, any identity, is going to automatically split voters into camps and force people to 'pick' a side.

    Focus! The larger battle is is about Class.

    Knot Galt November 15, 2016 at 2:06 pm

    To clarify, from Links:

    In False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I and many other writers argued that the bourgeois feminism Clinton represents works against the interests of the vast majority of women. This has turned out to be even more true than we anticipated. That branding of feminism has delivered to us the most sexist and racist president in recent history: Donald Trump.

    different clue November 16, 2016 at 3:21 am

    I wonder if there is an even simpler more colorful way to say that. Hillary spoke to the million-dollar feminists-of-privilege who identified with her multi-million dollar self and her efforts to break her own Tiffany Glass ceiling. And she worked to get many other women with nothing to gain to identify with Hillary's own breaking of Hillary's own Tiffany Glass ceiling.

    If the phrase "Tiffany Glass ceiling" seems good enough to re-use, feel free to re-use it one and all.

    animalogic November 15, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    For me (at least) the essence of the "Left" is justice. When we speak of Class we are putting focus on issues of economic justice. Class is the material expression of economic (and therefore political) stratification. Class is the template for analysing the power dynamics at play in such stratification.

    Class is the primary political issue because it not only affects everyone, but in the absence of economic justice, it's very difficult to obtain ANY kind of justice - whether such justice be of race, gender, legal, religious or sexual orientation.

    I find it indicative that the 1% (now) simply don't care one way or another about race or gender etc, PROVIDED it benefits or, has no negative effects on their economic/political interests.

    JTMcPhee November 15, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    "Just how large a spike in hate crime there has been remains uncertain, however. Several reports have been proven false, and Potok cautioned that most incidents reported to the Southern Poverty Law Center did not amount to hate crime.

    Levin of California State University added that there was no "independent evidence to sustain the contention that there were more [hate crimes] in the days after the Trump election than after 9/11."" http://www.voanews.com/a/hate-crimes-surge-after-donald-trump-victory/3596298.html

    All us ordinary people are insecure. Planet is becoming less habitable, war everywhere, ISDS whether we want it or not, group sentiments driving mass behaviors with extra weapons from our masters, soil depletion, water becoming a Nestle subsidiary, all that. But let us focus on maintaining our favored position as more insecure than others, with a "Yes, but" response to what seems to me the fundamental strategic scene:

    "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

    Those mostly white guys, but a lot of women too, the "rich classs," are ORGANIZED, they have a pretty simple organizing principle ("Everything belong us") that leads to straightforward strategies and tactics to control all the levers and fulcrums of power. The senators in Oregon are "on the right side" of a couple of social issues, but they both are all in for "trade deals" and other big pieces of the "rich class's" ground game. In ship sinking incidents, where a lot of people are dumped in the water, many adopt the strategy of trying to use others as flotation devices, pushing them under while the "rich class" tootle off in the lifeboats. Sounds like a winner, all right.

    TarheelDem November 15, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    The comparison with 9/11 is instructive. That is not minimizing hate crimes. Within days after 9/11, my Sikh neighbor was assaulted and called a "terrorist". He finally decided to stop wearing a turban, cut his hair, and dress "American". My neighborhood was not ethnically tense, but it is ethnically diverse, and my neighbor had never seen his assailant before.

    Yes, the rich classes are organized…organized to fleece us with unending wars. But don't minimize other people's experience of what constitutes a hate crime.

    In 1875, the first step toward the assassination of a black, "scalawag", or "carpetbagger" public official in the South was a friendly visit from prominent people asking him to resign, the second was night riders with torches, the third was night riders who killed the public official. Jury nullification (surprise, surprise) made sure that no one was punished at the time. In 1876, the restoration of "home rule' in Southern states elected in a bargain Rutherford B. Hayes, who ended Reconstruction and the South entered a period that cleansed "Negroes, carpetbaggers, and scalawags" from their state governments and put the Confederate generals and former plantation owners back in charge. That was then called The Restoration. Coincidence that that is the name of David Horowitz's conference where Donna Brazile was hobnobbing with James O'Keefe?

    The rich class has enlisted the white indentured servants as their Praetorian Guard. The same play as after Bacon's Rebellion.

    JTMcPhee November 15, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    Not minimizing - my very peaches-and-cream Scots-English daughter is married to a gentleman from Ghana whose skin tones are about as dark as possible.
    the have three beautiful children, and are fortunate to live in an area that is a hotbed of "tolerance." I have many anecdotes too.

    Do anecdotes = reality in all its complexity? Do anecdotes = policy? Is what is actually occurring another Kristallnacht, or the irreducible susurrus of meanness and idiocy that is part of every collection of humans? It would be nice not to get suckered into elevating the painful minima over the importance of getting ordinary people to agree on a real common enemy, and organizing to claim and protect.

    readerOfTeaLeaves November 15, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    If even one single banker had gone to jail for the mess (fed by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) that blew up in 2008, we would be having a different conversation. We are in a huge legitimacy crisis, in part because justice was never served on those who made tens of millions via fraud.

    When there's no justice, its as if the society's immune system is not functioning.

    Expect more strange things to appear, almost all of them aimed at sucking the remaining resources out of the system with the knowledge that they'll never face consequences for looting. The fact that they're killing the host does not bother them.

    animalogic November 15, 2016 at 9:09 pm

    Corruption is both cause & effect of gross wealth inequities. Of course to the 1% it's not corruption so much as merely what is owed as of a right to the privileged. (Thus, the most fundamental basis of liberal democracy turns malignant: that ALL, even rulers & law makers are EQUALLY bound by the Law).

    Crazy Horse November 15, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Here is the way it works:

    The Malignant Overlords - the King or Queen, the Financial Masters of the Universe,, the tribal witch doctor- live by grazing on the wealth of the natural world and the productivity of their underlings. There are only a few thousand of them but they control finance and the Money system, propaganda organizations (in the USA called the Media) land and agriculture, "educational" institutions and entire armies of Homeland Insecurity police.

    Under them there are the sycophants– generals and officers, war profiteers and corporate CEO's, the intelligentsia, journalists, fake economists, and entertainment and sports heroes who grow fat feasting on the morsels left over after the .0001% have fed. And far below the Overlords are the millions of professional Bureaucrats whose job security requires unquestioning servitude.

    Once upon a time there was what was known as the Middle Class who taught school or built things in factories, made mortgage payments on a home, and bought a new Ford every other year. But they now are renters, moving from one insecure job in one state to an insecure one across the country. How else are they to maintain their sense of self-worth except by identifying a tribe that is under them? If the members of the inferior tribe look just like you they might actually be more successful and not a proper object of scorn. But if they have a black or brown skin and speak differently they are the perfect target to make you feel that your life is not a total failure.

    It's either that or go home and kick the dog or beat the wife. Or join the Army where you can go kill a few foreigners and will always know your place in the hierarchy.

    Class "trumps" race, but racial prejudice has its roots far back in human social history as a tribal species where the "other" was always a threat to the tribe's existence.

    Elizabeth Burton November 15, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    Anyone who thinks it is only class and not also race is wearing some very strange blinders

    No one with any sense is saying that, Katharine, and constantly bringing it up as some kind of necessary argument (which, you may recall, was done as a way of trying to persuade people of color Sanders wasn't working for them in the face of his entire history) perpetuates the falsehood dichotomy that it has to be one or the other.

    I can understand the desire to reduce the problems to a single issue that can then be subjected to our total focus, but that's what's been done for the last fifty years; it doesn't work. Life is too complex and messy to be fixed using magic pills, and Trump's success because those who've given up hope of a cure are still enormously vulnerable to snake oil.

    mark ó dochartaigh November 15, 2016 at 11:04 pm

    Race, gender identity, religion, etc. are the false dichotomies by which the oligarchs divide us. Saudi princes, African American millionaires, gay millionaires etc. are generally treated the same by the oligarchs as wasp millionaires. The true dichotomy is class, that is the dichotomy which dare not speak its name.

    kramer November 15, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    yes, racism still exist, but the Democrats want to make it the primary issue of every election because it is costs them nothing. I've never liked the idea of race based reparations because they seem like another form of racism.

    However, if the neolibs really believe racial disparity and gender issues are the primary problems, why don't they ever support reparations or a large tax on rich white people to pay the victims of racism and sexism and all the other isms?

    Perhaps its because that would actually cost them something. I think what bothers most of the Trumpets out here in rural America is not race but the elevation of race to the top of the political todo list.

    For Trump it was so easy. He just says something that could be thought of as racist and then his supporters watch as the media morphs his words, removes context, or just ignores any possible non-racist motivations for his words.

    Just read the actual Mexican- rapists quote. Completely different then reported by the media. Fifteen years ago my native born Mexican friend said almost exactlly the same thing. Its a trap the media walks right into. I think most poor people of whiteness do see racism as a sin, just not the only or most awful sin. As for Trump being a racist, I think he would have to be human first.

    sinbad66 November 15, 2016 at 9:43 am

    whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn.

    Spot-on statement. Was watching Fareed Zakaria (yeah, I know, but he makes legit points from time to time) and was pleasantly surprised that he called Bret Stephens, who was strongly opposed to Trump, out on this. To see Stephens squirm like a worm on a hook was priceless.

    JW November 15, 2016 at 9:46 am

    "…what divides people rather than what unites people…"

    Yes, class identity can be a bond that unites. However, in the US the sense of class identity remains underdeveloped. In fact, it is only with the Sanders campaign that large swaths of the American public have had practical and sustained exposure to the concept of class as a political force. For most of the electorate, the language of class is still rather alien, particularly since the "equality of opportunity" narrative even now is not completely overthrown.

    Sanders and others on an ascendant left in the Democratic Party - and outside the Party - will continue to do the important work of building a sense of class consciousness. But more is needed, if the left wants to transform education into political power. Of course, organizing and electing candidates at the local and state level is enormously important both to leverage control of local institutions and - even more important - train and create leaders who can effectively use the tools of political power. But besides this practical requirement, the left also needs to address - or co-opt, if you will - the language of economic populism, which sounds a lot like economic nationalism.

    It seems inevitable that populist sentiment, which both Sanders and Trump have used to electoral advantage, will spill over into a variety of economic nationalism. Nationalist sentiment is the single most powerful unifying principle available, certainly more so than the concept of class, at least in America. I don't see that changing anytime soon, and I do see the Alt-Right using nationalism as a lever to try to coax the white working class into their brand of identity politics. But America's assimilationist, "melting pot" narrative continues to be attractive to most people, even if it is under assault in some quarters. So I think moving from nationalism to white identity politics will not so easy for the Alt-Right. On the other hand, picking up the thread of economic nationalism can provide the left with a powerful tool for bringing together women, minorities and all who are struggling in this economy. This becomes particularly important if it is the case that technology already makes the ideal of full (or nearly full) employment nothing more than a chimera, thus forcing the question of a guaranteed annual income. Establishing that kind of permanent safety net will only be possible in a polity where there are firm bonds between citizens and a marked sense of responsibility for the welfare of all.

    fresno dan November 15, 2016 at 10:05 am

    And if the Democratic Party is honest, it will have to concede that even the popular incumbent President has played a huge role in contributing to the overall sense of despair that drove people to seek a radical outlet such as Trump. The Obama Administration rapidly broke with its Hope and "Change you can believe in" the minute he appointed some of the architects of the 2008 crisis as his main economic advisors, who in turn and gave us a Wall Street friendly bank bailout that effectively restored the status quo ante (and refused to jail one single banker, even though many were engaged in explicitly criminal activity).

    ====================================================================
    For those who think its just Hillary, its not. There is no way there will ever be any acknowledgement of Obama;s real failures – he will no more be viewed honestly by dems than he could be viewed honestly by repubs. Obama was a perfect identity candidate, i.e., not only capable of getting the dem nomination, but the presidency and than not jailing banksters NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID, OR WILL DO…
    I imagine Trump will be one term, and I imagine we return in short order to our nominally different parties squabbling but in lock step with regard to their wall street masters…

    Altandmain November 15, 2016 at 10:09 am

    That's the problem though – the Democrats are not honest and have not been for a very long time.

    Enquiring Mind November 15, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    Democrats seem to be the more visible or clumsy in their attempts to govern themselves and the populace, let alone understand their world. By way of illustration, consider the following.

    One truism about immigration, to pick a topical item, is that uncontrolled immigration leads to overwhelming an area whether city, state or country. Regardless of how one feels about the other aspects of immigration, there are some real, unacknowledged limits to the viability of the various systems that must accommodate arrivals, particularly in the short term. Too much of a perceived good thing may be hazardous to one's health. Too much free stuff exhausts the producers, infrastructure and support networks.

    To extend and torture that concept further, just because, consider the immigration of populist ideas to Washington. There is an entrenched royal court, not unlike Versailles in some respects, where the sinecures, access to the White House tennis court (remember Jimmy Carter and his forest for the trees issues) or to paid "lunches in Georgetown" or similar trappings. Inflow of populist or other foreign ideas behind the veil of media and class secrecy represents a threat to overwhelm, downgrade (Sayeth Yogi Berra: It is so popular that nobody goes there anymore) or remove those perks, and to cause some financial, psychic or other pain to the hangers-on.

    Pretty soon, word filters out through WikiLeaks, or just on the front page of a newspaper in the case of the real and present corruption (What do you mean nobody went to jail for the frauds?). In those instances, the tendency of a populace to remain aloof with their bread and circuses and reality shows and such gets strained.

    Some people began noticing and the cognitive dissonance became to great to ignore no matter how many times the messages were delivered from on high. That led to many apparent outbursts of rational behavior (What, you sold my family and me out and reduced our prospects, so why should we vote for a party that takes us for granted, at best), which would be counter-intuitive by some in our media.

    [Nov 16, 2016] UK Government rejects call to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia over alleged war crimes

    Nov 14, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Independent: Government rejects MPs' call to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia over alleged war crimes
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/saudi-arabia-arms-sales-committee-mps-government-response-rejected-a7417191.html

    Dr Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, Sir Michael Fallon, and Priti Patel issued a joint rejection

    The Government has rejected calls by two parliamentary committees for it to stop the sale of British bombs to Saudi Arabia's armed forces in Yemen.

    Saudi forces have been widely accused of committing war crimes during the campaign in the country, where reports on the ground suggest they have blown up international hospitals, funerals, schools, and weddings.

    Despite the reported incidents and the worsening humanitarian situation in the country since the bombardment began, the UK has signed off Ł3.3 billion in arms sales to the country since the start of the offensive….
    ####

    What's not to like about supping from the Wahabbi cup?

    [Nov 16, 2016] The neocon godfather Leo Strauss would be proud as king of bait and switch Obama promotes lying to people telling them what they want to hear, then doing whatever you want after getting elected as an official Democratic Party policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Where the Democrats went wrong CNBC. Obama: "[O]ne of the issues that Democrats have to be clear on is that given population distribution across the country, we have to compete everywhere, we have to show up everywhere." Throwing Clinton under the bus… ..."
    "... he means just showing up, telling people what they want to hear, then doing whatever the hell you want after getting elected. Not one word about actually meeting peoples needs. EFF OBAMA and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!! ..."
    "... If you didn't read this (linked yesterday), you should consider both reading and sharing far and wide. The entire system is designed to be anti-representative. ..."
    "... Don't just get/stay mad, quit expecting a bunch of gangsters to function democratically. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    mk November 16, 2016 at 7:55 am

    Where the Democrats went wrong CNBC. Obama: "[O]ne of the issues that Democrats have to be clear on is that given population distribution across the country, we have to compete everywhere, we have to show up everywhere." Throwing Clinton under the bus…
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I yelled at the radio after hearing this, because he means just showing up, telling people what they want to hear, then doing whatever the hell you want after getting elected. Not one word about actually meeting peoples needs. EFF OBAMA and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!

    Eureka Springs November 16, 2016 at 8:21 am

    If you didn't read this (linked yesterday), you should consider both reading and sharing far and wide. The entire system is designed to be anti-representative.

    Don't just get/stay mad, quit expecting a bunch of gangsters to function democratically. Get out of their box.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Neoliberal MSM use identity politics as a stalking horse to rob the public blind, while spewing invectives about racism and mysogony when the public stops buying their neoliberal propaganda

    Notable quotes:
    "... The funny thing is that they've so learned to love the smell of their own farts (or propaganda) that they internalized an image of enlightened progressivism for themselves. This Trump election was probably the first clue that their self image is faulty and not widely shared by others. They are not taking it well. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    sleepy November 16, 2016 at 7:31 am

    NYTimes still blames race on Trump's winning over Obama supporters in Iowa:

    Trump clearly sensed the fragility of the coalition that Obama put together - that the president's support in heavily white areas was built not on racial egalitarianism but on a feeling of self-interest. Many white Americans were no longer feeling that belonging to this coalition benefited them.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/20/magazine/donald-trumps-america-iowa-race.html

    Racial egalitarianism wasn't the reason for white support for Obama in 2008 and 2012 in Iowa. It reflected racial egalitarianism, but that support had to do with perceived economic self-interest, just as the switch to Trump in 2016 did.

    And what on earth is wrong with self-interest as a reason for voting?

    jgordon November 16, 2016 at 8:39 am

    Right. These corporatists use identity politics as a stalking horse to rob the public blind, and then they spew invectives about racism and mysogony wherever the public stops buying the bullcrap.

    The funny thing is that they've so learned to love the smell of their own farts (or propaganda) that they internalized an image of enlightened progressivism for themselves. This Trump election was probably the first clue that their self image is faulty and not widely shared by others. They are not taking it well.

    Leigh November 16, 2016 at 8:59 am

    Yup, it's not the self-interest in voting – it's the self-interest in Governing

    nycTerrierist November 16, 2016 at 8:32 am

    Obama: "Let them eat p.r.!"

    [Nov 16, 2016] Ultimately the Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one

    Notable quotes:
    "... Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders. ..."
    "... "Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will. ..."
    "... What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation, either. ..."
    "... What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common with working class people anywhere? ..."
    "... Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political power – because with power come blame. ..."
    "... I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and made it happen (such as TPP). ..."
    "... Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio. ..."
    "... Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g. Privateers at SSA. ..."
    "... My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor. ..."
    "... The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know, hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah. ..."
    "... The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips, a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part of the 1%). ..."
    "... The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted. ..."
    "... I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away. ..."
    "... If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that. ..."
    "... Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down. ..."
    "... The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. ..."
    "... White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America ..."
    "... Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own resources, and clung together for mutual assistance. ..."
    "... White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history, whether we like it or not". ..."
    "... "To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists " ..."
    "... working class white women ..."
    "... Obama is personally likeable ..."
    "... History tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the activist class there are identity purity battles going on. ..."
    "... Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen. ..."
    "... Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Altandmain November 15, 2016 at 10:08 am

    Ultimately the Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility for what happened.

    Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders.

    Class trumps race, to make a pun. If the left doesn't take the Democratic Party back and clean house, I expect that there is a high probability that 2020's election will look at lot like the 2004 elections.

    I'd recommend someone like Sanders to run. Amongst the current crop, maybe Tulsi Gabbard or Nina Turner seem like the best candidates.

    Carla November 15, 2016 at 10:42 am

    "Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will.

    Synoia November 15, 2016 at 10:13 am

    What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation, either.

    What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common with working class people anywhere?

    The same question applies to Hillary, to Trump and the remainder of our "representatives" in Congress.

    Without Unions, how are US Representatives from the working class elected?

    What we are seeing is a shift in the US for the Republicans to become the populist party. They already have the churches, and with Trump they can gain the working class – although I do not underestimate the contempt help by our elected leaders for the Working Class and poor.

    The have forgotten, if they ever believed: "There, but for the grace of God, go I".

    Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    > What would make Democrats focus on the working class?

    The quest for political power.

    Synoia November 15, 2016 at 11:19 pm

    Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political power – because with power come blame.

    I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and made it happen (such as TPP).

    James Dodd November 15, 2016 at 10:46 am

    What So Many People Don't Get About the U.S. Working Class – Harvard Business Review

    anonymouse November 15, 2016 at 11:07 am

    We know that class and economic insecurity drove many white people to vote for Trump. That's understandable. And now we are seeing a rise in hate incidents inspired by his victory. So obviously there is a race component in his support as well. So, if you, white person, didn't vote for Trump out of white supremacy, would you consider making a statement that disavows the acts of extremist whites? Do you vow to stand up and help if you see people being victimized? Do you vow not to stay silent when you encounter Trump supporters who ARE obviously in thrall to the white supremacist siren call?

    Brad November 15, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio.

    And I wouldn't worry about it. When I worked at the at the USX Fairless works in Levittown PA in 1988, I was befriended by one steelworker who was a clear raving white supremacist racist. (Actually rather nonchalant about about it). However he was the only one I encountered who was like this, and eventually I figured out that he befriended a "newbie" like me because he had no friends among the other workers, including the whites. He was not popular at all.

    Harold November 15, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Left-wing populism unites people of all classes and all identities by emphasizing policies. That was what Bernie Sanders meant to me, at least.

    Citizen Sissy November 15, 2016 at 11:38 am

    I've always thought that Class, not Race, was the Third Rail of American Politics, and that the US was fast-tracking to a more shiny, happy feudalism.

    Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g. Privateers at SSA.

    Gonna get interesting very quickly.

    rd November 15, 2016 at 11:47 am

    My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor.

    She also makes it clear to me that the Somali/Syrian/Iraqi etc. immigrant kids are going to do very well even though they come in without a word of English because they are working their butts off and they have the full support of their parents and community. These people left bad places and came to their future and they are determined to grab it with both hands. 40% of her class this year is ENL (English as a non-native language). Since it is an inner city school, they don't have teacher's aides in the class, so it is just one teacher in a class of 26-28 kids, of which a dozen struggle to understand English. Surprisingly, the class typically falls short of the "standards" that the state sets for the standardized exams. Yet many of the immigrant kids end up going to university after high school through sheer effort.

    Bullying and extreme misbehavior (teachers are actually getting injured by violent elementary kids) is largely done by kids born in the US. The immigrant kids tend to be fairly well-behaved.

    On a side note, the CSA at our local farmer's market said they couldn't find people to pick the last of their fall crops (it is in a rural community so a car is needed to get there). So the food bank was going out this week to pick produce like squash, onions etc. and we were told we could come out and pick what we wanted. Full employment?

    Dave November 15, 2016 at 11:55 am

    "Women and minorities encouraged to apply" is a Class issue?

    shinola November 15, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know, hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah.

    The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips, a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part of the 1%).

    The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted.

    I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away.

    Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    I'm recalling (too lazy to find the link) a poll a couple years ago that showed the number of American's identifying as "working class" increased, and the number as "middle class" decreased.

    Vatch November 15, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    Here ya go!

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/182918/fewer-americans-identify-middle-class-recent-years.aspx

    jrs November 15, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    even working class is a total equivocation. A lot of them are service workers period.

    TarheelDem November 15, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    It is both. And it is a deliberate mechanism of class division to preserve power. Bill Cecil-Fronsman,

    Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina identifies nine classes in the class structure of a state that mixed modern capitalist practice (plantations), agrarian YOYO independence (the non-slaveowning subsistence farms), town economies, and subsistence (farm labor). Those classes were typed racially and had certain economic, power, and social relations associated with them. For both credit and wages, few escaped the plantation economy and being subservient to the planter capitalists locally.

    Moreover, ethnic identity was embedded in the law as a class marker. This system was developed independently or exported through imitation in various ways to the states outside North Carolina and the slave-owning states. The abolition of slavery meant free labor in multiple senses and the capitalist use of ethnic minorities and immigrants as scabs integrated them into an ethnic-class system, where it was broad ethnicity and not just skin-color that defined classes. Other ethnic groups, except Latinos and Muslim adherents, now have earned their "whiteness".

    One suspects that every settler colonial society develops this combined ethnic-class structure in which the indigenous ("Indians" in colonial law) occupy one group of classes and imported laborers or slaves or intermixtures ("Indian", "Cape Colored" in South Africa) occupy another group of classes available for employment in production. Once employed, the relationship is exactly that of the slaveowner to the slave no matter how nicely the harsh labor management techniques of 17th century Barbados and Jamaica have been made kinder and gentler. But outside the workplace (and often still inside) the broader class structure applies even contrary to the laws trying to restrict the relationship to boss and worker.

    Blacks are not singling themselves out to police; police are shooting unarmed black people without punishment. The race of the cop does not matter, but the institution of impunity makes it open season on a certain class of victims.

    It is complicated because every legal and often managerial attempt has been made to reduce the class structure of previous economies to the pure capitalism demanded by current politics.

    So when in a post Joe McCarthy, post-Cold War propaganda society, someone wants to protest the domination of capitalism, attacking who they perceive as de facto scabs to their higher incomes (true or not) is the chosen mode of political attack. Not standing up for the political rights of the victims of ethnically-marked violence and discrimination allows the future depression of wages and salaries by their selective use as a threat in firms. And at the individual firm and interpersonal level even this gets complicated because in spite of the pressure to just be businesslike, people do still care for each other.

    This is a perennial mistake. In the 1930s Southern Textile Strike, some organizing was of both black and white workers; the unions outside the South rarely stood in solidarity with those efforts because they were excluding ethnic minorities from their unions; indeed, some locals were organized by ethnicity. That attitude also carried over to solidarity with white workers in the textile mills. And those white workers who went out on a limb to organize a union never forgot that failure in their labor struggle. It is the former textile areas of the South that are most into Trump's politics and not so much the now minority-majority plantation areas.

    It still is race in the inner ring suburbs of ethnically diverse cities like St. Louis that hold the political lock on a lot of states. Because Ferguson to them seems like an invasion of the lower class. Class politics, of cultural status, based on ethnicity. Still called by that 19h century scientific racism terminology that now has been debunked - race - Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid. Indigenous, at least in the Americas, got stuck under Mongoloid.

    You go organize the black, Latino, and white working class to form unions and gain power, and it will happen. It is why Smithfield Foods in North Carolina had to negotiate a contract. Race can be transcended in action.

    Pretending the ethnic discrimination and even segregation does not exist and have its own problems is political suicide in the emerging demographics. Might not be a majority, but it is an important segment of the vote. Which is why the GOP suppressed minority voters through a variety of legal and shady electoral techniques. Why Trump wants to deport up to 12 million potential US citizens and some millions of already birthright minor citizens. And why we are likely to see the National Labor Review Board gutted of what little power it retains from 70 years of attack. Interesting what the now celebrated white working class was not offered in this election, likely because they would vote it down quicker because, you know, socialism.

    armchair November 15, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    Your comment reminded me of an episode in Seattle's history. Link . The unions realized they were getting beat in their strikes, by scabs, who were black. The trick was for the unions to bring the blacks into the union. This was a breakthrough, and it worked in Seattle, in 1934. There is a cool mural the union commissioned by, Pablo O'Higgins , to celebrate the accomplishment.

    barrisj November 15, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    Speaking of class, and class contempt , one must recall the infamous screed published by National Review columnist Kevin Williamson early this year, writing about marginalised white people here is a choice excerpt:

    If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that.

    Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down.

    The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.

    http://crasstalk.com/2016/03/poor-white-america-deserves-to-die-says-national-review/

    Now it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to state that Williamson's animus can be replicated amongst many of the moneyed elite currently pushing and shoving their way into a position within the incoming Trump Administration. The Trump campaign has openly and cynically courted and won the votes of white people similar to those mentioned in Williamson's article, and who – doubtlessly – will be stiffed by policies vigourously opposed to their welfare that will be enacted during the Trump years. The truly intriguing aspect of the Trump election is: what will be the consequences of further degradation of the "lower orders' " quality of life by such actions? Wholesale retreat from electoral politics? Further embitterment and anger NOT toward those in Washington responsible for their lot but directed against ethnic and racial minorities "stealing their jawbs" and "getting welfare while we scrounge for a living"? I sincerely doubt whether the current or a reconstructed Democratic Party can at all rally this large chunk of white America by posing as their "champions" the class divide in the US is as profound as the racial chasm, and neither major party – because of internal contradictions – can offer a credible answer.

    Waldenpond November 15, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    [In addition to the growing inequality and concomitant wage stagnation for the middle and working classes, 9/11 and its aftermath has certainly has contributed to it as well, as, making PEOPLE LONG FOR the the Golden Age of Managerial Capitalism of the post-WWII era,]

    Oh yeah, I noticed a big ol' hankerin' for that from the electorate. What definition could the author be using for Managerial Capitalism that could make it the opposite of inequality? The fight for power between administration and shareholders does not lead to equality for workers.

    [So this gave force to the idea that the government was nothing but a viper's nest full of crony capitalist enablers,]

    I don't think it's an 'idea' that the govt is crony capitalists and enablers. Ds need to get away from emotive descriptions. Being under/unemployed, houseless, homeless, unable to pay for rent, utilities, food . aren't feelings/ideas. When that type of language is used, it comes across as hand waving. There needs to be a shift of talking to rather than talking about.

    If crony capitalism is an idea, it's simply a matter for Ds to identify a group (workers), create a hierarchy (elite!) and come up with a propaganda campaign (celebrities and musicians spending time in flyover country-think hanging out in coffee shops in a flannel shirt) to get votes. Promise to toss them a couple of crumbs with transfer payments (retraining!) or a couple of regulations (mandatory 3 week severance!) and bring out the obligatory D fall back- it would be better than the Rs would give them. On the other hand, if it's factual, the cronies need to be stripped of power and kicked out or the nature of the capitalist structure needs to be changed. It's laughable to imagine liberals or progressives would be open to changing the power and nature of the corporate charter (it makes me smile to think of the gasps).

    The author admits that politicians lie and continue the march to the right yet uses the ACA, a march to the right, as a connection to Obama's (bombing, spying, shrinking middle class) likability.

    [[But emphasizing class-based policies, rather than gender or race-based solutions, will achieve more for the broad swathe of voters, who comprehensively rejected the "neo-liberal lite" identity politics]

    Oops. I got a little lost with the neo-liberal lite identity politics. Financialized identity politics? Privatized identity politics?

    I believe women and poc have lost ground (economic and rights) so I would like examples of successful gender and race-based (liberal identity politics) solutions that would demonstrate that identity politics targeting is going to work on the working class.

    If workers have lost power, to balance that structure, you give workers more power (I predict that will fail as unions fall under the generic definition of corporatist and the power does not rest with the members but with the CEOs of the unions – an example is a union that block the members from voting to endorse a candidate, go against the member preference and endorse the corporatist candidate), or you remove power from the corporation. Libs/progs can't merely propose something like vesting more power with shareholders to remove executives as an ameliorating maneuver which fails to address the power imbalance.

    [This is likely only to accelerate the disintegration of the political system and economic system until the elephant in the room – class – is honestly and comprehensively addressed.]

    barrisj November 15, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    For a thorough exposition of lower-class white America from the inception of the Republic to today, a must-read is Nancy Isenberg's White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America . Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own resources, and clung together for mutual assistance.

    Thus became the economic and cultural subset of "crackers", "hillbillies", "rednecks", and later, "Okies", a source of contempt and scorn by more economically and culturally endowed whites. The anti-bellum white Southern aristocracy cynically used poor whites as cheap tenant farming, all the while laying down race-based distinctions between them and black slaves – there is always someone lower on the totem pole, and that distinction remains in place today. Post-Reconstruction, the South maintained the cult of white superiority, all the while preserving the status of upper-class whites, and, by race-based public policies, assured lower-class whites that such "superiority" would be maintained by denying the black populations access to education, commerce, the vote, etc. And today, "white trash", or "trailer trash", or poorer whites in general are ubiquitous and as American as apple pie, in the North, the Midwest, and the West, not just the South. Let me quote Isenberg's final paragraph of her book:

    White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history, whether we like it or not".

    Enquiring Mind November 15, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Also read Albion's Seed for interesting discussion about the waves of immigration and how those went on to impact subsequent generations.

    vegeholic November 15, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Presenting a plan for the future, which has a chance to be supported by the electorate, must start with scrupulous, unwavering honesty and a willingness to acknowledge inconvenient facts. The missing topic from the 2016 campaigns was declining energy surpluses and their pervasive, negative impact on the prosperity to which we feel entitled. Because of the energy cost of producing oil, a barrel today represents a declining fraction of a barrel in terms of net energy. This is the major factor in sluggish economic performance. Failing to make this case and, at the same time, offering glib and vacuous promises of growth and economic revival, are just cynical exercises in pandering.

    Our only option is to mange the coming decline in a way that does not descend into chaos and anarchy. This can only be done with a clear vision of causes and effects and the wisdom and courage to accept facts. The alternative is yet more delusions and wishful thinking, whose shelf life is getting shorter.

    ChrisAtRU November 15, 2016 at 2:26 pm

    Marshall is awesome.

    To be fair to the article, Marshall did in fact say:

    "To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists "

    IMO the point Marshall is making that race was not the primary reason #DJT won. And I concur.

    This is borne out by the vote tallies which show that the number of R voters from 2012 to 2016 was pretty much on the level (final counts pending):
    2016 R Vote: 60,925,616
    2012 R Vote: 60,934,407
    (Source: US Election Atlas )

    Stop and think about this for a minute. Every hard core racist had their guy this time around; and yet, the R's could barely muster the same amount of votes as Mittens in 2012. This is huge, and supports the case that other things contributed far more than just race.

    Class played in several ways:
    Indifference/apathy/fatigue: Lambert posted some data from Carl Beijer on this yesterday in his Clinton Myths piece yesterday.
    Anger: #HRC could not convince many people who voted for Bernie that she was interested in his outreach to the working class. More importantly, #HRC could not convince working class white women that she had anything other than her gender and Trump's boorishness as a counterpoint to offer.
    Outsider v Insider: Working class people skeptical of political insiders rejected #HRC.

    TG November 15, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    Kudos. Well said.

    If black workers were losing ground and white workers were gaining, one could indeed claim that racism is a problem. However, both black and white workers are losing ground – racism simply cannot be the major issue here. It's not racism, it's class war.

    The fixation on race, the corporate funding of screaming 'black lives matter' agitators, the crude attempts to tie Donald Trump to the KKK (really? really?) are just divide and conquer, all over again.

    Whatever his other faults, Donald Trump has been vigorous in trying to reach out to working class blacks, even though he knew he wouldn't get much of their vote and he knew that the media mostly would not cover it. Last I heard, he was continuing to try and reach out, despite the black 'leadership' class demanding that he is a racist. Because as was so well pointed out here, the one thing the super-rich fear is a united working class.

    Divide and conquer. It's an old trick, but a powerful one.

    Suggestion: if (and it's a big if) Trump really does enact policies that help working class blacks, and the Republicans peel away a significant fraction of the black vote, that would set the elites' hair on fire. Because it would mean that the black vote would be in play, and the Neoliberal Democrats couldn't just take their votes for granted. And wouldn't that be a thing.

    pretzelattack November 16, 2016 at 3:09 am

    that was good for 2016. I will look to see if he has stats for other years. i certainly agree that poor whites are more likely to be shot; executions of homeless people by police are one example. the kind of system that was imposed on the people of ferguson has often been imposed on poor whites, too. i do object to the characterization of black lives matter protestors as "screaming agitators"; that's all too reminiscent of the meme of "outside agitators" riling up the local peaceful black people to stand up for their rights that was characteristically used to smear the civil rights movement in the 60's.

    tongorad November 15, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    I might not have much in common at all with certain minorities, but it's highly likely that we share class status.
    That's why the status quo allows identity politics and suppresses class politics.

    Sound of the Suburbs November 15, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    Having been around for sometime, I often wonder what The Guardian is going on about in the UK as it is supposed to be our left wing broadsheet.

    It isn't a left I even recognised, what was it?

    I do read it to try and find out what nonsense it is these people think.

    Having been confused for many a year, I think I have just understood this identity based politics as it is about to disappear.

    I now think it was a cunning ploy to split the electorate in a different way, to leave the UK working class with no political outlet.

    Being more traditional left I often commented on our privately educated elite and private schools but the Guardian readership were firmly in favour of them.

    How is this left?

    Thank god this is now failing, get back to the old left, the working class and those lower down the scale.

    It was clever while it lasted in enabling neoliberalism and a neglect of the working class, but clever in a cunning, nasty and underhand way.

    Sound of the Suburbs November 15, 2016 at 5:33 pm

    Thinking about it, so many of these recent elections have been nearly 50% / 50% splits, has there been a careful analysis of who neoliberalism disadvantages and what minorities need to be bought into the fold to make it work in a democracy.

    Women are not a minority, but obviously that is a big chunk if you can get them under your wing. The black vote is another big group when split away and so on.

    Brexit nearly 50/50; Austria nearly 50/50; US election nearly 50/50.

    giovanni zibordi November 15, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    So, 85% of Blacks vote Hillary against Sanders (left) and 92% vote Hillary against Trump (right), but is no race. It's the class issue that sends them to the Clintons. Kindly explain how.

    dk November 15, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    Obama is personally likeable

    Funny think about likeability, likeable people can be real sh*ts. So I started looking into hanging out with less likeable people. I found that they can be considerably more appreciative of friendship and loyalty, maybe because they don't have such easy access to it.

    Entertainment media has cautiously explored some aspect so fthis, but in politics, "nice" is still disproportionately values, and not appreciated as a possible flag.

    Erelis November 15, 2016 at 10:59 pm

    Watch out buddy. They are onto you. I have seen some comments on democratic party sites claiming the use of class to explain Hillary's loss is racist. The democratic party is a goner. History tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the activist class there are identity purity battles going on.

    Gaylord November 15, 2016 at 11:24 pm

    Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen.

    different clue November 16, 2016 at 3:47 am

    Well it certainly won't happen by itself. People are going to have to make it happen. Here in Michigan we have a tiny new party called Working Class Party running 3 people here and there. I voted for two of them. If the Democrats run somebody no worse than Trump next time, I will be free to vote Working Class Party to see what happens.

    Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Identity politics divides just as well as class politics. It simply divides into smaller (less powerful) groups. The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class division that forms against their class, once organized, is large enough to take them on.

    Notable quotes:
    "... when "capitalism" failed to remedy class inequity, in fact worked to cause it, propaganda took over and focused on all sorts of things that float around the edges of class like race, opportunity, civil rights, etc – but not a word about money. ..."
    "... "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." ..."
    "... "The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class division that forms against their class, once organized, is large enough to take them on." ..."
    "... Class divides the 99% from the small elite who lead both political parties. That makes it an explosive threat. I'm speaking of actual economic class, not the media BS of pork rinds and NASCAR versus brie and art museums. ..."
    "... I've always maintained that Class is the real third rail of American politics, and the US is fast tracking to a shiny, prettified version of feudalism. ..."
    "... There are two elephants in the room, class and technology. Both are distorted by those in power in order to ensure their continued rule. It seems to me the technology adopted by a society determines its class structure. ..."
    "... Add to that HRC's neocon foreign policy instincts ..."
    "... This goes beyond corruption. It is one thing to be selling public infrastructure construction contracts to crony capitalist contributors (in the Clintons' case do we call them philanthropists?) – entirely another to be selling guns and bombs used by Middle Eastern despots to grind down (IOW blow up, murder) opposition to their corrupt regimes. ..."
    "... In fact, most of Western Civilization (sic?) seems to be happy with the status quo of a 'post-industrial' America as the "exceptional nation" whose only two functions are consuming the world's wealth and employing military Keynesianism to maintain a global social order based on money created ex nihilo by US and international bankers and financiers. ..."
    "... What we are witnessing is a political crisis because the system is geared against the citizen. ..."
    "... And journalists/media are complicit. Where is the cutting investigative journalism? There is none – the headlines should be screaming it. Thanks God (or whoever) for blogs like these. ..."
    "... Sooo, they spent a generation telling the white worker that he was a racist, sexist bigot, mocking his religion, making his kids read "Heather Has Two Mommies" in school, and blaming him for economic woes caused in New York and DC. ..."
    "... Tryng lately to get my terminology straight, and I think the policies you itemized should be labeled neoliberal, not liberal/progressive. Neoliberalism seems to be the one that combines the worst features of the private sector with the worst features of the public sector, without the good points of either one. ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    susan the other November 15, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    when "capitalism" failed to remedy class inequity, in fact worked to cause it, propaganda took over and focused on all sorts of things that float around the edges of class like race, opportunity, civil rights, etc – but not a word about money. That's why Hillary was so irrelevant and boring. If class itself (money) becomes a topic of discussion, the free-market orgy will be seen as a last ditch effort to keep the elite in a class by themselves by "trading" stuff that can just as easily be made domestically, and just not worth the effort anymore.

    Benedict@Large November 15, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Identity politics divides just as well as class politics. It simply divides into smaller (less powerful) groups. The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class division that forms against their class, once organized, is large enough to take them on.

    JTMcPhee November 15, 2016 at 11:06 am

    "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

    Yep.

    And once again: What outcomes do "we" want from "our" political economy?

    Ulysses November 15, 2016 at 11:25 am

    "The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class division that forms against their class, once organized, is large enough to take them on."

    BINGO!!!

    XR November 15, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    I believe there is another aspect to the shift we are seeing, and it is demographics.

    Specifically deplorable demographics.

    It should be noted that the deplorable generation, gen x, are very much a mixed racial cohort. They have not participated in politics much because they have been under attack since they were children. They have been ignored up to now.

    Deplorable means wretched, poor.

    This non participation is what has begun to change, and will accelerate for the next 20 years and beyond.

    Demographically speaking, with analysis of the numbers right now are approximately…

    GEN GI and Silent Gen – 22,265,021

    Baby Boomers 50,854,027

    Gen X 90,010,283

    Millenials 62,649,947 18 Years to 34
    25,630,521 (12-17 Years old)
    Total 88,280,468

    Artist Gen 48,820,896 and growing…

    * Using the Fourth Turning Cultural Demographic Measurement vs. the politically convenient, MSM supported, propaganda demographics. They would NEVER do such a thing right? Sure.

    GI 92–114 Silent 74–91 Boomer 55–72 Gen-X 35–55 Millennial 12–34 Homeland 0–11

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory

    * Source Demographic Numbers (Approximate)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

    We are in the Fourth Turning, the Crisis. Gen X will take it on – head on.

    https://scholarsandrogues.com/2014/04/10/how-generation-x-will-save-the-world/

    Have a nice day.

    redleg November 15, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    The reason they like it is that the different groups can be set against each other.

    Mike G November 15, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Class divides the 99% from the small elite who lead both political parties. That makes it an explosive threat. I'm speaking of actual economic class, not the media BS of pork rinds and NASCAR versus brie and art museums.

    tongorad November 15, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Class divides people; more decisively than race or gender.

    Really? There's so few of him/her, and so many of us.

    When we reach the day when people self-describe themselves as working class FIRST, rather than Catholic or Asian, etc, then we might get somewhere.

    CitizenSissy November 15, 2016 at 8:24 am

    Hi Yves – great post! I've always maintained that Class is the real third rail of American politics, and the US is fast tracking to a shiny, prettified version of feudalism.

    I suspect that the working-class Trump voters in the Rust Belt will eventually disappointed in their standard bearer, Transition Team staffing is any indication: e.g. Privateers back at SSA.

    Nels Nelson November 15, 2016 at 8:38 am

    In the post-Reconstruction South poor whites and blacks alike were the victims of political and legal institutions designed to create a divided and disenfranchised work force for the benefit of landlords, capitalists and corporations. Poor whites as well as poor blacks were ensnared in a system of sharecropping and debt peonage. Poll taxes, literacy tests and other voter restrictions disenfranchised blacks and almost all poor whites creating an electorate dominated by a white southern gentry class.

    Martin Luther King, Jr. clarified this at the end of his address at the conclusion of the Selma March on March 25, 1965.

    …You see, it was a simple thing to keep the poor white masses working for near-starvation wages in the years that followed the Civil War. Why, if the poor white plantation or mill worker became dissatisfied with his low wages, the plantation or mill owner would merely threaten to fire him and hire former Negro slaves and pay him even less. Thus, the southern wage level was kept almost unbearably low.

    Toward the end of the Reconstruction era, something very significant happened. That is what was known as the Populist Movement. The leaders of this movement began awakening the poor white masses and the former Negro slaves to the fact that they were being fleeced by the emerging Bourbon interests. Not only that, but they began uniting the Negro and white masses into a voting bloc that threatened to drive the Bourbon interests from the command posts of political power in the South.

    To meet this threat, the southern aristocracy began immediately to engineer this development of a segregated society…. If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow. He gave him Jim Crow. And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. And he ate Jim Crow. And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in the public buildings. And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, their last outpost of psychological oblivion.

    Thus, the threat of the free exercise of the ballot by the Negro and the white masses alike resulted in the establishment of a segregated society. They segregated southern money from the poor whites; they segregated southern mores from the rich whites; they segregated southern churches from Christianity; they segregated southern minds from honest thinking; and they segregated the Negro from everything. That's what happened when the Negro and white masses of the South threatened to unite and build a great society: a society of justice where none would prey upon the weakness of others; a society of plenty where greed and poverty would be done away; a society of brotherhood where every man would respect the dignity and worth of human personality.

    Joan November 15, 2016 at 7:36 pm

    Lovely! Thanks,

    JTMcPhee November 15, 2016 at 9:52 pm

    The MLK so few remember, the obscuring of his real message has been so very effective.

    Norb November 15, 2016 at 8:46 am

    There are two elephants in the room, class and technology. Both are distorted by those in power in order to ensure their continued rule. It seems to me the technology adopted by a society determines its class structure.

    So much of todays discussion revolves around justifying the inappropriate use of technology, it seems inevitable that only a major breakdown of essential technological systems will afford the necessary space to address growing social problems.

    E.F. Schumacher addressed all this in the 70's with his work on appropriate technologies. Revisiting the ideas of human scale systems offers a way to actively and effectively deal with todays needs while simultaneously trying to change larger perspectives and understanding of the citizenry. While Schumacher's work was directed at developing countries, the impoverishment of the working class makes it relevant in the US today.

    Addressing our technology question honestly will lead to more productive changes in class structure than taking on the class issue directly. Direct class confrontation is violent. Adopting human scale technology is peaceful. In the end what stands for a good life will win out. I'm working for human scale.

    Lambert Strether November 15, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Why do you think class and technology are separate?

    ScottW November 15, 2016 at 8:49 am

    Thought experiment: If you opposed Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin does that make you a racist and a sexist?
    Or, is it only when someone votes against a supposed liberal? And when Hillary supported Cuomo over Teachout for NY Governor, none of her supporters labeled her a Cuomobros.

    Hillary received millions fewer votes than Obama because she was a seriously flawed candidate who could not muster any excitement. The only reason she received 60 million is because she was running against Trump. The play on identity politics was pure desperation.

    readerOfTeaLeaves November 15, 2016 at 12:05 pm

    I think this part of the post nails a whole lot:

    "So this gave force to the idea that the government was nothing but a viper's nest full of crony capitalist enablers , which in turn helped to unleash populism on the right (the Left being marginalised or co-opted by their Wall Street/Silicon Valley donor class). And this gave us Trump. Add to that HRC's neocon foreign policy instincts , which could have got us in a war with Russia and maybe the American electorate wasn't so dumb after all."

    I voted for Hillary, but it was not easy.
    I agree that identity politics of the DNC variety have passed their pull date. Good riddance.

    Jim November 15, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Here's another thought experiment: were voters who chose Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary sexists? Were Hillary's voters racists?

    I don't think you give the Democratic establishment enough credit for obtuseness by characterizing their identity politics play as "desperation". I have several sisters who were sucked in by Hillary's "woman" card, and it made them less than receptive to hearing about her record of pay-for-play, proxy warmongering, and baseless Russia-bashing.

    And it turned people like me – who would choose a woman over a man, other things being equal – into sexists for not backing Hillary (I voted for Stein).

    financial matters November 15, 2016 at 8:55 am

    Yes. If Hillary had been elected I felt like we would have been played by someone who is corrupt and with no real interest in the working/middle class. We would have slogged through another 4 years with someone who arrogantly had both a private and public position and had no real interest in climate change (she was very pro fracking), financial change (giving hour long $250,000 speeches to banks) or health care (she laughed at the idea of single payer although that's what most people want).

    Sanders had opposite views on these 3 issues and would have been an advocate of real change which is why he was so actively opposed by the establishment and very popular with the people as evidenced by his huge rallies.

    Trump was seen by many as the only real hope for some change. As mentioned previously we've already seen 2 very beneficial outcomes of his being elected by things calming down with Syria and Russia and with TPP apparently being dead in the water.

    Another positive could be a change in the DOJ to go after white collar criminals of which we have a lot.

    Climate change is I think an important blind spot but he has shown the capacity to be flexible and not as much of an ideologue as some. It's possible that as he sees some of his golf courses go under water he could change his mind. It can be helpful if someone in power changes his mind on an important issue as this can relate better to other doubters to come to the same conclusion.

    Getting back to class I watched the 2003 movie Seabiscuit a few days ago. This film was set in the depression period and had clips of FDR putting people back to work. It emphasized the dignity that this restored to them. It's a tall order but I think that's what much of Trump's base is looking for.

    Si November 15, 2016 at 9:20 am

    Whilst I agree with the points made, there is a BIG miss for me.

    Unless I missed it – where are the comments on corruption? This is not a partisan point of view, but to make the issue entirely focussed on class misses the point that the game is rigged.

    Holder, an Obama pick, unless I am mistaken, looked the other way when it came to investigating and prosecuting miscreants on Wall Street. The next in line for that job was meeting Bill behind closed so that Hillary could be kept safe. Outrageous.

    The Democratic party's attempts to make this an issue about race is so obviously a crass attempt at manipulation that only the hard of thinking could swallow it.

    The vote for Trump was a vote against corrupt insiders. Maybe he will turn out to be the same.

    Time will tell……

    Leigh November 15, 2016 at 9:37 am

    Paragraph 7, I believe.

    To your point; dumbfounded that a country that proposes to be waging a "War on Drugs" pardons home grown banking entities that laundered money for drug dealers.

    If you or I attempted such foolishness – we'd be incarcerate in a heartbeat.

    Monty Python (big fan), at it's most silly and sophomoric – could not write this stuff…

    Leight November 15, 2016 at 10:01 am

    Clarification: "this stuff' meaning what's transpired in the U.S. over the last 10-20 years -NOT Yves post.

    polecat November 15, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    Don't expect all the disheartened university SJW snowflaks to get that …or much else of import --

    Si November 16, 2016 at 1:52 am

    Yep – para 7. A bit of a passing reference to the embedded corruption and payola for congress and the writing of laws by lobbyists.

    And yes, war on drugs is pretty much a diversionary tactic to give the impression that the rule of law is still in force. It is for you an me……. for the connected, corrupt, not so much!

    Carla November 15, 2016 at 10:25 am

    @Si - "the hard of thinking" - I like it!

    Steven November 15, 2016 at 11:09 am

    This goes beyond corruption. It is one thing to be selling public infrastructure construction contracts to crony capitalist contributors (in the Clintons' case do we call them philanthropists?) – entirely another to be selling guns and bombs used by Middle Eastern despots to grind down (IOW blow up, murder) opposition to their corrupt regimes.

    In fact, most of Western Civilization (sic?) seems to be happy with the status quo of a 'post-industrial' America as the "exceptional nation" whose only two functions are consuming the world's wealth and employing military Keynesianism to maintain a global social order based on money created ex nihilo by US and international bankers and financiers.

    As for a "crass attempt at manipulation", have you seen this:
    Martin Armstrong Exposes "The Real Clinton Conspiracy" Which Backfired Dramatically

    A couple of paragraphs…

    This conspiracy has emerged from the Podesta emails. It was Clinton conspiring with mainstream media to elevate Trump and then tear him down. We have to now look at all the media who endorsed Hillary as simply corrupt. Simultaneously, Hillary said that Bernie had to be ground down to the pulp. Further leaked emails showed how the Democratic National Committee sabotaged Sanders' presidential campaign. It was Hillary manipulating the entire media for her personal gain. She obviously did not want a fair election because she was too corrupt.

    What is very clear putting all the emails together, the rise of Donald Trump was orchestrated by Hillary herself conspiring with mainstream media, and they they sought to burn him to the ground. Their strategy backfired and now this is why she has not come out to to speak against the violence she has manipulated and inspired.

    It seems to be clear the Democratic Party needs to purge itself of the Clinton – Obama influence. Is Sanders' suggestion for the DNC head a good start or do we need to look elsewhere?

    Si November 16, 2016 at 2:08 am

    Exactly my point.

    What are are getting now are attempts by the Dems (and let me state here I am not fan of the Repubs – the distinction is a false one) to point to anything other than the problem that is right in front of them.

    What we are witnessing is a political crisis because the system is geared against the citizen.

    And journalists/media are complicit. Where is the cutting investigative journalism? There is none – the headlines should be screaming it. Thanks God (or whoever) for blogs like these.

    There has been a coup I believe. The cooperation and melding of corporate and political power, and the interchange of power players between the two has left the ordinary person nowhere to go. This is not a left vs right, Dem vs Repub argument. Those are distinctions are there to keep us busy and to provide the illusion.

    Chris Hedges likend politics to American Pro Wrestling – that is what we are watching!

    kgw November 15, 2016 at 12:17 pm

    Class is corruption. . .

    Mike G November 15, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    The idea that a guy who ran casinos in New Jersey, and whose background was too murky to get a casino license in Nevada, will be the one to clean up corruption in DC is a level of gullibility beyond my comprehension.

    Si November 16, 2016 at 2:11 am

    And nor will it be cleaned up by lawyers who promise hopey changey b.s.

    Or lawyers who clearly see themselves above the law….

    different clue November 16, 2016 at 3:07 am

    Not that it would have been cleaned up by President Hillary Shyster and First Shyster Husband Bill either.

    craazyman November 15, 2016 at 9:21 am

    a lot of people out there need 10 baggers. I sure do.

    Why work? I mean really. It sucks but what's your choice? The free market solution is to kill yourself - that's what slaves could have done. If you don't like slavery, then just kill yourself! Why complain? You're your own boss of "You Incorporated" and you can choose who to work for! Even nobody.

    the 10-bagger should be just for billionaires. Even a millionaire has a hard time because there's only so much you can lose before you're not a millionaire. Then you might have to work!

    If most jobs didn't suck work wouldn't be so bad. That's the main thing, make jobs that don't suck so you don't drown yourself in tattoos and drugs. It's amazing how many people have tattoos. Drugs are less "deplorable" haha. Some are good - like alcohol, Xanax, Tylenol, red wine, beer, caffeine, sugar, donuts, cake, cookies, chocolate. Some are bad, like the shlt stringy haired meth freaks take. If they had good jobs it might give them something better to do,

    How do you get good jobs and not shlt jobs? That's not entirely self evident. In the meantime, the 10 bagger at least gets you some breathing room so you can think about it. Even if you think for free, it's OK since you don't have to work. Working gets in the way of a lot of stuff that you'd rather be doing. Like nothing,

    The amazing thing is this: no matter how much we whinge, whine, bitch moan, complain, rant, rail, fulminate, gripe, huarrange (that mght be speled wrong), incite, joculate, kriticize, lambaste, malign, naysay, prevaricate, query, ridicule, syllogize, temporize, ululate (even Baudelaire did that I red on the internet), yell and (what can "Z" be? I don't want to have to look something up I'm too lazy, how about "zenophobiasize" hahahahahahahah,

    The amazing thing is: million of fkkkers want to come here and - get this! - THEY WON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT ANY OF THE SHT WE DO!

    How about that?

    casino implosion November 15, 2016 at 9:26 am

    ""By making him aware he has more in common with the black steel workers by being a worker, than with the boss by being white."

    Sooo, they spent a generation telling the white worker that he was a racist, sexist bigot, mocking his religion, making his kids read "Heather Has Two Mommies" in school, and blaming him for economic woes caused in New York and DC.

    How'd that work out for ya?

    sharonsj November 15, 2016 at 11:34 am

    Actually, too many white workers are racist, sexist, and think everyone is a rabid Christian just like them. I ought to know because I live in red rural Pennsylvania. I'm not mocking you folks, but I am greatly pissed off that you just don't mind your own damn business and stop trying to force your beliefs on others. And I don't want to hear that liberals are forcing their beliefs on others; we're just asking you follow our laws and our Constitution when it comes to liberty and justice for all.

    And for every school that might have copies of "Heather Has Two Mommies," I can give you a giant list of schools that want to ban a ton of titles because some parent is offended. One example is the classic "Brave New World" by Aldus Huxley. "Challenged in an Advanced Placement language composition class at Cape Henlopen High School in Lewes, Del. (2014). Two school board members contend that while the book has long been a staple in high school classrooms, students can now grasp the sexual and drug-related references through a quick Internet search." Source: Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, May 2014, p. 80.

    Quick internet search, my ass. Too many conservatives won't even use the internet to find real facts because that would counter the right-wing meme.

    tongorad November 15, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    And for every school that might have copies of "Heather Has Two Mommies," I can give you a giant list of schools that want to ban a ton of titles because some parent is offended.

    And for every liberal/progressive politician, I can give a you basket of shitty policies, such as charter schools, shipping jobs overseas, cutting social security, austerity, the grand bargain, Obamacare, drones, etc.

    Great. So the library has a copy of "Heather Has Two Mommies." Or not. Who cares? The United Colors of Benetton worldview doesn't matter a fig when I'm trying to pay for rising health care, rent, College education, retirement costs, etc.

    J Bookly November 15, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    Tryng lately to get my terminology straight, and I think the policies you itemized should be labeled neoliberal, not liberal/progressive. Neoliberalism seems to be the one that combines the worst features of the private sector with the worst features of the public sector, without the good points of either one.

    tongorad November 15, 2016 at 10:20 pm

    It seems to me that you're referencing a certain historical model of "liberal" that doesn't, nay, cannot exist anymore. A No-True-Scotsman fallacy, as I see it.
    We can only deal with what we have in play, not some pure historical abstraction.

    But for the sake of argument, let's say that a distinction can be made between neoliberal and "real" liberalism. Both entities, however you want to differentiate/describe them, serve as managers to capital. In other words, they just want to manage things, to fiddle with the levers at the margin.

    We need a transfer of power, not a new set of smart managers.

    mark ó dochartaigh November 15, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    Yes, liberal intolerance of intolerance is not the same as conservative intolerance of tolerance.

    Mike G November 15, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    The right has spent a generation supporting rabidly bigoted media like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News making sure the white working class blame all their ills on immigrants, minorities, feminists and stirring up a Foaming Outrage of the Week at what some sociology professor said at a tiny college somewhere.

    Kiss up, kick down authoritarianism. It's never the fault of the people with all the money and all the power who control their economic lives.

    [Nov 16, 2016] Rand Paul: Will Donald Trump betray voters by hiring John Bolton?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump has blamed George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list, who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles. ..."
    "... In 2011, Bolton bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton bragged , "We came, we saw, he died." ..."
    "... All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded. ..."
    "... Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy." ..."
    "... But he's seems to be okay with your son or daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us ..."
    Nov 16, 2016 | rare.us
    Bolton was one of the loudest advocates of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and still stupefyingly insists it was the right call 13 years later. "I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct," Bolton said just last year.

    Trump, rightly, believes that decision was a colossal mistake that destabilized the region. "Iraq used to be no terrorists," Trump said in 2015. "(N)ow it's the Harvard of terrorism."

    "If you look at Iraq from years ago, I'm not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy," Trump said of Saddam Hussein, "but it was a lot better than it is right now."

    Trump has said U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 "helped to throw the region into chaos and gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper." In contrast, Bolton has said explicitly that he wants to repeat Iraq-style regime change in Syrian and Iran.

    You can't learn from mistakes if you don't see mistakes.

    Trump has blamed George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list, who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles.

    In 2011, Bolton bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton bragged , "We came, we saw, he died."

    When Trump was asked last year if Libya and the region would be more stable today with Gaddafi in power, he replied "100 percent." Mr. Trump is 100 percent right .

    No man is more out of touch with the situation in the Middle East or more dangerous to our national security than Bolton.

    All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded.

    Woodrow Wilson would be proud, but the parents of our soldiers should be mortified. War should be the last resort, never the first. War should be understood to be a hell no one wishes for. Dwight Eisenhower understood this when he wrote, "I hate war like only a soldier can, the stupidity, the banality, the futility."

    Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy."

    But he's seems to be okay with your son or daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us: "Even before the Iraq War, John Bolton was a leading brain behind the neoconservatives' war-and-conquest agenda," notes The American Conservative's Jon Utley.

    At a time when Americans thirst for change and new thinking, Bolton is an old hand at failed foreign policy.

    The man is a menace.

    Rand Paul is the junior senator from Kentucky.

    [Nov 15, 2016] The Trump Ploy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Knowing how angry the working class has become, the deep state could not install Hillary, for that would have been a tiresome rehash of another Clinton presidency. With NAFTA, Bill launched the job offshoring that has wrecked this country, and those most affected by it, working class whites, know damn well who's responsible. The Clinton brand has become anathema to middle America. ..."
    "... On the foreign front, America's belligerence will not ease up under a Trump presidency, for without a hyper kinetic military to browbeat and bomb, the world will stop lending us money. The US doesn't just wage wars to fatten the military banking complex, but to prop up the US Dollar and prevent our economy from collapsing. The empire yields tangible benefits for even the lowliest Americans. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | www.unz.com
    Michele Paccione / Shutterstock.com Universally, Trump was depicted as an anti-establishment candidate. Washington and Wall Street hated him, and the media were deployed to vilify him endlessly. If they could not discredit Trump enough, surely they would steal the election from him. Some even suggested Trump would be assassinated.

    Acting the part, Trump charged repeatedly that the election was rigged, and he was right, of course. During the primaries, Hillary Clinton received debate questions in advance from CNN. More seriously, 30 states used voting machines that could easily be hacked.

    A leaked tape of Trump making obscene comments about groping women became further proof that the establishment was out to get him. In spite of all this, Trump managed to win by a landslide, so what happened?

    To steal an American election, one only needs to tamper with votes in two or three critical states, and since Hillary didn't win, we must conclude that she was never the establishment's chosen puppet. As Trump claimed, the fix was in, all right, except that it was rigged in his favor, as born out by the fact.

    While everybody else yelped that Trump would never be allowed to win, I begged to differ. After the Orlando false flag shooting on June 12th, 2016, I wrote:

    In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.

    A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics.

    On September 24th, I doubled down:

    Mind-fucked, most Americans can't even see that an American president's only task is to disguise the deep state's intentions. Chosen by the deep state to explain away its crimes, our president's pronouncements are nearly always contradicted by the deep state's actions. While the president talks of peace, democracy, racial harmony, prosperity for Main Street and going after banksters, etc., the deep state wages endless war, stages meaningless elections, stokes racial hatred, bankrupts nearly all Americans and enables massive Wall Street crimes, etc.

    Only the infantile will imagine the president as any kind of savior or, even more hilariously, anti-establishment. Since the deep state won't even tolerate a renegade reporter at, say, the San Jose Mercury News, how can you expect a deep state's enemy to land in the White House?! It cannot happen.

    A presidential candidate will promise to fix all that's wrong with our government, and this stance, this appearance, is actually very useful for the deep state, for it gives Americans hope. Promising everything, Obama delivered nothing. So who do you think is being primed by the deep state to be our next false savior?

    Who benefits from false flag terrorist attacks blamed on Muslims? Who gains when blacks riot? Why is the Democratic Party propping up a deeply-despised and terminally ill war criminal? More personable Bernie Sanders was nixed by the deep state since it had another jester in mind.

    The first presidential debate is Monday. Under stress, Hillary's eyes will dart in separate directions. Coughing nonstop for 90 minutes, her highness will hack up a gazillion unsecured emails. Her head will jerk spasmodically, plop onto the floor and, though decapitated, continue to gush platitudes and lies. "A Very Impressive Performance," CNBC and CNN will announce. Come November, though, Trump will be installed because his constituency needs to be temporarily pacified. The deep state knows that white people are pissed.

    The media were out to get Trump, pundits from across the political spectrum kept repeating, but the truth is that the media made Trump. Long before the election, Trump became a household name, thanks to the media.

    Your average American can't name any other real estate developer, casino owner or even his own senators, but he has known Trump since forever. For more than a decade, Trump was a reality TV star, with two of his children also featured regularly on The Apprentice. Trump's "You're fired" and his hair became iconic. Trump appeared on talk shows, had cameo roles in movies and owned the Miss Universe pageant. In 2011, Obama joked that Trump as president would deck out the White House in garish fashion, with his own name huge on the façade. The suave, slick prez roasted Trump again in 2016. Trump has constantly been in the limelight.

    It's true that during the presidential campaign, Trump received mostly negative press, but this only ramped up support among his core constituency. Joe Sixpacks had long seen the media as not just against everything they cherished, but against them as people, so the more the media attacked Trump, the more popular he became among the white working class.

    Like politicians, casinos specialize in empty promises. Trump, then, is a master hustler, just like Obama, and with help from the media, this New York billionaire became a darling of the flyover states. Before his sudden transformation, Trump was certainly an insider. He donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill and Hillary attended his third wedding. Golf buddies, The Donald and Bill were also friends with one Jeffrey Epstein, owner of the infamous Lolita Express and a sex orgy, sex slave island in the Caribbean.

    In 2002, New York Magazine published "Jeffrey Epstein: International Money of Mystery." This asskissing piece begins, "He comes with cash to burn, a fleet of airplanes, and a keen eye for the ladies-to say nothing of a relentless brain that challenges Nobel Prize-winning scientists across the country-and for financial markets around the world."

    Trump is quoted, "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it-Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

    Bill Clinton shouts out, "Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science. I especially appreciated his insights and generosity during the recent trip to Africa to work on democratization, empowering the poor, citizen service, and combating HIV/AIDS."

    Epstein gushes back, "If you were a boxer at the downtown gymnasium at 14th Street and Mike Tyson walked in, your face would have the same look as these foreign leaders had when Clinton entered the room. He is the world's greatest politician."

    Even during a very nasty election campaign, Trump stayed clear of Clinton's association with Epstein because he himself had been chummy with the convicted pervert. Trump also never brought up the Clintons' drug running in Mena or the many mysterious deaths of those whose existence inconvenienced their hold on power.

    With eight years in the White House, plus stints as a senator then secretary of state, Clinton is considered the ultimate insider. Though a novice politician, Trump is also an insider, and it's a grand joke of the establishment that they've managed to convince Joe Sixpacks everywhere that Trump will save them.

    Knowing how angry the working class has become, the deep state could not install Hillary, for that would have been a tiresome rehash of another Clinton presidency. With NAFTA, Bill launched the job offshoring that has wrecked this country, and those most affected by it, working class whites, know damn well who's responsible. The Clinton brand has become anathema to middle America.

    While Clinton says America is already great, Trump promises to make America great again, but the decline of the US will only accelerate. Our manufacturing base is handicapped because American workers will not put up with Chinese wages, insanely long hours or living in cramped factory dormitories. In a global economy, those who can suck it up best get the jobs.

    On the foreign front, America's belligerence will not ease up under a Trump presidency, for without a hyper kinetic military to browbeat and bomb, the world will stop lending us money. The US doesn't just wage wars to fatten the military banking complex, but to prop up the US Dollar and prevent our economy from collapsing. The empire yields tangible benefits for even the lowliest Americans.

    With his livelihood vaporized, the poor man does not care for LGBT rights, the glass ceiling or climate change. Supplementing his wretched income with frequent treks to the church pantry, if not blood bank, he needs immediate relief. It's a shame he's staking his hopes on an imposter.

    The deep state ushered in Trump because he's clearly their most useful decoy. As the country hopes in vain, the crooked men behind the curtain will go on with business as usual. Trump is simply an Obama for a different demographic. Nothing will change for the better.

    Linh Dinh is the author of two books of stories, five of poems, and a novel, Love Like Hate . He's tracking our deteriorating socialscape through his frequently updated photo blog, Postcards from the End of America .

    [Nov 15, 2016] The Trump Doctrine The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. … We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete." ..."
    "... They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea. ..."
    "... At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world." ..."
    "... Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country. ..."
    "... The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States. ..."
    Nov 15, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    However Donald Trump came upon the foreign policy views he espoused, they were as crucial to his election as his views on trade and the border. Yet those views are hemlock to the GOP foreign policy elite and the liberal Democratic interventionists of the Acela Corridor. Trump promised an "America First" foreign policy rooted in the national interest, not in nostalgia. The neocons insist that every Cold War and post-Cold War commitment be maintained, in perpetuity.

    On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. … We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete."

    Yet the War Party has not had enough of war, not nearly.

    They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.

    They want to establish a no-fly zone and shoot down Syrian and Russian planes that violate it, acts of war Congress never authorized.

    They want to trash the Iran nuclear deal, though all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies told us, with high confidence, in 2007 and 2011, Iran did not even have a nuclear weapons program.

    Other hardliners want to face down Beijing over its claims to the reefs and rocks of the South China Sea, though our Manila ally is talking of tightening ties to China and kicking us out of Subic Bay.

    In none of these places is there a U.S. vital interest so imperiled as to justify the kind of war the War Party would risk.

    Trump has the opportunity to be the president who, like Harry Truman, redirected U.S. foreign policy for a generation.

    After World War II, we awoke to find our wartime ally, Stalin, had emerged as a greater enemy than Germany or Japan. Stalin's empire stretched from the Elbe to the Pacific.

    In 1949, suddenly, he had the atom bomb, and China, the most populous nation on earth, had fallen to the armies of Mao Zedong.

    As our situation was new, Truman acted anew. He adopted a George Kennan policy of containment of the world Communist empire, the Truman Doctrine, and sent an army to prevent South Korea from being overrun.

    At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world."

    A policy born of hubris.

    Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country.

    How did we expect Russian patriots to react?

    The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States.

    What should Trump say?

    Then Trump should move expeditiously to lay out and fix the broad outlines of his foreign policy, which entails rebuilding our military while beginning the cancellation of war guarantees that have no connection to U.S. vital interests. We cannot continue to bankrupt ourselves to fight other countries' wars or pay other countries' bills.

    The ideal time for such a declaration, a Trump Doctrine, is when the president-elect presents his secretaries of state and defense.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    [Nov 14, 2016] Philip Pilkington Why the Pollsters Totally Failed to Call a Trump Victory, Why I (Sort Of) Succeeded – and Why You Should Lis

    Notable quotes:
    "... The second argument is the Bayesian vs frequentist debate on the foundations of probability theory, which has roots that go back centuries. Not that it matters, but I am in the Bayes-Laplace-Jeffreys-Jaynes camp. Evidently the author is a frequentist. But it is a vastly bigger intellectual issue than how some pollsters blew it and can't be settled in a blog post by someone proclaiming The Truth. ..."
    "... It's no secret that U.S. election results can't be audited - the integrity of the data is unknowable - and is subject to pre-election manipulation, in the form of widespread voter suppression. Post-election manipulation of vote totals also can't be discounted, because in many election districts it wouldn't be difficult and motive exists. ..."
    "... The general nature of humans is to "freak out" about big things and demand stuff like Brexit, then "calm down" and leave things roughly like they are maybe with a few touch-ups around the edges.* (This is the simplified basis of my "Brexit not gonna happen" stance. ..."
    "... But this is saying that people at the last moment decided the status quo was so bad they realized they just had to make a very scary leap into something new. That, if true, says quite a lot about the status quo. ..."
    "... "The Bradley effect" is the idea people are lying to pollsters. The problem is modeling, and unlike a few years ago, Gallup and others no longer do their daily tracking polls which give a better picture of the electorate. In the absence of a clear view of the electorate, the pollsters make up who will vote based on preconceived notions. ..."
    "... I think this is a good point. My understanding of the polling methodology is that they sample the electorate then break their sampled voters into demographic bins, then they weight the bins based on expected participation by demographic to get a final expected vote. ..."
    "... Putting blame for voter 'apathy' on Clinton's treatment of the Democratic base that supported Sanders, probably the most activist part of the party, or on Clinton's pivot to 'suburban republicans', or on the FBI, or Clinton's disastrous foreign policy record, or Clinton's unprecedentedly low favorability and trustworthiness numbers is difficult, but all of those problems were foreseen by Sanders supporters as well as by the DNC, but were ignored by the latter. That those problems were likely to depress turnout, which Democrats need to win elections was also fairly obvious, which is why I never believed the polls and believed Trump was indeed likely to win. ..."
    "... Polling organizations are really political organizations that get paid to influence public opinion rather than measure it. Their models are garbage. It's a complete joke of an industry. ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    I have a very different explanation of why the pollsters got it so wrong. My argument is based on two statements which I hope to convince you of: That the pollsters were not actually using anything resembling scientific methodology when investigating the polls. Rather they were simply tracking the trends and calibrating their commentary in line with them. Not only did this not give us a correct understanding of what was going on but it also gave us no real new information other than what the polls themselves were telling us. I call this the redundancy argument . That the pollsters were committing a massive logical fallacy in extracting probability estimates from the polls (and whatever else they threw into their witches' brew models). In fact they were dealing with a singular event (the election) and singular events cannot be assigned probability estimates in any non-arbitrary sense. I call this the logical fallacy argument .

    Let us turn to the redundancy argument first. In order to explore the redundancy argument I will lay out briefly the type of analysis that I did on the polls during the election. I can then contrast this with the type of analysis done by pollsters. As we will see, the type of analysis that I was advocating produced new information while the type of approach followed by the pollsters did not. While I do not claim that my analysis actually predicted the election, in retrospect it certainly helps explain the result – while, on the other hand, the pollsters failed miserably.

    ... ... ...

    Probability theory requires that in order for a probability to be assigned an event must be repeated over and over again – ideally as many times as possible. Let's say that I hand you a coin. You have no idea whether the coin is balanced or not and so you do not know the probability that it will turn up heads. In order to discover whether the coin is balanced or skewed you have to toss it a bunch of times. Let's say that you toss it 1000 times and find that 900 times it turns up heads. Well, now you can be fairly confident that the coin is skewed towards heads. So if I now ask you what the probability of the coin turning up heads on the next flip you can tell me with some confidence that it is 9 out of 10 (900/1000) or 90%.

    Elections are not like this because they only happen once. Yes, there are multiple elections every year and there are many years but these are all unique events. Every election is completely unique and cannot be compared to another – at least, not in the mathematical space of probabilities. If we wanted to assign a real mathematical probability to the 2016 election we would have to run the election over and over again – maybe 1000 times – in different parallel universes. We could then assign a probability that Trump would win based on these other universes. This is silly stuff, of course, and so it is best left alone.

    So where do the pollsters get their probability estimates? Do they have access to an interdimensional gateway? Of course they do not. Rather what they are doing is taking the polls, plugging them into models and generating numbers. But these numbers are not probabilities. They cannot be. They are simply model outputs representing a certain interpretation of the polls. Boil it right down and they are just the poll numbers themselves recast as a fake probability estimate. Think of it this way: do the odds on a horse at a horse race tell you the probability that this horse will win? Of course not! They simply tell you what people think will happen in the upcoming race. No one knows the actual odds that the horse will win. That is what makes gambling fun. Polls are not quite the same – they try to give you a snap shot of what people are thinking about how they will vote in the election at any given point in time – but the two are more similar than not. I personally think that this tendency for pollsters to give fake probability estimates is enormously misleading and the practice should be stopped immediately. It is pretty much equivalent to someone standing outside a betting shop and, having converted all the odds on the board into fake probabilities, telling you that he can tell you the likelihood of each horse winning the race.

    There are other probability tricks that I noticed these pollsters doing too.

    ... ... ...

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church in discussing the first commandment repeats the condemnation of divination: "All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to 'unveil' the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. These practices are generally considered mortal sins.

    Of course I am not here to convert the reader to the Catholic Church. I am just making the point that many institutions in the past have seen the folly in trying to predict the future and have warned people against it. Today all we need say is that it is rather silly. Although we would also not go far wrong by saying, with the Church, that "recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings". That is a perfectly good secular lesson.

    I would go further still. The cult of prediction plays into another cult: the cult of supposedly detached technocratic elitism. I refer here, for example, to the cult of mainstream economics with their ever mysterious 'models'. This sort of enterprise is part and parcel of the cult of divination that we have fallen prey to but I will not digress too much on it here as it is the subject of a book that I will be publishing in mid-December 2016 – an overview of which can be found here . What knowledge-seeking people should be pursuing are tools of analysis that can help them better understand the world around us – and maybe even improve it – not goat entrails in which we can read future events. We live in tumultuous times; now is not the time

    Donald November 14, 2016 at 7:26 am

    The second argument is the Bayesian vs frequentist debate on the foundations of probability theory, which has roots that go back centuries. Not that it matters, but I am in the Bayes-Laplace-Jeffreys-Jaynes camp. Evidently the author is a frequentist. But it is a vastly bigger intellectual issue than how some pollsters blew it and can't be settled in a blog post by someone proclaiming The Truth.

    craazyman November 14, 2016 at 9:27 am

    Bayesian analysis is frequently cited as an alternative to frequentist schools, although only with prior awareness of the ontological challenges. Bwaaaaaaak!

    The Philster is back! Dude, you've been gone a while.

    If your title says we shouldn't listen to you, that might discourage readers before they read. That's a Bayesian prior. LOL. Sort of anyway.

    The probability of us reading, given the admonition not to read = the probability of the admonition given the probability of us reading, divided by the probability of us reading. Or something like that. ;-)

    When i do the math I get lost. I'll read it later. Right now i can't

    jake November 14, 2016 at 8:07 am

    It's no secret that U.S. election results can't be audited - the integrity of the data is unknowable - and is subject to pre-election manipulation, in the form of widespread voter suppression. Post-election manipulation of vote totals also can't be discounted, because in many election districts it wouldn't be difficult and motive exists.

    The arguments above are convincing in principle, but when the outcomes against which we measure polling predictions can't even be verified….

    a different chris November 14, 2016 at 8:10 am

    Letting others debate Bayesian models… this stood out:

    > This suggested to me that all of those that were going to vote Remain had decided early on and the voters that decided later and closer to the election date were going to vote Leave

    Wow. Just wow. The general nature of humans is to "freak out" about big things and demand stuff like Brexit, then "calm down" and leave things roughly like they are maybe with a few touch-ups around the edges.* (This is the simplified basis of my "Brexit not gonna happen" stance.)

    But this is saying that people at the last moment decided the status quo was so bad they realized they just had to make a very scary leap into something new. That, if true, says quite a lot about the status quo.

    *Yes I've been married for quite a long time now. Why do you ask? :)

    Anonymous November 14, 2016 at 8:58 am

    After some discussions about 'the inverse Bradley effect' some months ago, the press had been strangely silent about the effect and whether it applied to Trump. Theoretically, Trump, more than any other candidate I can name, should have enjoyed better support in the election than he was polling, as people were uncomfortable admitting that he was their preference for fear of condescension from pollsters. Ross Perot–to whom Trump is often compared– enjoyed a five point advantage 'inverse Bradley effect' in 1992 over his last and best poll numbers. Bill Clinton experienced a straight up 'Bradley effect' in both of his Presidential victories (off three points from his polling, as I recall), though he still did well enough to win.

    Nate Silver had an article that pretty much outlined what happened in the election back on Sept 15th. I'm not sure why he isn't referring to this as a fig leaf today, perhaps because so much of the rest of his reporting predicted Clinton's victory.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trump-could-win-the-white-house-while-losing-the-popular-vote/

    I thought Clinton would likely win, but that it would be a squeaker.

    NotTimothyGeithner November 14, 2016 at 10:03 am

    "The Bradley effect" is the idea people are lying to pollsters. The problem is modeling, and unlike a few years ago, Gallup and others no longer do their daily tracking polls which give a better picture of the electorate. In the absence of a clear view of the electorate, the pollsters make up who will vote based on preconceived notions.

    The LaT poll was very close this cycle and last cycle for the right reasons. Why didn't people lie to them? Are they special? They used a cross section of the country as a sample based on the census. They continued to talk to non voters or people who claimed to be non voters. They recognized people turning their backs on Team Blue. In 2012, they predicted the decline of the white vote for Team Blue and the rally of support from minorities because they talked to people.

    In the case of the famed "Bradley effect," the pollsters in that race didn't account for high republican turnout in connection to a statewide referendum expecting the usual city council turnout. The Republicans simply weren't counted. The "lying" of secret racists excuse was cooked up by pollsters and Bradley's campaign to avoid accountability for not working hard enough.

    Watt4Bob November 14, 2016 at 9:09 am

    I don't know if this fits in, but this what I've been pondering.

    For most of my life so far, lack of turnout has been assumed to be the result of 'voter apathy'.

    It looks to me as if the democratic party's behavior this year, especially in suppressing the Sanders campaign, had the ultimate effect of creating negative motivation on the part of many otherwise democratic voters, who were excoriated with the warning that any vote not-for-HRC was a vote for Trump.

    It would seem that many of those voters accepted that reality, and by refusing to show up at the polls, did indeed vote for Trump.

    From my perspective, this is both a complete repudiation of the Third-Way politics of the Clintons, and the beginning of a sea change.

    What I'm saying is that we no longer have voter apathy to blame, but real evidence of deepening engagement, which hopefully bodes well for Bernie's new project OR.

    This wasn't a mysterious failure to excite voters, it was an obvious and monumental case of ignoring the wishes of the electorate, and reaping a just reward.

    In the end, faced with the prospect of the SOS, voters elected to take a chance on Change, and this included many who could not bring themselves to vote for someone who obviously did not respect them, and for whom they held no respect.

    This is not your usual "poor turnout".

    FluffytheObeseCat November 14, 2016 at 9:57 am

    I don't know how much of the poor turnout over the past 2 decades was ever "your usual poor turnout". Third Way servitors to the powerful were never beloved of the people, except perhaps for the charismatic Bill Clinton. And there were many of us who never understood the love for him.

    Not voting has long been a conscious decision for many Americans, and when it's a conscious decision, it's essential a vote.

    Skip Intro November 14, 2016 at 10:30 am

    I think this is a good point. My understanding of the polling methodology is that they sample the electorate then break their sampled voters into demographic bins, then they weight the bins based on expected participation by demographic to get a final expected vote. The expected participation by demographic can really only be based on turnout from previous elections, though presumably pollsters tweak things to account for expected differences, like assuming women or latinos will be more motivated to vote in this election. If the actual turnout doesn't match the pollsters expectation, as happened in this election, where many traditional democratic demographics appeared to be demotivated, then the polls will all be systematically inaccurate.

    Putting blame for voter 'apathy' on Clinton's treatment of the Democratic base that supported Sanders, probably the most activist part of the party, or on Clinton's pivot to 'suburban republicans', or on the FBI, or Clinton's disastrous foreign policy record, or Clinton's unprecedentedly low favorability and trustworthiness numbers is difficult, but all of those problems were foreseen by Sanders supporters as well as by the DNC, but were ignored by the latter. That those problems were likely to depress turnout, which Democrats need to win elections was also fairly obvious, which is why I never believed the polls and believed Trump was indeed likely to win.

    And of course another major factor is that the polls were seemingly sponsored by media organizations which have pretty openly declared their opposition to Trump. The obvious suspicion was, then, that the polls were intended as campaign propaganda rather than objective information, and were tweaked (via turnout models?) to make Hillary seem inevitable. I also believed this was likely to lead to complacency among democrats, since Republicans are very reliable voters, and Trump-inspired indies would not believe anything coming from the MSM anyway.

    Most people I dared to explain this too were incredulous, and tended to write it off as more of my characteristic weird logic… and now they are shocked, the idiots.

    rich November 14, 2016 at 9:29 am

    Polling organizations are really political organizations that get paid to influence public opinion rather than measure it. Their models are garbage. It's a complete joke of an industry.

    David November 14, 2016 at 9:37 am

    Actually that just under 2 percent win in the national polls is going to be correct. Also many polls were vert close in PA were close as was FL and NC . Very few were done in Michigan which AP may never call because it is close enough for a recount. In the national number it looks like a 1 or 2 win

    casino implosion November 14, 2016 at 9:50 am

    Good to see that Phil is out of grad school and holding down a real job. Hope he posts to NC again soon.

    Joe November 14, 2016 at 10:37 am

    I thought the media and the both campaigns got it so wrong because they think everyone everywhere is on Facebook and Twitter. The people that helped elect the Trumpeter aren't on social media and didn't exist to those in power.

    Surprise.

    [Nov 14, 2016] Three Myths About Clintons Defeat in Election 2016 Debunked

    Notable quotes:
    "... Because the following talking points prevent a (vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons! ..."
    "... Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin. ..."
    "... These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump . ..."
    "... The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total, but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.) ..."
    "... And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me, I suppose, to sexism. ..."
    "... These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's. ..."
    "... pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum. They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same since his job at the factory went away" . ..."
    "... So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move in opposite directions? ..."
    "... First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair - college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale. ..."
    "... Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories ..."
    "... Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites. Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012. ..."
    "... "No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear. *snark ..."
    "... 'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets: ..."
    "... 1) Blacks for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't tell me what to think.' ..."
    "... Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture, pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted. So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of body and self. ..."
    "... My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book. ..."
    Nov 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente .

    This post is not an explainer about why and how Clinton lost (and Trump won). I think we're going to be sorting that out for awhile. Rather, it's a simple debunking of common talking points by Clinton loyalists and Democrat Establishment operatives; the sort of talking point you might hear on Twitter, entirely shorn of caveats and context. For each of the three talking points, I'll present an especially egregious version of the myth, followed by a rebuttals.

    Realize that Trump's margin of victory was incredibly small. From the Washington Post :

    How Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins in swing states

    Of the more than 120 million votes cast in the 2016 election, 107,000 votes in three states [Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania] effectively decided the election.

    Of course, America's first-past-the-post system and the electoral college amplify small margins into decisive results. And it was the job of the Clinton campaign to find those 107,000 votes and win them; the Clinton operation turned out to be weaker than anyone would have imagined when it counted . However, because Trump has what might be called an institutional mandate - both the executive and legislative branches and soon, perhaps, the judicial - the narrowness of his margin means he doesn't have a popular mandate. Trump has captured the state, but by no means civil society; therefore, the opposition that seeks to delegitimize him is in a stronger position than it may realize.

    Hence the necessity for reflection; seeking truth from facts, as the saying goes. Because the following talking points prevent a (vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons!

    Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Racism

    Here's a headline showing the talking point from a Vox explainer :

    Trump's win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism

    The subtext here is usually that if you don't chime in with vehement agreement, you're a racist yourself, and possibly a racist Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is false.

    First, voter caring levels dropped from 2012 to 2016, especially among black Democrats . Carl Beijer :

    From 2012 to 2016, both men and women went from caring about the outcome to not caring. Among Democratic men and women, as well as Republican women, care levels dropped about 3-4 points; Republican men cared a little less too, but only by one point. Across the board, in any case, the plurality of voters simply didn't care.

    Beijer includes the following chart (based on Edison exit polling cross-referenced with total population numbers from the US Census):

    Beijer interprets:

    White voters cared even less in 2016 then in 2012, when they also didn't care; most of that apathy came from white Republicans compared to white Democrats, who dropped off a little less. Voters of color, in contrast, continued to care – but their care levels dropped even more, by 8 points (compared to the 6 point drop-off among white voters). Incredibly, that drop was driven entirely by a 9 point drop among Democratic voters of color which left Democrats with only slim majority 51% support; Republicans, meanwhile, actually gained support among people of color.

    Beijer's data is born out by anecdote from Milwaukee, Wisconsin :

    Urban areas, where black and Hispanic voters are concentrated along with college-educated voters, already leaned toward the Democrats, but Clinton did not get the turnout from these groups that she needed. For instance, black voters did not show up in the same numbers they did for Barack Obama, the first black president, in 2008 and 2012.

    Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin.

    Second, counties that voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016 . The Washington Post :

    These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump .

    The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total, but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.)

    Here's the chart:

    And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me, I suppose, to sexism.

    Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Sexism

    Here's an article showing the talking point from Newsweek :

    This often vitriolic campaign was a national referendum on women and power.

    (The subtext here is usually that if you don't join the consensus cluster, you're a sexist yourself, and possibly a sexist Trump supporter). And if you only look at the averages this claim might seem true :

    On Election Day, women responded accordingly, as Clinton beat Trump among women 54 percent to 42 percent. They were voting not so much for her as against him and what he brought to the surface during his campaign: quotidian misogyny.

    There are two reasons this talking point is not true. First, averages conceal, and what they conceal is class . As you read further into the article, you can see it fall apart:

    In fact, Trump beat Clinton among white women 53 percent to 43 percent, with white women without college degrees going for [Trump] two to one .

    So, taking lack of a college degree as a proxy for being working class, for Newsweek's claim to be true, you have to believe that working class women don't get a vote in their referendum, and for the talking point to be true, you have to believe that working class women are sexist. Which leads me to ask: Who died and left the bourgeois feminists in Clinton's base in charge of the definition of sexism, or feminism? Class traitor Tina Brown is worth repeating:

    Here's my own beef. Liberal feminists, young and old, need to question the role they played in Hillary's demise. The two weeks of media hyperventilation over grab-her-by-the-pussygate, when the airwaves were saturated with aghast liberal women equating Trump's gross comments with sexual assault, had the opposite effect on multiple women voters in the Heartland.

    These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's.

    Missing this pragmatic response by so many women was another mistake of Robbie Mook's campaign data nerds. They computed that America's women would all be as outraged as the ones they came home to at night. But pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum. They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same since his job at the factory went away" .

    Second, Clinton in 2016 did no better than Obama in 2008 with women (although she did better than Obama in 2012). From the New York Times analysis of the exit polls, this chart...

    So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move in opposite directions?

    Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Stupidity

    Here's an example of this talking point from Foreign Policy , the heart of The Blob. The headline:

    Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally

    And the lead:

    OK, so that just happened. Donald Trump always enjoyed massive support from uneducated, low-information white people. As Bloomberg Politics reported back in August, Hillary Clinton was enjoying a giant 25 percentage-point lead among college-educated voters going into the election. (Whether that trend held up remains to be seen.) In contrast, in the 2012 election, college-educated voters just barely favored Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Last night we saw something historic: the dance of the dunces. Never have educated voters so uniformly rejected a candidate. But never before have the lesser-educated so uniformly supported a candidate.

    The subtext here is usually that if you don't accept nod your head vigorously, you're stupid, and possibly a stupid Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is not true.

    First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair - college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale.

    Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories . From The Week :

    Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites. Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012.

    So, to believe this talking point, you have to believe that voters who were smart when they voted for Obama suddenly became stupid when it came time to vote for Clinton. You also have to believe that credentialed policy makers have an unblemished record of success, and that only they are worth paying attention to.

    Conclusion

    Of course, Clinton ran a miserable campaign, too, which didn't help. Carl Beijer has a bill of particulars :

    By just about every metric imaginable, Hillary Clinton led one of the worst presidential campaigns in modern history. It was a profoundly reactionary campaign, built entirely on rolling back the horizons of the politically possible, fracturing left solidarity, undermining longstanding left priorities like universal healthcare, pandering to Wall Street oligarchs, fomenting nationalism against Denmark and Russia, and rehabilitating some of history's greatest monsters – from Bush I to Kissinger. It was a grossly unprincipled campaign that belligerently violated FEC Super PAC coordination rules and conspired with party officials on everything from political attacks to debate questions. It was an obscenely stupid campaign that all but ignored Wisconsin during the general election, that pitched Clinton to Latino voters as their abuela, that centered an entire high-profile speech over the national menace of a few thousand anime nazis on Twitter, and that repeatedly deployed Lena Dunham as a media surrogate.

    Which is rather like running a David Letterman ad in a Pennsylvania steel town. It must have seemed like a good idea in Brooklyn. After all, they had so many celebrities to choose from.

    * * *

    All three talking points oversimplify. I'm not saying racism is not powerful; of course it is. I'm not saying that sexism is not powerful; of course it is. But monocausal explanations in an election this close - and in a country this vast - are foolish. And narratives that ignore economics and erase class are worse than foolish; buying into them will cause us to make the same mistakes over and over and over again.[1] The trick will be to integrate multiple causes, and that's down to the left; identity politics liberals don't merely not want to do this; they actively oppose it. Ditto their opposite numbers in America's neoliberal fun house mirror, the conservatives.

    NOTES

    [1] For some, that's not a bug. It's a feature.

    NOTE

    You will have noticed that I haven't covered economics (class), or election fraud at all. More myths are coming.

    Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration 24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com

    TK421 November 14, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    Yes, I'm a sexist because I voted for Jill Stein instead of Hillary Clinton.

    Knot Galt November 14, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    "No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear. *snark

    IdahoSpud November 14, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    Is it sexist, racist, and/or stupid to conclude that one awful candidate is less likely to betray you than a different awful candidate?

    rwv November 14, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    Didn't feel the Bern, and if you burn your ass you'll have to sit on the blisters

    Steve H. November 14, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Stupidity

    'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets:

    1) Blacks for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't tell me what to think.'

    2) Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture, pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted. So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of body and self.

    My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book.

    Maybe not so stupid after all.

    Jason Boxman November 14, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    Thanks so much for this!

    [Nov 14, 2016] Bernie Sanders Indicting Hillary Would Be An Outrage Beyond Belief

    Nov 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    by Submitted by Stefanie MacWilliams via PlanetFreeWill.com,

    In his first post-election interview , Bernie Sanders has declared to should-be-disgraced Wolf Blitzer that Trump seeking to indict Hillary Clinton for her crimes would be "an outrage beyond belief".

    When asked if President Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton, Sanders seems almost confused as to why a pardon would even be needed.

    Blitzer notes that Ford pardoned Nixon before he could be charged, to which Bernie seemed again incredulous as to the comparison was even being made.

    He goes on to state:

    That a winning candidate would try to imprison the losing candidate – that's what dictatorships are about, that's what authoritarian countries are about. You do not imprison somebody you ran against because you have differences of opinion. The vast majority of the American people would find it unacceptable to even think about those things.

    Either Senator Sanders is a drooling idiot, or he is being willfully obtuse.

    No one wants to imprison Hillary Clinton because of her opinion. They want to imprison Hillary Clinton because she has committed criminal actions that any other person lacking millions of dollars and hundreds of upper-echelon contacts would be imprisoned for.

    Apparently, according to progressive hero Bernie Sanders, holding the elites to the same level of justice as the peons is undemocratic, authoritarian, and perhaps even dictatorial!

    Enough with the damn emails?

    Enough with any hope that the Democrats have retained a minute shred of credibility.

    You can watch the full interview below:

    [Nov 13, 2016] Fears that Trump will be tamed by the deep state and neocons

    Nov 13, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 9:00 PM ,

    An Open Letter To Donald J. Trump

    THE ULTIMATE "APPRENTICE"

    November 12, 2016

    Dear Mr. President-Elect:

    I was one of the millions of people that believed in you. Believed what you said. Heard you.

    You got "hired" by 60 MILLION people. WE are your boss. YOU BECAME THE EMPLOYEE.

    Something you are not used to.

    I myself convinced nearly 20 people to vote for you over these last two years. Know what I said?

    "He's NOT a politician. He's a business man. He's an outsider – something Washington, D.C. SORELY needs. He's NOT the same 'business as usual' guy. Mr. Trump will change things for the better in Washington. Clean it up. Make peace with Russia – not war. Trump is a BUILDER – not a destroyer. He'll negotiate FAIR deals with countries. Install sensible immigration policies. Reverse the stranglehold on health care policies that have bankrupted millions." I made them see how biased the media was against you. How they lied by omission – and sometimes outright lied about you. (To a person, they NO LONGER WATCH, TRUST, OR HEED the media anymore.)

    He'll change the culture of Washington – because that's EXACTLY WHAT IT NEEDS. CHANGE."

    Washington has become a den of vipers. Self-enriching criminals that have sucked the life blood out of US – YOUR EMPLOYERS . The phrase; "You're FIRED" must be repeated often to MANY people over the next few years. People that have engorged themselves because of the previous employees, who have mismanaged the nation, and lied to it's people.

    Your very words from your speeches that convinced us to hire you. Your platform. Your slogans;

    "Make America Great Again." "I'll take back this country for you".

    You said that to 60 MILLION of us – and we hired you based on it.

    We hired you because we're SICK AND TIRED OF CAREER POLITICIANS. We hired you because we are sick of the GREED, DUPLICITY, THE CORRUPTION of Congress and the past administrations that have enriched the elite, while robbing from the American taxpayer.

    Already, the public has noticed that you have had a LOT of the old-guard/same ol' same ol' Republican Washington "insiders" advising you. We understand that you will need some guidance in the first few months. All "apprentices" do.

    However, we, as your employers, will NOT TOLERATE THE SAME OL' SAME OL' ANYMORE.

    We hired YOU to do the right THINGS. "Drain The Swamp" "Take Our Country BACK".

    Commencing January 21, 2017, that's exactly what we demand of you – our new employee.

    WE WILL WANT RESULTS. ACTIONS. CHANGE.

    WE WILL WANT INVESTIGATIONS. ARRESTS. PROSECUTIONS OF THE PEOPLE THAT WRONGED THIS NATION. STOLE FROM IT. CORRUPTED IT. DAMAGED IT.

    Just like you monitored your "apprentices", and judged them on their performances, WE ARE JUDGING YOU. And we are NOT going to be fooled, like the oppositions legions were and are; by a biased media that lies to them. No one is going to get a "pass" anymore. Especially like your immediate predecessor.

    That's over.

    On January 21, 2017, your official duties commence.

    We all wish you the best, and are with you.

    The last thing we want to do is tell you;

    You're Fired.

    blue51 BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 9:10 PM ,
    One fine letter.
    espirit blue51 Nov 12, 2016 9:20 PM ,
    Concern that President-Elect Trump may not have foreseen what a Medusas' head of Snakes the .gov is.

    Think Ron Paul has forewarned him.

    It's a nasty and corrupt business.

    Kirk2NCC1701 BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 9:20 PM ,
    What!? How does the last line jive with the rest above it?

    You must have meant "If you don't perform and deliver as promised, then You're Fired! In the meantime, You're Hired! Welcome Aboard."

    BabaLooey Kirk2NCC1701 Nov 12, 2016 9:28 PM ,
    Read it again.

    "On January 21, 2017, your official duties commence.

    We all wish you the best, and are with you.

    The last thing we want to do is tell you;

    You're Fired."

    -----------------------------

    IF Trump even reads it (doubtful), he'll get it.

    I get your point though Captain.

    dreihoden BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 9:28 PM ,
    hear! hear! i second that emotion sir!

    FIAT CON BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 9:30 PM ,
    it was just yesterday that I had posted the following to a friend... very similar.

    I know, well the Internet people that elected him may and can put tremendous pressure on him to do the right thing... And I expect that to happen...I expect the people to demand through social media that they keep their promises and that they do what they are told by the people that elected them.....can you imagine the damage that could happen if the trump supporters starting to Diss him because he didn't do what he was told by the people that elected him.

    I think in the very near future countries will be run by the people of the country via the Internet where everybody's voice counts and the people that want to share their voice will be the actual leaders of the country and the people that want to watch sports and stick their head in the sand will be sheeple.

    I think referendums will be a much more common item

    BabaLooey FIAT CON Nov 12, 2016 9:55 PM ,
    @ Fiat Con

    I wrote that in the hopes that someone on the "TTT" (Trump Transition Team) reads it, and maybe, maybe, shows Trump himself.

    We all know he trolls different sites - and I'll bet he trolls ZH.

    I agree with you; the "internet people" elected him. The "alt-right" (which IS the new media) elected him.

    If we had no internet, and had to rely on the MSM, Clinton would have been elected.

    Or worse.

    But they are now the "old guard ". It is funny....sickening...and sad to watch them flail away like they have relevancy -

    THEY don't.

    In a big way, this election was a wake up call to THEM (like the NYT piece on here shows), to clean up THEIR act.

    NO MORE business as usual. CFR meets and Washington insider parties of poo.

    I actually DID convince 18 people to switch from Clinton to Trump (really, it was 12 from Cruz/Bush/Sanders, and 6 outright flip Clinton to Trump).. and ALL of them HAD been a daily staple of watching the MSM.

    Getting them to stop was akin to getting a smoker off cigarettes. Some still do - but they NOW know how the MSM LIES.

    (One way I showed them? A tape on YouTube of 60 Minutes "editing techniques", linked below, which REALLY opened some eyes)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG8SjeeV7Y4

    MaxThrust BabaLooey Nov 12, 2016 11:08 PM ,
    Babalooey

    I certainly hope Trump does get to read your post because I agree with it 100%.

    We Trump supporters will not be fooled. We will not accept Neocons, CFR members or Israeli Duals.

    May I suggest you send a copy of this post to all newspapers in the hope one will print it as an editorial.

    BabaLooey MaxThrust Nov 13, 2016 8:31 AM ,
    @ MaxThrust

    Cheers Max!

    The video embedded in this thread - when Ann Coulter was on Bill Maher and got mocked for her backing Trump - in several instances - was me in 2014 and 2015. I got laughed at by many for coming out for Trump back then.

    However, what I wrote is true. I literally changed 18 people into Trump supporters from then to now.

    The reasons are many - but the MAIN one is;

    I'm. PISSED. OFF.

    I'm angry as to the mis-management, lies and over-regulation that has killed the little guy in businesses. I'm angry as to the lies and deceit from the bought of main stream media. A whole LOT of other reasons as well.

    I am giving free reign for anyone here to re-post this on ANY internet forum they want; Brietbart, Drudge, and ANY online newspaper comment op-ed section they wish.

    I only am a commenter here. I choose not to become one on any other forum.

    Please copy and paste it anywhere you'd like.

    I'm just a little guy. A "peon". However, I did work hard for Trump. I expect no compensation. No recognition.

    I DO expect Trump however - to DO WHAT he said. As a political outsider.

    I am concerned as to the vipers, old guard Washington insiders, and of course, the Deep State - along with Israel - getting to Trump.

    WE didn't elect them. We elected HIM.

    So please - have at it. Post away.

    I hope my post inspires others to do their own "Apprentice" type open letters to Trump.

    He needs to hear from us (and I bet he does troll ZH and other finanical sites.)

    [Nov 13, 2016] Why Polls Fail

    Notable quotes:
    "... he Clinton camp, the media and the pollsters missed what we had anticipated as "not Clinton". A basic setting in a part of the "left" electorate that remember who she is and what she has done and would under no circumstances vote for her. Clinton herself pushed the "bernie bros" and "deplorables" into that camp. This was a structural change that was solely based in the personality of the candidate. ..."
    "... Even then polls and their interpretation will always only capture a part of the story. Often a sound grasp of human and cultural behavior will allow for better prediction as all polls. As my friend the statistician say: "The best prognostic instrument I have even today is my gut." ..."
    "... NeverHillary turned out to be bigger than NeverTrump. Hillary got less than 6 million votes compared to Obama. Trump got nearly as much as Romney. ..."
    "... A good indicator was the size of the crowds each candidate drew to their rallies. Clinton tended to show more "bought" TV-ready extras. Bernie blew the walls out at his rallies, as did Trump. You can't look at that and say the polls are even close to accurate. ..."
    "... When the Democrats unleashed thugs on Trump supporters while the media studiously looked away, it was not sensible to openly identify with Trump. ..."
    "... On Wednesday after the election, I heard an interview with a woman reporter who worked with the 538 polling group. She said that it was impossible for most reporters to really investigate how voters in certain areas of the country were feeling about the election bcz newspapers and other news organizations, including the Big Broadcasters, did not have the ability to pay for enough reporters to actually talk to people. ..."
    "... the Los Angeles Times polls were correct (although the paper was pro-Clinton); can't get the link now, but they explained how they weighted their polls on the basis of the enthusiasm displayed for the preferred candidate, and Trump supporters were more "charged" ..."
    "... I read many stories about how the polls were fixed for Clinton for months before the election. ..."
    "... The pollsters took the % of voters from the Obama election but they also added more Democrats than were representative in the 2012 election, thereby skewing the polls for Clinton. Many believed that the reason they did this was to try to manipulate the voting machines in Clinton's favour and have the polls match the result. ..."
    "... i go back to what my sociology of the media instructor said.. polls are for massaging people's brains.. unless one knows who pays for them and what goes into them, they are just another propaganda tool for use.. ..."
    "... It has been known for a long time in the polling world that polling numbers are getting more and more unreliable because fewer and fewer people are willing to complete polls. ..."
    "... theory would also explain the newspaper polls largely rigged to correspond to the planned vote theft, as well as the idiotic magnitude of overconfidence seen in the Pol-Est/MS Media/Wall Street complex. ..."
    "... 1. IBD/TIPP (A collaboration of Investors Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence). TechnoMetrica was consistent throughout – final poll for election day had Trump leading by 2%. Also predicted the last presidential elections back to 2004. ..."
    "... This election candidates' crowd draw was a good indicator. It was very difficult to pre-program the Diebold machines. MSM polls were in the bag for Hillary, had her ahead. It backfired. ..."
    "... A bit about polling methodology explains the bias we've seen this election cycle. Typically, the polling samples are not big enough to be representative, so the results are corrected (weighted) based on the participant responses. The polls assume certain turnout percentages for different groups (Democrats, Republicans, Independents, rural, urban, ethnicity, gender etc.). A lot of the polls were weighting the polls with turnouts similar to 2012, corrected for the expected demographic changes over the last 4 years. ..."
    "... Poll weighing is a tricky business. This is why most polling has a 4% error margin, so it does not produce as accurate picture as is typically presented by the media. The error is not randomly distributed, it is closely related to the poll weighting. The weighting error was favouring Clinton in the polls as it assumed higher Democratic turnout, which ended up not being the case, she underperformed 2012 significantly and lost the election. ..."
    "... Are the polls done to discover "what's up", or are they done to project the view that one side is winning? ..."
    "... I go with the second view. That's what the 'corrections' are all about. The 'corrections' need to be dropped completely ..."
    "... This. There was a Wikiliks Podesta email in whdich Clinton operatives discussed oversampling certain groups to inflate the poll in her favor. ..."
    "... Hmm ... what can I say that no-one else has already said except to observe that the polling and the corporate media reporting the polling statistics were in another parallel universe and the people supposedly being polled (and not some over-sampled group in Peoria, Iowa, who could predict exactly what questions would be asked and knew what answers to give) live on planet Earth? ..."
    "... I most certainly did not predict Trump would win. But I did question the polls. What I questioned a few weeks ago was the margin of victory for Hillary. ..."
    "... This is because most of the polls were weighting more Democratic (based on the 2012 election), which overestimated Clinton's support. ..."
    "... So the difference between the poll and the actual result is 1.2% in favour of Trump (1.7% lead to Clinton in poll vs. 0.5% in the election). All are well within the error of the poll, so 1.2% difference between the election and the poll is well within the stated 3% error margin of the poll. ..."
    "... You assume public polls are conducted by impartial actors who wish to inform and illuminate..... your assumption is incorrect. ..."
    "... The New York Times recent admission that it writes the narrative first, then builds the story to suit says about everything for me regarding polls. ..."
    "... According to reports, the first leader Trump spoke to on the phone after his election victory was the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Sisi congratulated him on the election victory, a spokesman for the Egyptian leader said. ..."
    "... It may be unfortunate, but I can see Trump & Erdogan getting along very well. Although, if they bring Putin into that triumvirate that could actually be very beneficial for the Middle East. ..."
    Nov 13, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Today I discussed the U.S. election with a friend who studied and practices statistics. I asked about the failure of the polls in this years presidential election. Her explanation: The polls are looking at future events but are biased by the past. The various companies and institutions adjust the polls they do by looking at their past prognoses and the real results of the past event. They then develop correcting factors, measured from the past, and apply it to new polls. If that correcting factor is wrong, possibly because of structural changes in the electorate, then the new polls will be corrected with a wrong factor and thus miss the real results.

    Polls predicting the last presidential election were probably off by 3 or 5 points towards the Republican side. The pollsters then corrected the new polls for the Clinton-Trump race in favor of the Democratic side by giving that side an additional 3-5 points. They thereby corrected the new polls by the bias that was poll inherent during the last race.

    But structural changes, which we seem to have had during this election, messed up the result. Many people who usually vote for the Democratic ticket did not vote for Clinton. The "not Clinton" progressives, the "bernie bros" and "deplorables" who voted Obama in the last election stayed home, voted for a third party candidate or even for Trump. The pollsters did not anticipate such a deep change. Thus their correction factor was wrong. Thus the Clinton side turned out to be favored in polls but not in the relevant votes.

    Real polling, which requires in depth-in person interviews with the participants, does not really happen anymore. It is simply to expensive. Polling today is largely done by telephone with participants selected by some database algorithm. It is skewed by many factors which require many corrections. All these corrections have some biases that do miss structural changes in the underlying population.

    The Clinton camp, the media and the pollsters missed what we had anticipated as "not Clinton". A basic setting in a part of the "left" electorate that remember who she is and what she has done and would under no circumstances vote for her. Clinton herself pushed the "bernie bros" and "deplorables" into that camp. This was a structural change that was solely based in the personality of the candidate.

    If Sanders would have been the candidate the now wrong poll correction factor in favor of Democrats would likely have been a correct one. The deep antipathy against Hillary Clinton in a decisive part of the electorate was a factor that the pseudo-science of cheap telephone polls could not catch. More expensive in depth interviews of the base population used by a pollster would probably have caught this factor and adjusted appropriately.

    There were some twenty to thirty different entities doing polls during this election cycle. Five to ten polling entities, with better budgets and preparations, would probably have led to better prognoses. Some media companies could probably join their poll budgets, split over multiple companies today, to have a common one with a better analysis of its base population.One that would have anticipated "not Hillary".

    Unless that happens all polls will have to be read with a lot of doubt. What past bias is captured in these predictions of the future? What are their structural assumptions and are these still correct? What structural change might have happened?

    Even then polls and their interpretation will always only capture a part of the story. Often a sound grasp of human and cultural behavior will allow for better prediction as all polls. As my friend the statistician say: "The best prognostic instrument I have even today is my gut."

    Oscar Romero | Nov 13, 2016 3:23:53 PM | 1

    An equally interesting question about polls: what about the exit polls? If Greg Palast and others are right, exit polls indicate that the voting was rigged. What does your statistics friend think about that?
    Andrea | Nov 13, 2016 3:28:21 PM | 2
    After the 1948 election, statisticians started to get rid of the quota sampling for electoral polls. After this election, it's time to reassess Statistics.

    https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case2.html

    ab initio | Nov 13, 2016 3:30:01 PM | 3
    NeverHillary turned out to be bigger than NeverTrump. Hillary got less than 6 million votes compared to Obama. Trump got nearly as much as Romney.
    stumpy | Nov 13, 2016 3:45:38 PM | 4
    A good indicator was the size of the crowds each candidate drew to their rallies. Clinton tended to show more "bought" TV-ready extras. Bernie blew the walls out at his rallies, as did Trump. You can't look at that and say the polls are even close to accurate.
    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 13, 2016 4:00:50 PM | 5
    I suspect that the future of polling isn't as dire as you're painting it, b. There was huge anti-Trump bias in the Jew-controlled Christian-West Media from the beginning of the campaign. You drew attention to negative MSM bias yourself in the post which pointed out how consistently wrong the Punditocracy had been in predicting the imminent failure of the Trump campaign - thereby rubbing their noses in their own ineptitude and tomfoolery.

    One factor which seemed important to me was occasionally hilighted at regular intervals by commenters here at MoA... The (apparent) fact that Trump addressed more, and bigger, crowds than Mrs Clinton. I accepted those claims as fact, and didn't bother to check their veracity. But nevertheless crowd size and frequency seems to have played a pivotal role in the outcome (as one would expect in a political campaign).

    Mudduck | Nov 13, 2016 4:01:15 PM | 6
    Exit polls have provided checks on the accuracy of the vote count -- but are liable to the same problem as the opinion pols, people who don't admit to their real position.
    Steve | Nov 13, 2016 4:03:18 PM | 7
    I'm not surprised that the polls fail badly in this presidential election. When the Democrats unleashed thugs on Trump supporters while the media studiously looked away, it was not sensible to openly identify with Trump. Even Trump was saying so through out the campaign.The Democrats together with their media partners truly believed that Donald Trump's alleged character flaws would be enough to win the election. Despite the fact that it was obvious to anyone without a blinker on that the momentum was on the side of Trump all along. Obama's phenomenon of 08 was nothing compared to Trump's phenomenon of this year, but because neither the MSM nor the Pollsters liked him they transferred their biases to their jobs. In any case I'm sure happy that the result of the election turned out different from the skewed prognosis.
    jawbone | Nov 13, 2016 4:08:45 PM | 8
    On Wednesday after the election, I heard an interview with a woman reporter who worked with the 538 polling group. She said that it was impossible for most reporters to really investigate how voters in certain areas of the country were feeling about the election bcz newspapers and other news organizations, including the Big Broadcasters, did not have the ability to pay for enough reporters to actually talk to people.

    Since statistics had worked so well, and were cheaper to deal with, they won the day. And lost the battle.

    Now, most people at this site seemed to base their decisions of whom to vote for based on stands on issues and known actions of the various candidates. But, even so, we probably paid attention to the polling results. I know I took into consideration that Hillary would win big in NJ, leaving me free to vote for Jill Stein. Based on known actions of Trump I could not vote for him, even tho' I hoped he would kill TPP and have better relations with Russia. I feared and still do fear his nominations to the Supreme Court. (I am not religious, but if I were I would pray daily, perhaps hourly, for the continued good health of the Justices Kennedy, GInsburg, and Breyer. I would hope the other Dem appointed justices would take care to avoid, oh, small airplanes....

    Would Hillary have adjusted her campaign if she could have seen the rising disappointment of the working class Dems (even middle class to higher income Dems)? I don't know. I do know that her husband ran his first campaign on the famous "It's the economy, stupid" reminder.

    Somehow, I don't think it would have registered enough.

    And Obama ran on Hope and Change, but was always the Corporatist Dem Wall Street wanted. What a waste. And now we have four more years of doing essentially nothing aboug climate change. It was have been a strategy to put off even regulatory actions to lessen CO2 emissions until near the end of his second term, but, dang, it makes it easier for Trump to negate those efforts.

    Again, what a waste. But I didn't vote for Obama for either term bcz I saw that his actions as IL state senator and as US senator were always looking out for the Big Money, Big Corporations, and seldom worked for anyone below the middle class, more the top of the middle class.

    virgile | Nov 13, 2016 4:12:32 PM | 9
    This Wasn't A Vote, It Was An Uprising
    Paul Craig Roberts • November 12, 2016 >

    Polls mean nothing when there is an uprising

    virgile | Nov 13, 2016 4:15:15 PM | 10
    No need of polls...say PBS

    How to (accurately) predict a presidential election

    joey | Nov 13, 2016 4:19:53 PM | 11
    A long explanatory report which signifies nothing critical. "The polls were wrong??" No. The polls reported by MSM were wrong.

    Big time, including from those from Clinton loving CBC here in Canada, which for an extended time was reporting Hillary with an 11% lead. That number was far beyond any minor adjustments, for sure.

    There were polls, such as Rasmussen, itself suspected of fiddling, which were reporting ups and downs of 2%, and ended up tied election day.

    So, please schemers, please do not try to cover up the MSM's deliberate attempt to influence results by using garbage numbers. Figures can lie, and liars can sure figure.

    claudio | Nov 13, 2016 4:23:05 PM | 13
    the Los Angeles Times polls were correct (although the paper was pro-Clinton); can't get the link now, but they explained how they weighted their polls on the basis of the enthusiasm displayed for the preferred candidate, and Trump supporters were more "charged"
    mischi | Nov 13, 2016 4:25:01 PM | 14
    I disagree with your friend, b. I read many stories about how the polls were fixed for Clinton for months before the election.

    The pollsters took the % of voters from the Obama election but they also added more Democrats than were representative in the 2012 election, thereby skewing the polls for Clinton. Many believed that the reason they did this was to try to manipulate the voting machines in Clinton's favour and have the polls match the result. I think that Trump crying foul so early got them worried that they might be caught. Remember, voting machines in 14 states are run by companies affiliated with Soros.

    james | Nov 13, 2016 4:26:58 PM | 15
    i go back to what my sociology of the media instructor said.. polls are for massaging people's brains.. unless one knows who pays for them and what goes into them, they are just another propaganda tool for use..
    Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 13, 2016 4:34:08 PM | 16
    ...
    Polls mean nothing when there is an uprising
    Posted by: virgile | Nov 13, 2016 4:12:32 PM | 9

    Well, the Clinton-ista's and Soro-fuls certainly wasted no time when they switched from Anticipated Gloat to Full Spectrum Panic Mode, did they?

    BraveNewWorld | Nov 13, 2016 4:35:07 PM | 17
    It has been known for a long time in the polling world that polling numbers are getting more and more unreliable because fewer and fewer people are willing to complete polls.
    Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 4:41:10 PM | 18
    I have a weird conspiracy hypothesis that I mainly made up on my own;

    The last FBI "reopening" and the quick subsequent "close-down" felt all too counter-intuitive and silly, when examined solely based on their face value.

    However, what if there was more to this? What if this was a final threat from FBI to the Soros-Clinton mafia to "quickly unrig the voting machines" OR we will arrest the lot of you? Which, once the promises were made by "allow fair play", required FBI to pull back as their part of the deal?

    Just an idea...

    Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 4:43:54 PM | 19
    This - admittedly conspiracy - theory would also explain the newspaper polls largely rigged to correspond to the planned vote theft, as well as the idiotic magnitude of overconfidence seen in the Pol-Est/MS Media/Wall Street complex.

    Sorry on the split-think and double-post.

    psychohistorian | Nov 13, 2016 5:02:02 PM | 20
    I find it interesting b that you and your friend didn't seem to talk at all about the polling questions....at least that you shared with us. It is my experience and education that even with a "beauty contest" that we just had, that the structure of the polling questions make all the difference in how people being polled respond.

    Polls are funded by parties with agendas and the questions, assumptions and biases are baked in to the result......IMO, they are all worthless or worse than that because folks see them, like the media as being something of an authority figure and therefore believable which we know is total BS.

    Polls are just another propaganda tool of those rich enough to use them in their quiver of control.

    Laguerre | Nov 13, 2016 5:15:19 PM | 21
    Timid Trumpists is the major factor, I would think. A factor already well known in UK. People who are going to vote for a non-PC solution hesitate to admit it to poll questions.

    somebody | Nov 13, 2016 5:15:50 PM | 22
    All of the above is true, but - in addition - polls are used to manipulate campaigns.

    People sympathize with someone who is considered a winner and when someone is considered likely to lose people lose interest.

    To get the vote out polls have to be tight. In addition to that polls are used to motivate donors. In the end there has to be a reason pollsters get paid.

    But even if polls would be done for purely scientific reasons, this election was impossible to poll. The correct question would have been "Do you hate/fear candidate x enough to motivate you to queue for voting for canditate y, or are you too disgusted to bother at all"

    In the end, it was not the wrong polls that sank Clinton but the strategy to leave the anti-elitist populist stuff to Trump and - unsuccessfully concentrate on winning the elitist Republican anti Trump vote. That way she lost more of the Democrat Sanders vote than she could gain right wing.

    The other factor was her reliance on television ads and media ties (they all backed her), a reluctance to talk to large audiences and an inability to communicate via social media.

    It is possible though she never had a chance against a well established reality show brand.

    The good news is that after this election campaigns will be done mainly low cost social media. The bad news is that these campaigns will be more fact free than ever and that the age of independent quality newspapers is over.

    Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 5:29:03 PM | 23
    #22 somebody

    So, you're saying that the age of independent quality newspapers has just ended, like about now. Interesting pov...

    Somehow, the last few years of the MSM coverage of the NATO-Salafist War on Syria have had me convinced that the "independent quality newspapers" have become a*rse-wipe material a long time ago. Instead, we get the Sorosoid ZioTakfirism.

    But, yeah, maybe it's all Trump's fault. Hey I also blame Hezbollah for kicking Yisrael's arse north of Litani in 2006. If they didn't piss of the Yivrim this much, maybe they wouldn't have punitively collapsed the faith in the Western Society from the inside.

    Ultimately, it's all Putin's fault. He started it all by beating the pro-Saudi Chechens into a pulp back in 1999, and started the NATOQAEDA self-destruction.

    likklemore | Nov 13, 2016 5:35:21 PM | 24
    In this election, Pollsters got it wrong.

    Two Exceptions:

    1. IBD/TIPP (A collaboration of Investors Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence). TechnoMetrica was consistent throughout – final poll for election day had Trump leading by 2%. Also predicted the last presidential elections back to 2004.

    Methodology

    "Traditional Telephone method" includes cell –live interviews by Region; Age; Gender; Race; Income; Education; Party; Ideology; Investor; Area Type; Parental Status; White – men, women; Black/Hispanic; Women-single, married; Household description –Upper/Middle-Middle, Working, Lower; Religion; Union Household; Intensity of Support.

    http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/

    and
    2. LATimes


    This election candidates' crowd draw was a good indicator. It was very difficult to pre-program the Diebold machines. MSM polls were in the bag for Hillary, had her ahead. It backfired.

    Is Newsweek embarrassed yet? They forgot some history. Truman-Dewey. Madam President! How appropriate.

    Jackrabbit | Nov 13, 2016 5:44:28 PM | 25
    Some of b's posts regarding US politics seems naive but I chalk that up to his not being American. But this technocratic excuse for the polling is just wrong. b, what happened to your skeptical view of Western media????

    ben | Nov 13, 2016 5:46:27 PM | 26
    virgile @ 9: An excerpt: " It was about the union men who refused to sell out their futures and vote for a Democrat who is an agent of the One Percent."

    And now, I fear, they still have no future.

    James @ 15 said.." polls are for massaging people's brains.. unless one knows who pays for them and what goes into them, they are just another propaganda tool for use..

    How true..

    Trumps choices for his cabinet don't leave much room for positive change, for the millions of disaffected voters who put him in office. We'll see!

    voislav | Nov 13, 2016 6:13:07 PM | 27
    A bit about polling methodology explains the bias we've seen this election cycle. Typically, the polling samples are not big enough to be representative, so the results are corrected (weighted) based on the participant responses. The polls assume certain turnout percentages for different groups (Democrats, Republicans, Independents, rural, urban, ethnicity, gender etc.). A lot of the polls were weighting the polls with turnouts similar to 2012, corrected for the expected demographic changes over the last 4 years.

    Poll weighing is a tricky business. This is why most polling has a 4% error margin, so it does not produce as accurate picture as is typically presented by the media. The error is not randomly distributed, it is closely related to the poll weighting. The weighting error was favouring Clinton in the polls as it assumed higher Democratic turnout, which ended up not being the case, she underperformed 2012 significantly and lost the election.

    It is important to stress that the election results ended up within the margin of error (+-4%). The polls were not wrong, it is the media and the analyst who over-interpreted the data and gave Clinton the win where she did not have a statistically significant (<4%) lead. This is why if Nate Silver at 538 was consistently writing that the polls in many of the swing states were within the error margin, although favouring Clinton, and their election prediction still gave Trump a ~30% chance of victory. Other analysts were more careless (hello Huffington Post) and even made fun of 538 for giving Trump any chance of victory.

    There is no way to make more accurate polling for the future elections as the accuracy of the poll is tied in to poll weighing, which is guesswork (although somewhat educated by the historical data). Short of forcing everyone to vote, election-to-election turnout will change and affect the accuracy of the polls.

    jo6pac | Nov 13, 2016 6:18:04 PM | 28
    Some fun but sadly true.

    #8 this for you

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-5Y74FrDCc&index=25&list=WL

    #25 Yep

    Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 6:18:19 PM | 29
    #27 voio

    Instead of interpreting every single of those Polls as plausibly biased on one side, why don't you take the entire population of Western MSM Polls, and see if their median predicted outcome vs actual final outcome difference is statistically significant?

    I'd say you'd find their entire population to be likely biased at least to six-sigma level.

    (I have no time to show this myself, just proposing someone's hypothesis, as a research idea for someone's M Sci thesis for example)

    lysias | Nov 13, 2016 6:18:32 PM | 30
    I have lived in the D.C. area for the past 22 years with a land line phone and am listed in the White Pages. I have never been called by a pollster, although I am often called by political campaigns. I do not know anyone who has been called by a pollster.
    jdmckay | Nov 13, 2016 6:35:22 PM | 32
    Palast puts up good information that difference was good 'ole GOP voter purges.
    jfl | Nov 13, 2016 6:40:08 PM | 33
    Are the polls done to discover "what's up", or are they done to project the view that one side is winning?

    I go with the second view. That's what the 'corrections' are all about. The 'corrections' need to be dropped completely.


    Unless that happens all polls will have to be read with a lot of doubt.

    Mike Whitney posted a link to a guy who got it right ... Patrick Caddell; The Pollster Who 'Got it Right' . His methods were not those of the captive pollsters.


    More expensive in depth interviews of the base population used by a pollster would probably have caught this factor and adjusted appropriately.

    No more 'adjustments' allowed. A desire to actually discover the lay of the land and to publish it is what's required. Good luck on getting that from the political class and/or their captive msm. Everything they do is a lie, calculated to keep themselves in power.

    chipnik | Nov 13, 2016 6:42:19 PM | 34

    The polls were obviously blatantly skewed towards urban Blue zones, and did not include working adults in Red zones, then were 'massaged' by reporting media in clearly a Rodham-paid PAC marketing campaign to brand the sheeples 'Wear Rodham!'

    Only Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight even came close, but he had to rely on those same skewed polls. After all, since 1990, you can buy a CD set of American voting records by street address, it's not rocket science to be able to 'algo' that into a 'poll' that skews whichever way the highest bidder's (Rodham) quants tell you to.
    https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/

    ben | Nov 13, 2016 6:42:20 PM | 35
    jo6pak @28: Thanks for the videos.

    On Tuesday a democratic site was taken down. This video was put up in it's place.

    Strange and troubling. Seig heil anyone?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIgsHZSqy_g

    Adalbrand | Nov 13, 2016 6:53:27 PM | 36
    @likklemore #24:

    Glad you said that, and much better than I would have.

    @somebody #22:

    polls are used to manipulate campaigns.

    This. There was a Wikiliks Podesta email in whdich Clinton operatives discussed oversampling certain groups to inflate the poll in her favor.

    Demian is now known as Adalbrand .

    Adalbrand | Nov 13, 2016 7:08:31 PM | 37
    Oh Lookie – "Media Polls" Show Trump Back On Top, Go Figure…
    As if on cue, or something. All of a sudden, S.U.R.P.R.I.S.E,… a litany of polls released today show Donald Trump ahead in key battleground states (Ohio and Florida), and tied –or closer than the margin of error– in new national polls…. […]

    Remember what we stated on October 20th: […]

    The real battle is the battle for your mind. The peak U.S. media false polling cycle is thankfully in the rear-view mirror.

    It was because I followed that right-wing blog that I ignored all polls other than the LA Times tracking poll. (I didn't know about the IBD/TIPP poll until after the election.)
    Jen | Nov 13, 2016 7:12:20 PM | 38
    Hmm ... what can I say that no-one else has already said except to observe that the polling and the corporate media reporting the polling statistics were in another parallel universe and the people supposedly being polled (and not some over-sampled group in Peoria, Iowa, who could predict exactly what questions would be asked and knew what answers to give) live on planet Earth?
    ToivoS | Nov 13, 2016 7:18:03 PM | 39
    I most certainly did not predict Trump would win. But I did question the polls. What I questioned a few weeks ago was the margin of victory for Hillary.

    There were two big variables that the pollsters had to guess at. One was the voter turnout numbers for those precincts that had many working class people with a high school or less education level. As it turns out those people came out in higher numbers than they have in elections over the past two decades. The other was voter turnout for many precincts that supported Obama in 2008 and 2012. What happened here was many of those voters who did turn out voted for Trump, instead of the Democrat. There was a third uncertainty here that no on has yet figured out. That was those people who would never admit to a stranger that they were going to vote for Trump and simply lied to the pollster.

    In any case those three uncertainties worked in directions that none of the pollsters really picked up on.

    voislav | Nov 13, 2016 7:23:32 PM | 40
    #29 Quadriad

    This is because most of the polls were weighting more Democratic (based on the 2012 election), which overestimated Clinton's support. For example, the Rasmussen poll, which traditionally weights more Republican, gave Clinton 1.7% lead, 44.8% to 43.1% (3% margin of error), so fairly close to the election results (47.3% to 47.8%).

    So the difference between the poll and the actual result is 1.2% in favour of Trump (1.7% lead to Clinton in poll vs. 0.5% in the election). All are well within the error of the poll, so 1.2% difference between the election and the poll is well within the stated 3% error margin of the poll.

    When you mention 6 sigma, you really don't really know what you are talking about. Typical polling error is 3 - 4% and the election result was within this error for most polls in all of the states. Standard deviation (sigma) that you mention is a random uncertainty associated with a measurement and it does not apply here. As I tried to convey, the errors in polling tend to be systematic, not random, because they are tied to weighting of the polls, not to the sample of the population as this is mostly corrected by the weighting. So because most of the MSM polls use similar weighting methodology based on the same historical data, they will all be off, there will be no random distribution of some for Trump, some for Clinton. Weighing based on different historical data skews the whole picture one way, it's not a random error. This is why pollster slap a relatively large 3 - 4% error on their polls, it is meant to cover any systematic bias of the weighting as well as random errors.

    bigmango | Nov 13, 2016 7:23:48 PM | 41
    You assume public polls are conducted by impartial actors who wish to inform and illuminate..... your assumption is incorrect.
    Adalbrand | Nov 13, 2016 7:31:27 PM | 42
    @ToivoS #39:

    those three uncertainties worked in directions that none of the pollsters really picked up on.

    Have a loook at the LA Times tracking poll . It had Trump ahead by 3.2% on election day, which is close to the margin of error. The graph there is interesting, because dates of various events, such as the debates are marked. The poll figures moved in response to those events as one would expect.

    Before the election, the people who do that poll said that they did best at predicting the 2012 election. Oh, in a post about the election's outcome, Alexander Dugin singled out that poll for praise.

    Bill Hicks | Nov 13, 2016 7:44:37 PM | 43
    I have a better idea--how about we stop the stupid polling altogether since there is only one poll that really matters? Then the media would have to focus on the issues rather than the horserace. Oh, the humanity!

    Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 8:08:16 PM | 44
    I know exactly what I am talking about.

    Hypothesis A - that it's all explainable by random distribution of their samples.

    If you use Hypotethesis A, and then disprove it in it's own game (be it 3, or 6 sigma), then you have to suggest an alternative.

    I don't know what the alternative is. I don't even claim I do. But you can more easily disprove the veracity that the polls could have mostly been non-biased by showing that hypothesis is unlikely to be RIGHT. That's where sigmas make absolute sense.

    Nice try though, Voislave.

    Quadriad | Nov 13, 2016 8:12:56 PM | 45
    Furthermore, what you are proving here is that the POPULATION of ALL COMBINED polls has a mean that must be different from the POPULATION of all actual voters, not of disproving the polls one by one.

    I think you've totally ignored my point, you keep looking at individual polls as trees, I am looking at the poll forest and saying the entire forest is buggered if almost all polls erred on one side, regardless of their individual margins of error.

    MadMax2 | Nov 13, 2016 8:14:16 PM | 46
    The New York Times recent admission that it writes the narrative first, then builds the story to suit says about everything for me regarding polls. 'Hey, my editor needs someone to come out and say something, can you say this...?' <-- Now, if that is standard practice in journalism at 'the paper of record', then skewing polls to suit a common agenda is a given, again in my opinion. This of course is great news for sites like MofA.

    Also impossible to capture The Don's campaign playing the electoral college system like an old mandolin, as it turns out. 306 Trump bts 232 Hillary it looks like in the wash up. That's old school work rate doing the job. Fair play. Great to see all the student debt laden brainwashed libtards out there doing there nut. They don't even know what a bullet they dodged + shite like the TPP is now dead. Some gratitude.

    Hopefully in 2020 there are some more scientific polls like the USC Dornslife/LA Times poll, each having their own differing methodologies preferably. This should give the punters a better 'feel' for the electorate.

    In other news...

    Assange is being interviewed tomorrow by Swedush police (for the 2nd time I should add). There are and were no charges laid. I suspect their will be no charges brought tomorrow.

    ...so what happened...? Did The Rule of Law just...magically appear...?

    Penelope | Nov 13, 2016 8:16:37 PM | 47
    The most extraordinary thing I learned about polls is that exit polls are altered as soon as the official election or primary vote is in-- to match it.

    https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/tag/mathematical-proof-of-election-fraud/

    Penelope | Nov 13, 2016 8:42:14 PM | 49
    2 heartstopping items:
    -- http://phibetaiota.net/2016/11/robert-steele-the-accidental-president-will-he-resign-the-closed-system-is-still-rigged-and-likely-to-remain-so/ Challenging Trumps legitimacy.
    -- http://usdefensewatch.com/2016/11/putin-issues-international-arrest-warrant-for-george-soros-dead-or-alive/ This last-- like most overly dramatic news-- appears to be a scm but is widely dispersed across the web. Kind of curious. Of course I guess everybody knows that he's behind the protests in the US.

    Julian | Nov 13, 2016 8:54:34 PM | 50
    Who is Trump speaking to?
    According to reports, the first leader Trump spoke to on the phone after his election victory was the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Sisi congratulated him on the election victory, a spokesman for the Egyptian leader said.

    Ireland's government said the taoiseach, Enda Kenny, had a 10-minute call with Trump, and was invited to visit the White House on St Patrick's Day.

    Mexico's president, Enrique Peńa Nieto, has said he and Trump agreed in their call to meet before Trump takes office, while Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was invited to the White House.

    Other leaders to have a chat with Trump so far include the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe – they reportedly talked for 20 minutes and agreed to meet soon in New York – and South Korea's president, Park Geun-hye.

    Australia's prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was reported to have chatted with Trump about security and trade in their call.

    No surprises there.

    It may be unfortunate, but I can see Trump & Erdogan getting along very well. Although, if they bring Putin into that triumvirate that could actually be very beneficial for the Middle East.

    Notably absent

    Adalbrand | Nov 13, 2016 8:55:25 PM | 51
    @MadMax2 #46:

    Concur with all your points. And yes, the timing of the Swedes finally deciding to interview Assange is funny.

    I never thought that Hillary would become president, btw., from the moment she declared for 2016. Which is not to say that I was not concerned that the demonization of Trump might throw the election. We'll never know, but it is possible that Trump wouldn't have won without Wikileaks. And the two sets of leaks were very well timed.

    To return to polls. It's not just most media polls that were off. The Clinton campaign's internal polls were off, too. They didn't have much doubt that they would win. (The same thing happened with Romney of course, but in their case, their internal polls differed from the media polls.) Apparently, they really did believe they have a firewall, with redundancies no less.

    Clinton staffers: Arrogance from the DNC leadership cost Clinton the election

    [Nov 13, 2016] Donald Trump Threatens Neocon War Lobby Five Principles To Develop A Foreign Policy For America

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump, to a degree previously matched only by such outlier presidential candidates as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, is challenging Washington's conventional wisdom that America must dominate the globe. ..."
    "... He also criticized nation-building. "We have a country that's in bad shape," he reasonably allowed: "I just think we have to rebuild our country." ..."
    "... Fifth, foreign policy is ultimately about domestic policy. "War is the health of the state," Randolph Bourne presciently declared a century ago. There is no bigger big government program war, no graver threat to civil liberties than perpetual conflict with the homeland the battlefield, no greater danger to daily life than blowback from military overreach. ..."
    Mar 24, 2016 | forbes.com/

    Still, Trump, to a degree previously matched only by such outlier presidential candidates as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, is challenging Washington's conventional wisdom that America must dominate the globe. The "usual suspects" who manage foreign policy in every administration, Republican and Democrat, believe that the U.S. must cow every adversary, fight every war, defend every ally, enforce every peace, settle every conflict, pay every bill, and otherwise ensure that the lion lies down with the lamb at the end of time, if not before.

    Not Donald Trump. He recently shocked polite war-making society in the nation's capital when he criticized NATO, essentially a welfare agency for Europeans determined to safeguard their generous social benefits. Before the Washington Post editorial board he made the obvious point that "NATO was set up at a different time." Moreover, Ukraine "affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO, and yet we're doing all of the lifting." Why, he wondered? It's a good question.

    His view that foreign policy should change along with the world scandalized Washington policymakers, who embody Public Choice economics, which teaches that government officials and agencies are self-interested and dedicated to self-preservation. In foreign policy that means what has ever been must ever be and everything is more important today than in the past, no matter how much circumstances have changed.

    Trump expressed skepticism about American defense subsidies for other wealthy allies, such as South Korea and Saudi Arabia as well as military deployments in Asia. "We spent billions of dollars on Saudi Arabia and they have nothing but money," he observed. Similarly, he contended, "South Korea is very rich, great industrial country, and yet we're not reimbursed fairly for what we do." He also criticized nation-building. "We have a country that's in bad shape," he reasonably allowed: "I just think we have to rebuild our country."

    Unlike presidents dating back at least to George H.W. Bush, Trump appears reluctant to go to war. He opposed sending tens of thousands of troops to fight the Islamic State: "I would put tremendous pressure on other countries that are over there to use their troops." Equally sensibly, he warned against starting World War III over Crimea or useless rocks in East Asian seas. He made a point that should be obvious at a time of budget crisis: "We certainly can't afford to do this anymore."

    ... ... ...

    Fifth, foreign policy is ultimately about domestic policy. "War is the health of the state," Randolph Bourne presciently declared a century ago. There is no bigger big government program war, no graver threat to civil liberties than perpetual conflict with the homeland the battlefield, no greater danger to daily life than blowback from military overreach.

    [Nov 13, 2016] We were told confidently by Clinton surrogates like Krugman and DeLong that Brexit wouldnt happen again

    By John Cassidy conviniently forget that Hillary was/is a neocon warmonger, perfectly cable of unleashing WWIII. Instead he pushes "Comey did it" bogeyman"...
    Nov 13, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : November 13, 2016 at 03:48 AM

    EMichael and im1dc would rather have their head in the sand. We were told confidently by Clinton surrogates like Krugman and DeLong that Brexit wouldn't happen again.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/media-culpa-the-press-and-the-election-result

    MEDIA CULPA? THE PRESS AND THE ELECTION RESULT

    By John Cassidy , NOVEMBER 11, 2016

    Since Tuesday night, there has been a lot of handwringing about how the media, with all its fancy analytics, failed to foresee Donald Trump's victory. The Times alone has published three articles on this theme, one of which ran under the headline "How Data Failed Us in Calling an Election." On social media, Trump supporters have been mercilessly haranguing the press for getting it wrong.

    Clearly, this was a real issue. It's safe to say that most journalists, myself included, were surprised by Tuesday's outcome. That fact should be acknowledged. But journalists weren't the only ones who were shocked. As late as Tuesday evening, even a senior adviser to Trump was telling the press that "it will take a miracle for us to win."

    It also shouldn't be forgotten that, in terms of the popular vote, Clinton didn't lose on Tuesday. As of 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, a tally by CNN showed that Hillary Clinton had received 60,617,062 votes, while Trump got 60,118,567. The margin in her favor-now at 498,495-is likely to grow as the remaining votes are counted in California. At the end of the day, Clinton may end up ahead by two per cent of the total votes cast. If the United States had a direct system of voting, Clinton would have been the one at the White House on Thursday meeting with President Obama. But, of course, Trump won the Electoral College. If the final count in Michigan remains in his favor, Trump will end up with three hundred and six Electoral College votes, to Clinton's two hundred and twenty-six.

    Still, as journalists and commentators, we all knew the rules of the game: if Trump got to two hundred and seventy votes in the Electoral College, he'd be President. Why did so few observers predict he'd do it? Many Trump supporters insist it was East Coast insularity and ideological bias, and many in the media are now ready to believe that. To be sure, it's easy to get sucked into the media bubble. But there are also strong professional incentives for journalists to get things right. Why did that prove so difficult this year?

    It wasn't because journalists weren't legging it to Michigan or Wisconsin or West Virginia. In this magazine alone, a number of writers-including Larissa MacFarquhar, Evan Osnos, George Packer, and George Saunders-published long, reported pieces about the Trump phenomenon in different parts of the country. Many other journalists spent a lot of time talking with Trump supporters. I'd point you to the work of ProPublica's Alec MacGillis and the photojournalist Chris Arnade, but they were just two among many. So many, in fact, that some Clinton supporters, such as Eric Boehlert, of Media Matters, regularly complained about it on social media.

    To the extent that there was a failure, it was a failure of analysis, rather than of observation and reporting. And when you talk about how the media analyzed this election, you can't avoid the polls, the forecasting models, and the organizing frames-particularly demographics-that people used to interpret the incoming data.

    It was clear from early in the race that Trump's electoral strategy was based on appealing to working-class whites, particularly in the Midwest. The question all along was whether, in the increasingly diverse America of 2016, there were enough alienated working-class whites to propel Trump to victory.

    Some analysts did suggest that there might be. Immediately after the 2012 election, Sean Trende, of Real Clear Politics, pointed out that one of the main reasons for Mitt Romney's defeat was that millions of white voters stayed home. Earlier this year, during the Republican primaries, Trende returned to the same theme, writing, "The candidate who actually fits the profile of a 'missing white voter' candidate is Donald Trump."

    The Times' Nate Cohn was another who took Trump's strategy seriously. In June, pointing to a new analysis of Census Bureau data and voter-registration files, Cohn wrote, "a growing body of evidence suggests that there is still a path, albeit a narrow one, for Mr. Trump to win without gains among nonwhite voters." As recently as Sunday, Cohn repeated this point, noting that Trump's "strength among the white working class gives him a real chance at victory, a possibility that many discounted as recently as the summer."

    Among analysts and political demographers, however, the near-consensus of opinion was that Trump wouldn't be able to turn back history. Back in March, I interviewed Ruy Teixeira, the co-author of an influential 2004 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," which highlighted the growing number of minority voters across the country, particularly Hispanics. Drawing on his latest data, Teixeira, who is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress, offered some estimates of how many more white working-class voters Trump would need to turn out to flip states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. "It's not crazy," he said. "But I think it would be very hard to pull off."

    Trump managed it, though. He enjoyed a thirty-nine-point advantage among whites without college degrees, according to the network exit poll, compared to the twenty-six-point advantage Romney saw in 2012. "What totally tanked the Democrats was the massive shift in the white non-college vote against them, particularly in some of the swing states," Teixeira told me by telephone on Thursday. "And that by itself is really enough to explain the outcome."

    In the lead-up to the election, the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote while losing the Electoral College was well understood but, in hindsight, not taken seriously enough. In mid-September, David Wasserman, an analyst at the Cook Political Report, laid out a scenario in which turnout among white non-college voters surged and turnout among some parts of the Democratic coalition, particularly African-Americans, fell. "Clinton would carry the popular vote by 1.5 percentage points," Wasserman wrote. "However, Trump would win the Electoral College with 280 votes by holding all 24 Romney states and flipping Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Maine's 2nd Congressional District."

    In the days and weeks leading up to the election, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver also considered the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote and losing the election. But he, Wasserman, and others who looked at the matter believed this was an unlikely outcome. On Tuesday, the FiveThirtyEight forecasting model estimated that the probability of such a scenario happening was about one in ten.

    There was a straightforward reason for all the skepticism about Trump's chances: when you looked at the state-level polling, it looked like Clinton's "blue wall" was holding. Take Wisconsin, which turned out to be a state that Trump won. The Huffington Post's polling database lists the results of more than thirty polls that were taken in the Badger State since June: Trump didn't lead in any of them. Three of the final four surveys showed Clinton ahead by six points or more, and the Huffpollster poll average put her lead at 6.3 percentage points. Trump carried the state by one point. In other key states, the pattern was similar. The final Huffington Post poll averages showed Trump losing by nearly six points in Michigan, and by four points in Pennsylvania.

    In a public statement issued on Wednesday, the American Association for Public Opinion Research said bluntly, "The polls clearly got it wrong this time." The organization announced that it had already put together a panel of "survey research and election polling experts" tasked with finding some answers. Several possible explanations have already been floated.

    First, it's possible there was a late swing to Trump among undecided voters, which the state polls, in particular, failed to pick up. Another possibility is that some Trump voters didn't tell the pollsters about their preferences-the "shy Trump supporter" hypothesis.

    A third theory, which I suspect may be the right one, is that a lot of Trump voters refused to answer the pollsters' calls in the first place, because they regarded them as part of the same media-political establishment that Trump was out railing against on the campaign trail. Something like this appears to have happened in Britain earlier this year, during the run-up to the Brexit referendum. Turnout wound up being considerably higher than expected among lower-income voters in the north of England, particularly elderly ones, and that swung the result.

    Whatever went wrong with the polls in this country, they inevitably colored perceptions. "The reason it surprised me was because, like everyone else, I was taken in by those pesky polls," Teixeira told me. "It didn't look like, by and large, that he was running up as big a margin as he needed among non-college whites."

    The prediction models didn't help things. On Tuesday morning, FiveThirtyEight's "polls-only" prediction model put the probability of Clinton winning the presidency at 71.4 per cent. And that figure was perhaps the most conservative one. The Times' Upshot model said Clinton had an eighty-five per cent chance of winning, the Huffington Post's figure was ninety-eight per cent, and the Princeton Election Consortium's estimate was ninety-nine per cent.

    These numbers had a big influence on how many people, including journalists and political professionals, looked at the election. Plowing through all the new polls, or even keeping up with all the state and national poll averages, can be a time-consuming process. It's much easier to click on the latest update from the model of your choice. When you see it registering the chances of the election going a certain way at ninety per cent, or ninety-five per cent, it's easy to dismiss the other outcome as a live possibility-particularly if you haven't been schooled in how to think in probabilistic terms, which many people haven't.

    The problem with models is that they rely so much on the polls. Essentially, they aggregate poll numbers and use some simulation software to covert them into unidimensional probabilistic forecasts. The details are complicated, and each model is different, but the bottom line is straightforward: when the polls are fairly accurate-as they were in 2008 and 2012-the models look good. When the polls are off, so are the models.

    Silver, to his credit, pointed this out numerous times before the election. His model also allowed for the possibility that errors in the state polls were likely to be correlated-i.e., if the polls in Wisconsin got it wrong, then most likely the Michigan polls would get it wrong, too. This was a big reason why FiveThirtyEight's model consistently gave Trump a better chance of winning than other models did. But the fact remains that FiveThirtyEight, like almost everyone else, got the result wrong.

    I got it wrong, too. Unlike in 2012, I didn't make any explicit predictions this year. But based on the polls and poll averages-I didn't look at the models much-I largely accepted the conventional wisdom that Clinton was running ahead of Trump and had an enduring advantage in the Electoral College. In mid-October, after the "Access Hollywood" tape emerged, I suggested that Trump was done.

    Clearly, he wasn't. In retrospect, the F.B.I. Director James Comey's intervention ten days before the election-telling Congress that his agency was taking another look at e-mails related to Clinton's private server-may have proved decisive. The news seems to have shifted the national polls against Clinton by at least a couple of points, and some of the state polls-in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and other places-also moved sharply in Trump's direction. Without any doubt, it energized Republicans and demoralized Democrats.

    One thing we know for sure, however, is that in mid-October, even some of the indicators that the Trump campaign relied on were sending out alarm signals. "Flash back three weeks, to October 18," Bloomberg News's Joshua Green and Sasha Issenberg reported on Thursday. "The Trump campaign's internal election simulator, the 'Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory,' showed Trump with a 7.8 percent chance of winning. That's because his own model had him trailing in most of the states that would decide the election, including the pivotal state of Florida."

    Of course, neither the Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory software nor I knew that fate, in the form of Comey, was about to take a hand.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Neocons Trying to Sneak Into Trump Administration by Jason Ditz

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's a cliche to say that the cushiest positions of influence in any US administration go to figures who were seen to have brought something to the table during the campaign. ..."
    "... a lot of high-ranking neoconservatives are expecting the exact opposite, figuring that they can step right into positions of power and influence despite openly campaigning against Trump. ..."
    "... There are more than a few people who would normally be in line for top positions in a Republican White House, but who were very publicly part of the "Never Trump" crowd, attacking him throughout the primary and the general election. These same people are now making public their "willingness" to work with Trump. ..."
    "... In other words, they want the usual spoils of victory, but having positioned themselves as so firmly in opposition to Trump's worldview, and to Trump in general, it's not at all clear how willing Trump's transition team is to consider such candidates for important positions. ..."
    "... For many of the neocons, this is likely less about getting cushy jobs or fancy titles and more about ensuring that the US remains aggressively interventionist abroad. Indeed, many of these people split with Trump in the first place over concerns he was insufficiently hawkish, and now want jobs that would put them in a position to shift his new administration in those same hawkish directions. ..."
    news.antiwar.com
    Fiercely Opposed to His Election, 'Never Trump' Crowd Now Seeks Influence

    It's a cliche to say that the cushiest positions of influence in any US administration go to figures who were seen to have brought something to the table during the campaign. Yet with the election of Donald Trump, a lot of high-ranking neoconservatives are expecting the exact opposite, figuring that they can step right into positions of power and influence despite openly campaigning against Trump.

    There are more than a few people who would normally be in line for top positions in a Republican White House, but who were very publicly part of the "Never Trump" crowd, attacking him throughout the primary and the general election. These same people are now making public their "willingness" to work with Trump.

    In other words, they want the usual spoils of victory, but having positioned themselves as so firmly in opposition to Trump's worldview, and to Trump in general, it's not at all clear how willing Trump's transition team is to consider such candidates for important positions.

    The early indications are that a lot of the foreign policy-related positions are going to be led by high-ranking former military officials who backed Trump's candidacy, with officials noting that long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have left them with a lot of such officials to choose from.

    For many of the neocons, this is likely less about getting cushy jobs or fancy titles and more about ensuring that the US remains aggressively interventionist abroad. Indeed, many of these people split with Trump in the first place over concerns he was insufficiently hawkish, and now want jobs that would put them in a position to shift his new administration in those same hawkish directions.

    [Nov 12, 2016] No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obamas lame- duck period and thereafter

    Notable quotes:
    "... No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014. ..."
    "... The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    kirill , November 12, 2016 at 5:12 am

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/11/11/clintons-and-soros-launch-america-purple-revolution.html

    " No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

    As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

    The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America."

    marknesop , November 12, 2016 at 10:46 am
    Realistically, how many more colour revolutions is George Soros going to be around for? Come on, he's 86. Let an old guy have some fun.
    kirill , November 12, 2016 at 11:52 am
    He will be staging them as long as he has enough health to try. Of course he is not the only player. Soros is just one of the agents of western imperialism. Reply

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Clintons And Soros Launch America s Purple Revolution

    Notable quotes:
    "... No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014. ..."
    "... One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org,

    Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

    The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin . President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.

    Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.

    There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.

    Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

    "Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".

    President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

    Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

    No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

    As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

    The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.

    President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

    One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Podesta emails - After Hillary, John Podesta had been seriously warned about the Syrian chaos

    Nov 12, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.
    globinfo freexchange
    A letter under the title "Stay out of Syria" from Jon Soltz , an Iraq War Veteran and founder of VoteVets.org, to John Podesta in May, 2013, confirms the multiple, serious warnings that the Clinton/Podesta complex had received about the implications of the US involvement on Syrian mess.
    Soltz's warnings couldn't be more clear. He points that " arming and training the Syrian rebels is a misguided and dangerous idea " and that he helped to train the Iraqi Army, and " their concern is that many of the anti-Assad forces are the same terrorists they've fought before and who continue to target them ". He also writes that " there is no winning scenario when we get involved in other nations' civil wars and proxy wars ".
    Most important parts of the short letter:
    Earlier this week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 15-3 in favor of arming and training the Syrian rebels. This is a misguided and dangerous idea. I helped to train the Iraqi Army during my second tour, and their concern is that many of the anti-Assad forces are the same terrorists they've fought before and who continue to target them . Plus, as Senator Tom Udall noted, once we introduce weapons, we have zero control over them . The United States "could turn over the weapons we're talking about and next day they end up in the hands of al-Qaida." Three Senators voted against the bill in committee, but we need you to send a strong message to the other 97 that you oppose intervention in Syria's civil war.
    Moreover, there is no winning scenario when we get involved in other nations' civil wars and proxy wars . On this point, Senator Chris Murphy said it best: "We have failed over and over again in our attempts to pull the strings of Middle Eastern politics." Let's not make the same mistake again.
    Full letter:
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/59165
    Recall that, another letter from Clinton email series, released also by WikiLeaks, proves that Hillary had been seriously warned about the oncoming Syrian chaos , already since 2011.
    Apparently, the Clinton/Podesta complex completely ignored those serious warnings. Hillary and her team are totally responsible for doing nothing to prevent, or at least restrict, the Middle East chaos.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Trump elected as President – risks and opportunities

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers, in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy: the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution, and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict ". ..."
    "... The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe, or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs – is the USA as a *normal* nation. ..."
    "... The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it, but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know. ..."
    "... Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable. ..."
    "... Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end. ..."
    "... With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible conditions for his country. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.unz.com

    So it has happened: Hillary did not win! I say that instead of saying that "Trump won" because I consider the former even more important than the latter. Why? Because I have no idea whatsoever what Trump will do next. I do, however, have an excellent idea of what Hillary would have done: war with Russia. Trump most likely won't do that. In fact, he specifically said in his acceptance speech:

    I want to tell the world community that while we will always put America's interests first, we will deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations. We will seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict .

    And Putin's reply was immediate:

    We heard the statements he made as candidate for president expressing a desire to restore relations between our countries. We realise and understand that this will not be an easy road given the level to which our relations have degraded today, regrettably. But, as I have said before, it is not Russia's fault that our relations with the United States have reached this point.

    Russia is ready to and seeks a return to full-format relations with the United States. Let me say again, we know that this will not be easy, but are ready to take this road, take steps on our side and do all we can to set Russian-US relations back on a stable development track.

    This would benefit both the Russian and American peoples and would have a positive impact on the general climate in international affairs, given the particular responsibility that Russia and the US share for maintaining global stability and security.

    This exchange, right there, is enough of a reason for the entire planet to rejoice at the defeat of Hillary and the victory of Trump.

    Will Trump now have the courage, willpower and intelligence to purge the US Executive from the Neocon cabal which has been infiltrating it for decades now? Will he have the strength to confront an extremely hostile Congress and media? Or will he try to meet them halfway and naively hope that they will not use their power, money and influence to sabotage his presidency?

    I don't know. Nobody does.

    One of the first signs to look for will be the names and backgrounds of the folks he will appoint in his new administration. Especially his Chief of Staff and Secretary of State.

    I have always said that the choice for the lesser evil is morally wrong and pragmatically misguided. I still believe that. In this case, however, the greater evil was thermonuclear war with Russia and the lesser evil just might turn out to be one which will gradually give up the Empire to save the USA rather than sacrifice the USA for the needs of the Empire. In the case of Hillary vs Trump the choice was simple: war or peace.

    Trump can already be credited with am immense achievement: his campaign has forced the US corporate media to show its true face – the face of an evil, lying, morally corrupt propaganda machine. The American people by their vote have rewarded their media with a gigantic "f*ck you!" – a vote of no-confidence and total rejection which will forever demolish the credibility of the Empire's propaganda machine.

    I am not so naive as to not realize that billionaire Donald Trump is also one of the 1%ers, a pure product of the US oligarchy. But neither am I so ignorant of history to forget that elites do turn on each other , especially when their regime is threatened. Do I need to remind anybody that Putin also came from the Soviet elites?!

    Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers, in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy: the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution, and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict ".

    The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe, or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs – is the USA as a *normal* nation.

    The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it, but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know.

    Make no mistake – even if Trump does end up disappointing those who believed in him what happened today has dealt a death blow to the Empire. The "Occupy Wall Street" did not succeed in achieving anything tangible, but the notion of "rule of the 1%" did emerge from that movement and it stayed. This is a direct blow to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order of the USA: far from being a democracy, it is a plutocracy/oligarchy – everybody pretty much accepts that today. Likewise, the election of Trump has already proved that the US media is a prostitute and that the majority of the American people hate their ruling class. Again, this is a direct blow to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order. One by one the founding myths of the US Empire are crashing down and what remains is a system which can only rule by force.

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable.

    Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end.

    With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible conditions for his country. Frankly, I am pretty sure that all the key world leaders realize that it is in their interest to make as many (reasonable) concessions to Trump as possible and work with him, rather than to deal with the people whom he just removed from power.

    If Trump can stick to his campaign promises he will find solid and reliable partners in Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Neither Russia nor China have anything at all to gain from a confrontation or, even less so, a conflict with the USA. Will Trump have the wisdom to realize this and use it for the benefit of the USA? Or will he continue with his anti-Chinese and anti-Iranian rhetoric?

    Only time will tell.

    [Nov 12, 2016] Neocon bottomfeeders now are having the second thoughts

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. ..."
    "... Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience" to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history." ..."
    "... Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done. ..."
    www.cnn.com

    The extraordinary repudiation -- partly based on Trump's rejection of basic US foreign policy tenets, including support for close allies -- helped spark the hashtag #NeverTrump. Now, a source familiar with transition planning says that hard wall of resistance is crumbling fast.

    There are "boxes" of applications, the source said. "There are many more than people realize."

    Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. "Mea culpas" are being considered -- and in some cases being granted, the source said -- for people who did not go a step further in attacking Trump personally.

    ... ... ...

    Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience" to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history."

    Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done.

    It remains to be seen what kind of team Trump will pull together, how many "NeverTrumpers" will apply for positions and to what degree the President-elect will be willing to accept them.

    There's a fight underway within the Trump transition team about whether to consider "never Trumpers" for jobs, one official tells CNN. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is leading the transition team, has been working to persuade Trump and other top officials to consider Republicans who openly opposed his campaign. That has caused some friction with those who see no place for people who didn't support their candidate.

    [Nov 12, 2016] The Clintons And Soros Launch Americas Purple Revolution

    Notable quotes:
    "... America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers. ..."
    "... Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team. ..."
    "... There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions. ..."
    "... Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. ..."
    "... PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle. ..."
    "... HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED... ..."
    "... Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil. ..."
    "... Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly... ..."
    "... We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... ..."
    "... JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world. ..."
    "... If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him) ..."
    "... Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen. ..."
    Nov 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org,

    Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

    The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin . President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.

    Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.

    There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.

    Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

    "Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".

    President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

    Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

    No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

    As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

    The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.

    President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

    One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

    Pinto Currency nmb Nov 11, 2016 8:37 PM ,

    Purple must be the color of pedophiles.

    Soros, Clintons, Podestas, amd apparently Obama are all into it as we are learning from Comet Ping Pong scandal:

    https://i.sli.mg/ayI6QF.jpg

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5b1qtf/comet_ping_pong_pizz...

    https://dcpizzagate.wordpress.com/

    https://i.redd.it/3l20mhvrxtvx.png

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/breaking-from-the-anon-who-brought-you-th...

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a1c_1478546206

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gord...

    http://www.newsdailystudio.com/2016/11/05/bill-clinton-wasnt-the-only-on...

    Keep your eye on Jared Kushner, who is Trump's son-in-law. He refused to have his newspaper the NY Observer endorse Trump. That is not a good sign.

    MalteseFalcon Pinto Currency Nov 11, 2016 8:39 PM ,
    "It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care."

    None of those "pressing issues" involve the DOJ or the FBI.

    Investigate, prosecute and jail Hillary Clinton and her crew.

    Trump is going to need a hostage or two to deal with these fucks.

    If he doesn't, they will deal with him.

    letsit Occident Mortal Nov 11, 2016 8:45 PM ,
    Netanyahu, the greatest neocon of all, endorsed Trump. All TRUE neocons love Trump.

    https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/views-of-news/#trumpmeans

    Husk-Erzulie nmewn Nov 12, 2016 9:48 AM ,
    Big series of protests being planned. Recruiting ads in Craigslist nationwide. Purple ties and dresses all over MSM this morning.

    This is when the Purple Hats, Flags, Balloons start coming out.

    Kill it before it grows.

    https://twitter.com/AustinChas/status/797445221122506752

    any_mouse californiagirl Nov 12, 2016 2:54 AM ,
    Purple and royalty? Purple in Rome?

    News for the Clintons, The R's and D's already united to vote against Hillary.

    I do not understand why they think street protests will bring down a POTUS? And that would be acceptable in a major nation.

    Why isn't the government cracking down the separatists in Oregon, California, and elsewhere? They are not accepting the legal outcome of an election. They are calling for illegal secession. (Funny in 1861 this was a cause for the federal government to attack the joint and seveal states of the union.) If a group of whites had protested Obama's election in 2008?

    The people living in Kalispell are reviled and ridiculed for their separatist views. Randy Weaver and family for not accepting politically correct views. And so on.

    This is getting out of hand. There will be no walking this back.

    Erek any_mouse Nov 12, 2016 7:47 AM ,
    Purple is the color of royalty! Are these fuckers proclaiming themselves as King and Queen of America? If so, get the executioner and give them a "French Haircut"!
    X_in_Sweden Grimaldus Nov 12, 2016 10:58 AM ,
    Grimaldus ,

    "Yes. And who are the neocons really? Progressives. Neocon is a label successfully used by criminal progressives to shield their brand."

    Well let's go a little bit deeper in examing the 'who' thing:

    "The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary , a media arm of the American Jewish Committee , which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward , the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: " If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it.... "

    From the article By Laurent Guyénot , Who Are The Neoconservatives?* http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35106.htm

    Are you connecting the dots.......folks......?

    . . . _ _ _ . . . Bendromeda Strain Nov 11, 2016 11:04 PM ,

    Great avatar!

    GROWTH IS THE ULTIMATE PONZI SCHEME

    Lavada Chupacabra-322 Nov 12, 2016 10:41 AM ,
    The idea of arresting the Clinton Crime, Fraud and Crime Family would be welcomed. BUT, who is going to arrest them? Loretta Lynch, James Comey, WHO? The problem here is that our so called "authorities" are all in the same bed. The tentacles of the Eastern Elite Establishment are everywhere in high office, academia, the media, Big Business, etc. The swamp is thoroughly infested with this elite scum of those in the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Chatham House, Club of Rome, Committee of 300, Jason Society and numerous other private clubs of the rich, powerful and influential. The Illuminati has been exposed, however they aren't going down lightly. They still have massive amounts of money, they own the media and the banking houses. Some have described it as MIMAC, the Military Industrial Media Academic Complex. A few months ago here at Zero Hedge, there was an article which showed a massive flow chart of the elites and their organization

    They could IF and WHEN Trump gets to Washington after 20 Jan 2017, simply implode the economy and blame t it on Trump. Sort of what happened to Herbert Hoover in the late 1920's. Unfortunately the situation in the US will continue to deteriorate. George Soros, a major financial backer of Hillary will see to that. Soros is a Globalist and advocate of one world government. People comment that Soros should be arrested. I agree, BUT who is going to do that?

    Grimaldus ShortCommonSense Nov 12, 2016 9:12 AM ,
    Agree. I think Trump will yank all the "aid" to Israel as well as "aid" to the Islamic murderers of the Palitrashian human garbage infesting the area. This "aid" money is simply a bribe to keep both from killing each other. F**k all of them. None of our business what they do.

    We got progressives ( lots and lots of Jews in that group) who are the enemy of mankind and then we got Islam who are also the enemy of mankind. Why help either of them? Makes no sense.

    Wile-E-Coyote Bastiat Nov 12, 2016 5:35 AM ,
    How come Soros never got picked up by Mossad for war crimes against his own people?

    And if he is such a subversive shit why hasn't a government given him a Polonium 210 enema.

    Martian Moon Wile-E-Coyote Nov 12, 2016 8:13 AM ,
    Always wondered about that

    Soros is hated in Israel and has never set foot there but his foundations have done such harm that a bill was recently passed to ban foreign funding of non profit political organizations

    Chupacabra-322 RopeADope Nov 11, 2016 9:03 PM ,
    The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the man puts America first, really says it all.

    The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to act? There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US.

    Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long, that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes Against The American People.

    King Tut Chupacabra-322 Nov 11, 2016 9:11 PM ,
    JFK made the mistake of publicly stating his intention of smashing the CIA instead of just doing it quickly and quietly
    Chupacabra-322 King Tut Nov 11, 2016 9:30 PM ,
    There are entirely way too many Intelligence Agencies. Plus the Contractors, some of who shouldn't have high level clearance to begin with which the US sub contracts the Intel / work out to.

    For Fucks sake, Government is so incompetent it can't even handle it own Intel.

    Something along the lines of Eurpoe's Five Eyes would be highly effective.

    Fuck those Pure Evil Psychopaths at the CIA They're nothing more than a bunch of Scum Fuck murdering, drug running, money laundering Global Crime Syndicate.

    HowdyDoody Chupacabra-322 Nov 11, 2016 10:59 PM ,
    Five Eyes isn't European, it is US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. If you note carefully, the NSA etc think we can't count.
    chubbar Pinto Currency Nov 11, 2016 8:46 PM ,
    The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation, Trump needs to encourage that through backdoor channels. Soro's needs to be investigated, he has been tied to a conspiracy to incite violence, this needs to be documented and dealt with. Trump can not ignore this guy. If any of these investigations come back with a recommendation to indict then that process needs to be started. Take the fight to them, they are vulnerable!
    Chupacabra-322 chubbar Nov 11, 2016 9:12 PM ,
    Make a National APB Warrent for the apprehension & arrest of George Sooros for inciting violence, endsrgerimg the public & calling for the murder of our Nations Police through funding of the BLM Group.

    Have every Law Informent Agency in the Nation on alert. Also, issue a Bounty in the Sum of $5,000,000 for his immediate apprehension.

    kwc chubbar Nov 12, 2016 4:50 AM ,
    Trump needs to replace FBI chickenshits & sellouts with loyal people then get the FBI counter-terrorism to investigate and shut down Soros & the various agencies instigating the riots. It's really simple when you quit over-thinking a problem. It's domestic terrorism. It's the FBI's job to stop it.
    Laddie nmb Nov 11, 2016 8:43 PM ,
    I read what Paul said this morning and thought, despite Paul's hostility to Trump during the primaries most likely due to his son, Rand's loss, that Paul gave good advice to Trump.
    Let's face it Donald Trump is a STOP GAP measure. And demographic change over the next 4 years makes his re-election very, very UNLIKELY. If he keeps his campaign promises he will be a GREAT president. However as ZH reported earlier he appears to be balking from repealing Obamacare, I stress the word APPEARS.

    Let us give him a chance. This is all speculation. His enemies are DEADLY as they were once they got total control in Russia, they killed according to Solzhenitsyn SIXTY-SIX MILLION Russian Christians. The descendants of those Bolsheviks are VERY powerful in the USSA. They control the Fed, Hollyweird, Wall Street, the universities...

    Professor Kevin MacDonald's 'The Culture of Critique' Reviewed

    Like the South Africans the Tribe TALKED us out of our nation.

    Mechanisms for Cuckservatives and Other Misguided White People by Dr. Kevin MacDonald September 22, 2016

    Much of the media and advertising exist by pushing buttons that trigger appropriate financially lucrative reflexes in their audiences, from pornography to romantic movies to team sports. Media profits are driven by competition over how best to push those buttons. But the effort to produce politically and racially cuckolded Whites adds a layer of complexity: What buttons do you push to make Whites complicit in their own racial and cultural demise?

    Actually, there are a whole lot of them, which shouldn't be surprising. This is a very sophisticated onslaught, enabled by control over all the moral, intellectual, and political high ground by the left. With all that high ground, there are a lot of buttons you can push.

    Our enemies see this as a pathetic last gasp of a moribund civilization and it is quite true for our civilization is dying. Identity Christians describe this phase as Jacob's Troubles and what the secular Guillaume Faye would, I think, describe as the catastrophe required to get people motivated. The future has yet to be written, however I cannot help but think that God's people, the White people, are stirring from their slumber.

    King Tut Laddie Nov 11, 2016 8:49 PM ,
    See: The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon- Rudyard Kipling
    Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey Nov 11, 2016 8:20 PM ,
    "PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle.

    JINSA, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. "explaining the link between U.S. national security and Israel's security" Served on JINSA's Advisory Board: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Perle."

    Mini-Me Nov 11, 2016 8:18 PM ,
    If Trump has probable cause on the Soros crimes, have his DoJ request a warrant for all of Soros's communications via the NSA, empanel a grand jury, indict the bastard, and throw his raggedy ass in prison. It would be hard for him to run his retarded purple revolution when he's getting ass-raped by his cell mate.
    Hurricane Baby -> Mini-Me Nov 11, 2016 8:41 PM ,
    I agree. Thing is, I think as president he can simply order the NSA to cough up whatever they have, just like Obama could have done at any point. The NSA is part of the Defense Department, right? What am I missing here?
    Dilluminati Nov 11, 2016 8:26 PM ,
    Funny: Clinton swears Comey did her in and the DNC blames arrogant Hillary.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-11-11/dnc-staff-ar...

    But in respect to Soro's money and the Dalas shooting or other incited events, there should be a grand jury empanelled and then charges brought against him. I think nothing short of him hiding in an embassy with all his money blocked by Swift is justice for the violence that he funded.

    ... ... ...

    Skiprrrdog Nov 11, 2016 8:57 PM ,
    It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.

    And so it begins; I really hope that this is just some misinformation/disinformation, because HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED...

    johnwburns Nov 11, 2016 9:10 PM ,
    The likes of Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg get to catch up on their Torah for the forseeable future but the likes of Lloyd Blankfein will probably get to entertain the court since they have probably crossed paths doing business in NYC. The "real conservative" deeply introspective, examine-my-conscience crowd screwed themselves to the wall, god love them.
    Ms No Nov 11, 2016 9:05 PM ,
    Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil.
    Rebel yell Nov 11, 2016 9:36 PM ,
    Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly...
    Posa Nov 12, 2016 10:25 AM ,
    We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... (just in case you confused him with Mother Theresa).. But then again JFK took office with a set of initiatives that were far more bellicose and provocative (like putting huge Jupiter missile launchers on the USSR border in Turkey)... once he saw he light and fired the pro Nazi Dulles Gang , JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world.

    If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him)

    I'm guessing though that deep down Trump is quite comfortable with a neoCon cabinet... hell he already offered Jamie Diamon the office of Treasry Secretary... no doubt a calculated gesture to signal compliance with the Deep State.

    rocknrollinhone... Nov 11, 2016 9:59 PM ,
    Soros is heavily invested in the globalist agenda. Wouldn't be surprised if they don't take a shot at assassinating Trump.
    bsdetector Nov 11, 2016 11:10 PM ,
    The Clintons do not do things by accident. Coordination of colors at the concession speech was meant for something. Perhaps the purple revolution or maybe they want to be seen as royals. It doesn't really matter why they did it; the fact is they are up to something. They will not agree to go away and even if they offered to just disappear with their wealth we know they are dishonest. They will come back... that is what they do.

    They must be stripped of power and wealth. This act must be performed publicly.

    In order to succeed Mr. Trump I suggest you task a group to accomplish this result. Your efforts to make America great again may disintegrate just like Obamacare if you allow the Clintons and Co. to languish in the background.

    bsdetector Nov 12, 2016 12:06 AM ,
    The protestors are groups of individuals who may seek association for any number of reasons. One major reason might be the loss of hope for a meaningful and prosperous life. We should seek out and listen to the individuals within these groups. If they are truly desirous of being heard they will communicate what they want without use of violence. Perhaps individuals join these protest groups because they do not have a voice.

    Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen.

    The articles reporting that Mr. Trump has changed his response to the protestors is a good effort to discover the protestors' complaints and channel their energy into beneficial political activity. Something must be done quickly though, before the protests get out of hand, for if that happens the protestors will be criminals and no one will want to work with them.

    In order to make America great again we need input from all of America. Mr. Trump you can harness the energy of these protestors and let them know they are a part of your movement.

    Batman11 -> Batman11 Nov 12, 2016 3:09 AM ,
    Classical economists are experts on today's capitalism, it is 18th and 19th Century capitalism, it's how it all started.

    Adam Smith would think we are on the road to ruin.

    "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."

    Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?

    When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalizing itself by:

    1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future

    2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services.

    Got that wrong as well.

    Adam Smith wouldn't like today's lobbyists.

    "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

    OH NO, It's ALL WRONG

    dogismycopilot Nov 12, 2016 5:39 AM ,
    First five minutes of Alex Jones' video today is clips of people saying "Donald Trump will never be president".

    Full Show - Soros-Funded Goons Deployed to Overthrow America - 11/11/2016

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPH26ohO_DY

    CoCosAB Nov 12, 2016 7:04 AM ,
    AMERICAN SPRING: She practiced overseas in Tunisia, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Libya, Egypt... Now it's time to apply the knowledge in her own country!

    lakecity55 -> CoCosAB •Nov 12, 2016 7:53 AM

    Really good chance these subversive operations will continue. Soros has plenty of money. Trump will have to do some rough stuff, but he needs to, it's what we hired him for.

    [Nov 12, 2016] NATO mulls worst-case scenario in case Trump pulls US troops out of Europe – report - RT News

    Nov 12, 2016 | www.rt.com
    NATO strategists are reportedly planning for a scenario in which Trump orders US troops out of Europe, as the shock result of the US presidential election sinks in, spreading an atmosphere of uncertainty. According to Spiegel magazine, strategists from NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg's staff have drafted a secret report which includes a worst-case scenario in which Trump orders US troops to withdraw from Europe and fulfills his threat to make Washington less involved in European security. Read more German defense minister says Trump should be firm with Russia as NATO stood by US after 9/11

    "For the first time, the US exit from NATO has become a threat" which would mean the end of the bloc, a German NATO officer told the magazine.

    During his campaign, Trump repeatedly slammed NATO, calling the alliance "obsolete." He also suggested that under his administration, the US may refuse to come to the aid of NATO allies unless they "pay their bills" and "fulfill their obligations to us."

    "We are experiencing a moment of the highest and yet unprecedented uncertainty in the transatlantic relationship," said Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador in Washington and head of the prominent Munich Security Conference. By criticizing the collective defense, Trump has questioned the basic pillar of NATO as a whole, Ischinger added.

    The president-elect therefore has to reassure the European allies that he remains firm on the US commitment under Article 5 of the NATO charter prior to his inauguration, the top diplomat stressed.

    Earlier this week, Stoltenberg lambasted Trump's agenda, saying: "All allies have made a solemn commitment to defend each other. This is something absolutely unconditioned."

    Fearing that Trump would not appear in Brussels even after his inauguration, NATO has re-scheduled its summit – expected to take place in early 2017 – to next summer, Spiegel said.

    The report might reflect current moods within the EU establishment as well, as Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, has called on the member states to establish Europe's own military.

    Washington "will not ensure the security of the Europeans in the long term... we have to do this ourselves," he argued on Thursday.

    If Trump is serious about reducing the number of US troops stationed in Europe, large NATO countries like Germany have little to offer, Spiegel said. Even major member states' militaries lack units able to replace the Americans, which in turn may trigger debate on strengthening NATO's nuclear arm, a sensitive issue in most European countries for domestic reasons.

    Still, an increase in defense spending has already been approved by the Europeans following pressure from the outgoing US administration. Over the past few days in Brussels, representatives of NATO states have been working on the so-called "Blue Book," a secret strategy paper which stipulates each member's contribution in the form of troops, aircraft, warships, and heavy armor until 2032, Spiegel reported.

    The document stipulates an increase in each NATO members' military spending by one percent of each nation's GDP, in addition to the current two percent.

    Uncertainty over Trump's NATO policy seems to be taking its toll; Germany, one of the largest military powers in Europe, plans to allocate 130 billion euros ($140bn) to military expenditures by 2030, but the remarkable figure may be a drop in the ocean.

    "No one knows yet if the one percent more would be enough," the German NATO officer told Spiegel.

    Nevertheless, the US is continuing to deploy troops to eastern Europe, justifying the move with the need to protect the region from "assertive Russia." Earlier this week, the largest arms shipment yet, 600 containers, arrived in Germany to supply the US armored and combat aviation brigades, expected to deploy in Europe by January 2017.

    Read more EU Commission president wants clarity from Trump on NATO, trade

    [Nov 11, 2016] In a winner takes all system you are bound to end up with a two party system

    Nov 11, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    reason : , November 11, 2016 at 09:53 AM
    Trump is just the symptom not the disease. But the biggest cause of the disease is the two party system. You (Americans) need to find a way to get rid of it.
    Aaron Headly -> reason ... , November 11, 2016 at 10:22 AM
    Two parties are plenty. We just need at least one party that can actually engage the working-but-worried members of the broad middle class. Trump offers one path there, but even the GOP don't seem too interested in taking it. I think that there are other ones, and that the Democrats need to look at them.
    DeDude -> reason ... , -1
    In a winner takes all system you are bound to end up with a two party system. If you have a direct election of a President you eventually end up with a two party system. See what happened in Canada, they had 3 parties with roughly 30, 30, 40% support each. Since the Conservatives were the 40% they had 100% of the power for a long time. The only alternative to a two party system, is to get rid of the winner takes all system and use the European model where the majority of legislators are allocated by proportion of votes (nationally) and the leader of the executive branch is elected by parliament.
    EMichael -> reason ... , November 11, 2016 at 11:26 AM
    The only way is with guns. I think we can do without that.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> reason ... , November 11, 2016 at 11:29 AM
    The US Constitution needs better provisions for electoral democracy. The two party system is good enough if kept honest.

    1. End private campaign financing or at least end Super PACs (Citizen United decision) and allow only private contributions of $100 or less per donor/candidate/election combination.

    2. End gerrymandering.

    3. Reasonable (12 to 20 years combined in both chambers) legislative term limits.

    4. Ranked/preferential/instant runoff voting.

    5. Popular petition and referendum to overturn SCOTUS.

    mulp -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , November 11, 2016 at 12:20 PM
    "Ranked/preferential/instant runoff voting."

    Yeah, voting needs to be all about picking the most extreme winners possible to screw over the maximum number of losers. It needs to be a bidding system to find the smallest faction that can win based on promising to screw over the largest number while still winning.

    A change that is the most republican democratic is approval voting. Candidates run seeking to get the greatest approval possible, 99%, by speaking and acting in 99% of the people's interests. That means no losers, by that also means no winners.

    In an election, you vote for everyone you approve of, whether none, one, five, all of those running. I would have "none" on the ballot directly or implicitly, by rerunning any election with a totally new slate if no candidate fails to get votes from 50% plus 1. Ideally, all candidates get 70% of voters to approve of them, with the winner getting 90% or 85%.

    After all, once the election is over, the person selected will represent everyone, so everyone is forced by law to approve of his legal actions.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> mulp... , November 11, 2016 at 12:27 PM
    Actually Ranked/preferential/instant runoff voting may allow people to vote their extreme ambitions, but winning is relegated to the candidates that are least objectionable overall very much like the intent of your approval voting. Everyone you misunderstand is not necessarily an ogre. You just get too much of a reflection of yourself when you look at the ideas of others. Either that or your capacity to comprehend the language is strikingly inferior to your ability to mangle it with your eccentric pronouncements.
    sglover -> mulp... , November 11, 2016 at 01:09 PM
    You almost certainly know this, but Maine now has instant runoff voting. That's the one bright spot in this lousy week.
    sglover -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , November 11, 2016 at 01:08 PM
    If we're talking wish lists, I don't see why we can't also radically increase the size of Congress (more, smaller districts), and end the anachronism of lifelong terms for federal judges (lengthy, not lifetime, terms are more than enough to assure independence).
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> sglover... , November 11, 2016 at 01:31 PM
    Actually, I was going for a list that you could build a voting constituency behind that would forsake partisan loyalty to use anti-incumbency as a solidarity rallying cry for the purpose of literally extorting Congress to take desired action. That said, your ideas are as good as any on a first cut. Ultimately the supporting voting constituency would need to decide.

    I just picked from popular favorites that I was familiar with and then tested them here for reactions off and on over the years. Many of our commenters want to have nothing to do with Constitutional reform either because they are afraid of shaking the tree or because they believe it impossible. The linchpin to achieving success is the critical mass necessary to deny most incumbents reelection. The resistance to that proposition becomes less with each new Congress. Picking a list is as easy as floating all the ideas and discarding any that would significantly rock the coalition of reformist voters. Even if only one such reform passes the final test then it is still better than what we got. Also, successfully demonstrating the power over Congress embodied in blocking reelection would be empowering to the electorate for many years to come.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , November 11, 2016 at 01:33 PM
    Of course, only reforms that I have taken interest in over the last fifty years would be ones that I was familiar with.
    mulp -> reason ... , November 11, 2016 at 12:05 PM
    What two party system???

    We have one party advocating free lunch social and economic policy.

    On social policy, the conservative theory is tolerance takes away individual liberty, and true liberty means you as an individual must be able to exclude, harm, kill, or otherwise screw over anyone different from you because conservatives are superior individuals favored by God. White people owning black people is in the bible and thus a god given right of white Christian men, just as Jefferson wrote in the Constitution. (That Jefferson was not in American when it was written is denied by conservatives, as is the far greater influence of Washington and Hamilton, both shaped by the need for strong Federal power to tax and spend based on both running a war and then building a nation. And ironically, Jefferson acted as president far more like Obama than like the small government weak Federal advocate than he wrote of and that conservatives exaggerate.)

    And on economics, the Republicans are pure free lunch. You as consumer will get rich by low wages and zero government spending and zero regulation because that will mean you get rich with slave labor producing goods your sell to rich consumers at high profit. Because after all, you conservative workers are superior to all workers who vote for Democrats and join unions fighting for higher wages and benefits.

    As Republicans won elections based on their free lunch policies, liberals were marginalized in the Democratic Party. Instead, progressives argued the Democrats needed to adopt better and bigger free lunch policies.

    Obama has been criticized for being a liberal instead of an angry black progressive revolutionary who put blacks in power all over government so they can make black people rich by screwing white people. That Obama treated everyone as having equal rights has outraged all the progressive activists. In their view, they elected Obama to serve them, and he squandered the chance to screw over everyone else. Blacks should have had the power to screw over whites and browns. Gays should have had the power to jail every homophobe, etc.

    Clinton is evil because she told Bernie TANSTAAFL just like those evil liberals.

    Bernie promised to tax the rich to create millions of government jobs, I assume, so no worker gets exploited by evil Wall Street corporations, and Bernie promises that he will be able to destroy the rich, their wealth, and keep taxing them to pay for all the government that will serve only workers.

    Bernie promised to stop climate change by taxing the burning of fossil fuels to build alternatives and subsidizing workers so they pay no more for every, plus give them lots of other benefits, even after all the fossil fuel corporations are bankrupt because no one is burning fossil fuels.

    After all, if a carbon tax generates a trillion dollars in revenue today, it will generate a trillion dollars in revenue when all cars and homes have switched to electric power and stopped burning fossil fuels. $100 a ton tax on 10 billion tons is the same as a $100 tax on 10 million tons in terms of revenue according to progressives.

    According to progressives, the Laffer curve is 1000% lie, and tax revenue will keep increasing the higher the tax rate no matter how high the tax rate. But that's exactly identical to the conservative claim that tax revenue will increase the lower the tax rate, and tax revenue is highest at zero percent.

    Bernie argues that only when you elect people who reject party politics, and all those elected work to support only their community, will government be the most effective and powerful, because when you agree to tax everyone but your voters and give free stuff to only your voters, can taxes that tax everyone and no one, to fund giving free stuff to everyone and no one, be made into law, with zero compromise.

    Bernie and Trump are identities, just promising different winners they will screw different losers.

    Neither support parties, and neither can be supported by any feasible political party representing more than the half the size of thone who will be the winners under their respective winners.

    Do you think health care workers will support Bernie slashing their pay, or putting them out of jobs? Wall Street profits and rent seeking are certainly less than 2% of the 16-18% of gdp for health care, and most of that goes to paying workers. Bernie advocates killing jobs just as much as Trump advocates killing jobs - deregulation only kills jobs, never creates jobs, unless creating thieves is creating jobs, but not paying workers to cut health care costs also kills jobs.

    DeDude -> reason ... , November 11, 2016 at 12:12 PM
    Need I remind you that we had 4 national parties running in this election.
    DeDude -> DeDude... , November 11, 2016 at 12:14 PM
    We don't have a "two party system". We have the inevitable two-partyfication of a winner takes all system.
    ilsm -> reason ... , -1
    There really is no "second party":

    "I would love to share, my liberal friend, in your sense of incredulity about the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of United States. I would love to stand with you in the sense of woundedness that, while certainly painful up front, carries with it the secondary compensation of a warm and nurturing solidarity. I would love to sit with you and fulminate in righteous anger about the unparalleled vulgarity and cruelty of Trump and his followers.
    As much as I'd like to do these things, I won't.

    Why?

    Because I know you, perhaps better than you even dare to know yourself. I know you well because I have watched you with great and detailed care over the last three decades and have learned, sadly, that you are as much if not more about image and self-regard as any of the laudable values you claim to represent.

    I have watched as you accommodated yourself to most of the retrograde social forces you claim to abhor. I have seen you be almost completely silent before the world's greatest evil, unprovoked war, going so far as to embrace as your presidential candidate this year a person who cold-bloodedly carried out the complete destruction of Libya, a real country with real people who love their children like you and me, in order-as the Podesta emails make clear-to further her personal political ambitions.
    I watched as you stood silent before this same person's perverse on-camera celebration of the murder by way of a bayonet thrust to the anus of the leader of that once sovereign country, and before the tens of thousand of deaths, and hundreds of thousands of refugees, that war provoked.
    I watched during the last eight years as you sought refuge in the evanescent qualities of skin color and smooth speechmaking so as to not to confront the fact that your "liberal" president was almost totally lacking in actionable convictions regarding the values you claim to be about.

    I watched as you didn't say a peep as he bailed out bankers, pursued whistleblowers and deported desperate and downtrodden immigrants in heretofore unimaginable numbers.

    And I didn't hear the slightest complaint (unlike those supposedly stupid and primitive libertarians) as he arrogated to himself the right to kill American citizens in cold blood as he and he alone deemed fit.

    I monitored you as you not only completely normalized Israel's methodical erasure of the Palestinian people and their culture, but made cheering enthusiastically for this campaign of savagery the ultimate litmus test for social and political respectability within your ranks.
    I watched as you breezily dispatched the memories of the millions of innocent people destroyed by U.S. military aggression around the world and damaged police brutality here at home in order to slavishly imitate the unceasing orgy of uniform worship set in motion by the right and its media auxiliaries in the wake of September 11th, 2001.
    In short, since 1992, I have watched as you have transformed a current of social thought once rooted in that most basic an necessary human sentiment-empathy-into a badge of cultural and educational superiority. And because feeling good about yourself was much more important to you than actually helping the afflicted, you signed off, in greater or lesser measure to almost all of the life-sapping and dignity-robbing measures of the authoritarian right.

    And now you want me to share in your sense of shock and incredulity?

    No, thanks, I'll save my tears for all of the people, ideas and programs you heedlessly abandoned along the road to this day. "

    - Common Dreams
    (Thanks to David Mudcat Calderon)

    , November 11, 2016 at 12:36 PM
    Sandwichman -> John M ... , November 11, 2016 at 11:20 AM
    Leaving aside black boxes, the Electoral College, swing state skewing and cumulative winner-take-allism transformed an estimated TWO MILLION vote popular vote margin into a 306-232 electoral vote romp for the LOSER.

    As Leonard Cohen wrote, "Democracy is coming to the U.S.A."

    It's coming from the sorrow in the street,
    the holy places where the races meet;
    from the homicidal bitchin'
    that goes down in every kitchen
    to determine who will serve and who will eat.
    From the wells of disappointment
    where the women kneel to pray
    for the grace of God in the desert here
    and the desert far away:
    Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

    DrDick -> Sandwichman ... , November 11, 2016 at 11:29 AM
    The sad reality is that 46% of Americans simply did not vote, and most of them were Democratic voters. Trump is winning with fewer votes than Romney got. When you run an uninspiring candidate with high negatives, this is what happens.

    http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/10-shocking-2016-election-facts-old-political-assumptions-are-out-window

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> DrDick... , November 11, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    Establishment progressive is sort of a thin line to walk, not for everyone :<)
    ilsm -> Sandwichman ... , November 11, 2016 at 12:42 PM
    With all the propaganda, emotion, idolizing 'experience', lusting for a first woman, and poor pk whining he is a (I see him faux) librul a vote is never informed nor would it assure the "right" outcome whomever might define that.

    A f checks on the instrument error!

    JMW -> John M ... , November 11, 2016 at 11:28 AM
    In a system where the votes are not audited or not even auditable, all you have is hope.
    Functional Finance : , November 11, 2016 at 10:05 AM
    Mark- Your work here is a great public service and resource. Thank you
    Fredd G. Muggs : , November 11, 2016 at 10:14 AM
    I am older than either Dr. Thoma or Dr. Krugman and have been retired for some years. I also believe Mr. Trump, Speaker Ryan, and Leader McConnell, will do exactly what they said they would do. My life will get much harder particularly with the end of Medicare and cuts to Social Security. I do not see a chance of this improving in my lifetime. I have no illusions that anything I say or do will change the direction just set. Dropping out seems to be the best course to save my sanity.
    Watermelonpunch -> Fredd G. Muggs... , November 11, 2016 at 10:27 AM
    Trump was in my city the night before election day, and I saw his speech on youtube... He made a pretty clear campaign promise to protect medicare and social security.

    Will anybody hold him to this?

    Fredd G. Muggs -> Watermelonpunch ... , November 11, 2016 at 10:41 AM
    no
    DeDude -> Watermelonpunch ... , November 11, 2016 at 11:18 AM
    Trump has been known both to ignore his promises but also to take revenge on those who say bad things about him. My guess is that at some point in time he will smack Ryan badly by blocking one of Ryans signature pieces. Privatizing social security might be the right issue for that revenge. However, the destruction/privatization of social security and medicare is unlikely to make it past a filibuster in the senate. It may not even be able to pass a straight majority in the senate. McConnell may get rid of the filibuster but just like Reed hesitated to do so (knowing how often the political winds change) my guess is that he may erode it further but not dare to totally get rid of it. After all even though it may allow you to get all your "dream legislations" through, it also will allow the other side to reverse all that you passed - and then get all their dream legislation through as soon as the pendulum swings back.
    anne -> Fredd G. Muggs... , November 11, 2016 at 10:29 AM
    I have no illusions that anything I say or do will change the direction just set. Dropping out seems to be the best course to save my sanity.

    [ Why should what a person says or does be predicated on being effective in ways that are impossible to know? Saying and doing what is gratifying as such, when a person is able, would seem to be or should be enough. ]

    DeDude -> Fredd G. Muggs... , November 11, 2016 at 11:21 AM
    Dropping out is the worst thing you can do. That leave the other side emboldened and empowered. If you worry what a president Trump and a GOP house + senate can do to your future, you need to fight; not give up.
    EMichael -> Fredd G. Muggs... , November 11, 2016 at 11:29 AM
    Fred, you and I and the others in the 55 and older group(maybe 60) will catch a break on SS and Medicare.

    If they can privatize it, they will build it on promises to those not in our age group that it will be a "super terrific" change while insisting that those of our age group will keep the benefits cause they will never, ever vote GOP again if they are taken away.

    Not much solace in that, but it is all I got.

    DrDick -> Fredd G. Muggs... , November 11, 2016 at 11:31 AM
    I am also older than both of them (just barely older than Krugman) and if the GOP gets its way, I will never be able to retire.
    ilsm -> Fredd G. Muggs... , November 11, 2016 at 12:43 PM
    As if Obomber did you right?

    Clinton would have peddled backward.

    Donna Woodka : , November 11, 2016 at 10:15 AM
    Hugs. I feel much the same. I used to blog quite a bit, have turned to social media the last few years as blogs stopped being a source for people.

    Thanks for all you do. You've kept me informed, kept me wealthier, kept me saner. Please don't stop. We need you.

    Sandwichman : , November 11, 2016 at 10:25 AM
    "When Trump was elected, I felt like I had failed..."

    On the contrary, Paul, you succeeded beyond your wildest dreams. By equating pro-labor "populism" with nativist, revanchist "populism" you succeeded in obstructing truly progressive economic policy initiatives such as shorter working time.

    By ridiculing Wm. Greider's prescient 1990s warnings about the consequences of neoliberal globalization as the ravings of an "accidental theorist" you succeeded in preserving an expert consensus that everything was fine and nothing could go wrong.

    By relentlessly harping on Gerald Friedman's analysis of Bernie Sanders's economic program, you succeeded in persuading rust belt voters that There Is No Alternative to the infallible wisdom of the past and present Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers.

    You succeeded in scoring so many goals that I am almost hesitant to tell you that they were in the wrong end of the field. Please, though, have a look at my open letter to you from May 2011 to which you did not reply. Perhaps your only failure, among all those myriad successes.

    http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.ca/2011/05/open-letter-to-paul-krugman.html

    Watermelonpunch -> Sandwichman ... , November 11, 2016 at 10:28 AM
    Wait, who wrote what?
    Sandwichman -> Watermelonpunch ... , November 11, 2016 at 10:34 AM
    Herman Melville wrote Moby Dick.
    anne -> Sandwichman ... , November 11, 2016 at 11:03 AM
    https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/melville/herman/m53m/chapter32.html

    1851

    Moby-Dick
    By Herman Melville

    Cetology

    Next: how shall we define the whale, by his obvious externals, so as conspicuously to label him for all time to come. To be short, then, a whale is a spouting fish with a horizontal tail. There you have him....

    Watermelonpunch -> anne... , November 11, 2016 at 01:40 PM
    Whoa, this thread went real confused, but I guess I just better get used to that state anyhow. :/
    Sandwichman -> Watermelonpunch ... , November 11, 2016 at 10:55 AM
    No I see what you're saying. Damn these comments with no edit function!

    Oh well,to err is humid.

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , November 11, 2016 at 10:30 AM
    Dear Professor Krugman,

    I am writing to you because three times over the last 14 months your authority has been invoked to me on behalf of the assertion that people who advocate shorter working time as a remedy for unemployment are guilty of a "lump-of-labor fallacy" assumption that there is only a fixed quantity of work in the world. As did John Maynard Keynes, I believe that working less is one of "three ingredients of a cure" for unemployment. I find it odd to learn that I (and presumably Keynes) am thereby assuming a palpable absurdity: that the amount of work to be done is invariant.

    I have researched the history of the fallacy claim and published two scholarly articles on it and I have documented rather glaring discrepancies in the often-repeated claim. Because your authority on the alleged fallacy is so frequently cited, I would be extremely grateful if you would consider the evidence I outline below and respond to it. I believe the history is curious enough to be entertaining and thought provoking, whether or not you are persuaded by my presentation.

    A column by you that has been held up to me as authoritative appeared in The New York Times on October 7, 2003. It was titled "Lumps of Labor." The first paragraph states as follows:

    "Economists call it the 'lump of labor fallacy.' It's the idea that there is a fixed amount of work to be done in the world, so any increase in the amount each worker can produce reduces the number of available jobs. (A famous example: those dire warnings in the 1950's that automation would lead to mass unemployment.) As the derisive name suggests, it's an idea economists view with contempt, yet the fallacy makes a comeback whenever the economy is sluggish."

    http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.ca/2011/05/open-letter-to-paul-krugman.html

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , November 11, 2016 at 10:36 AM
    When Trump was elected, I felt like I had failed...

    -- Mark Thoma

    [ Who assuredly did not fail, quite the opposite. What Mark Thoma has been doing is a wild success. Picasso painted or sketched or sculpted or constructed daily for decades. The work was successful as such, the effectiveness is only measured by the self-satisfaction with the work and the satisfaction of viewers of the work. ]

    anne -> anne... , November 11, 2016 at 10:42 AM
    Picasso painted Guernica as a protest against war waged on Guernica. The painting became famous and symbolic enough that a tapestry of the Guernica hangs outside of the United Nations Security Council.

    When Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the UN Security Council to make the case for waging war on Iraq, the tapestry of Guernica was covered over. Sad, but no matter in that Picasso had created a plea for peace that would endure even though there would be no peace in Iraq.

    anne -> anne... , November 11, 2016 at 10:45 AM
    When Trump was elected, I felt like I had failed...

    -- Mark Thoma

    [ Mark Thoma has succeeded wonderfully. I, along with any number of readers, can properly assure Thoma of the success.

    I am forever grateful. ]

    Sandwichman -> anne... , November 11, 2016 at 10:49 AM
    My mistake! I read the headline "Paul Krugman: Thoughts for the Horrified" and assumed that what followed had been writen by Krugman. Whoops!
    anne -> Sandwichman ... , November 11, 2016 at 11:01 AM
    No matter, your writing is necessary and successful just as well. The criticism strikes me as justified, but what it is beyond that is properly instructive.
    JohnH -> anne... , November 11, 2016 at 12:44 PM
    It will indeed be interesting to see if Krugman and other 'liberals' can eventually acknowledge their role in enabling a system that pissed so many off. It's not just his incessant boosterism for a lousy candidate, even before a single vote had been cast in the primaries. It is also his incessant boosterism of policies that overwhelmingly benefited the investor class and damaged workers.

    Krugman can talk all he wants about the truth...but the truth is that Democrats have been ignoring workers for a long, long time.

    Pavlina R. Tcherneva: "Democrats have not had an economic policy of their own for nearly half a century, just an 'inferior' version of what Republicans usually champion-tax cuts on the wealthy, dismantling the public safety-net, 'fighting' inflation by creating unemployment, market liberalization and deregulation across the board, which among other things brought us a colossal financial sector that has cannibalized the productive economy."
    http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/11/economic-consequences-donald-trump.html

    Krugman was a major 'very serious person' promoting Republican-lite policies...

    Watermelonpunch -> JohnH... , November 11, 2016 at 01:53 PM
    I don't hold out any hope now for Krugman picking up that clue phone, looks like he's gonna let that sucker ring right off the hook.

    But maybe there's a chance some people will start listening.

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , November 11, 2016 at 10:45 AM
    "It's an idea economists view with contempt..." -- Paul Krugman

    June 24, "Lumps of Brexit"

    "So it turns out the establishment telling people they are a bunch of foolish xenophobes is not an effective electoral strategy. I wonder if the DNC is paying attention? I doubt it."

    http://econospeak.blogspot.ca/2016/06/lumps-of-brexit.html

    July 3: "Why Are Experts Ignoring Voters?"

    "Do you hear that, voters? The experts view your ideas with contempt. They brag about viewing your ideas with contempt. They plagiarize each other bragging about how much contempt they have for your ideas. Now what are going to do about it? Just ignore them?"

    http://econospeak.blogspot.ca/2016/07/why-are-experts-ignoring-voters.html

    "It's an idea economists view with contempt..." -- Paul Krugman

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , November 11, 2016 at 11:04 AM
    The criticism is necessary at least for me, important and successful. So do continue the criticism.
    sglover -> Sandwichman ... , November 11, 2016 at 01:14 PM
    Thanks for injecting some reality, some actual history, into this thread. Krugman should be ashamed.
    Benoit Essiambre : , November 11, 2016 at 10:30 AM
    A scary thought just occurred to me. I believe the double austerity (monetary,fiscal) of the past 8 years played an huge role in getting us where we are.

    Monetary hawks in particular basically jammed the investment markets in economic areas where margins were already thin, meaning rural and less educated and inexperienced groups fell into unemployment, hardship and misery for long periods of time.

    Even if, unemployment wise, things were getting better in the end, these people were suffering for years through no fault of their own. It wasn't clear things had changed enough to prevent it from happening again. How much does unemployment set the average rural household back. Loosing 40000 a year for 8 years is 240000. Even if they now had a job they were starting out 240000 behind in their career and it seemed like things could deteriorate again and vulnerable regions would again be hit the hardest.

    I don know how Trump is going to manage the economy, but many have pointed out that he may not be an austerian.

    Of course Trump doesn't have all the power, other republicans may push back on spending and inflation but he seems to be good at manipulating others to get what he wants.

    What if, despite the other things he is likely going to screw up, his policies end up being very stimulative and the economy ends up doing very well? What if it ends up being like those destructive wars that nonetheless boost the economy?

    This might give legitimacy to his presidency and to other people like him.

    There might not be anything we can do now. The monetary hawks should have been dealt with way before. The government should have put much more emphasis on the unemployment part of the Fed dual mandate and maybe raise the inflation target. By giving the opportunity to Trump to fix this incredibly damaging yet easily fixable problem, he may have been set up for success. His success could mean being stuck with people like him for a long time.


    DeDude -> Benoit Essiambre... , November 11, 2016 at 11:50 AM
    The only way to create real lasting growth is to change income and wealth distributions. Both Regan and Bush II had economic growth, but not spectacularly- considering their increases in national debt. Reagan presided over a 4-fold increase in national debt but had decent, not spectacular, economic growth.

    It is very unfortunate that the GOPsters blocked additional stimulus because they wanted Obama (the nation) to fail for political reasons. The exact same infrastructure program that would have been a great win-win-win 4 years ago (and was blocked by GOPsters), will likely be instituted under Trump. Unfortunately, at this point we are close to full employment so the stimulus will likely cause wage inflation and the Fed will raise rates in response to that. So we will not be able to finance it by 0% interest and the growth effects of the infrastructure program will be tempered by the Fed.

    sglover -> Benoit Essiambre... , November 11, 2016 at 01:41 PM
    Isn't it likely that the Republicans are going to open the spigots and give Trump a couple of years of "prosperity"? Republican "devotion" to "fiscal sanity" has been one of the most transparent horseshit ploys of the last 25 years. Anyway, it seems like an obvious ploy to grease the skids for the next midterm elections.

    If that kind of short-term ploy leads to more constraints and difficulties later -- that's **another** bonus. That means down the road we can stoke even more cynicism about public action. "See? Government can't do anything! Told ya!"

    Have Dems figured this out yet? To listen to them, I'm not sure.

    eudaimonia : , November 11, 2016 at 11:10 AM
    Don't be so hard on yourself. This election was not about policy and being informed.

    Almost the entire economic profession was unprecedentedly united against Trump. Rarely do you have universal agreement among economists, but they agreed Trump would be terrible. Even Mankiw said no to Trump.

    Despite this, almost half of the voting population thought Trump would be better for the economy.

    Then there were factors outside of Hilary's control. Since this was a marginal "victory" for Trump, the Comey comment, the one-sided attack from wikileaks, and the years of hammering away at non-scandals over email and Benghazi could have easily had marginal impacts enough to tilt the election to Trump.

    Jim Harrison -> eudaimonia... , November 11, 2016 at 11:31 AM
    The exit polling I've seen this morning suggests that even most Trump supporters thought that Clinton would be better for the economy than Trump. The election wasn't about that. Economic obviously has a lot to do with how people feel, but the enormous anger of the Trump electorate had more to do with cultural despair than dollars and cents. The decline of white Christian America wasn't cooked up at Davos by a neoliberal cabal. Its causes lie in the relative decline of American power, demographic changes, and the gradual triumph of secularization. This is an economics blog so perhaps it's inevitable that everything gets seen here as depending on economics, but Trump didn't win because Paul Krugman accused somebody of the lump of labor fallacy.
    eudaimonia -> Jim Harrison ... , November 11, 2016 at 12:08 PM
    Most polls I saw put Trump anywhere to 40%-50% among all voters.

    There was a lot of anger among Trump supporters. Some of the anger was because of demographics. Some of it economics. Some of it against the establishment. Some of it was being angry for the sake of being angry.

    The deplorables did come out of the woodwork, but I don't think they alone put him power. There is just not enough of them. They are loud and a minority. Sadly, the rest of the supporters were largely complicit in their despicable behavior and it was not enough to sway them.

    DeDude -> eudaimonia... , November 11, 2016 at 12:23 PM
    Given the tight margins in elections like this you can pick and choose half a dozen "causes" for the Trump win. One thing that struck me was that compared to the 2012 election Trump had less votes than Romney, but Hillary had much less than Obama. So it was about the balance between firing up voters on your side and turning off voters on the other side.

    https://newrepublic.com/minutes/138621/trump-needed-huge-drop-turnout-win-thats-exactly-happened

    ilsm -> DeDude... , November 11, 2016 at 12:55 PM
    I refuse to vote for the crooks. At the national level no democratic candidate received my vote.

    What they did about Gaza, Benghazi and to Bernie were the last straws.

    So far it don't look like 2018 will be better wrt crooks.

    EMichael -> eudaimonia... , November 11, 2016 at 11:32 AM
    Agreed.

    The days when policies mattered in elections are over.

    They will return when the old racists die off and the young racists are greatly outnumbered.

    ilsm -> EMichael... , November 11, 2016 at 12:56 PM
    poor emike!
    david s : , November 11, 2016 at 11:18 AM
    I think the biggest mistake made by Drs Thoma and Krugman is thinking that the Democratic Party represents and fights for
    liberals and progressives.

    Both parties are the parties of status quo, money and war. That's it. Those are their interests.

    EMichael -> david s ... , November 11, 2016 at 11:34 AM
    And that is why Dems lose elections.

    Perceptions versus reality.

    Just a thought, can you name a Rep president who was in office when taxes on the super wealthy were used to provide direct aid to the poorest in the country?

    Of course you can't.

    ilsm -> EMichael... , November 11, 2016 at 12:57 PM
    questions matter.......

    that one does not

    DeDude -> david s ... , November 11, 2016 at 11:57 AM
    The biggest mistake made by many liberals and progressives is to think that there is no meaningful difference between the two parties. That mistake may have destroyed the global climate by putting Bush/Cheney in the white house rather than Gore. What damage it will do this time around is yet to be determined, but I am not optimistic. Those morons need to grow up and understand that in a two party system nobody gets even most of what they want.
    Pinkybum -> DeDude... , November 11, 2016 at 12:22 PM
    This is a conversation I have with my 20 year old son who was passionate for Bernie. I kept telling him if you think it is bad now just wait when a Republican gets in the White House (and with majorities in congress no less!) Apparently it is OK to burn it all down in pursuit of the ideal which is a very immature view of people who have no responsibilities or who do not have enough compassion for the old, poor, disabled, homeless or sick people of this world. Republican policies crush people in those categories and we are all in one of those categories at some point in our lives.
    Pinkybum -> Pinkybum... , November 11, 2016 at 12:24 PM
    Unless you are super-rich, then of course, you are OK!
    ilsm -> DeDude... , November 11, 2016 at 12:58 PM
    too many

    Clinton is

    the bigger damager

    Pinkybum -> david s ... , November 11, 2016 at 12:04 PM
    This is BS, most Democrats believe in the building up the working class. Republicans and Democrats who might as well be Republicans never fight for the working class and actually conspire to make their lives worse off.
    sglover -> Pinkybum... , November 11, 2016 at 01:24 PM
    "most Democrats believe in the building up the working class"

    Sorry, but as far as I can tell, while it's true that professional Dems enjoy **talking about** "building up the working class", they're not all that keen on actually doing anything about it.

    Why can't all those rednecks learn JavaScript and live fat off of web design? Stupid rubes....

    david s : , November 11, 2016 at 11:19 AM
    And thank you Dr Thoma.

    I love your blog and work, and my day is not complete without visiting economistsview.

    anne : , November 11, 2016 at 11:23 AM
    What we are up against, Jonathan Weisman is Deputy Washington Editor of the New York Times:

    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/797146251359830017

    Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

    This is disgusting on about 10 different levels

    Jonathan Weisman @jonathanweisman

    Defeated Dems could've tapped Rust Belt populist to head party. Instead, black, Muslim progressive from Minneapolis? http://nyti.ms/2enZ091

    10:37 AM - 11 Nov 2016

    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , November 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM
    (That link may seem a bit
    confusing. Ya gotta scroll down.)

    Chuck Schumer backs Keith Ellison
    to head of the D.N.C.

    Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the incoming Democratic leader, threw his weight behind Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota on Friday to be the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, the clearest sign yet that, in defeat, the party will move to the left.

    After losing the working-class Rust Belt to Mr. Trump, Democrats could have recruited an industrial-region populist like Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, who represents the Youngstown area. But Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont quickly backed Mr. Ellison, who is black, Muslim and an ardent progressive.

    Two former governors, Howard Dean of Vermont and Martin O'Malley of Maryland, also expressed interest Friday in being the party's new committee chairman.

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , November 11, 2016 at 12:58 PM
    I appreciate the further explanation:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html

    November 11, 2016

    Chuck Schumer backs Keith Ellison to head of the D.N.C.
    By CARL HULSE, JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, ALAN RAPPEPORT, and MAGGIE HABERMAN

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , November 11, 2016 at 01:19 PM
    The article was nonetheless disgracefully worded, as was the summary by the editor.
    Doug K : , November 11, 2016 at 11:29 AM
    Mark, thank you for your work here - I have learned a lot and deeply appreciate your efforts. You have already done a great deal and helped to change the discourse. My thoughts from the Bush presidency in 2007 are at the link from my name.

    I grew up in a police state (apartheid South Africa) and was constantly oppressed by the awareness that I wasn't doing enough, could not do enough, to stop the evil. Eventually it's necessary to learn how "to care and not to care". Do what little I could, let it go and go to sleep, get up and try again.

    anne -> Doug K ... , November 11, 2016 at 11:46 AM
    Perfectly inspiring.
    Fred C. Dobbs : , November 11, 2016 at 11:47 AM
    The Long Haul http://nyti.ms/2eorBuS
    Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog - Nov 11

    As I said in today's column, nobody who thought Trump would be a disaster should change his or her mind because he won the election. He will, in fact, be a disaster on every front. And I think he will eventually drag the Republican Party into the abyss along with his own reputation; the question is whether he drags the rest of the country, and the world, down with him.

    (Thoughts for the Horrified http://nyti.ms/2enPZwR )

    But it's important not to expect this to happen right away. There's a temptation to predict immediate economic or foreign-policy collapse; I gave in to that temptation Tuesday night, but quickly realized that I was making the same mistake as the opponents of Brexit (which I got right). So I am retracting that call, right now. It's at least possible that bigger budget deficits will, if anything, strengthen the economy briefly. More detail in Monday's column, I suspect.

    On other fronts, too, don't expect immediate vindication. America has a vast stock of reputational capital, built up over generations; even Trump will take some time to squander it.

    The true awfulness of Trump will become apparent over time. Bad things will happen, and he will be clueless about how to respond; if you want a parallel, think about how Katrina revealed the hollowness of the Bush administration, and multiply by a hundred. And his promises to bring back the good old days will eventually be revealed as the lies they are.

    But it probably won't happen in a year. So the effort to reclaim American decency is going to have to have staying power; we need to build the case, organize, create the framework. And, of course, never forget who is right.

    It's going to be a long time in the wilderness, and it's going to be awful. If I sound calm and philosophical, I'm not - like everyone who cares, I'm frazzled, sleepless, depressed. But we need to be stalwart.

    DeDude : , November 11, 2016 at 12:08 PM
    Don't set your goals to high. The election of Trump is not something you alone could have prevented - it is a collective failure of the progressive and fact-based community. Whatever you did it pulled in the right direction. It's just that the load was to heavy and the forces pulling in the other direction to strong. If you stop pulling it will be that more difficult for those of us who continue the good fight.
    ilsm : , November 11, 2016 at 01:06 PM
    Propaganda

    I stopped fully reading Krugman's links in February. He has become illogical and filing fallacies of argument (first sentence examples) based on blind loyalty to a personality party that is not in the tiniest bit worse than the GOP.

    His writings with the most of the NYT, mainstream media etc made me conclude they are a Stalinist press machine.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , November 11, 2016 at 01:34 PM
    I am reminded of the rants of Ivar Giaever, RPI's one Nobelist (in physics) who became a global warming denier.

    Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is 'Ridiculous' & 'Dead Wrong' on 'Global Warming'

    Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: 'Global warming is a non-problem'

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

    Shah of Bratpuhr : , November 11, 2016 at 01:29 PM
    Dear Dr. Krugman,

    I know you'll never read this, but I am still angry with you from when you trashed Sanders. Thanks for nothing.

    Sincerely,

    Fred C. Dobbs : , November 11, 2016 at 01:42 PM
    (Is this anything?)

    There is an on-line petition up that directs the Electoral College to consider just the popular vote of this weeks election, and when the time comes (Dec 19), cast their votes for Hillary Clinton.

    https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

    As has been noted, electors are not 'legally bound' to vote for the nominee they are pledged to.

    So, vote yer conscience, electors!

    Do as The People have asked.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Hey, Midwestern and Rust Belt Blue-Collar Voters: Hows THIS Workin Out for Ya So Far? by Beverly Mann

    Nov 11, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    President-­elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests, is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists.

    Jeffrey Eisenach, a consultant who has worked for years on behalf of Verizon and other telecommunications clients, is the head of the team that is helping to pick staff members at the Federal Communications Commission.

    Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist whose clients include Devon Energy and Encana Oil and Gas, holds the "energy independence" portfolio.

    Michael Torrey, a lobbyist who runs a firm that has earned millions of dollars helping food industry players such as the American Beverage Association and the dairy giant Dean Foods, is helping set up the new team at the Department of Agriculture.

    Trump Campaigned Against Lobbyists, but Now They're on His Transition Team , Eric Lipton, New York Times, today

    What? No steelworker? No auto-plant worker? Not even a family farmer? Might y'all have been had ?

    Who'd a thunk?

    Bernie and Elizabeth to the rescue. Now, please . Now .

    But, hey, white blue collar folks: You get what you vote for. The problem for me is that I get what you vote for. I said roughly 540 times here at AB in the last year: Trump isn't conquering the Republican Party; he's the Republican Party's Trojan Horse. What was that y'all were saying about wanting change so badly? Here it is.

    Welcome to the concept of industry regulatory capture . Perfected to a science, and jaw-droppingly brazen. LOL . Funny, but Bernie talked about this. Some of you listened. Then. Elizabeth Warren has talked about it, a lot. Some of you listened. Back then. But she wasn't running for president. Hillary Clinton was, instead. And she couldn't talk about it because she had needed all those speaking fees , all the way up to about a minute before she announced her candidacy.

    Aaaaand, here come the judges. And of course the justices. Industry regulatory capture of the judicial-branch variety.

    I called this one right, in the title of this post yesterday . I mean, why even wait until the body is buried? No reason at all.

    So he thinks. But what if he's wrong?

    Anyway can't wait for the political cartoons showing Trump on Ryan's lap, with Ryan's arm showing reaching up under Trump's suit jacket.

    Edgar Ryan and Charlie Trump.

    Oh, and I do want to add this: If one more liberal pundit or feminism writer publishes something claiming that Clinton lost because of all those sexist men out there who couldn't handle the idea of a woman president , or claims she ran a remarkable campaign cuz of all that tenacity and stamina she showed in the face of what was thrown at her from wherever, see, or makes both claims (if not necessarily in the same columns or blog posts or tweeter comments), and I read so much as the title of it, I'm gonna something .

    It's effing asinine . Everyone's entitled to their little personal delusions, but why the obsessiveness about this patent silliness? What is exactly is the emotional hold that Hillary Clinton holds on these people? It's climate-change-denial-like.

    Elizabeth Warren would have beaten Donald Trump in a landslide. So would have Bernie Sanders. And brought in a Democratic-controlled Senate and House. Because both would have run a remarkably campaign, under normal standards, not a special low bar.

    That's the efffing truth .

    UPDATE: From a new blog post by Paul Waldman titled " If you voted for Trump because he's 'anti-establishment,' guess what: You got conned ":

    An organizational chart of Trump's transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists, representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer, Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is positively salivating over all the new opportunities they'll have to deliver goodies to their clients in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?

    The answer is, anyone who was paying attention. Look at the people Trump is considering for his cabinet, and you won't find any outside-the-box thinkers burning to work for the little guy. It's a collection of Republican politicians and corporate plutocrats - not much different from who you'd find in any Republican administration.

    And from reader EMichael in the Comments thread to this post about 35 minutes ago:

    OH, it will be worse than that, much worse.

    Bank regulation will go back to the "glory days" of the housing bubble, and Warren's CFPB will be toast.

    Buddy of mine works HR for a large bank. He has been flooded with resumes from current employees of the CFPB the last couple of days.

    Yup. HSBC ain't in that list for nothing. But, not to worry. Trump's kids will pick up lots of real estate on the (real) cheap, after the crash. Their dad will give them all the tips, from experience.

    And the breaking news this afternoon is that Pence–uh-ha; this Mike Pence –has replaced Christie as transition team head. Wanna bet that Comey told Trump today that Christie is likely to be indicted in Bridgegate?

    Next up, although down the road a few months: rumors that a grand jury has been convened to try to learn how, exactly, Giuliani got all that info from inside the FBI two weeks ago. Once the FBI inspector general completes his investigation. Or once New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, begins looking into violations of NY state criminal law.

    How downright sick. And how pathetic.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Democratic coalition of Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Identity Politics is imploding, because it cant deliver goodies to people outside top ten percent

    Notable quotes:
    "... my equation of Neoliberalism (or Post-Capitalism) = Wall Street + Identity Politics generated by the dematerialization of Capital. CDO's are nothing but words on paper or bytes in the stream; and identity politics has much less to do with the Body than the culture and language. Trumpists were interpellated as White by the Democrats and became ideological. Capital is Language. ..."
    "... "Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness. Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful, somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing." ..."
    "... But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed, or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means "I feel unfree. ..."
    "... The Trump Emotion Machine is delivering feeling ok, acting free. Being ok with one's internal noise, and saying it, and demanding that it matter. Internal Noise Matters. " my emp ..."
    Nov 11, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bob mcmanus 11.10.16 at 1:45 pm 172

    I thought someone above talked about Trump's rhetoric

    1) Tom Ferguson at Real News Network post at Naked Capitalism says (and said in 2014) that the Democratic coalition of Wall Street (Silicon Valley) + Identity Politics is imploding, because it can't deliver populist goodies without losing part of it's core base.

    Noted no for that, but for my equation of Neoliberalism (or Post-Capitalism) = Wall Street + Identity Politics generated by the dematerialization of Capital. CDO's are nothing but words on paper or bytes in the stream; and identity politics has much less to do with the Body than the culture and language. Trumpists were interpellated as White by the Democrats and became ideological. Capital is Language.

    2) Consider the above an intro to

    Lauren Berlant at the New Inquiry "Trump or Political Emotions" which I think is smart. Just a phrase cloud that stood out for me. All following from Berlant, except parenthetical

    It is a scene where structural antagonisms - genuinely conflicting interests - are described in rhetoric that intensifies fantasy.

    People would like to feel free. They would like the world to have a generous cushion for all their aggression and inclination. They would like there to be a general plane of okayness governing social relations

    ( Safe Space defined as the site where being nasty to those not inside is admired and approved. We all have them, we all want them, we create our communities and identities for this purpose.)

    "Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness. Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful, somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing."

    (Wonderful, and a comprehension of New Media I rarely see. Cybernetics? Does noise increase the value of signal? The grammatically correct tight argument crowd will not get this. A problem I have with CT's new policy)

    "You watch him calculating, yet not seeming to care about the consequences of what he says, and you listen to his supporters enjoying the feel of his freedom. "

    (If "civil speech" is socially approved signal, then noise = freedom and feeling. Every two year old and teenage guitarist understands)

    "But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed, or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means "I feel unfree."

    The Trump Emotion Machine is delivering feeling ok, acting free. Being ok with one's internal noise, and saying it, and demanding that it matter. Internal Noise Matters. " my emp

    Noise again. Berlant worth reading, and thinking about.

    [Nov 11, 2016] neoliberalism = identity politics

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    hunkerdown November 10, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    Hoisted from over there:

    What's bought [sic] us to this stage is a policy – whether it's been intentional or unintentional or a mixture of both – of divide and rule, where society is broken down into neat little boxes and were told how to behave towards the contents of each one rather than, say, just behaving well towards all of them.

    And this right here is why neoliberalism = identity politics and why both ought to be crushed ruthlessly.

    [Nov 11, 2016] Hey, Midwestern and Rust Belt Blue-Collar Voters: How's THIS Workin' Out for Ya So Far? by Beverly Mann

    Nov 11, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    President-­elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests, is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists.

    Jeffrey Eisenach, a consultant who has worked for years on behalf of Verizon and other telecommunications clients, is the head of the team that is helping to pick staff members at the Federal Communications Commission.

    Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist whose clients include Devon Energy and Encana Oil and Gas, holds the "energy independence" portfolio.

    Michael Torrey, a lobbyist who runs a firm that has earned millions of dollars helping food industry players such as the American Beverage Association and the dairy giant Dean Foods, is helping set up the new team at the Department of Agriculture.

    Trump Campaigned Against Lobbyists, but Now They're on His Transition Team , Eric Lipton, New York Times, today

    What? No steelworker? No auto-plant worker? Not even a family farmer? Might y'all have been had ?

    Who'd a thunk?

    Bernie and Elizabeth to the rescue. Now, please . Now .

    But, hey, white blue collar folks: You get what you vote for. The problem for me is that I get what you vote for. I said roughly 540 times here at AB in the last year: Trump isn't conquering the Republican Party; he's the Republican Party's Trojan Horse. What was that y'all were saying about wanting change so badly? Here it is.

    Welcome to the concept of industry regulatory capture . Perfected to a science, and jaw-droppingly brazen. LOL . Funny, but Bernie talked about this. Some of you listened. Then. Elizabeth Warren has talked about it, a lot. Some of you listened. Back then. But she wasn't running for president. Hillary Clinton was, instead. And she couldn't talk about it because she had needed all those speaking fees , all the way up to about a minute before she announced her candidacy.

    Aaaaand, here come the judges. And of course the justices. Industry regulatory capture of the judicial-branch variety.

    I called this one right, in the title of this post yesterday . I mean, why even wait until the body is buried? No reason at all.

    So he thinks. But what if he's wrong?

    Anyway … can't wait for the political cartoons showing Trump on Ryan's lap, with Ryan's arm showing reaching up under Trump's suit jacket.

    Edgar Ryan and Charlie Trump.

    Oh, and I do want to add this: If one more liberal pundit or feminism writer publishes something claiming that Clinton lost because of all those sexist men out there who couldn't handle the idea of a woman president , or claims she ran a remarkable campaign cuz of all that tenacity and stamina she showed in the face of what was thrown at her from wherever, see, or makes both claims (if not necessarily in the same columns or blog posts or tweeter comments), and I read so much as the title of it, I'm gonna … something .

    It's effing asinine . Everyone's entitled to their little personal delusions, but why the obsessiveness about this patent silliness? What is exactly is the emotional hold that Hillary Clinton holds on these people? It's climate-change-denial-like.

    Elizabeth Warren would have beaten Donald Trump in a landslide. So would have Bernie Sanders. And brought in a Democratic-controlled Senate and House. Because both would have run a remarkably campaign, under normal standards, not a special low bar.

    That's the efffing truth .

    UPDATE: From a new blog post by Paul Waldman titled " If you voted for Trump because he's 'anti-establishment,' guess what: You got conned ":

    An organizational chart of Trump's transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists, representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer, Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is positively salivating over all the new opportunities they'll have to deliver goodies to their clients in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?

    The answer is, anyone who was paying attention. Look at the people Trump is considering for his cabinet, and you won't find any outside-the-box thinkers burning to work for the little guy. It's a collection of Republican politicians and corporate plutocrats - not much different from who you'd find in any Republican administration.

    And from reader EMichael in the Comments thread to this post about 35 minutes ago:

    OH, it will be worse than that, much worse.

    Bank regulation will go back to the "glory days" of the housing bubble, and Warren's CFPB will be toast.

    Buddy of mine works HR for a large bank. He has been flooded with resumes from current employees of the CFPB the last couple of days.

    Yup. HSBC ain't in that list for nothing. But, not to worry. Trump's kids will pick up lots of real estate on the (real) cheap, after the crash. Their dad will give them all the tips, from experience.

    And the breaking news this afternoon is that Pence–uh-ha; this Mike Pence –has replaced Christie as transition team head. Wanna bet that Comey told Trump today that Christie is likely to be indicted in Bridgegate?

    Next up, although down the road a few months: rumors that a grand jury has been convened to try to learn how, exactly, Giuliani got all that info from inside the FBI two weeks ago. Once the FBI inspector general completes his investigation. Or once New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, begins looking into violations of NY state criminal law.

    How downright sick. And how pathetic.

    [Nov 11, 2016] The Democrats did a fine job of stomping out any enthusiasm by sabotaging Bernie Sanders

    Nov 11, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Paid Minion November 10, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    The Democrats did a fine job of stomping out any enthusiasm by sabotaging Bernie Sanders.

    The DNC became a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Family Inc. starting in about 2008. Control the rulemakers/money flow, and you can control who the nominee is. At least that is the conventional thinking, and Clinton Inc. is nothing if not conventional.

    To buy the DNC, she chose to go to the Wall Street banksters, and others. Essentially an "up front" bribe. No smoking gun needed to be created. They knew what they were paying for, without it being said.

    (I'm curious to see how many "donations" the Clinton Foundation receives, now that she's been pushed out on an ice floe.)

    They never anticipated a challenger who didn't need the DNC, or it's cash.

    They ignored the stats showing how many people wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstance. Just call them racist/sexist/dumbazz hicks, and call them "deplorables". Ask Mitt Romney how that worked out for him.

    She lost an election to DONALD TRUMP. Even without the airwaves filled with Republican attack ads. (Lack of RNC enthusiasm for Trump? Or a recognition that Hillary's negatives couldn't be covered in a 30 second commercial?).

    If it wasn't for the Clinton's collective ego, and lust for power/money (after all, we all now that in the current state of affairs, the moneyed class drives policy), we'd all (well, all of us who don't live in the rarefied air of the 1%ers/Banksters) be celebrating the upcoming inauguration of President Sanders.

    [Nov 08, 2016] It seems to me that early voting should be abolished, voter photo ID SHOULD BE required by law in all states

    Nov 08, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Pinto Currency Vatican_cameo Nov 8, 2016 12:35 PM

    Check out Call for America.

    Their automated polling system tells a completely different story:

    http://callforamerica.com/

    manofthenorth Pinto Currency Nov 8, 2016 12:51 PM

    It seems to me that early voting should be abolished, voter photo ID SHOULD BE required by law in all states.

    Also to keep things as clean as possible there should be a media "NO FLY ZONE" on polling outcomes until ALL POLLS are closed in all states.

    So much wag the dog it is just disgusting.

    Praying for justice.

    roddcarlson -> Scuba Steve •Nov 8, 2016 1:16 PM

    The early vote (aka the mail in ballots) were compromised. Right the FBI kept sacking the Dems with mail in ballot forms, it must've been like a drug bust all those voting confetti sitting there like paper dollars. Dems crying you are hindering our right to vote! Hopefully the later day voting goes in our favor, but considering Soros electioneering electronics machines with no way to track it may not.

    If we lose the vote then America is cooked literally. But the vote was cooked books if it does happen, so we won't be judged for that. What we as a nation may be judged for is severe apathy and embracement of things for our personal gain years earlier where it was obviously wrong. We should have never let these politicians get away with things like Iraq after learning there were no WMD. Or free trade that was exporting our manufacturing base to every totalitarian government abroad. Or our keeping up with the Jones by bigger and bigger mortgages we could barely afford the old one. Or uncontrolled immigration. We should have put our foot down a long time ago and made these uppers fear like Vietnam the whole thing was unstable and going to capsize on their butts.

    But I can pretty much tell you that Americans (true ones) aren't guilty of this electioneering. The invader Mexicans and other parasites think they are somehow going to get on top of this thing. You know I still love them to this day. I remember falling down some stairs carrying a heavy desk, while some legal Mexican American citizens came and picked me up and then helped carry the desk too. So I'm not judging people individually based on their skin or ethnic background, I however am not foolish to say there is a problem of means here either. Hope all the invader Mexicans like Mexico II where they get to live out of cardboard boxes and railroad cars, because they killed the American host and now get their very own Mexican culture that is wholly immoral here too. Well don't worry because you get a taste of this Hillary invasion as well, with your nemesis the Muslims she is going to import in here. You see parasite never stop loving bigger problems for the host.

    If we lose this election white people need to start taking care of their own. I've had many races that were my best of friends, and I'm not at all going to say I hate those people I will never hate them. But the white people are under attack by a systematic attempt to dispossess them from people like Soros. We still hold the reigns of economic power, even in our weakened state. We can still peacefully (hopefully) use that power to say no to the 3rd world takeover of our country.

    Again early vote may mean nothing given the found stuffed cheated ballots at Dem headquarters. But do not think that we accept this NWO takeover, we've overlooked many previous incursion that has let it get this bad but no more even with a Hillary win.

    jcaz -> Ghost of PartysOver •Nov 8, 2016 12:02 PM

    Bullshit.

    The line I stood in this am was Trump up and down- everyone unhappy with the prospect of more of the same corrupt shit.

    Not buying this story.

    Ghost of PartysOver d jcaz •Nov 8, 2016 12:14 PM

    It is really pretty easy to understand. Wall Street, including all the Hedge Funds, Banks .... have bought and paid for HRC. They control her. Wall Street will get what it wants which is more of the same; market manipulation, inside dealings, payoffs, lack of perp walks. You name it. This is a very good scenario for those bastards. Hence markets will rally.

    Trump on the other hand will lock those bastards up. Markets will fall.

    Pres HRC means outstanding next QTR reports and of course bonuses. Any illegal activity will be met with a slap on the wrist (Corzine ring a bell)

    Pres Trump means reigning in the the crap and the next QTR report will not be so rosy. And bonuses will be much, much lower. Any illegal activity will be met with a perp walk.

    I am a Trump fan and I am a realist.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Obama and Clinton Are Complicit in Creating ISIS

    See also Hillary Clinton and Obama created ISIS
    Notable quotes:
    "... The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts. ..."
    "... The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given them by their misguided American benefactors. ..."
    "... The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. ..."
    "... The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama failures in the basics of statecraft. ..."
    "... Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush, he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture - ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare. ..."
    Jun 16, 2016 | breitbart.com

    The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts.

    With the recent release of an August 2012 classified intelligence memo to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton detailing the presence of the organization that became ISIS among the Syrian oppositional forces supported by the West, it's important to remember the history of exactly how the Islamic State arose from the ashes of a failed Obama/Clinton foreign policy.

    The Syrian "Arab Spring" agitations that began in March 2011, where majority Sunnis rebelled against an Assad run Alawite Shia Ba'th Party, quickly dissolved into a multi sided proxy war. Clinton State Department policy grew into helping these Sunni rebels under the banner of the "Free Syrian Army (FSA)" with weapons, money and diplomatic support.

    However, the reality is that the FSA existed only in the minds of the State Department leadership. The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given them by their misguided American benefactors.

    The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. All the while the Assad regime's traditional allies of Russia and Iran provided weapons, training, and even thousands of fighters themselves to combat the U.S. supported Sunni rebels. The Obama/Clinton team couldn't even do a proxy war correctly.

    The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama failures in the basics of statecraft.

    ... ... ...

    Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush, he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture - ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare.

    Erik Prince is a former Navy SEAL, founder of Blackwater, and currently a frontier market investor and concerned parent.

    [Nov 08, 2016] American And Saudi Weapons Recoverd From ISIS Positions In Mosul

    Nov 08, 2016 | www.mintpressnews.com

    " An anonymous Iraqi official recently stated that front line troops "always see US helicopters flying over the ISIL-controlled areas and dropping weapons and urgent aids for them.", Iraq, ISIS, Mosul, Operation Inherent Resolve, Saudi Arabia, United States, Weapons,"

    .,. ... ...

    Iraqi militia commander Uday al-Khaddran reported the weapons after capturing former Islamic State positions. According to GeoPolitics Alert , the weapons are of Saudi origin, and are by no means an isolated incident. Iraqi forces have reported Saudi and even American supplied ISIS weaponry and food shipments since the war began. Militiamen believe the weapons are, in part, being transported by the Turkish government.

    US manufactured missiles were also allegedly retrieved from the cleared IS area's. In this case, according to Reports Afrique , Iraqi commanders believe the weapons were dropped to ISIS by coalition planes . Such claims, once again, have circulated throughout the war.

    An anonymous Iraqi official recently stated that front line troops " always see US helicopters flying over the ISIL-controlled areas and dropping weapons and urgent aids for them." The commander went onto claim ISIS fighters are even transported by US aircraft to medical facilities in Syria and countries friendly to the group.

    In 2015, Iraqi commanders reported they'd begun shooting down coalition craft seen aiding the group. Iraq's parliament disclosed that year that two British planes seen aiding the enemy were shot down, with wreckage photographed . The government of Iraq called on western leaders to claim the crash, but no response ever came.

    Commander Al-Khaddran also accuses the Turks of sending advisors to aid in IS artillery, and other operations. Since these kinds of reports first surfaced nearly two years ago, they've been largely disregarded. It's only recently, with Hillary Clinton's email leaks allegedly confirming Saudi Arabia funds ISIS, that the mainstream can re-examine these reports.

    Turkish special forces operatives have been stationed outside Mosul for months now without Iraq's approval. Turkey's prime minister was brazen in telling Iraqi's leadership to "know your place" when asked to pull troops out. American officials, who also train Syrian rebels in Turkey–the majority of which are linked to jihadist groups–approve of the forces in northern Iraq. All of these operations, from rebel training to Turkish troop deployments, have coincided with a brutal government crackdown on Turkish media .

    Clinton was emailing her campaign chairman in 2014, advocated for pressure on Saudi Arabia because they "are providing clandestine financial and logistical support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region." Saudi government officials, Daily Caller reports , has donated over $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Regardless of How America Votes, Americans Want a Different Foreign Policy by Ron Paul

    Notable quotes:
    "... We know those in Washington with a vested interest in maintaining a US empire overseas will fight to the end to keep the financial gravy train flowing. The neocons and the liberal interventionists will continue to preach that we must run the world or everything will fall to ruin. But this election and many recent polls demonstrate that their time has passed. They may not know it yet, but their failures are too obvious and Americans are sick of paying for them. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | original.antiwar.com

    Regardless of How America Votes, Americans Want a Different Foreign Policy

    , Print This | Share This I have said throughout this presidential campaign that it doesn't matter much which candidate wins. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are authoritarians and neither can be expected to roll back the leviathan state that destroys our civil liberties at home while destroying our economy and security with endless wars overseas. Candidates do not matter all that much, despite what the media would have us believe. Ideas do matter, however. And regardless of which of these candidates is elected, the battle of ideas now becomes critical.

    The day after the election is our time to really focus our efforts on making the case for a peaceful foreign policy and the prosperity it will bring. While we may not have much to cheer in Tuesday's successful candidate, we have learned a good deal about the state of the nation from the campaigns. From the surprising success of the insurgent Bernie Sanders to a Donald Trump campaign that broke all the mainstream Republican Party rules – and may have broken the Republican Party itself – what we now understand more clearly than ever is that the American people are fed up with politics as usual. And more importantly they are fed up with the same tired old policies.

    Last month a fascinating poll was conducted by the Center for the National Interest and the Charles Koch Institute. A broad ranging 1,000 Americans were asked a series of questions about US foreign policy and the 15 year "war on terror." You might think that after a decade and a half, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives lost, Americans might take a more positive view of this massive effort to "rid the world of evildoers," as then-president George W. Bush promised. But the poll found that only 14 percent of Americans believe US foreign policy has made them more safe! More than 50 percent of those polled said the next US president should use less force overseas, and 80 percent said the president must get authorization from Congress before taking the country to war.

    These results should make us very optimistic about our movement, as it shows that we are rapidly approaching the "critical mass" where new ideas will triumph over the armies of the status quo.

    We know those in Washington with a vested interest in maintaining a US empire overseas will fight to the end to keep the financial gravy train flowing. The neocons and the liberal interventionists will continue to preach that we must run the world or everything will fall to ruin. But this election and many recent polls demonstrate that their time has passed. They may not know it yet, but their failures are too obvious and Americans are sick of paying for them.

    What is to be done? We must continue to educate ourselves and others. We must resist those who are preaching "interventionism-lite" and calling it a real alternative. Claiming we must protect our "interests" overseas really means using the US military to benefit special interests. That is not what the military is for. We must stick to our noninterventionist guns. No more regime change. No more covert destabilization programs overseas. A solid defense budget, not an imperial military budget. US troops home now. End US military action in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and so on. Just come home.

    Americans want change, no matter who wins. We need to be ready to provide that alternative.

    Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity .

    [Nov 08, 2016] Clintons Foreign Policy Will Obviously Be More Aggressive, So Why Pretend Otherwise

    Nov 08, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    By Daniel Larison James Traub gamely tries to convince us (and himself) that Clinton's foreign policy won't be as aggressive and meddlesome as she says it will be, but he undermines his argument when he says this:

    As a senator and later secretary of state, she rarely departed from the counsel of senior military officials. She was far more persuaded of the merits of Gen. David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal's counterinsurgency plan for Afghanistan, which would have sent an additional 40,000 troops there, than Obama was and maybe even more than then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates was. She rarely departed from Gates on any significant issue. Of course, the one time she did so was on Libya, where she advocated intervention and he did not [bold mine-DL]. On Syria, Clinton may have to choose between her own expressed commitments and a Pentagon that is far more cautious and more inclined to see mishap than are civilian interventionists. I wonder how Kagan-esque she will be in the White House. Less so, perhaps, than she was as secretary of state.

    In other words, when military officers recommended a larger escalation, she agreed with them, and when Gates didn't support intervention she didn't agree. Clinton was fine with advice from the military when it meant supporting deeper involvement, but she broke with Gates when he didn't want to take sides in a foreign war. That isn't a picture of someone who consistently heeds military advice, but rather someone who always opts for the more aggressive option available at the time. It doesn't make much sense that Clinton as president would be less "Kagan-esque" than she was as a member of Obama's Cabinet. As president, she will have considerable leeway to do as she sees fit, Congress will be pathetically quiescent as usual, and most of the foreign policy establishment will be encouraging her to do more in Syria and elsewhere. Clinton will be predisposed to agree with what they urge her to do, and in the last twenty years she has never seen a military intervention that she thought was unnecessary or too risky. Why is that suddenly going to change when she has the power of the presidency? In virtually every modern case, a new president ends up behaving more hawkishly than expected based on campaign rhetoric. All of the pressures and incentives in Washington push a president towards do-somethingism, and Clinton has typically been among the least resistant to the demand to "do something" in response to crises and conflicts, so why would we think she would become more cautious once she is in office? I can understand why many of her supporters wish that to be the case, but it flies in the face of all the available evidence, including most of what we know about how Washington works.

    Traub makes a number of predictions at the end of his article:

    She will not make dumb mistakes. She will reassure every ally who needs reassurance. She will try to mute China's adventurism in the South China Sea without provoking a storm of nationalism. She'll probably disappoint the neocons. She won't go out on any limbs. She won't shake the policymaking consensus.

    I don't know where this confidence in Clinton's good judgment comes from, but it seems misplaced. I suppose it depends on what you think smart foreign policy looks like, but there is a fair amount of evidence from Clinton's own record that she is quite capable of making dumb mistakes.

    That doesn't just apply to her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq and her backing for intervention in Libya, but could also refer to her support for sending weapons to Ukraine, her endorsement of "no-fly" and safe zones in Syria, her preference for more sanctions on Iran while negotiations were still taking place, and her belief that the U.S. has to bomb another country to retain its "credibility." All of these are mistakes, and some are quite dumb.

    It isn't at all reassuring to know that Clinton will "reassure every ally who needs reassurance," because in practice that means indulging bad behavior from reckless clients and rewarding them with more aid and weapons. Earlier in the article, Traub seems to understand that enabling the Saudis is a bad idea:

    This last policy, which for Clinton will come under the heading of "alliance management," would only deepen the violence and sectarian strife rending the region. She would be better advised to tell the Saudis that the United States will reduce its support of their war effort unless they make serious efforts toward a lasting cease-fire.

    That would certainly be wiser than offering uncritical backing of their intervention, but what is the evidence that Clinton thinks U.S. support for the war on Yemen needs to be curtailed? Yemen has been devastated in no small part because of Obama's willingness to "reassure" the Saudis and their allies. What other countries will be made to suffer so Clinton can keep them happy? Clinton may disappoint neocons, but then they are disappointed by anything short of preventive war. Even if Clinton's foreign policy isn't aggressive enough to satisfy them, it is likely to be far more aggressive than necessary.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Which way Utah falls

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think Mormons are ticked over Romney losing in 2012 and blame Evangelicals ask when there was fear Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Romney did as well as a non Mormon robber baron would have done in 2012. Trump trashing Romney annoyed Mormons who probably aren't going to get another shot at the Oval Office any time soon. ..."
    "... the Romney, Will, Kristol, McCain, Graham, Paulson, Blankfein NEVER TRUMP brigades are up to their sleazy behinds in the Clinton Foundation FRAUD. ..."
    "... The Foundation is under very very strict rules but has ignored all of them, putting all their contributors at risk. If Trump wins – a grand jury will have all the necessary ammunition to bring down a whole lot of people, here and abroad. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Vatch November 7, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    Shouldn't Utah be considered a swing state in 2016? Some Mormons are unhappy with aspects of Trump's behavior, and wild card McMullin is a member of the LDS church.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef November 7, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    Can't be worse than Bill's behavior. Plus Trump doesn't drink.

    Vatch November 7, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    Nate Silver's site gives Trump an overwhelming advantage in Utah, but I still think that surprises are possible. See this article (which admittedly also shows a significant polling advantage for Trump):

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/11/evan-mcmullin-utah-donald-trump-161105032535083.html

    An Emerson College poll released on November 3 shows him at 28 percent to Trump's 40 percent and Clinton's 20 percent.

    Jason Perry, the director of Utah's bipartisan Hinckley Institute, says there is a large percentage of voters who do not even know who McMullin is, "but they know who he is not. He's not Trump, and he's not Hillary".

    With 67 percent of Utah voters viewing Trump unfavourably according to a Monmouth University poll, voting for the Republican candidate does not appear to sit well with Utah's value-minded voters.

    Becky Rasmussen, 37, of Highland City, is one such voter who could not see herself voting for Trump, in part because of her Mormon faith.

    While she also sees Clinton as unfit for the presidency, Trump, she says, is "completely morally bankrupt …You see framed in his office him on the cover of Playboy Magazine".

    But Porter Goodman, 28, from Provo – who believes that voting for McMullin "is the only way to not throw away your vote" – says it is not his Mormon beliefs that cause him to view Trump as having a "lack of morality".

    "I say he lacks morality because he lies and because he abuses other people with his words and actions," Goodman says. "Savour the magnificent irony of Trump supporters who say, 'Yeah, Trump may be a pathological liar, but set that aside and focus on the great things he says he'll do as president."

    NotTimothyGeithner November 7, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    I think Mormons are ticked over Romney losing in 2012 and blame Evangelicals ask when there was fear Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Romney did as well as a non Mormon robber baron would have done in 2012. Trump trashing Romney annoyed Mormons who probably aren't going to get another shot at the Oval Office any time soon.

    Nate doesn't do a why or how of trends and just focuses on raw numbers based on previous polls. It's why he never landed a baseball job when other Stat geeks did. If there was an usual trend in Utah, Nate would miss it.

    The key issue is are Mormons "Republicans" or "conservative" when they describe themselves. If their identity is "conservative," I could see them not voting for Trump. If being a "Republican" matters, they will vote. They voted for McCain, and the fundies hated that guy.

    GMoore November 7, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    the Romney, Will, Kristol, McCain, Graham, Paulson, Blankfein NEVER TRUMP brigades are up to their sleazy behinds in the Clinton Foundation FRAUD.

    The Foundation is under very very strict rules but has ignored all of them, putting all their contributors at risk. If Trump wins – a grand jury will have all the necessary ammunition to bring down a whole lot of people, here and abroad.

    It's the great untold story of this election. IT's also the spit and glue that holds the Clinton coalition of media, government, Wall St, Dems and Goper royalty together in this fight to the death to keep a "friendly" administration in DC. This is kill or be killed time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiFQkCSEUGE

    [Nov 08, 2016] Oh, What a Lovely War! Delusional foreign policy could bring disaster

    Notable quotes:
    "... The American people don't know very much about war even if Washington has been fighting on multiple fronts since 9/11. The continental United States has not experienced the presence a hostile military force for more than 100 years and war for the current generation of Americans consists largely of the insights provided by video games and movies. The Pentagon's invention of embedded journalists, which limits any independent media insight into what is going on overseas, has contributed to the rendering of war as some kind of abstraction. Gone forever is anything like the press coverage of Vietnam, with nightly news and other media presentations showing prisoners being executed and young girls screaming while racing down the street in flames. ..."
    "... Given all of that, it is perhaps no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither of whom has served in uniform, should regard violence inflicted on people overseas with a considerable level of detachment. ..."
    "... They both share to an extent the dominant New York-Washington policy consensus view that dealing with foreigners can sometimes get a bit bloody, but that is a price that someone in power has to be prepared to pay. One of Hillary's top advisers, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. led sanctions were "worth it." ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton and her advisors, who believe strongly in Washington's leadership role globally and embrace their own definition of American exceptionalism, have been explicit in terms of what they would do to employ our military power. ..."
    "... She would be an extremely proactive president in foreign policy, with a particular animus directed against Russia. ..."
    "... Hillary has received support from foreign policy hawks, including a large number of formerly Republican neocons, to include Robert Kagan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman. James Stavridis, a retired admiral who was once vetted by Clinton as a possible vice president, recently warned of "the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. ..."
    "... Hillary believes that Syria's president Bashar al-Assad is the root cause of the turmoil in that country and must be removed as the first priority. . It is a foolish policy as al-Assad in no way threatens the United States while his enemy ISIS does and regime change would create a power vacuum that will benefit the latter. ..."
    "... Hillary has not recommended doing anything about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of which have at one time or another for various reasons supported ISIS, but she is clearly no friend of Iran, which has been fighting ISIS. ..."
    "... One of Hillary's advisors, former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, has called for new sanctions on Tehran and has also recently recommended that the U.S. begin intercepting Iranian ships presumed to be carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. ..."
    "... Hillary's dislike for Russia's Vladimir Putin is notorious. Syria aside, she has advocated arming Ukraine with game changing offensive weapons and also bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which would force a sharp Russian reaction. One suspects that she might be sympathetic to the views expressed recently by Carl Gershman in a Washington Post op-ed that received curiously little additional coverage in the media. Gershman is the head of the taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which means that he is a powerful figure in Washington's foreign-policy establishment. NED has plausibly been described as doing the sorts of things that the CIA used to do. ..."
    "... She would increase U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to deter any further attempts by Beijing to develop disputed islands and would also "ring China with defensive missiles," ostensibly as "protection" against Pyongyang but also to convince China to pressure North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One wonders what Beijing might think about being surrounded by made-in-America missiles. ..."
    Nov 08, 2016 | www.unz.com

    The American people don't know very much about war even if Washington has been fighting on multiple fronts since 9/11. The continental United States has not experienced the presence a hostile military force for more than 100 years and war for the current generation of Americans consists largely of the insights provided by video games and movies. The Pentagon's invention of embedded journalists, which limits any independent media insight into what is going on overseas, has contributed to the rendering of war as some kind of abstraction. Gone forever is anything like the press coverage of Vietnam, with nightly news and other media presentations showing prisoners being executed and young girls screaming while racing down the street in flames.

    Given all of that, it is perhaps no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither of whom has served in uniform, should regard violence inflicted on people overseas with a considerable level of detachment. Hillary is notorious for her assessment of the brutal killing of Libya's Moammar Gaddafi, saying "We came, we saw, he died." They both share to an extent the dominant New York-Washington policy consensus view that dealing with foreigners can sometimes get a bit bloody, but that is a price that someone in power has to be prepared to pay. One of Hillary's top advisers, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. led sanctions were "worth it."

    In the election campaign there has, in fact, been little discussion of the issue of war and peace or even of America's place in the world, though Trump did at one point note correctly that implementation of Hillary's suggested foreign policy could escalate into World War III. It has been my contention that the issue of war should be more front and center in the minds of Americans when they cast their ballots as the prospect of an armed conflict in which little is actually at stake escalating and going nuclear could conceivably end life on this planet as we know it.

    With that in mind, it is useful to consider what the two candidates have been promising. First, Hillary, who might reasonably be designated the Establishment's war candidate though she carefully wraps it in humanitarian "liberal interventionism." As Senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has always viewed a foreign crisis as an opportunity to use aggressive measures to seek a resolution. She can always be relied upon to "do something," a reflection of the neocon driven Washington foreign policy consensus.

    Hillary Clinton and her advisors, who believe strongly in Washington's leadership role globally and embrace their own definition of American exceptionalism, have been explicit in terms of what they would do to employ our military power.

    She would be an extremely proactive president in foreign policy, with a particular animus directed against Russia. And, unfortunately, there would be little or no pushback against the exercise of her admittedly poor instincts regarding what to do, as was demonstrated regarding Libya and also with Benghazi. She would find little opposition in Congress and the media for an extremely risky foreign policy, and would benefit from the Washington groupthink that prevails over the alleged threats emanating from Russia, Iran, and China.

    Hillary has received support from foreign policy hawks, including a large number of formerly Republican neocons, to include Robert Kagan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman. James Stavridis, a retired admiral who was once vetted by Clinton as a possible vice president, recently warned of "the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. I think it's coming. It's going to be maritime confrontation and if it doesn't happen immediately, I'll bet you a dollar it's going to be happening after the presidential election, whoever is elected."

    Hillary believes that Syria's president Bashar al-Assad is the root cause of the turmoil in that country and must be removed as the first priority. . It is a foolish policy as al-Assad in no way threatens the United States while his enemy ISIS does and regime change would create a power vacuum that will benefit the latter. She has also called for a no-fly zone in Syria to protect the local population as well as the insurgent groups that the U.S. supports, some of which had been labeled as terrorists before they were renamed by current Secretary of State John Kerry. Such a zone would dramatically raise the prospect of armed conflict with Russia and it puts Washington in an odd position vis-ŕ-vis what is occurring in Syria. The U.S. is not at war with the Syrian government, which, like it or not, is under international law sovereign within its own recognized borders. Damascus has invited the Russians in to help against the rebels and objects to any other foreign presence on Syrian territory. In spite of all that, Washington is asserting some kind of authority to intervene and to confront the Russians as both a humanitarian mission and as an "inherent right of self-defense."

    Hillary has not recommended doing anything about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of which have at one time or another for various reasons supported ISIS, but she is clearly no friend of Iran, which has been fighting ISIS. As a Senator, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran but she has more recently reluctantly supported the recent nuclear agreement with that country negotiated by President Barack Obama. But she has nevertheless warned that she will monitor the situation closely for possible violations and will otherwise pushback against activity by the Islamic Republic. As one of her key financial supporters is Israeli Haim Saban, who has said he is a one issue guy and that issue is Israel, she is likely to pursue aggressive policies in the Persian Gulf. She has also promised to move America's relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a "new level" and has repeatedly declared that her support for Israel is unconditional.

    One of Hillary's advisors, former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, has called for new sanctions on Tehran and has also recently recommended that the U.S. begin intercepting Iranian ships presumed to be carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. Washington is not at war with either Iran or Yemen and the Houthis are not on the State Department terrorist list but our good friends the Saudis have been assiduously bombing them for reasons that seem obscure. Stopping ships in international waters without any legal pretext would be considered by many an act of piracy. Morell has also called for covertly assassinating Iranians and Russians to express our displeasure with the foreign policies of their respective governments.

    Hillary's dislike for Russia's Vladimir Putin is notorious. Syria aside, she has advocated arming Ukraine with game changing offensive weapons and also bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which would force a sharp Russian reaction. One suspects that she might be sympathetic to the views expressed recently by Carl Gershman in a Washington Post op-ed that received curiously little additional coverage in the media. Gershman is the head of the taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which means that he is a powerful figure in Washington's foreign-policy establishment. NED has plausibly been described as doing the sorts of things that the CIA used to do.

    After making a number of bumper-sticker claims about Russia and Putin that are either partially true, unproven or even ridiculous, Gershman concluded that "the United States has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so." It is basically a call for the next administration to remove Putin from power-as foolish a suggestion as has ever been seen in a leading newspaper, as it implies that the risk of nuclear war is completely acceptable to bring about regime change in a country whose very popular, democratically elected leadership we disapprove of. But it is nevertheless symptomatic of the kind of thinking that goes on inside the beltway and is quite possibly a position that Hillary Clinton will embrace. She also benefits from having the perfect implementer of such a policy in Robert Kagan's wife Victoria Nuland, her extremely dangerous protégé who is currently Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and who might wind up as Secretary of State in a Clinton Administration.

    Shifting to East Asia, Hillary sees the admittedly genuine threat from North Korea but her response is focused more on China. She would increase U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to deter any further attempts by Beijing to develop disputed islands and would also "ring China with defensive missiles," ostensibly as "protection" against Pyongyang but also to convince China to pressure North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One wonders what Beijing might think about being surrounded by made-in-America missiles.

    Trump's foreign policy is admittedly quite sketchy and he has not always been consistent. He has been appropriately enough slammed for being simple minded in saying that he would "bomb the crap out of ISIS," but he has also taken on the Republican establishment by specifically condemning the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq and has more than once indicated that he is not interested in either being the world's policeman or in new wars in the Middle East. He has repeatedly stated that he supports NATO but it should not be construed as hostile to Russia. He would work with Putin to address concerns over Syria and Eastern Europe. He would demand that NATO countries spend more for their own defense and also help pay for the maintenance of U.S. bases.

    Trump's controversial call to stop all Muslim immigration has been rightly condemned but it contains a kernel of truth in that the current process for vetting new arrivals in this country is far from transparent and apparently not very effective. The Obama Administration has not been very forthcoming on what might be done to fix the entire immigration process but Trump is promising to shake things up, which is overdue, though what exactly a Trump Administration would try to accomplish is far from clear.

    Continuing on the negative side, Trump, who is largely ignorant of the world and its leaders, has relied on a mixed bag of advisors. Former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency General Michael Flynn appears to be the most prominent. Flynn is associated with arch neocon Michael Ledeen and both are rabid about Iran, with Flynn suggesting that nearly all the unrest in the Middle East should be laid at Tehran's door. Ledeen is, of course, a prominent Israel-firster who has long had Iran in his sights. The advice of Ledeen and Flynn may have been instrumental in Trump's vehement denunciation of the Iran nuclear agreement, which he has called a "disgrace," which he has said he would "tear up." It is vintage dumb-think. The agreement cannot be canceled because there are five other signatories to it and the denial of a nuclear weapons program to Tehran benefits everyone in the region, including Israel. It is far better to have the agreement than to scrap it, if that were even possible.

    Trump has said that he would be an even-handed negotiator between Israel and the Palestinians but he has also declared that he is strongly pro-Israel and would move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, which is a bad idea, not in America's interest, even if Netanyahu would like it. It would produce serious blowback from the Arab world and would inspire a new wave of terrorism directed against the U.S.

    Regarding the rest of the Middle East, Trump would prefer strong leaders, i.e. autocrats, who are friendly rather than chaotic reformers. He rejects arming rebels as in Syria because we know little about whom we are dealing with and find that we cannot control what develops. He is against foreign aid in principle, particularly to countries like Pakistan where the U.S. is strongly disliked.

    In East Asia, Trump would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals to deter North Korea. It is a very bad idea, a proliferation nightmare. Like Hillary, he would prefer that China intervene in North Korea and make Kim Jong Un "step down." He would put pressure on China to devalue its currency because it is "bilking us of billions of dollars" and would also increase U.S. military presence in the region to limit Beijing's expansion in the South China Sea.

    So there you have it as you enter the voting booth. President Obama is going around warning that "the fate of the world is teetering" over the electoral verdict, which he intends to be a ringing endorsement of Hillary even though the choice is not nearly that clear cut. Part of the problem with Trump is that he has some very bad ideas mixed in with a few good ones and no one knows what he would actually do if he were president. Unfortunately, it is all too clear what Hillary would do.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Last Stand for ISIS by Eric Margolis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Islamic State(IS), the defender of Mosul, is a paper tiger, blown out of all proportion by western media. IS is, as this writer has been saying for years, an armed mob made up of 20-something malcontents, religious fanatics, and modern-day anarchists. At its top is a cadre of former Iraqi Army officers with military experience. ..."
    "... These former officers of Saddam Hussain are bent on revenge for the US destruction of their nation and the lynching of its late leader. But IS rank and file has no military training, little discipline, degraded communications, and ragged logistics. ..."
    "... In fact, today's Islamic State is what the Ottoman Empire used to term, 'bashi-bazouks," a collection of irregular cut-throats and scum of the gutter sent to punish and terrorize enemies by means of torture, rapine, looting and arson. ..."
    "... Western and Kudish auxiliary forces have been sitting 1.5 hours drive from Mosul and the IS town of Raqqa for over a year. Instead, western – mainly US – warplanes have been gingerly bombing around these targets in what may be an effort to convince breakaway ISIS to rejoin US-led forces fight the Damascus regime. ..."
    "... Note that ISIS does not appear to have ever attacked Israel though it is playing an important role in the destruction of Syria. Some reports say Israel is providing logistic and medical support for IS. ..."
    "... The siege of Mosul is being played up by western media as a heroic second Stalingrad. Don't be fooled. IS has only 3-5,000 lightly armed fighters in Mosul and Raqqa, maybe even less. The leaders of IS are likely long gone. IS has few heavy weapons, no air cover at all, and poor communications. Its rag-tag fighters will run out of ammunitions and explosives very quickly. ..."
    "... Encircling Mosul are at least 50,000 western-led soldiers, backed by heavy artillery, rocket batteries, tanks, armored vehicles and awesome air power ..."
    "... The western imperial forces are composed of tough Kurdish pasha merga fighters, Iraqi army and special forces, some Syrian Kurds, Iranian 'volunteers' irregular forces and at least 5,000 US combat troops called "advisors", plus small numbers of French, Canadian and British special forces. Hovering in the background are some thousands of Turkish troops, supported by armor and artillery ready to 'liberate' Iraq – which was once part of the Ottoman Empire. ..."
    www.unz.com
    Reprinted from EricMargolis.com

    As a former soldier and war correspondent who has covered 14 conflicts, I look at all the media hoopla over tightening siege of Mosul, Iraq and shake my head. This western-organized "liberation" of Mosul is one of the bigger pieces of political-military theater that I've seen.

    Islamic State(IS), the defender of Mosul, is a paper tiger, blown out of all proportion by western media. IS is, as this writer has been saying for years, an armed mob made up of 20-something malcontents, religious fanatics, and modern-day anarchists. At its top is a cadre of former Iraqi Army officers with military experience.

    These former officers of Saddam Hussain are bent on revenge for the US destruction of their nation and the lynching of its late leader. But IS rank and file has no military training, little discipline, degraded communications, and ragged logistics.

    In fact, today's Islamic State is what the Ottoman Empire used to term, 'bashi-bazouks," a collection of irregular cut-throats and scum of the gutter sent to punish and terrorize enemies by means of torture, rapine, looting and arson.

    What has amazed me about the faux western war against ISIS is its leisurely nature, lack of élan, and hesitancy. In my view, ISIS was mostly created by the US and its allies as a weapon to be used against Syria's government – just as the Afghan mujahadin were used by the US and the Saudis to overthrow the Soviet-backed Afghan government. Israel tried the same tactics by helping create Hamas in Palestine and Hezbullah in Lebanon. Both were cultivated to split the PLO.

    ISIS is an ad hoc movement that wants to punish the West and the Saudis for the gross carnage they have inflicted on the Arab world.

    Western and Kudish auxiliary forces have been sitting 1.5 hours drive from Mosul and the IS town of Raqqa for over a year. Instead, western – mainly US – warplanes have been gingerly bombing around these targets in what may be an effort to convince breakaway ISIS to rejoin US-led forces fight the Damascus regime.

    Note that ISIS does not appear to have ever attacked Israel though it is playing an important role in the destruction of Syria. Some reports say Israel is providing logistic and medical support for IS.

    The siege of Mosul is being played up by western media as a heroic second Stalingrad. Don't be fooled. IS has only 3-5,000 lightly armed fighters in Mosul and Raqqa, maybe even less. The leaders of IS are likely long gone. IS has few heavy weapons, no air cover at all, and poor communications. Its rag-tag fighters will run out of ammunitions and explosives very quickly.

    Encircling Mosul are at least 50,000 western-led soldiers, backed by heavy artillery, rocket batteries, tanks, armored vehicles and awesome air power

    The western imperial forces are composed of tough Kurdish pasha merga fighters, Iraqi army and special forces, some Syrian Kurds, Iranian 'volunteers' irregular forces and at least 5,000 US combat troops called "advisors", plus small numbers of French, Canadian and British special forces. Hovering in the background are some thousands of Turkish troops, supported by armor and artillery ready to 'liberate' Iraq – which was once part of the Ottoman Empire.

    For the US, current military operations in Syria and Iraq are the realization of an imperialist's fondest dream: native troops led by white officers, the model of the old British Indian Raj. Washington arms, trained, equips and financed all its native auxiliaries.

    The IS is caught in a dangerous dilemma. To be a political movement, it was delighted to control Iraq's second largest city. But as a guerilla force, it should not have holed up in an urban area where it was highly vulnerable to concentrated air attack and being surrounded. This is what's happening right now.

    In the mostly flat Fertile Crescent with too few trees, ground forces are totally vulnerable to air power, as the recent 1967, 1973 Israel-Arab wars and 2003 Iraq wars have shown. Dispersion and guerilla tactics are the only hope for those that lack air cover.

    IS forces would best advised to disperse across the region and continue their hit-and-run attacks. Otherwise, they risk being destroyed. But being mostly bloody-minded young fanatics, IS may not heed military logic and precedent in favor of making a last stand in the ruins of Mosul and Raqqa

    When this happens, western leaders will compete to claim authorship of the faux crusade against the paper tiger of ISIS.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Trump 'I Do Think a Lot of the Polls Are Purposefully Wrong' - Breitbart

    Nov 08, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    Tuesday on Fox News Channel, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump offered his thoughts on how the campaign proceeded as Election Day has finally come.

    SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

    One of his criticisms was how the polls had been handled, which he called in some cases "phony" and "purposefully wrong."

    Partial transcript as follows:

    DOOCY: A couple of weeks ago you know it was revealed that part of Hillary Clinton's game plan was to try, you know, to talk up the polls and make it seem like the show's over, no way you can win. Then of course the polls for the most part right now are too close to call. Ultimately though do you think the polls that we've seen over the last week or two, going back, are wrong because the pollsters are not factoring in how many Democrats are going to be voting for you?

    You know all this early voting stuff, they say well this many Democrats requested ballots, this many Republicans. And also just the gigantic number of Republicans who have turned out to see you, the enthusiasm level. Do you think those things the pollsters are getting wrong?

    TRUMP: I do think a lot of the polls are purposefully wrong. I think I can almost tell you by the people that do it. The media is very dishonest, extremely dishonest. And I think a lot of the polls are phony. I don't even think they interview people.

    DOOCY: Right.

    TRUMP: I think they just put out phony numbers. I do think this, after the debates, I think my numbers really started to go up well. And then I did a series over the last two weeks, only of you know, really important speeches I think. 20,000, 25,000 people, 31,000 people were showing up to these speeches.

    You saw yesterday, you saw the kind of crowds we're getting. I said something's happening here. Something incredible is happening here. And tell you the enthusiasm and the love in those rooms, in those arenas, they're really arenas, I mean in New Hampshire last night it was a tremendous arena, beautiful arena. And same thing, we had a big convention center last night in Michigan. But they're packed. I mean we have thousands of people.

    DOOCY: Right.

    TRUMP: We had last night in Michigan we had 10,000 people outside that couldn't get in.

    DOOCY: Wow.

    EARHARDT: Wow.

    TRUMP: 10,000 people. It's been amazing. So I said something's happening. Something's really going on.

    [Nov 08, 2016] Does Society "Decide" to Engage in War?

    Nov 08, 2016 | comehomeamerica.wordpress.com
    Posted on March 7, 2016 by comehomeamerica by Joe Scarry I think if you asked most people, they would say that (a) war is deeply ingrained in society; and (b) society over and over again decides to engage in war.

    There is a growing discourse around point (a): people are starting to unpack the idea that "war is deeply ingrained in society," and growing in understanding that this is not the same as saying "war is part of human nature."

    I worry that there is less insight around point (b). At least in the United States, I think people continue to believe that war is a societal choice. I think this is not true.

    In theory our Constitution is all about the people - through Congress - maintaining control over the decision to go to war. As it stands now, as a practical matter, that's not really what's happening.

    I invite people to study the graph of historical US military spending below. It shows that there was a time when military spending went up when the US began to engage in a specific war, and then went back down after that war. Later, that pattern changed.

    US Defense Spending - FY 1800 to FY 2010
    (More at usgovernmentspending.com )

    It is very interesting to consider why this change occurred. (Perhaps that's a topic for a later blog post or two.)

    But I think the more fundamental point is:

    Does Society "Decide" to Engage in War?

    Posted on March 7, 2016 by comehomeamerica by Joe Scarry I think if you asked most people, they would say that (a) war is deeply ingrained in society; and (b) society over and over again decides to engage in war.

    There is a growing discourse around point (a): people are starting to unpack the idea that "war is deeply ingrained in society," and growing in understanding that this is not the same as saying "war is part of human nature."

    I worry that there is less insight around point (b). At least in the United States, I think people continue to believe that war is a societal choice. I think this is not true.

    In theory our Constitution is all about the people - through Congress - maintaining control over the decision to go to war. As it stands now, as a practical matter, that's not really what's happening.

    I invite people to study the graph of historical US military spending below. It shows that there was a time when military spending went up when the US began to engage in a specific war, and then went back down after that war. Later, that pattern changed.

    US Defense Spending - FY 1800 to FY 2010
    (More at usgovernmentspending.com )

    It is very interesting to consider why this change occurred. (Perhaps that's a topic for a later blog post or two.)

    But I think the more fundamental point is: at some point US society stopped being the "decider" about war. The US began to engage in war, and more war, and more war . . . but US society was no longer really making that decision in any real way.

    (Think about US military action during your lifetime. In what ways, if any, did society at large determine what happened?)

    If we confront this reality, what might this cause us to do differently?

    (Think about US military action during your lifetime. In what ways, if any, did society at large determine what happened?)

    If we confront this reality, what might this cause us to do differently?

    [Nov 07, 2016] Election Fraud in America A Comparative Analysis

    Nov 07, 2016 | www.globalresearch.ca
    Election Fraud in America: A Comparative Analysis

    Comparing Mythologies US, Ukraine, Venezuela

    By Prof Michael Keefer Global Research, November 07, 2016 Global Research 30 November 2004 Region: Latin America & Caribbean , USA

    vote twice

    This important article was first published by Global Research in November 2004 in relation to the 2004 presidential race.

    A 'president' who takes office through fraud and usurpation can make no legitimate claim to exercise the stolen power of his office.

    Imagine the sensation that would have ensued if a United States Senator had declared, less than three weeks after the 2004 U.S. presidential election, that "It is now apparent that a concerted and forceful program of election-day fraud and abuse was enacted with either the leadership or co-operation of governmental authorities." The story would have made banner headlines around the world.

    As a matter of fact, on November 22, 2004, BBC News attributed these very words to Republican Senator Richard Lugar. However, Lugar was speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee-and he was referring, not to the U.S. presidential election of November 2, but to the Ukrainian presidential election of November 21, 2004.

    The primary evidence for Lugar's charge of electoral fraud is a striking divergence between exit poll data and official vote tallies. As it happens, wide divergences of just this kind have also been a feature of two other important recent elections: the Venezuelan recall referendum over President Chávez's mandate held on August 15, as well as the U.S. presidential election of November 2. In all three cases there is substantial evidence of fraud-though the dishonesty appears to be very differently distributed. In brief: the Venezuelan election was clean and the exit poll flagrantly dishonest; the Ukrainian vote tallies and exit polling seem both to have been in various ways corrupted; the American election, despite the Bush Republicans' pose as international arbiters of integrity, was manifestly stolen, while the U.S. exit polling was professionally conducted (and though it was subsequently tampered with, accurate results had in the mean time been made public).

    Hugo Chávez's landslide victory in August was a surprise only to the hostile U.S. corporate press, which had represented the Venezuelan election campaign as a dead heat: the last opinion poll prior to the referendum in fact showed Chávez leading by a wide margin, with 50 percent of registered voters to the opposition's 38 percent. In the official tally, Chávez won 58.26 percent of the votes, while 41.74 percent were cast against him. International observers, including the Organization of American States and the Carter Center, declared that the election had been fair: in ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter's words, "any allegations of fraud are completely unwarranted" (see Rosnick).

    But on election day the leading New York polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland disgraced itself by releasing (before the polls closed, and hence in violation of Venezuelan law) a purportedly authoritative exit poll, with a claimed margin of error "under +/-1%," according to which Chávez had been defeated, gaining a mere 41 percent of the vote to the opposition's 59 percent. The exit polling, it emerged, had been conducted-though not in Chavista neighbourhoods, where the pollsters did not venture (Gindin [15 Aug. 2004])-by an opposition group named Súmate, which had been formed to agitate for a recall referendum, and whose leadership had been implicated in the 2002 anti-Chávez coup. Súmate appears to have been largely funded by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has been aptly described as "the CIA's 'civilian arm'" (Chossudovsky [28 Nov. 2004]), and by the CIA itself (see "Súmate"); in the period leading up to the election, Venezuelan opposition groups like Súmate received altogether more than $20 million from the U.S., including over $3 million funneled through the NED (see www.venezuelafoia ). As had been understood prior to the event (see Stinard [10 Aug. 2004]), fraudulent exit polling was part of a concerted U.S.-backed project of delegitimizing and destabilizing the government of a geopolitically important oil-producing nation. Had the election been less of a landslide, and had it not been conducted with what appears to have been scrupulous correctness, the plan might have succeeded.

    Ukraine is likewise recognized as a country of pivotal geopolitical importance (see Aslund [12 May 2004], Chin [26 Nov. 2004], and Oliker); it is a key element in the U.S.'s Silk Road Strategy for domination of central Asia (see Chossudovsky, War and Globalization , pp. 65-75). Here the election results were much closer, and have been more vigorously contested. Viktor Yanukovych, the candidate favoured by Ukraine's Russian neighbours, was declared the winner, with 49.4 percent of the vote to the Western-leaning Viktor Yushchenko's 46.7 percent. But Yushchenko and his party-supported by a growing chorus of Western commentators and governments-have cried foul.

    While the Ukrainian exit poll figures publicized in the Western media do support claims of electoral fraud, the exit polls themselves are not above suspicion. The most widely disseminated claim has been that an authoritative exit poll showed Yushchenko to have won the election with a 6 percent lead; Yanukovych's governing party would thus have stolen the election, fraudulently swinging the vote by 8.7 percent. According to better-informed reports, however, two distinct exit polls were conducted. One of these, organized by the right-wing U.S. think-tank Freedom House and the U.S. Democratic Party's National Democratic Institute (NDI), and carried out by the Kyiv Democratic Initiatives Foundation (see Vasovic), perhaps as part of a group calling itself the Exit Pollconsortium (see Kubiniec), found that Yushchenko won 54 percent of the vote to Yanukovych's 43 percent. (It may be this poll that is referred to by the University of British Columbia's Centre for Public Opinion and Democracy in its claim that "an exit poll conducted by independent research firms" showed Yushchenko to have won by 54 to 42 percent.) The other national exit poll, based on interviews rather than questionnaires, was conducted by Sotsis Company and the Social Monitoring Center, and gave Yushchenko 49.4 percent of the vote to Yanukovych's 45.9 percent.

    It is not my purpose to attempt an unraveling of the complexities of the Ukrainian election. The British Helsinki Human Rights Group has challenged the validity of the exit polls, claiming that in at least one city the exit pollsters were open Yushchenko supporters, and did not observe proper methodological protocols (see "Ukraine: 2nd Round"). While Western observers have reported major irregularities in the government's conduct of the election, Michel Chossudovsky and Ian Traynor have on the other hand adduced strong evidence of interventions in the Ukrainian electoral process by U.S. governmental and quasi-governmental agencies that resemble the same agencies' interventions in Serbia, Georgia, Belarus, and Venezuela. The voter turnout figures of 96 percent recorded in Yanukovych strongholds in eastern Ukraine are strongly indicative of fraud; so likewise may be "the 90% pro-Yushchenko results declared in western Ukraine," where the British Helsinki Group observed that Yushchenko's opposition party "exercised disproportionate control over the electoral process in many places." I would like merely to suggest that the interview-based exit poll which gave Yushchenko a 3.5 percent lead over Yanukovych-and hence indicated an irregular swing of 6.2 percent in the latter's favour-is more likely to have been properly conducted than the exit poll which was organized by Freedom House and the NDI, and which may well have been marked by Súmate-type improprieties.

    Let us turn to the American presidential election, where the same kind of data has encouraged similar suspicions-though thanks to the soothing ministrations of the U.S. corporate media, with nothing resembling the massive public outcry in Ukraine. George W. Bush was hailed the winner on November 2, with 51 percent of the vote to John Kerry's 48 percent. But there are good reasons to be skeptical of the official vote tallies. The last wave of national exit polls published on the evening of November 2-polls which appear to have been duly weighted to correct for sampling imbalances-showed Kerry, not Bush, leading by 51 to 48 percent (see 'Mystery Pollster'). A divergence of 6 percent between weighted exit polls and the official numbers is a strong indicator of electoral fraud.

    At the decisive point, moreover, the divergence between the exit poll results and the vote tally was wider still (see S. Freeman [21 Nov. 2004]). Prior to the election, political analysts identified Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania as the three key swing states: the candidate who carried these states, or a majority of them, would win the election.

    Bush won Florida, with 52.1 percent of the vote to Kerry's 47.1 percent. (This tally, by the way, diverges by 4.9 percent in Bush's favour from the state exit poll, which gave Bush a paper-thin 0.1 percent lead.) Kerry won Pennsylvania, with 50.8 percent of the vote to Bush's 48.6 percent. (Here again the vote tally differs in Bush's favour from the exit poll results-this time by 6.5 percent.)

    That left Ohio as the deciding state, the one on which the national election results depended. George W. Bush won Ohio, according to the official vote tally, with 51 percent of the vote to John Kerry's 48.5 percent. The divergence in this case between the vote tally and the exit poll, which showed Kerry as winning by 52.1 percent to Bush's 47.9 percent, is fully 6.7 percent.

    Is it possible that these three divergences in Bush's favour between exit polls and vote tallies could have occurred by chance? I wouldn't bet on it. Dr. Steven Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Organizational Dynamics has calculated that the odds against these statistical anomalies occurring by chance are 662,000 to 1 (S. Freeman [21 Nov. 2004]).

    Or are exit polls perhaps just not as reliable as people think? Dr. Freeman has an answer to this question as well. In the last three national elections in Germany, the differential between the exit polls and the vote tallies was, on average, 0.27 percent; and in the last three elections to the European Parliament, the differential in Germany was 0.44 percent (S. Freeman [21 Nov. 2004]). Professionally conducted exit polls are highly accurate-which is why they have been used (in some cases more honestly than in Venezuela and Ukraine) as a measure of electoral integrity in places where improprieties have been anticipated. The U.S. exit polls were conducted by Mitofsky International, a survey research company founded by Warren J. Mitofsky, who as the company's website proclaims "created the Exit Poll research model" and "has directed exit polls and quick counts since 1967 for almost 3,000 electoral contests. He has the distinction of conducting the first national presidential exit polls in the United States, Russia, Mexico and the Philippines. His record for accuracy is well known" (see "National Election Pool").

    The fact that Mitofsky International systematically altered the U.S. presidential exit poll data early on the morning of November 3, contaminating the exit poll figures by conflating them with the vote tally percentages, has quite rightly become a matter of controversy (see Keefer [5 Nov. 2004], and Olbermann, "Zogby Vs. Mitofsky"). But there seems no reason to doubt that the Mitofsky exit poll data made available by the CNN website on the evening of November 2 was professionally gathered.

    Mightn't one propose, as a last resort, that Bush's election-winning divergence of 6.7 percent between the Ohio exit poll results and the Ohio vote tally was, at any rate, somewhat less scandalous than the 13.7 percent swing Yanukovych's party was blamed for by the Freedom House-NDI exit poll? (Ignore, if you like, the lesser 6.2 percent swing indicated by the Sotsis and Social Monitoring exit poll-which, if accurate, shows the Freedom House-NDI poll to be skewed in Yushchenko's favour by fully 7.5 percent.) But if stealing elections is like knocking off banks, the fact that one practitioner can dynamite the vault of the central bank and get away with it, while his less fortunate compeer draws unwanted attention by blowing out all of the windows of the neighbourhood Savings-and-Loan, doesn't make the former any less a bank robber than the latter.

    The parallels between the Ukrainian and the U.S. presidential elections extend beyond the exit poll divergences. Ballot-box stuffers appear to have achieved a 96 percent turnout in parts of eastern Ukraine, with turnout figures in some areas exceeding 100 percent. There is evidence of similar indiscretions on the part of Bush's electoral fraud teams. Twenty-nine precincts in a single Ohio county reported more votes cast than there are registered voters-to a cumulative total of over 93,000 votes (see Rockwell). And in six Florida counties the total number of votes reported to have been cast exceeded by wide margins the total number of registered voters (see Newberry). Senator John McCain, manifesting the same stunning lack of irony as other Republican spokesmen, has weighed in on the issue: "IRI [the International Republican Institute] found that in a number of polling stations, the percentage of votes certified by the Central Election Commission exceeded 100% of total votes. This is simply disgraceful" (see "McCain"). McCain is of course referring to eastern Ukraine; when it comes to Florida or Ohio, he keeps his eyes wide shut.

    The question of advance indications of electoral fraud offers a final point of comparison. In the United States, as in Ukraine (where international observers described the polls and vote-counts in previous elections as deeply flawed), electoral fraud was widely anticipated prior to the 2004 presidential election. As the materials itemized in the first three sections of this Reading List make clear, the electronic voting technologies in use in the U.S. were widely denounced by electronic security experts months and even years in advance, as permitting, indeed facilitating, electoral fraud; there is clear evidence that the 2000 election and the 2002 mid-term elections were marked by large-scale fraud on the part of the Bush Republicans; and U.S. computer scientists and informed analysts warned insistently that fraud on an unprecedented scale was likely to occur in this year's election.

    How has it been possible for the massive ironies arising out of the similarities between the elections in the U.S. and Ukraine to pass unobserved in the corporate media? Have the media been simple-mindedly buttering their bread on both sides? If so, it is a habit that makes for messy eating. On November 20, an article in The Washington Post informed those who might question the U.S. election that "Exit Polls Can't Always Predict Winners, So Don't Expect Them To" (Morin). Two days later, The Washington Post carried breaking news of the early election results from Ukraine-and quoted a purported election-stealer who holds exactly the same opinion of exit polls: "'These polls don't work,' said Gennady Korzh, a spokesman for Yanukovych. 'We will win by 3 to 5 percent. And remember, if Americans believed exit polls, and not the actual count, John Kerry would be president'" (see Finn).

    Key Issues and Evidence of Electoral Fraud in the US

    Mainstream media assessments of the integrity of the 2004 U.S. presidential election have tended to focus on particular and local problems-computer errors or 'glitches' for the most part-that came to light on the day of the election or shortly afterwards. Naturally enough, the fact that these problems were noticed, and in some cases corrected, works if anything to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system.

    The stance of the mainstream media is inadequate in at least two respects. First, some of the 'problems' were not mere accidents, but open and flagrant violations of democratic principles. Prominent among these was the election-night 'lockdown' of the Warren County, Ohio administrative building, on wholly spurious grounds of a 'terrorist threat': as a result, the public, the press, and the local legal counsel for the Kerry-Edwards campaign were prevented from witnessing the vote count (see Solvig & Horn, and Olbermann [8 Nov. 2004]). This maneuver generated widespread outrage: Warren County's Republicans may perhaps have 'misoverestimated' the degree to which previous conveniently timed 'terror alerts' and Osama bin Laden's late-October Jack-in-the-Box act had tamed the electorate.

    But more importantly, while 'problems' and 'glitches' have commonly been covered by the corporate media as local issues, they can be recognized as belonging to a larger pattern. As James Paterson's compelling analysis of The Theft of the 2004 US Election makes clear, Republican intentions were evident well before the election. And as Joseph Cannon has remarked, "An individual problem can be dismissed as a glitch. But when error after error after error favors Bush and not a single 'accident' favors Kerry, we've left glitch-land."

    There is widespread evidence, which goes well beyond any mere accumulation of local problems, that "glitch-land" is indeed far behind us. The landscape to which the 2004 U.S. presidential election belongs includes the murky swamps of Tammany Hall-style election-fixing-and the still more sinister morasses of 'Jim Crow' as well.

    It has been reported that Republican-controlled counties in Ohio and elsewhere sought to reduce the African-American vote by deliberately curtailing the numbers of polling stations and voting machines in working-class precincts: large numbers of would-be voters were effectively disenfranchised by line-ups that were many hours long (see Fitrakis [7, 16, 22 Nov. 2004]). The Republican Party's purging of African Americans from voters' lists gained the 2000 election for George W. Bush (see Conyers [21 Aug. 2001]); as informed observers had anticipated (Palast [1 Nov. 2004], King & Palast), this shameful illegality was repeated in 2004 on a wider scale. Large-scale polling-station challenges were used to further slow the voting, and to turn the new provisional ballots into a mechanism for effectively disenfranchising minority voters. In the swing state of Ohio this year, it appears that fully 155,000 voters-most of them African-Americans-were obliged as a result of polling-station challenges to cast provisional ballots (see Palast [12 Nov. 2004], Solnit). Although it is becoming clear that the great majority of these citizens were legally entitled to vote (see Williams), the likelihood that their votes will be fairly counted, or that Ohio's Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell will permit them to be included in the official tally, remains slender. The effect of this Jim Crow mechanism appears to be compounded by racially-biased judgments of ballot spoilage. As Greg Palast reports, 54 percent of all ballots judged 'spoiled' in the 2000 election in Florida were cast by African-American voters, and similarly scandalous percentages are expected in key states this time round. Nor have African Americans been the sole victims of these tactics: it appears that in New Mexico, where Hispanics' ballots are five times more likely to be laid aside as 'spoiled' than those of white voters, 13,000 Hispanics were effectively disenfranchised by means of provisional ballots (Palast [12 Nov. 2004]). Bush won New Mexico by less than half that number of votes.

    But it is the co-presence of other forms of corruption, in addition to all these, that establishes the difference between an election dirtied by illegalities, and one that was not merely soiled and distorted by fraud but actually stolen. The evidence presented within the texts listed here suggests with gathering strength that the Karl Rovian maneuvers alluded to above were supplemented on November 2, 2004 by less conspicuous-and yet decisive-manipulations of the machines that recorded and tabulated the votes.

    How precisely this apparent manipulation may have been carried out in different jurisdictions-by rigging machines in advance to mis-record or delete votes, by configuring proprietary software so as to allow 'back-door' access for unrestrained vote-tampering, or by hacking into the notoriously insecure vote-tabulation systems-remains as yet undetermined. However, the evidence has been coming to light with surprising rapidity.

    As observers and analysts noted at once, troubling discrepancies were apparent between the exit poll results published by CNN on the evening of November 2 and the official vote tallies (see DeHart, Dodge, S. Freeman, Otter, and Simon). No less disturbing, as I observed in my article on the subject, is the fact that the exit poll data was systematically tampered with early on November 3 to make the figures conform to the vote tallies. At 1:41 a.m. EST on November 3, for example, the Ohio exit poll was altered: Kerry, who had previously been shown as leading Bush by 4 percent in that state, was now represented in the revised exit poll as trailing him by 2.5 percent. And yet the number of respondents in the poll had increased from 1,963 to only 2,020. An additional 57 respondents-a 2.8 percent increase-had somehow produced a 6.5 percent swing from Kerry to Bush. At 1:01 a.m. EST on November 3, the Florida exit poll was likewise altered: Kerry, who had previously been shown in a near dead heat with Bush, now trailed him by 4 percent. In this case, the number of respondents rose only from 2,846 to 2,862. A mere 16 respondents-0.55 percent of the total-produced a 4 percent swing to Bush.

    However, the key exit-poll issue remains the divergence between the November 2 exit polls and the vote tallies. Steven Freeman concluded, in the first draft of his judicious study of the November 2 exit poll data, that "Systematic fraud or mistabulation is a premature conclusion, but the election's unexplained exit poll discrepancies make it an unavoidable hypothesis, one that is the responsibility of the media, academia, polling agencies, and the public to investigate" (S. Freeman [11 Nov, 2004]).

    Other evidence points toward a strengthening, indeed to a substantial confirmation of this "unavoidable hypothesis" of systematic fraud. Some of this evidence has been emerging from the swing state of North Carolina, and from the two key swing states of Florida and Ohio-either one of which, had John Kerry won it, would have made him the acknowledged President-elect.

    In North Carolina, the tell-tale marks of electronic electoral fraud have been brought to light by an analyst who publishes at the Democratic Underground site under the name of 'ignatzmouse'. ("Ignatz," remember, is the name of the mouse who in the Krazy Kat cartoons smacks the unhappy cat with the inevitable brick. That pesky mouse is once again on target.)

    What gives the game away in the North Carolina election data is the disparity within the presidential and senatorial vote-counts between the so-called "absentee" votes-a category that apparently includes the early voting data as well as votes cast by citizens living abroad and military personnel-and the polling-day votes cast on November 2.

    In the race for Governor, 30 percent of the votes cast for the Republican and the Democratic candidate alike were absentee votes; the other 70 percent were cast on November 2. The Democrat won with 55.6 percent of both the absentee and the polling-day votes. In most of the other statewide races in the North Carolina election there were similarly close correlations between absentee and polling-day votes. For example, Democrats won the post of Lieutenant Governor, with 55.7 percent of absentee and 55.5 percent of polling-day votes; the post of Secretary of State, with 58 percent of absentee and 57 percent of polling-day votes; and the post of Attorney General, with 56.7 percent of absentee and 55.2 percent of polling-day votes. In three other statewide races, and in the voting for three constitutional amendments, the correlation between absentee and polling-day votes remains very close (though tight races for three other positions in the state administration were won by Republicans with polling-day swings in favour of the Republican candidates of 4.2, 5.2, and 5.4 percent respectively).

    Given the close correlations between absentee and polling-day votes in ten of the thirteen statewide races, the senate result looks suspicious: the Democrat's narrow lead in the absentee voting became a clear defeat on November 2, with a 6.4 percent swing in the polling-day votes to the Republican. And the presidential results look more seriously implausible. In the absentee votes, Kerry trailed by 6 percent, a result that 'ignatzmouse' remarks "is consistent with the pre-election polls and most importantly with the exit polls of November 2 nd ." But in the election day voting, there was a further swing of fully 9 percent to Bush. Bush led in the absentee votes (30 percent of the total) by 52.9 percent to Kerry's 46.9 percent; but on polling day he took 57.3 percent of the remaining votes, while Kerry received 42.3 percent. In the absence of any other explanation, these figures point to electronic fraud-and, more precisely, to "a 'date-specific' alteration in the software, a hack, or a specific [software] activation just prior to the election."

    The Florida evidence is, if anything, more flagrant. On November 18, Professor Michael Hout of the University of California at Berkeley released a statistical study indicating that electronic voting technology had produced a very substantial distortion of the presidential vote tally in Florida. According to the analyses conducted by Hout and his team, irregularities associated with electronic voting machines accounted for at least 130,000 votes in Bush's lead over Kerry in Florida-and possibly twice that much. (The uncertainty stems from the fact that the machines may have awarded Bush "ghost votes" which increased his tally without reducing Kerry's, or they may have misattributed Kerry votes as Bush votes. As Hout explains, the disparities "amount to 130,000 votes if we assume a 'ghost vote' mechanism and twice that-260,000 votes-if we assume that a vote misattributed to one candidate should have been counted for the other.")

    Hout's results have not gone unchallenged (see Strashny); obviously enough, the validity of statistical analyses depends on the extent to which all possible causal factors have been accounted for. But other data indicates that the 'haunting' of Florida's electronic voting tabulators was if anything more serious than Hout and his associates believe. As I have already noted, in six Florida counties the number of votes purportedly cast exceeded the number of registered voters-by a cumulative total of 188,885 (see Newberry). These are apparently "ghost votes," and unless we're willing to assume a level of electoral participation resembling those claimed by totalitarian states like Ceaucescu's Romania or Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a significant percentage of the other votes cast in these counties must also represent the electoral choice not of human beings but of Republican hackers.

    Further evidence which may help to identify the agents involved in Florida's electronic voting fraud has in fact begun to emerge. Brandon Adams, for example, has noted striking divergences among Florida voters according to the makes and models of the voting machines they used in different counties; and a heavy hacking of vote-tabulation systems used in conjunction with the older optical-scan voting machines is now well-established (see Paterson).

    Moreover, statistically-based work is being complemented by acquisitions of direct material evidence. In Volusia County, one of Florida's six most seriously 'haunted' counties, where 19,306 more votes were cast than there are registered voters, Bev Harris's BlackBoxVoting team caught county election officials red-handed on November 16 in the act of trashing original polling-place tapes which BlackBoxVoting had asked for in a Freedom of Information request. In addition to filming the behaviour of county officials, her team was able to establish that some copies of the tapes that officials had prepared to give them in response to the Freedom of Information Act request had been falsified in favour of George W. Bush-in one precinct alone by hundreds of votes (see Harris [18 Nov. 2004], Hartmann [19 Nov. 2004]). The Volusia County materials provide proof, moreover, that the GEMS central vote-tabulation system, which was supposedly "stand-alone" and non-networked, was remotely accessed during the election (Harris [24 Nov. 2004]).

    Ohio, remember, was the deciding state. John Kerry conceded the election after calculating that the some 155,000 provisional ballots cast in Ohio would not suffice-even if they were properly counted, and even if, as expected, they were very largely cast by Kerry supporters-to overturn the tallied results, according to which Bush had won the state by 136,483 votes.

    However, the exit poll data indicates that it was Kerry who won the state, and by a comfortable margin. Once again, there is substantial evidence of electronic electoral fraud. Teed Rockwell found, after careful study of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website, that twenty-nine precincts in this county "reported votes cast IN EXCESS of the number of registered voters-at least 93,136 extra votes total." The same website he studied ( http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/currentresults1.htm#top ) also repays further study, for Rockwell's tallying of 'ghost votes' is in fact conservative. To cite just one example, Brook Park City is listed as having 14,491 registered voters, of whom it is claimed that fully 14,458 exercised their civic duty and cast ballots-for a turn-out rate of 99.4 percent. I leave it to the curious to discover how many of these high-minded but possibly nonexistent citizens supported their incumbent President.

    Those who want to pursue the questions of vote fraud and suppression in Ohio may also want to consult the studies carried out by Richard Philips, whose work, together with the data available on the websites of Cuyahoga and other counties, provides depressing evidence of successful vote suppression in urban precincts. (It has been estimated that vote suppression tactics may have cost Kerry 45,000 votes across the whole state of Ohio [see Bernstein].)

    The Green Party and Libertarian Party presidential candidates, belatedly followed by the Kerry/Edwards campaign, have called for a recount in Ohio. But if Ohio's Republican Secretary of State Blackwell permits no more than a recount, without a rigorous audit of the electronic voting machines and tabulators as well, the numbers for a reversal of the election results are probably not there. On the optimistic assumption that a fair count of the 155,000 provisional ballots would result in 10 percent of them being disqualified and 70 percent of the remainder being validated as Kerry votes, those ballots might reduce Bush's lead in Ohio by as much as 55,800 votes. However, it seems unlikely that a recount, including a re-examination of the more than 96,000 Ohio votes (most of them cast on old punch-card machines) that were discarded as spoiled, would turn up the almost 81,000 additional Kerry votes that would still be needed.

    Together with the principle that every duly cast vote must be counted, advocates for democracy need to assert another complementary principle: the principle that votes cast not in polling booths, but in the hard drives of voting-tabulation machines; and not by citizens, but rather by ghosts summoned into existence by Republican hackers' nimble fingers, have no business getting counted, and should be removed from the tally.

    The effect of turning a 'Ghostbuster' computer-auditing team like Bev Harris's BlackBoxVoting organization loose on the Ohio results, to carry out a serious audit of any polling precinct and computer-log data that hasn't already been quietly destroyed, might well be startling. For while a simple recount would probably leave Kerry trailing by several tens of thousands of votes, a thorough computer-audit 'exorcism' of the vote tallies, should such a thing ever be permitted, might well lead to a reversal of the national election results.

    Whatever the finally certified results may be, a larger informing context should not be forgotten. The regime of George W. Bush has made no secret of its scorn for the American Constitution and Bill of Rights, its hostility to any notion of international law, its contemptuous dismissal of the decent opinion of humankind both at home and abroad, its contempt, in the most inclusive sense, for truth.

    Bush has claimed that the 2004 election gave him "capital"-which he now will not hesitate to spend. An early instance of this expenditure has been the assault on the city of Fallujah, and a compounding of the manifold war crimes of which Bush and those who serve him are already guilty.

    But what is this "capital"? As the evidence is revealing with growing clarity, the 2004 presidential election was not in fact a victory for Bush, but rather the occasion for an insolent usurpation.

    A 'president' who takes office through fraud and usurpation can make no legitimate claim to exercise the stolen power of his office.

    As the knowledge of his offence becomes ever more widely disseminated, he may yet come, like Shakespeare's Macbeth, "[to] feel his title / Hang loose upon him, like a giant's robe / Upon a dwarfish thief."

    [Nov 07, 2016] Under the Din of the Presidential Race Lies a Once and Future Threat Cyberwarfare

    This neocon propagandists (or more correctly neocon provocateur) got all major facts wrong. And who unleashed Flame and Stuxnet I would like to ask him. Was it Russians? And who invented the concept of "color revolution" in which influencing of election was the major part of strategy ? And which nation instituted the program of covert access to email boxes of all major webmail providers? He should study the history of malware and the USA covert operations before writing this propagandist/provocateur opus to look a little bit more credible...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Email, a main conduit of communication for two decades, now appears so vulnerable that the nation seems to be wondering whether its bursting inboxes can ever be safe. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    The 2016 presidential race will be remembered for many ugly moments, but the most lasting historical marker may be one that neither voters nor American intelligence agencies saw coming: It is the first time that a foreign power has unleashed cyberweapons to disrupt, or perhaps influence, a United States election.

    And there is a foreboding sense that, in elections to come, there is no turning back.

    The steady drumbeat of allegations of Russian troublemaking - leaks from stolen emails and probes of election-system defenses - has continued through the campaign's last days. These intrusions, current and former administration officials agree, will embolden other American adversaries, which have been given a vivid demonstration that, when used with some subtlety, their growing digital arsenals can be particularly damaging in the frenzy of a democratic election.

    "Most of the biggest stories of this election cycle have had a cybercomponent to them - or the use of information warfare techniques that the Russians, in particular, honed over decades," said David Rothkopf, the chief executive and editor of Foreign Policy, who has written two histories of the National Security Council. "From stolen emails, to WikiLeaks, to the hacking of the N.S.A.'s tools, and even the debate about how much of this the Russians are responsible for, it's dominated in a way that we haven't seen in any prior election."

    The magnitude of this shift has gone largely unrecognized in the cacophony of a campaign dominated by charges of groping and pay-for-play access. Yet the lessons have ranged from the intensely personal to the geostrategic.

    Email, a main conduit of communication for two decades, now appears so vulnerable that the nation seems to be wondering whether its bursting inboxes can ever be safe. Election systems, the underpinning of democracy, seem to be at such risk that it is unimaginable that the United States will go into another national election without treating them as "critical infrastructure."

    But President Obama has been oddly quiet on these issues. He delivered a private warning to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia during their final face-to-face encounter two months ago, aides say. Still, Mr. Obama has barely spoken publicly about the implications of foreign meddling in the election. His instincts, those who have worked with him on cyberissues say, are to deal with the problem by developing new norms of international behavior or authorizing covert action rather than direct confrontation.

    After a series of debates in the Situation Room, Mr. Obama and his aides concluded that any public retaliation should be postponed until after the election - to avoid the appearance that politics influenced his decision and to avoid provoking Russian counterstrikes while voting is underway. It remains unclear whether Mr. Obama will act after Tuesday, as his aides hint, or leave the decision about a "proportional response" to his successor.

    Cybersleuths, historians and strategists will debate for years whether Russia's actions reflected a grand campaign of interference or mere opportunism on the part of Mr. Putin. While the administration has warned for years about the possibility of catastrophic attacks, what has happened in the past six months has been far more subtle.

    Russia has used the techniques - what they call "hybrid war," mixing new technologies with old-fashioned propaganda, misinformation and disruption - for years in former Soviet states and elsewhere in Europe. The only surprise was that Mr. Putin, as he intensified confrontations with Washington as part of a nationalist campaign to solidify his own power amid a deteriorating economy, was willing to take them to American shores.

    The most common theory is that while the Russian leader would prefer the election of Donald J. Trump - in part because Mr. Trump has suggested that NATO is irrelevant and that the United States should pull its troops back to American shores - his primary motive is to undercut what he views as a smug American sense of superiority about its democratic processes.

    Madeleine K. Albright, a former secretary of state who is vigorously supporting Hillary Clinton, wrote recently that Mr. Putin's goal was "to create doubt about the validity of the U.S. election results, and to make us seem hypocritical when we question the conduct of elections in other countries."

    If so, this is a very different use of power than what the Obama administration has long prepared the nation for.

    Four years ago, Leon E. Panetta, the defense secretary at the time, warned of an impending "cyber Pearl Harbor" in which enemies could "contaminate the water supply in major cities or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country," perhaps in conjunction with a conventional attack.

    [Nov 07, 2016] Ron Paul Regardless Of How America Votes, Americans Want A Different Foreign Policy by Ron Paul

    Notable quotes:
    "... From the surprising success of the insurgent Bernie Sanders to a Donald Trump campaign that broke all the mainstream Republican Party rules – and may have broken the Republican Party itself – what we now understand more clearly than ever is that the American people are fed up with politics as usual. And more importantly they are fed up with the same tired old policies. ..."
    "... These results should make us very optimistic about our movement, as it shows that we are rapidly approaching the "critical mass" where new ideas will triumph over the armies of the status quo. ..."
    "... We know those in Washington with a vested interest in maintaining a US empire overseas will fight to the end to keep the financial gravy train flowing. The neocons and the liberal interventionists will continue to preach that we must run the world or everything will fall to ruin. ..."
    "... We must resist those who are preaching "interventionism-lite" and calling it a real alternative. Claiming we must protect our "interests" overseas really means using the US military to benefit special interests. That is not what the military is for. We must stick to our non-interventionist guns. No more regime change. No more covert destabilization programs overseas. A solid defense budget, not an imperial military budget. US troops home now. End US military action in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and so on. Just come home. ..."
    Nov 07, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    I have said throughout this presidential campaign that it doesn't matter much which candidate wins. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are authoritarians and neither can be expected to roll back the leviathan state that destroys our civil liberties at home while destroying our economy and security with endless wars overseas. Candidates do not matter all that much, despite what the media would have us believe. Ideas do matter, however. And regardless of which of these candidates is elected, the battle of ideas now becomes critical.

    The day after the election is our time to really focus our efforts on making the case for a peaceful foreign policy and the prosperity it will bring. While we may not have much to cheer in Tuesday's successful candidate, we have learned a good deal about the state of the nation from the campaigns. From the surprising success of the insurgent Bernie Sanders to a Donald Trump campaign that broke all the mainstream Republican Party rules – and may have broken the Republican Party itself – what we now understand more clearly than ever is that the American people are fed up with politics as usual. And more importantly they are fed up with the same tired old policies.

    Last month a fascinating poll was conducted by the Center for the National Interest and the Charles Koch Institute. A broad ranging 1,000 Americans were asked a series of questions about US foreign policy and the 15 year "war on terror." You might think that after a decade and a half, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives lost, Americans might take a more positive view of this massive effort to "rid the world of evil-doers," as then-president George W. Bush promised. But the poll found that only 14 percent of Americans believe US foreign policy has made them more safe! More than 50 percent of those polled said the next US president should use less force overseas, and 80 percent said the president must get authorization from Congress before taking the country to war.

    These results should make us very optimistic about our movement, as it shows that we are rapidly approaching the "critical mass" where new ideas will triumph over the armies of the status quo.

    We know those in Washington with a vested interest in maintaining a US empire overseas will fight to the end to keep the financial gravy train flowing. The neocons and the liberal interventionists will continue to preach that we must run the world or everything will fall to ruin. But this election and many recent polls demonstrate that their time has passed. They may not know it yet, but their failures are too obvious and Americans are sick of paying for them.

    What is to be done? We must continue to educate ourselves and others. We must resist those who are preaching "interventionism-lite" and calling it a real alternative. Claiming we must protect our "interests" overseas really means using the US military to benefit special interests. That is not what the military is for. We must stick to our non-interventionist guns. No more regime change. No more covert destabilization programs overseas. A solid defense budget, not an imperial military budget. US troops home now. End US military action in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and so on. Just come home.

    Americans want change, no matter who wins. We need to be ready to provide that alternative.


    Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Nov 07, 2016] Bernie Sanders was a Con Artist, had an 'Agreement' with Hillary Clinton – Wikileaks

    www.eutimes.net

    According to a new Wikileaks email, Bernie Sanders was just a Manchurian candidate and a Clinton puppet all along. We finally have confirmation of what we have suspected since Bernie said "people are sick of hearing about your damn emails" all the way back in 2015 during one debate. That was a big give-away and a huge red flag which many have raised back then but now we finally have irrefutable proof that Bernie Sanders was just a SCAM candidate and a con artist.

    [Nov 07, 2016] Election 2016 Playing a Game of Chicken With Nuclear Strategy

    The author is a neocon... Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was deeply unfair as it did not eliminated see based missiles, only ground based one. It is essentially a trap Gorbachov went into.
    Notable quotes:
    "... On the American side, the weapon of immediate concern is a new version of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, usually carried by B-52 bombers. Also known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) ..."
    "... No wonder former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry called on President Obama to cancel the ALCM program in a recent Washington Post op-ed piece. "Because they… come in both nuclear and conventional variants," he wrote, "cruise missiles are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon." And this issue is going to fall directly into the lap of the next president. ..."
    Nov 07, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Michael T. Klare, a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What's Left . A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation . Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1. Originally published at TomDispatch

    ... ... ..

    With passions running high on both sides in this year's election and rising fears about Donald Trump's impulsive nature and Hillary Clinton's hawkish one, it's hardly surprising that the "nuclear button" question has surfaced repeatedly throughout the campaign. In one of the more pointed exchanges of the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton declared that Donald Trump lacked the mental composure for the job. "A man who can be provoked by a tweet," she commented , "should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes." Donald Trump has reciprocated by charging that Clinton is too prone to intervene abroad. "You're going to end up in World War III over Syria," he told reporters in Florida last month.

    For most election observers, however, the matter of personal character and temperament has dominated discussions of the nuclear issue, with partisans on each side insisting that the other candidate is temperamentally unfit to exercise control over the nuclear codes. There is, however, a more important reason to worry about whose finger will be on that button this time around: at this very moment, for a variety of reasons, the "nuclear threshold" - the point at which some party to a "conventional" (non-nuclear) conflict chooses to employ atomic weapons - seems to be moving dangerously lower.

    Not so long ago, it was implausible that a major nuclear power - the United States, Russia, or China - would consider using atomic weapons in any imaginable conflict scenario. No longer. Worse yet, this is likely to be our reality for years to come, which means that the next president will face a world in which a nuclear decision-making point might arrive far sooner than anyone would have thought possible just a year or two ago - with potentially catastrophic consequences for us all.

    No less worrisome, the major nuclear powers (and some smaller ones) are all in the process of acquiring new nuclear arms, which could, in theory, push that threshold lower still. These include a variety of cruise missiles and other delivery systems capable of being used in "limited" nuclear wars - atomic conflicts that, in theory at least, could be confined to just a single country or one area of the world (say, Eastern Europe) and so might be even easier for decision-makers to initiate. The next president will have to decide whether the U.S. should actually produce weapons of this type and also what measures should be taken in response to similar decisions by Washington's likely adversaries.

    Lowering the Nuclear Threshold

    During the dark days of the Cold War, nuclear strategists in the United States and the Soviet Union conjured up elaborate conflict scenarios in which military actions by the two superpowers and their allies might lead from, say, minor skirmishing along the Iron Curtain to full-scale tank combat to, in the end, the use of "battlefield" nuclear weapons, and then city-busting versions of the same to avert defeat. In some of these scenarios, strategists hypothesized about wielding "tactical" or battlefield weaponry - nukes powerful enough to wipe out a major tank formation, but not Paris or Moscow - and claimed that it would be possible to contain atomic warfare at such a devastating but still sub-apocalyptic level. (Henry Kissinger, for instance, made his reputation by preaching this lunatic doctrine in his first book, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy .) Eventually, leaders on both sides concluded that the only feasible role for their atomic arsenals was to act as deterrents to the use of such weaponry by the other side. This was, of course, the concept of " mutually assured destruction ," or - in one of the most classically apt acronyms of all times: MAD. It would, in the end, form the basis for all subsequent arms control agreements between the two superpowers.

    Anxiety over the escalatory potential of tactical nuclear weapons peaked in the 1970s when the Soviet Union began deploying the SS-20 intermediate-range ballistic missile (capable of striking cities in Europe, but not the U.S.) and Washington responded with plans to deploy nuclear-armed, ground-launched cruise missiles and the Pershing-II ballistic missile in Europe. The announcement of such plans provoked massive antinuclear demonstrations across Europe and the United States. On December 8, 1987, at a time when worries had been growing about how a nuclear conflagration in Europe might trigger an all-out nuclear exchange between the superpowers, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

    That historic agreement - the first to eliminate an entire class of nuclear delivery systems - banned the deployment of ground-based cruise or ballistic missiles with a range of 500 and 5,500 kilometers and required the destruction of all those then in existence. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation inherited the USSR's treaty obligations and pledged to uphold the INF along with other U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. In the view of most observers, the prospect of a nuclear war between the two countries practically vanished as both sides made deep cuts in their atomic stockpiles in accordance with already existing accords and then signed others, including the New START , the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 2010.

    ... ... ...

    To put this in perspective, Russian leaders ardently believe that they are the victims of a U.S.-led drive by NATO to encircle their country and diminish its international influence. They point, in particular, to the build-up of NATO forces in the Baltic countries, involving the semi-permanent deployment of combat battalions in what was once the territory of the Soviet Union, and in apparent violation of promises made to Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not do so. As a result, Russia has been bolstering its defenses in areas bordering Ukraine and the Baltic states, and training its troops for a possible clash with the NATO forces stationed there.

    ... ... ...

    On the American side, the weapon of immediate concern is a new version of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, usually carried by B-52 bombers. Also known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO), it is, like the Iskander-M, expected to be deployed in both nuclear and conventional versions, leaving those on the potential receiving end unsure what might be heading their way.

    In other words, as with the Iskander-M, the intended target might assume the worst in a crisis, leading to the early use of nuclear weapons. Put another way, such missiles make for twitchy trigger fingers and are likely to lead to a heightened risk of nuclear war, which, once started, might in turn take Washington and Moscow right up the escalatory ladder to a planetary holocaust.

    No wonder former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry called on President Obama to cancel the ALCM program in a recent Washington Post op-ed piece. "Because they… come in both nuclear and conventional variants," he wrote, "cruise missiles are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon." And this issue is going to fall directly into the lap of the next president.

    pretzelattack November 7, 2016 at 1:46 am

    scanning it, it keeps referring to the obama administration's beliefs about russia, and claims by american officials. given the hysteria about putin allegedly hacking the us election, and the propaganda surrounding the war on terror, i'm reluctant to rely on this kind of evidence.

    Lambert Strether November 7, 2016 at 2:29 am

    This:

    But even Hillary Clinton, for all her experience as secretary of state, is likely to have a hard time grappling with the pressures and dangers that are likely to arise in the years ahead, especially given that her inclination is to toughen U.S. policy toward Russia.

    "Even" is a little rich, given that the Clinton campaign has systematically - I hate to use the word, but - demonized* Putin. One can regard the political class as cynically able to turn on a dime when the election is done, but Clinton has also induced her base of "NPR tote baggers" to buy in, and the more massive base is harder to turn. And then of course the neo-cons have gone over to her, and they certainly know which side their bread has blood on.

    So, if Clinton wins, the dominant faction of the Democrat Party is - from the leadership through the nomenklatura to the base - committed to a "muscular" foreign policy, including a "No Fly Zone" in Syria, where shooting down a Russian plane would be an act of war, so far as Russia is concerned. (In the last debate, Clinton pointedly didn't answer what she would do in that eventuality.)

    It is what it is. We are where we are.

    NOTE * I mean, come on. Trump and Comey as Putin's agents of influence? Beyond bizarre.

    UPDATE One of the salient features of the bureaucratic infighters who brought about World War I is their utter mediocrity; see this review of The Sleepwalkers , a diplomatic history of how World War I came out. If you want to see real mediocrity in today's terms, read the Podesta emails.

    integer November 7, 2016 at 2:50 am

    And contrast that quote with:

    Whoever is elected on November 8th, we are evidently all headed into a world in which Trumpian-style itchy trigger fingers could be the norm.

    So even Hillary Clinton might not be able to handle a world full of Trumpian-style itchy trigger fingers. That's a bit hard to swallow imo.

    timotheus November 7, 2016 at 5:35 am

    "Muscular" policy towards Russia: [echo "muscular policy! muscular policy!" slow fade]. And we think Putin is a clownish macho.

    Joins "innovation", economic "liftoff" and "headwinds", "fight for", etc.

    hemeantwell November 7, 2016 at 8:44 am

    Agreed. Klare's order of presentation creates a questionable sense of causality by talking first about Russian tech and strategy and then about what appear to be US responses. For example, my understanding of recent developments of low yield nuclear weapons - I'm thinking of the "dial a bomb" - has the US once again opening up a new strategic front the Russians feel compelled to duplicate. His discussion of the Iskander M similarly elides the question of how the Russians think about the B52-based cruise missiles the US has had for years.

    He also seems to lose track of a point he introduces by referring to Kissinger's advocacy of the use of low yield nukes. Kissinger's book came out in 1957, and afair only the US had battlefield nuclear missile delivery systems back in early 60s. After Kissinger gained power in the Nixon administration, they both thought that it was useful to look rationally irrational, to set out a logic for dangerous policies in order to make opponents fearful of a catastrophic reaction. The Russians are likely doing the same thing. I'm sure, too, that talking of a low first use threshold is a way to split Europe from the US.

    Massinissa November 7, 2016 at 2:38 am

    I like the article, but it seems like its putting too much of the fault on Russia.

    Roland November 7, 2016 at 3:10 am

    This article on nuclear strategy makes no mention of the single most destabilizing thing that happened in nuclear affairs in this century: the USA's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty.

    How could the author make such an omission?

    The biggest nuclear problem we face is that there are "serious" military and political leaders in the USA who think that their new ABM systems will allow them to burst the shackles of assured-destruction, and thus to actively employ escalation dominance as a foreign policy tool..

    integer November 7, 2016 at 5:20 am

    political leaders in the USA who think that their new ABM systems will allow them to burst the shackles of assured-destruction

    "Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand."

    ― Archibald Putt

    charles 2 November 7, 2016 at 5:06 am

    The author puts too much emphasis on anti-cities warfare at a pre-strategic level. A strike will be more likely to be an EMP anti-infrastructure strike. In modern societies, one doesn't need to kill people to break their resolve. Disrupting the provision of electricity, mobile, cable and internet connection is amply enough to eliminate the appetite for overseas military adventures.

    fajensen November 7, 2016 at 6:13 am

    The nukes run on a dead-man switch. If one EMP's "everything", the periodic "please do not launch today, sir"-signal will not reach the silos/submarines and missiles will launch automatically.

    We can be pretty sure that the last missiles launched will be salted with some "well, fuck you too!"-concoction to create massive fallout and maybe even some bio-weapons on top for all those weakened immune systems (from the gamma radiation). The USSR did a lot of very high quality research on biological weapons, obviously, everyone else has whatever they had in the 1980's. People who ingest radioactive dust are goners sooner or later. Sooner with bio-weapons on top of the radiation poisoning.

    People, especially people "on top" who should be informed and know better, yet still think ABM systems work effectively for any other purpose than moving billions of USD to into the pockets of defense industry cronies, are simply deluded. Even with cooked tests, where the speed and trajectory of the opposition missile is known to the missile defence in advance, the odds of an intercept are low.

    Disturbed Voter November 7, 2016 at 6:31 am

    The only way to win is not play – War-games

    Why would the elites not want to win, compared to the first 70 years of the nuclear age?

    fajensen November 7, 2016 at 8:04 am

    Why would the elites not want to win, compared to the first 70 years of the nuclear age?

    They are like 70-80 years old, geriatrics already, soon diaper-cases. All thes powerful people are in a desparate race with time to "set things right", before they lose all of their faculties (or start smelling of poo so no-one invites them anymore).

    Jim A November 7, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Even more troubling, Russia has adopted a military doctrine that favors the early use of nuclear weapons if it faces defeat in a conventional war, and NATO is considering comparable measures in response. The nuclear threshold, in other words, is dropping rapidly.

    Of course this is the exact mirror image of the US policy during the Cold War. We relied on the threat of "theater nuclear war" to deter the huge Soviet conventional forces that NATO had little chance of stopping with conventional forces. Of course the Germans joked that the definition of a "theater" nuclear weapon was one that went off in Germany.

    [Nov 07, 2016] Does the Right Hold the Economy Hostage to Advance Its Militarist Agenda

    economistsview.typepad.com

    Alex S -> Julio ... , November 05, 2016 at 03:50 PM

    We have moved left. The gays and blacks are treated better. We no longer tolerate wars like Vietnam. The Iraq war was an order of magnitude smaller. War helps scientific discovery and progress. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0 For more capable nations to help civilize weaker and more chaotic ones is helpful, but leftists won't accept that.
    anne -> Alex S... , November 05, 2016 at 04:08 PM
    Oh, I understand:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html

    June 13, 2014

    The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
    By Tyler Cowen

    [ Who else could possibly have written such an essay? The guy is really, really scary. ]

    anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:20 PM
    http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/does-the-right-hold-the-economy-hostage-to-advance-its-militarist-agenda

    June 14, 2014

    Does the Right Hold the Economy Hostage to Advance Its Militarist Agenda?

    That's one way to read Tyler Cowen's New York Times column * noting that wars have often been associated with major economic advances which carries the headline "the lack of major wars may be hurting economic growth." Tyler lays out his central argument:

    "It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today's entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth."

    This is all quite true, but a moment's reflection may give a bit different spin to the story. There has always been substantial support among liberals for the sort of government sponsored research that he describes here. The opposition has largely come from the right. However the right has been willing to go along with such spending in the context of meeting national defense needs. Its support made these accomplishments possible.

    This brings up the suggestion Paul Krugman made a while back (jokingly) that maybe we need to convince the public that we face a threat from an attack from Mars. Krugman suggested this as a way to prompt traditional Keynesian stimulus, but perhaps we can also use the threat to promote an ambitious public investment agenda to bring us the next major set of technological breakthroughs.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html

    -- Dean Baker

    Alex S -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 05:15 PM
    Three points

    1. Baker's peaceful spending scenario is not likely because of human nature.

    2. Even if Baker's scenario happened, a given dollar will be used more efficiently in a war. If there is a threat of losing, you have an incentive to cut waste and spend on what produces results.

    3. The United States would not exist at all if we had not conquered the territory.

    anne -> anne... , November 05, 2016 at 04:24 PM
    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
    By Neta C. Crawford

    Summary

    Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending.

    As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.

    But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger....

    [Nov 07, 2016] Up Against the Wall The American Conservative

    Nov 07, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The War Party called the Peace Party Nazis in 1941, Communists in 1951, Soviet dupes in 1961, dirty hippies in 1971 … must I go on? In 2011, those who heed George Washington's counsel to seek "peace and harmony with all" will be called mullah-headed appeasers of Irano-fascism.

    We live in an age in which one is free to view pornography that would make de Sade wince and gore that would make Leatherface retch, yet we have less "free speech," as the Founders would have conceived it, than ever before. The range of permissible political opinions has narrowed to encompass the rat-hair's breadth separating Mitt Romney from Joe Lieberman, and woe betide the straggler who wanders away from the cage.

    Blame war. Blame TV. Blame the nationalization of political discourse, as regional variations and individual peculiarities are washed away by the generic slime of poli-talk shows. Radicals-even naďve Tea Partiers or idealistic left-wing kids-are dehumanized in ways unthinkable when America was a free country. No one was barred from the conversation back when there was a conversation. No dispatch ever read, "Wingnut Henry David Thoreau today issued a manifesto from his compound near Walden Pond…"

    ... ... ...

    The squeezing out even of establishment dissent-especially since 9/11-has left us with an antiwar movement so feeble it makes the Esperanto lobby look like the AARP. Enter the new organization Come Home, America, its name taken from the magnificent 1972 acceptance speech delivered by George McGovern in the last unscripted Democratic convention.

    Discussed in recent issues of this magazine, Come Home, America is based on the now decidedly radical premise that young men and women belong home, with their families and in their communities, rather than fighting needless wars on the other side of the globe. I am a small part of what I hope will become a chorus of patriotic dissent ringing from Main Street and Copperhead Road and Martin Luther King Boulevard, from farm and church and coffeehouse.

    [Nov 07, 2016] Neoliberalisms Border Guard

    Notable quotes:
    "... fundamentally antiracism and other identitarian programs are not only the left wing of neoliberalism but active agencies in its imposition of a notion of the boundaries of the politically thinkable " ..."
    "... Feminism…? gender discrimination….? racial equality ? …. racism ? Yes, OK, looks good, let's see what works best for us…. ..."
    "... There is still the issue that some professions are more prestigious or lucrative than others and attract many individuals with a skill set that would better serve other functions. ..."
    "... Valuing people for who they are and integrating them into the social order implies that they have something to contribute and that they have a responsibility for making things better for others, not just making themselves more comfortable in public. ..."
    "... The idea that we have progressed past prior barbarisms … we have forgotten that "the past is prologue" among other things. ..."
    "... This label of progressivism is just so coy and unconvincing in the face of neoliberalism's full spectrum dominance of all facets of society and culture. ..."
    "... I know Reagan was no conservative and Thatcher lost all moorings as an enlightened Tory as the "project" became all consuming to the detriment of all else. The Tory today isn't conservative – far from it – a real ideolgical zealot for the promotion of "me, myself and (at most) my class" in most cases. ..."
    "... Is Progressivism just a balm for those who want to feel good about themselves but don't want to do think about anything in particular? In fact, it is just a cover for I'm ok, screw you pal when the chips are down? ..."
    Nov 07, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    animalogic November 7, 2016 at 7:10 am

    "These responses [show] how fundamentally antiracism and other identitarian programs are not only the left wing of neoliberalism but active agencies in its imposition of a notion of the boundaries of the politically thinkable "

    Yes: there we have it.

    Neoliberalism (unlike conservatism, often mistaken for each other) has NO social/cultural values…or, perhaps, more precisely, it has ANY social/cultural values which directly/indirectly advance the 0.1%'s Will to wealth & power. (Likely, "wealth" is redundant, as it's a manifestation of power). Neoliberalism is powerful, like all great "evils" because it is completely protean.

    ( It makes the Nazi's look child-like & naive: after all, the Nazi's actually "believed" in certain things… [ evil nonsense, but that's not the point at the moment].

    Feminism…? gender discrimination….? racial equality ? …. racism ? Yes, OK, looks good, let's see what works best for us….

    Moneta November 7, 2016 at 7:40 am

    I often wonder if liberalism goes hand in hand with the availability of energy and resources… shrink these and witness a surge in all types of discrimination.

    You will notice that genocides are closely tied to the availability and distribution of resources… we humans seem to be masters at inventing all kinds of reasons to explain why we deserve the loot and not others.

    Moneta November 7, 2016 at 7:13 am

    There is still the issue that some professions are more prestigious or lucrative than others and attract many individuals with a skill set that would better serve other functions. And we do this under the guise that we can do whatever we want if we try hard enough.

    There is a difference between PC and truly valuing every individual in society no matter their job or profession.

    Uahsenaa November 7, 2016 at 8:49 am

    There is a difference between PC and truly valuing every individual in society no matter their job or profession.

    This.

    Mere inclusiveness, while not in itself a bad thing–being aware of other people's circumstances is simply polite–it doesn't really get you much further past where you already are and in large part can be satisfied with better rhetoric (or better PR, if you insist on being cynical about such things), all the while capitalism goes on its merry way, because no real pressure to change has been applied. Valuing people for who they are and integrating them into the social order implies that they have something to contribute and that they have a responsibility for making things better for others, not just making themselves more comfortable in public.

    What so often gets lost in these conversations about safe spaces and what have you is that we should have a sense of shared responsibility, responding TO others' circumstances while also being responsible FOR the conditions that oppress us all to greater and lesser degrees.

    In other words, it's about checking your privilege AND seizing the means of production, because without the second one, the first just ends up being mere window dressing.

    EATF – I really like these. I'll be sad when they conclude!

    Disturbed Voter November 7, 2016 at 7:20 am

    The idea that we have progressed past prior barbarisms … we have forgotten that "the past is prologue" among other things. Progressives think that if we completely forget the past, then the memes that created the sins of the past will become unthinkable, that like interrupted family violence, a chain will be broken and we can heal. Such people don't believe in the existence of Evil.

    Moneta November 7, 2016 at 7:49 am

    Is a lion eating an antelope evil?

    makedoanmend November 7, 2016 at 7:44 am

    As a socialist, what I miss is the conservative (small c) conversation in our daily affairs. This label of progressivism is just so coy and unconvincing in the face of neoliberalism's full spectrum dominance of all facets of society and culture. The conservative gave voice and depth to our internal doubts about how the future was all brite and new – at least the few conservatives I knew.

    I wonder would a conservative voice (seemingly non-existent any more) have argued for a more instructive change from industrialisation into what we've now become – might they have mitigated the course and provided pointers to alternatives?

    Maybe they did and I wasn't listening.

    I know Reagan was no conservative and Thatcher lost all moorings as an enlightened Tory as the "project" became all consuming to the detriment of all else. The Tory today isn't conservative – far from it – a real ideolgical zealot for the promotion of "me, myself and (at most) my class" in most cases.

    Is Progressivism just a balm for those who want to feel good about themselves but don't want to do think about anything in particular? In fact, it is just a cover for I'm ok, screw you pal when the chips are down?

    I never really liked Disney films as a kid and I certainly don't like them now – but each to their own.

    diptherio November 7, 2016 at 8:49 am

    I'm glad you're making these points. The arc of the story mirrors a number of conversations I've been having lately with people from poor, white, rural backgrounds. The insistence by good liberals of making a show of their concern for, and outrage over, both major and minor affronts to people of color, women, LGBTQI people, etc., while at the same time making jokes about toothless, inbred trailer-trash, is starting to really piss some people off. These are not conservative people. These are people to the left of Chomsky.

    For some reason, you can slander and shame poor white folks all you want…oh yeah, it's because they're deplorable racist, fundamentalist Christians who vote for evil Republicans and probably don't even have a GED, much less a college degree…so f- 'em. The good liberals, on the other hand, are highly-educated, fundamentalist secular humanists, who've been to college and vote for evil Democrats…which makes them God's chosen people, apparently. The rest are blasphemers, barely even human, and deserve whatever they get.

    Until we make a real commitment to both listening to everyone's suffering and then to doing practical things, now, to remedy that suffering, we'll be doomed to Dollary Clump elections and divide-and-conquer tactics forever after. Let's not go down that road, how about? How's about let's try treating each other with respect and compassion for once, just to see how it goes? Every other way lies damnation, imho.

    DJG November 7, 2016 at 9:02 am

    Sorry: I'm not buying this episode: For instance, maybe the reason for the stress on smartness is plain old class warfare.

    The U.S. slavishly follows English fashions, and one of the fashions in England (with which we have that Special Relationship) is that the upper classes made sure that their kids got into Eton, Cambridge, Oxford–the whole self-perpetuating educational system of the Pythonesque English "smart" twit.

    So the U S of A has imitated its betters in producing a lot of Tony Blairs. Exhibit A: Chelsea Clinton.

    This has little to do with smartness. It is all about class privilege. (Which has little to do with postmodernism and its supposed piercing insights.)

    flora November 7, 2016 at 9:02 am

    The title- Neoliberalisms Boarder Guard" – and this quote:

    "Looking now at the other two principles – postmodernism and suffering – Wendy Brown foretold that, as foci, they would be unable to coexist. Since the time of her prediction, the balance between the two has shifted dramatically, and it has become clear that Brown was rooting for the losing side. "

    combine to make me wonder. Does liberalism simply accommodate itself to the prevailing ruling power structure, regardless of that structure's philosophy? Is liberalism today a philosophy or a social emollient? Desirable social traits do not challenge the ruling neoliberal philosophy, although they make create a nice space within neoliberalism.

    DJG November 7, 2016 at 9:05 am

    Not buying this episode: "High profile instances of genocide and torture don't appear every day, and commitment flags without regular stimulation. And so we have taken seriously at least one idea from postmodernism, the fascination with slight conceptual nuances, and the faith or fear that these nuances can produce enormously consequential effects."

    Oh really?

    This sentence is on the order of, Who speaks of the Armenians?

    Guantanamo is high profile. Homan Square is high profile. Yemen is genocide. What are the Dakota Pipeline protests about? Genocide. Your bourgeois eyeglasses just don't allow you to look. It has nothing to do with micro-aggressions.

    [Nov 07, 2016] Sanders had non-aggression pact with Clinton who had leverage to enforce it. He basically handed her this nomination.

    Nov 07, 2016 | twitter.com

    WikiLeaks  Verified account
    ‏@wikileaks

    Sanders had non-aggression pact with Clinton who had "leverage" to enforce it Robby Mook ("re47") email reveals https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397#efmAAAAB2 …

    Robert. ‏@robbiemakestees · Nov 4

    @wikileaks the plot thickens. He basically handed her this nomination. What did he honestly think was gonna happen?

    [Nov 06, 2016] The real test of the election - Shadow govt. comes out of the shadows Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump has by mere existance dragged the shadow state out of the shadows. Sweet know thy enemy for they will always be thy enemy. Off to restock me popcorn ... 1 week supply will do after that forget it it will be long past popcorn. dinkum Nov 5, 2016 8:27 PM , We were taught at the kitchen table that the "Current Tax Payment Act of 1943", aka employee withholding taxes, would allow the shadow government dominate over the de jure government. Reason given was that the easier to not have to save money themselves to pay taxes, the less interest taxpayers would have in government. Every year, often in April, my Dad would say that he earned the first dollar for our family that year. Now, about 2 or 3 generations later with celebrations for lowering of the labor participation rates below 63%, shadow government is protected by those either not knowing or unable to know how to register to vote. Ripe pickings for One World Government advocates. Seems most Americans do not understand the concept of independence and have little or no interest in understanding. RaceToTheBottom Nov 5, 2016 8:17 PM , I'm sorry, but I am going to love pointing out to you Trumpsters that it makes absolutely no difference who gets elected, the State still wins..... ..."
    "... I haven't voted for the main election in probably 20 years, except in the primary for Ron Paul. I figure 1 minute of my time for a lottery ticket is worth the shot. But yeah I don't think we should go full Nazi mania about the guy, or be like the Obamaites with their messiah. ..."
    "... There are alot of people probably unhealthy optimistic about the guy. ..."
    "... We are winning because we are breaking people's stockholm syndromes. Apathy is a bad thing, even if the vote is rigged it's better to stay positive that something can be done. Because something can always be done if people want it bad enough. ..."
    "... Hillary=MIC=USA=ISIS. Vote accordingly. ..."
    Nov 06, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    This election is unprecedented in many ways. Never before has a candidate been under indictment (probably from Grand Jury) - and under investigation from FBI. Never before have previously private records been shown to the world vis a vis wikileaks. Never before a non-career politician garnered so much support so quickly, even to the chagrin of his own party. Never before has there been evidence so obvious, hundreds of smoking guns, like the election official admitting they are busing around voters to polls to vote multiple times. It's unprecedented! But as we explain in our best selling book Splitting Pennies - the world works like this (but only now, it's open for public view) . Yes, it's true. A small cabal of people who are not in public view, they play with the world like a big Sims game. If you're not up to date on this and want a good read about the connection between big banks and the CIA, checkout this groundbreaking work: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. This is a MUST READ for any trader who claims to understand the markets.

    In previous elections, well, what's the difference really between Bush and Gore? Bush and Kerry? They went to the same school, and take orders from the same masters. This election is different. Trump is a real 'trump' card. What does this word mean? It's an ironic name for the candidate who intentionally or not opened the shadow government for the world to see.

    From MW: Trump definition

    1 a : trumpet

    2 : a sound of or as if of trumpeting <the trump of doom>

    1 a : a card of a suit any of whose cards will win over a card that is not of this suit -called also trump card

    2 : a decisive overriding factor or final resource -called also trump card

    3 : a dependable and exemplary person

    There are multiple game-changers here, and although Trump himself personally deserves the credit for being the punching bag at a huge personal sacrifice, Trump himself is not the primary cause of this paradigm shift. He's just the catalyst, and in the right place at the right time. As explained eloquently by Peter Thiel, if it's not Trump this time , it will be someone else next time, or some alternative non-career politician who represents the same things that Trump does. In fact, Trump probably doesn't know half of what he's getting himself into. He can be the first President that ushers in a new age of 'reality' (for lack of a better word).

    First let's give credit where credit is due. What has made this possible is sites like Zero Hedge, and more importantly Wikileaks. Clinton Foundation as a model for pay-for-play politics was certainly not invented by the Clintons, or the Bushes. In fact, in America's Romanesque ideology, a good metaphor is the business of the Roman empire. Most Roman senators were in fact, super rich.

    The Romans really invented the system of power politics, where politics became big business. The Greeks were too philosophical and practical to make a business out of it. While the Greeks spent all night debating what is the prime mover, Romans seized territory, built roads and bridges, and most importantly - got rich.

    It's not so difficult to imagine the ridiculous riches held by the Romans, as we have a similar inequality today. Economists and other scholars have even pointed out 'signs' of the collapse of the American Empire lie in the comparison between inequality, inefficiency, a decline in morals, and a debasement of the currency. For example in this book: "The Collapse of Complex Societies (New Studies in Archaeology)" Joseph Tainter explores the similarities of complex societies and implies that we may be at a 'tipping point' similar to just before the collapse of the Roman Empire:

    Combine this with various Roman symbolism, in Washington DC, and in the cult sects the Elite participate in (various forms of the Occult) - a picture emerges of a "New Rome" which may be have been the Illuminati plan all along for America. But the problem is that, the corruption, the debasement of the currency (today, we have Quantitative Easing) it can't continue. It's a simple problem of physics, the laws of gravity cannot be violated. The value of the US Dollar is guaranteed to crash. There's no question about it. It's because of the math and structure of the debt based money system. The future, is Bitcoin - not the Clinton Foundation. Clinton Foundation is a representation of how the Elite evolved from a direct rule class system during Medieval Europe to a 'Shadow Government' system that we use today.

    Who is the "Shadow Government" and who are these "Shadow People" ? To understand it, you've got to hear it direct from the horses mouth- a Washington Insider (call him a Whistleblower, although he's not blowing the Whistle on a particular company it's the whole pay for play system) - READ THIS BOOK: The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government

    Now many ZH readers and traders know this for a long time. What this election has done, is popularized and exposed this 'shadow government' which really is an entire 'shadow system' because it's not only about the government. For example in Forex business, on the surface, banks are cashing checks and loaning money. But 'behind the scenes' they are involved in much more sinister, often illegal, activities. And the bank fraud cases have been eye-popping, record setting, numbers like "$5.6 Billion" . Washington DC is a big customer of the banks, of the Elite. But by far, not the only one. And certainly not the most powerful. It's just what the public thinks. The President of the United States. It's a powerful person. No, it's not. Presidents (at least, previously) have been mostly puppets that take orders from "Shadow People" - Presidents have become like Actors and accordingly, our most popular President, Ronald Reagan, was an actor. A good actor. Everyone loves an actor! But remember what an ACTOR does - an actor reads his lines, and pretends very convincingly. Actors are not script writers, producers, artists - they are the only part of the creative process that's not creative. Real insiders in Hollywood for example know the real genius to making magic are the writers, producers, music composers like Ennio Morricone. Who is that? Ennio Morricone is a "Shadow Person" - this is the REAL genius and creative talent behind the Hollywood machine. That background music, it's not something just thrown together by some executives. Ennio Morricone is a musical genius, he works behind the scenes, 99% of people never heard of him. But we've all heard about some jerks like Robert DeNiro, who are paid to make fools of themselves and make foolish and childish statements about Trump and how the Establishment is good and you should enjoy how the system services your account even though you live worse every year and it hurts when they do it.

    As we wait for the grand finale to the play we call "Politics" enjoy this composition, let it be the background music you remember as the Shadow People are exposed this next week. Turn off your TVs and listen to something that can actually increase your IQ! Yes - it's true!

    Now for the real test of the Election. Now that the Shadow System has been exposed, will people openly accept it? There's no more conspiracy theories, most of the facts are now available online for all to see. Will they turn a blind eye - and vote for the Establishment? How deep does the programming go? VERY DEEP, if you are on meds and have a TV.

    Thanks for tuning in to this digital production, every moment spent reading and not watching is another step to your higher development. Congrats! For a great read you can take with you anywhere on this topic, checkout Splitting Pennies , also available here at pleaseorderit.com

    Renrah Nov 5, 2016 10:10 PM ,
    Florida Dems busted for new voter fraud scheme
    http://dennismichaellynch.com/florida-election-officials-busted-massive-...
    GreatUncle Nov 5, 2016 9:12 PM ,
    Trump has by mere existance dragged the shadow state out of the shadows. Sweet know thy enemy for they will always be thy enemy.

    Off to restock me popcorn ... 1 week supply will do after that forget it it will be long past popcorn.

    dinkum Nov 5, 2016 8:27 PM ,
    We were taught at the kitchen table that the "Current Tax Payment Act of 1943", aka employee withholding taxes, would allow the shadow government dominate over the de jure government. Reason given was that the easier to not have to save money themselves to pay taxes, the less interest taxpayers would have in government.

    Every year, often in April, my Dad would say that he earned the first dollar for our family that year.

    Now, about 2 or 3 generations later with celebrations for lowering of the labor participation rates below 63%, shadow government is protected by those either not knowing or unable to know how to register to vote. Ripe pickings for One World Government advocates.

    Seems most Americans do not understand the concept of independence and have little or no interest in understanding.

    RaceToTheBottom Nov 5, 2016 8:17 PM ,
    I'm sorry, but I am going to love pointing out to you Trumpsters that it makes absolutely no difference who gets elected, the State still wins.....

    Sure the Clinton criminal network will have to change methods and the Foundation might curtail some efforts and profits.

    But entirely new criminal networks, we can call them the Trumpster Criminal Network, will spring up and take their place.

    And regardless of these skimmers we will have elected president (the definition of president is one who skims), the big winner is behind the curtains.

    And I am saying this takes place without the Trumpster getting assassinated.

    roddcarlson RaceToTheBottom Nov 5, 2016 10:14 PM ,
    Voting by mail ballot was easy enough for me to do. Took about 1 minute of my time. Assuming it doesn't make a difference I'm out 1 minute. But just what if it does matter and it changed the direction and course we find ourselves on? I haven't voted for the main election in probably 20 years, except in the primary for Ron Paul. I figure 1 minute of my time for a lottery ticket is worth the shot. But yeah I don't think we should go full Nazi mania about the guy, or be like the Obamaites with their messiah.

    There are alot of people probably unhealthy optimistic about the guy. But as the above comment, I think the election sure has been entertaining seeing all the bad info come out.

    As a Ron Paul supporter, it's like confirmation that us uniquely different types that everyone thought we were when we talked about the whole thing being rigged and economics and the war mongering has wings and been lifted by Trump. Believe me it took Trump for my mother-in-law to see what is going on. People always were reserved to believe that it was this depraved. I'm sure you are right Clinton might be just the tip of the iceberg. But even if Clinton goes to jail for conspiring against Americans considering her terrible lists of crimes against us, that would be well worth it. This is all about making people believe that conspiracies happen, it took Enron for me to wake up. What comes next if not Trump is real change, one way or another things are not going back to the old way.

    We are winning because we are breaking people's stockholm syndromes. Apathy is a bad thing, even if the vote is rigged it's better to stay positive that something can be done. Because something can always be done if people want it bad enough.

    GreatUncle RaceToTheBottom Nov 5, 2016 9:20 PM ,
    I agree but what was the real game here?

    So you will lose like you were always going to lose ... yupper, dam straight, same game same play, YOY decade after decade.

    But all those standing before you, from FBI to MSM, be you DOJ or the Clinton Crime family.

    YOU NOW KNOW WHO YOUR FUCKING ENEMY IS because they all crawled out from under the rock.

    That was the next step in this game ... know thy enemy for he always knew who you were but you in kindness now know them. Worse for them is actually your realisation of the truth.

    So I ask this question when you were born are you more or less worthy a human being than an elite child?

    This is what this is coming down to in the end.

    qdone Nov 5, 2016 7:05 PM ,
    if there's not a guillotine on a DC streetcorner on 1/21/17 it's hopeless.
    snodgrass Nov 5, 2016 5:52 PM ,
    I was thinking the same thing. All those foundations that help fund PBS are behind a lot of the crap we see in America today. And he doesn't mention the biggest source of corruption - the federal reserve and our banking system. Who owns all those corporations? The owners of the big banks - those that make up the federal reserve.
    Akzed snodgrass Nov 5, 2016 7:15 PM ,
    Who owns the corporations? Who are the biggest stockholders in the biggest mutual funds?
    tomcat1762 Nov 5, 2016 5:23 PM ,
    Such a sanitized interview. I wonder if it is the product of he same 'Deep State?'
    Maestro Maestro Nov 5, 2016 4:49 PM ,
    Hillary=MIC=USA=ISIS. Vote accordingly.

    P.S. I vote NO FRNs aka US dollars; NO Euros; NO Yens; NO Saudi Rials; NO Chinese Yuans; NO British pounds; NO Russian roubles; and NO Israeli Shekels.

    Merry Christmas.

    [Nov 06, 2016] Can The Oligarchy Still Steal The Presidential Election by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that they could control him, and Hillary is their agent. ..."
    "... With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests. ..."
    "... Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation. ..."
    "... Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them, and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could damage the oligarchs. ..."
    "... In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability. ..."
    "... In the speech, Vanfosson said while Donald Trump, a "part-time reality star and full-time bigot," doesn't care about student loan debt, neither does Clinton. "She is so trapped in the world of the elite," Vanfosson said. "She has completely lost grip of what it's like to be an average person." ..."
    "... Vanfosson said the only thing Clinton cares about is the billionaires that fund her election. The student added there was no point in voting for the "lesser of two evils." ..."
    "... "She would be worthless to them," They would love all the focus on her and not on their work. Their work will continue regardless of who is president. It becomes easier if the president is HillBillery, but it will happen either way. ..."
    "... "Something about this was backward. A gay white man and a white woman asking a multi-billionaire how he knows the system is rigged and insisting it's not. Does that sound right to you?" ..."
    "... They asked him how he knows the system is rigged and he said, 'Because I take advantage of it.'" ..."
    "... Can The Oligarchy Still Steal The Presidential Election? Yes. But in the words of the economic-philosopher The Bernanke "It would be... disorderly." ..."
    "... everything they do is for the children! ..."
    "... Can they steal the election? They have to try. Their life depends on it. This is big time. Deep State has trillions and decades invested in this election. ..."
    "... Thoughtful and interesting take as always by PCR. They may not want Trump, but better to delay their plans than let HRC blow them up by being under the ultimate spotlight. ..."
    "... Thinking that this will not be a video game with the better hackers winning is probably either not paying attention or in some kind of "democracy speaks" denial. ..."
    "... Roberts is right, of course. The rigged polls and media bias were prelude to the rigged election. ..."
    Nov 05, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts via Strategic-Culture.org,

    The election was set up to be stolen from Trump. That was the purpose of the polls rigged by overweighting Hillary supporters in the samples. After weeks of hearing poll results that Hillary was in the lead, the public would discount a theft claim. Electronic voting makes elections easy to steal, and I have posted explanations by election fraud experts of how it is done.

    Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that they could control him, and Hillary is their agent.

    With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests.

    Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation.

    Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them, and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could damage the oligarchs.

    In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability.

    A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him.

    Moreover, the Republicans in the House and Senate would not stand for it. House Committee on oversight and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz has already declared Hillary to be "a target-rich environment. Even before we get to day one, we've got two years worth of material already lined up." House Speaker Paul Ryan said investigation will follow the evidence.

    If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure?

    What happens if the FBI recommends the indictment of the president? Even insouciant Americans would see the cover-up if the attorney general refused to prosecute the case. Americans would lose all confidence in the government. Chaos would rule. Chaos can be revolutionary, and that is not good for oligarchs.

    Moreover, if reports can be believed, salacious scandals appear to be waiting their time on stage. For example, last May Fox News reported:

    "Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" - even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.

    "Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls."

    Fox News reports that Epstein served time in prison for "solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service his friends on 'Orgy Island,' an estate on Epstein's 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands."

    Some Internet sites, the credibility of which is unknown to me, have linked Hillary to these flights .

    This kind of behavior seems reckless even for Bill and Hillary, who are accustomed to getting away with everything. Nevertheless, if you are an oligarch already worried about the reopened Hillary email case and additional FBI investigations, such as the one into the Clinton Foundation, and concerned about what else might emerge from the 650,000 emails on former US Rep. Weiner's computer and the NYPD pedophile investigation, putting Hillary in the Oval Office doesn't look like a good decision.

    At this point, I would think that the Oligarchy would prefer to steal the election for Trump , instead of from him, rather than allow insouciant Americans to destroy America's reputation by choosing a person under felony investigations for president of the United States.

    Being the "exceptional nation" takes on new meaning when there is a criminal at the helm.

    TeamDepends Nov 5, 2016 9:55 PM ,

    Nope, not this time. Trump is no Romney and too many feel that this is a life or death decision.
    The Saint TeamDepends Nov 5, 2016 10:02 PM ,
    Hillary CANNOT become President.

    CheapBastard The Saint Nov 5, 2016 10:05 PM ,

    If Hillary gets elected and it's rigged, then her "win" is invalid and her election is illegitimate. Most peoples of most countries are not obligated to obey an illegitimately crookedly elected leader. That's some of the reason why countries have revolts, civil unrest, etc.

    PrayingMantis CheapBastard Nov 5, 2016 10:30 PM ,

    ... > ... "... for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability ..."

    ... ... heck, even the Student introducer goes way off script & trashes Clinton at her own rally ... >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9bmc1uKAz4

    ... Vanfosson was scheduled to give a speech about Sanders and Clinton supporters uniting, but instead gave a speech about "how terrible Hillary is."

    In the speech, Vanfosson said while Donald Trump, a "part-time reality star and full-time bigot," doesn't care about student loan debt, neither does Clinton.

    "She is so trapped in the world of the elite," Vanfosson said. "She has completely lost grip of what it's like to be an average person."

    Vanfosson said the only thing Clinton cares about is the billionaires that fund her election. The student added there was no point in voting for the "lesser of two evils."

    The Saint PrayingMantis Nov 5, 2016 10:38 PM ,
    Fired up. Ready to go. Three people One Two Three
    To see Tim Kaine in Fort Myers, Florida

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/three-people-line-see-tim-kaine-...

    LOL

    RaceToTheBottom PrayingMantis Nov 5, 2016 10:39 PM ,
    "She would be worthless to them," They would love all the focus on her and not on their work. Their work will continue regardless of who is president. It becomes easier if the president is HillBillery, but it will happen either way.
    neidermeyer RaceToTheBottom Nov 5, 2016 10:51 PM ,
    Whether she wins or loses she brings too much attention onto her backers ... her life expectancy shrinks daily.
    Chris Dakota PrayingMantis Nov 5, 2016 10:49 PM ,
    LOL

    Dave Chappell apparently criticized how the media "twisted" what Trump said when he made lewd remarks about grabbing women in a caught-on-tape conversation in 2005 with former Access Hollywood anchor Billy Bush.

    " Sexual assault? It wasn't. He said, 'And when you're a star, they let you do it.' That phrase implies consent," Chappelle reportedly said . "I just don't like the way the media twisted that whole thing. Nobody questioned it."

    The 43-year-old comic praised Trump's performance during the second presidential debate, specifically how he handled the harsh line of questions from moderators Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz.

    "Something about this was backward. A gay white man and a white woman asking a multi-billionaire how he knows the system is rigged and insisting it's not. Does that sound right to you?" Chappelle reportedly asked the crowd at the famous Cutting Room comedy club. "It didn't seem right to me. And here's how you know Trump is the most gangsta candidate ever. They asked him how he knows the system is rigged and he said, 'Because I take advantage of it.'"

    Lynx Dogood TeamDepends Nov 5, 2016 10:43 PM ,
    Government needs the trust of the people. PERIOD! If it is not there, the Gov. and its scharade is over. Hillary and the Clintons are over! If they still put her in, they are all done. All the MAGA people won't stop once the election is over. It will cascade beyond that and split the country. They can't have that.

    The military as much as Obama has gutted it in the past 8 years, is for Trump. Obama forgot that it takes 2 or more generations, complete dumbass. They still listen to their parents. The Obama's don't want the rope that Hilary will get. They are all about self interests, their own.

    This will be an interesting few days!

    asteroids Nov 5, 2016 9:56 PM ,
    If HRC wins I would not want to be working for the FBI. The progroms will begin.
    Clock Crasher asteroids Nov 5, 2016 10:11 PM ,
    exactly. I'd be investing in facial reconstructive surgery and working on new life on the other side of the planet.
    old naughty Clock Crasher Nov 5, 2016 10:46 PM ,
    so a few assume un-normal while PCR hold on to normal thinking by ptb...
    I like PCR but this stance misinform, no?
    Librarian Nov 5, 2016 9:58 PM ,
    Can The Oligarchy Still Steal The Presidential Election? Yes. But in the words of the economic-philosopher The Bernanke "It would be... disorderly."
    AtATrESICI AtATrESICI Nov 5, 2016 10:01 PM ,
    everything they do is for the children!
    Doom and Dust Nov 5, 2016 10:02 PM ,
    It's much worse than just Epstein and his Nab O kov-named pimping jet. The Clintons have gone out of their way at least twice to secure the release of proven and probable child sex trafficking outfits.

    Many disaster relief and aid organizations in the poorest countries are fronts for pedophiles and sex traffickers, and I know this from extensive personal experience in the Third World. The Clintons and their Foundation are the largest spiders in this global web.

    pine_marten Nov 5, 2016 10:04 PM ,
    Both Obysmal and Illary think raising their voices and flapping their arms can get them out of the mess they made for themselves.
    Chupacabra-322 Nov 5, 2016 10:05 PM ,
    Does a Bear Shit in the woods?
    Who was that ma... Chupacabra-322 Nov 5, 2016 10:23 PM ,
    Is the Pope Catholic? Is a frog's ass water tight", Does a one legged duck swim in circles? Is Hillary Clinton a liar?
    Turnagain Nov 5, 2016 10:05 PM ,
    After Wikileaks and Wienergate making the people believe that a Hillarhoid win is legit would be a tough sell.
    Clock Crasher Nov 5, 2016 10:09 PM ,
    Can they steal the election? They have to try. Their life depends on it. This is big time. Deep State has trillions and decades invested in this election.

    For all my pessimism lately I'm with the majority here. Trump-slide! Back to the shadow!

    monad Clock Crasher Nov 5, 2016 10:38 PM ,
    Can they steal me? Can they steal you? Be ready to stand up for yourself. These cockroaches are much smaller than their shadows...
    LetThemEatRand Nov 5, 2016 10:10 PM ,
    Thoughtful and interesting take as always by PCR. They may not want Trump, but better to delay their plans than let HRC blow them up by being under the ultimate spotlight.
    daveO LetThemEatRand Nov 5, 2016 10:35 PM ,
    Plan B. Kill Trump, install Pence & warn him to toe the line.
    Bopper09 Nov 5, 2016 10:11 PM ,
    http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/breaking-st-lucie-county-florida-had.html

    This answer the title's question?

    Clock Crasher Nov 5, 2016 10:19 PM ,
    I want to see the hacking of the election go fubar with the votes blipping up and down like a penny stock. Lead changes every 2 minutes by increments of no less than 5% per quote. All the while CNN pretends like its normal.
    johnwburns Clock Crasher Nov 5, 2016 10:28 PM ,
    Thinking that this will not be a video game with the better hackers winning is probably either not paying attention or in some kind of "democracy speaks" denial.
    johnwburns Nov 5, 2016 10:20 PM ,
    Here is the #nevertrumper response to his 2 minute summary commercial. Disgusting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIL0w4BkHQU
    monad Nov 5, 2016 10:23 PM ,
    How can one cabal steal from itself? Ollie got no factions, Paulie. Gots Meadowlands and 20# sacks of limestone. Y'know... fertilizer.
    Lies. Choose your own path, as God enabled you to do. You are created here, for this purpose.
    Do your best.
    Skiprrrdog Nov 5, 2016 10:31 PM ,
    If the Cunt becomes president, we all better get ready to put our 'pod faces' on... If the Rodent gets 'selected', I wonder if she will keep the Obonzo's on as servants?
    SmokeyBlonde Nov 5, 2016 10:32 PM ,
    No. People are one to their game.
    Baron von Bud Nov 5, 2016 10:33 PM ,
    Roberts is right, of course. The rigged polls and media bias were prelude to the rigged election. Hillary's corruption and Bill's perversions are in the spotlight. It will only get much worse with nypd and the fbi ready to fight. Plus, she's incompetent, violent, and hated by a lot of people. Her election alone could incite WW3 within a few months. Trump on the other hand, will have a "conversion" if elected and a cautious foreign policy will follow. Careers will move along in DC and Trump will find the job easy. Harmony .... maybe for a few years.
    navy62802 Nov 5, 2016 10:34 PM ,
    I predict that if she wins on Tuesday, she will be arrested on Wednesday so that the real puppet Tim Kaine can take over.
    War Machine Nov 5, 2016 10:37 PM ,
    I abhor violence nowadays but for a guy like Epstein and his pals, I would surely make an exception. As I'm sure would many otherwise in favor of legal justice. Pedophiles do not deserve justice. Only punishment.

    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:Jeffrey-Epstein-little-black-book.pdf

    https://isgp-studies.com/

    conraddobler Nov 5, 2016 10:47 PM ,
    I must say I like PCR a lot but he seems to be crafting a narrative to fit his desires on this one.

    Let's be real here.

    There was a massive scandal in England very much like this and it largely went all of nowhere. It hit brick walls after a few players were outed and then fizzled out.

    It cuts to the heart of money and power this kind of thing.

    The corruption isn't just there for mere corruption sake.

    One Ring to rule them all,
    One Ring to find them,
    One Ring to bring them all
    and in the darkness bind them.

    The gist of what I'm saying is this.

    Oh yeah they can rig it and Oh hell yeah they will rig it.

    THEY HAVE TO because the alternative is to let Trump in there and let some normal human beings have the power to unravel this all.

    The problem is we are likely to be ASTONISHED at how deep and wide this is.

    Literally ASTONISHED to the point of shaking the foundations of what everyone believes in.

    So yeah the stakes are huge they will rig it and I pray that I am wrong.

    wethecom Nov 5, 2016 10:41 PM ,
    they wouldnt be pushing the fake polls if they were not going to steal it
    economicmorphine wethecom Nov 5, 2016 10:49 PM ,
    The fake polls are evaporating right before our eyes. Hell, even CNN and the alphabets are starting to back off. Not saying this is proof, but it meshes...
    johnwburns Nov 5, 2016 10:45 PM ,
    Whatever happens with this election I am punching out of this insane process. We are ruled by California, New York, Illinois Pennsylvania and Florida and the ghettos therein. Signing up to be tax cattle and just taking it is masochistic as is aligning oneself with people too lazyor timid to even boycott Amazon or stage a tax revolt.
    conraddobler johnwburns Nov 5, 2016 10:52 PM ,
    Yep taxation without representation all over again. In theory we have it, but in practical reality we don't. The bible tells the story in revelation. Most everyone will be deceived only a few will move away and they will be mercilessly hunted and persecuted. Lovely shit.

    [Nov 06, 2016] Putin Tells Everyone Exactly Who Created ISIS - YouTube

    Nov 06, 2016 | www.youtube.com
    Published on Oct 1, 2015

    Here's something you probably never saw or heard about in the west. This is Putin answering questions regarding ISIS from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club in late 2014.

    dornye easton 2 hours ago

    The White house and and the CIA ARE THE ONES causing this !!

    Gilbert Sanchez 2 weeks ago

    from the U.S.. much love for you Putin. you really opened the eyes of many, even in our country. this man is the definition of president and the u.s hasnt had one for over 40 years... smh.

    IronClad292 2 weeks ago

    As an American I can say that all of this is very confusing. However, one thing I believe is true, Obama and Hillary are the worst thing to ever happen to my country !!!! Average Americans don't want war with Russia. Why would we ?? The common people of both countries don't deserve this !!!!

    lown baby 9 hours ago

    We need Trump to restore our ties with the rest of the world or we are screwed!

    david wood 3 months ago

    He pretty much [said] that the President is a complete fucking idiot. I can't argue with him.

    simon6071 6 days ago (edited)

    +Emanuil Penev Obama is a human puppet who chose to be controlled, He is therefore culpable for his action of supporting Islamic terrorists. Right now Islamic invasion of western countries is the real problem. The USA is now under the control of Obama the Muslim Trojan horse who wants the world to be under the rule of an Islamic empire. USA's military action in the Middle East is the result of USA being under occupation by a Muslim Trojan horse that wants to create tidal waves of Muslim refugees harboring Muslim radicals and terrorists for invading Europe and the USA. Watch video (copy and paste for search) *From Europe to America The Caliphate Muslim Trojan Horse The USA is a victim, not a culprit, in the Muslim invasion of western counties. Obama and his cohorts are the culprits.

    StarWarLean 38 minutes ago

    America has become the evil empire

    Nicholas Villegas 2 days ago

    I hope we get better president and will have better ties and relations with Russia

    machinist1337 1 month ago

    basically Russia wants to be friends with America again and America ain't having it. they have the capabilities to set up shop all around the world. it's like putting guard towers in everyone's lawn just in case somebody wants commit crime. but you never see inside the towers or know who is in them but they have giant guns mounted on them ready to kill. that's how Putin feels. I mean I get it but every other country has nukes. get rid of the nukes and the missile defense will go away. if the situation were reversed it would be out president voicing this frustration. but Putin said it, America is a good example of success that's what Russia needs to do is be more like America. they have been doing it in the last year or so. I think America will come around and we will have good relations with Russia again. so wait... did we support isis as being generally isis or support all Qaeda / Saddam's regime which lead to isis??

    Brendon Charles 2 months ago

    The US supported multiple Rebel Groups that fought against Syria, they armed them, gave them money, and members of those groups split up and formed more Rebel groups or joined different ones. ISIS (at the time, not as large) was supported by the rebel groups the US armed and they got weapons and equipment from said Rebel Groups, even manpower as well.. That is how ISIS came to be the threat it is today.

    benD'anon fawkes 3 months ago

    putin doesnt view the us as a threat to russia..?? he has said countless times that he considers the us as a threat.. and that russian actions are a result of us aggression

    indycoon 3 months ago (edited)

    US people are a threat for all the world because they are not interested in politics, they don't want to know truth, they believe to their one-sided media and allow their government and other warmongers in the US military industry to do whatever they wish all over the world. US politics are dangerous and lead to a new big war where US territory won't stay away this time. It''s time for Americans to understand it. If you allow your son to become a criminal, don't be surprised that your house will be burned some day.

    Wardup04 1 day ago

    Obama and Clinton are progressive evil cunts funded by Soros. Their decision making is calculated and they want these horrendous results because it weakens the US and benefits globalism. Putin kicked the globalists the fuck out, and when Trump wins he will do the same! They are scared shitless. TRUMP/PENCE 2016

    ThePoopMaster01 1 week ago

    It's pretty sad when RT is more trustworthy than all other mainstream news networks

    Michael Espeland 3 days ago

    Someone owns mainstream media, so. Yeah. The rest is kinda self-explanatory

    Daniel Gyllenbreider 1 month ago

    With a stupid and warmongering opponent such as the USA, Russia do not need to construct a narrative or think out some elaborate propaganda. Russia simply needs to speak the truth. And this is why the US and its puppets hates Russia and Putin so much.

    [Nov 06, 2016] Trump vs. the REAL Nuts -- the GOP Uniparty Establishment

    Notable quotes:
    "... An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty." ..."
    "... There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. ..."
    "... To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ..."
    "... Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.unz.com
    54 Comments Credit: VDare.com.

    A couple of remarks in Professor Susan McWillams' recent Modern Age piece celebrating the 25th anniversary of Christopher Lasch's 1991 book The True and Only Heaven , which analyzed the cult of progress in its American manifestation, have stuck in my mind. Here's the first one:

    In the most recent American National Election Studies survey, only 19 percent of Americans agreed with the idea that the government, "is run for the benefit of all the people." [ The True and Only Lasch: On The True and Only Heaven, 25 Years Later , Fall 2016]

    McWilliams adds a footnote to that: The 19 percent figure is from 2012, she says. Then she tells us that in 1964, 64 percent of Americans agreed with the same statement.

    Wow. You have to think that those two numbers, from 64 percent down to 19 percent in two generations, tell us something important and disturbing about our political life.

    Second McWilliams quote:

    In 2016 if you type the words "Democrats and Republicans" or "Republicans and Democrats" into Google, the algorithms predict your next words will be "are the same".

    I just tried this, and she's right. These guesses are of course based on the frequency with which complete sentences show up all over the internet. An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty."

    There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians.

    Which leads me to a different lady commentator: Peggy Noonan, in her October 20th Wall Street Journal column.

    The title of Peggy's piece was: Imagine a Sane Donald Trump . [ Alternate link ]Its gravamen: Donald Trump has shown up the Republican Party Establishment as totally out of touch with their base, which is good; but that he's bat-poop crazy, which is bad. If a sane Donald Trump had done the good thing, the showing-up, we'd be on course to a major beneficial correction in our national politics.

    It's a good clever piece. A couple of months ago on Radio Derb I offered up one and a half cheers for Peggy, who gets a lot right in spite of being a longtime Establishment Insider. So it was here. Sample of what she got right last week:

    Mr. Trump's great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party's leaders didn't know! They were shocked, so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn't happening.

    The party's leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn't want to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses. When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he'd opposed the Iraq invasion, the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn't want to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.

    I'll just pause to note Peggy's use of Steve Sailer' s great encapsulation of Bush-style NeoConnery: "Invade the world, invite the world." Either Peggy's been reading Steve on the sly, or she's read my book We Are Doomed , which borrows that phrase. I credited Steve with it, though, so in either case she knows its provenance, and should likewise have credited Steve.

    End of pause. OK, so Peggy got some things right there. She got a lot wrong, though

    Start with the notion that Trump is crazy. He's a nut, she says, five times. His brain is "a TV funhouse."

    Well, Trump has some colorful quirks of personality, to be sure, as we all do. But he's no nut. A nut can't be as successful in business as Trump has been.

    I spent 32 years as an employee or contractor, mostly in private businesses but for two years in a government department. Private businesses are intensely rational, as human affairs go-much more rational than government departments. The price of irrationality in business is immediate and plainly financial. Sanity-wise, Trump is a better bet than most people in high government positions.

    Sure, politicians talk a good rational game. They present as sober and thoughtful on the Sunday morning shows.

    Look at the stuff they believe, though. Was it rational to respond to the collapse of the U.S.S.R. by moving NATO right up to Russia's borders? Was it rational to expect that post-Saddam Iraq would turn into a constitutional democracy? Was it rational to order insurance companies to sell healthcare policies to people who are already sick? Was the Vietnam War a rational enterprise? Was it rational to respond to the 9/11 attacks by massively increasing Muslim immigration?

    Make your own list.

    Donald Trump displays good healthy patriotic instincts. I'll take that, with the personality quirks and all, over some earnest, careful, sober-sided guy whose head contains fantasies of putting the world to rights, or flooding our country with unassimilable foreigners.

    I'd add the point, made by many commentators, that belongs under the general heading: "You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps." If Donald Trump was not so very different from run-of-the-mill politicians-which I suspect is a big part of what Peggy means by calling him a nut-would he have entered into the political adventure he's on?

    Thor Heyerdahl sailed across the Pacific on a hand-built wooden raft to prove a point, which is not the kind of thing your average ethnographer would do. Was he crazy? No, he wasn't. It was only that some feature of his personality drove him to use that way to prove the point he hoped to prove.

    And then there is Peggy's assertion that the Republican Party's leaders didn't know that half the party's base were at odds with them.

    Did they really not? Didn't they get a clue when the GOP lost in 2012, mainly because millions of Republican voters didn't turn out for Mitt Romney? Didn't they, come to think of it, get the glimmering of a clue back in 1996, when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary?

    Pat Buchanan is in fact a living counter-argument to Peggy's thesis-the "sane Donald Trump" that she claims would win the hearts of GOP managers. Pat is Trump without the personality quirks. How has the Republican Party treated him ?

    Our own Brad Griffin , here at VDARE.com on October 24th, offered a couple more "sane Donald Trumps": Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. How did they fare with the GOP Establishment?

    Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. Probably he's less well-informed about the world than the average pol. I doubt he could tell you what the capital of Burkina Faso is. That's secondary, though. A President has people to look up that stuff for him. The question that's been asked more than any other about Donald Trump is not, pace Peggy Noonan, "Is he nuts?" but, " Is he conservative? "

    I'm sure he is. But my definition of "conservative" is temperamental, not political. My touchstone here is the sketch of the conservative temperament given to us by the English political philosopher Michael Oakeshott :

    To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.

    Rationalism in Politics and other essays (1962)

    That fits Trump better than it fits any liberal you can think of-better also than many senior Republicans.

    For example, it was one of George W. Bush's senior associates-probably Karl Rove-who scoffed at opponents of Bush's delusional foreign policy as "the reality-based community." It would be hard to think of a more un -Oakeshottian turn of phrase.

    Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment.

    I thank him for that, and look forward to his Presidency.

    [Nov 06, 2016] The Podesta Emails - Undeniable proof that the lobbyists wanted to put Bernie out

    Notable quotes:
    "... WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. ..."
    "... if President Obama signs this terrible legislation that blatantly validates Bernie's entire campaign message about Wall Street running our government, this will give Bernie a huge boost and 10,000 -20,000 outraged citizens (who WILL turn up because they will be so angry at the President for preemption vt) will be marching on the Mall with Bernie as their keynote speaker. " ..."
    "... But Hirshberg does not stop here. In order to persuade Podesta about the seriousness of the matter, he claims that " It will be terrible to hand Sanders this advantage at such a fragile time when we really need to save our $$$ for the Trump fight. " ..."
    Nov 06, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr
    WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.

    An email from Gary Hirshberg, chairman and former president and CEO of Stonyfield Farm , to John Podesta on March 13, 2016, confirms why the lobbyists strongly opposed Bernie Sanders.

    Hirshberg writes to a familiar person, as he was mentioned at the time as a possible 2008 Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, requesting Obama should not pass the Roberts bill because " if President Obama signs this terrible legislation that blatantly validates Bernie's entire campaign message about Wall Street running our government, this will give Bernie a huge boost and 10,000 -20,000 outraged citizens (who WILL turn up because they will be so angry at the President for preemption vt) will be marching on the Mall with Bernie as their keynote speaker. "

    But Hirshberg does not stop here. In order to persuade Podesta about the seriousness of the matter, he claims that " It will be terrible to hand Sanders this advantage at such a fragile time when we really need to save our $$$ for the Trump fight. "

    [Nov 05, 2016] Wall Street and the Pentagon by James Petras

    Nov 02, 2016 | The Unz Review

    Wall Street and the Pentagon greeted the onset of 2016 as a 'banner year', a glorious turning point in the quest for malleable regimes willing to sell-off the most lucrative economic resources, to sign off on onerous new debt to Wall Street and to grant use of their strategic military bases to the Pentagon.

    Brazil and Argentina, the most powerful and richest countries in South America and the Philippines, Washington's most strategic military platform in Southeast Asia, were the objects of intense US political operations in the run-up to 2016.

    In each instance, Wall Street and the Pentagon secured smashing successes leading to premature ejaculations over the 'new golden era' of financial pillage and unfettered military adventures. Unfortunately, the early ecstasy has turned to agony: Wall Street made easy entries and even faster departures once the 'honeymoon' gave way to reality. ; The political procurers persecuted center-left incumbents but, were soon to have their turn facing prosecution. The political prostitutes, who had decreed the sale of sovereignty, were replaced by nationalists who would turn the bordello back into a sovereign nation state.

    This essay outlines the rapid rise and dramatic demise of these erstwhile 'progeny' of Wall Street and the Pentagon in Argentina and Brazil, and then reviews Washington's shock and awe as the newly elected Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte embraced new ties with China while proclaiming, 'We are no one's 'tuta' (puppy dog)!'

    Argentina and Brazil: Grandiose Schemes and Crapulous Outcomes

    The international financial press was ecstatic over the election of President Mauricio Macri in Argentina and the appointment of former Wall Street bankers to his cabinet. They celebrated the ouster of the 'evil populists', accusing them of inflating economic results, reneging on debt obligations and discouraging foreign lenders and investors. Under the Macri regime all market obstacles were to be removed and all the bankers trembled with anticipation at the 'good times' to come.

    After taking office in December 2015, President Macri unleashed the 'animal instincts' of the market and the carrion birds flocked in. US 'vulture funds' scooped up and demanded payment for on old Argentine debt 'valued' at $3.5 billion – constituting a 1,000% return on their initial investment. A devaluation of the peso of 50% tripled inflation and drove down wages by 20%.

    Firing over 200,000 public sector employees, slapping 400% price increases on utilities and transport, driving small and medium size firms into bankruptcy and enraged consumers into the streets ended the honeymoon with the Argentine electorate quite abruptly. This initial massive dose of free enterprise 'medicine' was prescribed by the local and Wall Street bankers and investors who had promised a new golden era for capitalism!

    Now that he had banished the 'populists', Macri was free to tap into the international financial markets. Argentina raised $16.5 billion from a bond sale taken up by the big bankers and speculators, mostly from Wall Street, who were eager to cash in on the high rates in the belief that there was no risk with their champion President Macri at the helm. Wall Street based its giddy predictions on a mere three-month experience with Mauricio!

    But then… some of the hedge fund managers began to raise questions about the viability of Mauricio Macri's presidency. Instead of reducing the fiscal deficit, Macri began to increase public spending to offset mass discontent over his triple digit increases in utility fees and transportation, the mass layoffs in the public sector and the slashing of pension funds.

    The major banks had counted on the abrupt devaluation of the currency to invest in the export sector, but instead they were confronted with a sudden 11% appreciation of the peso and a skyrocketing inflation of 40% leading to high interest rates. As a result, the economy fell even deeper in recession exceeding minus 3% for the year.

    While most Wall Street bankers still retain some faith in the Macri regime, they are not willing to fork-over the kind of cash that might allow this increasingly unpopular regime to survive. What keep Wall Street on board the sinking ship are the political and ideological commitments rather than any objective assessment of their protégée's dismal economic performance. Wall Street counts on free market bankers appointed to the ministries, the massive purge of social services (health and education) personnel and the lucrative bond sales to cover the burgeoning deficit. They hope the vast increase in profits resulting from increased utility fees and the sharp cuts in salaries, pensions and subsidies will ultimately lead them into the promised land.

    Wall Street has expressed dismay over Macri's failure to stimulate growth – in fact GDP is falling. Furthermore, their 'golden boy' failed to attract productive investments. Instead thousands of Argentine small and medium businesses have 'gone under' as consumer spending tanked and extortionate tariffs were slapped on vital public utilities and transport – devastating profits. Inflation has undermined the purchasing power of the vast majority of households. Wall Street speculators, concentrating on fixed-rate peso denominated debt, are at risk of losing their shirts.

    In other words, the administration's 'free enterprise' regime is based largely on attracting foreign loans, plundering the national treasury, firing tens of thousands of public sector workers and slashing spending on social services and business-friendly subsidies. Macri has yet to generate any large-scale investment in new innovative productive sectors, which might sustain long-term growth.

    Already facing growing discontent and a general strike of private and public sector workers, the 'bankers' regime' lacks the political links with the trade unions to neutralize the growing opposition.

    ORDER IT NOW

    To hold back the growing tidal wave of discontent, President Macri had to betray his overseas investors by boosting fiscal spending, which has had little or no impact on the national economy.

    Wall Street's hopes that President Mauricio Macri would inaugurate a 'golden era' of free market capitalism lasted less than a year and is turning into a real fiasco. Rising foreign debt, economic depression and class warfare ensures Macri's rapid demise.

    Brazil: Wall Street's Three Month 'Whirl-Wind' Honeymoon

    Most of the current elected members of the Brazilian Congress, Senate and the recently-installed (rather than elected) President, as well as his cabinet, are in trouble: The hero, Michael Temer and his argonauts, chosen by Wall Street to privatize the Brazilian economy and usher in another 'golden dawn' for finance capital, now all face criminal changes, arrest and long prison sentences for money laundering, bribery, fraud, tax evasion and corruption.

    In less than four months, the entire political edifice constructed to impeach the elected President Dilma Rousseff and then de-nationalize key sectors of the economy, is shaking. So much for the financial press's proclamation of a new era of "business friendly" policies in Brazilia.

    The pundits, politicians, journalists and editors, who prematurely celebrated the appointment of Michael Temer to the Presidency by legislative coup, now have to face a new reality. The key to understanding the rapid collapse of the New Right project in Brazil lies in the growing 'rap sheets' of the very same politicians who engineered the ouster of Rousseff.

    Eduardo Cunha, the ex-president of the Congress in Brasilia, used his influence to ensure the super majority of Congressional votes for the impeachment. Cunha was godfather to ensuring the appointment of Michael Temer as interim president.

    Cunha's influence and control over the Congress was based on his wide network of bribes and corruption involving over a hundred members of congress, including the newly anointed President Temer.

    Once Cunha secured the ouster of Rousseff, the Brazilian elite washed their collective hands of the 'fixer', overwhelmed by the stench of his corruption. In September 2016, Cunha was suspended from Congress and lost his immunity. One month later, he was arrested on over a dozen charges, including fraud and tax evasion. It was public knowledge that Cunha had squirreled away a 'tidy nest' of over $70 million in Swiss banks.

    Cunha directed (extorted) public and private firms to finance the campaigns of many of his political colleagues. He had intervened to secure bribes for President Temer, his foreign minister and even the next presidential hopeful, Jose Serra. One of the most powerful representatives of the new regime, Moreira Franco, Grand Wizard of the Privatization Program, was 'in hock' to Cunha.

    As all this has come to light, Cunha has been negotiating a plea bargain with the prosecutor and judges in return for his 'singing' a few arias. He is facing over a hundred years in jail; his wife and daughter face trial; Eduardo Cunha is prepared to talk and finger political leaders to save his own neck. Most knowledgeable observers and judicial experts fully expect Cunha to bring down the Temer Administration with him and devastate the leadership of Temer's Brazilian Democratic Movement Party, as well as ex-president Fernando Henrique Cardoso's Brazilian Social Democratic Party.

    The Brazilian elite, Wall Street bankers and their mass media propagandists, who wrote and directed the impeachment plot scenario are now discredited and bereft of political front men. Their expectations of a new 'golden era of free market capitalism' in Brazil has turned into a political mad scramble with every politico and corporate leader desperate to save his own skin and illicit fortune by denouncing each other.

    With the demise of the 'Brazilian takeover', Wall Street and Washington are bereft of key markets and allies in Latin America.

    The Philippines: The Duterte turn from the US to China

    In April 2014, Washington 'secured' an agreement granting access to five strategic military bases in the Philippines critical to its 'pivot to target' China. Under the outgoing President 'Noynoy' Aquino, Jr. the Pentagon believed it had an 'iron-clad' agreement to organize the Philippines as its satrap and military springboard throughout Southeast Asia. Washington even prodded the Aquino government to bring its Spratly Island dispute with China before the obscure Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague. Washington anticipated using the Court's 'favorable' ruling as a pretext to confront the Chinese.

    All this has changed with the June 2016 ascent to the Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte: In only four months, all Washington's imperial designs had been swept off the table. By October 21, 2016 President Duterte announced he would end military exercises with Washington because they threatened Philippine sovereignty and made his country vulnerable to a military confrontation with China. He promised to end sea patrols of disputed waters that the US uses to harass China in the South China Sea.

    In advance of the Philippines President's meeting with China, he had already declared that he would not press the Dutch-based ruling over the South China Sea island dispute against Beijing but rely on diplomacy and compromise. During the China meeting President Duterte declared that the two countries would engage in a constructive dialogue to resolve the Spratly Islands as well as other outstanding issues. The 'agreement' over US access to bases in the Philippines was put in doubt as the President declared "a separation from the US" and promised long-term, large scale economic and investment ties with China. Undergirding the Philippines pivot to China were 13 trade and investment agreements worth more than $20 billion, covering financing of infrastructure, transport, social projects, tourism, industry and agriculture.

    The military base agreement, signed by the notoriously servile ex-President Aquino without Congressional approval, was review by the Philippine Supreme Court and can be revoked by the new President Duterte by decree.

    Inside of four months, the US strategy of armed encirclement and intervention against China has been dealt a major blow. The newly emerging China-Philippines linkage strikes a fatal blow to Washington's overtly militarist 'pivot' against China.

    Conclusion

    2016 opened with great fanfare: The defeat of the two major center-left governments (Argentina and Brazil) and the advent of hard-right US-backed regimes would inaugurate a 'golden era of free market capitalism'. This promised to usher in a prolonged period of profit and pillage by rolling back 'populist' reforms and creating a bankers paradise. In Southeast Asia, US officials and pundits would proclaim another 'golden era', this time of rampant militarism, encircling and provoking China on its vital sea lanes, and operating from five strategic military bases obtained through a Philippine Presidential decree by an unpopular and recently replaced puppet, 'Noynoy' Aquino, Jr.

    These dreams of 'golden eras' lasted a few months before objective reality intruded.

    By the autumn of 2016 the rightist regimes had been replaced in the Manila by a colorful ardent nationalist, while the 'banker boys' in Brasilia faced prison, and the 'Golden Boys' of Buenos Aires were mired in deep crisis. The notion of an easy Rightist restoration was based on several profound misunderstandings:

    1. The belief that the reversal of social reforms and denial of popular demands would smoothly give way to an explosion of foreign financing and investment was shattered when private bond purchases profited the financial sector but did not bring in large-scale productive investment. Devaluation of the currency was followed by skyrocketing inflation, which led to fiscal deficits and the loss of business confidence.
    2. Washington's promotion of 'corruption investigations' started with prosecuting democratically elected center-left politicians and ended up with the arrest of Wall Street's own protégés encompassing the entire right-wing political class and decimating the 'Golden' regimes.
    3. The belief that long-term hegemonic relations, based on client regimes in Asia, could resist the attraction of signing trade and investment agreements with the rising Chinese mega-economy, while sacrificing vital economic development, and relegating their masses to more stagnation and unemployment, collapsed with the massive electoral of nationalist Rodrigo Duterte as President of the Philippines.

    In fact, these and other political assessments among the decision makers in Washington and on Wall Street were proven wrong leading to a strategic retreat of the empire in both Latin America and Asia. The policy failures were not merely 'mistakes' but the inevitable results of changing structural conditions embedded in a declining empire.

    These decisions were based on a calculus of power, rooted in class and national relations that may have held true two decades ago. At the dawn of the new millennium the US still dominated Asia and China was not yet an economic alternative for its neighbors eager for investment. Washington could and did dictate policy in Southeast Asia.

    Twenty years ago, the US had the economic leverage to sustain the neoliberal policies of the Washington Consensus throughout Latin America.

    Today the US continues to pursue policies based on anachronistic power relations, seeming to ignore the fact that China is now a world power and a viable economic trade and investment alternative successfully competing for markets and influence in Asia. Washington is failing to compete in that marketplace and, therefore, can no longer rely on docile client state.

    Washington cannot effectively control and direct large-scale capital flows to shore-up its newly installed rightist regimes in Argentina and Brazil as they crumble under their own corruption and incompetence. Meanwhile the world is watching a domestic US economy, mired in stagnation with its own political elites torn by corruption and scandals at the highest level, and staging the most bizarre presidential campaign in its history. Corruption has become the mode of governing under conditions of deregulation and rule by political warlords. Political allegiance to the empire and open doors to foreign pillage do not attract capital when those making political decisions are facing prison and the business 'doormen' are busy stuffing their suitcases with cash and making a mad-dash for the airports!

    For Wall Street and the Pentagon, Latin America and Asia are lost opportunities – betrayals to be mourned at the officers clubs and exclusive Manhattan restaurants. For the people in mass social movements these are emerging opportunities for struggle and change.

    The strenuous US effort to rebuild its empire in Latin America and Southeast Asia has suffered a rapid succession of blows. Washington can still seize power but it lacks the talent and the favorable conditions to hold it.

    The vision of a Brazilian state, build on the edifice of the privatized oil giant, Petrobras, and the political incarceration of its left adversaries, with foreign capital attracted and seduced by political procurers, pimps and prostitutes, has ended in a debacle.

    In this vacuum, it will be up to the new governments and peoples' movements to seize the opportunity to advance their struggles and explore political and economic alternatives. The aborted rightist power grab inadvertently has done the peoples' movements a great favor by exposing and ousting the corrupt and compromised center-left regimes opening the door for a genuine anti-imperialist transformation.

    [Nov 04, 2016] Can The Oligarchy Still Steal The Presidential Election

    Notable quotes:
    "... With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests. ..."
    "... A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him. ..."
    "... If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure? ..."
    "... "Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls." ..."
    Nov 04, 2016 | www.unz.com
    Yes they can ;-). that's how two party system is functioning by default. Rank-and-file are typically screwed. the only exception is so called "revolutionary situation", when the elite lost legitimacy and can't dictate its will on the people below.

    November 4, 2016

    The election was set up to be stolen from Trump. That was the purpose of the polls rigged by overweighting Hillary supporters in the samples. After weeks of hearing poll results that Hillary was in the lead, the public would discount a theft claim. Electronic voting makes elections easy to steal, and I have posted explanations by election fraud experts of how it is done.

    Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that they could control him, and Hillary is their agent.

    With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests.

    Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation.

    Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them, and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could damage the oligarchs.

    In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability.

    A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him.

    Moreover, the Republicans in the House and Senate would not stand for it. House Committee on oversight and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz has already declared Hillary to be "a target-rich environment. Even before we get to day one, we've got two years worth of material already lined up." House Speaker Paul Ryan said investigation will follow the evidence.

    If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure?

    What happens if the FBI recommends the indictment of the president? Even insouciant Americans would see the cover-up if the attorney general refused to prosecute the case. Americans would lose all confidence in the government. Chaos would rule. Chaos can be revolutionary, and that is not good for oligarchs.

    Moreover, if reports can be believed, salacious scandals appear to be waiting their time on stage. For example, last May Fox News reported:

    "Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" - even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.

    "Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls."

    Fox News reports that Epstein served time in prison for "solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service his friends on 'Orgy Island,' an estate on Epstein's 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands." http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html
    Some Internet sites, the credibility of which is unknown to me, have linked Hillary to these flights. http

    [Nov 04, 2016] The 11th Anniversary of 9/11

    Nov 04, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Anon

    October 25, 2016 at 9:25 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The 11th Anniversary of 9/11 ~ Paul Craig Roberts
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/

    9/11 and the Orwellian Redefinition of "Conspiracy Theory"
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/9-11-and-the-orwellian-redefinition-of-conspiracy-theory/25339

    9/11 After 13 years
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/10/911-13-years-paul-craig-roberts/

    The Tide is Turning: The Official Story Is Now The Conspiracy Theory - Paul Craig Roberts
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/09/07/the-tide-is-turning-the-official-story-is-now-the-conspiracy-theory-paul-craig-roberts/

    No Airliner Black Boxes Found at the World Trade Center? Senior Officials Dispute Official 9/11 Claim
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/no-airliner-black-boxes-found-at-the-world-trade-center-senior-officials-dispute-official-911-claim/5400891

    [Nov 04, 2016] 9-11 Truth - The Unz Review

    Oct 25, 2016 | The Unz Review

    For the first time a presidential candidate, admittedly from a fringe party, is calling for a reexamination of 9/11. Jill Stein of the Green Party has recognized that exercises in which the United States government examines its own behavior are certain to come up with a result that basically exonerates the politicians and the federal bureaucracy. This has been the case since the Warren Commission report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which, inter alia, failed to thoroughly investigate key players like Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby and came up with a single gunman scenario in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary.

    When it comes to 9/11, I have been reluctant to enter the fray largely because I do not have the scientific and technical chops to seriously assess how buildings collapse or how a large passenger airliner might be completely consumed by a fire. In my own area, of expertise, which is intelligence, I have repeatedly noted that the Commission investigators failed to look into the potential foreign government involvement in the events that took place that day. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan just for starters may have been involved in or had knowledge relating to 9/11 but the only investigation that took place, insofar as I can determine, was a perfunctory look at the possible Saudi role, the notorious 28 pages, which have recently been released in a redacted form.

    A friend recently recommended that I take a look at a film on 9/11 that was first produced back in 2005. It is called Loose Change 9/11 and is available on Amazon Video or in DVD form as well as elsewhere in a number of updated versions. The first version reportedly provides the most coherent account, though the later updates certainly are worth watching, add significantly to the narrative, and are currently more accessible.

    Loose Change is an examination of the inconsistencies in the standard 9/11 narrative, a subject that has been thoroughly poked and prodded in a number of other documentaries and books, but it benefits from the immediacy of the account and the fresh memories of the participants in the events who were interviewed by the documentary's director Dylan Avery starting in 2004. It also includes a bit of a history lesson for the average viewer, recalling Hitler's Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which were essentially fraudulent and led to the assumption of emergency powers by the respective heads of state.

    The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything. Loose Change describes how leading hawkish Republicans were, as early as 2000, pushing to increase U.S. military capabilities so that the country would be able to fight multi-front wars. The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration.

    The new Pearl Harbor turned out to be 9/11. Given developments since 9/11 itself, to include the way the U.S. has persisted in going to war and the constant search for enemies worldwide to justify our own form of Deep State government, I would, to a large extent, have to believe that PNAC was either prescient or perhaps, more diabolically, actively engaged in creating a new reality.

    That is not to suggest that either then or now most federal employees in the national security industry were part of some vast conspiracy but rather an indictment of the behavior and values of those at the top of the food chain, people who are characteristically singularly devoid of any ethical compass and base their decisions largely on personal and peer group ambition.

    9/11 Truthers are characteristically very passionate about their beliefs, which is part of their problem in relating to a broader public. They frequently demand full adherence to their version of what passes for reality. In my own experience of more than twenty years on the intelligence side of government I have frequently found that truth is in fact elusive, often lying concealed in conflicting narratives. This is, I believe, the strength of Loose Change as it identifies and challenges inconsistencies in the established account without pontificating and, even though it has a definite point of view and draws conclusions, it avoids going over to the dark side and speculating on any number of the wilder "what-if" scenarios.

    I recommend that readers watch Loose Change as it runs through discussions of U.S. military exercises and inexplicable stand-downs that occurred on 9/11, together with convincing accounts of engineering and technical issues related to how the World Trade Center and WTC7 collapsed. Particularly intriguing are the initial eyewitness accounts from the site of the alleged downing of UA 93 in Pennsylvania, a hole in the ground that otherwise showed absolutely no evidence of a plane having actually crashed. Nor have I ever seen any traces of a plane in photos taken at the Pentagon point of impact.

    The film describes the subsequent investigative failures that took place, perhaps deliberately and arranged from inside the government, and concludes that the event amounts to an "American coup" which changed the United States both in terms of its domestic liberties and its foreign policy. After watching the film, one must accept that there are numerous inconsistencies that emerge from any examination of the standard narrative promoted by the 9/11 Commission and covered up by every White House since 2001. The film calls the existing corpus of government investigations into 9/11 a lie, a conclusion that I would certainly agree with.

    The consequences of 9/11 are indeed more important than the event itself. Even those who have come to accept the established narrative would have to concede that "that day of infamy" changed America for the worse, as the film notes. While the United States government had previously engaged in illegal activity directed against for suspected spies, terrorists and a variety of international criminals, wholesale surveillance of what amounts to the entire population of the country was a new development brought in by the Patriot Acts. And, for the first time, secret prisons were set up overseas and citizens were arrested without being charged and held indefinitely. Under the authority of the Military Commissions Act tribunals were established to try those individuals who were suspected of being material supporters of terrorism, "material supporters" being loosely interpreted to make arrest, prosecution and imprisonment easier.

    More recently, executive authority based on the anti-terror legislation has been used to execute American citizens overseas and, under the Authorization to Use Military Force, to attack suspects in a number of countries with which the United States is not at war. This all takes place with hardly a squeak from Congress or from the media. And when citizens object to any or all of the above they are blocked from taking action in the courts by the government's invocation of State Secrets Privilege, claiming that judicial review would reveal national secrets. Many believe that the United States has now become a precursor police state, all as a result of 9/11 and the so-called War on Terror which developed from that event.

    So who benefited from 9/11? Clearly the executive branch of the government itself, which has seen an enormous expansion in its power and control over both the economy and people's lives, but there are also other entities like the military industrial complex, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, and the financial services sector, all of which have gained considerably from the anti-terror largesse coming from the American taxpayer. Together these entities constitute an American Deep State, which controls both government and much of the private sector without ever being mentioned or seriously contested.

    Suggesting government connivance in the events of 9/11 inevitably raises the question of who exactly might have ordered or carried out the attacks if they were in fact not fully and completely the work of a handful of Arab hijackers? The film suggests that one should perhaps consider the possibility of a sophisticated "false flag" operation, by which we mean that the apparent perpetrators of the act were not, in fact, the drivers or originators of what took place. Blowing up huge buildings and causing them to pancake from within, if indeed that is what took place, is the work of governments, not of a handful of terrorists. Only two governments would have had that capability, the United States itself and also Israel, unfortunately mentioned only once in passing in the film, a state player heavily engaged in attempting to bring America into its fight with the Arab world, with Benjamin Netanyahu subsequently saying that "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq swung American public opinion in our favor."

    To be honest I would prefer not to think that 9/11 might have been an inside job, but I am now convinced that a new 9/11 Commission is in order, one that is not run and guided by the government itself. If it can be demonstrated that the attacks carried out on that day were quite possibly set up by major figures both inside and outside the political establishment it might produce such a powerful reaction that the public would demand a reversal of the laws and policies that have so gravely damaged our republic. It is admittedly unlikely that anything like that could ever take place, but it is at least something to hope for.

    NosytheDuke, October 25, 2016 at 4:36 am GMT • 100 Words

    Only by constantly repeating to all and sundry the blatant falsehoods, frauds and meddling that are evident which absolutely contradict the official narrative of what happened can a tipping point be reached and the demands for a new, open and independent investigation be the unavoidable topic in political and social life.

    Only after a new, open and independent investigation and a ruthless holding to account of those responsible has taken place can America go about its business of being great because it is good. Good luck with that.

    3.MarkinLA, October 25, 2016 at 4:39 am GMT • 200 Words

    Remember Korean Air flight 007. At that time the conspiracy theory was that the US and South Korean governments got the pilot to invade Soviet air space while the Space Shuttle was in the vicinity along with the electronic surveillance plane that crossed KAL007′s path in order to light up USSR air defenses and collect data.

    Whether it was true or not, the Reagan administration used it to vilify the USSR and push it's hawkish agenda.

    9/11 doesn't have to have been done by the government for Deep State entities to take advantage. Any preplanning of what to do afterward could also be explained by them knowing what was going to happen (ala Pearl Harbor) and letting it happen. There were plenty of intelligence reports in the commission proceedings that have indicated something was up but not acted upon. They didn't have an admiral they could blame like they did at Pearl so the whole system was blamed which made expanding the security apparatus so much easier.

    Brabantian, Website

    October 25, 2016 at 8:59 am GMT • 300 Words

    In the European press, Italy's President Francesco Cossiga exposed that the NYC towers destruction of 11 September 2001 was done by the USA & Israel's Mossad , and that all Europe's governments know this

    Too few people know, that the New York Times itself, a few weeks before the NYC towers fell, photographed 'Israeli art students' (!) working in-between the walls of the those towers, amidst stacks of boxes with certain markings which … identify the box contents as components of bomb detonators
    World Trade Center's Infamous 91st-Floor Israeli 'Art Student' Project

    Also, too few people know that Osama Bin Laden himself denied being involved in the 11 Sep. 2001 NYC towers destruction, & that the 'Osama Bin Laden' videos & tapes shown for several years afterwards, are clearly-proven fakes with actors

    The claimed discoverer of those 'bin Laden' videos & tapes – allegedly scouring the 'Jihadi YouTubes' for material no one else 'finds' – is Israeli-American Rita Katz of the laughable 'SITE' – 'Search for International Terrorist Entities'

    Dissident US military-intel veterans tell us:

    " The truth about [Osama] Bin Laden, that his last known communication was December 3rd, 2001, received by the CIA / NSA intercept facility in Doha, in which he accused American Neocons of staging 9-11.

    " This was less than two weeks before his death, as reported in Egypt, Pakistan, India, Iran and even by Fox News, until Rita Katz brought him back to life in the guise of a Mercedes repair shop owner of Somali parentage living in Haifa, Israel.

    " The new short, fat Bin Laden, who lost his ability to speak Oxford English, continued to drop audio tapes in the dumpster behind Katz's Brooklyn apartment for years, until his frozen corpse was dumped into the Indian Ocean. "

    - Gordon Duff, Veterans Today

    Hans Vogel, October 25, 2016 at 9:07 am GMT

    If I recall correctly, it was Thierry Meyssan who in 2002 in his book La terrible imposture first suggested that 9/11 was a coup. John Kerry's brother-in-law Sarkozy later forced Meyssan into exile, because he was becoming a nuisance to the US and their French puppets.

    AmericaFirstNow , October 25, 2016 at 11:59 am GMT
    @AmericaFirstNow 9/11 Motive & Media Betrayal :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ncn5Q16N4&list=PL3C32560738EF3C30&feature=plpp

    For actual 9/11 truth about how fire brought down Building 7 as well see the links at following URL:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2011/07/14/alan-sabrosky-911-interview-with-press-tv-host-susan-modaress/

    Rehmat, October 25, 2016 at 12:35 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Dr. Giraldi is missing the point. While Washington and Zionist-controlled mainstream media had blamed the Taliban, Pakistan, Iran, and lately Saudi Arabia – they never mentioned the 800-pound Gorilla – the Zionist regime.

    The most vilified person had been head of Pakistan's intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, who pointed his finger to Israel Mossad two weeks after the 9/11 – even before media ridiculously blamed Osama Bin Laden in order to invade and occupy Afghanistan – a country which did not had a single tank, helicopter, fighter jet or even a commercial plane to defend itself from the so-called ONLY WORLD POWER.

    Hamid Gul's claim on September 26, 2001, is now supported by thousands of scientists, scholars, politicians, architects and even a Jewish member of the so-called 9/11 COMISSION, Philip Zelikow (Zionist Jew) admitted in 2004 that America invaded Iraq in 2003 because Saddam Hussein became an existential threat to the Zionist entity.

    In December 2001, US historian Michael Collins Piper claimed that the so-called "19 Arab hijackers" could have been Israeli agents.

    On September 10, 2016, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts posted an article, entitled, 9/11: 15 years of a transparent lie.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/08/17/gen-hamid-gul-the-muslim-soparno-dies/

    Fred Reed , October 25, 2016 at 2:22 pm GMT

    Nine-Eleven Conspiracy Exam (Note: This was written when Israel was the most popular culprit. Some questions may need to be changed to reflect changes in guilt. Failure to answer all questions will result in a grade of F.)

    Diogenes, October 25, 2016 at 2:24 pm GMT

    9/11 was an amazing sociological event for what it can tell us about human psychology. The vast majority of people uncritically swallowed the official explanation, a few critical observers cast suspicions on the official story, then a group of chronically suspicious people, known as conspiracy theorists, who believe the government cannot be trusted had a cause celebre, then a group of anti conspiracy theorists and pro-government reactionaries devoted their energies to discredit the 9/11 Truthers while the vast majority of people are as a result confused and paralyzed into indecision and apathy. I will take note of who in these comments are 9/11 naysayers and observe what they say about other controversial topics!

    Rurik , October 25, 2016 at 2:55 pm GMT

    The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything.

    we now know that they set the Waco compound on fire, and that they were firing machine guns into the only exit once the flames had engulfed the building. Bodies were piled up at the site of the exit that the coroner ruled were homicide deaths from bullet wounds. Homicides that our government committed. Most American yawn at such news. 'Those people (including the children) were 'whackos'.

    Recently our government has murdered or maimed or displaced millions upon millions of innocent men, women and children in the Middle East, and destroyed several countries, all based on by now well-established lies. Most Americans yawn at such knowledge. Those people 'hate our freedom'.

    Our government is also running a permanent torture camp. A 'Ministry of Love', or Minluv, in Orwell's Newspeak parlance.

    The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration.

    the "something" that these neocon Zionists demanded from their "new Pearl Harbor like event" was for America to set about destroying all Muslim nations considered inconvenient to Israel. Without the 'event', Americans just were not willing to sacrifice their children to the Zionist cause.

    One of the central figures demanding that America act in Israel's interest was a one Phillip D. Zelikow. A neocon insider extraordinaire.

    This from his Wiki page:

    In the November–December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article Catastrophic Terrorism, with Ashton B. Carter , and John M. Deutch, in which they speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, "the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently." [24]

    Yes, that Ashton Carter, our current Secretary of Defense. And John Deutch was the director of the CIA at one time. (perhaps Mr. Giraldi knows of him)

    This Jewish neocon war mongering Zionist who called for a Peal Harbor like event to catalyze Americans to go to war for Israel, ended up being the executive director of the 911 Commission. The same 911 Commission that is universally recognized as a fraud and a cover up. Even by some of the men who were on it.

    I'm going to stop here. My head simply swims from the sheer evil of these people.

    Miro23, October 25, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    @Fred Reed

    A simpler 9/11 questionnaire for Fred;

    "Did right wing elements in Israel close to Likud, and US Neocons close to the Bush administration engineer the attacks to enable the Iraq war?" Yes____ No____ Don't know____

    Essay question: Are there any similarities between these events and other False Flag attacks aimed at Great Britain and the US such as 1) The King David Hotel bombing 2) Operation Susannah – Lavon Affair 3) USS Liberty?

    Jon Gold , October 25, 2016 at 3:31 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Loose Change? C'mon Phil…

    9/11: Press For Truth
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmHPfXemf10

    In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBblyIPxZFE

    9/11 Family Members, Jersey Girls, and member of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg released a report showing how poorly the 9/11 Commission answered their questions:

    http://wewereliedtoabout911.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/fsc_review.pdf

    The September Eleventh Advocates (Jersey Girls) have released a multitude of press releases over the years bringing attention to and calling into question certain aspects of 9/11:

    http://wewereliedtoabout911.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/911advocates.pdf

    Here are the 9/11 Family Steering Committee's list of unanswered questions. The final statement from the 9/11 Family Steering Committee states "the report did not answer all of our questions…":

    http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

    Here is essential testimony from different 9/11 Family Members during the 9/11 Commission:

    http://www.911independentcommission.org/testimony.html

    Here are all of the different statements released by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee during the time of the 9/11 Commission. They show extremely well the corruption and compromise within the 9/11 Commission:

    http://www.911independentcommission.org/news.html

    My EXTREMELY extensive show "We Were Lied To About 9/11."

    https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/we-were-lied-to-about-9-11/id955030348?mt=2

    Rurik October 25, 2016 at 3:56 pm GMT • 1,000 Words
    @Fred Reed Nine-Eleven Conspiracy Exam (Note: This was written when Israel was the most popular culprit. Some questions may need to be changed to reflect changes in guilt. Failure to answer all questions will result in a grade of F.)

    Was the US government solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___


    Was Israel solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___


    Did Israel and the US government together engineer the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___


    Was neither Israel nor the US government responsible? yes___no___Don't know___


    Were Saudis involved in any way in the plot? yes___no___Don't know___


    If Israel was responsible, did the CIA know? yes___no___Don't know___


    Was President Bush, through the CIA or otherwise, aware of the Israeli participation, making the President and the CIA part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


    Did AA77 hit the Pentagon. yes___no___Don't know___


    Essay question: If no, What happened to AA77? ____________ Don't know___


    If not AA77, did a missile hit the Pentagon? yes___no___Don't know___


    If a missile, was ws it fired by the US military, making the military part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


    If no, fired by whom? ____________ Don't know___


    Did the NTSB fake the data from the flight data recorders, making it part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


    Were the Towers destroyed by a controlled demolition? yes___no___Don't know___


    Did aircraft hit the the Towers? yes___no___Don't know___


    If so, who flew them? ____________ Don't know__


    Essay question: Why both controlled demolition and aircraft? Ignore this question if the two were not used together


    Essay question: If a controlled demolition, describe the placement and quantities needed, and the source of your information.


    Was the FBI involved in the cover-up, and therefore part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


    Was Larry Silverstein, owner of the Towers, part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___


    Did the media cover up the conspiracy, thereby making them part of it? yes___no___Don't know___


    Essay question: If Israel was involved, should America bomb Tel Aviv?

    Was the US government solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___

    no, Israel was also responsible

    Was Israel solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___

    No, elements in the US gov and controlled media were also responsible

    Did Israel and the US government together engineer the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___

    not governments per se, but elements in those governments. Like "the orders still stand" Dick Cheney, but certainly not all the assorted minions of the US or Israeli governments.

    Was neither Israel nor the US government responsible? yes___no___Don't know___

    not governments per se. If you restrict the question to this broadly defined blanket condemnation, then the answer would be 'yes'.

    Were Saudis involved in any way in the plot? yes___no___Don't know___

    there's zero reason for thinking so

    If Israel was responsible, did the CIA know? yes___no___Don't know___

    at the highest levels, yes, but there again, that certainly doesn't mean every single employee

    Was President Bush, through the CIA or otherwise, aware of the Israeli participation, making the President and the CIA part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

    Don't know

    Did AA77 hit the Pentagon. yes___no___Don't know___

    there's no evidence of it. And if it had, they'd show us one of the scores (hundreds?) of videos

    Essay question: If no, What happened to AA77? ____________ Don't know___

    the reason the flights were wildly diverted was probably to land the planes, liquidate the passengers and crew, and then send up specially outfitted jets for the purpose of crashing into the towers. (as the pretext for them to collapse, as the pretext to start the Eternal Wars for Israel and to turn us all into Palestinians)

    If not AA77, did a missile hit the Pentagon? yes___no___Don't know___

    it looks like it

    If a missile, was ws it fired by the US military, making the military part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

    Don't know. And again, it wouldn't be "the military", as in some monolithic entity that is fully aware of everything that "it' does. There are fringe sub-sets of the military that are often engaged in illegal and covert ops.

    If no, fired by whom? ____________ Don't know___

    Don't know

    Did the NTSB fake the data from the flight data recorders, making it part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

    what data?!

    From what I understand, we have not been made privy to any of the information on any of the flight data recorders. If you're aware of any data from the flight data recorders then you should give us a link!

    Were the Towers destroyed by a controlled demolition? yes___no___Don't know___

    yes

    it's *obvious* that building seven was thus demolished, and so it follows that the other two were also.

    Did aircraft hit the the Towers? yes___no___Don't know___

    two of them, yes. The third was not hit by a plane, it simply plopped down in nicely cut pieces ready for shipment to China.

    If so, who flew them? ____________ Don't know__

    In all likelihood, remote control. Check out the comptroller of the Pentagon at the time and his sundry organizations. Nice little rabbit hole of its own.

    Essay question: Why both controlled demolition and aircraft? Ignore this question if the two were not used together

    horror

    they needed to horrify and anger the American people to rally us to war on Israel's neighbors. (+ there was the added benefit to lucky Larry of a few billion shekels and an opportunity to get rid of a couple of financial boondoggles. Such a deal!)

    Essay question: If a controlled demolition, describe the placement and quantities needed, and the source of your information.

    this is silly

    we don't need to know the exact caliber of bullet that hit JFK to know that the government and Warren commission was lying. And they likely used military type crap that we're not even privy to. Come on Fred.

    Was the FBI involved in the cover-up, and therefore part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

    elements, sure

    like the people that went around and collected all the videos that might have showed what hit the Pentagon. Certainly the people at the top were and are privy to the crime and cover up. Just like with JFK.

    Was Larry Silverstein, owner of the Towers, part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___

    Yes, of course he was

    Did the media cover up the conspiracy, thereby making them part of it? yes___no___Don't know___

    not your local channel seven, but the media as it's controlled from the top, and lie about EVERTYING. Yes Fred, that media was complicit. And still are. And are the ones that are going to hand the reins of this nations to Hillary Clinton. That media, you betcha.

    Essay question: If Israel was involved, should America bomb Tel Aviv?

    of course not. There again you're being silly Fred.

    what America should do is the same thing is should (and still needs to) do as regards the other cowardly and treacherous false flag that *elements* in the Israeli government and security forces were responsible for- the attack on the USS Liberty. We should have a real investigation that ferrets out these uber-criminals and brings them to justice.

    911 was a coup to turn the US into Israel's rabid dog in the Levant. And create a police state for any Americans that object, even with our very own torture camp. Isn't that something?

    You should write about it someday Fred. I can't think of a person more suited to mock the American idea of the free and the brave running a torture camp for goat herders and Afghans who don't want America making them free too.

    as for 911, all you have to know is that building seven was an obvious controlled demolition. From there it doesn't matter if George Dubya Bush was in on it or what type of materials specifically were used to bring the buildings down. That shit is all academic. We know they lied, and are lying. Only a deluded fool or moral coward (or worse) would pretend to themselves otherwise once he's seen the irrefutable evidence that they're lying.

    TheJester October 25, 2016 at 4:31 pm GMT • 200 Words

    There are multiple ways to engineer a "False Flag" attack:

    1. You do it yourself, flying someone else's "flag" and hope no one notices. (Very primitive … rarely works unless you are a wooden frigate at sea attacking enemy maritime commerce.)

    2. You hire someone else to do it and hope none of them get caught. (Moderately primitive … but it worked for awhile in the Kennedy assassination.)

    3. You infiltrate a hostile terrorist organization, take control, and redirect it to the attack. (Very difficult to do … but this was done in the NATO-sponsored Gladio terrorist attacks in Europe in the 1960s as well as the Black Hand attacks that precipitated WWI.)

    4. You infiltrate a hostile terrorist organization, discover what they have planned, and QUIETLY remove all of YOUR obstacles that would otherwise have prevented the attack. (This is the best if you can pull it off since you leave no fingerprints. You might, as in 911, be accused of incompetent but, okay, you missed that one, so what!)

    BTW: #4 doesn't mean you don't help the terrorists with a little demolition work to make sure the spectacle unfolds as planned. You really need grand firework displays in these things to get them the attention they deserve.

    Si1ver1ock, October 25, 2016 at 5:04 pm GMT

    For those just coming into the 911 Truth movement, you should probably look at the hard evidence first to see if it merits further consideration. After that, you can go to he circumstantial evidence.

    Start with the physics and engineering:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HNIIdpMhFg

    The question isn't whether this theory or that theory is absolutely correct. The question is whether there is sufficient cause for a new investigation. I never hear a good argument from the anti-Truth crowd as to why we shouldn't have another investigation.

    We want a new investigation. They don't want one. Why?

    Miro23, October 25, 2016 at 7:17 pm GMT

    A key to instant identification of the faith-based C-theorist is the loud claim that "steel-framed buildings" don't collapse as a result of fire. Fact is, yes they do - known, verified, fully-explained using real, verifiable data.

    Here's a list of steel framed high rises and other high rises that experienced major fires:

    – One New York Plaza, New York. 50 stories steel. Dropped beams on 33rd & 34th floors.
    – Alexis Nihon Plaza, Montreal. 15 stories steel. Partial collapse on 11th floor.
    – Windsor Tower, Madrid. 29 stories steel/concrete. Partial collapse.
    – One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia. 38 stories. No collapse.
    – Broadgate Phase 8, London. 14 stories. No collapse.
    – First Interstate Bank, Los Angeles. 62 stories. No collapse.
    – MGM Grand Hotel, Las Vegas. 26 stories. No collapse.
    – Joelma Building, Sao Paulo. 25 stories. No collapse.
    – Andraus Building, Sao Paulo. 31 stories. No collapse.

    These fires were much longer lasting and more intense than the WTC fires and none of these buildings experienced a complete collapse.
    Can you give a list of modern steel frame 20 storey+ buildings similar to WTC 1, 2 & 7 that have experienced a complete collapse due to fire – known and verified.

    Miro23 , October 25, 2016 at 8:23 pm GMT • 300 Words

    I have repeatedly noted that the Commission investigators failed to look into the potential foreign government involvement in the events that took place that day. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan just for starters may have been involved in or had knowledge relating to 9/11 but the only investigation that took place, insofar as I can determine, was a perfunctory look at the possible Saudi role, the notorious 28 pages, which have recently been released in a redacted form.

    It might have been worth checking out Israel a bit more closely. They have been running False Flag operations against the British and the US for years, aimed at engaging them in war against Arab states. For example:

    The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine) in which Zionists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu attended a celebration to commemorate the event.

    Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British and American cinemas, libraries and educational centres in Egypt to destabilize the country and keep British troops committed to the Middle East.

    Or on June 8th 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following nine hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on the Egyptians and draw the US into the 6 Day War.

    Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the more recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that carries a lot of kudos with old ex-terrorist Likudniks. In any event, Israelis were sent to film the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves with a background of the burning towers.

    CanSpeccy says: • Website October 25, 2016 at 9:57 pm GMT •
    @War for Blair Mountain
    add in the fact that the steel support beams only had to be softened not melted to cause catastrophic structural failure.
    You are absolutely correct about that. If the beams had melted, or even softened, then the building would have collapsed. But not straight down at near free-fall speed into its own footprint, while crushing all the concrete to dust.

    If the columns had melted, or merely softened, they would not have melted or softened uniformly across the the building, so the result would have been an asymetric collapse resulting in the top of the building toppling over and crashing onto the roof of adjacent buildings. The portion of the building beneath the fire zone would have been left standing.

    But, as we know, nothing like that happened.

    CanSpeccy , October 26, 2016 at 2:07 am GMT • 400 Words @Oldeguy
    Pretty much my response. Something, I know not what, is amiss with Our Favorite Expatriate.
    Not being sure of what really happened in an event this pivotal is a reason to proceed with further discussion and investigation- not to shut it down.
    The most successful, by far, commando operation in history performed flawlessly by a bunch of guys with boxcutters directed by cell phone by a fugitive hiding out in a cave in Afghanistan ?
    On the the face of it, that matches the goofiest of any of the conspiracy theories.

    On the the face of it, that [the theory about 19 guys with box-cutters under the direction of fugitive in a cave in Afghanistan] matches the goofiest of any of the conspiracy theories.

    And even the members of the 9/11 Commission have admitted they don't really believe it.

    Thus:

    The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".

    The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements , yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

    Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations .

    9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history .

    9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

    9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

    Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal" ; "This investigation is now compromised" ; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up" .

    9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that " We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest ".

    The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true."

    [Nov 03, 2016] MSM beat drums to reward Clintons hawkishness insinuating that Trump foreign policy is uncertain

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary led us to disaster in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya. ... Hillary and our failed Washington establishment have spent $6 trillion on wars in the Middle East, and now it's worse than it's ever been before. ..."
    "... Okay, folks. She – I'll tell you what. She will get us into World War III. She will get us into World War III. I will tell you that. She's incompetent. She will get us into World War III. ..."
    "... The arrogant political class never learns. They keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. They keep telling the same lies. They keep producing the same failed results. ..."
    "... Clinton on the other hand has a proven record of being a proactive hawk. She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can. ..."
    "... She is a political animal totally dependent on her sponsors. Economically she is pro-banks, pro-big-business and for further deregulation. A neoliberal. ..."
    "... She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can. ..."
    "... That works only on the third world hellholes. The problem with Hillary (and her circle) is that they don't really know the difference between those hellholes and a thing called in US military lingo "near-peer" or "peer". They say that they know but they don't, neither does most of "academe". ..."
    "... IMO, this vote is the only way to hold her to account. Once she is in, the Clinton machine will be using "We the People" as door mats. ..."
    "... On domestic policy and economic policy, both candidates are abominable. Hillary is, even there I would argue, more dangerous because she actually understands the implications and effects of her policy positions and still holds them. ..."
    "... On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism, he has the advantage of being inept. ..."
    "... clinton has spent her entire adult life avoiding accountability. a cursory glance at the behavior of her cultish followers shows that anyone trying to hold her to any standard gets screeched out of the room (never mind getting on any mainstream news channel). every time she screws up it's "someone else's fault". it's putin or the FBI or some variety of "bro". ..."
    "... george carlin's "who owns you" should be required viewing for every US voter. ..."
    "... The O'Bomber evidently said he doesn't understand Trump's popularity ... It isn't that Trump is popular it is that, due in part to the O'Bomber himself, the Killary is viewed as anathema. ..."
    "... If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff. ..."
    "... In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this". ..."
    "... Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". ..."
    "... Hope the Americans don't vote that psychopath Clinton in, if they do keep her away from that football. ..."
    "... Oh well my twenty cents worth is that Trump doesn't have enough legislative support to do anything too drastic externally. ..."
    "... The real issue of both candidates is their vice asshole nominee, cos I reckon which ever creep wins impeachment will be just around the corner. Of course Hillary is more likely to be impeached the open fbi investigation combined with an almost certain rethug majority in senate and a certain one in Congress means her odds of lasting the distance are not great. ..."
    "... Trump has a lot of work to do to prevent the rethug 'leadership' taking a big bung from the sponsors to impeach him for some misdeed or another. ..."
    "... There is absolutely no point in listening to what any modern pol says, the reality they peddle is mutable, changing according to their needs. Such types can only be measured by what they have done in the past & in the case of Mrs Clinton that is a farrago of broken promises & sell outs to her sponsors. ..."
    "... I voted for Trump, despite being thoroughly on the left. Trump's vilification by the globalist elite means that he has to be doing something right. ..."
    "... When a normal person tries to be a politician, they sound like Trump because normal people give themselves away when they stretch the truth. It's the dangerous psychos who sound good-natured and reasonable, because they can lie and don't feel a thing when they do it. ..."
    "... Hmmmm. Do all the Hillbottoms like pizza parties? With beans and eggs. And lots of cheese. Remember, remember the 5th of November. The pedo-queen won't EVER forget the date. Tick-tock. ..."
    Nov 03, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    For me, as a non U.S. person, the major issues of the U.S. presidential elections is always foreign policy. There Trump is not hawkish at all. He has somewhat confused, unlearned blustering positions on foreign policy but is basically a cautious, risk averse businessman. He consistently criticizes the war mongering in Washington DC. Hillary Clinton is a run-of-the-mill warmongering neoconservative compatible with the imperial "mainstream" of the power centers in Washington and elsewhere.

    Trump has called up this contrast again and again (as do I). In a speech (vid at 53:20 min) in Grand Rapids Michigan on October 31 he again highlights these points. Some excerpts (taken from this partial transcript part 9, 10):

    Hillary led us to disaster in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya. ... Hillary and our failed Washington establishment have spent $6 trillion on wars in the Middle East, and now it's worse than it's ever been before.

    Had Obama and others gone to the beach, Obama could have gone to the golf course, we would have been in much better shape.

    We shouldn't have gone into the war, and she thinks I'm a hawk. Oh, Donald Trump.
    ...
    Imagine if some of the money had been spent, $6 trillion in the Middle East, on building new schools and roads and bridges right here in Michigan.

    Now Hillary, trapped in her Washington bubble, that's blind to the lessons, wants to start a shooting war in Syria in conflict with a nuclear armed Russia that could drag us into a World War III.

    Okay, folks. She – I'll tell you what. She will get us into World War III. She will get us into World War III. I will tell you that. She's incompetent. She will get us into World War III.

    The arrogant political class never learns. They keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. They keep telling the same lies. They keep producing the same failed results.

    Trump may well be lying when he says he does not seek a conflict with Russia or anyone else. Trump surely lies on other issues. But those are mostly rather obvious lies and some are even a bit comical. He is playing Reagan on economic issues, promising tax cuts that can not be financed (and which Reagan had to take back in the end when he introduced the biggest tax hike ever). On many issues we do not know what Trump is really planning to do (or if he plans at all). But he has never given the impression that he is hawkish or willing to incite a war.

    Clinton on the other hand has a proven record of being a proactive hawk. She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can.

    She is a political animal totally dependent on her sponsors. Economically she is pro-banks, pro-big-business and for further deregulation. A neoliberal. The only "liberal" standpoints she has are on some hyped identity issues relevant only for a very tiny group of people like transgenders. She told her real voters, the people who pay her, that her public standpoint on many issues is different from the one she will pursue. She did not mean that what she will pursue will be less hawkish than her public stand, or that she will be more progressive on economic issues than she openly claims.

    Clinton assures us that Trump is Putin's puppet who will start a nuclear World War III with Russia. She doesn't say how that computes. Will Putin order Trump to give him asylum in Washington while Moscow and Washington get nuked?

    With Trump the U.S. would get a president who is a pretty unknown factor but, in my judgment, a less dangerous one to the U.S. and the world than Clinton. With her the next useless and deadly wars are practically guaranteed.

    ... ... ..

    The citizens of the United States now have an opportunity to hold Secretary of State Clinton to account for her " We came, we saw, he died " war on Libya and for escalating the war on Syria. The militaristic (and failed) pivot to Asia, the "regime changes" putsches in Honduras and Ukraine and the deterioration of relations with Russia are also to a large part her work. Should the voters reward her for all the death, misery and new dangers she created as Secretary of State by making her President?

    ... ... ...

    Posted by b on November 3, 2016 at 03:22 PM | Permalink

    SmoothieX12 | Nov 3, 2016 3:37:10 PM | 2
    She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can.

    That works only on the third world hellholes. The problem with Hillary (and her circle) is that they don't really know the difference between those hellholes and a thing called in US military lingo "near-peer" or "peer". They say that they know but they don't, neither does most of "academe".

    Dean | Nov 3, 2016 3:47:36 PM | 3
    IMO, this vote is the only way to hold her to account. Once she is in, the Clinton machine will be using "We the People" as door mats.
    ALberto | Nov 3, 2016 3:58:44 PM | 4
    Trump's Treasury Secretary?

    In addition to Goldman, Mnuchin also worked at Soros Fund Management, whose founder, George Soros, has funded many left-leaning causes. Where it gets even more bizarre is that Mnuchin has donated frequently to Democrats, including to Clinton and Barack Obama.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-03/trump-wants-former-goldman-partner-and-soros-employee-serve-treasury-secretary

    Charles | Nov 3, 2016 4:16:20 PM | 8
    On domestic policy and economic policy, both candidates are abominable. Hillary is, even there I would argue, more dangerous because she actually understands the implications and effects of her policy positions and still holds them. Trump doesn't seem to have anything more than a thin grasp over any policy matter. He might get into office and forget about his giant tax cut.

    On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism, he has the advantage of being inept.

    ben | Nov 3, 2016 4:24:36 PM | 9
    November 2, 2016
    Prof. Michael Hudson on Hillary Clinton and the US Elections

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17573

    worth a listen...

    the pair | Nov 3, 2016 4:24:51 PM | 10
    no idea why you value this guy's opinion...typical FP neoliberal yuppie nonsense. the fact that he thinks anyone can or will "hold her accountable" after she gets voted in makes me wonder if he can even tie his own shoelaces. as for "immoral", that just tells me he places "locker room talk" at a lower moral realm than participation in genocide and plutocratic plunder.

    how did that "hold me accountable" thing work out from 2008-2012? and when the voters had a chance to hold obama accountable for his first term what did they do? voted him in again and then went back to four years of paying zero attention to the world around them unless the MSM gave them an occasional Two Minute Hate or some "tragedy" they were instructed to feel sad about.

    clinton has spent her entire adult life avoiding accountability. a cursory glance at the behavior of her cultish followers shows that anyone trying to hold her to any standard gets screeched out of the room (never mind getting on any mainstream news channel). every time she screws up it's "someone else's fault". it's putin or the FBI or some variety of "bro".

    george carlin's "who owns you" should be required viewing for every US voter. not only will she say anything to get elected but once she's in will laugh at the notion of anyone telling her what to do. she has nothing but contempt for all voters and i wouldn't be surprised if she held her own supporters even lower. how can you respect a group that has so little respect for themselves or the truth?

    Mina | Nov 3, 2016 4:38:16 PM | 12
    What the hell is that?
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43536
    they really get trolled by email?
    SmoothieX12 | Nov 3, 2016 4:47:04 PM | 15
    @8, Charles
    On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism, he has the advantage of being inept.

    Are you suggesting that Obama and what he has in his admin currently are not-inept? I believe last generation of American competent foreign policy professionals "died out" with Bill Clinton's Admin arrival. For the last 20+ year US foreign policy "establishment", including its "academe" and "analytical" branches, which work in concert with intelligence services is an embodiment of incompetence and is a definition of unmitigated disaster.

    Mina | Nov 3, 2016 4:49:35 PM | 16
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43648
    "> Also, any idea whose fighters attacked Islamist positions in Tripoli, Libya?
    >
    > Worth analyzing for future purposes."
    Mina | Nov 3, 2016 4:58:17 PM | 18
    I am surprised that when searching for leaks released today this one shows up, which we've seen before, isn't it?
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43648
    rg the lg | Nov 3, 2016 5:00:49 PM | 19
    The O'Bomber evidently said he doesn't understand Trump's popularity ... It isn't that Trump is popular it is that, due in part to the O'Bomber himself, the Killary is viewed as anathema.

    My hope is that IF Killary wins a revolution is sparked by simple disgust at how venal she is ... or that IF Trump wins the dems (dims) provoke a disturbance that grows into a bloody damned mess.

    Maybe, just maybe, the blood in the streets will be deep enough to make shoes squish with each step.

    In the meantime, we've had light (really slight) showers here on the Llano Estacado.

    james | Nov 3, 2016 5:03:44 PM | 20
    thanks b..

    if the choice is between which of the two is the better liar - i go with hillary... as a consequence, if i was in the usa, i would be voting trump or green depending on the location..

    and, as you note - ..."as a non U.S. person, the major issues of the U.S. presidential elections is always foreign policy." and which one of the candidates is always talking russia 24/7 while claiming to serve the interests of the indoctrinated usa public? one would have to be brain dead to vote for hillary, in spite of what the lying msm says... a friend here in canada - an american living in canada - informed me this morning that he saw a poll saying that 9 out of 10 canucks would like to cut off relations with the usa if trump is elected.. kid you not.. i told him i was the other 10% and that i would like to cut off relations with the usa if hillary is elected!

    harrylaw | Nov 3, 2016 5:09:39 PM | 22
    If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff.

    In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this".

    Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NfFAaPZqs8

    harrylaw | Nov 3, 2016 5:50:41 PM | 29
    Hope the Americans don't vote that psychopath Clinton in, if they do keep her away from that football. The nuclear football (also known as the atomic football, the president's emergency satchel, the button, the black box, or just the football) is a briefcase, the contents of which are to be used by the President of the United States to authorize a nuclear attack
    Jack Smith | Nov 3, 2016 6:09:25 PM | 33
    "...With Trump the U.S. would get a president who is a pretty unknown factor but, in my judgment, a less dangerous one to the U.S. and the world than Clinton. With her the next useless and deadly wars are practically guaranteed..

    b,

    Excellent piece, I hold the same opinion of Trump, I'm undecided whether to throw my lot in with Trump or Jill Stein. Vote for Stein won't help her in California, Hillary too far ahead. But vote for Stein may help the Green Party, the 5% need to be in future public debates.

    Even if I'm wrong and vote for Trump, Dem will obstructs Trump in every twists and turns, just they did to GW Bush. Whom should I vote?

    Debsisdead | Nov 3, 2016 7:03:01 PM | 38
    Oh well my twenty cents worth is that Trump doesn't have enough legislative support to do anything too drastic externally. yeah yeah I undertsand that as 'C in C' he can find an excuse to blow the world away but since there's not a dollar in that and most of his energy is gonna be directed at copping a good earner, he's not gonna waste time, energy or electoral capital shooting the shit outta unwhites - unlike his predecessor or his opponent.
    Of course there will be a rush of greedy rethug assholes trying to line up for jobs in a trump administration but trump being who he is will rely heavily on yes men as he always has - he doesn't trust anyone sufficiently to delegate and lacks the ability to build a clinton style organisation full of rats ratting each other out to give him the checks & balances he would need to delegate effectively.

    Some ambitious rethugs will definitely take it upon themselves to operate for 'sponsors' in spite of the donald but he must be used to that coming as he does from that grey area between gangsterism and allegedly 'legitimate' business. He won't appreciate types who cop an earn without paying him an 80% cut, so hopefully DC's exponents of 'wet work' will be kept busy purging the trump administration and won't have time to be sticking their noses into other nations and purging them.

    The real issue of both candidates is their vice asshole nominee, cos I reckon which ever creep wins impeachment will be just around the corner. Of course Hillary is more likely to be impeached the open fbi investigation combined with an almost certain rethug majority in senate and a certain one in Congress means her odds of lasting the distance are not great.

    Trump has a lot of work to do to prevent the rethug 'leadership' taking a big bung from the sponsors to impeach him for some misdeed or another. Remember this is the mob that got the other Clinton for copping a bj - hardly presidential (in the weird hypocritical amerikan view) but not illegal unless the whole rape culture thing is used and that I suspect even now to be a step too far for rednecked rethugs.

    Trump is more likely to meet with an accident or suffer heart failure but the means don't really matter the reality is that in either case the veeps are highly likely to come into play.

    In that case Kain & Pence - from what I can discern they are standard American hawks complete with the required ignorance of the big wide world, assured sense of American exceptionalism and love of watching what they cannot comprehend explode in a pink miasma of human body parts.

    And they know how to keep sponsors happy which is why they were picked in the first place - so however bad things are gonna get under ClintonInc or theDonald the only certainty is that they will eventually get even worse.

    Good one assholes

    schlub | Nov 3, 2016 8:23:25 PM | 43
    Today's humor:

    US President Barack Obama has lashed out at Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's supporters, saying his popularity among working-class Americans is "frustrating."

    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/11/03/492016/US-Obama-Trump-support-Clinton-Florida

    Debsisdead | Nov 3, 2016 9:06:37 PM | 47
    @h #40 "They are about governance. They are about policy positions"

    Yeah right that must be why yer hero has done so much to avoid talking policy over the last 12 months. ClintonInc attacked the bernie idjit personally just as they have with trump. That wouldn't be so important if anyone could trust ClintonInc to abide by stated dem policy but this is a low life scumsucking mob of no-hopers who put themselves on offer to the highest bidder - whatever the titular head of ClintonInc has said in the past or will say and do in the future is irrelevant to the eternal now - how much are you offering continuum - where she lives.

    There is absolutely no point in listening to what any modern pol says, the reality they peddle is mutable, changing according to their needs. Such types can only be measured by what they have done in the past & in the case of Mrs Clinton that is a farrago of broken promises & sell outs to her sponsors.

    metamars | Nov 3, 2016 9:09:48 PM | 48
    @ EnglishOutsider, 34

    "Since they are significant differences then any voting action becomes significant."

    Exactly (provided you mean "more significant in the short term".)

    I have corresponded with Bueno de Mesquita, a gifted political game theorist, on lesser evilism. See "THE JESUS CHRIST OF POLITICAL GAME THEORY ON THE STUPIDITY OF LESSER EVILIST VOTING" @ https://shadowproof.com/2011/06/18/the-jesus-christ-of-political-game-theory-on-the-stupidity-of-lesser-evilist-voting/

    Although we didn't discuss it, and so I can't guarantee that de Mesquita would agree, lesser evilism as a voting strategy is stupid PROVIDED that the evils are of roughly the same level.

    When it comes to foreign policy, I don't think that's true at all of Hillary vs. Trump. Hillary is MUCH more evil than Trump. Furthermore, Hillary's "evil" in this regard involves a greater chance of war with amply nuclear armed Russia. We're therefore dealing with an existential threat. Yeah, she finally dialed that back, somewhat, at her last debate with Trump. (Now she says she'll negotiate a no-fly zone with Russia.) That's good news, if it's really true that she was essentially bluffing about the no-fly zone in Syria. But if there's a 5% chance she wasn't bluffing/lying, then that 5% chance of an existentially threatening war scenario still relegates her to the "You must be kidding" category, in my eyes.

    I'm voting for Trump, and make no apologies for doing so.

    It's too bad that Trump is SO inept as a politician. While he's improved, he hasn't impressed, overall, with his snail's pace of improvement. He even botched the de facto coddling of ISIS oil caravans, spouting wild allegations of Obama and Hillary "founding" ISIS. IMO, if he had used his ample TV exposure to expose the Obama Admin's cozy, benign tolerance of ISIS, in it's early stages, Obama would be so toxic that a) he could not help Hillary, much at all and b) Obama's toxicity would rub off on Hillary. Trump could have used this horror story to virtually guarantee him a win. Instead he turned lemonade into a lemon, and still hasn't figured out what an opportunity he blew, nor how to recover.


    Pretty damn dumb, if you ask me.

    Unmolested ISIS oil caravan data was presented by the Russians; I listed references in my reddit post at r/the_Donald, "Trump Better Wake Up - New Report Indicates Why Trump's Failure To Correctly Attribute Blame for ISIS' Early Success Could Cost Him, Dearly" @ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5a5qns/trump_better_wake_up_new_report_indicates_why/

    jfl | Nov 3, 2016 9:37:08 PM | 55
    @46 h, ' If you're an American and you hold the position that the U.S. founding documents were built to support 'Oligarchy' I must ask, b/c you opened the door as to where you ever learned such nonsense.'

    An Economic Interpretation of The Constitution of The United States by Charles A. Beard

    'If your outburst is representative of America's younger generation, then my God man, we're sorely screwed.'

    Copyright 1913 and 1935 by the Macmillan Company,
    Copyright renewed 1941 by Charles A. Beard.
    This Digital edition created 25th July, 2006

    jason | Nov 3, 2016 9:42:44 PM | 57
    I've been so pissed off at Mrs M.A.D. that i've avoided listening to the Der Drumpenfuerher. I listened to a bit of his lunchtime speeches on Fuchs news today. The man is ape shit nuts. Immigration policy is both foreign & domestic policy. US biz needs cheap "illegals" & Trump knows this. His "round up the illegals," along w/his doubling down on the drug war, is all about the further militarization of US society. He will double down on dismantling public education, use the loathsome ACA to further assaults on Medicare/S.S. He will "cut corporate taxes to rebuild the inner cities," etc., etc. There is so little difference on these issues you might as well flip a coin.

    on FP, he said, "I will stop China from building 'fortresses' (sic) in the S China Sea." oh yeah, he's really going to be some radical departure from Obomba and the "pivot to Asia". The MSM so studiously lies about what the current admin is really up to that some things Trump says sound judicious. Like comments on the M.E. & defeating ISIS. and what do those comments mean? they mean doing the exact same shit we are doing right now. so much for saving "trillions." "we will rebuild our military." you know what that means. Does he ever talk specifically about US/NATO vs Russia, Ukraine, the Russian border, etc.? of course not. his "be nice to Putin" act is a bunch of BS in response to Mrs. MAD's goading & insulting Putin in order to save her political ass.

    good luck Average American. It does not matter in the slightest who wins: you & the world lose.

    wilk | Nov 3, 2016 9:53:53 PM | 59
    Might not have been the right decision, but I voted for Trump, despite being thoroughly on the left. Trump's vilification by the globalist elite means that he has to be doing something right.

    I'll also give this to him: he sounds like a sleaze most of the time, and this is a good thing because it means he's a normal human being. When a normal person tries to be a politician, they sound like Trump because normal people give themselves away when they stretch the truth. It's the dangerous psychos who sound good-natured and reasonable, because they can lie and don't feel a thing when they do it.

    Take Me | Nov 3, 2016 10:00:56 PM | 61
    Hmmmm. Do all the Hillbottoms like pizza parties? With beans and eggs. And lots of cheese. Remember, remember the 5th of November. The pedo-queen won't EVER forget the date. Tick-tock.

    [Nov 03, 2016] Obama channels inner Pinocchio: "I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

    He completely forgot what he said about her in 2008. At that time he was much closer to truth.
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Fiver

    Further to throwing Comey under the bus yesterday, Obama had this to say:

    "I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute confidence in her integrity."

    No amount of Bleach-bit can remove that yellow streak running down his back and straight through the entirety of his 'legacy'. Not once did he come down on the side opposite entrenched power – in fact, we can now add major 'obstruction of justice' to his prior litany of failures to prosecute white collar criminals as the basis for its own section, splitting criminal activity into two parts, one domestic, the other for a raft of war crimes.

    [Nov 03, 2016] With Only Six Days Remaining, Trump Surges in the Polls as Hillary Supporters Abandon Ship Zero Hedge

    Nov 03, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    johnwburns Nov 2, 2016 8:06 PM ,
    Fighting against total of the big ghetto states is a bitch. Looks like Trump needs to run the table as in FL,OH,GA,NC,AZ,CO,IA,NV. Not impossible but something resembling a real kill shot from Wikileaks sure would help.
    TuffsNotEnuff johnwburns Nov 2, 2016 8:23 PM ,
    Trump's big problem from the early exit interviews is a "balk" effect. That could be decisive in FL, GA, NC, AZ, UT.

    If you like Reagan, Bill Clinton, or a well mannered governor such as Kasich what does Trump do for you as president?

    roadhazard Nov 2, 2016 6:27 PM ,
    Amazing that Weiners laptop could make any difference after Bengaaahzi...
    robnume Nov 2, 2016 6:13 PM ,
    I have always believed that Trump is actually the elites choice and that they have been practicing reverse psychology on the voters. Nothing that has happened during this 'selection' season has put me off of that hypothesis. I told my husband months ago that there would be an October/November surprise and that Trump may very well end up in the White House. Hillary is just too broken to be able to pull it off. I've heard his economic policy speeches: privatize social security, etc., and they all line up with just what the elites have wanted for a long time. I know most ZHers don't feel this way, but politics is a bitch, my friends. Let the down voting commence.
    Burticus robnume Nov 2, 2016 7:54 PM ,
    Yes, I've also speculated that Sir Trumpalot could possibly be a "work" (choreographed by the Eleeches) instead of a "shoot" (sincere).

    Even so, there's no way he (or anyone else) could be worse than Hitlery and the Clinton Crime Family.

    Occams_Razor_Trader robnume Nov 2, 2016 7:27 PM ,
    Thumbs down- You got it Dude.

    Your theory is actually a theory - In politics NOTHING happens by chance.

    Mark Twain said: If voting really mattered- They wouldn't let us do it!

    I honestly believe that the PTB have every election sewn up through controlled opposition- yet Trump would move us to Totalitarianism at a much slower rate than the HitlerBeast. The Political Overton Window has shifted hard to the left over the last 30 years. Both parties are to the left of John F. Kennedy, sadly. Lesser of two evils is the new name of the game!

    Lyman54 robnume Nov 2, 2016 7:13 PM ,
    Evidence doesn't support your theory Rob. Ask yourself why every news organization in the English speaking world is busy trashing Trump? Odd way to for the elites to show support.
    skillyhog Nov 2, 2016 4:35 PM ,
    I'm an establishment hater and long to see Clinton's get their due, so support Trump by default. What I think is instructive, if nothing else interesting, is Brandon Smith's POV on Trump's potential "victory". The chess board is fascinating, but may not be R's and D's playing the game at all. For the planned crash, they'd rather have the "isolationist" (falsely painted term) than the Globalist at the helm for blame. "See?? Its these same Brexit and Trump voting "isolationist"! We need the SDR and the Big Boys back in charge!".......still, I'd have a thrill run up my leg to watch a long-time crook get her just comeuppance....
    JBPeebles Nov 2, 2016 4:34 PM ,
    BREAKING: Steve Pieczenik.com from infowars and youtube videos:
    2:40 in; Unedited
    "We've initiated a counter coup through Assange and Wikileaks."
    Comey's action reflected a response to the Silent Coup.
    "We're going to stop you from making HRC President of the U.S."
    Massive corruption under Clinton Foundation.
    "I am just a small part of something bigger than myself."
    "Brave men and women in the FBI, CIA,Director of Intelligence, Military Intelligence and 15 other intelligence agencies who were sick and tired of seeing this corruption in the White House, Justice Department, Intelligence Services (so we) decided that there was something we had to do to save the Republic so we initiated a Counter Coup through Julian Assange through emails that we gave to him in order to undermine Hillary and Bill Clinton."
    Pieczenik indicated this "Second American Revolution" had no guns, wapons, or intent to kill or harm." He says the Counter Coup is made up of veterans in the intelligence service like (himself.) He asserts that they will make sure Obama leaves office without a pardon or any other "act of treason."
    The coup "wants a peaceful transition."
    Pieczenik said this is a "moment of history occurring right now."
    gezley JBPeebles Nov 2, 2016 8:04 PM ,
    I'm sick of hearing about this Pieczenik guy. It's been non-stop here at ZH lately. There's no way this Tribe member is up to any good with his counter-coup distraction.
    Mazzy Nov 2, 2016 4:21 PM ,
    What happens when states like Maryland, New Jersey, Colorado and Iowa vote for Trump (because they didn't bother to rig in those areas), but Hilary still "wins" in super battle ground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania because those elections were rigged?

    [Nov 03, 2016] Trump will simply pursue "saner, more sensible" immigration policies

    www.washingtonpost.com

    Thiel also criticized the media's coverage of Trump's bombastic remarks. He said that while the media takes Trump's remarks "literally" but not "seriously," he believes Trump supporters take them seriously but not literally. In short, Trump isn't actually going to impose religious tests on immigrants or build a wall along the Mexican border, as he has repeatedly said, but will simply pursue "saner, more sensible" immigration policies.

    "His larger-than-life persona attracts a lot of attention. Nobody would suggest that Donald Trump is a humble man. But the big things he's right about amount to a much needed dose of humility in our politics," Thiel said.

    While the Silicon Valley tech corridor and suburbs around Washington have thrived in the last decade or more, many other parts of the country have been gutted by economic and trade policies that closed manufacturing plants and shipped jobs overseas, Thiel said, reiterating a previous talking point.

    "Most Americans don't live by the Beltway or the San Francisco Bay. Most Americans haven't been part of that prosperity," Thiel said Monday. "It shouldn't be surprising to see people vote for Bernie Sanders or for Donald Trump, who is the only outsider left in the race."

    Thiel later said he had hoped the presidential race might come down to Sanders and Trump, two outsiders with distinct views on the root cause of the nation's economic malaise and the best course of action to fix it. "That would have been a very different sort of debate," he said.

    Thiel's prepared remarks seemed more of an admonishment of the state of the country today than a ringing endorsement of Trump's persona and policies. He decried high medical costs and the lack of savings baby boomers have on hand. He said millennials are burdened by soaring tuition costs and a poor outlook on the future. Meanwhile, he said, the federal government has wasted trillions of dollars fighting wars in Africa and the Middle East that have yet to be won.

    Trump is the only candidate who shares his view that the country's problems are substantial and need drastic change to be repaired, Thiel said. Clinton, on the other hand, does not see a need for a hard reset on some of the country's policies and would likely lead the U.S. into additional costly conflicts abroad, he said.

    A self-described libertarian, Thiel amassed his fortune as the co-founder of digital payment company PayPal and data analytics firm Palantir Technologies. He has continued to add to that wealth through venture capital investments in companies that include Facebook, Airbnb, Lyft and Spotify, among many others.

    [Nov 02, 2016] A real-time demo of the most devastating election theft mechanism yet found, with context and explanation.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Demonstration uses a real voting system and real vote databases and takes place in seconds across multiple jurisdictions. Over 5000 subcontractors and middlemen have the access to perform this for any or all clients. ..."
    Nov 02, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    BetweenThe Coasts Nov 2, 2016 3:40 PM ,
    Just cause nobody is voting for her won't stop em. What counts the vote matters:

    "A real-time demo of the most devastating election theft mechanism yet found, with context and explanation.

    Demonstration uses a real voting system and real vote databases and takes place in seconds across multiple jurisdictions. Over 5000 subcontractors and middlemen have the access to perform this for any or all clients.

    It can give contract signing authority to whoever the user chooses. All political power can be"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fob-AGgZn44

    [Nov 02, 2016] Traditional understanding of left and right does not exist anymore as the radical left and the radical right seem to agree on the most important issues like globalization and protectionism

    Nov 02, 2016 | crookedtimber.org
    ( 69 )
    In conclusion this analysis is still based on a traditional understanding of left and right which doesn't exist anymore in most European countries – as concerning the most important issues like globalization and protectionism the radical left and the radical right seem to agree.

    And so the the traditional understanding of left and right is often used for justification of the own political position, while it is less and less helpful to explain voting behavior.
    As in voting behavior the dividing lines are NOT so much anymore between left and right, but more between a liberal, cosmopolitan bourgeoisie in the center and on both edges populists who are propagating partitioning and protectionism.

    This is true not only for Europe but also for the United States of Trump – aka the once 'United States of America' -(if this currently very popular joke in Europe is allowed?)

    [Nov 02, 2016] Meaninglessness or rather, obfuscation of typical MSM notions of left and right

    Notable quotes:
    "... What I like is how this highlights the meaninglessness (or rather, obfuscation) of typical mainstream notions of left and right, which refer to rival ideological subgroupings within liberalism ..."
    Nov 02, 2016 | www.carlbeijer.com
    and here , might be a three-party system of simply "alt-right", "alt-left", and "alt-center".

    What I like is how this highlights the meaninglessness (or rather, obfuscation) of typical mainstream notions of left and right, which refer to rival ideological subgroupings within liberalism, where alt-right and alt-left can be understood as groupings that reject certain basic premises of liberalism altogether;

    alt-center can then be understood as denoting establishment-aligned liberals of both "right" and "left" varieties, whose clear priority above and beyond superficial two-party bickering is to maintain the hegemony of liberalism (i.e. neoliberalism) against potential ideological competition.

    We can see this neoliberal/alt-center tendency in the US with moderate Republicans backing Clinton against the proto-fascist/alt-right tendencies channeled by Trump, and a mirror image in the UK with Blairite Labour's ongoing quest to marginalize the socialist/alt-left tendencies channeled by Corbyn at the expense of empowering the Tories under May.

    Of course I don't like the idea of conceding to alt-centrist liberals that the left/right dichotomy without "alt-" prefixes means what they claim it means, but as a way of planting the notion in people's heads that much of mainstream political discourse is more likely to hinder true understanding than help it, the "alt-" taxonomy seems easy enough both to explain and to understand.

    [Nov 02, 2016] Donald Trump is no outsider: he mirrors our political culture by George Monbiot

    Trump mirrors resentment with the current political culture. Unfortunately very few readers in this forum understand that the emergence of Trump as a viable candidate in the current race, the candidate who withstand 24x7 air bombarment by corrupt neoliberabl MSM (like Guardian ;-) signify deep crisis of neoliberalsm and neoliberal globalization.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless of its size." ..."
    "... That's it – finance and sophisticated lobbying. And you can add to that mass brainwashing at election campaigns by means of choice language and orchestration as advised by cognitive scientists who are expressly recruited for this purpose. Voters remain largely unaware of the mind control they are undergoing. And of course the essential prerequisite for all of this is financial power. ..."
    "... Now read again in this light Gore Vidal's famous pronouncement… "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically by definition be disqualified from ever doing so." ..."
    "... Worse still, the political spectrum runs from right to right. To all intents and purposes, one single party, the US Neoliberal party, with 2 factions catering for power and privilege. Anything to the left of that is simply not an available choice for voters. ..."
    "... Americans have wakened up to the fact that they badly need a government which caters for the needs of the average citizen. In their desperation some will still vote for Trump warts and all. This for the same sorts of reasons that Italians voted for Berlusconi, whose winning slogan was basically 'I am not a politician'. ..."
    "... The right choice was Bernie Sanders. Sadly, not powerful enough. So Americans missed the boat there. But at least there was a boat to miss this time around. You can be sure that similar future boats will be sunk well in advance. Corporate power has learnt its lesson and the art of election rigging has now become an exact science. ..."
    "... Donald Trump, Brexit and Le Pen are all in their separate ways rejections of the dogma of liberalism, social and economic, that has dominated the West for the past three decades. ..."
    "... In 2010, Chomsky wrote : ..."
    "... The United States is extremely lucky.....if somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. ..."
    "... Dangerous times. The beauty of democracy is we get what we deserve ..."
    "... The worst thing about Donald Trump is that he's the man in the mirror. ..."
    "... He is the distillation of all that we have been induced to desire and admire. ..."
    "... I thought that he is the mirror image, the reverse, of the current liberal consensus. A consensus driven by worthy ideals but driven too far, gradually losing acceptance and with no self correcting awareness. ..."
    "... Trump is awful - but by speaking freely he challenges the excesses of those who would limit free speech. Trump is awful - but by demonising minorities he challenges those who would excuse minorities of all responsibility. Trump is awful - but by flaunting his wealth he challenges those who keep their connections and wealth hidden for the sake of appearances. ..."
    "... Trump is awful because the system is out of balance. He is a consequence, not a cause. ..."
    "... Voting for Trump is voting for peace. Voting for Clinton is voting for WW3. ..."
    "... It's quite clearly because Hillary as President is an utterly terrifying prospect. When half the population would rather have Trump than her, it must be conceded that she has some serious reputational issues. ..."
    "... Personally, I'd take Trump over Hillary if I was a US citizen. He may be a buffoon but she is profoundly dangerous, probably a genuine psychopath and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. Sanders is the man America needs now, though, barring one of Hillary's many crimes finally toppling her, it's not going to happen... ..."
    "... The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal ..."
    "... And the shame is we seem to be becoming desensitized to scandal. We cannot be said to live in democracies when our political class are so obviously bought by the vastly rich. ..."
    "... One of the things it says is that people are so sick of Identity Politics from the Left and believe the Left are not very true to the ideals of what should be the Left. ..."
    "... When the people who are supposed to care about the poor and working joes and janes prefer to care about the minorities whose vote they can rely on, the poor and the working joes and janes will show their frustration by supporting someone who will come along and tell it as it is, even if he is part of how it got that way. ..."
    "... People throughout the world have awoken to the Left being Right Light but with a more nauseating moral superiority complex. ..."
    "... he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics ..."
    "... 'Encouraged by the corporate media, the Republicans have been waging a full-spectrum assault on empathy, altruism and the decencies we owe to other people. Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.' ..."
    "... Many years ago in the British Military, those with the right connections and enough money could buy an officer's commission and rise up the system to be an incompetent General. As a result, many battles were mismanaged and many lives wasted due to the incompetent (wealthy privileged few) buying their way to the top. American politics today works on exactly the same system of wealthy patronage and privilege for the incompetent, read Clinton and Trump. Until the best candidates are able to rise up through the political system without buying their way there then the whole corrupt farce will continue and we will be no different to the all the other tin pot republics of the world. ..."
    "... There's the "culture wars" aspect. Many people don't like being told they are "deplorable" for opposing illegal (or even legal) immigration. They don't like being called "racist" for disagreeing with an ideology. ..."
    "... I like the phrase Monbiot ends with - "He is our system, stripped of its pretences" - it reminds me of a phrase in the Communist Manifesto - but I don't think it's true. "Our" system is more than capitalism, it's culture. And Clinton is a far more "perfect representation" of the increasingly censorious, narrow [neo]liberal culture which dominates the Western world. ..."
    "... Finally, Monbiot misses the chance to contrast Clinton's and Trump's apparent differences with regard to confronting nuclear-armed Russia over the skies of Syria. It could be like 1964 all over again - except in this election, the Democrat is the nearest thing to Barry Goldwater. ..."
    "... As a life-long despiser of all things Trump, I cannot believe that I am saying this: Trump is good for world peace. ..."
    "... I fully agree with Monbiot, American democracy is a sham - the lobby system has embedded corruption right in the heart of its body politic. Lets be clear here though, whatever is the problem with American democracy can in theory at least be fixed, but Trump simply can not and moreover he is not the answer ..."
    "... His opponent, war child and Wall Street darling can count her lucky stars that the media leaves her alone (with husband Bill, hands firmly in his pockets, nodding approvingly) and concentrates on their feeding frenzy attacking Trump on sexual allegations of abusing women, giving Hillery, Yes, likely to tell lies, ( mendacious, remember when she claimed to be under enemy fire in Bosnia? remember how evasive she was on the Benghazi attack on the embassy) Yes Trump is a dangerous man running against an also extremely dangerous woman. ..."
    "... Extremely interesting reference to the Madison paper, but the issue is less about the size of the electorate, and more about the power that the election provides to the victor. ..."
    "... Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt? ..."
    "... When you look at speeches and conversations and debates with the so-called bogeyman, Putin, he is not at all in a league as low and vile as portrayed and says many more sensible things than anybody cares to listen to, because we're all brainwashed. We are complicit in wars (now in Syria) and cannot see why we have to connive with terrorists, tens of thousands of them, and they get supported by the war machine and friends like Saudis and Turkey which traded for years with ISIS. ..."
    "... Clinton the war hawk, and shows us we are only capable of seeing one side and project all nastiness outward while we can feel good about ourselves by hating the other. ..."
    "... It fits the Decline of an Empire image as it did in other Falls of Civilizations. ..."
    "... Trump spoke to the executives at Ford like no one before ever has. He told them if they moved production to Mexico (as they plan to do) that he would slap huge tariffs on their cars in America and no one would buy them. ..."
    "... What happens in Syria could be important to us all. Clinton doesn't hide her ambition to drive Assad from power and give Russia a kicking. It's actually very unpopular although the media doesn't like to say so; it prefers to lambast Spain for re-fueling Russian war ships off to fight the crazed Jihadists as if we supported the religious fanatics that want to slaughter all Infidels! There is an enormous gulf between what ordinary people want and the power crazy Generals in the Pentagon and NATO. ..."
    "... USA has got itself in an unholy mess . It's politicians no longer work for the people . Their paymasters care not if life in Idaho resembles Dantes inferno . Trump has many faults but being "not Hilary" is not one of them. The very fact he is disliked by all the vested interests should make you take another look. And remember , the American constitution has many checks and balances , a President has a lot less power than most people imagine. ..."
    "... Like many on the right, the left have unthinkingly accepted a narrative of an organized, conspiratorial system run by an elite of politicians and plutocrats. The problem with this narrative is it suggests politics and politicians are inherently nefarious, in turn suggesting there are no political solutions to be sought to problems, or anything people can do to challenge a global system of power. As Monbiot asks: "You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?" Well, what indeed? ..."
    "... I don't think you need to believe in an organised conspiracy and I don't see any real evidence that George Monbiot does. The trouble is that the corporate and political interests align in a way that absorbs any attempt to challenge them and the narrative has been written that of course politics is all about economics and of course we need mighty corporations to sustain us. ..."
    "... Not long after the start of the presidential campaign I began to reflect that in Trump we are seeing materializing before us the logical result of the neoliberal project ..."
    "... The Republican party essentially offered their base nothing – that was the problem. ..."
    "... They couldn't offer all the things that ordinary Americans want – better and wider Medicaid, better and wider social security, tax increases on the rich, an end to pointless foreign wars and the American empire. ..."
    "... The Democrats have largely the same funding base, but they at least deliver crumbs – at least a nod to the needs of ordinary people through half-hearted social programmes. ..."
    "... Trump is imperfect because he wants normal relations rather than war with Russia. No, Hillary Clinton is the ultimate representation of the system that is abusing us. What will occur when Goldman Sachs and the military-industrial complex coalition get their, what is it, 5th term in office would be a great subject of many Guardian opinion pieces, actually. But that will have to wait till after November 8. ..."
    "... And, of course, we also have Hillary's Wall Street speeches -- thanks to Wikileaks we have the complete transcripts, in case Guardian readers are unaware. They expose the real thinking and 'private positions' of the central character in the next episode of 'Rule by Plutocracy'. ..."
    "... The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party. ..."
    "... In what concerns foreign politics, Trump some times seems more reasonable than Clinton and the establishment. Clinton is the best coached politician of all times. She doesn't know that she's coached. She just followed the most radical groups and isn't able to question anything at all. The only thing that the coaches didn't fix until now is her laughing which is considered even by her coaches as a sign of weirdness. ..."
    "... Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming force. ..."
    "... "Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects to revile; the worlds that created him. He is the fetishisation of wealth, power and image in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant narratives of our age." ..."
    "... Yes, they don't care any more if we see the full extent of their corruption as we've given up our power to do anything about it. ..."
    "... It was once very common to see Democratic politicians as neighbors attending every community event. They were Teamsters, pipe fitters, and electricians. And they were coaches and ushers and pallbearers. Now they are academics and lawyers and NGO employees and managers who pop up during campaigns. The typical income of the elected Democrats outside their government check is north of $100,000. They don't live in, or even wander through, the poorer neighborhoods. So they are essentially clueless that government services like busses are run to suit government and not actual customers. ..."
    "... Yea, 15 years of constant wars of empire with no end in sight has pretty much ran this country in the ground. ..."
    "... We all talk about how much money is wasted by the federal government on unimportant endeavors like human services and education, but don't even bat an eye about the sieve of money that is the Pentagon. ..."
    "... Half a trillion dollars for aircraft carriers we don't need and are already obsolete. China is on the verge of developing wickedly effective anti-ship missiles designed specifically to target these Gerald R. Ford-class vessels. You might as well paint a huge bull's-eye on these ships' 4-1/2 acre flight deck. ..."
    "... There are plenty more examples of this crap and this doesn't even include the nearly TWO trillion dollars we've spent this past decade-and-a-half on stomping flat the Middle East and large swaths of the Indian subcontinent. ..."
    "... And all this time, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling literally right out from underneath us and millions upon millions of children and their families experience a daily struggle just to eat. Eat?! In the "greatest," wealthiest nation on earth and we prefer to kill people at weddings with drones than feed our own children. ..."
    "... I'd like to read an unbiased piece about why the media narrative doesn't match the reality of the Trump phenomenon. He is getting enormous crowds attend his rallies but hardly any coverage of that in the filtered news outlets. Hillary, is struggling to get anyone turn up without paying them. There is no real enthusiasm. ..."
    "... The buzzwords and tired old catch phrases and cliches used by the left to suppress any alternative discussion, and divert from their own misdemeanors are fooling no one but themselves. Trump supporters simply don't care any more how Hillary supporters explain that she lied about dodging sniper fire. Or the numerous other times she and her cohorts have been caught out telling fibs. ..."
    "... Very true. Throughout history the rich, the powerful, the landed, ennobled interest and their friends in the Law and money changing houses have sought to control governments and have usually succeeded. ..."
    "... In the Media today the rich are fawned over by sycophantic journalists and programme makers. These are the people who make the political weather and create the prevailing narratives. ..."
    "... Working class people fancied themselves to above the common herd and thought themselves part of some elite. ..."
    "... It's quite disturbing the lengths this paper will go to in order to slur and discredit Trump, labelling him dangerous and alluding to the sexual assault allegations. This even goes so far to a very lengthy article regarding Trumps lack of knowledge on the Rumbelows Cup 25 years ago. ..."
    "... Whereas very little examination is made into Hillary Clinton's background which includes serious allegation of fraud and involvement in assisting in covering up her husband's alleged series of rapes. There are also issues in the wikileaks emails that merit analysis as well as undercover tapes of seioau issues with her campaign team. ..."
    "... One of the most important characteristics of the so-called neoliberalism is its negative selection. While mostly successfully camouflaged, that negative selection is more than obvious this time, in two US presidential candidates. It's hard to imagine lower than those two. ..."
    "... Well, OK George. Tell me: if Trump's such an establishment candidate, then why does the whole of the establishment unanimously reject him? Is it normal for Republicans (such as the Bushes and the neocons) to endorse Democrats? Why does even the Speaker of the House (a Republican) and even, on occasion, Trump's own Vice-Presidential nominee seem to be trying to undermine his campaign? If Trump is really just more of the same as all that came before, why is he being treated different by the MSM and the political establishment? ..."
    "... Obviously, there's something flawed about your assumption. ..."
    "... Trump has exposed the corruption of the political system and the media and has promised to put a stop to it. By contrast, Clinton is financed by the very banks, corporates and financial elites who are responsible for the corruption. This Trump speech is explicit on what we all suspected is going on. Everybody should watch it, irrespective of whether they support him or not! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tab5vvo0TJw ..."
    "... "I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after talking to a number of them I wanted to write this. ..."
    "... Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states. ..."
    "... Mrs Clinton is also the product of our political culture. A feminist who owes everything to her husband and men in the Democratic Party. A Democrat who started her political career as a Republican; a civil right activist who worked for Gerry Goldwater, one of last openly racist/segregationist politicians. A Secretary of State who has no clue about, or training in, foreign policy, and who received her position as compensation for losing the election. A pacifist, who has never had a gun in her hands, but supported every war in the last twenty years. A humanist who rejoiced over Qaddafi's death ("we came, we won, he is dead!") like a sadist. ..."
    "... One thing that far right politics offers the ordinary white disaffected voter is 'pay back', it is a promised revenge-fest, putting up walls, getting rid of foreigners, punishing employers of foreigners, etc., etc. All the stuff that far right groups have wet dreams about. ..."
    "... Because neoliberal politics has left a hell of a lot of people feeling pissed off, the far right capitalizes on this, whilst belonging to the same neoliberal dystopia so ultimately not being able to make good on their promises. Their promises address a lot of people's anger, which of course isn't really about foreigners at all, that is simply the decoy, but cutting through all the crap to make that clear is no easy task, not really sure how it can be done, certainly no political leader in the western hemisphere has the ability to do so. ..."
    "... Wrong as always. Trump *is* an outsider. He's an unabashed nationalist who's set him up against the *actual* caste that governs our politics: Neo-liberal internationalists with socially trendy left-liberal politics (but not so left that they don't hire good tax lawyers to avoid paying a fraction of what they are legally obliged to). ..."
    "... Best represented in the Goldman Sachs executives who are donating millions to Hillary Clinton because they are worried about Trump's opposition to free trade, and they know she will give them *everything* they want. ..."
    "... Trumps the closest thing we're gotten to a genuine threat to the system in a long, long time, so of course George Monbiot and the rest of the Guardian writers has set themselves against him, because if you're gonna be wrong about the EU, wrong about New Labour, wrong about social liberalism, wrong about immigration, why change the habit of a lifetime? ..."
    "... Lies: Emails, policy changes based on polls showing a complete lack of conviction, corporate collusion, Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, war mongering, etc. Racist stereotypes: Super predators. Misogyny: Aside from her laughing away her pedophile case and allegedly threatening the women who came out against Bill, you've also got this sexist gem "Women are the primary victims of war". ..."
    "... Alleged gropings: Well she's killed people by texting. So unless your moral compass is so out of whack that somehow a man JOKING about his player status in private is worse than Clinton's actions throughout her political career, then I guess you could make the case that Clinton at least doesn't have this skeleton in her closet. ..."
    "... Refusal to accept democratic outcomes: No. He's speaking out against the media's collusion with the democratic party favoring Clinton over every other nominee, including Bernie Sanders. He's talking about what was revealed in the DNC leaks and the O'Keefe tapes that show how dirty the tactics have been in order to legally persuade the voting public into electing one person or the other. ..."
    "... When do the conspiracy theories about the criminality of his opponent no longer count as conspiracies? When we have a plethora of emails confirming there is indeed fire next to that smoke, corruption fire, collusion fire, fire of contempt for the electorate. When we have emails confirming the Saudi Arabians are actually funding terrorist schools across the globe, emails where Hilary herself admits it, but will not say anything publicly about terrorism and Saudi Arabia, what's conspiracy and what's reality? ..."
    "... Is it because Saudi Arabia funded her foundation with $23 million, or because it doesn't fit with her great 'internationalists' global agenda? ..."
    "... Yep trump is a buffoon, but the failure of all media to deliver serious debate means the US is about to elect someone probably more dangerous than trump, how the hell can that be ..."
    "... Nothing wrong with a liberal internationalist utopia, it sounds rather good and worth striving for. It's just that what they've been pushing is actually a neoliberal globalist nirvana for the 1 per cent ..."
    "... The problem is the left this paper represents were bought off with the small change by neoliberalism, and they expect the rest of us to suck it up so the elites from both sides can continue the game ..."
    "... we near the end of the neoliberal model. That the USA has a choice between two 'demopublicans' is no choice at all. ..."
    "... This is the culmination of living in a post-truth political world. Lies and smears, ably supported by the corporate media and Murdoch in particular means that the average person who doesn't closely follow politics is being misinformed. ..."
    "... The complete failure of right wing economic 'theories' means they only have lies, smears and the old 'divide and conquer' left in their arsenal. 'Free speech' is their attempt to get lies and smears equal billing with the truth. All truth on the other hand must be suppressed. All experts and scientists who don't regurgitate the meaningless slogans of the right will be ignored, traduced, defunded, disbanded or silenced by law. ..."
    "... Not so much an article about Trump as much as a rant. George Monbiot writes with the utter conviction of one who mistakenly believes that his readers share his bigotry. When he talks about the 'alleged gropings' or the 'alleged refusal to accept democratic outcomes', that is exactly what they are 'alleged'. ..."
    "... The Democratic Party has been dredging up porn-stars and wannabe models who now make claims that Trump tried to 'kiss them without asking'. ..."
    "... The press also ignored the tapes of the DNC paying thugs to cause violence at Trump rallies, the bribes paid to the Clintons for political favours and the stealing of the election from Bernie Sanders. Trump is quite right to think the 'democratic outcome' is being fixed. Not only were the votes for Sanders manipulated, but Al Gore's votes were also altered and manipulated to ensure a win for Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The same interests who engineered the 2000 election have switched from supporting the Republican Party to supporting Clinton. ..."
    "... Great article. The neoliberals have been able to control the narrative and in doing so have managed to scapegoat all manner of minority groups, building anger among those disaffected with modern politics. Easy targets - minorities, immigrants, the poor, the disadvantaged and the low-paid workers. ..."
    "... The real enemy here are those sitting atop the corporate tree, but with the media controlled by them, the truth is never revealed. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    America's fourth president, James Madison, envisaged the United States constitution as representation tempered by competition between factions. In the 10th federalist paper, written in 1787, he argued that large republics were better insulated from corruption than small, or "pure" democracies, as the greater number of citizens would make it "more difficult for unworthy candidates to practise with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried". A large electorate would protect the system against oppressive interest groups. Politics practised on a grand scale would be more likely to select people of "enlightened views and virtuous sentiments".

    Instead, the US – in common with many other nations – now suffers the worst of both worlds: a large electorate dominated by a tiny faction. Instead of republics being governed, as Madison feared, by "the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority", they are beholden to the not-so-secret wishes of an unjust and interested minority. What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless of its size.

    For every representative, Republican or Democrat, who retains a trace element of independence, there are three sitting in the breast pocket of corporate capital. Since the supreme court decided that there should be no effective limits on campaign finance, and, to a lesser extent, long before, candidates have been reduced to tongue-tied automata, incapable of responding to those in need of help, incapable of regulating those in need of restraint, for fear of upsetting their funders.

    Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt? Turn to the demagogue who rages into this political vacuum, denouncing the forces he exemplifies. The problem is not, as Trump claims, that the election will be stolen by ballot rigging. It is that the entire electoral process is stolen from the American people before they get anywhere near casting their votes. When Trump claims that the little guy is being screwed by the system, he's right. The only problem is that he is the system.

    The political constitution of the United States is not, as Madison envisaged, representation tempered by competition between factions. The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal. In other words, all that impedes the absolute power of money is the occasional exposure of the excesses of the wealthy.

    greatapedescendant 26 Oct 2016 4:11

    A good read thanks. Nothing I really disagree with there. Just a few things to add and restate.

    "What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless of its size."

    That's it – finance and sophisticated lobbying. And you can add to that mass brainwashing at election campaigns by means of choice language and orchestration as advised by cognitive scientists who are expressly recruited for this purpose. Voters remain largely unaware of the mind control they are undergoing. And of course the essential prerequisite for all of this is financial power.

    Now read again in this light Gore Vidal's famous pronouncement… "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically by definition be disqualified from ever doing so."

    Which recalls Madison over 200 years before… "The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."

    What the US has is in effect is not a democracy but a plutocracy run by a polyarchy. Which conserves some democratic elements. To which the US president is largely an obedient and subservient puppet. And which openly fails to consider the needs of the average US citizen.

    Worse still, the political spectrum runs from right to right. To all intents and purposes, one single party, the US Neoliberal party, with 2 factions catering for power and privilege. Anything to the left of that is simply not an available choice for voters.

    Americans have wakened up to the fact that they badly need a government which caters for the needs of the average citizen. In their desperation some will still vote for Trump warts and all. This for the same sorts of reasons that Italians voted for Berlusconi, whose winning slogan was basically 'I am not a politician'. Though that didn't work out too well. No longer able to stomach more of the same, voters reach the stage of being willing to back anyone who might bring about a break with the status quo. Even Trump.

    The right choice was Bernie Sanders. Sadly, not powerful enough. So Americans missed the boat there. But at least there was a boat to miss this time around. You can be sure that similar future boats will be sunk well in advance. Corporate power has learnt its lesson and the art of election rigging has now become an exact science.

    UltraLightBeam 26 Oct 2016 4:11

    Donald Trump, Brexit and Le Pen are all in their separate ways rejections of the dogma of liberalism, social and economic, that has dominated the West for the past three decades.

    The Guardian, among others, laments the loss of 'tolerance' and 'openness' as defining qualities of our societies. But what's always left unsaid is: tolerance of what? Openness to what? Anything? Everything?

    Is it beyond the pale to critically assess some of the values brought by immigration, and to reject them? Will only limitless, unthinking 'tolerance' and 'openness' do?

    Once self-described 'progressives' engage with this topic, then maybe we'll see a reversal in the momentum that Trump and the rest of the right wing demagogues have built up.

    petercookwithahook 26 Oct 2016 4:14

    In 2010, Chomsky wrote:

    The United States is extremely lucky.....if somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response.

    Dangerous times. The beauty of democracy is we get what we deserve.

    DiscoveredJoys -> morelightlessheat 26 Oct 2016 6:11

    The most telling part for me was:

    The worst thing about Donald Trump is that he's the man in the mirror.

    Except that instead of

    He is the distillation of all that we have been induced to desire and admire.

    I thought that he is the mirror image, the reverse, of the current liberal consensus. A consensus driven by worthy ideals but driven too far, gradually losing acceptance and with no self correcting awareness.

    Trump is awful - but by speaking freely he challenges the excesses of those who would limit free speech. Trump is awful - but by demonising minorities he challenges those who would excuse minorities of all responsibility. Trump is awful - but by flaunting his wealth he challenges those who keep their connections and wealth hidden for the sake of appearances.

    Trump is awful because the system is out of balance. He is a consequence, not a cause.


    Gman13 26 Oct 2016 4:25

    Voting for Trump is voting for peace. Voting for Clinton is voting for WW3.

    These events will unfold if Hillary wins:

    1. No fly zone imposed in Syria to help "moderate opposition" on pretence of protecting civilians.

    2. Syrian government nonetheless continues defending their country as terrorists shell Western Aleppo.

    3. Hillary's planes attack Syrian government planes and the Russians.

    4. Russia and Syria respond as the war escalates. America intensifies arming of "moderate opposition" and Saudis.

    5. America arms "rebels" in various Russian regions who "fight for democracy" but this struggle is somehow hijacked by terrorists, only they are not called terrorists but "opposition"

    6. Ukranian government is encouraged to restart the war.

    7. Iran enters the war openly against Saudi Arabia

    8. Israel bombs Iran

    9. Cornered Russia targets mainland US with nuclear weapons

    10. Etc.


    snakebrain -> Andthenandthen 26 Oct 2016 6:54

    It's quite clearly because Hillary as President is an utterly terrifying prospect. When half the population would rather have Trump than her, it must be conceded that she has some serious reputational issues.

    If Hillary and the DNC hadn't fixed the primaries, we'd now be looking at a Sanders-Trump race, and a certain Democrat victory. As it is, it's on a knife edge as to whether we get Trump or Hillary.

    Personally, I'd take Trump over Hillary if I was a US citizen. He may be a buffoon but she is profoundly dangerous, probably a genuine psychopath and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. Sanders is the man America needs now, though, barring one of Hillary's many crimes finally toppling her, it's not going to happen...

    jessthecrip 26 Oct 2016 4:29

    Well said George.

    The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal

    And the shame is we seem to be becoming desensitized to scandal. We cannot be said to live in democracies when our political class are so obviously bought by the vastly rich.

    Remko1 -> UnevenSurface 26 Oct 2016 7:43

    You're mixing up your powers. legislative, executive and judicial are the powers of law. Money and business are some of the keys to stay in command of a country. (there's also military, electorate, bureaucracy etc.)

    And if money is not on your side, it's against you, which gets quite nasty if your main tv-stations are not state-run.

    For example if the EU would (theoretically of course) set rules that make corruption more difficult you would see that commercial media all over the EU and notoriously corrupted politicians would start making propaganda to leave the EU. ;)

    yamialwaysright chilledoutbeardie 26 Oct 2016 4:38

    One of the things it says is that people are so sick of Identity Politics from the Left and believe the Left are not very true to the ideals of what should be the Left.

    When the people who are supposed to care about the poor and working joes and janes prefer to care about the minorities whose vote they can rely on, the poor and the working joes and janes will show their frustration by supporting someone who will come along and tell it as it is, even if he is part of how it got that way.

    People throughout the world have awoken to the Left being Right Light but with a more nauseating moral superiority complex.

    Danny Sheahan -> chilledoutbeardie 26 Oct 2016 5:25
    That many people are so desperate for change that even being a billionaire but someone outside the political elite is going to appeal to them.

    Tom1Wright 26 Oct 2016 4:32

    I find this line of thinking unjust and repulsive: the implication that Trump is a product of the political establishment, and not an outsider, is to tar the entire Republican party and its supporters with a great big flag marked 'racist'. That is a gross over simplification and a total distortion.

    UnevenSurface -> Tom1Wright 26 Oct 2016 5:05

    But that's not what the article said at all: I quote:

    he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics

    No mention of the GOP.

    Tom1Wright -> UnevenSurface 26 Oct 2016 5:14

    and I quote

    'Encouraged by the corporate media, the Republicans have been waging a full-spectrum assault on empathy, altruism and the decencies we owe to other people. Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.'

    HindsightMe 26 Oct 2016 4:33
    the truth is there is an anti establishment movement and trump just got caught up in the ride. He didnt start the movement but latched on to it. While we are still fixated on character flaws the undercurrent of dissatisfaction by the public is still there. Hillary is going to have a tough time in trying to bring together a divided nation
    leadale 26 Oct 2016 4:37
    Many years ago in the British Military, those with the right connections and enough money could buy an officer's commission and rise up the system to be an incompetent General. As a result, many battles were mismanaged and many lives wasted due to the incompetent (wealthy privileged few) buying their way to the top. American politics today works on exactly the same system of wealthy patronage and privilege for the incompetent, read Clinton and Trump. Until the best candidates are able to rise up through the political system without buying their way there then the whole corrupt farce will continue and we will be no different to the all the other tin pot republics of the world.
    arkley leadale 26 Oct 2016 5:48
    As Wellington once said on reading the list of officers being sent out to him,
    "My hope is that when the enemy reads these names he trembles as I do"
    Some would argue however that the British system of bought commissions actually made the army more effective in part because many competent officers had to stay in the field roles of platoon and company commanders rather than get staff jobs and through the fact that promotion on merit did exist for non-commissioned officers but there was a block on rising above sergeant.

    Some would argue that the British class system ensured that during the Industrial Revolution charge hands and foremen were appointed from the best workers but there was no way forward from that, the result being that the best practices were applied through having the best practitioners in charge at the sharp end.

    rodmclaughlin 26 Oct 2016 4:37
    "he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics."

    Obviously, Donald Trump is not an "outsider" in the economic sense. Trump definitely belongs to the ruling "caste", or rather, "class". But he is by no means the perfect representative of it. "The global economy", or rather, "capitalism", thrives better with the free movement of (cheap) labour than without it. Economically, poor Americans would be better off with more immigration control.

    And there's more too it than economics. There's the "culture wars" aspect. Many people don't like being told they are "deplorable" for opposing illegal (or even legal) immigration. They don't like being called "racist" for disagreeing with an ideology.

    I like the phrase Monbiot ends with - "He is our system, stripped of its pretences" - it reminds me of a phrase in the Communist Manifesto - but I don't think it's true. "Our" system is more than capitalism, it's culture. And Clinton is a far more "perfect representation" of the increasingly censorious, narrow [neo]liberal culture which dominates the Western world.

    Finally, Monbiot misses the chance to contrast Clinton's and Trump's apparent differences with regard to confronting nuclear-armed Russia over the skies of Syria. It could be like 1964 all over again - except in this election, the Democrat is the nearest thing to Barry Goldwater.

    nishville 26 Oct 2016 4:40
    As a life-long despiser of all things Trump, I cannot believe that I am saying this: Trump is good for world peace. He might be crap for everything else but I for one will sleep much better if he is elected POTUS.
    dylan37 26 Oct 2016 4:40
    Agree, for once, with a piece by George. Trump is nothing new - we've seen his kind of faux-outsider thing before, but he's amplifying it with the skills of a carnival barker and the "what me?" shrug of the everyman - when we all know he's not. The election result can't be rigged because the game is fixed from the start. A potential president needs millions of dollars behind them to even think about running, and then needs to repay those bought favours once in office. Trump may just win this one though - despite the polls, poor human qualities and negative press - simply because he's possibly tapped into a rich seam of anti-politics and a growing desire for anything different, even if it's distasteful and deplorable. It's that difference that might make the difference, even when it's actually just more of the same. It's all in the packaging.
    greenwichite 26 Oct 2016 4:41
    Donald Trump is a clumsy, nasty opportunist who has got one thing right - people don't want globalisation.

    What people want, is clean, high-tech industries in their own countries, that automate the processes we are currently offshoring. They would rather their clothes were made by robots in Rochdale than a sweat-shop in India.

    Same goes for energy imports: we want clean, local renewables.

    What people don't want is large, unpleasant multinational corporations negotiating themselves tax cuts and "free trade" with corrupt politicians like Hillary Clinton.

    Just my opinion, of course...

    TheSandbag -> greenwichite 26 Oct 2016 4:50
    Your right about globalisation, but I think wrong about the automation bit. People want Jobs because its the only way to survive currently and they see them being shipped to the country with the easiest to exploit workforce. I don't think many of them realize that those jobs are never coming back. The socioeconomic system we exist in doesn't work for 90% of the population who are surplus to requirements for sustaining the other 10%.
    Shadenfraude 26 Oct 2016 4:43
    I fully agree with Monbiot, American democracy is a sham - the lobby system has embedded corruption right in the heart of its body politic. Lets be clear here though, whatever is the problem with American democracy can in theory at least be fixed, but Trump simply can not and moreover he is not the answer.

    ... ... ...


    oddballs 26 Oct 2016 5:24

    Trump threatened Ford that if they closed down US car plants and moved them to Mexico he would put huge import tariffs on their products making them to expensive.

    Export of jobs to low wage countries, how do you think Americans feel when they buy 'sports wear, sweater, t-shirts shoes that cost say 3 $ to import into the US and then get sold for20 or 50 times as much, by the same US companies that moved production out of the country.

    The anger many Americans feel how their lively-hoods have been outsourced, is the lake of discontent Trump is fishing for votes.

    His opponent, war child and Wall Street darling can count her lucky stars that the media leaves her alone (with husband Bill, hands firmly in his pockets, nodding approvingly) and concentrates on their feeding frenzy attacking Trump on sexual allegations of abusing women, giving Hillery, Yes, likely to tell lies, ( mendacious, remember when she claimed to be under enemy fire in Bosnia? remember how evasive she was on the Benghazi attack on the embassy)
    Yes Trump is a dangerous man running against an also extremely dangerous woman.

    onepieceman 26 Oct 2016 5:31

    Extremely interesting reference to the Madison paper, but the issue is less about the size of the electorate, and more about the power that the election provides to the victor.

    One positive outcome that I hope will come of all of this is that people might think a little more carefully about how much power an incoming president (or any politician) should be given. The complacent assumption about a permanently benign government is overdue for a shakeup.

    peccadillo -> Dean Alexander 26 Oct 2016 5:43

    Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?

    Having missed that bit, I wonder if you actually read the article.

    tater 26 Oct 2016 5:46
    The sad thing is that the victims of the corrupt economic and political processes are the small town folk who try to see Trump as their saviour. The globalisation that the US promoted to expand its hegemony had no safeguards to protect local economies from mega retail and finance corporations that were left at liberty to strip wealth from localities. The Federal transfer payments that might have helped compensate have been too small and were either corrupted pork barrel payments or shameful social security payments. For a culture that prides itself on independent initiative and self sufficiency this was always painful and that has made it all the easier for the lobbyists to argue against increased transfer payments and the federal taxes they require. So more money for the Trumps of this world.

    And to the future. The US is facing the serious risk of a military take over. Already its foreign policy emanates from the military and the corruption brings it ever closer to the corporations. If the people don't demand better the coup will come.


    MrMopp 26 Oct 2016 6:12


    There's a reason turnout for presidential elections is barely above 50%.

    Wised up, fed up Americans have long known their only choice is between a Coke or Pepsi President.

    Well, this time they've got a Dr. Pepper candidate but they still know their democracy is just a commodity to be bought and sold, traded and paraded; their elections an almost perpetual presidential circus.

    That a grotesque like Trump can emerge and still be within touching distance of the Whitehouse isn't entirely down to the Democrats disastrous decision to market New Clinton Coke. Although that's helped.

    The unpalatable truth is, like Brexit, many Americans simply want to shake things up and shake them up bigly, even if it means a very messy, sticky outcome.

    Anyone with Netflix can watch the classic film, "Network" at the moment. And it is a film of the moment.

    "I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth. Banks are going bust. Shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be.

    We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is: 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.'

    Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get MAD! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman, because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. [shouting] You've got to say: 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!'

    So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell: I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!

    I want you to get up right now. Sit up. Go to your windows. Open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!...You've got to say, I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE! Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first, get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

    And that was in 1976. A whole lot of shit has happened since then but essentially, Coke is still Coke and Pepsi is still Pepsi.

    Forty years later, millions are going to get out of their chairs. They are going to vote. For millions of Americans of every stripe, Trump is the "I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE", candidate.

    And he's in with a shout.


    André De Koning 26 Oct 2016 6:13

    Trump is indeed the embodiment of our collective Shadow (As Jung called this unconscious side of our Self). It does reflect the degeneration of the culture we live in where politics has turned into a travesty; where all projections of this side are on the Other, the usual other who we can collectively dislike. All the wars initiated by the US have started with a huge propaganda programme to hate and project our own Shadow on to this other. Often these were first friends, whether in Iran or Iraq, Libya: as soon as the oil was not for ""us" , they were depicted as monsters who needed action: regime change through direct invasion and enormous numbers of war crimes or through CIA programmed regime change, it all went according to shady plans and manipulation and lies lapped up by the masses.

    When you look at speeches and conversations and debates with the so-called bogeyman, Putin, he is not at all in a league as low and vile as portrayed and says many more sensible things than anybody cares to listen to, because we're all brainwashed. We are complicit in wars (now in Syria) and cannot see why we have to connive with terrorists, tens of thousands of them, and they get supported by the war machine and friends like Saudis and Turkey which traded for years with ISIS.

    The Western culture has become more vile than we could have imagined and slowly, like the frog in increasingly hot water, we have become used to neglecting most of the population of Syria and focusing on the rebel held areas, totally unaware of what has happened to the many thousands who have lived under the occupation by terrorists who come from abroad ad fight the proxy war for the US (and Saudi and the EU). Trump dares to embody all this, as does Clinton the war hawk, and shows us we are only capable of seeing one side and project all nastiness outward while we can feel good about ourselves by hating the other.

    It fits the Decline of an Empire image as it did in other Falls of Civilizations.


    tashe222 26 Oct 2016 6:28

    Lots of virtue signalling from Mr. M.

    Trump spoke to the executives at Ford like no one before ever has. He told them if they moved production to Mexico (as they plan to do) that he would slap huge tariffs on their cars in America and no one would buy them.

    Trump has said many stupid things in this campaign, but he has some independence and is not totally beholden to vested interests, and so there is at least a 'glimmer' of hope for the future with him as Potus.


    DomesticExtremist 26 Oct 2016 6:28

    I never tire of posting this link:

    Donald Trump and the Politics of Resentment

    Lindsay Went DomesticExtremist 26 Oct 2016 6:58

    Yes, when the Archdruid first posted that it helped me understand some of the forces that were driving Trump's successes. I disagree with the idea that voting for Trump is a good idea because it will bring change to a moribund system. Change is not a panacea and the type of change he is likely to bring is not going to be pleasant.


    Hanwell123 -> ArseButter 26 Oct 2016 6:59

    What happens in Syria could be important to us all. Clinton doesn't hide her ambition to drive Assad from power and give Russia a kicking. It's actually very unpopular although the media doesn't like to say so; it prefers to lambast Spain for re-fueling Russian war ships off to fight the crazed Jihadists as if we supported the religious fanatics that want to slaughter all Infidels! There is an enormous gulf between what ordinary people want and the power crazy Generals in the Pentagon and NATO.

    unsubscriber 26 Oct 2016 6:43
    George always writes so beautifully and so tellingly. My favourite sentence from this column is:
    Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.
    Cadmium 26 Oct 2016 6:51
    Trump is not a misogynist, look the word up. He may be crude but that's not the same thing. He also represents a lot more people than a tiny faction. He is also advocating coming down on lobbying, which is good. He may be a climate change denier but that's because a lot of his supporters are, he'd probably change if they did. The way to deal with it is with rational argument, character assassination is counterproductive even if he himself does it. Although he seems to do it as a reaction rather than as an attack. He probably has a lot higher chance of winning than most people think since a lot of people outside the polls will feel represented by him and a lot of those included in the polls may not vote for Hilary.
    ID4755061 26 Oct 2016 6:52
    George Monbiot is right. Trump is a conduit for primal stuff that has always been there and never gone away. All the work that has been done to try to change values and attitudes, to make societies more tolerant and accepting and sharing, to get rid of xenophobia and racism and the rest, has merely supressed all these things. Also, while times were good (that hasn't been so for a long time) most of this subterranean stuff got glossed over most of the time by some kind of feel good factor and hope for a better future.

    But once the protections have gone, if there is nothing to feel good about or there is little hope left, the primitive fear of other and strange and different kicks back in. It's a basic survival instinct from a time when everything around the human species was a threat and it is a fundamental part of us and Trump and Palin at al before him have got this, even if they don't articulate it this way, and it works and it will always work. It's a pure emotional response to threat that we can't avoid, the only way out of it, whihc many of use use, is to use our intellects to challenge the kick of emotion and see it for what it is and to understand the consequences of giving it free reign. It's this last bit that Trump, Palin, Farage and their ilk just don't get and never will, we aill always be fighting this fight.

    PotholeKid 26 Oct 2016 6:56
    Political culture includes the Clintons and Bushes, the Democratic party and Republican party. exploring that culture using the DNC and Podesta leaks as reference, paints a much better picture of the depth of depravity this culture represents..Trump is a symptom and no matter how much the press focuses on maligning his character. The Clintons share a huge responsibility for the corruption of the system. Mr. Monbiot would serve us well by looking at solutions for cleaning up the mess, what Trumps likes to call "Draining the swamp"
    lonelysoul72 26 Oct 2016 6:59
    Trump for me , he is horrendous but Clinton is worse.

    nooriginalthought 26 Oct 2016 7:06

    "Democracy in the U.S. is so corrupted by money it is no longer recognisable as democracy." Sounds like a quote from Frank Underwood. To catch a thief sometimes you need the services of a thief. With a fair degree of certainty we can be sure a Clinton administration will offer us continuity .

    Your probably going to vote Trump. Looking forward to a long list of articles here in November prophecies of Armageddon a la brexit. You liberal lefties , you'll never learn. If you want to know what people are thinking , you got to get out of the echochamber.


    nooriginalthought -> aurlius 26 Oct 2016 7:45

    Sorry , hate having to explain myself to the dim witted.

    USA has got itself in an unholy mess . It's politicians no longer work for the people . Their paymasters care not if life in Idaho resembles Dantes inferno .
    Trump has many faults but being "not Hilary" is not one of them. The very fact he is disliked by all the vested interests should make you take another look.
    And remember , the American constitution has many checks and balances , a President has a lot less power than most people imagine.

    Pinkie123 26 Oct 2016 7:21

    While it is impossible to credibly disagree with the general thrust of this, some of Monbiot's assumptions exemplify problems with left-wing thinking at the moment.

    But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics. He is our system, stripped of its pretences.

    Like many on the right, the left have unthinkingly accepted a narrative of an organized, conspiratorial system run by an elite of politicians and plutocrats. The problem with this narrative is it suggests politics and politicians are inherently nefarious, in turn suggesting there are no political solutions to be sought to problems, or anything people can do to challenge a global system of power. As Monbiot asks: "You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?" Well, what indeed?

    I think Monbiot a principled, intelligent left-wing commentator, but at the same time he epitomises a left-wing retreat into pessimism in the face of a putatively global network of power and inevitable environmental catastrophe. In reality, while there is no shortage of perfidious, corrupt corporate interests dominating global economies, there is no organized system or shadowy establishment - only a chaotic mess rooted in complex political problems. Once you accept that reality, then it becomes possible to imagine political solutions to the quandaries confronting us. Rather than just railing against realities, you can envision a new world to replace them. And a new kind of world is something you very rarely get from the left these days. Unlike the utopian socialists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there is little optimism or imagination - just anger, pessimism and online echo chambers of 'clictivists'.

    Like the documentarian Adam Curtis says, once you conclude that all politics is corrupt then all you can do is sit there impotently and say: 'Oh dear'.

    deltajones -> Pinkie123 26 Oct 2016 8:12

    I don't think you need to believe in an organised conspiracy and I don't see any real evidence that George Monbiot does. The trouble is that the corporate and political interests align in a way that absorbs any attempt to challenge them and the narrative has been written that of course politics is all about economics and of course we need mighty corporations to sustain us.

    Even the left has largely taken on that narrative and it's seen as common sense. Challenging this belief system is the toughest job that there is and we see that in the howling indignation hurled at Jeremy Corbyn if he makes the slightest suggestion of nationalisation of the railways, for instance.

    ianfraser3 26 Oct 2016 7:29

    Not long after the start of the presidential campaign I began to reflect that in Trump we are seeing materializing before us the logical result of the neoliberal project, the ultimate shopping spree, buy an election.

    furiouspurpose -> IllusionOfFairness 26 Oct 2016 8:08

    The Republican party essentially offered their base nothing – that was the problem.

    They couldn't offer all the things that ordinary Americans want – better and wider Medicaid, better and wider social security, tax increases on the rich, an end to pointless foreign wars and the American empire. None of these things were acceptable to their funders so that only left emotional issues – anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-god, pro-gun. And all of the emotional issues are on the wrong side of history as the US naturally grows more politically progressive. So the Republican party couldn't even deliver on the emotionally driven agenda. I think their base realised that they were being offered nothing – and that's why they turned to Trump. Perhaps a fascist blowhard could bulldoze the system to deliver on the emotional side of the offer. That's why Trump broke through

    The Democrats have largely the same funding base, but they at least deliver crumbs – at least a nod to the needs of ordinary people through half-hearted social programmes. In the end the African Americans decided that Hillary could be relied upon to deliver some crumbs – so they settled for that. That's why Sanders couldn't break through.

    fairleft 26 Oct 2016 7:55

    Trump is imperfect because he wants normal relations rather than war with Russia. No, Hillary Clinton is the ultimate representation of the system that is abusing us. What will occur when Goldman Sachs and the military-industrial complex coalition get their, what is it, 5th term in office would be a great subject of many Guardian opinion pieces, actually. But that will have to wait till after November 8.

    Such commentary would be greatly aided the Podesta emails, which enlighten us as to the mind and 'zeitgeist' of the HIllary team. And, of course, we also have Hillary's Wall Street speeches -- thanks to Wikileaks we have the complete transcripts, in case Guardian readers are unaware. They expose the real thinking and 'private positions' of the central character in the next episode of 'Rule by Plutocracy'.

    But, of course, opinion columns and think pieces on the Real Hillary and the Podesta emails will have to wait ... forever.

    toffee1 26 Oct 2016 7:58

    Trump shows the true face of the ruling class with no hypocrisy. He is telling us the truth. If we have a democracy, we should have a party representing the interests of the business class, why not. The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party.

    Kikinaskald Cadmium 26 Oct 2016 8:39
    In fact presidents don't usually have much affect, they're prey to their advisors. Generally true. But Obama was able to show that he was able to distance himself up to a certain point from what was around him. He was aware of the power of the establishment and of their bias. So, when the wave against Iran was as strong as never before, he made a deal with Iran. He also didn't want to intervene more actively in Syria and even in what concerns Russia, he seems to have moderate positions.

    In what concerns foreign politics, Trump some times seems more reasonable than Clinton and the establishment. Clinton is the best coached politician of all times. She doesn't know that she's coached. She just followed the most radical groups and isn't able to question anything at all. The only thing that the coaches didn't fix until now is her laughing which is considered even by her coaches as a sign of weirdness.


    Kikinaskald -> J.K. Stevens 26 Oct 2016 9:09

    She is considered to be highly aggressive, she pushed for the bombing of a few countries and intervening everywhere..

    Chris Williams 26 Oct 2016 8:20

    Unfortunately all politics in the west is based on a similar model with our own domestic landscape perhaps most closely resembling that in the US. We've always been peddled convenient lies of course, but perhaps as society itself becomes more polarised [in terms of distribution of wealth and the social consequences of that], the dissonance with the manufactured version of reality becomes ever sharper. It is deeply problematic because traditional popular media is dominated by the wealthy elite and the reality it depicts is as much a reflection of the consensual outlook of that elite as it is deliberate, organised mendacity [although there's plenty of that too].

    Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming force.

    Meanwhile the electorate is become increasingly disaffected by this mainstream of politics who they [rightly] sense is no longer truly representative of their interests in any substantive way. To this backdrop the media has made notable blunders in securing the status quo. It has revealed the corruption and self-seeking of many in politics and promoted the widespread distrust of mainstream politicians for a variety of reasons. While the corruption is real and endemic, howls of protest against political 'outsiders' from this same press is met with with the view that the political establishment cannot be trusted engendered by the same sources.

    The narrative for Brexit is somewhat similar. For many years the EU was the whipping boy for all our ills and the idea that it is fundamentally undemocratic in contrast to our own system, so unchallenged that it is taken for fact, even by the reasonably educated. Whilst I'm personally deflated and not a little worried by our exit, it comes as little surprise that a distorted perspective on the EU has led to a revolt against it.

    There are of course now very many alternative narratives to those which are the preserve of monied media magnates, but they're disparate, fractured and unfocused.

    Only the malaise has any sort of consistency about it and it is bitterly ironic that figures like Trump and Farage can so effectively plug into that in the guise of outsiders, to offer spurious alternatives to that which is so desperately needed. It's gloomy stuff.

    Winstons1 Chris Williams 26 Oct 2016 9:27

    Very well written .

    Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming force.

    I have been an advocate of this point for a long time.There is a saying in politics in America that'' the only difference between a Democrat and a Republican is the speed at which they drop to their knees when big business walks into the room''.

    How it is going to be stopped or indeed if there is the will to do so,I do not know. The proponents and those who have most to lose have been incredibly successful in propagating the myth that 'you to can have what I have'and have convinced a sizeable minority that there is no alternative.
    Until that changes and is exposed for the illusion that it is ,we are I fear heading for something far worse than we have now.

    trp981 26 Oct 2016 8:20 2 3

    "Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects to revile; the worlds that created him. He is the fetishisation of wealth, power and image in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant narratives of our age."

    Because this is who we are and this is how we role. We got on rickety ships and braved the cowardly waters to reach these shores, with tremendous realworld uncertainty and absolute religious zeal. We are the manly men and womanly women who manifested our destiny, endured the cruel nature naturing, and civilized the wild wild west, at the same time preserving our own wildness and rugged individualism. Why should we go all soft and namby-pamby with this social safety nonsense? Let the roadkills expire with dignified indignity on the margins of the social order. We will bequeath a glorious legacy to the Randian ubermenschen who will inherit this land from us. They will live in Thielian compounds wearing the trendiest Lululemons. They will regularly admonish their worses with chants of: "Do you want to live? Pay, pal". If we go soft, if we falter, how will we ever be able to look in the eye the ghosts of John Wayne, Marion Morrison, Curtis LeMay, Chuck Heston, Chuck Norris, and the Great Great Ronnie Himself? Gut-check time folks, suck it up and get on with the program.

    "The political constitution of the United States is not, as Madison envisaged, representation tempered by competition between factions. The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal."

    The Founders had a wicked sense of humor. They set up the structure of various branches so as to allow for the possibility of a future take-over by the Funders. That leaves room for the exorbitant influence of corporations and wealthy individuals and the rise of the Trumps, leading to the eventual fall into a Mad Max world.

    "Yes, [Trump] is a shallow, mendacious, boorish and extremely dangerous man. But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics. He is our system, stripped of its pretences."

    It is irrelevant if everyone sees the emperor/system has no clothes, it quite enjoys walking around naked now that it has absolute power.

    Lopedeloslobos -> trp981 26 Oct 2016 9:02

    'It is irrelevant if everyone sees the emperor/system has no clothes, it quite enjoys walking around naked now that it has absolute power.'

    Yes, they don't care any more if we see the full extent of their corruption as we've given up our power to do anything about it.


    chiefwiley -> Luftwaffe 26 Oct 2016 9:31

    It was once very common to see Democratic politicians as neighbors attending every community event. They were Teamsters, pipe fitters, and electricians. And they were coaches and ushers and pallbearers. Now they are academics and lawyers and NGO employees and managers who pop up during campaigns.
    The typical income of the elected Democrats outside their government check is north of $100,000. They don't live in, or even wander through, the poorer neighborhoods. So they are essentially clueless that government services like busses are run to suit government and not actual customers.

    It's sort of nice to have somebody looking after our interests in theory, but it would be at least polite if they deemed to ask us what we think our best interests are. Notice the nasty names and attributes being hurled at political "dissidents," especially around here, and there should be little wonder why many think the benevolent and somewhat single minded and authoritarian left is at least part of their problems.


    ghstwrtrx7 -> allblues 26 Oct 2016 14:02

    Yea, 15 years of constant wars of empire with no end in sight has pretty much ran this country in the ground.

    We all talk about how much money is wasted by the federal government on unimportant endeavors like human services and education, but don't even bat an eye about the sieve of money that is the Pentagon.

    Half a trillion dollars for aircraft carriers we don't need and are already obsolete. China is on the verge of developing wickedly effective anti-ship missiles designed specifically to target these Gerald R. Ford-class vessels. You might as well paint a huge bull's-eye on these ships' 4-1/2 acre flight deck.

    And then there there's the most egregious waste of money our historically over-bloated defense budget has ever seen: The Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter. Quite a mouthful, isn't? When you hear how much this boondoggle costs the American taxpayer, you'll choke: $1.5 Trillion, with a t. What's even more retching is that aside from already being obsolete, it doesn't even work.

    There are plenty more examples of this crap and this doesn't even include the nearly TWO trillion dollars we've spent this past decade-and-a-half on stomping flat the Middle East and large swaths of the Indian subcontinent.
    And all this time, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling literally right out from underneath us and millions upon millions of children and their families experience a daily struggle just to eat. Eat?! In the "greatest," wealthiest nation on earth and we prefer to kill people at weddings with drones than feed our own children.

    I can't speak for anyone else other than myself, but that, boys and girls, has a decided miasma of evil about it.

    transplendent 26 Oct 2016 9:49

    I'd like to read an unbiased piece about why the media narrative doesn't match the reality of the Trump phenomenon. He is getting enormous crowds attend his rallies but hardly any coverage of that in the filtered news outlets. Hillary, is struggling to get anyone turn up without paying them. There is no real enthusiasm.

    If Hillary doesn't win by a major landslide (and I mean BIGLY) as the MSM would lead us to believe she is going to, it could be curtains for the media, as what little credibility that is not already swirling around the plughole will disappear down it once and for all.

    The buzzwords and tired old catch phrases and cliches used by the left to suppress any alternative discussion, and divert from their own misdemeanors are fooling no one but themselves. Trump supporters simply don't care any more how Hillary supporters explain that she lied about dodging sniper fire. Or the numerous other times she and her cohorts have been caught out telling fibs.

    leftofstalin 26 Oct 2016 10:06

    Sorry George YOU and the chattering classes you represent are the reason for the rise of the far right blinded by the false promises of new labour and it's ilk the working classes have been demonized as striking troublemakers benefit frauds racists uneducated bigots etc etc and going by the comments on these threads from remainders you STILL don't understand the psyche of the working class

    Gary Ruddock 26 Oct 2016 10:07

    When Obama humiliated Trump at that dinner back in 2011 he may have set a course for his own destruction. Lately, Obama does not appear anywhere near as confident as he once did.

    Perhaps Trump has seen the light, seen the error of his ways, maybe he realizes if he doesn't stand up against the system, then no one will.


    transplendent 26 Oct 2016 10:38

    Trump's only crime, is he buys into the idea of national identity and statehood (along with every other nation state in the world mind you), and Hillary wants to kick down the doors and hand over the US to Saudi Arabia and any international vested interest who can drop a few dollars into the foundation coffers. I can't see Saudi Arabia throwing open the doors any day soon, unless it is onto a one way street.

    N.B. The Russians are not behind it.

    gjjwatson 26 Oct 2016 11:10

    Very true. Throughout history the rich, the powerful, the landed, ennobled interest and their friends in the Law and money changing houses have sought to control governments and have usually succeeded.

    In the Media today the rich are fawned over by sycophantic journalists and programme makers. These are the people who make the political weather and create the prevailing narratives.

    I remember when President Reagan railed against government whilst he was in office, he said the worst words a citizen could hear were "I`m from the government, I`m here to help you".

    Working class people fancied themselves to above the common herd and thought themselves part of some elite.

    All of this chimes of course with American history and it`s constitution written by slave owning colonists who proclaimed that "all men are created equal".

    bonhiver 26 Oct 2016 12:10

    It's quite disturbing the lengths this paper will go to in order to slur and discredit Trump, labelling him dangerous and alluding to the sexual assault allegations. This even goes so far to a very lengthy article regarding Trumps lack of knowledge on the Rumbelows Cup 25 years ago.

    Whereas very little examination is made into Hillary Clinton's background which includes serious allegation of fraud and involvement in assisting in covering up her husband's alleged series of rapes. There are also issues in the wikileaks emails that merit analysis as well as undercover tapes of seioau issues with her campaign team.

    Whereas it is fair to criticise Trump for a lot of stuff it does appear that there is no attempt at balance as Clinton's faults appear to get covered up om this paper.

    Whereas I can not vote in the US elections and therefore the partisan reporting has no substantive effect on how I may vote or act it is troubling that a UK newspaper does not provide the reader with an objective as possible reporting on the presidential race.

    It suggests biased reporting elsewhere.

    thevisitor2015 26 Oct 2016 12:46

    One of the most important characteristics of the so-called neoliberalism is its negative selection. While mostly successfully camouflaged, that negative selection is more than obvious this time, in two US presidential candidates. It's hard to imagine lower than those two.

    seamuspadraig 26 Oct 2016 13:37

    Well, OK George. Tell me: if Trump's such an establishment candidate, then why does the whole of the establishment unanimously reject him? Is it normal for Republicans (such as the Bushes and the neocons) to endorse Democrats? Why does even the Speaker of the House (a Republican) and even, on occasion, Trump's own Vice-Presidential nominee seem to be trying to undermine his campaign? If Trump is really just more of the same as all that came before, why is he being treated different by the MSM and the political establishment?

    Obviously, there's something flawed about your assumption.


    CharlesPDXOr -> seamuspadraig 26 Oct 2016 13:58

    I think the answer to your question is in the article: because Trump has brought the truth of the monied class into the open. He is a perfect example of all that class is and tries to pretend it is not. And when the commoners see this in front of them, a whole lot of them are disgusted by it. That doesn't sit well back in the country club and the boardroom, where they work so hard to keep all of that behind closed doors. They hate him because he is one of them and is spilling the beans on all of them.

    bill9651 26 Oct 2016 13:01

    Trump has exposed the corruption of the political system and the media and has promised to put a stop to it. By contrast, Clinton is financed by the very banks, corporates and financial elites who are responsible for the corruption. This Trump speech is explicit on what we all suspected is going on. Everybody should watch it, irrespective of whether they support him or not!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tab5vvo0TJw


    Frances56 26 Oct 2016 13:54

    Michael Moore explaining why a lot of people like him


    "I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after talking to a number of them I wanted to write this.

    Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states.

    You live here in Ohio, you know what I'm talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump. He is the human Molotov Cocktail that they've been waiting for; the human hand grande that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them. And on November 8, although they lost their jobs, although they've been foreclose on by the bank, next came the divorce and now the wife and kids are gone, the car's been repoed, they haven't had a real vacation in years, they're stuck with the shitty Obamacare bronze plan where you can't even get a fucking percocet, they've essentially lost everything they had except one thing - the one thing that doesn't cost them a cent and is guaranteed to them by the American constitution: the right to vote.
    They might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be fucked over and fucked up it doesn't matter, because it's equalized on that day - a millionaire has the same number of votes as the person without a job: one. And there's more of the former middle class than there are in the millionaire class. So on November 8 the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot, close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touchscreen and put a big fucking X in the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined their lives: Donald J Trump.

    They see that the elite who ruined their lives hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wall Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump, after they loved him and created him, and now hate. Thank you media: the enemy of my enemy is who I'm voting for on November 8.

    Yes, on November 8, you Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, all the Blows get to go and blow up the whole goddamn system because it's your right. Trump's election is going to be the biggest fuck you ever recorded in human history and it will feel good."

    Michael Moore


    Debreceni 26 Oct 2016 14:15

    Mrs Clinton is also the product of our political culture. A feminist who owes everything to her husband and men in the Democratic Party. A Democrat who started her political career as a Republican; a civil right activist who worked for Gerry Goldwater, one of last openly racist/segregationist politicians. A Secretary of State who has no clue about, or training in, foreign policy, and who received her position as compensation for losing the election. A pacifist, who has never had a gun in her hands, but supported every war in the last twenty years. A humanist who rejoiced over Qaddafi's death ("we came, we won, he is dead!") like a sadist.

    Both candidates have serious weaknesses. Yet Trump is very much an American character, his vices and weaknesses are either overlooked, or widely shared, secretively respected and even admired (even by those who vote against him). Clinton's arrogance, elitism and hypocrisy, coupled with her lack of talent, charisma and personality, make her an aberration in American politics.


    BabylonianSheDevil03 26 Oct 2016 15:26

    One thing that far right politics offers the ordinary white disaffected voter is 'pay back', it is a promised revenge-fest, putting up walls, getting rid of foreigners, punishing employers of foreigners, etc., etc. All the stuff that far right groups have wet dreams about.

    Farage used the same tactics in the UK. Le Pen is the same.

    Because neoliberal politics has left a hell of a lot of people feeling pissed off, the far right capitalizes on this, whilst belonging to the same neoliberal dystopia so ultimately not being able to make good on their promises. Their promises address a lot of people's anger, which of course isn't really about foreigners at all, that is simply the decoy, but cutting through all the crap to make that clear is no easy task, not really sure how it can be done, certainly no political leader in the western hemisphere has the ability to do so.

    ProseBeforeHos 26 Oct 2016 15:45

    "But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics."

    Wrong as always. Trump *is* an outsider. He's an unabashed nationalist who's set him up against the *actual* caste that governs our politics: Neo-liberal internationalists with socially trendy left-liberal politics (but not so left that they don't hire good tax lawyers to avoid paying a fraction of what they are legally obliged to).

    Best represented in the Goldman Sachs executives who are donating millions to Hillary Clinton because they are worried about Trump's opposition to free trade, and they know she will give them *everything* they want.

    Trumps the closest thing we're gotten to a genuine threat to the system in a long, long time, so of course George Monbiot and the rest of the Guardian writers has set themselves against him, because if you're gonna be wrong about the EU, wrong about New Labour, wrong about social liberalism, wrong about immigration, why change the habit of a lifetime?

    aofeia1224 26 Oct 2016 16:09

    "What is the worst thing about Donald Trump? The lies? The racist stereotypes? The misogyny? The alleged gropings? The apparent refusal to accept democratic outcomes?"

    Lies: Emails, policy changes based on polls showing a complete lack of conviction, corporate collusion, Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, war mongering, etc.
    Racist stereotypes: Super predators. Misogyny: Aside from her laughing away her pedophile case and allegedly threatening the women who came out against Bill, you've also got this sexist gem "Women are the primary victims of war".

    Alleged gropings: Well she's killed people by texting. So unless your moral compass is so out of whack that somehow a man JOKING about his player status in private is worse than Clinton's actions throughout her political career, then I guess you could make the case that Clinton at least doesn't have this skeleton in her closet.

    Refusal to accept democratic outcomes: No. He's speaking out against the media's collusion with the democratic party favoring Clinton over every other nominee, including Bernie Sanders. He's talking about what was revealed in the DNC leaks and the O'Keefe tapes that show how dirty the tactics have been in order to legally persuade the voting public into electing one person or the other.

    Besides that, who cares about his "refusal" to accept the outcome? The American people protested when Bush won in 2000 saying it was rigged. Same goes with Obama saying the same "anti democratic" shit back in 2008 in regards to the Bush Administration.

    Pot call kettle black

    caravanserai 26 Oct 2016 16:16

    Republicans are crazy and their policies make little sense. Neo-conservatism? Trickle down economics? Getting the poor to pay for the mess created by the bankers in 2008? Trump knows what sells to his party's base. He throws them red meat. However, the Democrats are not much better. They started to sell out when Bill Clinton was president. They pretend to still be the party of the New Deal, but they don't want to offend Wall Street. US democracy is in trouble.

    rooolf 26 Oct 2016 16:24

    When do the conspiracy theories about the criminality of his opponent no longer count as conspiracies? When we have a plethora of emails confirming there is indeed fire next to that smoke, corruption fire, collusion fire, fire of contempt for the electorate. When we have emails confirming the Saudi Arabians are actually funding terrorist schools across the globe, emails where Hilary herself admits it, but will not say anything publicly about terrorism and Saudi Arabia, what's conspiracy and what's reality?

    Is it because Saudi Arabia funded her foundation with $23 million, or because it doesn't fit with her great 'internationalists' global agenda?

    Either way there seems to be some conspiring of some sort

    When is it no longer theory? And where does the guardian fit into this corrupted corporate media idea?

    Yep trump is a buffoon, but the failure of all media to deliver serious debate means the US is about to elect someone probably more dangerous than trump, how the hell can that be

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/the-election-of-hillary-clinton-promises-a-more-dangerous-world/7966336

    rooolf 26 Oct 2016 16:35

    What the author overlooks is the media's own complicity in allowing this to develop

    Unfortunately the corruption of the system is so entrenched it takes an abnormality like trump to challenge it

    Hard to believe, but trump is a once in a lifetime opportunity to shake shit up, not a pleasant one, in fact a damn ugly opportunity, but the media shut him down, got all caught up in self preservation and missed the opportunity

    it what comes next that is scary


    BScHons -> rooolf 26 Oct 2016 17:09

    Nothing wrong with a liberal internationalist utopia, it sounds rather good and worth striving for. It's just that what they've been pushing is actually a neoliberal globalist nirvana for the 1 per cent

    rooolf BScHons 26 Oct 2016 17:17

    Totally agree

    The problem is the left this paper represents were bought off with the small change by neoliberalism, and they expect the rest of us to suck it up so the elites from both sides can continue the game

    Talking about the environment and diversity doesn't cut it

    mrjonno 26 Oct 2016 17:02

    Well said as ever George. Humanity is in a total mess as we near the end of the neoliberal model. That the USA has a choice between two 'demopublicans' is no choice at all.

    I would go further in your analysis - media controlled by these sociopaths has ensured that our society shares the same values - we are a bankrupt species as is.

    As long as you are here to provide sensible analysis, along with Peter Joseph, I have hope that we can pull out of the nosedive that we are currently on a trajectory for.

    Thank you for your sane input into an otherwise insane world. Thank you Mr Monbiot.


    annedemontmorency 26 Oct 2016 19:08

    We'll ignore the part about the inability to accept democratic outcomes since that afflicts so many people and organisations - Brexit , anyone?

    More to the point is how the summit of US politics produces candidates like Trump and Clinton.

    Clinton is suffering the same damage the LibDems received during their coalition with the Tories .Proximity to power exposed their inadequacies and hypocrisy in both cases.

    Trump - unbelievably - remains a viable candidate but only because Hillary Clinton reeks of graft and self interest.
    The obvious media campaign against Trump could also backfire - voters know a hatchet job when they see one - they watch House of Cards.

    But politics is odd around the whole world.
    The Guardian is running a piece about the Pirate party in Iceland.

    Why go so far? - the most remarkable coup in recent politics was UKIP forcing a vote on the EU which it not only won it did so in spite of only ever having ONE MP out of 630.

    Trump may be America's UKIP - he resembles them in so many ways.

    ID6209069 26 Oct 2016 20:35

    It's possible that something like this was inevitable, in a nation which is populated by "consumers" rather than as citizens. There are "valuable demographics" versus those that aren't worthy of the attention of the constant bombardment of advertising. I jokingly said last year that as I was turning 55 last year, I am no longer in the 'coveted 29-54 demo'. My worth as a consumer has been changed merely by reaching a certain age, so I now see fewer ads about cars and electronics and more about prescription medicines. The product of our media is eyeballs, not programs or articles. The advertising is the money maker, the content merely a means of luring people in for a sales pitch, not to educate or inform. If that structure sells us a hideous caricature of a successful person and gives him political power, as long as the ad dollars keep rolling in.

    GreyBags 26 Oct 2016 21:19

    This is the culmination of living in a post-truth political world. Lies and smears, ably supported by the corporate media and Murdoch in particular means that the average person who doesn't closely follow politics is being misinformed.

    The complete failure of right wing economic 'theories' means they only have lies, smears and the old 'divide and conquer' left in their arsenal. 'Free speech' is their attempt to get lies and smears equal billing with the truth. All truth on the other hand must be suppressed. All experts and scientists who don't regurgitate the meaningless slogans of the right will be ignored, traduced, defunded, disbanded or silenced by law.

    We see the same corrupted philosophy in Australia as well.


    JamesCameron 7d ago

    Yet Trump, the "misogynist, racist and bigot"' has more women in executive and managerial positions than any comparable company, pays these women the same or more than their male counterparts and fought the West Palm Beach City Council to be allowed to open his newly purchased club to blacks and Jews who had been banned until then. I suspect his views do chime with Americans fed up with political correctness gone mad as well as the venality of the administration of Barak Obama, a machine politician with dodgy bagmen from Chicago – the historically corrupt city in Illinois, the most corrupt state in the Union. Finally, unlike The Hilary, he has actually held down a job, worked hard and achieved success and perhaps they are more offended by what she does than what he says.

    aucourant 7d ago

    Not so much an article about Trump as much as a rant. George Monbiot writes with the utter conviction of one who mistakenly believes that his readers share his bigotry. When he talks about the 'alleged gropings' or the 'alleged refusal to accept democratic outcomes', that is exactly what they are 'alleged'.

    The Democratic Party has been dredging up porn-stars and wannabe models who now make claims that Trump tried to 'kiss them without asking'. This has become the nightly fare of the mainstream media in the USA. At the same time the media ignores the destruction of Clinton's emails, the bribing of top FBI officials who are investigating the destroyed tapes and the giving of immunity to all those who aided Clinton in hiding and destroying subpoenaed evidence.

    The press also ignored the tapes of the DNC paying thugs to cause violence at Trump rallies, the bribes paid to the Clintons for political favours and the stealing of the election from Bernie Sanders. Trump is quite right to think the 'democratic outcome' is being fixed. Not only were the votes for Sanders manipulated, but Al Gore's votes were also altered and manipulated to ensure a win for Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The same interests who engineered the 2000 election have switched from supporting the Republican Party to supporting Clinton.

    Anomander64 6d ago

    Great article. The neoliberals have been able to control the narrative and in doing so have managed to scapegoat all manner of minority groups, building anger among those disaffected with modern politics. Easy targets - minorities, immigrants, the poor, the disadvantaged and the low-paid workers.

    The real enemy here are those sitting atop the corporate tree, but with the media controlled by them, the truth is never revealed.

    mochilero7687 5d ago

    Perhaps next week George will write in detail about all the scandals Hildabeast has caused and been involved in over the past 40 years - which have cost the US govt tens of millions of dollars and millions of man hours - but I won't be holding my breath.

    [Nov 02, 2016] Veterans, Feeling Abandoned, Stand by Donald Trump by NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

    Notable quotes:
    "... The roster of retired military officers endorsing Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied forces battling the Taliban in Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own country. ..."
    "... After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience. ..."
    "... "When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam." ..."
    Nov 02, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    The roster of retired military officers endorsing Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied forces battling the Taliban in Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own country.

    But as Election Day approaches, many veterans are instead turning to Donald J. Trump , a businessman who avoided the Vietnam draft and has boasted of gathering foreign policy wisdom by watching television shows.

    Even as other voters abandon Mr. Trump, veterans remain among his most loyal supporters, an unlikely connection forged by the widening gulf they feel from other Americans.

    After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience.

    Perhaps most strikingly, they welcome Mr. Trump's blunt attacks on America's entanglements overseas.

    "When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam."

    In small military towns in California and North Carolina, veterans of all eras cheer Mr. Trump's promises to fire officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs . His attacks on political correctness evoke their frustrations with tortured rules of engagement crafted to serve political, not military, ends. In Mr. Trump's forceful assertion of strength, they find a balm for wounds that left them broken and torn.

    "He calls it out," said Joshua Macias, a former Navy petty officer and fifth-generation veteran who lives in the Tidewater region of Virginia, where he organized a "Veterans for Trump" group last year. "We have intense emotion connected to these wars. The way it was politicized, the way they changed the way we fight in a war setting - it's horrible how they did that."

    [Nov 01, 2016] No Matter Who Wins the Election, Military Spending Is Here to Stay by William D. Hartung

    Notable quotes:
    "... The military-industrial complex is alive and well, and it's gobbling up your tax dollars. Through good times and bad, regardless of what's actually happening in the world, one thing is certain: In the long run, the Pentagon budget won't go down. ..."
    "... Pillar one supporting that edifice: ideology. As long as most Americans accept the notion that it is the God-given mission and right of the United States to go anywhere on the planet and do more or less anything it cares to do with its military, you won't see Pentagon spending brought under real control. Think of this as the military corollary to American exceptionalism-or just call it the doctrine of armed exceptionalism, if you will. ..."
    "... The second pillar supporting lavish military budgets (and this will hardly surprise you): the entrenched power of the arms lobby and its allies in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. The strategic placement of arms production facilities and military bases in key states and Congressional districts has created an economic dependency that has saved many a flawed weapons system from being unceremoniously dumped in the trash bin of history. ..."
    "... Take as an example the M-1 tank, which the Army actually wanted to stop buying. Its plans were thwarted by the Ohio congressional delegation, which led a fight to add more M-1s to the budget in order to keep the General Dynamics production line in Lima, Ohio, up and running. In a similar fashion, prodded by the Missouri delegation, Congress added two different versions of Boeing's F-18 aircraft to the budget to keep funds flowing to that company's St. Louis area plant. ..."
    "... The one-two punch of an environment in which the military can do no wrong, while being outfitted for every global task imaginable, and what former Pentagon analyst Franklin "Chuck" Spinney has called " political engineering ," has been a tough combination to beat. ..."
    "... The overwhelming consensus in favor of a "cover the globe" military strategy has been broken from time to time by popular resistance to the idea of using war as a central tool of foreign policy. In such periods, getting Americans behind a program of feeding the military machine massive sums of money has generally required a heavy dose of fear. ..."
    "... As Wayne Biddle has noted in his seminal book Barons of the Sky , the US aerospace industry produced an astonishing 300,000-plus military aircraft during World War II. Not surprisingly, major weapons producers struggled to survive in a peacetime environment in which government demand for their products threatened to be a tiny fraction of wartime levels. ..."
    "... With the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Washington decisively renewed its practice of responding to perceived foreign threats with large-scale military interventions. That quick victory over Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein's forces in Kuwait was celebrated by many hawks as the end of the Vietnam-induced malaise. Amid victory parades and celebrations, President George H.W. Bush would enthusiastically exclaim : "And, by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all." ..."
    "... In reality, he underestimated the Pentagon's ability to conjure up new threats. Military spending did indeed drop at the end of the Cold War, but the Pentagon helped staunch the bleeding relatively quickly before a "peace dividend" could be delivered to the American people. Instead, it put a firm floor under the fall by announcing what came to be known as the "rogue state" doctrine . ..."
    "... Take Lockheed Martin Vice President Bruce Jackson, for example. In 1997, he became a director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and so part of a gaggle of hawks including future Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, future Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and future Vice President Dick Cheney. In those years, PNAC would advocate the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as part of its project to turn the planet into an American military protectorate. ..."
    "... The Afghan and Iraq wars would prove an absolute bonanza for contractors as the Pentagon budget soared. Traditional weapons suppliers like Lockheed Martin and Boeing prospered, as did private contractors like Dick Cheney's former employer , Halliburton, which made billions providing logistical support to US troops in the field. ..."
    "... Recent terror attacks against Western targets from Brussels, Paris, and Nice to San Bernardino and Orlando have offered the national security state and the Obama administration the necessary fear factor that makes the case for higher Pentagon spending so palatable. This has been true despite the fact that more tanks, bombers , aircraft carriers , and nuclear weapons will be useless in preventing such attacks. ..."
    10, 2016 | Defend Democracy Press
    The military-industrial complex is alive and well, and it's gobbling up your tax dollars. Through good times and bad, regardless of what's actually happening in the world, one thing is certain: In the long run, the Pentagon budget won't go down.

    It's not that that budget has never been reduced. At pivotal moments, like the end of World War II as well as war's end in Korea and Vietnam, there were indeed temporary downturns, as there was after the Cold War ended. More recently, the Budget Control Act of 2011 threw a monkey wrench into the Pentagon's plans for funding that would go ever onward and upward by putting a cap on the money Congress could pony up for it. The remarkable thing, though, is not that such moments have occurred, but how modest and short-lived they've proved to be.

    Take the current budget. It's down slightly from its peak in 2011, when it reached the highest level since World War II, but this year's budget for the Pentagon and related agencies is nothing to sneeze at. It comes in at roughly $600 billion - more than the peak year of the massive arms build-up initiated by President Ronald Reagan back in the 1980s. To put this figure in perspective: Despite troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan dropping sharply over the past eight years, the Obama administration has still managed to spend more on the Pentagon than the Bush administration did during its two terms in office.

    What accounts for the Department of Defense's ability to keep a stranglehold on your tax dollars year after endless year?

    Pillar one supporting that edifice: ideology. As long as most Americans accept the notion that it is the God-given mission and right of the United States to go anywhere on the planet and do more or less anything it cares to do with its military, you won't see Pentagon spending brought under real control. Think of this as the military corollary to American exceptionalism-or just call it the doctrine of armed exceptionalism, if you will.

    The second pillar supporting lavish military budgets (and this will hardly surprise you): the entrenched power of the arms lobby and its allies in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. The strategic placement of arms production facilities and military bases in key states and Congressional districts has created an economic dependency that has saved many a flawed weapons system from being unceremoniously dumped in the trash bin of history.

    Lockheed Martin, for instance, has put together a handy map of how its troubled F-35 fighter jet has created 125,000 jobs in 46 states. The actual figures are, in fact, considerably lower, but the principle holds: Having subcontractors in dozens of states makes it harder for members of Congress to consider cutting or slowing down even a failed or failing program. Take as an example the M-1 tank, which the Army actually wanted to stop buying. Its plans were thwarted by the Ohio congressional delegation, which led a fight to add more M-1s to the budget in order to keep the General Dynamics production line in Lima, Ohio, up and running. In a similar fashion, prodded by the Missouri delegation, Congress added two different versions of Boeing's F-18 aircraft to the budget to keep funds flowing to that company's St. Louis area plant.

    The one-two punch of an environment in which the military can do no wrong, while being outfitted for every global task imaginable, and what former Pentagon analyst Franklin "Chuck" Spinney has called " political engineering ," has been a tough combination to beat.

    "SCARE THE HELL OUT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE"

    The overwhelming consensus in favor of a "cover the globe" military strategy has been broken from time to time by popular resistance to the idea of using war as a central tool of foreign policy. In such periods, getting Americans behind a program of feeding the military machine massive sums of money has generally required a heavy dose of fear.

    For example, the last thing most Americans wanted after the devastation and hardship unleashed by World War II was to immediately put the country back on a war footing. The demobilization of millions of soldiers and a sharp cutback in weapons spending in the immediate postwar years rocked what President Dwight Eisenhower would later dub the "military-industrial complex."

    As Wayne Biddle has noted in his seminal book Barons of the Sky , the US aerospace industry produced an astonishing 300,000-plus military aircraft during World War II. Not surprisingly, major weapons producers struggled to survive in a peacetime environment in which government demand for their products threatened to be a tiny fraction of wartime levels.

    Lockheed President Robert Gross was terrified by the potential impact of war's end on his company's business, as were many of his industry cohorts. "As long as I live," he said , "I will never forget those short, appalling weeks" of the immediate postwar period. To be clear, Gross was appalled not by the war itself, but by the drop off in orders occasioned by its end. He elaborated in a 1947 letter to a friend: "We had one underlying element of comfort and reassurance during the war. We knew we'd get paid for anything we built. Now we are almost entirely on our own."

    The postwar doldrums in military spending that worried him so were reversed only after the American public had been fed a steady, fear-filled diet of anti-communism. NSC-68 , a secret memorandum the National Security Council prepared for President Harry Truman in April 1950, created the template for a policy based on the global "containment" of communism and grounded in a plan to encircle the Soviet Union with US military forces, bases, and alliances. This would, of course, prove to be a strikingly expensive proposition. The concluding paragraphs of that memorandum underscored exactly that point, calling for a "sustained buildup of US political, economic, and military strength… [to] frustrate the Kremlin design of a world dominated by its will."

    Senator Arthur Vandenberg put the thrust of this new Cold War policy in far simpler terms when he bluntly advised President Truman to "scare the hell out of the American people" to win support for a $400 million aid plan for Greece and Turkey. His suggestion would be put into effect not just for those two countries but to generate support for what President Eisenhower would later describe as "a permanent arms establishment of vast proportions."

    Industry leaders like Lockheed's Gross were poised to take advantage of such planning. In a draft of a 1950 speech, he noted , giddily enough, that "for the first time in recorded history, one country has assumed global responsibility." Meeting that responsibility would naturally mean using air transport to deliver "huge quantities of men, food, ammunition, tanks, gasoline, oil and thousands of other articles of war to a number of widely separated places on the face of the earth." Lockheed, of course, stood ready to heed the call.

    The next major challenge to armed exceptionalism and to the further militarization of foreign policy came after the disastrous Vietnam War, which drove many Americans to question the wisdom of a policy of permanent global interventionism. That phenomenon would be dubbed the "Vietnam syndrome" by interventionists, as if opposition to such a military policy were a disease, not a position. Still, that "syndrome" carried considerable, if ever-decreasing, weight for a decade and a half, despite the Pentagon's Reagan-inspired arms build-up of the 1980s.

    With the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Washington decisively renewed its practice of responding to perceived foreign threats with large-scale military interventions. That quick victory over Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein's forces in Kuwait was celebrated by many hawks as the end of the Vietnam-induced malaise. Amid victory parades and celebrations, President George H.W. Bush would enthusiastically exclaim : "And, by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all."

    However, perhaps the biggest threat since World War II to an "arms establishment of vast proportions" came with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, also in 1991. How to mainline fear into the American public and justify Cold War levels of spending when that other superpower, the Soviet Union, the primary threat of the previous nearly half-a-century, had just evaporated and there was next to nothing threatening on the horizon? General Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, summed up the fears of that moment within the military and the arms complex when he said , "I'm running out of demons. I'm running out of villains. I'm down to Castro and Kim Il-sung."

    In reality, he underestimated the Pentagon's ability to conjure up new threats. Military spending did indeed drop at the end of the Cold War, but the Pentagon helped staunch the bleeding relatively quickly before a "peace dividend" could be delivered to the American people. Instead, it put a firm floor under the fall by announcing what came to be known as the "rogue state" doctrine . Resources formerly aimed at the Soviet Union would now be focused on "regional hegemons" like Iraq and North Korea.

    FEAR, GREED, AND HUBRIS WIN THE DAY

    After the 9/11 attacks, the rogue state doctrine morphed into the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT), which neoconservative pundits soon labeled " World War IV ." The heightened fear campaign that went with it, in turn, helped sow the seeds for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was promoted by visions of mushroom clouds rising over American cities and a drumbeat of Bush administration claims (all false) that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda. Some administration officials including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even suggested that Saddam was like Hitler, as if a modest-sized Middle Eastern state could somehow muster the resources to conquer the globe.

    The administration's propaganda campaign would be supplemented by the work of right-wing corporate-funded think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. And no one should be surprised to learn that the military-industrial complex and its money, its lobbyists, and its interests were in the middle of it all. Take Lockheed Martin Vice President Bruce Jackson, for example. In 1997, he became a director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and so part of a gaggle of hawks including future Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, future Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and future Vice President Dick Cheney. In those years, PNAC would advocate the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as part of its project to turn the planet into an American military protectorate. Many of its members would, of course, enter the Bush administration in crucial roles and become architects of the GWOT and the invasion of Iraq.

    The Afghan and Iraq wars would prove an absolute bonanza for contractors as the Pentagon budget soared. Traditional weapons suppliers like Lockheed Martin and Boeing prospered, as did private contractors like Dick Cheney's former employer , Halliburton, which made billions providing logistical support to US troops in the field. Other major beneficiaries included firms like Blackwater and DynCorp , whose employees guarded US facilities and oil pipelines while training Afghan and Iraqi security forces. As much as $60 billion of the funds funneled to such contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan would be "wasted," but not from the point of view of companies for which waste could generate as much profit as a job well done. So Halliburton and its cohorts weren't complaining.

    On entering the Oval Office, President Obama would ditch the term GWOT in favor of "countering violent extremism"-and then essentially settle for a no-name global war. He would shift gears from a strategy focused on large numbers of "boots on the ground" to an emphasis on drone strikes , the use of Special Operations forces , and massive transfers of arms to US allies like Saudi Arabia. In the context of an increasingly militarized foreign policy, one might call Obama's approach "politically sustainable warfare," since it involved fewer (American) casualties and lower costs than Bush-style warfare, which peaked in Iraq at more than 160,000 troops and a comparable number of private contractors.

    Recent terror attacks against Western targets from Brussels, Paris, and Nice to San Bernardino and Orlando have offered the national security state and the Obama administration the necessary fear factor that makes the case for higher Pentagon spending so palatable. This has been true despite the fact that more tanks, bombers , aircraft carriers , and nuclear weapons will be useless in preventing such attacks.

    The majority of what the Pentagon spends, of course, has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. But whatever it has or hasn't been called, the war against terror has proven to be a cash cow for the Pentagon and contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.

    The "war budget"-money meant for the Pentagon but not included in its regular budget-has been used to add on tens of billions of dollars more. It has proven to be an effective " slush fund " for weapons and activities that have nothing to do with immediate war fighting and has been the Pentagon's preferred method for evading the caps on its budget imposed by the Budget Control Act. A Pentagon spokesman admitted as much recently by acknowledging that more than half of the $58.8 billion war budget is being used to pay for non-war costs.

    The abuse of the war budget leaves ample room in the Pentagon's main budget for items like the overpriced, underperforming F-35 combat aircraft, a plane that, at a price tag of $1.4 trillion over its lifetime, is on track to be the most expensive weapons program ever undertaken. That slush fund is also enabling the Pentagon to spend billions of dollars in seed money as a down payment on the department's proposed $1 trillion plan to buy a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers, missiles, and submarines. Shutting it down could force the Pentagon to do what it likes least: live within an actual budget rather continuing to push its top line ever upward.

    Although rarely discussed due to the focus on Donald Trump's abominable behavior and racist rhetoric, both candidates for president are in favor of increasing Pentagon spending. Trump's " plan " (if one can call it that) hews closely to a blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation that, if implemented, could increase Pentagon spending by a cumulative $900 billion over the next decade. The size of a Clinton buildup is less clear, but she has also pledged to work toward lifting the caps on the Pentagon's regular budget. If that were done and the war fund continued to be stuffed with non-war-related items, one thing is certain: The Pentagon and its contractors will be sitting pretty.

    As long as fear, greed, and hubris are the dominant factors driving Pentagon spending, no matter who is in the White House, substantial and enduring budget reductions are essentially inconceivable. A wasteful practice may be eliminated here or an unnecessary weapons system cut there, but more fundamental change would require taking on the fear factor, the doctrine of armed exceptionalism, and the way the military-industrial complex is embedded in Washington.

    Only such a culture shift would allow for a clear-eyed assessment of what constitutes "defense" and how much money would be needed to provide it. Unfortunately, the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned Americans about more than 50 years ago is alive and well, and gobbling up your tax dollars at an alarming rate.

    [Nov 01, 2016] Inside the Invisible Government - The Unz Review

    Nov 01, 2016 | www.unz.com

    The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country.

    The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an "agreement" that demanded the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable.

    As WikLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2009 rejected an oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked.

    From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics – the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage.

    Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: "We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence, or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked."

    The West's medieval client, Saudi Arabia – to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars' worth of arms – is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half the children are malnourished.

    [Oct 31, 2016] Rats are starting to leave the sinking ship

    Oct 31, 2016 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    Tyler said... Rats are starting to leave the sinking ship:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-kass-1030-20161028-column.html

    Again, if you really believed that Hillary ever had a 12 point lead over Trump I've got news for you. Functionally tied even with a +8 Dem oversampling. Brace for a Trumpslide. This was even BEFORE the FBI announcement.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3885770/Trump-wipes-Clinton-s-seven-point-lead-loses-steam-polls-carried-FBI-announced-reopening-emails-investigation.html Reply 30 October 2016 at 12:07 PM Joe100 said in reply to Tyler... Tyler -

    I found a surprisingly good article on BBC news this morning addressing whether Trump can pull off the election. The poor predictions of Brexit vote outcome have clearly raised concerns about polling accuracy. A key point was that "Some 2.8 million people - about 6% of the electorate - who had not voted for decades, if ever, turned up at the polling stations on 23 June and almost all of them voted to leave the EU."

    The article covers a broad range of issues raising uncertainty in elections like the impact of cellphone use and the increasing reluctance of the public to answer surveys.

    It suggests that there is probably more uncertainty in all of the presidential race polling than is being admitted – with some emphasis on the limits of "proprietary 'likely voter' models used by most polling companies. The article ends quoting Nate Silver suggesting that many pollsters have not factored enough uncertainty into their models..

    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37736161 Reply 30 October 2016 at 02:38 PM

    [Oct 31, 2016] Rummy was running around after towers were hit saying how can we tie this to Iraq .

    Oct 31, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    jdmckay | Oct 30, 2016 9:43:00 PM | 99

    Tobin Paz @ 90
    The Clinton administration was bombing Iraq three times a week during 1999 and 2000 at a cost of over $2 billion a year. Regardless of who the next president was going to be, I think you could make a strong case that they were going to war in Iraq.

    Yes ($2b p/yr bombing), and as the Counterpunch article states plenty of Gore quotes to "make strong case".

    My view: GWB admin "sold" Iraq to us not just because of WMD, but as response to declarations Sadaam was behind 9/11. Whole admin, Rice/Rummy/Cheney said this all the time, every where they could. Limbaugh, FOX... 24/7 saturation promoting this. I remember many "anonymous" quotes in Pentagon saying Rummy was running around after towers were hit saying "how can we tie this to Iraq".

    Wolfowitz was "architect" of Iraq "liberation"... he'd been promoting this back to early PNAC days. Wolfy was too "nuts" even for Bush Sr., got canned early on in his admin. Throw in Feith, Elliot Abrams and the rest, GWB was surrounded with ultra neo-con, hard line Likud'niks who really didn't give a rip about the US. Iraq was about Israel's "security", and those guys had been writing about it for years.

    None of them would have been in a Gore administration. And Gore's statements in CounterPunch, they do speak for themsleves. But I'm not sure he wasn't trying to just be a good soldier, let Junior have his way.

    Another thing: Blix had full access in Iraq. Outside of US, he was highly regarded. Here, the 24/7 neo-con media machine I mentioned above never let up on Blix. He was a "low life" "old Europe" bureaucrat... it was brutal. Really, really 'animal farm' brutal.

    Bush's UN "in your face" (either with us or against us) speech clearly designed to bully Security Counsel, Powell's "clear and convincing evidence" which was all bull shit & concocted by Cheney's office... none of this would have existed in Gore Whitehouse, and I'd put down a good bet Gore would have been very content to trust and allow Blix to finish his work. Gore just didn't have all these ulterior motives.

    One of the most memorable things in my mind of single minded purpose driving Wolfowitz/Feith etc. and the sickness behind it... I don't recall the timeline precisely, but I think not long after Junior announced "mission accomplished", among other things Bremmer had a big press brew-haa-haa introducing their "occupying authority" new flag for their "liberated" Iraq: it was almost a replica of Israel's flag. I don't have links, but maybe others recall this. It was a big, nuclear power backed fuck-you to Iraq and the middle east saying "hey, what do you think of that m****er f***ers!!!!".

    I can't imagine any of that from Gore. Bush was an entirely malleable, unaccomplished adolescent completely manipulated by the Likud neo-cons. Gore had clear ideas what he wanted to do (whatever one thinks about that) and didn't demonstrate any of Bush's reckless stupidity.

    So anyway, really academic exercise now, but Gore never demonstrated the kind of utter non-sensical, insanely radical (I'd say christian based psychopathic behavior & words) that came out of GWB's mouth and his entire admin. I can't imagine these crazies would have had any presence whatsoever in his administration. And Gore's dedication and "sweat equity" towards Climate change and renewables... whatever people think of that, sure as hell wasn't borne from being bought-and-paid-for by the fossil fuel industry. GWB's admin was, top to bottom. Plenty of evidence to suggest getting Iraq's oil fields was big part of their calculus to "liberate".

    So just academic at this point, but that's my own view FWIW.

    [Oct 30, 2016] After the attacks Americas new cold war

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions. ..."
    "... The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies ..."
    "... Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take. ..."
    "... A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. ..."
    Sep 28, 2001 | guardian.co.uk

    "Who says we share common values with the Europeans? They don't even go to church!" Will the atrocities of September 11 push America further to the right or open a new debate on foreign policy and the need for alliances? In this exclusive online essay from the London Review of Books, Anatol Lieven considers how the cold war legacy may affect the war on terrorism

    Not long after the Bush Administration took power in January, I was invited to lunch at a glamorous restaurant in New York by a group of editors and writers from an influential American right-wing broadsheet. The food and wine were extremely expensive, the decor luxurious but discreet, the clientele beautifully dressed, and much of the conversation more than mildly insane. With regard to the greater part of the world outside America, my hosts' attitude was a combination of loathing, contempt, distrust and fear: not only towards Arabs, Russians, Chinese, French and others, but towards 'European socialist governments', whatever that was supposed to mean. This went with a strong desire - in theory at least - to take military action against a broad range of countries across the world.

    Two things were particularly striking here: a tendency to divide the world into friends and enemies, and a difficulty verging on autism when it came to international opinions that didn't coincide with their own - a combination more appropriate to the inhabitants of an ethnic slum in the Balkans than to people who were, at that point, on top of the world.

    Today Americans of all classes and opinions have reason to worry, and someone real to fear and hate, while prolonged US military action overseas is thought to be inevitable. The building where we had lunch is now rubble. Several of our fellow diners probably died last week, along with more than six thousand other New Yorkers from every walk of life. Not only has the terrorist attack claimed far more victims than any previous such attack anywhere in the world, but it has delivered a far more damaging economic blow. Equally important, it has destroyed Americans' belief in their country's invulnerability, on which so many other American attitudes and policies finally rested.

    This shattering blow was delivered by a handful of anonymous agents hidden in the wider population, working as part of a tightly-knit secret international conspiracy inspired by a fanatical and (to the West) deeply 'alien' and 'exotic' religious ideology. Its members are ruthless; they have remarkable organisational skills, a tremendous capacity for self-sacrifice and self-discipline, and a deep hatred of the United States and the Western way of life. As Richard Hofstader and others have argued, for more than two hundred years this kind of combination has always acted as a prompt for paranoid and reactionary conspiracy theories, most of them groundless.

    Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions.

    The latter danger has been greatly increased by the attacks. The terrorists have raised to white heat certain smouldering tendencies among the American Right, while simultaneously - as is usually the case at the start of wars - pushing American politics and most of its population in a sharply rightward direction; all of which has taken place under an unexpectedly right-wing Administration. If this leads to a crude military response, then the terrorists will have achieved part of their purpose, which was to provoke the other side to indiscriminate retaliation, and thereby increase their own support.

    It is too early to say for sure how US strategies and attitudes will develop. At the time of writing Afghanistan is the focus, but whatever happens there, it isn't clear whether the US Administration will go on to launch a more general campaign of military pressure against other states which have supported terrorist groups, and if so, what states and what kind of military pressure? US policy is already pulled in two predictable but contradictory directions, amply illustrated in the op-ed pages of US newspapers and in debates within the Government.

    The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies. There are the beginnings, too, of a real public debate on how US policy needs to be changed and shaped to fight the new 'war'. All this is reminiscent of US attitudes and behaviour at the start of the Cold War, when Communism was identified as the central menace to the US and to Western capitalism and democracy in general.

    On the other hand, the public desire for revenge has strengthened certain attitudes - especially in the Republican Party and media, as well as parts of the Administration - which, if they prevail, will not only be dangerous in themselves, but will make the search for real allies difficult. And real allies are essential, above all in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In the longer run, only the full co-operation of Arab regimes - along with reform and economic development - can prevent the recruitment, funding and operations of Arab-based terrorist groups.

    As for Europe, British military support may be unconditional, but most European countries - Russia among them - are likely to restrict their help to intelligence and policing. Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take.

    Yet a blank cheque is precisely what the Administration, and the greater part of US public opinion, are asking for. This is Jim Hoagland, veteran establishment foreign correspondent and commentator, in the generally liberal Washington Post:

    "Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many of the other Arab states Powell hopes to recruit for the bin Laden posse have long been part of the problem, not part of the solution to international terrorism. These states cannot be given free passes for going through the motions of helping the United States. And European allies cannot be allowed to order an appetiser of bin Laden and not share in the costs of the rest of a meal cooked in hell."

    If this is the Post, then the sentiments in the right-wing press and the tabloids can well be imagined. Here is Tod Lindberg, the editor of Policy Review, writing in the Washington Times:

    "The United States is now energetically in the business of making governments pick a side: either with us and against the terrorists, or against us and with them... Against the category of enemy stands the category of 'friend'. Friends stand with us. Friends do whatever they can to help. Friends don't, for example, engage in commerce with enemies, otherwise they aren't friends."

    A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. Now it has spread and, for the moment at least, some rather important ideas have almost vanished from the public debate: among them, that other states have their own national interests, and that in the end nothing compels them to help the US; that they, too, have been the victims of terrorism - in the case of Britain, largely funded from groups in the United States - but have not insisted on a right of unilateral military retaliation (this point was made by Niall Ferguson in the New York Times, but not as yet in any op-ed by an American that I have seen); and that in some cases these states may actually know more about their own part of the world than US intelligence does.

    Beyond the immediate and unforeseeable events in Afghanistan - and their sombre implications for Pakistan - lies the bigger question of US policy in the Arab world. Here, too, Administration policy may well be a good deal more cautious than the opinions of the right-wing media would suggest - which again is fortunate, because much opinion on this subject is more than rabid. Here is AM Rosenthal in the Washington Times arguing that an amazing range of states should be given ultimatums to surrender not only alleged terrorists but also their own senior officials accused by the US of complicity:

    "The ultimatum should go to the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan and any other devoted to the elimination of the United States or the constant incitement of hatred against it... In the three days the terrorists consider the American ultimatum, the residents of the countries would be urged 24 hours a day by the United States to flee the capital and major cities, because they would be bombed to the ground beginning the fourth."

    Rosenthal isn't a figure from the lunatic fringe ranting on a backwoods radio show, but the former executive editor of the New York Times, writing in a paper with great influence in the Republican Party, especially under the present Administration.

    No Administration is going to do anything remotely like this. But if the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has emerged as the voice of moderation, with a proper commitment to multilateralism, other voices are audible, too. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, has spoken of "ending states which support terrorism", and in the case of Iraq, there are those who would now like to complete the work of the Gulf War and finish off Saddam Hussein.

    Here, too, the mood of contempt for allies contributes to the ambition. Thus Kim Holmes, vice-president of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, argued that only deference to America's Arab allies prevented the US from destroying the Iraqi regime in 1991 (the profound unwillingness of Bush Senior to occupy Iraq and take responsibility for the place also played its part in the decision): "To show that this war is not with Islam per se, the US could be tempted to restrain itself militarily and accommodate the complex and contradictory political agendas of Islamic states. This in turn could make the campaign ineffectual, prolonging the problem of terrorism."

    Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not in itself a bad idea. His is a pernicious regime, a menace to his own people and his neighbours, as well as to the West. And if the Iraqi threat to the Gulf States could be eliminated, US troops might be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia: it was their permanent stationing on the holy soil of Islam that turned Osama bin Laden from an anti-Soviet mujahid into an anti-American terrorist.

    But only if it were to take place in the context of an entirely new policy towards Palestine would the US be able to mount such a campaign without provoking massive unrest across the Arab world; and given what became of promises made during the Gulf War, there would first of all have to be firm evidence of a US change of heart. The only borders between Israel and Palestine which would have any chance of satisfying a majority of Palestinians and Arabs - and conforming to UN resolutions, for what they are worth - would be those of 1967, possibly qualified by an internationalisation of Jerusalem under UN control. This would entail the removal of the existing Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, and would be absolutely unacceptable to any imaginable Israeli Government. To win Israeli agreement would require not just US pressure, but the threat of a complete breach of relations and the ending of aid.

    There may be those in the Administration who would favour adopting such an approach at a later stage. Bush Sr's was the most anti-Israeli Administration of the past two generations, and was disliked accordingly by the Jewish and other ethnic lobbies. His son's is less beholden to those lobbies than Clinton's was. And it may be that even pro-Israeli US politicians will at some point realise that Israel's survival as such is not an issue: that it is absurd to increase the risk to Washington and New York for the sake of 267 extremist settlers in Hebron and their comrades elsewhere.

    Still, in the short term, a radical shift is unlikely, and an offensive against Iraq would therefore be dangerous. The attacks on New York and the Pentagon and the celebrations in parts of the Arab world have increased popular hostility to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular, a hostility assiduously stoked by Israeli propaganda. But when it comes to denouncing hate crimes against Muslims - or those taken to be Muslims - within the US, the Administration has behaved decently, perhaps because they have a rather sobering precedent in mind, one which has led to genuine shame: the treatment of Japanese Americans during world war two.

    This shame is the result of an applied historical intelligence that does not extend to the Arab world. Americans tend - and perhaps need - to confuse the symptoms and the causes of Arab anger. Since a key pro-Israel position in the US has been that fundamental Palestinian and Arab grievances must not be allowed legitimacy or even discussed, the only explanation of Arab hostility to the US and its ally must be sought in innate features of Arab society, whether a contemporary culture of anti-semitism (and anti-Americanism) sanctioned by Arab leaderships, or ancient 'Muslim' traditions of hostility to the West.

    All of which may contain some truth: but the central issue, the role of Israeli policies in providing a focus for such hatred, is overwhelmingly ignored. As a result, it is extremely difficult, and mostly impossible, to hold any frank discussion of the most important issue affecting the position of the US in the Middle East or the open sympathy for terrorism in the region. A passionately held nationalism usually has the effect of corrupting or silencing those liberal intellectuals who espouse it. This is the case of Israeli nationalism in the US. It is especially distressing that it should afflict the Jewish liberal intelligentsia, that old bedrock of sanity and tolerance.

    An Administration which wanted a radical change of policy towards Israel would have to generate a new public debate almost from scratch - which would not be possible until some kind of tectonic shift had taken place in American society. Too many outside observers who blame US Administrations forget that on a wide range of issues, it is essentially Congress and not the White House or State Department which determines foreign policy; this is above all true of US aid. An inability or unwillingness to try to work on Congress, as opposed to going through normal diplomatic channels, has been a minor contributory factor to Britain's inability to get any purchase on US policy in recent years.

    The role of Congress brings out what might be called the Wilhelmine aspects of US foreign and security policy. By that I do not mean extreme militarism or a love of silly hats, or even a shared tendency to autism when it comes to understanding the perceptions of other countries, but rather certain structural features in both the Wilhemine and the US system tending to produce over-ambition, and above all a chronic incapacity to choose between diametrically opposite goals. Like Wilhelmine Germany, the US has a legislature with very limited constitutional powers in the field of foreign policy, even though it wields considerable de facto power and is not linked either institutionally or by party discipline to the executive. The resulting lack of any responsibility for actual consequences is a standing invitation to rhetorical grandstanding, and the pursuit of sectional interests at the expense of overall policy.

    Meanwhile, the executive, while in theory supremely powerful in this field, has in fact continually to woo the legislature without ever being able to command its support. This, too, encourages dependence on interest groups, as well as a tendency to overcome differences and gain support by making appeals in terms of overheated patriotism rather than policy. Finally, in both systems, though for completely different reasons, supreme executive power had or has a tendency to fall into the hands of people totally unsuited for any but the ceremonial aspects of the job, and endlessly open to manipulation by advisers, ministers and cliques.

    In the US, this did not matter so much during the Cold War, when a range of Communist threats - real, imagined or fabricated - held the system together in the pursuit of more or less common aims. With the disappearance of the unifying threat, however, there has been a tendency, again very Wilhelmine, to produce ambitious and aggressive policies in several directions simultaneously, often with little reference at all to real US interests or any kind of principle.

    The new 'war against terrorism' in Administration and Congressional rhetoric has been cast as just such a principle, unifying the country and the political establishment behind a common goal and affecting or determining a great range of other policies. The language has been reminiscent of the global struggle against Communism, and confronting Islamist radicalism in the Muslim world does, it's true, pose some of the same challenges, on a less global scale, though possibly with even greater dangers for the world.

    The likelihood that US strategy in the 'war against terrorism' will resemble that of the Cold War is greatly increased by the way Cold War structures and attitudes have continued to dominate the US foreign policy and security elites. Charles Tilly and others have written of the difficulty states have in 'ratcheting down' wartime institutions and especially wartime spending. In the 1990s, this failure on the part of the US to escape its Cold War legacy was a curse, ensuring unnecessarily high military spending in the wrong fields, thoroughly negative attitudes to Russia, 'zero-sum' perceptions of international security issues in general, and perceptions of danger which wholly failed, as we now see, to meet the real threats to security and lives.

    The idea of a National Missile Defense is predicated on a limited revival of the Cold War, with China cast in the role of the Soviet Union and the Chinese nuclear deterrent as the force to be nullified. Bush's foreign and security team is almost entirely a product of Cold War structures and circumscribed by Cold War attitudes (which is not true of the President himself, who was never interested enough in foreign policy; if he can get his mind round the rest of the world, he could well be more of a free-thinker than many of his staff).

    The collapse of the Communist alternative to Western-dominated modernisation and the integration (however imperfect) of Russia and China into the world capitalist order have been a morally and socially ambiguous process, to put it mildly; but in the early 1990s they seemed to promise the suspension of hostility between the world's larger powers. The failure of the US to make use of this opportunity, thanks to an utter confusion between an ideological victory and crudely-defined US geopolitical interests, was a great misfortune which the 'war against terrorism' could in part rectify. Since 11 September, the rhetoric in America has proposed a gulf between the 'civilised' states of the present world system, and movements of 'barbaric', violent protest from outside and below - without much deference to the ambiguities of 'civilisation', or the justifications of resistance to it, remarked on since Tacitus at least.

    How is the Cold War legacy likely to determine the 'war against terrorism'? Despite the general conviction in the Republican Party that it was simply Reagan's military spending and the superiority of the US system which destroyed Soviet Communism, more serious Cold War analysts were always aware that it involved not just military force, or the threat of it, but ideological and political struggle, socio-economic measures, and state-building. The latter in particular is an idea for which the Bush team on their arrival in office had a deep dislike (if only to distance themselves from Clinton's policies), but which they may now rediscover. Foreign aid - so shamefully reduced in the 1990s - was also a key part of the Cold War, and if much of it was poured into kleptocratic regimes like Mobutu's, or wasted on misguided projects, some at least helped produce flourishing economies in Europe and East Asia.

    The Republican Party is not only the party of Goldwater and Reagan, but of Eisenhower, Nixon and Kissinger. Eisenhower is now almost forgotten by the party. 'Eisenhower Republicans', as they refer to themselves, are usually far closer to Tony Blair (or perhaps more accurately, Helmut Schmidt) than anyone the Republican Party has seen in recent years, and I'd wager that the majority of educated Americans have forgotten that the original warning about the influence of the 'military industrial complex' came from Eisenhower.

    Kissinger is still very much alive, however, and his history is a reminder that one aspect of the American capacity for extreme ruthlessness was also a capacity for radical changes of policy, for reconciliation with states hitherto regarded as bitter enemies, and for cold-blooded abandonment of close allies and clients whose usefulness was at an end. It would not altogether surprise me if we were now to see a radical shift towards real co-operation with Russia, and even Iran.

    In general, however, the Cold War legacies and parallels are discouraging and dangerous. To judge by the language used in the days since 11 September, ignorance, demonisation and the drowning out of nuanced debate indicate that much of the US establishment can no more tell the difference between Iran and Afghanistan than they could between China and the Soviet Union in the early 1960s - the inexcusable error which led to the American war in Vietnam. The preference for militarised solutions continues (the 'War on Drugs', which will now have to be scaled back, is an example). Most worryingly, the direct attack on American soil and American civilians - far worse than anything done to the US in the Cold War - means that there is a real danger of a return to Cold War ruthlessness: not just in terms of military tactics and covert operations, but in terms of the repulsive and endangered regimes co-opted as local American clients.

    The stakes are, if anything, a good deal higher than they were during the Cold War. Given what we now know of Soviet policymaking, it is by no means clear that the Kremlin ever seriously contemplated a nuclear strike against America. By contrast, it seems likely that bin Laden et al would in the end use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons if they could deliver them.

    There is also the question of the impact of US strategies (or, in the case of Israel, lack of them) on the unity of the West - assuming that this is of some importance for the wellbeing of humanity. However great the exasperation of many European states with US policy throughout the Cold War, the Europeans were bound into the transatlantic alliance by an obvious Soviet threat - more immediate to them than it was to the US. For the critical first decade of the Cold War, the economies of Europe were hopelessly inferior to that of the US. Today, if European Governments feel that the US is dragging them into unnecessary danger thanks to policies of which they disapprove, they will protest bitterly - as many did during the Cold War - and then begin to distance themselves, which they could not afford to do fifty years ago.

    This is all the more likely if, as seems overwhelmingly probable, the US withdraws from the Balkans - as it has already done in Macedonia - leaving Europeans with no good reason to require a US military presence on their continent. At the same time, the cultural gap between Europeans and Republican America (which does not mean a majority of Americans, but the dominant strain of policy) will continue to widen. 'Who says we share common values with the Europeans?' a senior US politician remarked recently. 'They don't even go to church!' Among other harmful effects, the destruction of this relationship could signal the collapse of whatever hope still exists for a common Western approach to global environmental issues - which would, in the end, pose a greater danger to humanity than that of terrorism.

    · Anatol Lieven is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC.

    [Oct 30, 2016] Computer seized in Weiner probe prompts FBI to take new steps in Clinton email inquiry

    Why thousands of emails were forwarded to unsecured computer shared by Abedin with her husband?
    How they were forwarded, were they forwarded individually or as a batch operation ?
    How many of them are those 30K deleted by Hillary "private" emails ?
    Does this batch contains any of previously discovered classified emails?
    What was the purpose of forwarding those emails to home computer.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Somebody at the F.B.I. must have picked up on the fact that the "FIX" was exposed hence on Friday an announcement was made by the F.B.I. that they had found further e-mails, I suspect that all the e-mails will have to be re-examined in the light of the lenient views taken by some F.B. I. Officers taken at the first pass or some more deletions will of necessity have to take place. ..."
    "... Meanwhile Clinton is shouting and screaming at the F.B.I. because she now knows that a new fix will be very difficult or impossible in the light of the revealed information and her "charity donations" of over $800,000 have not only been wasted but have exposed her flank! ..."
    "... ...the agents discovered the existence of tens of thousands of emails, some of them sent between Ms. Abedin and other Clinton aides, according to senior law enforcement officials ..."
    "... Nevertheless, how do you forward tens of thousands of emails? I don't think it can be a batch operation, they must have been forwarded individually. And what of the 30,000 destroyed (by Clinton) emails? ..."
    "... "We don't know what this means yet except that it's a real bombshell. And it is unthinkable that the Director of the FBI would take this action lightly, that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying there is more information out there about classified e-mails and call it to the attention of congress unless it was something requiring serious investigation. So that's where we are..." ..."
    Oct 30, 2016 | www.washingtonpost.com
    Don Smith 4:38 PM EDT
    The other day I was reading an article which was talking about two "charity donations" given to the wife of an F.B.I. Officer involved in the e-mail investigation by "friends of the Clinton's".

    The article was very low key it's author briefly wondered if the officer concerned should have excused himself from the investigation. I also thought it strange that the officers interest had not been declared. Some time later I was reading about details concerning the e-mails sent from Clinton's staff to members of the F.B.I. ,basically what was happening was that the security rating of the information contained in non deleted mails was being talked down, at which point for me at least alarm bells were ringing loud and clear but I did not expect there to be any reaction. O.K. So I'm that cynical.

    Somebody at the F.B.I. must have picked up on the fact that the "FIX" was exposed hence on Friday an announcement was made by the F.B.I. that they had found further e-mails, I suspect that all the e-mails will have to be re-examined in the light of the lenient views taken by some F.B. I. Officers taken at the first pass or some more deletions will of necessity have to take place.

    Meanwhile Clinton is shouting and screaming at the F.B.I. because she now knows that a new fix will be very difficult or impossible in the light of the revealed information and her "charity donations" of over $800,000 have not only been wasted but have exposed her flank!

    CanardNoir 2:20 PM EDT [Edited]
    My Fellow Americans - Here is what the NYT is reporting in contrast to the WaPost's email count of more than 1,000, in terms of an actual number of emails to be reviewed:

    "...the agents discovered the existence of tens of thousands of emails, some of them sent between Ms. Abedin and other Clinton aides, according to senior law enforcement officials."

    Subsequently, that could change what the initial investigation by the Bureau had to look at this summer, and the understanding that all of the parties acknowledge that about 30k emails were deleted. So the "tens of thousands" may be duplicates or perhaps copies of the "thumb-drive" that one of HRC's lawyers was said to have been given?

    At any rate, this must bring into play at least 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally - and raise the question about whether conflicting DOJ internal "policy" has any affect on any of the Administration's current or former appointees, in terms of their "oath of office" or moving forward. And that would bring 5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office - into play as well as the 5-year statute of limitations.

    We're likely still "Doomed" - so don't get too happy just yet, because EPA could still disallow "draining" anything as a result of the Clean Water Act, as amended.

    CanardNoir 2:41 PM EDT
    And here's the Sec. 2071 reason "why":

    (b) "Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States..."

    Rick B. 1:57 PM EDT
    Time to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald as special counsel
    9:57 AM EST

    [Edited] Lynch had to recuse herself after meeting with Bill Clinton. Had there not been information showing intent to violate espionage laws, Comey would have never acted. The fact is she is a criminal and cannot be elected . Image an elected Hillary who is impeached. The USA deserves better than a this and must turn the Clintons out to pasture forever.

    Avatar666 8:23 AM EST

    The FBI used to be a respected agency. Now, not so much. Working for, and in collusion with Obama, Loretta Lynch, the Clinton's and the media makes their "investigation" suspect, to say the least.

    Avatar666 8:07 AM EST

    Hillary "will say anything and do anything" (Obama's words, not mine) to get elected. Trying to blame her malfeasance on the FBI is simply stupid. She is so obsessed with money and power that she openly states "I have spent my life helping children and women". Right. Like when she was an 8 year Senator who only introduced 3 bills naming a couple highways and a bank. Her followers are dupes and dunces and we can only hope they don't outnumber rationally thinking people.

    Kathleen Galt 5:31 AM EST

    To think that Weiner and who knows who else had access to U.S. National Security information on the Weiner/Abedin computer. Sure sounds like the FBI is after Abedin not Clinton.

    Dems loved Comey when he slapped Clinton on the wrist for playing loose with U.S. National Security on her email server. Now those same Dems want to burn Comey at the stake.

    Let's not forget how Comey has come to be such a respected official
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
    In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.
    ad_icon

    The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that, according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several weeks without Justice approval, wheresthechow 2:27 AM EST The Clinton's are just so amazing in their cavalier above-the-law attitude that they can't even renovate their house without breaking the law.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/us/politics/chap...

    wwrfla 2:59 AM EST

    [Edited] "The Case Against Hillary Clinton"...as written by Christopher Hitchens.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...

    Truer words have never been written.

    #NeverHillary!!! #BernieOrBust!!!

    dcammer 10/29/2016 9:31 PM EST

    Mr. Weiner has not aged well.....and it is not over....avoid park benches do not visit remote areas.....People you and I know may have a Boat moored in a slip at a Dock or a Yacht club that's Normal Americana....Yet A.G.Loretta Lynch was waiting on the Tarmac in her Jet Plane as Bill Clinton leaves His Jet Plane to chat with Loretta ....this is an area of privilege far above yacht club status....and this meeting broke several laws very quickly...so the A.G. has no authority to comment on what the head of F.B.I. has done regarding The Weiner Email discovery and whatever Bill had swindled for future favors or past I.O.U's has now become a waste of AA jet fuel for the,"IN", crowd.....Hillary is starting to look a little like Mr.Weiner; facial tension ,gaunt,hollow cheeks,terse lips,Bill was supposed to take care of all this....right?Now Mr. Comey had taken the J. Edgar Hoover pledge to Serve and protect and that would have been us under all other circumstances.....but he has to be loyal to his associates for they are the top 2% of the entire population and they deserve to be treated as the most important the bureau has....what transpired on the first pass left them in Mayberry P.D. limbo and will never happen could someone help Loretta Lynch to see the light or the exit sign ....Please

    711810943 10/29/2016 10:56 PM EST

    Yep, we're definitely talking about the battle of the twin dumpster fires here...

    Celebrity gossip trumps policy, if you'll forgive the expression. But what can you expect in a country that can name three Kardashian sisters, but not one foreign head of state.

    Hmmm... Those deck chairs need rearranging... See ya...

    canaffordit 10/29/2016 9:09 PM EST

    Laptop or PC is property of US once claissified info discovered. 18USC 798, right? Who says a warrant is needed to seize, protect? No so. And, for sure, they will read, use of which may or may not be impeded thereby. Still, there is allot to investigate, incl. numerous apparent violations of ethics in govt. act, etc, failures to disclose gifts / income, etc.

    RTDP 10/29/2016 8:29 PM EST

    The Clintons run a morally corrupt RICO that holds itself above the law. With Obama's support, the Justice Dept., IRS, FBI, State Dept. have aided and abetted the Clinton corruption of our government. This illustrates Hayek's point in The Road To Serfdom that when very powerful government institutions are created, "the worst rise to the top". Public power and money attract the least scrupulous, least honest, most power hungry, and most determined. Though Clinton's cabal publicly poses themselves as humanitarian progressives, the Doug Band statement of operations among Teneo, CGI, the Foundation, and the Clintons presents the underlying purpose of selling influence and the crony capital structure devised to split the proceeds. The Clinton Foundation operates outside the law. So where's the MSM, the IRS, the FBI, Justice...what justice?

    See: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/a_...

    Kathleen Galt 5:31 AM EDT

    To think that Weiner and who knows who else had access to U.S. National Security information on the Weiner/Abedin computer. Sure sounds like the FBI is after Abedin not Clinton.

    Dems loved Comey when he slapped Clinton on the wrist for playing loose with U.S. National Security on her email server. Now those same Dems want to burn Comey at the stake.

    Let's not forget how Comey has come to be such a respected official
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
    In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.
    ad_icon

    The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that, according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several weeks without Justice approval, he said.

    "I was angry," Comey testified. "I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."

    tjonathan 10/29/2016 7:38 PM EDT

    Watergate's Carl Bernstein: FBI Wouldn't Reopen A Probe Unless It Is "A Real Bombshell"

    HappyInSF 10/29/2016 7:09 PM EDT

    [Edited] In a previous release of information as a result of a Freedom of Information suit, it became known that Huma Abedin had forwarded emails from Clinton's private email server, to Ms. Abedin's personal yahoo email account.

    The new bit of news today, is that the FBI found TENS OF THOUSANDS of Clinton related emails on Weiner's (shared with Abedin?) laptop. I understand that Mrs. Clinton was SOS for four years.

    Nevertheless, how do you forward tens of thousands of emails? I don't think it can be a batch operation, they must have been forwarded individually. And what of the 30,000 destroyed (by Clinton) emails?

    The only thing that makes sense, is that the newly discovered emails include some of the missing emails. As Carl Bernstein (one of the two original Post reporters who broke the Watergate story, which led to Nixon's resignation) said yesterday:

    "We don't know what this means yet except that it's a real bombshell. And it is unthinkable that the Director of the FBI would take this action lightly, that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying there is more information out there about classified e-mails and call it to the attention of congress unless it was something requiring serious investigation. So that's where we are..."

    [Oct 30, 2016] Anatol Lieven reviews 'The New American Militarism' by Andrew Bacevich

    Amazingly insightful review !!!
    Notable quotes:
    "... A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. ..."
    "... The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. ..."
    "... The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems. ..."
    "... Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US. ..."
    "... And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'. ..."
    "... The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. ..."
    "... To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension. ..."
    "... They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. ..."
    "... Wall Street Journal ..."
    "... Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. ..."
    "... Red Storm Rising ..."
    "... Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus. ..."
    "... Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society. ..."
    "... British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America. ..."
    "... As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. ..."
    "... Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so. ..."
    "... The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy. ..."
    Oct 20, 2005 | LRB

    The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War by Andrew Bacevich
    Oxford, 270 pp, Ł16.99, August 2005, ISBN 0 19 517338 4

    A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. Yet, as Andrew Bacevich points out in one of the most acute analyses of America to have appeared in recent years, the United States itself is in many ways a militaristic country, and becoming more so:

    at the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The skepticism about arms and armies that informed the original Wilsonian vision, indeed, that pervaded the American experiment from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, became enamoured with military might.

    The ensuing affair had, and continues to have, a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion pursued in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue.

    The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. Compared to German and other past militarisms, however, the contemporary American variant is extremely complex, and the forces that have generated it have very diverse origins and widely differing motives:

    The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems.

    Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US.

    And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'.

    The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorizes defense spending on weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group of senators and congressmen in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension.

    That's not the same, however, as having an actual desire for war, least of all for a major conflict which might ruin the international economy. US ground forces have bitter memories of Vietnam, and no wish to wage an aggressive war: Rumsfeld and his political appointees had to override the objections of the senior generals, in particular those of the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, before the attack on Iraq. The navy and air force do not have to fight insurgents in hell-holes like Fallujah, and so naturally have a more relaxed attitude.

    To understand how the Bush administration was able to manipulate the public into supporting the Iraq war one has to look for deeper explanations. They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. This leads to a genuine belief that American soldiers can do no real wrong because they are spreading 'freedom'. Also of great importance – at least until the Iraqi insurgency rubbed American noses in the horrors of war – has been the development of an aesthetic that sees war as waged by the US as technological, clean and antiseptic; and thanks to its supremacy in weaponry, painlessly victorious. Victory over the Iraqi army in 2003 led to a new flowering of megalomania in militarist quarters. The amazing Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal – an armchair commentator, not a frontline journalist – declared that the US victory had made 'fabled generals such as Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison'. Nor was this kind of talk restricted to Republicans. More than two years into the Iraq quagmire, strategic thinkers from the Democratic establishment were still declaring that 'American military power in today's world is practically unlimited.'

    Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. Take Bacevich on the popular novelist Tom Clancy:

    In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats. The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honor, extraordinary technological aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to enter a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.' Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.

    Such attitudes go beyond simply glorying in violence, military might and technological prowess. They reflect a belief – genuine or assumed – in what the Germans used to call Soldatentum: the pre-eminent value of the military virtues of courage, discipline and sacrifice, and explicitly or implicitly the superiority of these virtues to those of a hedonistic, contemptible and untrustworthy civilian society and political class. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the ostensibly liberal foreign affairs commentator of the ostensibly liberal New York Times, 'we do not deserve these people. They are so much better than the country they are fighting for.' Such sentiments have a sinister pedigree in modern history.

    In the run-up to the last election, even a general as undistinguished as Wesley Clark could see his past generalship alone as qualifying him for the presidency – and gain the support of leading liberal intellectuals. Not that this was new: the first president was a general and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries both generals and more junior officers ran for the presidency on the strength of their military records. And yet, as Bacevich points out, this does not mean that the uniformed military have real power over policy-making, even in matters of war. General Tommy Franks may have regarded Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, as 'the stupidest fucking guy on the planet', but he took Feith's orders, and those of the civilians standing behind him: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the president himself. Their combination of militarism and contempt for military advice recalls Clemenceau and Churchill – or Hitler and Stalin.

    Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus.

    Its symbols may be often childish and its methods brutish, but American belief in 'freedom' is a real and living force. This cuts two ways. On the one hand, the adherence of many leading intellectuals in the Democratic Party to a belief in muscular democratization has had a disastrous effect on the party's ability to put up a strong resistance to the policies of the administration. Bush's messianic language of 'freedom' – supported by the specifically Israeli agenda of Natan Sharansky and his allies in the US – has been all too successful in winning over much of the opposition. On the other hand, the fact that a belief in freedom and democracy lies at the heart of civic nationalism places certain limits on American imperialism – weak no doubt, but nonetheless real. It is not possible for the US, unlike previous empires, to pursue a strategy of absolutely unconstrained Machtpolitik. This has been demonstrated recently in the breach between the Bush administration and the Karimov tyranny in Uzbekistan.

    The most important contradiction, however, is between the near worship of the military in much of American culture and the equally widespread unwillingness of most Americans – elites and masses alike – to serve in the armed forces. If people like Friedman accompanied their stated admiration for the military with a real desire to abandon their contemptible civilian lives and join the armed services, then American power in the world really might be practically unlimited. But as Bacevich notes,

    having thus made plain his personal disdain for crass vulgarity and support for moral rectitude, Friedman in the course of a single paragraph drops the military and moves on to other pursuits. His many readers, meanwhile, having availed themselves of the opportunity to indulge, ever so briefly, in self-loathing, put down their newspapers and themselves move on to other things. Nothing has changed, but columnist and readers alike feel better for the cathartic effect of this oblique, reassuring encounter with an alien world.

    Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society.

    This combination of a theoretical adulation with a profound desire not to serve is not of course new. It characterized most of British society in the 19th century, when, just as with the US today, the overwhelming rejection of conscription – until 1916 – meant that, appearances to the contrary, British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America.

    Despite spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and despite enjoying overwhelming technological superiority, American military power is actually quite limited. As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. As for invading and occupying a country the size of Iran, this is coming to seem as unlikely as an invasion of mainland China.

    In other words, when it comes to actually applying military power the US is pretty much where it has been for several decades. Another war of occupation like Iraq would necessitate the restoration of conscription: an idea which, with Vietnam in mind, the military detests, and which politicians are well aware would probably make them unelectable. It is just possible that another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 might lead to a new draft, but that would bring the end of the US military empire several steps closer. Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so.

    Facing these dangers squarely, Bacevich proposes refocusing American strategy away from empire and towards genuine national security. It is a measure of the degree to which imperial thinking now dominates US politics that these moderate and commonsensical proposals would seem nothing short of revolutionary to the average member of the Washington establishment.

    They include a renunciation of messianic dreams of improving the world through military force, except where a solid international consensus exists in support of US action; a recovery by Congress of its power over peace and war, as laid down in the constitution but shamefully surrendered in recent years; the adoption of a strategic doctrine explicitly making war a matter of last resort; and a decision that the military should focus on the defense of the nation, not the projection of US power. As a means of keeping military expenditure in some relationship to actual needs, Bacevich suggests pegging it to the combined annual expenditure of the next ten countries, just as in the 19th century the size of the British navy was pegged to that of the next two largest fleets – it is an index of the budgetary elephantiasis of recent years that this would lead to very considerable spending reductions.

    This book is important not only for the acuteness of its perceptions, but also for the identity of its author. Colonel Bacevich's views on the military, on US strategy and on world affairs were profoundly shaped by his service in Vietnam. His year there 'fell in the conflict's bleak latter stages long after an odor of failure had begun to envelop the entire enterprise'. The book is dedicated to his brother-in-law, 'a casualty of a misbegotten war'.

    Just as Vietnam shaped his view of how the US and the US military should not intervene in the outside world, so the Cold War in Europe helped define his beliefs about the proper role of the military. For Bacevich and his fellow officers in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, defending the West from possible Soviet aggression, 'not conquest, regime change, preventive war or imperial policing', was 'the American soldier's true and honorable calling'.

    In terms of cultural and political background, this former soldier remains a self-described Catholic conservative, and intensely patriotic. During the 1990s Bacevich wrote for right-wing journals, and still situates himself culturally on the right:

    As long as we shared in the common cause of denouncing the foolishness and hypocrisies of the Clinton years, my relationship with modern American conservatism remained a mutually agreeable one But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the Bush administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering foreign policy, a disregard for the constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values.

    On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives, who define the problem The Republican and Democratic Parties may not be identical, but they produce nearly identical results.

    Bacevich, in other words, is skeptical of the naive belief that replacing the present administration with a Democrat one would lead to serious changes in the US approach to the world. Formal party allegiances are becoming increasingly irrelevant as far as thinking about foreign and security policy is concerned.

    Bacevich also makes plain the private anger of much of the US uniformed military at the way in which it has been sacrificed, and its institutions damaged, by chickenhawk civilian chauvinists who have taken good care never to see action themselves; and the deep private concern of senior officers that they might be ordered into further wars that would wreck the army altogether. Now, as never before, American progressives have the chance to overcome the knee-jerk hostility to the uniformed military that has characterized the left since Vietnam, and to reach out not only to the soldiers in uniform but also to the social, cultural and regional worlds from which they are drawn. For if the American left is once again to become an effective political force, it must return to some of its own military traditions, founded on the distinguished service of men like George McGovern, on the old idea of the citizen soldier, and on a real identification with that soldier's interests and values. With this in mind, Bacevich calls for moves to bind the military more closely into American society, including compulsory education for all officers at a civilian university, not only at the start of their careers but at intervals throughout them.

    Or to put it another way, the left must fight imperialism in the name of patriotism. Barring a revolutionary and highly unlikely transformation of American mass culture, any political party that wishes to win majority support will have to demonstrate its commitment to the defense of the country. The Bush administration has used the accusation of weakness in security policy to undermine its opponents, and then used this advantage to pursue reckless strategies that have themselves drastically weakened the US. The left needs to heed Bacevich and draw up a tough, realistic and convincing alternative. It will also have to demonstrate its identification with the respectable aspects of military culture. The Bush administration and the US establishment in general may have grossly mismanaged the threats facing us, but the threats are real, and some at least may well need at some stage to be addressed by military force. And any effective military force also requires the backing of a distinctive military ethic embracing loyalty, discipline and a capacity for both sacrifice and ruthlessness.

    In the terrible story of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, one of the most morally disgusting moments took place at a Senate Committee hearing on 29 April 2004, when Paul Wolfowitz – another warmonger who has never served himself – mistook, by a margin of hundreds, how many US soldiers had died in a war for which he was largely responsible. If an official in a Democratic administration had made a public mistake like that, the Republican opposition would have exploited it ruthlessly, unceasingly, to win the next election. The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy.

    Because they are the ones who pay the price for reckless warmongering and geopolitical megalomania, soldiers and veterans of the army and marine corps could become valuable allies in the struggle to curb American imperialism, and return America's relationship with its military to the old limited, rational form. For this to happen, however, the soldiers have to believe that campaigns against the Iraq war, and against current US strategy, are anti-militarist, but not anti-military. We have needed the military desperately on occasions in the past; we will definitely need them again.


    Vol. 27 No. 20 · 20 October 2005 " Anatol Lieven " We do not deserve these people
    pages 11-12 | 3337 words

    [Oct 30, 2016] Hillary No Pasaran The United States is already the most militaristic country in recent history and under Clinton administration it might become even more militaristic

    Notable quotes:
    "... The United States is already the most militaristic country in recent history and the danger is that during Hillary Clinton administration it might become even more militaristic. ..."
    "... Even in this slightly more academic then usual forum we have dozen or so of open jingoistic crazies who are so brainwashed that dutifully reproduce the worst excesses of the neocon/neoliberal propaganda about Russia and evil Putin regime. And do not care one bit about the real strategic interests on the US and its population, which are somewhat different from interests of weapon manufactures, transnational corporations and financial oligarchy. ..."
    "... And this traditional since the collapse of the USSR for American "helecentric" view on foreign policy, when the USA is the center of the world order and other states just rotate around it on various orbits, is very difficult to discard. The US population is by-and-large-completely brainwashed into this vision. ..."
    "... The De Facto US/Al Qaeda Alliance: Buried deep inside Saturday's New York Times was a grudging acknowledgement that the U.S.-armed "moderate" rebels in Syria are using their U.S. firepower to back an Al Qaeda offensive. ..."
    "... Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15 years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the preferred "good guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war. ..."
    "... For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family ..."
    "... The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of wounded children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents. (There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.") ..."
    Oct 30, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    likbez : October 30, 2016 at 12:28 PM
    The United States is already the most militaristic country in recent history and the danger is that during Hillary Clinton administration it might become even more militaristic. As Anatol Lieven noted:
    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n20/anatol-lieven/we-do-not-deserve-these-people
    The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorizes defense spending on weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group of senators and congressmen in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension.

    Russia was chosen by neocons for the role of scapegoat as it does want to become a vassal country and represents an obstacle on establishing the US world hegemony by being the nuclear armed state.

    Even in this slightly more academic then usual forum we have dozen or so of open jingoistic crazies who are so brainwashed that dutifully reproduce the worst excesses of the neocon/neoliberal propaganda about Russia and evil Putin regime. And do not care one bit about the real strategic interests on the US and its population, which are somewhat different from interests of weapon manufactures, transnational corporations and financial oligarchy.

    Hillary worldview includes messianism of Southern Baptist variety, a flavor of American nationalism based on quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of the USA [pseudo]democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world.

    So her election meads continued megalomania in militarist quarters while the infrastructure crumbles under the growing costs on maintaining the global neoliberal empire ruled by the USA.

    And this traditional since the collapse of the USSR for American "helecentric" view on foreign policy, when the USA is the center of the world order and other states just rotate around it on various orbits, is very difficult to discard. The US population is by-and-large-completely brainwashed into this vision.

    Opposition to the US militarism is almost non-existent due contemporary US popular culture infused with the language of militarism and American exceptionalism. As Bacevich on noted:

    In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats. The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honor, extraordinary technological aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to enter a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.' Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.

    So while the election of Trump is a very dangerous experiment with its own considerable risks, especially on domestic front, the election of Hillary would be a tragedy.

    In a sense we need to say Hillary "ˇNo Pasarán!"

    anne, October 30, 2016 at 02:23 PM
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/29/the-de-facto-usal-qaeda-alliance/

    October 29, 2016

    The De Facto US/Al Qaeda Alliance: Buried deep inside Saturday's New York Times was a grudging acknowledgement that the U.S.-armed "moderate" rebels in Syria are using their U.S. firepower to back an Al Qaeda offensive.

    By Robert Parry

    A curious aspect of the Syrian conflict – a rebellion sponsored largely by the United States and its Gulf state allies – is the disappearance in much of the American mainstream news media of references to the prominent role played by Al Qaeda in seeking to overthrow the secular Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.

    There's much said in the U.S. press about ISIS, the former "Al Qaeda in Iraq" which splintered off several years ago, but Al Qaeda's central role in commanding Syria's "moderate" rebels in Aleppo and elsewhere is the almost unspoken reality of the Syrian war. Even in the U.S. presidential debates, the arguing between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton has been almost exclusively about ISIS, not Al Qaeda.

    Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15 years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the preferred "good guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war.

    For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family.

    The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of wounded children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents. (There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.")

    Rare Glimpse of Truth

    Yet, occasionally, the reality of Al Qaeda's importance in the rebellion breaks through, even in the mainstream U.S. media, although usually downplayed and deep inside the news pages, such as the article * in Saturday's New York Times by Hwaida Saad and Anne Barnard describing a rebel offensive in Aleppo. It acknowledges:

    "The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda, rather than distancing themselves as Russia has demanded and the Americans have urged. The rebels argue that they cannot afford to shun any potential allies while they are under fire, including well-armed and motivated jihadists, without more robust aid from their international backers." (You might note how the article subtly blames the rebel dependence on Al Qaeda on the lack of "robust aid" from the Obama administration and other outside countries – even though such arms shipments violate international law.)

    What the article also makes clear in a hazy kind of way is that Al Qaeda's affiliate, the recently renamed Nusra Front, and its jihadist allies, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are waging the brunt of the fighting while the CIA-vetted "moderates" are serving in mostly support roles. The Times reported:

    "The insurgents have a diverse range of objectives and backers, but they issued statements of unity on Friday. Those taking part in the offensive include the Levant Conquest Front, a militant group formerly known as the Nusra Front that grew out of Al Qaeda; another hard-line Islamist faction, Ahrar al-Sham; and other rebel factions fighting Mr. Assad that have been vetted by the United States and its allies."

    The article cites Charles Lister, a senior fellow and Syria specialist at the Middle East Institute in Washington, and other analysts noting that "the vast majority of the American-vetted rebel factions in Aleppo were fighting inside the city itself and conducting significant bombardments against Syrian government troops in support of the Qaeda-affiliated fighters carrying out the brunt of front-line fighting."

    Lister noted that 11 of the 20 or so rebel groups conducting the Aleppo "offensive have been vetted by the CIA and have received arms from the agency, including anti-tank missiles.

    "In addition to arms provided by the United States, much of the rebels' weaponry comes from regional states, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Lister said, including truck-borne multiple-rocket launcher systems and Czech-made Grad rockets with extended ranges."

    The U.S./Al Qaeda Alliance

    In other words, the U.S. government and its allies have smuggled sophisticated weapons into Syria to arm rebels who are operating in support of Al Qaeda's new military offensive against Syrian government forces in Aleppo. By any logical analysis, that makes the United States an ally of Al Qaeda....

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/world/middleeast/aleppo-syria.html

    [Oct 30, 2016] Soft neoliberals are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil

    Oct 30, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.30.16 at 9:34 pm 34

    The success of [civil rights and anti-apartheid] movements did not end racism, but drove it underground, allowing neoliberals to exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor.

    That coalition has now been replaced by one in which the tribalists and racists are dominant. For the moment at least, [hard] neoliberals continue to support the parties they formerly controlled, with the result that the balance of political forces between the right and the opposing coalition of soft neoliberals and the left has not changed significantly.

    There's an ambiguity in this narrative and in the three-party analysis.

    Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it with a different style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting anti-racist and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . .

    The new politics of the right has lost faith in the hard neoliberalism that formerly furnished its policy agenda of tax cuts for the rich, war in the Middle East and so on, leaving the impure resentment ungoverned and unfocused, as you say.

    The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil.

    The problem of how to oppose racism and tribalism effectively is now entangled with soft neoliberal control of the remaining party coalition, which is to say with the credibility of the left party as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility of economic populism as an antidote for racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)

    The form of tribalism used to mobilize the left entails denying that an agenda of economic populism is relevant to the problems of sexism and racism, because the deplorables must be deplored to get out the vote. And, because the (soft) neoliberals in charge must keep economic populism under control to deliver the goods to their donor base.

    [Oct 30, 2016] The term racist no longer carries any of the stigma it once held in part because the term is deployed so cynically and freely as to render it practically meaningless

    Notable quotes:
    "... Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines. ..."
    "... These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans. The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious lines as it does elsewhere. ..."
    "... European workers have done much better in the new global economy.(The problems in Europe center around mass migration of people who resist assimilation and adoption of a Humanistic world view.) The answer is simple and horrifying. ..."
    "... A large percentage of American workers consistently vote against their own interest which has allowed the republican party in service to a powerful elite billionaire class ..."
    "... The combination of these reliable cadre of deplorables , controlled by faux news and hate radio , and the lack of political engagement by the low income Americans , has essentially turned power over to the billionaire class. ..."
    Oct 30, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.30.16 at 9:15 am

    I read an interesting piece in the Nikkei, hardly an left-leaning publication citing Arlie Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right."

    Doubtless some here would like to see more misery heaped upon those who do not look to the Democratic party as saviors, but Hochschild is rarely regarded as a defender of the American right.

    Few dispute that a significant subset of any given population is going to regard in-group/out-group distinctions along the highly imprecise lines of 'race' and ethnicity, or religion. The question, for some, is what percentage?

    The Nikkei article by Stephen Grenville concludes: Over the longer term, the constituency for globalization has to be rebuilt, the methodology for multilateral trade agreements has to be revived…"

    Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines.

    These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans. The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious lines as it does elsewhere.

    Generally, I think John is right. The term 'racist' no longer carries any of the stigma it once held in part because the term is deployed so cynically and freely as to render it practically meaningless. HRC and Bill and their supporters (including me, at one time) are racists for as long as its convenient and politically expedient to call them racists. Once that moment has passed, the term 'racist' is withdrawn and replaced with something like Secretary of State, or some other such title.

    I've no clear 'solution' other than to support a more exact and thoughtful discussion of the causes of fear and anxiety that compels people to bind together into in-groups and out-groups, and to encourage the fearful to take a few risks now and again.

    Here's the link: http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20161020-An-era-ends-in-Thailand/Viewpoints/Stephen-Grenville-The-US-election-is-putting-the-TPP-trade-agreement-in-doubt?page=2

    Bob Zannelli 10.30.16 at 11:44 am
    I've no clear 'solution' other than to support a more exact and thoughtful discussion of the causes of fear and anxiety that compels people to bind together into in-groups and out-groups, and to encourage the fearful to take a few risks now and again.

    Here's my take on this. The question to ask is why has this happened? European workers have done much better in the new global economy.(The problems in Europe center around mass migration of people who resist assimilation and adoption of a Humanistic world view.) The answer is simple and horrifying.

    A large percentage of American workers consistently vote against their own interest which has allowed the republican party in service to a powerful elite billionaire class form a reliable cadre of highly visible and highly vocal deplorables which even though slightly less than half the population of those who bother to vote have virtually shut down democratic safeguards which could have mitigated what has happened due to globalization. The combination of these reliable cadre of deplorables , controlled by faux news and hate radio , and the lack of political engagement by the low income Americans , has essentially turned power over to the billionaire class.

    ... ... ...

    Alesis 10.30.16 at 12:13 pm

    A strategy that doesn't work inside the tent is DOA outside it. As it stands many liberals (largely white and this is an important distinction) share with the right a deep discomfort with acknowledging the centrality of racism to American politics.

    Race is the foundational organizing principle of American life and it represents a considerable strain to keep it in focus. Donald Trump will win the majority of white voters as the racial resentment coalition has since the 1930s. An effective strategy for the long term is focused on breaking that near century long hold.

    I'd suggest the direct approach. Call racism what it is and ask white voters directly what good it has done for them lately. Did railing against Mexican rapists brings any jobs back?

    [Oct 30, 2016] After the attacks Americas new cold war

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions. ..."
    "... The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies ..."
    "... Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take. ..."
    "... A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. ..."
    Sep 28, 2001 | guardian.co.uk

    "Who says we share common values with the Europeans? They don't even go to church!" Will the atrocities of September 11 push America further to the right or open a new debate on foreign policy and the need for alliances? In this exclusive online essay from the London Review of Books, Anatol Lieven considers how the cold war legacy may affect the war on terrorism

    Not long after the Bush Administration took power in January, I was invited to lunch at a glamorous restaurant in New York by a group of editors and writers from an influential American right-wing broadsheet. The food and wine were extremely expensive, the decor luxurious but discreet, the clientele beautifully dressed, and much of the conversation more than mildly insane. With regard to the greater part of the world outside America, my hosts' attitude was a combination of loathing, contempt, distrust and fear: not only towards Arabs, Russians, Chinese, French and others, but towards 'European socialist governments', whatever that was supposed to mean. This went with a strong desire - in theory at least - to take military action against a broad range of countries across the world.

    Two things were particularly striking here: a tendency to divide the world into friends and enemies, and a difficulty verging on autism when it came to international opinions that didn't coincide with their own - a combination more appropriate to the inhabitants of an ethnic slum in the Balkans than to people who were, at that point, on top of the world.

    Today Americans of all classes and opinions have reason to worry, and someone real to fear and hate, while prolonged US military action overseas is thought to be inevitable. The building where we had lunch is now rubble. Several of our fellow diners probably died last week, along with more than six thousand other New Yorkers from every walk of life. Not only has the terrorist attack claimed far more victims than any previous such attack anywhere in the world, but it has delivered a far more damaging economic blow. Equally important, it has destroyed Americans' belief in their country's invulnerability, on which so many other American attitudes and policies finally rested.

    This shattering blow was delivered by a handful of anonymous agents hidden in the wider population, working as part of a tightly-knit secret international conspiracy inspired by a fanatical and (to the West) deeply 'alien' and 'exotic' religious ideology. Its members are ruthless; they have remarkable organisational skills, a tremendous capacity for self-sacrifice and self-discipline, and a deep hatred of the United States and the Western way of life. As Richard Hofstader and others have argued, for more than two hundred years this kind of combination has always acted as a prompt for paranoid and reactionary conspiracy theories, most of them groundless.

    Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions.

    The latter danger has been greatly increased by the attacks. The terrorists have raised to white heat certain smouldering tendencies among the American Right, while simultaneously - as is usually the case at the start of wars - pushing American politics and most of its population in a sharply rightward direction; all of which has taken place under an unexpectedly right-wing Administration. If this leads to a crude military response, then the terrorists will have achieved part of their purpose, which was to provoke the other side to indiscriminate retaliation, and thereby increase their own support.

    It is too early to say for sure how US strategies and attitudes will develop. At the time of writing Afghanistan is the focus, but whatever happens there, it isn't clear whether the US Administration will go on to launch a more general campaign of military pressure against other states which have supported terrorist groups, and if so, what states and what kind of military pressure? US policy is already pulled in two predictable but contradictory directions, amply illustrated in the op-ed pages of US newspapers and in debates within the Government.

    The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies. There are the beginnings, too, of a real public debate on how US policy needs to be changed and shaped to fight the new 'war'. All this is reminiscent of US attitudes and behaviour at the start of the Cold War, when Communism was identified as the central menace to the US and to Western capitalism and democracy in general.

    On the other hand, the public desire for revenge has strengthened certain attitudes - especially in the Republican Party and media, as well as parts of the Administration - which, if they prevail, will not only be dangerous in themselves, but will make the search for real allies difficult. And real allies are essential, above all in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In the longer run, only the full co-operation of Arab regimes - along with reform and economic development - can prevent the recruitment, funding and operations of Arab-based terrorist groups.

    As for Europe, British military support may be unconditional, but most European countries - Russia among them - are likely to restrict their help to intelligence and policing. Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take.

    Yet a blank cheque is precisely what the Administration, and the greater part of US public opinion, are asking for. This is Jim Hoagland, veteran establishment foreign correspondent and commentator, in the generally liberal Washington Post:

    "Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many of the other Arab states Powell hopes to recruit for the bin Laden posse have long been part of the problem, not part of the solution to international terrorism. These states cannot be given free passes for going through the motions of helping the United States. And European allies cannot be allowed to order an appetiser of bin Laden and not share in the costs of the rest of a meal cooked in hell."

    If this is the Post, then the sentiments in the right-wing press and the tabloids can well be imagined. Here is Tod Lindberg, the editor of Policy Review, writing in the Washington Times:

    "The United States is now energetically in the business of making governments pick a side: either with us and against the terrorists, or against us and with them... Against the category of enemy stands the category of 'friend'. Friends stand with us. Friends do whatever they can to help. Friends don't, for example, engage in commerce with enemies, otherwise they aren't friends."

    A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. Now it has spread and, for the moment at least, some rather important ideas have almost vanished from the public debate: among them, that other states have their own national interests, and that in the end nothing compels them to help the US; that they, too, have been the victims of terrorism - in the case of Britain, largely funded from groups in the United States - but have not insisted on a right of unilateral military retaliation (this point was made by Niall Ferguson in the New York Times, but not as yet in any op-ed by an American that I have seen); and that in some cases these states may actually know more about their own part of the world than US intelligence does.

    Beyond the immediate and unforeseeable events in Afghanistan - and their sombre implications for Pakistan - lies the bigger question of US policy in the Arab world. Here, too, Administration policy may well be a good deal more cautious than the opinions of the right-wing media would suggest - which again is fortunate, because much opinion on this subject is more than rabid. Here is AM Rosenthal in the Washington Times arguing that an amazing range of states should be given ultimatums to surrender not only alleged terrorists but also their own senior officials accused by the US of complicity:

    "The ultimatum should go to the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan and any other devoted to the elimination of the United States or the constant incitement of hatred against it... In the three days the terrorists consider the American ultimatum, the residents of the countries would be urged 24 hours a day by the United States to flee the capital and major cities, because they would be bombed to the ground beginning the fourth."

    Rosenthal isn't a figure from the lunatic fringe ranting on a backwoods radio show, but the former executive editor of the New York Times, writing in a paper with great influence in the Republican Party, especially under the present Administration.

    No Administration is going to do anything remotely like this. But if the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has emerged as the voice of moderation, with a proper commitment to multilateralism, other voices are audible, too. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, has spoken of "ending states which support terrorism", and in the case of Iraq, there are those who would now like to complete the work of the Gulf War and finish off Saddam Hussein.

    Here, too, the mood of contempt for allies contributes to the ambition. Thus Kim Holmes, vice-president of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, argued that only deference to America's Arab allies prevented the US from destroying the Iraqi regime in 1991 (the profound unwillingness of Bush Senior to occupy Iraq and take responsibility for the place also played its part in the decision): "To show that this war is not with Islam per se, the US could be tempted to restrain itself militarily and accommodate the complex and contradictory political agendas of Islamic states. This in turn could make the campaign ineffectual, prolonging the problem of terrorism."

    Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not in itself a bad idea. His is a pernicious regime, a menace to his own people and his neighbours, as well as to the West. And if the Iraqi threat to the Gulf States could be eliminated, US troops might be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia: it was their permanent stationing on the holy soil of Islam that turned Osama bin Laden from an anti-Soviet mujahid into an anti-American terrorist.

    But only if it were to take place in the context of an entirely new policy towards Palestine would the US be able to mount such a campaign without provoking massive unrest across the Arab world; and given what became of promises made during the Gulf War, there would first of all have to be firm evidence of a US change of heart. The only borders between Israel and Palestine which would have any chance of satisfying a majority of Palestinians and Arabs - and conforming to UN resolutions, for what they are worth - would be those of 1967, possibly qualified by an internationalisation of Jerusalem under UN control. This would entail the removal of the existing Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, and would be absolutely unacceptable to any imaginable Israeli Government. To win Israeli agreement would require not just US pressure, but the threat of a complete breach of relations and the ending of aid.

    There may be those in the Administration who would favour adopting such an approach at a later stage. Bush Sr's was the most anti-Israeli Administration of the past two generations, and was disliked accordingly by the Jewish and other ethnic lobbies. His son's is less beholden to those lobbies than Clinton's was. And it may be that even pro-Israeli US politicians will at some point realise that Israel's survival as such is not an issue: that it is absurd to increase the risk to Washington and New York for the sake of 267 extremist settlers in Hebron and their comrades elsewhere.

    Still, in the short term, a radical shift is unlikely, and an offensive against Iraq would therefore be dangerous. The attacks on New York and the Pentagon and the celebrations in parts of the Arab world have increased popular hostility to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular, a hostility assiduously stoked by Israeli propaganda. But when it comes to denouncing hate crimes against Muslims - or those taken to be Muslims - within the US, the Administration has behaved decently, perhaps because they have a rather sobering precedent in mind, one which has led to genuine shame: the treatment of Japanese Americans during world war two.

    This shame is the result of an applied historical intelligence that does not extend to the Arab world. Americans tend - and perhaps need - to confuse the symptoms and the causes of Arab anger. Since a key pro-Israel position in the US has been that fundamental Palestinian and Arab grievances must not be allowed legitimacy or even discussed, the only explanation of Arab hostility to the US and its ally must be sought in innate features of Arab society, whether a contemporary culture of anti-semitism (and anti-Americanism) sanctioned by Arab leaderships, or ancient 'Muslim' traditions of hostility to the West.

    All of which may contain some truth: but the central issue, the role of Israeli policies in providing a focus for such hatred, is overwhelmingly ignored. As a result, it is extremely difficult, and mostly impossible, to hold any frank discussion of the most important issue affecting the position of the US in the Middle East or the open sympathy for terrorism in the region. A passionately held nationalism usually has the effect of corrupting or silencing those liberal intellectuals who espouse it. This is the case of Israeli nationalism in the US. It is especially distressing that it should afflict the Jewish liberal intelligentsia, that old bedrock of sanity and tolerance.

    An Administration which wanted a radical change of policy towards Israel would have to generate a new public debate almost from scratch - which would not be possible until some kind of tectonic shift had taken place in American society. Too many outside observers who blame US Administrations forget that on a wide range of issues, it is essentially Congress and not the White House or State Department which determines foreign policy; this is above all true of US aid. An inability or unwillingness to try to work on Congress, as opposed to going through normal diplomatic channels, has been a minor contributory factor to Britain's inability to get any purchase on US policy in recent years.

    The role of Congress brings out what might be called the Wilhelmine aspects of US foreign and security policy. By that I do not mean extreme militarism or a love of silly hats, or even a shared tendency to autism when it comes to understanding the perceptions of other countries, but rather certain structural features in both the Wilhemine and the US system tending to produce over-ambition, and above all a chronic incapacity to choose between diametrically opposite goals. Like Wilhelmine Germany, the US has a legislature with very limited constitutional powers in the field of foreign policy, even though it wields considerable de facto power and is not linked either institutionally or by party discipline to the executive. The resulting lack of any responsibility for actual consequences is a standing invitation to rhetorical grandstanding, and the pursuit of sectional interests at the expense of overall policy.

    Meanwhile, the executive, while in theory supremely powerful in this field, has in fact continually to woo the legislature without ever being able to command its support. This, too, encourages dependence on interest groups, as well as a tendency to overcome differences and gain support by making appeals in terms of overheated patriotism rather than policy. Finally, in both systems, though for completely different reasons, supreme executive power had or has a tendency to fall into the hands of people totally unsuited for any but the ceremonial aspects of the job, and endlessly open to manipulation by advisers, ministers and cliques.

    In the US, this did not matter so much during the Cold War, when a range of Communist threats - real, imagined or fabricated - held the system together in the pursuit of more or less common aims. With the disappearance of the unifying threat, however, there has been a tendency, again very Wilhelmine, to produce ambitious and aggressive policies in several directions simultaneously, often with little reference at all to real US interests or any kind of principle.

    The new 'war against terrorism' in Administration and Congressional rhetoric has been cast as just such a principle, unifying the country and the political establishment behind a common goal and affecting or determining a great range of other policies. The language has been reminiscent of the global struggle against Communism, and confronting Islamist radicalism in the Muslim world does, it's true, pose some of the same challenges, on a less global scale, though possibly with even greater dangers for the world.

    The likelihood that US strategy in the 'war against terrorism' will resemble that of the Cold War is greatly increased by the way Cold War structures and attitudes have continued to dominate the US foreign policy and security elites. Charles Tilly and others have written of the difficulty states have in 'ratcheting down' wartime institutions and especially wartime spending. In the 1990s, this failure on the part of the US to escape its Cold War legacy was a curse, ensuring unnecessarily high military spending in the wrong fields, thoroughly negative attitudes to Russia, 'zero-sum' perceptions of international security issues in general, and perceptions of danger which wholly failed, as we now see, to meet the real threats to security and lives.

    The idea of a National Missile Defense is predicated on a limited revival of the Cold War, with China cast in the role of the Soviet Union and the Chinese nuclear deterrent as the force to be nullified. Bush's foreign and security team is almost entirely a product of Cold War structures and circumscribed by Cold War attitudes (which is not true of the President himself, who was never interested enough in foreign policy; if he can get his mind round the rest of the world, he could well be more of a free-thinker than many of his staff).

    The collapse of the Communist alternative to Western-dominated modernisation and the integration (however imperfect) of Russia and China into the world capitalist order have been a morally and socially ambiguous process, to put it mildly; but in the early 1990s they seemed to promise the suspension of hostility between the world's larger powers. The failure of the US to make use of this opportunity, thanks to an utter confusion between an ideological victory and crudely-defined US geopolitical interests, was a great misfortune which the 'war against terrorism' could in part rectify. Since 11 September, the rhetoric in America has proposed a gulf between the 'civilised' states of the present world system, and movements of 'barbaric', violent protest from outside and below - without much deference to the ambiguities of 'civilisation', or the justifications of resistance to it, remarked on since Tacitus at least.

    How is the Cold War legacy likely to determine the 'war against terrorism'? Despite the general conviction in the Republican Party that it was simply Reagan's military spending and the superiority of the US system which destroyed Soviet Communism, more serious Cold War analysts were always aware that it involved not just military force, or the threat of it, but ideological and political struggle, socio-economic measures, and state-building. The latter in particular is an idea for which the Bush team on their arrival in office had a deep dislike (if only to distance themselves from Clinton's policies), but which they may now rediscover. Foreign aid - so shamefully reduced in the 1990s - was also a key part of the Cold War, and if much of it was poured into kleptocratic regimes like Mobutu's, or wasted on misguided projects, some at least helped produce flourishing economies in Europe and East Asia.

    The Republican Party is not only the party of Goldwater and Reagan, but of Eisenhower, Nixon and Kissinger. Eisenhower is now almost forgotten by the party. 'Eisenhower Republicans', as they refer to themselves, are usually far closer to Tony Blair (or perhaps more accurately, Helmut Schmidt) than anyone the Republican Party has seen in recent years, and I'd wager that the majority of educated Americans have forgotten that the original warning about the influence of the 'military industrial complex' came from Eisenhower.

    Kissinger is still very much alive, however, and his history is a reminder that one aspect of the American capacity for extreme ruthlessness was also a capacity for radical changes of policy, for reconciliation with states hitherto regarded as bitter enemies, and for cold-blooded abandonment of close allies and clients whose usefulness was at an end. It would not altogether surprise me if we were now to see a radical shift towards real co-operation with Russia, and even Iran.

    In general, however, the Cold War legacies and parallels are discouraging and dangerous. To judge by the language used in the days since 11 September, ignorance, demonisation and the drowning out of nuanced debate indicate that much of the US establishment can no more tell the difference between Iran and Afghanistan than they could between China and the Soviet Union in the early 1960s - the inexcusable error which led to the American war in Vietnam. The preference for militarised solutions continues (the 'War on Drugs', which will now have to be scaled back, is an example). Most worryingly, the direct attack on American soil and American civilians - far worse than anything done to the US in the Cold War - means that there is a real danger of a return to Cold War ruthlessness: not just in terms of military tactics and covert operations, but in terms of the repulsive and endangered regimes co-opted as local American clients.

    The stakes are, if anything, a good deal higher than they were during the Cold War. Given what we now know of Soviet policymaking, it is by no means clear that the Kremlin ever seriously contemplated a nuclear strike against America. By contrast, it seems likely that bin Laden et al would in the end use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons if they could deliver them.

    There is also the question of the impact of US strategies (or, in the case of Israel, lack of them) on the unity of the West - assuming that this is of some importance for the wellbeing of humanity. However great the exasperation of many European states with US policy throughout the Cold War, the Europeans were bound into the transatlantic alliance by an obvious Soviet threat - more immediate to them than it was to the US. For the critical first decade of the Cold War, the economies of Europe were hopelessly inferior to that of the US. Today, if European Governments feel that the US is dragging them into unnecessary danger thanks to policies of which they disapprove, they will protest bitterly - as many did during the Cold War - and then begin to distance themselves, which they could not afford to do fifty years ago.

    This is all the more likely if, as seems overwhelmingly probable, the US withdraws from the Balkans - as it has already done in Macedonia - leaving Europeans with no good reason to require a US military presence on their continent. At the same time, the cultural gap between Europeans and Republican America (which does not mean a majority of Americans, but the dominant strain of policy) will continue to widen. 'Who says we share common values with the Europeans?' a senior US politician remarked recently. 'They don't even go to church!' Among other harmful effects, the destruction of this relationship could signal the collapse of whatever hope still exists for a common Western approach to global environmental issues - which would, in the end, pose a greater danger to humanity than that of terrorism.

    · Anatol Lieven is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington DC.

    [Oct 29, 2016] The Failure Of Democracy – How The Oligarchs Plan To Steal The Election Zero Hedge

    www.zerohedge.com
    by Tyler Durden Oct 29, 2016 2:30 PM 0 SHARES Authored by Paul Craig Roberts via Strategic-Culture.org,

    I am now convinced that the Oligarchy that rules America intends to steal the presidential election. In the past, the oligarchs have not cared which candidate won as the oligarchs owned both. But they do not own Trump.

    Most likely you are unaware of what Trump is telling people as the media does not report it. A person who speaks like this ...

    ...is not endeared to the oligarchs.

    Who are the oligarchs?

    Wall Street and the mega-banks too big to fail and their agent the Federal Reserve, a federal agency that put 5 banks ahead of millions of troubled American homeowners who the federal reserve allowed to be flushed down the toilet. In order to save the mega-banks' balance sheets from their irresponsible behavior, the Fed has denied retirees any interest income on their savings for eight years, forcing the elderly to draw down their savings, leaving their heirs, who have been displaced from employment by corporate jobs offshoring, penniless.

    The military/security complex which has spent trillions of our taxpayer dollars on 15 years of gratuitous wars based entirely on lies in order to enrich themselves and their power.

    The neoconservartives whose crazed ideology of US world hegemony thrusts the American people into military conflict with Russia and China.

    The US global corporations that sent American jobs to China and India and elsewhere in order to enrich the One Percent with higher profits from lower labor costs.

    Agribusiness (Monsanto et.al.), corporations that poison the soil, the water, the oceans, and our food with their GMOs, hebicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizers, while killing the bees that pollinate the crops.

    The extractive industries -energy, mining, fracking, and timber-that maximize their profits by destroying the environment and the water supply.

    The Israel Lobby that controls US Middle East policy and is committing genocide against the Palestinians just as the US committed genocide against native Americans. Israel is using the US to eliminate sovereign countries that stand in Israell's way.

    What convinces me that the Oligarchy intends to steal the election is the vast difference between the presstitutes' reporting and the facts on the ground.

    According to the presstitutes, Hillary is so far ahead that there is no point in Trump supporters bothering to vote. Hillary has won the election before the vote. Hillary has been declared a 93% sure winner.

    I am yet to see one Hillary yard sign, but Trump signs are everywhere. Reports I receive are that Hillary's public appearances are unattended but Trumps are so heavily attended that people have to be turned away. This is a report from a woman in Florida:

    "Trump has pulled huge numbers all over FL while campaigning here this week. I only see Trump signs and sickers in my wide travels. I dined at a Mexican restaurant last night. Two women my age sitting behind me were talking about how they had tried to see Trump when he came to Tallahassee. They left work early, arriving at the venue at 4:00 for a 6:00 rally. The place was already over capacity so they were turned away. It turned out that there were so many people there by 2:00 that the doors had to be opened to them. The women said that the crowds present were a mix of races and ages".

    I know the person who gave me this report and have no doubt whatsoever as to its veracity.

    I also receive from readers similiar reports from around the country.

    This is how the theft of the election is supposed to work: The media concentrated in a few corporate hands has gone all out to convince not only Americans but also the world, that Donald Trump is such an unacceptable candidate that he has lost the election before the vote.

    By controllng the explanation, when the election is stolen those who challenge the stolen election are without a foundartion in the media. All media reports will say that it was a run away victory for Hillary over the misogynist immigrant-hating Trump.

    And liberal, progressive opinion will be relieved and off guard as Hillary takes us into nuclear war.

    That the Oligarchy intends to steal the election from the American people is verified by the officially reported behavior of the voting machines in early voting in Texas. The NRP presstitutes have declared that Hillary is such a favorite that even Repulbican Texas is up for grabs in the election.

    If this is the case, why was it necessary for the voting machines to be programmed to change Trump votes to Hillary votes? Those voters who noted that they voted Trump but were recorded Hillary complained. The election officials, claiming a glitch (which only went one way), changed to paper ballots. But who will count them? No "glitches" caused Hillary votes to go to Trump, only Trump votes to go to Hillary.

    The most brilliant movie of our time was The Matrix. This movie captured the life of Americans manipulated by a false reality, only in the real America there is insufficient awareness and no Neo, except possibly Donald Trump, to challenge the system. All of my life I have been trying to get Americans of all stripes-academics, scholars, journalists, Republicans, Democrats, right-wing, left-wing, US Representatives, US Senators, Presidents, corporate moguls and brainwashed Americans and foreigners-out of the false reality in which they exist.

    In the United States today a critical presidential election is in process in which not a single important issue is addressed. This is total failure. Democracy, once the hope of the world, has totally failed in the United States of America.

    * * *

    And following today's FBI headlines, the manipulation is about to go to '11' to ensure the Oligarch's president-of-choice wins in November.

  • China
  • headlines
  • Donald Trump
  • Federal Reserve
  • Fail
  • The Matrix
  • Florida
  • Monsanto
  • Too Big To Fail
  • India
  • Israel
  • Middle East
  • FBI
  • Reality
  • Printer-friendly version
  • Oct 29, 2016 2:30 PM
  • 50
  • Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    [Oct 29, 2016] That Time I Was Investigated for Voter Fraud

    Notable quotes:
    "... But I saw a particular Hillary surrogate on CNN go apopletic, pounding the desk, holding her head in her hands, insisting "IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD!!!!" Carol Costello agreed, emphatically, with her vocabulary of all-knowing nods and tilting her head 11 degrees to the right in sympathetic affirmation. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.propublica.org
    On March 26, 2014, three investigators from Maryland's Office of the State Prosecutor sat at my dining room table and showed me a signature on a photocopy taken from a D.C. poll book. The scrawl looked more like a seismograph reading and was so unrecognizable that it took me a minute to realize that I was looking at it upside down. Turning the picture over didn't make it much better.

    "No, that's not my handwriting," I told them.

    Somebody had clearly voted using my name. But why? And how did state officials figure it out?

    In-person voter impersonation is vanishingly rare, as many studies have shown. The claims put forth by Donald Trump that voter fraud in places like Philadelphia could rig the election against him have very little evidence behind them, according to election experts .

    Absentee ballot fraud – people violating state laws on the distribution, collection and submission of mail ballots – is the more likely and more commonly prosecuted crime. Even for these kinds of scams, a definitive total of cases is hard to come by since voting records are maintained by several thousand different local governments.

    Guest1424 4 days ago

    But I saw a particular Hillary surrogate on CNN go apopletic, pounding the desk, holding her head in her hands, insisting "IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD!!!!" Carol Costello agreed, emphatically, with her vocabulary of all-knowing nods and tilting her head 11 degrees to the right in sympathetic affirmation.

    If Carol and the Hillary surrogate agree there is no voter fraud, the only logical conclusion is that Derek Willis is a liar and ProPublica is in bed with the Russians.

    desertspeaks 4 days ago
    how many dead people are registered voters? 2,8 million, more?? How about how many ILLEGALS are registered to vote?? UNKNOWN!
    How many computer voter machines have been hacked?? Unknown.. and oddly, they all "dead, illegals, rigged machines" all vote for hillary/democrats!
    BobboMax 4 days ago
    Concerning the listing of voter fraud cases compiled by the Heritage Foundation, it's remarkable for a) how few cases there actually are (several hundred out of literally millions of votes cast) and b) how many of the cases involved elected officials or their relatives attempting to influence their own elections.

    So, if you look at the compilation rationally, it's a non-event. You can be sure that tax fraud is much more common, and almost certainly, does much more damage to our democracy. Somehow, that doesn't seem to concern the legislatures as much. Just doesn't make good headlines.

    I Hate The Media 4 days ago
    "One way to make that job easier is to keep accurate voter lists. An accurate voter list makes it less likely than mistakes will occur at the polls." ....Or, we could have a national Voter ID registry, but NYT Democrats such as yourself think IDs are somehow inherently racist. Go figure?
    Badtux iamsaved2 4 days ago
    This is retail voter fraud, not wholesale voter fraud. Believe me. I

    I'm from Louisiana. I know the difference between wholesale and retail voter fraud.

    Wholesale is where you go for vote rigging, and right now the Republican Party is the king of wholesale, with voter ID to make sure the "wrong" people don't vote, cutbacks in early voting hours in minority districts, etc. to try to suppress the votes of the "wrong" people.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Check out the election fraud documentation at Fraction Magic – Short Version video recently released. It shows manipulation of actual vote files (Statement of Votes Cast) and how locations selected for audit were not tampered with

    Notable quotes:
    "... In line with the Corruption theme, check out the election fraud documentation at Fraction Magic – Short Version video recently released. It shows manipulation of actual vote files (Statement of Votes Cast) and how locations selected for audit were not tampered with. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    TheCatSaid October 28, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    In line with the Corruption theme, check out the election fraud documentation at Fraction Magic – Short Version video recently released. It shows manipulation of actual vote files (Statement of Votes Cast) and how locations selected for audit were not tampered with.

    The hero of the story is Bennie Smith, a soft-spoken Memphis TN-based genius who has skills in computer programming and databases; accounting; and political demographic analysis. By luck those are the same skills that convicted felon Jeffrey Dean had. (Dean wrote the software for the Diebold voting machines–and I've been told they can now prove that Dean was the originator of the fractionalized vote-counting software for the central tabulators.)

    A longer version of the video is due out in days–in the meantime, the 9 min. excerpt on the Short Version is amazing. Check out the tips at the end–how the public can help.

    [Oct 29, 2016] The Greens have had almost a generation to build the party but the remains the party of hipsters and environmental fundamentalists

    Viable third party s almost impossible in "first after the post" regime... That are usually poached by iether Republican or Democrats who act as spoilers.
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Yves Smith October 29, 2016 at 5:56 am

    I don't mean to sound critical, but I don't see why you regard Stein or the Greens as naturally being at a higher level than their current 2% in the polls. The Greens were only on the ballots of 36 or 37 states until last month. Unlike the major parties, they have pretty much no "get out the vote" apparatus. They are also not a national party. Lambert who has dealt with them to a degree in Maine can give you details as to some of the symptoms of dysfunction he has seen at close range.

    Ralph Nader in 2000 was a nationally recognized name, unlike Stein. There was a lot of disenchantment re Gore for being a 3rd term Clinton candidate, with Gore having mixed success in distancing himself from the Clintons, and being a wooden campaigner. And Bush was correctly seen as a lightweight. Even with those advantages, and ballot access in 43 states (v. I believe 45 or 46 now), Nader got 2.8% of the vote.

    The Greens have had almost a generation to build the party since then, and a financial crisis that devastated the middle class. I don't see any evidence of them using the opportunity that the abject performance of the Dems has presented to them. The Dems have lost seats in Congress, they've lost governorships, more and more people identify as independents. Yet the Greens have made no progress despite these tailwinds.

    I can see the argument for voting for Stein as virtue signaling and a protest vote and perhaps preferable to a write in (as in you are telling TPTB that there is sentiment to the left of where the legacy parties sit). My antipathy for the Greens is that they've failed abjectly at upping their game. See Richard Kline on "Progressively Losing". They strike me as a classic example of wanting to be morally correct and having zero interest in governing. So as long as you see your vote as a communications tool and don't harbor unwarranted optimism about the Greens, I don't see anything wrong in voting for them.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/richard-kline-progressively-losing.html

    [Oct 29, 2016] Why such the abrupt reversal by Comey, who by all indications is Obama man and helped to squash the investigation?

    Notable quotes:
    "... So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : October 29, 2016 at 02:08 PM
    (You would suppose that the FBI director is under the control of the Justice Department, but evidently not.)

    Officials warned FBI head about decision on e-mails
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/10/29/officials-warned-fbi-head-about-decision-mails/AsSTVmOMuZFsg7xnOTmcSK/story.html?event=event25

    Sari Horwitz - Washington Post - October 29, 2016

    WASHINGTON - Senior Justice Department officials warned the FBI that Director James B. Comey's decision to notify Congress about renewing the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server was not consistent with long-standing practices of the department, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

    ... ... ...

    im1dc -> Fred C. Dobbs... , October 29, 2016 at 02:13 PM
    Comely went off the farm all on his own and must answer for his actions. Simple as that.

    BTW, imo this will not impact the outcome of the Election November 8th.

    likbez -> im1dc... October 29, 2016 at 05:29 PM
    "Comely went off the farm all on his own and must answer for his actions. Simple as that."

    IMHO that's extremely naďve. Such a "career limiting move"(CLM) in Washington-speak almost never done "on his own". Exception are whistleblowers like William Binney, who already decided for themselves that "this is the last stand" and are ready to face consequences.

    Few Washington bureaucrats want to became outcasts within the administration, even the lame duck administration. Bureaucracy, at the end, is just another flavor of a political coalition and they tend to cling to power by whatever means possible including criminal.

    Moreover, Comey so far was viewed as an "Obama man" who abruptly squashed the "emailgate" investigation instead of expanding it investigating Bill Clinton for his "accidental" meeting with Loretta Lynch and possibly putting the old fogey on the bench for the obstruction of justice. And who at the end granted immunity to all key members of Clinton entourage including Huma Abedin who proved to be, security wise, not the sharpest tool in the shed.

    See http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neocons/Hillary/Emailgate/understanding_hillary_clinton_email_scandal.shtml

    So why such the abrupt reversal?

    The only plausible explanation that I see is that Comey action reflects a deep split within the USA elite including internal cracks and pressure within FBI brass (possibly from rank-and-file investigators, who understand what's going on) as for viability Hillary as the next POTUS.

    I would ask you a very simple question: do you really want a POTUS that has, say, 80% probability to be impeached by the House during the first year of his/her administration?

    And any security specialist will tell you that Hillary creation of "shadow IT" within the State Department is a crime. The behavior that would never be tolerated not only in super-secretive State Department (which recently assumed some functions previously performed by CIA), but in any large corporation.

    It also might well be that there are new highly compromising evidence (not necessary from Wiener case) which changed the "grand calculation".

    Here is an interesting post that I recently come across:
    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/27/team-clinton-head-emails-published-wikileaks-mood/#comment-2971488944

    DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ

    Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):

    So here's the REAL story.​ ​

    Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission.

    Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway.

    An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA

    Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

    It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.

    Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not.

    Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.

    So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS.

    Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Dont worry, Lloyd Blankfein is checking Comeys work

    Notable quotes:
    "... FBI today placed the Weiner investigation under their crack Special Agent for Witness Liquidation, Aaron McFarlane ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Cleanup October 28, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    Don't worry, Lloyd Blankfein is checking Comey's work.

    FBI today placed the Weiner investigation under their crack Special Agent for Witness Liquidation, Aaron McFarlane.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Comey was forced to tell Congress the Clinton e-mail investigation was being reopened. If he did not then sure as hell the existence of those e-mails on the Weiner computer would be leaked.

    People started to demand Hillary scalp...
    Notable quotes:
    "... FBI agents looking at Weiners weiner on his laptop, sees tons of Huma emails and Clinton emails, turn and tell their boss they are disgusted with all this and he needs to disrupt her winning office or they are going public. That's what happened! ..."
    "... I think you are spot on with that observation. Comey was forced to tell Congress the Clinton e-mail investigation was being reopened. If he did not then sure as hell the existence of those e-mails on the Weiner computer would be leaked. ..."
    "... I agree, it is all puppet theatre with some humor added. The more outrageous the more believable, right? ..."
    "... It achieves some "unity" around Trump when there wasn't enough going down the home stretch, it became OBVIOUS she's not a winner, which anyone with half a brain has known since she announced? So maybe they are pulling the plug and she's been beat officially? Which leaves the question is Trump for real? ..."
    "... I must say, fake or not he fought hard? I like Trump. I hope he realizes if he did decide to do GOOD, he could become very powerful. Why these leaders get to these positions and give it all up for a little greed is beyond me? They could be 10 times more powerful by just being GOOD? You've got the money Trump, if your GOOD, you'll obtain the power? Trump has some political capital and makes him more attractive to the establishment. My guess is, im being too optimistic for good things to happen? I hope Im wrong. ..."
    "... The Clintons are a great success story. They never set out to be legal, only not to get sent to jail. By this standard they have succeeded. They have wealth and power and are 2 of the most admired people on earth. Lawyers and fines are just businesses expenses. ..."
    "... I want to share my intentions with my fellow ZH Bloggers and Patriots, beginning today, I am going to be sending a series of communications directly to Paul Ryan by using his WEBSITE found at the following URL: http://www.speaker.gov/contact ..."
    "... I plan to both encourage and challenge the Speaker. I know many on ZH look at Paul Ryan as a hypocrite. I understand why you may hold this position. I too am very disappointed with recent REPUBLICAN positions and communications. However, now is the time to unite as "WE THE PEOPLE". All of the data is suggesting that leadership within US Government Agencies is corrupted by special interests and their own fleshly nature. We see evidence of TREASON everywhere. But I believe brighter days lie ahead for America at least in the short term. ..."
    "... AMERICA has lost her way and this needs to be corrected. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    TahoeBilly2012 Rubicon Oct 29, 2016 9:46 AM ,
    FBI agents looking at Weiners weiner on his laptop, sees tons of Huma emails and Clinton emails, turn and tell their boss they are disgusted with all this and he needs to disrupt her winning office or they are going public. That's what happened!
    Tarjan TahoeBilly2012 Oct 29, 2016 10:18 AM ,
    I think you are spot on with that observation. Comey was forced to tell Congress the Clinton e-mail investigation was being reopened. If he did not then sure as hell the existence of those e-mails on the Weiner computer would be leaked.
    joego1 Tarjan Oct 29, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    Check this out;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgbEj-YyEIQ

    The FBI's hand was forced by Anonymous.

    Wow72 lil dirtball Oct 29, 2016 11:07 AM ,
    I agree, it is all puppet theatre with some humor added. The more outrageous the more believable, right?

    It achieves some "unity" around Trump when there wasn't enough going down the home stretch, it became OBVIOUS she's not a winner, which anyone with half a brain has known since she announced? So maybe they are pulling the plug and she's been beat officially? Which leaves the question is Trump for real?

    I must say, fake or not he fought hard? I like Trump. I hope he realizes if he did decide to do GOOD, he could become very powerful. Why these leaders get to these positions and give it all up for a little greed is beyond me? They could be 10 times more powerful by just being GOOD? You've got the money Trump, if your GOOD, you'll obtain the power? Trump has some political capital and makes him more attractive to the establishment. My guess is, im being too optimistic for good things to happen? I hope Im wrong.

    I've been burned so many times by BIG GOV. both DEM & REP? I just cant trust anyone that is near it?

    They take lots of ideas from ZH these days, and its not good..... ZH offers them the ideas, the power, and the creativity of the crowd. They use it against us, a very powerful tool.

    Kidbuck Fester Oct 29, 2016 10:56 AM ,
    The Clintons are a great success story. They never set out to be legal, only not to get sent to jail. By this standard they have succeeded. They have wealth and power and are 2 of the most admired people on earth. Lawyers and fines are just businesses expenses.
    GUS100CORRINA Fester Oct 29, 2016 11:07 AM ,
    I want to share my intentions with my fellow ZH Bloggers and Patriots, beginning today, I am going to be sending a series of communications directly to Paul Ryan by using his WEBSITE found at the following URL: http://www.speaker.gov/contact

    I plan to both encourage and challenge the Speaker. I know many on ZH look at Paul Ryan as a hypocrite. I understand why you may hold this position. I too am very disappointed with recent REPUBLICAN positions and communications. However, now is the time to unite as "WE THE PEOPLE". All of the data is suggesting that leadership within US Government Agencies is corrupted by special interests and their own fleshly nature. We see evidence of TREASON everywhere. But I believe brighter days lie ahead for America at least in the short term.

    AMERICA has lost her way and this needs to be corrected.

    I encourage everyone who reads this message to send a note to the SPEAKER encouraging him to do four things:

    1. Get on board the TRUMP/PENCE train no matter what it takes which includes eating "HUMBLE PIE".
    2. Go after Hillary R. Clinton and press for swift and immediate justice.
    3. Enforce existing laws for TREASON that are on the books.
    4. Do whatever it takes to ensure the integrity of the American POTUS Election process. MAKE OUR VOTE COUNT.

    I plan to do this today and will be sending the speaker notes and comments from ZH.

    If everyone contacts the SPEAKER, he will get the POINT.

    GOD's SPEED in whatever you decide to do as a CITIZEN of these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Accusations of racism as a method to squash social resistance to neoliberalism

    Oct 29, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Carolinian October 28, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    Or the racism of the middle class. People are tribal and arguably it is baked into our DNA. That doesn't excuse the mental laziness of trafficking in stereotypes but one could make a case that racism is as much a matter of ignorance as of evil character.

    Obama with his "bitter clingers" and HIllary with her "deplorables" are talking about people about whom they probably know almost nothing.

    One of the long ago arguments for school integration was that propinquity fosters mutual understanding. This met with a lot of resistance. And for people like our Pres and would be Pres a broader view of the electorate would be inconvenient.

    They might have to turn into actual liberals.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Obama Flinches at Renouncing Nuke First Strike by Jonathan Marshall

    Notable quotes:
    "... Time is running short for President Obama to make good on his 2009 promise "to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet as both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times recently reported, Obama's advisers may have just nixed the single most important reform advocated by arms control advocates: a formal pledge that the United States will never again be the first country to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. ..."
    "... Two-thirds of adult Americans surveyed support such a policy. So do 10 U.S. senators who wrote President Obama in July, proposing a no-first-use declaration to "reduce the risk of accidental nuclear conflict" and seeking cut-backs in his trillion dollar plan for nuclear modernization over the next 30 years. ..."
    "... In a 2007 manifesto, Carter, Moniz, and other centrist Democratic foreign policy experts rejected the old claim that nuclear weapons are still needed to deter non-nuclear attacks. ..."
    "... They also gave strong implicit support to a no-first-use doctrine, stating that "nuclear weapons must be seen as a last resort, when no other options can ensure the security of the U.S. and its allies." ..."
    "... "Using nuclear weapons first against Russia and China would endanger our and our allies' very survival by encouraging full-scale retaliation," he and a colleague wrote. "Such use against North Korea would be likely to result in the blanketing of Japan and possibly South Korea with deadly radioactive fallout." ..."
    "... As two senior officials at the Arms Control Association observed recently in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , "Among other advantages, a clear US no-first-use policy would reduce the risk of Russian or Chinese nuclear miscalculation during a crisis by alleviating concerns about a devastating US nuclear first-strike. ..."
    "... Why would anyone believe the US would not strike first with nukes, pledge or no pledge? This country has lied so much. Nobody cares anymore. To Americans there are worse things in the world than slaughtering millions of people in war by "mistake", and that's the prospect of not looking tough. ..."
    "... Before considering the relative merits of a "no first use" policy for nuclear weapons, it would first be necessary to consider whether words like "policy" actually mean anything relative to the U.S. history of the last seventy years. ..."
    "... The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity. US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be "harmless to the surrounding civilian population". Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a "humanitarian undertaking". ..."
    "... Overkill has been part of the American war strategy for some time and could be a sign of fear-inspired paranoia. People with a lot to lose are prone to magnifying threats. ..."
    Sep 08, 2016 | consortiumnews.com
    The U.S. threat to launch a first-strike nuclear attack has little real strategic value – though it poses a real risk to human survival – but President Obama fears political criticism if he changes the policy, as Jonathan Marshall explains.

    Time is running short for President Obama to make good on his 2009 promise "to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet as both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times recently reported, Obama's advisers may have just nixed the single most important reform advocated by arms control advocates: a formal pledge that the United States will never again be the first country to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

    Ever since President Truman ordered two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945, the United States has reserved the right to initiate nuclear war against an overwhelming conventional, chemical or biological attack on us or our allies. But peace advocates - and more than a few senior military officers - have long warned that resorting to nuclear weapons would ignite a global holocaust, killing hundreds of millions of people .

    President Barack Obama uncomfortably accepting the Nobel Peace Prize from Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland in Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2009. (White House photo)

    In a talk to the annual meeting of the Arms Control Association on June 6, Deputy National Security Advisor Benjamin Rhodes promised that President Obama would continue to review ways to achieve his grand vision of a nuclear-free world during his last months in office. Obama was reportedly considering a "series of executive actions" to that end, including a landmark shift to a "no first use" policy.

    Two-thirds of adult Americans surveyed support such a policy. So do 10 U.S. senators who wrote President Obama in July, proposing a no-first-use declaration to "reduce the risk of accidental nuclear conflict" and seeking cut-backs in his trillion dollar plan for nuclear modernization over the next 30 years.

    But Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz (who oversees the nuclear stockpile), and Secretary of State John Kerry all warned during a National Security Council meeting in July that declaring a policy of "no first use" would alarm America's allies, undercut U.S. credibility, and send a message of weakness to the Kremlin at a time of tense relations with Russia.

    Yet until they took charge of giant bureaucracies whose funding depends on keeping the threat of nuclear war alive, both Carter and Moniz were on record supporting "a new strategy for reducing nuclear threats" and achieving security "at significantly lower levels of nuclear forces and with less reliance on nuclear weapons in our national security strategy."

    In a 2007 manifesto, Carter, Moniz, and other centrist Democratic foreign policy experts rejected the old claim that nuclear weapons are still needed to deter non-nuclear attacks.

    "Nuclear weapons are much less credible in deterring conventional, biological, or chemical weapon attacks," they wrote. "A more effective way of deterring and defending against such non-nuclear attacks – and giving the President a wider range of credible response options – would be to rely on a robust array of conventional strike capabilities and strong declaratory policies."

    They also gave strong implicit support to a no-first-use doctrine, stating that "nuclear weapons must be seen as a last resort, when no other options can ensure the security of the U.S. and its allies."

    Risk of Overreaction

    Why does a no-first-use policy matter? In a New York Times column last month, Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and head of the United States Strategic Command, emphasized the folly of introducing nuclear weapons into any conflict.

    "Using nuclear weapons first against Russia and China would endanger our and our allies' very survival by encouraging full-scale retaliation," he and a colleague wrote. "Such use against North Korea would be likely to result in the blanketing of Japan and possibly South Korea with deadly radioactive fallout."

    A policy of no first use, backed up by a reconfiguration of U.S. nuclear forces to reduce their offensive capabilities, would lower the chance of a rival nuclear power rushing to launch early in a crisis and unleashing World War III. Today some nuclear powers like Russia have their forces on hair-trigger alert for fear of being wiped out by a U.S. surprise attack; as a result, the world is just one false alarm away from all-out nuclear war.

    As two senior officials at the Arms Control Association observed recently in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , "Among other advantages, a clear US no-first-use policy would reduce the risk of Russian or Chinese nuclear miscalculation during a crisis by alleviating concerns about a devastating US nuclear first-strike.

    "Such risks could grow in the future as Washington develops cyber offensive capabilities that can confuse nuclear command and control systems, as well as new strike capabilities and strategic ballistic missile interceptors that Russia and China believe may degrade their nuclear retaliatory potential."

    They also discounted the claim that U.S. allies such as Japan or Korea would rebel against such a change of policy: "They are highly likely to accept such a decision, since no first use will in no way weaken US military preparedness to confront non-nuclear threats to their security. . . Many US allies, including NATO members Germany and the Netherlands, support the adoption of no-first-use policies by all nuclear-armed states."

    Warnings by nuclear hawks that a common-sense doctrine of no-first-use would undercut U.S. "credibility" or project "weakness" are simply business-as-usual attempts by national security bureaucrats to inflate threats and keep the war machine in high gear. If they succeed in blocking reform, America and the rest of the world will remain at real risk of annihilation through accidental nuclear escalation.

    The question now is whether President Obama will listen to the fear-mongers in his cabinet, or remember what he said in May at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial: "Among those nations like my own that hold nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them."

    Jonathan Marshall is author or co-author of five books on international affairs, including The Lebanese Connection: Corruption, Civil War and the International Drug Traffic (Stanford University Press, 2012). Some of his previous articles for Consortiumnews were " Risky Blowback from Russian Sanctions "; " Neocons Want Regime Change in Iran "; " Saudi Cash Wins France's Favor "; " The Saudis' Hurt Feelings "; " Saudi Arabia's Nuclear Bluster "; " The US Hand in the Syrian Mess "; and " Hidden Origins of Syria's Civil War. " ]

    wobblie September 8, 2016 at 8:40 am

    I almost forgot about the "Obama gets a Nobel Prize" joke.

    Why would anyone believe the US would not strike first with nukes, pledge or no pledge? This country has lied so much. Nobody cares anymore. To Americans there are worse things in the world than slaughtering millions of people in war by "mistake", and that's the prospect of not looking tough.

    We're along way from Paradise on Earth.

    https://therulingclassobserver.com/2016/09/04/paradise-suppressed/

    exiled off mainstreet September 8, 2016 at 1:10 pm
    Unfortunately, nuclear blackmail is central to the Yankee imperium maintaining its claim on total power. It is Lord Acton's absolute power on steroids. The demonization of Putin on behalf the harpy's campaign by many whom at one time themselves showed skepticism of the power structure reveals the complete moral and intellectual bankruptcy of exponents of the Yankee regime.
    F. G. Sanford September 8, 2016 at 4:09 pm
    Before considering the relative merits of a "no first use" policy for nuclear weapons, it would first be necessary to consider whether words like "policy" actually mean anything relative to the U.S. history of the last seventy years.

    I don't even have to mention "conspiracy theories" in order to illustrate the point. Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Phoenix, MK Ultra, Bay of Pigs, Operation Northwoods, subversion of the Paris Peace Talks, Watergate, October Surprise, Iran Contra, the Church Committee findings, The House Select Committee on Assassinations, Cointelpro, numerous regime changes and illegal wars – including the falsified case for invasion of Iraq – all highlight the complete lawlessness of the U.S.A.

    According to international law, The Constitution, numerous treaties and United States public law, there should be no first use of CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS. Their "first use" constitutes war of aggression, "The Supreme International Crime" according to Chief Nuremberg Prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson. What has been missing in the United States for the last seventy years is simply SPECIFICATION OF CHARGES. All seven of the (known) countries in which we are currently conducting hostile military operations constitute examples of illegal wars based on our own Constitution and International Law. Retaliation against the United States for conducting these wars, should some country be willing or able, WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL. Keep in mind, we haven't "won" a war since WWII unless you count Grenada. Even then, you'd have to ignore the fact that the Russians practically, if not politically, won WWII.

    I realize the good intentions of the author, and I respect his credentials, but this analysis represents the typical tendency in the U.S. to devolve discourse into specks of sand while drowning in quicksand. It contributes to official propaganda without realization or intent. SPECIFICATION OF CHARGES is the topic no journalist seems willing to tackle. Let me give an example. When the 2000 Florida vote recount was underway, Jeb Bush got on the phone to the five biggest law firms in the state and told them not to represent Al Gore. THAT IS A FELONY. But, rather than discuss SPECIFICATION OF CHARGES, American journalists were content to stand by and watch an unindicted felon run for the highest office in the land. After finding out that his brother lied to us, they abrogated their duty and stood by while he was reelected…by another statistically impossible election result.

    Americans may be oblivious to all this, but the rest of the world certainly isn't. They don't believe a damn thing we say. That will only worsen with the election of a bona fide war monger in November. NOBODY overseas believes ANY of our "official" narratives. We've stirred up trouble in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Now, we're working on the Asian Pacific. Europe is overrun by a refugee crisis we created. Does any rational person not see the risk posed by these unfettered abuses? Since they cannot match us conventionally, and they see no end to the onslaught of disastrous U.S. foreign intervention, at least two countries are likely to view a nuclear "first strike" as their only hope to salvage some semblance of national sovereignty. If anyone has read this far, thanks for listening. I'm at the point of giving up on further commentary; it all looks pretty hopeless at this point.

    Bill Bodden September 8, 2016 at 5:22 pm
    Excellent points.
    Joe Tedesky September 9, 2016 at 12:11 am
    F.G. We all get fed up and frustrated with our country's sad performances it displays on our world's stage, but whatever you do don't quit posting commentaries. This evening I was going over archived articles on this site from the past, and you were one of the commenters going back to around 2011 or maybe it was 2012, but no matter you were there. What I do like about this site, is it is an oasis in a desert when it comes to the commenters, and you are one of them I totally enjoy. Oh, and the articles are priceless.

    Now, what gets me going of late, isn't just how treaties mean nothing to our American government, but how things come and go,,and then disappear down a black news hold. For instance, back in 2014 the torture files were brought up in our news media. The Panetta Review, and all that kind of garbage was finally being exposed. That was until the whole thing vanished like it never existed. Kind of like going to war to find WMD's, and then when we find there are none, well we just up and go on about our way, as if nothing ever happened.

    The U.S. doesn't respect treaties, and there is never anyone to hold to accountability. We are the nation who creates the reality. As you have heard, we are the nation who is indispensable and exceptional. Your either with us, or against us. Another nations sovereignty doesn't mean a thing when it comes to waging war, if we are right well then we are right. There are no questions to be answered. What law is there, what legal system can enforce any law national or international, when it comes to what America does?

    To all the commenters on this site, I can't say how much it means to me, to not only comment here, but more importantly what a pleasure it is to read all your comments and take in the knowledge I get by reading what you all have to say. Even the comments I don't agree with often leave food for thought…so yes I'm thanking everyone.

    Oh yeah, ban the bomb!

    Thomas September 9, 2016 at 8:43 pm
    We need more not less of the unblinkered and sober assessments like this one you have educated and enlightened us with here.

    Now is not a good time to allow Dr. Feelgood to run amok especially with faux concern governing the passing contests and ego driven games that endanger not only people, but every living creature on the planet, except perhaps cock roaches… the only ones who will benefit from an unfettered nuclear policy of when in doubt go nuclear……

    Abe September 10, 2016 at 10:27 pm
    The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity. US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be "harmless to the surrounding civilian population". Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a "humanitarian undertaking".

    The Danger of Nuclear War
    By Michel Chossudovsky (VIDEO)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX9Lv7Jc_sQ

    Stephen Sivonda September 11, 2016 at 10:13 pm
    Thank you….the piece about Jeb Bush near the end was, something that I didn't know. The paragraph about the "Specifications of charges" was another aspect of which I've never seen mentioned. I really enjoy well written posts where I can keep filling in bits of the big picture ,as I call it.
    M. September 8, 2016 at 4:32 pm
    Nuclear war preparedness and the use of nuclear weapons have already affected so many and will continue to do so. Nuclear waste disposal alone is a huge problem. Since a nuclear war, limited or otherwise, will affect the entire world one way or another, it would seem that all nations should be brought together to have S.A.L.T.- like talks, not just the current nuclear powers, but the presumed and potential nuclear powers, as well as those nations who will in all likelihood never have them. Everyone on the planet has a stake in this. It could lead to great reductions in other kinds of weapons, and possibly, to the most important discussion of all – how to have and maintain real peace in the world. It isn't too late for President Obama to remember what he said in Hiroshima, as Mr. Marshall stated, and not too late for him to be a true leader and to act on those words.
    Bill Bodden September 8, 2016 at 5:36 pm
    Overkill has been part of the American war strategy for some time and could be a sign of fear-inspired paranoia. People with a lot to lose are prone to magnifying threats.

    Obama's recent remarks referring to the insane bombing of Laos that was an example of Nixon's madness brought reminders of this lunacy. "Over 270 million cluster bombs were dropped on Laos during the Vietnam War (210 million more bombs than were dropped on Iraq in 1991, 1998 and 2006 combined); up to 80 million did not detonate." – http://legaciesofwar.org/about-laos/secret-war-laos/ – That was probably more than a dozen cluster bombs for each Laotian – man, woman and child. In addition to suggesting this was insanity on the part of the Nixon-Kissinger administration it probably also indicates gross incompetence or a lack of moral courage on the part of the leadership in the Air Force.

    [Oct 29, 2016] Only 29% of those who said that they would vote for Clinton said their vote was intended to stop Trump from getting to the White House. By contrast, 43% of Trump voters said their decision was a defensive vote against Clinton

    Oct 29, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Polling offers some clues . Last week, George Washington University released the results of a survey of 1,000 adults who said they were registered and likely to vote. Only 29% of those who said that they would vote for Clinton said their vote was intended to stop Trump from getting to the White House. By contrast, 43% of Trump voters said their decision was a defensive vote against Clinton.

    That doesn't necessarily get us any closer to forecasting the results. It's a fact that voter turnout will shape this election outcome but it's much harder to predict how human nature might affect that turnout. What drives people to action more – support for a set of values or fear of the alternatives? Love or hate?

    [Oct 29, 2016] The Abnormal Normal of Nuclear Terror

    Notable quotes:
    "... Like all modern presidents, Obama quickly learned the political economy of the entrenched nuclear establishment, committing a trillion dollars to the "modernization" of the arsenal and its delivery systems 30 years beyond his presidency. ..."
    "... Such staggering expenditures are, however, even more unlikely to purchase the order and security that Secretary Carter promised than when Mumford issued his warning. That was well before thousands of thermonuclear weapons waited on hair-trigger alert for the order to launch or a glitch that would do so without an order. ..."
    "... In his recently published book My Journey At the Nuclear Brink, Bill Clinton's Defense Secretary William Perry detailed the numerous close calls by which the world has dodged partial or all-out Armageddon and claimed that the likelihood of disaster is growing rather than diminishing. Most of these events are unknown to the public. ..."
    "... Obama changed the US nuclear weapon policy by adopting "first strike doctrine". ..."
    "... That, along with aggressive moves to install anti missile systems (which are of dual use and can be retrofitted with offensive weapons) in Poland, Romania and South Korea changed the strategic balance in the USA favor. ..."
    Oct 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : October 29, 2016 at 09:30 AM , 2016 at 09:30 AM
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/28/the-abnormal-normal-of-nuclear-terror/ By Gray Brechin

    October 28, 2016

    The Abnormal Normal of Nuclear Terror

    Almost goofily, behind Official Washington's latest warmongering "group think," the U.S. has plunged into a New Cold War against Russia with no debate about the enormous costs and the extraordinary risks of nuclear annihilation.

    By Gray Brechin

    When Lewis Mumford heard that a primitive atomic bomb had obliterated Hiroshima, the eminent urban and technology historian experienced "almost physical nausea." He instantly understood that humanity now had the means to exterminate itself.

    On March 2, 1946, seven months later, he published an essay titled "Gentlemen: You Are Mad!" Not only did madmen, Mumford insist, "govern our affairs in the name of order and security," but he called his fellow Americans equally mad for viewing "the madness of our leaders as if it expressed a traditional wisdom and common sense" even as those leaders readied the means for "the casual suicide of the human race."

    In the 70 years since the Saturday Review of Literature published Mumford's warning, that madness has grown to be normative so that those who question the cost, safety and promised security of the nuclear stockpile are regarded as the Trojans did Cassandra - if they are noticed at all.

    "The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order it must be followed," insisted Hillary Clinton in the third presidential debate as a means of affirming her own - rather than her opponent's - qualifications to give that order. "There's about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so."

    Four minutes to launch is a minute more than the three to midnight at which the Doomsday Clock now stands. Clinton no doubt calculated that voters would be more comfortable with her own steady finger on the nuclear trigger. I can think of no better proof of Mumford's contention than the fact that those voters would give any individual the power to abruptly end life on Earth unless it is that her statement went unremarked by those keeping score.

    The Nobel Mistake

    Less than nine months into Barack Obama's presidency, Norway's Nobel Institute bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize on him largely on the strength of his pledge during his first major foreign policy speech in Prague to rid the world of nuclear weapons. In a 2015 memoir, former secretary of the Institute Geir Lundestad expressed remorse for doing so, saying "We thought that it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have that effect."

    Like all modern presidents, Obama quickly learned the political economy of the entrenched nuclear establishment, committing a trillion dollars to the "modernization" of the arsenal and its delivery systems 30 years beyond his presidency.

    As Obama prepared to leave office, his Defense Secretary Ashton Carter rejected pleas for reducing the stockpile and announced that the Pentagon planned to spend $108 billion over five years to "correct decades of underinvestment in nuclear deterrence … dating back to the Cold War." The last Cold War, that is.

    Such staggering expenditures are, however, even more unlikely to purchase the order and security that Secretary Carter promised than when Mumford issued his warning. That was well before thousands of thermonuclear weapons waited on hair-trigger alert for the order to launch or a glitch that would do so without an order.

    In his recently published book My Journey At the Nuclear Brink, Bill Clinton's Defense Secretary William Perry detailed the numerous close calls by which the world has dodged partial or all-out Armageddon and claimed that the likelihood of disaster is growing rather than diminishing. Most of these events are unknown to the public.

    Former head of the U.S. Strategic Command General James Cartwright bolstered Perry's claim when he told a San Francisco audience that "It makes no sense to keep our nuclear weapons online 24 hours a day" since "You've either been hacked and are not admitting it, or you're being hacked and don't know it." One of those hackers, he said, could get lucky.

    A Non-existent Debate

    When Hillary Clinton was asked at a town hall event in Concord, New Hampshire, if she would reduce expenditures for nuclear arms and rein in the corporations that sell the government those weapons, she replied "I think we are overdue for a very thorough debate in our country about what we need and how we are willing to pay for it."

    Such a debate has never been held and - given the peril, complexity and cost of nuclear technology - it is never likely to happen unless a president of exceptional courage and independence demands it. The profits of weapons production are simply too great and few of the prospective victims understandably want to dwell on the unthinkable when so much more diverting entertainment is available on their Smartphones.

    Nuclear weapons by their nature are inimical to transparency and thus to the public discussion, control and democracy they ostensibly protect. Nor does Doomsday make for winning dinner banter.

    The Brookings Institute in 1998 published a study of the cumulative costs of nuclear weapons entitled Atomic Audit. It put the bill to date at $5.5 trillion, virtually none of which was known by the public or even to members of Congress or the President. The cost simply grew and continues to grow in the dark, precluding spending on so much else that might otherwise return in public works and services to those who unwittingly pay for the weapons while also mitigating the causes of war abroad....


    Dr. Gray Brechin is the Project Scholar of the Living New Deal University at the UC Berkeley Department of Geography.

    likbez -> anne... , October 29, 2016 at 10:24 AM
    Anne,

    Obama changed the US nuclear weapon policy by adopting "first strike doctrine".

    http://warisacrime.org/content/obama-backs-first-strike-nuclear-war-us-policy

    Previously the USA, Russia, China and all other major nuclear power explicitly agreed on "no first use" principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use

    That, along with aggressive moves to install anti missile systems (which are of dual use and can be retrofitted with offensive weapons) in Poland, Romania and South Korea changed the strategic balance in the USA favor.

    I wonder how Russia and China would react on this. Currently they still stick to "no first use" principle.

    im1dc -> likbez... , October 29, 2016 at 10:36 AM
    Your link is one continuous stream of bogus logic and fear mongering supposition.
    likbez -> im1dc... , October 29, 2016 at 11:26 AM
    im1dc,

    I am sorry. This is a better link

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/08/obama-flinches-at-renouncing-nuke-first-strike/

    Who Ma Weeny -> likbez... , -1
    Russia and China would react on this. Currently they still stick to "no first use" principle.
    "

    A Fate Worse Than Death

    During the inquisition Catholic Priests logically assumed that living within a community of Jews would be a fate worse than death thus chose death instead of integration. Sure!

    They didn't need to kill all the Jews. They only needed to kill the ones that didn't convert to Christianity during their stint with torture.

    During the final weeks of Second World War Victory, 33rd President decided that the American Voters would consider life with Japanese a fate worse than death thus resolved to kill off bunch of them even though the execution had nothing to do with final victory. Hell!

    A simple blockade of the industrial island nation would have starved Japanese of raw materials enough to send the Japanese straight back to the stone ages thus render them harmless in less than 2 years. Hell!

    The blockade was already in place.

    During the Cold War our leaders decided that American Voters would find it a fate worse than death to be conquered by communists, a fate worse than death to live without capitalism. Decided, then fabricated thousands of nuclear devices, enough devices to provide the kind of strontium isotope fall out that would allow cockroaches to survive but render all of humanity forever extinct .

    Today, by contrast, we see that Russian Communism has imploded, Chinese Communism has morphed into Bankster/Capitalism, and Vietnamese Communism is not trying to subjugate the World.

    In other words, the fear of being conquered does not logically indicate the need for WoMD, weapons of mass destruction that could annihilate the entire human race.

    Yet the Democrats continue to follow in the foot steps of 33rd President, continue to walk in his footprints. Hell!

    33rd was

    hardly Good King
    Wenceslas --

    [Oct 29, 2016] The level of militarism in the current US society and MSM is really staggering. anti-war forces are completely destroyed (with the abandonment of draft) and are limited for

    Oct 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libertarians (such as Ron Paul) and paleoconservatives.

    likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... October 28, 2016 at 04:37 PM , 2016 at 04:37 PM

    >"Plus, she's very nasty towards Vlad Putin."

    What I do not get is how one can call himself/herself a democrat and be jingoistic monster. That's the problem with Democratic Party and its supporters. Such people for me are DINO ("Democrats only in name"). Closet neocons, if you wish. The level of militarism in the current US society and MSM is really staggering. anti-war forces are completely destroyed (with the abandonment of draft) and are limited for libertarians (such as Ron Paul) and paleoconservatives. There is almost completely empty space on the left. Dennis Kucinich is one of the few exceptions
    (see http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/10/27/must-read-of-the-day-dennis-kucinich-issues-extraordinary-warning-on-d-c-s-think-tank-warmongers/ )

    I think that people like Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney can now proudly join Democratic Party and feel themselves quite at home.

    BTW Hillary is actually very pleasant with people of the same level. It's only subordinates, close relatives and Security Service agents, who are on the receiving end of her wrath. A typical "kiss up, kick down personality".

    The right word probably would not "nasty", but "duplicitous".

    Or "treacherous" as this involves breaking of previous agreements (with a smile) as the USA diplomacy essentially involves positioning the country above the international law. As in "I am the law".

    Obama is not that different. I think he even more sleazy then Hillary and as such is more difficult to deal with. He also is at his prime, while she is definitely past hers:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-usa-idUSKCN12R25E

    == quote ==
    Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current U.S. administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.

    Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people chose, and to discuss any problem.
    == end of quote ==

    Syria is an "Obama-approved" adventure, is not it ? The same is true for Libya. So formally he is no less jingoistic then Hillary, Nobel Peace price notwithstanding.

    Other things equal, it might be easier for Putin to deal with Hillary then Obama, as she has so many skeletons in the closet and might soon be impeached by House.

    [Oct 28, 2016] You can force use of paper trail if you request mail ballot

    Notable quotes:
    "... Like it or not, extending the voting period is actually the best solution to that particular problem, which is why cutting back on early voting is so popular in those same suppressive GOP-run states. ..."
    "... The status quo election day polling station method requires one to take notes on these 50+ offices. The mail ballot allows one to "skip the middle step of taking notes", & directly mark the ballot. ..."
    "... I think it is more convenient, but who can guarantee that all ballots make it to their final resting place untampered or at all? ..."
    Oct 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Elizabeth Burton October 27, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    "The real answer is to make Election Day a national holiday. Why the heck not?"

    Because it wouldn't solve the problem and, indeed, would likely work against those same voters the GOP has been trying to suppress-the working poor. Because holiday or not, people are going to have to work, and many if not most aren't aware they're entitled to time to go vote without sacrificing pay provided they put in for it ahead of time.

    Like it or not, extending the voting period is actually the best solution to that particular problem, which is why cutting back on early voting is so popular in those same suppressive GOP-run states.

    ProNewerDeal October 27, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    IMHO mail ballots are useful, especially given ballots with 50+ offices to vote for, many of them nonpartisan judges.

    The status quo election day polling station method requires one to take notes on these 50+ offices. The mail ballot allows one to "skip the middle step of taking notes", & directly mark the ballot.

    Roger Smith October 27, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    I think it is more convenient, but who can guarantee that all ballots make it to their final resting place untampered or at all? That seems like asking for more trouble. Going out for a walk, drive, or free shuttle during what should be a multiple weekend day period should not be a big deal for most (and for those who can't walk, etc there are mail in ballots).

    polecat October 27, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    In my town there are official ballot boxes stationed at the county courthouse

    Washington State is ALL vote by mail ..

    jrs October 27, 2016 at 6:19 pm

    I'm in favor of more holidays for more holidays sake and it will make it easier for some people to get to the polls, but yea holiday or not people will have to work is the truth. And yes other than emergency workers like medical professionals it does tend to be poorer people that work holidays.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election Unearthed tape: We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win by Ken Kurson

    Oct 28, 2016 | observer.com
    On September 5, 2006, Eli Chomsky was an editor and staff writer for the Jewish Press, and Hillary Clinton was running for a shoo-in re-election as a U.S. senator. Her trip making the rounds of editorial boards brought her to Brooklyn to meet the editorial board of the Jewish Press.

    The tape was never released and has only been heard by the small handful of Jewish Press staffers in the room. According to Chomsky, his old-school audiocassette is the only existent copy and no one has heard it since 2006, until today when he played it for the Observer.

    The tape is 45 minutes and contains much that is no longer relevant, such as analysis of the re-election battle that Sen. Joe Lieberman was then facing in Connecticut. But a seemingly throwaway remark about elections in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority has taken on new relevance amid persistent accusations in the presidential campaign by Clinton's Republican opponent Donald Trump that the current election is "rigged."

    Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).

    "I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."

    2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election Unearthed tape: 'We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win'

    On September 5, 2006, Eli Chomsky was an editor and staff writer for the Jewish Press, and Hillary Clinton was running for a shoo-in re-election as a U.S. senator. Her trip making the rounds of editorial boards brought her to Brooklyn to meet the editorial board of the Jewish Press.

    The tape was never released and has only been heard by the small handful of Jewish Press staffers in the room. According to Chomsky, his old-school audiocassette is the only existent copy and no one has heard it since 2006, until today when he played it for the Observer.

    The tape is 45 minutes and contains much that is no longer relevant, such as analysis of the re-election battle that Sen. Joe Lieberman was then facing in Connecticut. But a seemingly throwaway remark about elections in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority has taken on new relevance amid persistent accusations in the presidential campaign by Clinton's Republican opponent Donald Trump that the current election is "rigged."

    Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).

    "I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."

    Chomsky recalls being taken aback that "anyone could support the idea-offered by a national political leader, no less-that the U.S. should be in the business of fixing foreign elections."

    Some eyebrows were also raised when then-Senator Clinton appeared to make a questionable moral equivalency.

    ... ... ...

    Chomsky is heard on the tape asking Clinton what now seems like a prescient question about Syria, given the disaster unfolding there and its looming threat to drag the U.S., Iran and Russia into confrontation.

    "Do you think it's worth talking to Syria-both from the U.S. point [of view] and Israel's point [of view]?"

    Clinton replied, "You know, I'm pretty much of the mind that I don't see what it hurts to talk to people. As long as you're not stupid and giving things away. I mean, we talked to the Soviet Union for 40 years. They invaded Hungary, they invaded Czechoslovakia, they persecuted the Jews, they invaded Afghanistan, they destabilized governments, they put missiles 90 miles from our shores, we never stopped talking to them," an answer that reflects her mastery of the facts but also reflects a willingness to talk to Russia that sounds more like Trump 2016 than Clinton 2016.

    Shortly after, she said, "But if you say, 'they're evil, we're good, [and] we're never dealing with them,' I think you give up a lot of the tools that you need to have in order to defeat them So I would like to talk to you [the enemy] because I want to know more about you. Because if I want to defeat you, I've got to know something more about you. I need different tools to use in my campaign against you. That's my take on it."

    A final bit of interest to the current campaign involves an articulation of phrases that Trump has accused Clinton of being reluctant to use. Discussing the need for a response to terrorism, Clinton said, "I think you can make the case that whether you call it 'Islamic terrorism' or 'Islamo-fascism,' whatever the label is we're going to give to this phenomenon, it's a threat. It's a global threat. To Europe, to Israel, to the United States Therefore we need a global response. It's a global threat and it needs a global response. That can be the, sort of, statement of principle So I think sometimes having the global vision is a help as long as you realize that underneath that global vision there's a lot of variety and differentiation that has to go on."

    It's not clear what she means by a global vision with variety and differentiation, but what's quite clear is that the then-senator, just five years after her state was the epicenter of the September 11 attacks, was comfortable deploying the phrase "Islamic terrorism" and the even more strident "Islamo-fascism," at least when meeting with the editorial board of a Jewish newspaper.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Putin Asks Is America Now A Banana Republic

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Hysteria has been whipped up in the United States about the influence of Russia over the U.S. presidential election," said Putin, calling it a ruse to cover up for the fact that the U.S. political elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control. ..."
    "... "It's much simpler to distract people with so-called Russian hackers, spies, and agents of influence. Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? The number of mythical, dreamt-up problems include the hysteria - I can't think of another word - that has broken out in the United States about the influence of Russia on the current elections for the US president. " ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Moments ago, Russian president started speaking at the final session of the Valdai International Discussion Club's 13th annual meeting in Sochi. More than 130 experts and political analysts from Russia and other countries are taking part in this year's three-day meeting, titled 'The Future in Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow'.

    While Putin's speech can be seen below, he has already had a handful of soundbites, most notably the following he just said in response to accusations that Russia could influence the US election:

    "Hysteria has been whipped up in the United States about the influence of Russia over the U.S. presidential election," said Putin, calling it a ruse to cover up for the fact that the U.S. political elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control.

    "It's much simpler to distract people with so-called Russian hackers, spies, and agents of influence. Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? The number of mythical, dreamt-up problems include the hysteria - I can't think of another word - that has broken out in the United States about the influence of Russia on the current elections for the US president. "

    He ended that phrase as follows: "What, is America a banana republic?!"

    Putin mocks claim that Russia is trying to influence the US elections: "What, is America now a banana republic? America is a great power."

    - Steve Rosenberg (@BBCSteveR) October 27, 2016

    And then, to emphasize his trolling, added the following: "correct me if I am wrong."

    He also said that "Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, it is ridiculous, foolish and unthinkable. I read your analytical materials prepared not only by those present but also by analysts in the US and Europe. However, it is just unthinkable, silly and unrealistic. In Europe alone, the combined population of NATO countries stands at 300 million, in the US the total population is, probably, 600 million, while in Russia - 146 million. It is just funny to talk about this."

    According to the Russian president, contradictions stemming from redistribution of political power are growing.

    "Regrettably, next to nothing has changed for the better in the past months. To be frank, nothing has changed. Contradictions stemming from redistribution of economic power and political influence are only growing," Putin said.

    Hence, according to the Russian leader, the burden of mutual mistrust is limiting possibilities to stand to real challenges and real threats facing the world community. "As a matter of fact, the entire globalization project has turned to be in a crisis and voices in Europe are speaking (and we know and hear it well) about the failure of the policy of mulicultiralism," Putin said, adding that this situation is a consequence of a wrong, hasty and somewhat arrogant choice made by Europe's political elites some twenty-five years ago.

    "Back then, at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, there was a chance not only to spur globalization processes but to give them a qualitatively new, harmonious and sustainable character," the Russian leader said.

    He drew attention to the fact that the countries that claimed to be the winners in the Cold War began to reshape the global political and economic order in their own interests.

    These states, in his words, embarked on a path of "globalization and security for themselves only, but not for all." But not all agreed on that.
    Some could not resist that any longer whereas others were not yet ready, so, no wonder the system of international relations has been feverish and the global economy is failing to recover from the crisis, Putin added.

    On globalization

    The Russian president stressed globalization should be for all but not only for the select few.

    "Obviously, the global community must focus on really topical problems facing the entire humankind, the solution of which will make the world a safer and more stable place and the system of international relations equal and fair," Putin said.

    He said such an approach will make it possible to "make the globalization for the select few turn into globalization for all."

    "I am confident that it is possible to overcome any challenges and threats only together," Putin stressed.

    On Global Propaganda

    The president said he regrets that Moscow does not possess such global propaganda techniques as Washington does.

    "I would like to have such a propaganda machine in Russia. But, unfortunately, I don't. We have no such global media as CNN, BBC and some others. We have no such opportunities so far," Putin said at a session of the Valdai Discussion Club.

    On the world economy

    The president expects the trend towards regionalization of the world economy will continue. It is absolutely evident that economic cooperation must be mutually advantageous and be based on general universal principles, so that each state could become a full-fledged participant in the global economic life," Putin said.

    "In the mid-term prospect, the tendency towards regionalization of the global economy will apparently continue, but regional trade agreements should complement, develop, and not substitute universal norms and rules," the president said.

    The global economy is unable to get out of the current systemic crisis and the political and economic principles continue to be reshuffled, Putin stressed.

    "The system of international relations remains feverish. The global economy is unable to get out of the systemic crisis. The principles and rules in politics and the economy continue to be reshuffled. Quite often dogmas that until recently had been regarded as fundamentally true are turned inside out," Putin said.

    These days, he said, whenever the powers that be find some standards or rules beneficial, they force everybody else to obey them. However, if at a certain point the very same standards begin to pose obstructions, they are at once sent into the dustbin as outdated and new rules are established.

    As an example of that strategy Putin mentioned the missile and bombing strikes against Belgrade and Iraq, then against Libya and Afghanistan. The operation began without a corresponding resolution by the UN Security Council. Some superpowers, the Russian leader said, in their attempts to change the strategic balance of force in their favor have torn down the international legal regime that prohibited the deployment of new missile defense systems. They have created and armed international terrorist groups, whose cruelty is now pushing millions of migrants out of the unsafe areas.

    Whole countries are being plunged into chaos. The principles of free trade are trampled on and sanctions are used to exert political pressures.

    "We can see the freedom of trade being sacrificed and so-called sanctions being used for exerting political pressures. In bypass of the World Trade Organizations attempts are being made to form closed economic alliances living by harsh rules and putting up firm barriers alliances where dome

    On NATO

    He said that NATO has outlived its usefullness as a structure and on the topic of the escalating proxy war in Syria, Putin had a simple comment: "Our agreements with the US on Syria did not work out."

    And some more headlines from his pragmatic remarks:

  • RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS RUSSIAN MILITARY THREAT BEING EXAGGERATED TO JUSTIFY MILITARY SPENDING
  • RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS CYBER ATTACKS OR OTHER TYPES OF INTERFERENCE INTO OTHER COUNTRIES' AFFAIRS UNACCEPTABLE
  • RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS DONALD TRUMP BEHAVES EXTRAVAGANTLY , BUT IT IS FOR A REASON
  • Follow Putin's speech live below.

  • headlines
  • Donald Trump
  • Iraq
  • National Debt
  • Global Economy
  • Afghanistan
  • World Trade
  • Rosenberg
  • Printer-friendly version
  • Oct 27, 2016 3:12 PM
  • 389
  • Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    bonin006 Oct 27, 2016 10:18 AM ,
    Yes.
    PrayingMantis bonin006 Oct 27, 2016 10:19 AM ,

    ... is the Pope Catholic? ...

    J S Bach PrayingMantis Oct 27, 2016 10:20 AM ,
    "Is America a Banana Republic?"

    No... it's a Matzo Ball Dumocrazy.

    Haus-Targaryen J S Bach Oct 27, 2016 10:22 AM ,
    We are. He is right.
    BaBaBouy Haus-Targaryen Oct 27, 2016 10:23 AM ,
    I said That yesterday ...

    Vlad is a ZH'er ???

    Ignatius BaBaBouy Oct 27, 2016 10:32 AM ,
    Who in their right and practical mind picks a fight with the US military?

    Nobody.

    About as likely as me walkin' into a bar and saying, "Hey Tyson, ya faggot , bring it."

    Doesn't happen.

    TeamDepends Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 10:52 AM ,
    Come you progressive men
    Tally me banana
    Ignatius TeamDepends Oct 27, 2016 10:59 AM ,
    I'm trying to understand the DVs to my post. I'm sure there are those who think they could take on Tyson, but with both ears intact at the end? My point was that anyone trying will at least know they've been in a fight, and one likely to better have been avoided.
    jcaz Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 11:05 AM ,
    I dig the Vlad- clearly he's been the voice of reason for awhile now....

    Clearly he doesn't suffer fools like Hillary- I can just see that conversation now.... She's babbling her nonsense, he's looking around like "Are you fucking kidding me?"

    Ignatius jcaz Oct 27, 2016 11:08 AM ,
    Yes, Putin is a sane voice of reason and action.
    crazzziecanuck Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 11:13 AM ,
    Pretty amazing, eh? Putin goes on call-in shows and sits down at events like these. Obama does sit down, but only in golf carts.
    jbvtme crazzziecanuck Oct 27, 2016 11:33 AM ,
    when hasn't it been a banana republic?
    FGH jbvtme Oct 27, 2016 12:38 PM ,
    Cue Banana Boat Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmVzQh9PhtM
    PrayingMantis FGH Oct 27, 2016 1:04 PM ,

    ... meanwhile in Italy, >>> "Artist creates colossal portrait of Trump to 'console' him in case of defeat ..."

    ..."A massive portrait of Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump adorned a vast cornfield near the Italian city of Verona, Wednesday.

    The work by the Italian land artist Dario Gambarin was ploughed on a 25,000 square metre (269,098 square feet) field and is accompanied by a sardonic 'Ciao' and 'Trump', which some have claimed is to signify Trump's defeat in recent polls."

    >>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=355_1477554222 ... but, of course, he'll be happy ... President Trump will prevail ...

    tc06rtw PrayingMantis Oct 27, 2016 2:08 PM ,

    I wondered why prez
    was called "Banana Boy."
    CuttingEdge FGH Oct 27, 2016 1:08 PM ,
    Who in their right and practical mind picks a fight with the US military?

    Err...how dare Russia move its borders towards our Nato forces?

    You will find history replete with countries that have not "picked a fight" with the US, and yet felt the full force of its military. Instead of rolling over before that option is required (Perkins).

    MANvsMACHINE FGH Oct 27, 2016 1:31 PM ,
    Maybe Vlad and Boris are one and the same. If not, I don't doubt that Vlad either reads ZH or has one of his minions do it.
    clipboard man jbvtme Oct 27, 2016 2:50 PM ,
    1912?
    Theta_Burn crazzziecanuck Oct 27, 2016 11:56 AM ,
    Even more amazing..Is the world view America is projecting. All of my family, on both sides, have represented all branches of the armed forces, with a Airforce full bird Colonel to boot. These were old school military, many were career, and believed in the position down to their soul.

    The point is, Where the fuck has honor and honesty gone to? Is there anyone currently in the military on this site? Morale has to been at all time lows, where is the outright mutiny? THESE are the people, and THESE are the reasons that lives are being risked/lost?!

    I had an uncle, and a grandfather that I'm shocked haven't resurrected over this stupidity..

    The Saint Theta_Burn Oct 27, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    "Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, it is ridiculous, foolish and unthinkable....."

    Tell that to Crimea and Ukraine, Vlad.

    rmopf2010 The Saint Oct 27, 2016 12:10 PM ,
    Fucktard Comunist

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

    eclectic syncretist rmopf2010 Oct 27, 2016 12:48 PM ,
    Motherfucker Putin went too far callin' a spade a spade on this one. Bitch needs a blanket party with DeNiro and the Ramones

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj7h9VPEL9E

    oncemore rmopf2010 Oct 27, 2016 1:07 PM ,
    The Saint fucktard should declare, when did Russia attack Crime and when did Russia attack Ukraine?

    Does the fucktard know, what ukraininan jew Chruscov did , while drunken, to Russia with Krim? How was it done? was it constitutional?

    Ukraine existed before just one day in 1917. Never ever before. The whole territory of Ukraine was either purchchased, consolidated or fought by Russian cars during the last 1000 years. 4x as much, as is the existence of the USA (should the fucktard come from USA). which other country kept its land mass for so long together?

    seems the fucktard is from the tribe, from the stupid abraham religion, originating in Middle East und not understand, what is it based on.

    BarkingCat oncemore Oct 27, 2016 4:41 PM ,
    Much of Ukraine used to belong to Poland.

    However they were Ukrainians, not Poles and wanted independence.

    They actually revolted and fought for it.

    They made an alliance with Russia to help them in this fight.

    Russia did help them to free themselves from Poland.

    The problem was that Russia simply took over and Ukraine never gained their independence.

    Their complaint against Poland was firstly religious as Poles were Catholic while Ukrainians Russian Orthodox. Secondly Polish aristocracy treated the Ukrainian nobles as second class citizens.

    Let's face it. Back in the 1600s it was the kings and princes and nobles that were responsible for these conflicts. The common people had no influence whatsoever.

    They deserve their own homeland, just like the Kurds do.

    What the region should strive for is friendly cooperation between themselves. There is no reason why Slavic nations cannot form their own union. There sure as hell is closer bond between a Russian and a Slovakian or a Pole and a Serbian than any of them and an Englishman.

    Mine Is Bigger The Saint Oct 27, 2016 12:21 PM ,
    Exactly when did Russia attack Crimea and Ukraine?
    MEFOBILLS The Saint Oct 27, 2016 1:12 PM ,
    "Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, it is ridiculous, foolish and unthinkable....."

    Tell that to Crimea and Ukraine, Vlad.

    SAINT,

    Do you live under a rock? Ukraine was a false flag brought into being by the (((usual suspects.))) Crimean's saw what was going on, and wanted no part of it.

    There was no armed incursion into Crimea by Russian army ground troops, to "take it over." Crimea is Russian speaking since Kathyrn the Great, and the people voted to rejoin the federation. They wanted nothing to do with zionazi parasites who had taken over Ukraine.

    Think about it. Does Crimea have a insurrection going on now, to then overthrow their overlords? No of course not, they want to be part of Russia.

    You need to pull you head out of your ass.

    DjangoCat MEFOBILLS Oct 27, 2016 3:05 PM ,
    Tell it like it is, Mefo
    Bavarian The Saint Oct 27, 2016 2:23 PM ,
    You're an idiot. Fools like yourself mindlessly listening to the media (and gov't) without a shred of evidence. Here's an idea, Sparky, take the effort of getting out of your lazy chair and actually do a little research. If Ukraine were attacked, don't you think the US would have video captured? Have you seen any, genius? Were you brain-dead in not knowing about the illegal State Dpet coup led by Nuland? Holy smokes. Get with the f'ing program, man. Wake up for god's sake. Idiots like yourself would probably vote "up" for a war if the US asked you. Based on zippo. Just like Iraq, just like Afghanistan, just like Libya, just like Syria. Sleepwalking morons like you is what makes this country doubly dangerous. Wake the F up!!!!!
    markitect Theta_Burn Oct 27, 2016 1:38 PM ,
    Was there ever honor in signing up to go kill people? In hindsight how many of America's military adventures were nothing more than neo-colonial expansions? Any free man born of his God given liberties should tell the military to fuck off, all wars are banker's wars ultimately and the humans who fight them considered expendable cannon fodder by the powers that be. The day the men of this planet realize there is no reason to war with one another on behalf of some evil rulers will be the day we finally advance as a species. Until then we will remain cattle, to be herded and slaughtered.
    Freddie Theta_Burn Oct 27, 2016 3:58 PM ,
    The US military has not backed the American people since before 1861. They have been puppets for bankster wars and the elites. The should have arrested Abe Lincoln and his bankster cronies.

    Every President who got America into a war or phony war should hve been arrested. Two real scumbags were LBJ and George Bush. LBJ was in on the JFK murder for Vietnam war as was bush. Bush and his Mormon See Eye Aye cronies Romney and the Hinckley klan see World Vision Hickley See Eye Aye front tried to kill Reagan for NeoCon Wars.

    Hopefully LBJ is burning in hell.

    BarkingCat crazzziecanuck Oct 27, 2016 2:47 PM ,
    Obama will also do sit downs in steamy bathhouses.
    flapdoodle crazzziecanuck Oct 27, 2016 3:12 PM ,
    Obama also sits down when he pees.
    williambanzai7 Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 12:21 PM ,
    More Ammo williambanzai7 Oct 27, 2016 12:50 PM ,
    +1000 Banzai
    BaBaBouy More Ammo Oct 27, 2016 1:36 PM ,
    Yoo, its even got Hellery's Bogus Smile ~~~
    nmewn williambanzai7 Oct 27, 2016 12:52 PM ,
    Reset switch sold separately ;-)
    Gold...Bitches Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 12:58 PM ,
    Yes, Putin is a sane voice of reason and action.


    Compared to many in the war machine of the USA that virtually always advocate for moar war/bombing and increasing destabilization, yes he is. If the US wants to get some credibility on this shit then stop supporting terrorists, oops "moderate rebels", and actually wipe these shitstains off the face of the planet. Don't use them as your cats paw to get rid of Assad. Have the balls to just take him out if you want to take him out and don't use terrorists for the regime change that you so clearly want but dont have the balls to just do directly.

    Déjŕ view jcaz Oct 27, 2016 11:18 AM ,
    Vlads recipe for 2017...speedy delivery sans drone...

    Plantain Vodka Flambé

    Stuck on Zero jcaz Oct 27, 2016 11:36 AM ,
    You shall henceforth refer to the President as the: "Top Banana."
    Hurricane Baby Stuck on Zero Oct 27, 2016 12:16 PM ,
    I'll stick with HNIC, thank you very much.

    When in polite company, I use "Ol' Purple Lips".

    monk27 jcaz Oct 27, 2016 12:09 PM ,
    If you have to ask about it, you already know the answer...
    brockhardman jcaz Oct 27, 2016 12:33 PM ,
    Speaking of bananas, check out the customer reviews for this dime piece...
    https://www.amazon.com/Hutzler-571-Banana-Slicer/dp/B0047E0EII
    CNONC Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 11:28 AM ,
    A lot of people here overestimate Russian military capabilities. They honestly believe that Russia could win a war with the US. They are wrong. But the US seems afflicted by the more dangerous misperception that the US could easily defeat the Russians. The Russians have to be practical in their dealings with the US, because they know war would destroy their country. The US establishment, deluded about its military prowess, is unafraid of war, believing it to be winnable at low cost. The US would ultimately win simply because its economy is vastly larger and capable of supporting a prolonged war effort. But make no mistake, a prolonged effort will be necessary, and the lethality will horrify and surprise everyone involved. The recent US experience of 15 years of continuous warfare with only a few thousand deaths has led too many to believe that war is a low cost political tool. These misconceptions are what will allow the American people to be lead into war. The sudden and unexpected deaths of hundreds or thousands of soldiers in the early days will fuel the anger necessary to sustain the popular support for the war.

    The down votes, I suspect, are from people who want to see Russia humiliate the US and destroy the hubris with which it interacts with the world. Perhaps the better analogy is of the US as Evander Holifield walking into a bar and picking a fight with an aging George Foreman. Holifield will win, but he'll get hit with some big ass punches that will hurt like hell.

    And, of course, nobody really wins that war, except for the few who will get rich off of it. But I'm not in that club.

    chunga CNONC Oct 27, 2016 11:33 AM ,
    What the maniacs that are calling the shots for Unkle Skam are afraid of is losing the petro-dollar and reserve currency status. Without that the fraudulent money-changing ponzi falls apart, and everything else with it.
    CNONC chunga Oct 27, 2016 11:59 AM ,
    Since the start of the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts, I have been trying to find the vital interests which are driving the US foreign policy, and preservation of the petro dollar system is the only thing which makes US policy seem rational. Either our leaders are irrational, or they see no way to hold the system together if the petro dollar recycling system ends. But, I don't think it can be preserved any longer, regardless of what they do.
    Urban Redneck CNONC Oct 27, 2016 1:14 PM ,
    The fundamental flaws of game theory are that 1) both players are rational, and 2) both players correctly understand each others' rationale.

    When you examine the latter, it becomes apparent that the former is false, far more than is comfortable to admit.

    Nation States are not people and their highest ambition is not Reason.

    Herd Redirectio... chunga Oct 27, 2016 11:59 AM ,
    Russia could win a 'defensive' war. And they could strip America of many allies. And they can speed up loss of the Dollar as world reserve currency.

    That is a pretty solid win, in my book, even if it isn't 'total annihiliation' or invasion of America itself (which would be stupid of Russia, unless there comes a time where the American people literally have to invite Russia in).

    chunga Herd Redirection Committee Oct 27, 2016 12:25 PM ,
    It's my unlearned opinion that USSA is very dangerous because it will have to go full retard in a fight against Russia. Any victories by Russia will embolden Murika's fiefdoms to just say fuck off. It's already happening fpr example Philipines.
    Ignatius CNONC Oct 27, 2016 11:34 AM ,
    Yes. I think ZHrs are reacting viscerally to US hubris rather than getting the point.
    the phantom CNONC Oct 27, 2016 11:38 AM ,
    The Russian military is defensive in nature, the US of offensive. The US has bases and interests all over the world, the Russians... not so much. So I think the framing of your thought process of how this would play out is probably wrong. The US and Russia would never go to war directly, as in lobbing missles at each ones respective homeland, as that would mean complete annihilation of both countries... but rather war by proxy. In that realm, the US has way more soft targets for the Russians to hit. For a country already 20 trillion is debt, where is the tipping point? I would suggest a lot closer than most people would think.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • next ›
  • last
  • [Oct 28, 2016] Why anti communism became such a popular theme for many USA-based opposition movements

    Oct 28, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Crooked Timber

    david 10.26.16 at 6:40 am 33 ( 33 )

    From the PHS:

    no one is demanding structural changes, such as the shuttling of Southern Democrats out of the Democratic Party.

    In such a setting of status quo politics, where most if not all government activity is rationalized in Cold War anti-communist terms, it is somewhat natural that discontented, super-patriotic groups would emerge through political channels and explain their ultra-conservatism as the best means of Victory over Communism

    Their political views are defined generally as the opposite of the supposed views of communists: complete individual freedom in the economic sphere, non-participation by the government in the machinery of production.

    But actually "anticommunism" becomes an umbrella by which to protest liberalism, internationalism, welfarism, the active civil rights and labor movements. It is to the disgrace of the United States that such a movement should become a prominent kind of public participation in the modern world - but, ironically, it is somewhat to the interests of the United States that such a movement should be a public constituency pointed toward realignment of the political parties, demanding a conservative Republican Party in the South and an exclusion of the "leftist" elements of the national GOP.

    Well, let no-one say that the SDS did not get exactly what they called for in this paragraph.

    [Oct 28, 2016] An Identity-Politicized Election and World Series Lakefront Liberals Can Love

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org

    Identity politics provides cover for, and diversion from, class rule and from the deeper structures of class, race, gender, empire, and eco-cide that haunt American and global life today – structures that place children of liberal white North Side Chicago professionals in posh 40 th -story apartments overlooking scenic Lake Michigan while consigning children of felony-branded Black custodians and fast food workers to cramped apartments in crime-ridden South Side neighborhoods where nearly half the kids are growing up at less than half the federal government's notoriously inadequate poverty level. Most of the Black kids in deeply impoverished and hyper-segregated neighborhoods like Woodlawn and Englewood (South Side) or North Lawndale and Garfield Park (West Side) can forget not only about going to a World Series game but even about watching one on television. Their parents don't have cable and the Fox Sports 1 channel. There's few if any local restaurants and taverns with big-screen televisions in safe walking distance from their homes. Major League Baseball ticket prices being what they are, few of the South Side kids have even seen the White Sox – Chicago's South Side American League team, whose ballpark lacks the affluent white and gentrified surroundings of Wrigley Field. (Thanks in no small part to the urban social geography of race and class in Chicago, the White Sox winning the World Series in 2005 – thei

    ... ... ...

    There is, yes, I know, the problem of Democrats in the White House functioning to stifle social movements and especially peace activism (the antiwar movement has still yet to recover from the Obama experience). But there's more good news here about a Hillary presidency. Not all Democratic presidents are equally good at shutting progressive activism down. As the likely Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein (for whom I took five minutes to early vote in a "contested state" three weeks ago) noted in an interview with me last April (when the White Sox still held first place in their division), Hillary Clinton will have considerably less capacity to deceive and bamboozle progressive and young workers and citizens than Barack Obama enjoyed in 2007-08 . "Obama," Stein noted, was fairly new on the scene. Hillary," by contrast, "has been a warmonger who never found a war she didn't love forever!" Hillary's corporatist track record – ably documented in Doug Henwood's book My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency (her imperial track record receives equally impressive treatment in Diana Johnstone's volume Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton ) – is also long and transparently bad. All that and Mrs. Clinton's remarkable lacks of charisma and trustworthiness could be useful for left activism and politics in coming years.

    For what it's worth, the first and most urgent place to restore such activism and politics is in the area where Barack Obama has been most deadening: foreign policy, also known (when conducted by the U.S.) as imperialism. When it comes to prospects for World War III, it is by no means clear that the saber-rattling, regime-changing, NATO-expanding, and Russia-baiting Hillary Clinton is the "lesser evil" compared to the preposterous Trump. That's no small matter. During a friend's birthday party the night the Cubs clinched the National League pennant, I asked fellow celebrants and inebriates if they were prepared for the fundamental realignment of the space-time continuum that was coming when the North Siders won the league championship. That was a joke, of course, but there's nothing funny about the heightened chances of a real downward existential adjustment resulting from war between nuclear superpowers when the "lying neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton gets into office and insists on recklessly imposing a so-called no-fly zone over Russia-allied Syria.

    ... ... ...

    Paul Street's latest book is They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy (Paradigm, 2014)

    [Oct 28, 2016] The Moral Blindness of Identity Politics The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... In two party politics, generally political parties are mediating institutions, which moderate the claims of the interest groups composing them. However, when it switches to immutable characteristics, political parties become the vehicles of extremism, as each party tries to the "outbid" the other party in claims for dominance for its members. Further, each victory by the rival party spurs fears and polarization by the losers. Generally, you see de-stablization and violence in its wake. Its a good way to destroy a democracy. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Slate's Jamelle Bouie analyzes the excellent "Black Jeopardy" skit in which Tom Hanks played "Doug," a Trump supporter who, along with his two black opponents, discovers that they have a lot in common. Bouie:

    Then comes the final punchline, "Lives That Matter." Obviously, the answer to the question is "black." But Doug has "a lot to say about this." Which suggests that he doesn't think the answer is that simple. Perhaps he thinks "all lives matter," or that "blue lives matter," the phrasing used by those who defend the status quo of policing and criminal justice. Either way, this puts him in direct conflict with the black people he's befriended. As viewers, we know that "Black Lives Matter" is a movement against police violence, for the essential safety and security of black Americans. It's a demand for fair and equal treatment as citizens, as opposed to a pervasive assumption of criminality.

    Thompson, Zamata, and Jones might see a lot to like in Doug, but if he can't sign on to the fact that black Americans face unique challenges and dangers, then that's the end of the game. Tucked into this six-minute sketch is a subtle and sophisticated analysis of American politics. It's not that working blacks and working whites are unable to see the things they have in common; it's that the material interests of the former-freedom from unfair scrutiny, unfair detention, and unjust killings-are in direct tension with the identity politics of the latter (as represented in the sketch by the Trump hat). And in fact, if Hanks' character is a Trump supporter, then all the personal goodwill in the world doesn't change the fact that his political preferences are a direct threat to the lives and livelihoods of his new friends, a fact they recognize.

    What Bouie doesn't seem to get is that black identity politics and the preferences of those who espouse them are a direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites - and even, at times, their lives ( hello, Brian Ogle! ).

    Consider this insanity from Michigan State University, pointed out by a reader this morning. It's the Facebook page of Which Side Are You On? , radical student organization whose stated purpose is:

    Michigan State University has chosen to remain silent on the issue of racial injustice and police brutality. We demand that the administration release a statement in support of the Movement for Black Lives; and, in doing so, affirms the value of the lives of its students, alumni, and future Spartans of color while recognizing the alienation and oppression that they face on campus. In the absence of open support, MSU is taking the side of the oppressor.

    Got that? Either 100 percent agree with them, or you are a racist oppressor. It's fanatical, and it's an example of bullying. But as we have seen over the past year, year and a half, Black Lives Matter and related identity politics movements (Which Side Are You On? says it is not affiliated with BLM) are by no means only about police brutality. If they were, this wouldn't be a hard call. No decent person of any race supports police brutality. To use Bouie's terms, the material interests of non-progressive white people are often in direct tension with the identity politics of many blacks and their progressive non-black allies. This is true beyond racial identity politics. It's true of LGBT identity politics also. But progressives can't see that, because to them, what they do is not identity politics; it's just politics.

    You cannot practice and extol identity politics for groups favored by progressives without implicitly legitimizing identity politics for groups disfavored by progressives.

    Good luck getting anyone on the left to recognize the fallacy of special pleading when it's right in front of their eyes. Posted in Politics , Pop Culture , Race . Tagged Black Jeopardy , Black Lives Matter , identity politics , Jamelle Bouie , progressives .

    KD , says: October 26, 2016 at 6:55 am
    To paraphrase FiveString:

    Some of my best friends are supporters of police brutality.

    In all seriousness, if one's identity preference is for dominance by your group, then obviously, a member of your group dominating the other group isn't going to bother you. Nor, on the other side, will you be troubled if your group shoots perceived agents of the other side. But note, the justification for racial primacy or racial supremacy is always rhetorically made by asserting claims or the threat of racial primacy or racial supremacy by the Other. Further, racial tensions are always caused by the behavior of the Other, and your groups actions are always "self defense". Of course, your actions are always portrayed as "aggression" by the Other, and lead to ratcheting up of anti-social behavior, but hey.

    I sort of assume that is not how most whites feel, but the reality is whether it is or not, if you turn the political question from legal equality for blacks to legal primacy or dominance, then you will push whites into taking the adversary position.

    In two party politics, generally political parties are mediating institutions, which moderate the claims of the interest groups composing them. However, when it switches to immutable characteristics, political parties become the vehicles of extremism, as each party tries to the "outbid" the other party in claims for dominance for its members. Further, each victory by the rival party spurs fears and polarization by the losers. Generally, you see de-stablization and violence in its wake. Its a good way to destroy a democracy.

    I love "Black Lives Matter" as a slogan, because it is ambiguous enough to be either a claim for dominance or primacy. Obviously, whether a BLM will support the assertion "All Lives Matter" is a litmus test for whether they are asserting racial supremacy or racial primacy. But plausible deniability is baked in.

    a commenter , says: October 26, 2016 at 8:18 am
    I don't mind identity politics, by which I assume you mean people appealing to voters to vote for their pet interest because it will help people with a particular set of characteristics or "identity". This is just people looking out for and lobbying the voting public on their interests, which is what democracy is all about.

    What I don't like is the stunning illogic and flawed reasoning behind some of the appeals, such as the "you're either with BLM or against black people" arguments, the policing of miniscule variations in speech (eg pronouns) as signs of haaaaaaaate, and the labeling of all white people as "white supremacists" unless they self-flagellate and take personal blame for all the police shootings. And, I think these people know that the reasoning is flawed. It's just that they also know that if you repeat it long and loud enough and have enough leaders behind you willing to fire or otherwise silence anyone who points out the flaws in your arguments, then you can convince everyone that it all makes sense.

    I think what is being lost is really the underlying logic of morality itself. Kids are being taught that it doesn't matter what your intention is, it doesn't matter what your reasoning is, it doesn't even matter whether an outcome is predictable from your action. What matters is how the people in identity groups feel about your action. It's consequentialism run amok.

    It's as if someone took Catholic reasoning on morality (grave matter, full knowledge, deliberate consent, don't do wrong things in order to achieve good ends, principle of double effect), reversed it, and then decided that this upside-down reasoning will be our new publicly mandated morality.

    It's fascinating to watch but I feel a bit frightened for my children, because they will have to deal with this new and deeply flawed public morality.

    M. F. Bonner , says: October 26, 2016 at 9:29 am
    "Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come as a shock. Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people fought and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that progress towards equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy."

    For the most part, probably a fair observation. And it only took a couple of hundred years (or more, depending on where you chose to say "white identity politics" started and when (or if) you chose to say it ended).

    Low long have black identity politics had any influence?

    How long does it take, and at what "price" to atone for the past? Haven't we been grappling with that since Lincoln's second inaugural address?

    Will black identity politics be around longer than that? And when will white identity politics end? Not to mention all of the other identity politics in society. But, identity politics always takes at least two sides. You can never have identity politics without "the other." Black identity politics wouldn't last without white identity politics, and vice versa. So too for feminism identity politics, religious identity politics…and…so…on… Each has its counterpart on the other side.

    In a perfect world, identity politics would not exist, but in the real world, they have existed for as long as politics.

    Not that I don't see some hope. By and large, the younger generation gives me every hope that, some day, we might get over this, but probably not until a few score more generational replacements happen. But that too, might be a source of reassurance. A few score generations isn't really that long a time, after all.

    JWJ , says: October 26, 2016 at 9:50 am
    Jesse wrote "62% of white people have either a "great deal" or a "quite a lot" of confidence in the police – ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/192701/confidence-police-recovers-last-year-low.aspx ) – I'm not saying all 62% of those people are OK with police brutality, but they seem not to be that bothered by it."

    How in the blue blazes do you possibly do you go from folks having confidence in the police to them ALSO NOT being bothered by police brutality? How are those two things linked in your mind? Can you not possibly fathom that another human being could have confidence in an institution (or a group) while ALSO condemning the bad actors in that institution (or group)? Or in your mind do a few bad actors condemn an entire group?

    Here is your "logic" re-written in another way. Does it help you see my point?
    61% of non-white people have either "very little" or a "no" of confidence in the police. I'm not saying all 61% of those people are OK with attacking or murdering the police, but they seem not to be that bothered by it.

    Now possibly I am the only who finds your thought process disturbing and wonders how many other folks make the same leap of absurdity.

    DennisR , says: October 26, 2016 at 9:57 am
    In reply the religious liberty comments, I think almost everyone who supports BLM would say that it is about giving African Americans basic human rights in the United States. You might not agree with that, but that's how things stand from their point of view. To many liberals, religious liberty seems like special pleading, even though to you it seems like the advancement of a universal principal.
    GSW , says: October 26, 2016 at 11:03 am
    "All politics is identity politics!" @Ferny

    "Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another." Karl Marx

    "All that is not race in this world is trash… All historical events… are only the expression of the race's instinct of self-preservation." Adolf Hitler

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." Groucho Marx

    The Wet One , says: October 26, 2016 at 11:54 am
    M_Young,

    So we basically agree that people are the same all over. Which is to say terrible, awful, nasty beasts. Good.

    For the second time (possibly the third, I know we agreed it was Miller time once upon a time) we agree.

    I guess that's progress.

    🙂

    KD , says: October 26, 2016 at 12:40 pm
    I do not think that all politics is "identity" politics.

    The Populists going after the gold standard, or the New Dealers attempting to deal with the problems of labor and capital, where not primarily about identity politics.

    Certainly, there was lots of identity politics on the state level, whether in the South, or in states like NY, in the battle between upstate WASPs and ethnic political machines in NYC.

    Today we are increasingly nationalizing identity politics. Moreover, we are mainstreaming a slogan based on racial primacy /supremacy, e.g. "Black Lives Matter". You are seeing increasing attacks on traditional American symbols and calls for their replacement with "diverse" symbols. This is not just identity politics, it is ethnopolitics.

    The reality is that the political symbol is in the heart of the people a promise that they'll be treated preferentially. I think that is part of the racial tension post-Obama. We elected an African-American, who appointed a lot of African-Americans, but on the street, he hasn't done $#!+ to help Blacks.

    Now, if I thought that whites would just lay down and not resist racial subjugation and discrimination, I wouldn't be concerned. But I doubt whites are seriously going to go gracefully into that good night as the bottom rung of a racial caste system.

    "Virtue signaling" is very different from "virtue"–you can't tell a white nationalist from a white liberal based on their housing or dating preferences.

    If whites collectively grow to FEAR other groups politically, say due to demographic displacement and claims by minorities for primacy/supremacy, they will change teams overnight. All this anti-racism rhetoric presupposes white noblese oblige and security.

    Any serious movement from equality to some claim of primacy or supremacy is likely to trigger a counter-movement toward a claim of primacy or supremacy by the other group. Moreover, once you polarize racially, the political process encourages extremism, not moderation.

    One reason not to worship the U.S. Constitution is the limited understanding of factionalism by Madison, who accounted for interest group factions (which can break up or wax and wane) but failed to consider identity group factions based on immutable characteristics. It is these identity-based factions which frequently destroy attempts to create liberal democracy the world over.

    The reality is that representative democracy is only an effective system in ethnically homogeneous societies with a strong ethic of individualism (rooted in Protestant ancestors). While Korea and Japan get along politically, their political systems are "different" from a Western perspective, mostly due to lower levels of individualism.

    China is probably a better model for most countries than liberal democracy, because multiethnic societies generally degenerate into authoritarianism anyway.

    This is why, given multiculturalism and secularism, the likelihood of a serious institutional transformation in America seems increasingly a certain bet.

    Rick , says: October 26, 2016 at 1:56 pm
    Here's the brutal truth. We created Black Lives Matter.

    We did it with 400 years of brutal policies, physical violence, economic apartheid and ill conceived do gooder nonsense that could not even begin to counter the former impacts.

    In the 1950's and 1960's you had one branch of the Federal Government - the Federal Housing Authority– both building low income housing in the decaying neighborhoods that were the result of FHA red-lining polices that were was causing the decay - total madness. The black community has yet to recover from that by the way - trillions in lost equity in today's dollars.

    We are incredibly lucky to JUST have Black Lives Matter. It's a miracle that the black community hasn't amassed in force and burned large swaths of this country to the ground peppering us with automatic weapons fire along the way for good measure.

    It's a testament to their fortitude, generosity and patience as a people. That they have formed this group is inevitable.

    To lump BLM in with the white coddled SJW ignores their unique history and context. BLM has no obligation whatsoever to be rational, or contrite, or forgiving, or magnanimous.

    What has that ever gotten them in this country? Here's a hint, f%$k all. That's what it's gotten them.

    [NFR: Well, BLM can behave however it wants to, but don't be surprised if being irrational and bullying gets you nowhere, except on campus run by noodle-spined administrators. - RD]

    KD , says: October 26, 2016 at 2:18 pm
    On the other hand, the notion of color-blind standards is a joke.

    If you belong to a group that has an average IQ of 100 in economic competition with a group that has an average IQ of 85, and you believe that hiring/firing be based on merit, you are promoting a standard that benefits your group over the other guys.

    Likewise, if you are from the second group, you are arguing for proportional representation in the work force (and especially the elite), and you are promoting a standard that benefits your group over the other guys.

    If you look at Anglo-Saxons v. Blacks, Anglo-Saxons always want meritocracy.

    However, if you look at elite admissions in the early 20th Century, when Anglo-Saxons were competing against Jews, they implemented a quota system that benefited Anglo-Saxons. They also generated a lot of Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories blaming their failures on Jewish nepotism, rather than say Jews just being smarter.

    The problem for America is someone will decide on a standard, and that decision will privilege one group over another. Always.

    The more groups, the more divisive and polarizing each decision becomes, until democracy stops being capable of functioning, e.g. making decisions, even bad ones.

    You can have "racial equality", but not "racial equality" in accordance with a definition that all groups will ever agree upon. Further, many persons in all groups will secretly desire supremacy no matter the rhetoric, so will work to undermine and limit nominal "equality" every political chance they get.

    Mary , says: October 26, 2016 at 2:54 pm
    " A lot of people fought and died to end white supremacy"

    And what has it done? American social capital has been destroyed, our society is slowly turning into an atomized hell, and our politics will increasingly resemble tribal warfare. The fiction that we could make race irrelevant needs to die, group differences are real and ethnic tribalism is hardwired into humans by our DNA. Our founders chose to limit citizenship to whites of good character for a reason, just as Japan seeks to remain Japanese for a reason. Diversity + close proximity = war

    VikingLs , says: October 26, 2016 at 3:09 pm
    All politics is not identity politics. America has a rich tradition in positions of relative privilege taking on the political cause of disenfranchised groups.

    Given how many well off white people, including men, are Democrats, I really don't see why progressives would even make that argument.

    Pepi , says: October 26, 2016 at 4:07 pm
    This article showed me how many people in the US live a completely different life than I do. Not only did it change my understanding of race relations and prompt a great deal more study but it made me more aware, generally, of how little I know of how the other 99.9% live.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/09/03/how-st-louis-county-missouri-profits-from-poverty/?utm_term=.80f628c84134

    Jeff R. , says: October 26, 2016 at 4:49 pm
    Lots of hypocrites in this comment thread commenting that "identity politics is just politics, period." Okay, white nationalism it is, then! Time to bring David Duke back out from whatever rock he's been under and put him at the top of the ticket. Maybe Louis Farrakhan can run for something, too. After all, why would anti-semitism ever go out of fashion, anyway! Isnt' that just identity politics which is just regular politics, like marginal tax cuts and subsidies for electric cars?

    Twits.

    Liberty&Virtue , says: October 26, 2016 at 4:51 pm
    A few comments:

    -I don't think it's that difficult to understand the anger, stridency, and even vitriol coming from SJW/BLM supporters. With BLM, it's a mostly righteous indignation over a long history of abusive police tactics and laws, exploded by multiple recent captured instances of police abuse.

    As for LGBTQ-issues, I think many advocates–especially those in the vanguard–view themselves as participants in the Second Civil Rights Movement–that the laws and cultural attitudes they are fighting against are analogous to Jim Crow and racism. There is some degree of truth to this.

    The danger comes with the disturbingly common–or at least effective–practice of refusing to grant their opponents *any* goodwill. Like racists, opponents of full legal and cultural inclusion–if not acceptance–are deemed to be totally devoid of any redeeming features, and thus ought to be opposed relentlessly and by any means necessary. The same goes for those who aren't indulgent or repentant enough. We can partly thank the poisonous legacy of Marcuse's "tolerance" for this. We can also thank old-fashioned lust for power–especially to take down "the elite" or to take revenge–and the intoxicating feeling of being on the cutting edge of righteousness.

    How do you deal with this? As KD suggested above, if one group sees itself as against others and acts accordingly, then those others will fall into the "tribal struggle" mindset as well. If extremist social justice advocates (SJAs) define themselves in opposition to other attitudes, values, etc–and more importantly, if they refuse to engage in respectful dialogue and are not willing to compromise–then those who endorse those attitudes, values, etc will inevitably see themselves as being defined through opposition to SJAs. Thus the poison of identity politics–it exacerbates, rather than seeks to contain Us vs Them antagonism.

    The only ways I see out of it are direct, full-throated defenses of SJA's targets–such as last year's "Coddling of the American Mind" and U Chicago's defense of free expression and respectful challenging debate. Ignoring it–as many seem wont to do by dismissals of "oh, they're just stupid college kids, they'll grow out of it"–isn't viable because though many will, some will pursue positions of power and influence. Besides, the less challenged, the more the extreme views will be seen as respectable if not correct.

    -The debate over which groups are or are not practicing identity politics: In (academic) political theory, "identity politics" narrowly refers to a style of politics based on the self-organization of *oppressed* groups and pursuit of policy changes to their advantage. Identity comes to the forefront of members of oppressed groups' consciousness because it is that defining characteristic that puts them in an inferior position.

    The way some have described it here suggests it's more like practicing politics in a way meant to provide benefits for oneself–but that's just self-interest. A better broad view of identity politics would focus on the deliberate and open advocacy of benefits for a particular group one is a member of, when that group is defined by a specific and fundamental trait relevant to one's sense of self. In other words, if the phrase "As a (adjective) (personal-characteristic noun), I believe/support/oppose X" is central to your approach to politics, you're practicing identity politics.

    Axxr , says: October 26, 2016 at 5:28 pm
    JWJ, you are missing the entire point of identity politics.

    The morality inheres in the identity, not in the behavior.

    If brutality occurs, it is not a behavior, it is an identity ("Police"). If you are confident in "Police" you are thus confident in "brutality" because the behavior is not separable from the identity. And for similar reasons, your confidence in brutes means that you, too are a brute (of course this goes double if you are white, since all whites are brutes, for similar reasons).

    Identity politics is the refusal to separate identity from acts. Whiteness *is* slaveowning, blackness *is* victimhood, and so on, regardless of whether one has ever owned or been a slave; these things are irrelevant; they inhere in the identity.

    Loudon is a Fool , says: October 26, 2016 at 6:08 pm
    @ M F Bonner

    How long does it take, and at what "price" to atone for the past? Haven't we been grappling with that since Lincoln's second inaugural address?

    But here's the problem. It's not like the whites who are supporting Trump got fat, rich and happy during their period of "white identity." Whatever privilege attaches to whiteness it hasn't exactly trickled down (even in a Trumped-up fashion) to Trump voters. No doubt Mr. Bonner is either upper middle class or high status (academic, journalist or government employee). But low status whites see the world a bit differently. This is the real tragedy (or, if you're a fat cat, the beauty) of the situation. The lower classes will always fight among themselves for scraps, the high status (but often low pay) elites would scold the various parties for their various thoughtcrimes and the fat cats will high five and do the truffle shuffle, bouncing their greased bellies against each other. Thanks for doing your part.

    M_Young , says: October 26, 2016 at 8:23 pm
    "Now, you can try to make an argument that they are wrong, that they *are* getting equal treatment from law enforcement and that this is all in their heads. You can try, but in all fairness, the anecdotal and empirical evidence seem not to be on your side."

    No, when correcting for crime rates, there is no racial discrepancy in police killings. In fact, blacks are underrepresented and whites overrepresent, given the underlying proportion of criminality in the communities.

    "Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress,

    Who, exactly, is making this argument? Not BLM and not the mainstream liberal political establishment. "

    Uh, Hilary "whites must listen" Clinton. And lots more.

    M_Young , says: October 26, 2016 at 8:28 pm
    "However, if you look at elite admissions in the early 20th Century, when Anglo-Saxons were competing against Jews, they implemented a quota system that benefited Anglo-Saxons. "

    Why shouldn't the people who, you know, built the universities remain in charge of them? No one asks Brandeis to become a WASP bastion.

    M_Young , says: October 26, 2016 at 8:30 pm
    "In the 1950's and 1960's you had one branch of the Federal Government - the Federal Housing Authority– both building low income housing in the decaying neighborhoods that were the result of FHA red-lining polices that were was causing the decay - total madness. The black community has yet to recover from that by the way - trillions in lost equity in today's dollars"

    LOL, someone's been drinking the TNC Kool-aid (purple, I imagine). It causes people to reverse causality.

    The neighborhoods were redlined because they were poor risk. They were poor risk because of their demographic composition.

    M_Young , says: October 26, 2016 at 8:32 pm
    "It's a miracle that the black community hasn't amassed in force and burned large swaths of this country to the ground peppering us with automatic weapons fire along the way for good measure."

    Uh, they have. See Detroit.

    VikingLS , says: October 26, 2016 at 8:39 pm
    There's not one word in the BLM guiding principles page about the police. Not one word. If you go to their home pager and click on "what we believe" this is what you get.

    http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/

    Black Lives Matter may be talking about police brutality right now, but by their own words, it's not their primary cause.

    Caroline walker , says: October 26, 2016 at 11:25 pm
    Criminality matters.
    Esti , says: October 27, 2016 at 7:17 am
    If we would look into how much blacks have been killed by the police last year, the figure will be about few hundred at maximum. If we would look into the same category for whites, the result will be few thouthands, minimum. If we look into the statistics abut the main cause of death for the same period, it will be black on black homicide for blacks and car accident for whites. Also, blacks are about 13% of the American population or so, but make at least as much homicides as whites do. And most homicides are comitted within offenders race group.

    If anything, whites become targets of poluce brutality much more often. And yet, BLM are out there preching, as if police is hunting them for no reason. That's everything you need to know about BLM and their so called care about black lives.

    That's the main problems with such groups. They don't really want to improve the lot of the groups they are supposedly fighting for. They are just exaggerating the problem and imitating fighting for something important, because they'll get money and recognition for it. Without real risk to boot.

    John Smith , says: October 27, 2016 at 8:57 am
    The BLM radical movement is built on a lie. Blacks are 12% of the population yet commit 53% of murders and 70% of gun crime. In this era of cell phones, know the number of black people who have dubious interactions with police, thanks to the scandalous behavior of the news media. We can be sure police brutality is not an epidemic because the examples offered as evidence are,at best , dubious. Each example given, eg Ferguson Missouri or Trayvon Martin, are at best arguably due to the bad behavior by the black person. The real epidemic is black crime, black fatherlessness, and too many people indulging this "I'm a victim" culture. Shame on you Mr. Dreher for delineation this into a black and white cipher in this article. The entire country suffers from this epidemic of black crime and the false narrative that black people are mistreated by society. This is just another example of the madness on the political left the radical extreme hateful positions that are exposed on that side it seems solely.
    Jesse , says: October 25, 2016 at 3:53 pm
    "What Bouie doesn't seem to get is that black identity politics and the preferences of those who espouse them are a direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites - and even, at times, their lives (hello, Brian Ogle!)."

    OK, livelihoods and interests I can understand even if there's the fact that if you're an average white dude, an international student, a student with a soccer scholarship, an out of state student, or a a legacy admission is just as likely to knock you out of your preferred school as a non-white student is.

    However, can you point me to the radio host, politician, TV commentator, or even popular Twitter celebrity who says the people who killed Brian Ogle should go free?

    Because on the other hand, there's plenty of politicians, TV commentators, writers, radio hosts, etc. who think the police are doing a great job and that police brutality is just a liberal myth.

    62% of white people have either a "great deal" or a "quite a lot" of confidence in the police – ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/192701/confidence-police-recovers-last-year-low.aspx ) – I'm not saying all 62% of those people are OK with police brutality, but they seem not to be that bothered by it.

    But in general, the whole paragraph is why for the most part, black Americans will never trust white conservatives – you seem to imply that black Americans want carte blanche to kill white people while in reality, black people just want to be treated as well as a confirmed mass murderer was treated by police – to be fed some Burger King like Dylan Roof perhaps.

    Selvar , says: October 25, 2016 at 3:53 pm
    A moderate, peaceful, and democratic form of white identity politics that was widely representative of the white population would be acceptable as far as I am concerned. The problem is that white nationalists can't go two seconds without demonizing Jews, denying the holocaust, trying to justify the Confederacy, attacking the basic assumptions of liberal democracy, and admiring various obscure mid-20th century fascist/pseudo-fascist far right intellectuals. In that sense, white nationalists are the equivalent of the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam, as opposed to the NAACP or BLM. That does not mean that BLM and the NAACP are not harmful to the interests of whites, but they do not advocate a separate black ethnostate, antisemitism, or ethnic cleansing of whites.
    Andrew C , says: October 25, 2016 at 3:55 pm
    Just watched the SNL skit. Best thing they have done all election season. It's important we understand the motivations behind Trump's rise instead of pushing them under the surface where they fester.
    DennisR , says: October 25, 2016 at 3:57 pm
    I hate the term "identity politics." Identity politics are politics. Straight white people, even liberals (hello Bernie bros), often try to exclude themselves from the definition by casting their own thoughts as neutral while casting everyone with a marked "identity" as practicing identity politics. People are always speaking from a point of view, and in politics they are usually advocating to change things that negatively impact a group they are associated with.

    How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity politics?

    I agree that certain groups, especially at the university level, take into a totalitarian direction, but casting some activism as "identity politics" while excluding other forms of special pleading makes no sense to me.

    Nathan , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:02 pm
    I agree that *all* identity politics are a moral poison, white, black, Christian, Muslim, or anything else. It is a sad fact of human nature that we are tribal and care more for people like ourselves.

    This reminds me of the parable of the Good Samaritan. If we are to follow the parable, then we are to treat others of different religions and different countries exactly as if they our neighbors, meaning as if they are in our tribe. This is quite the opposite of identity politics.

    The Wet One , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:03 pm
    Rod wrote that:

    "freedom from unfair scrutiny, unfair detention, and unjust killings" for blacks…. are a direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites.

    I've moved things around a bit but in essence this is correct.

    If I've got this wrong Rod, kindly let me know how.

    Huh.

    I didn't realize that oppressing blacks was such a huge industry for white people.

    What exactly is going on in the U.S. exactly?

    Also, just for the record, this is a thing that happened: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wiggins-mississippi-high-school-noose-incident-town-state-image/

    It seems somehow relevant in the context of this discussion.

    I'm amazed. Truly and utterly amazed. The demand of blacks to be treated like citizens deserving the respect and protection of the law and agents of the law like everyone else is "a direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites."

    I mean, I know that white supremacy is a thing in the U.S., but is it really that ingrained and tenacious? Really?

    Perhaps you misspoke.

    Siarlys Jenkins , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:24 pm
    form of white identity politics that was widely representative of the white population

    That's an oxymoron. No form of "white identity" politics would be or could be "widely representative of the white population."

    A lot of the black rhetoric we're getting lately is belated recognition that "black people" don't really have enduring common interests that bind them all, and the defensive necessity to provide safety for each other in the face of vicious and pervasive persecution just isn't really strong enough to maintain a tenuous identity or unity much longer. As Jesse B. Semple remarked when his "white boss" asked "What does The Negro want now?" … there are fifty eleven different kinds of Negroes in the USA. That's even more true of "whites," always has been, and the hue an cry that a bit of affirmative action is tantamount to creating a massive common race interest is just nonsense.

    How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity politics?

    Because religion is a search for truth, and religious liberty affirms that there are lots of different searches going on, which are neither binding upon nonbelievers, nor to be suppressed by the skeptical or powerful?

    collin , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:39 pm
    It is nice to see America can laugh about things this year!

    While we can be complain about SJWs and BLMs, doesn't the conservative movement need the same exact lecture here? What was the speech that made Trump popular with Republicans? It was "Mexicans are rapist" speech that originally made 35 – 40% of the party support him the summer of 2015. (And Donald's speeches to African-Americans is not the way to win their votes either!)

    I almost think the best thing for the Republican Party this year is for Trump to lose Texas so the Party learns to better respect Hispanic-Americans. (Unlikely to happen though and Texas is not turning blue long term.)

    Jennifer , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:45 pm
    Jesse: "However, can you point me to the radio host, politician, TV commentator, or even popular Twitter celebrity who says the people who killed Brian Ogle should go free?

    Because on the other hand, there's plenty of politicians, TV commentators, writers, radio hosts, etc. who think the police are doing a great job and that police brutality is just a liberal myth….

    But in general, the whole paragraph is why for the most part, black Americans will never trust white conservatives – you seem to imply that black Americans want carte blanche to kill white people while in reality, black people just want to be treated as well as a confirmed mass murderer was treated by police – to be fed some Burger King like Dylan Roof perhaps."

    +1,000.

    I'd add that there are commentators, politicians, writers, etc. who seem to think that police brutality is justified because of crime rates, as though the Constitution, not to mention just basic fairness and protection against needless violence, applies only to the law-abiding.

    M_Young , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:50 pm
    "That does not mean that BLM and the NAACP are not harmful to the interests of whites, but they do not advocate a separate black ethnostate, "

    If they did, they'd be working for the interests of whites.

    [NFR: You longtime readers know that I reject M_Young's white identity politics. I want to take this opportunity to remind you all that when you cheer on left-wing, racial and sexual identity politics, you implicitly cheer on his. - RD]

    KD , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:53 pm
    There is a literature on the collective behavior of groups in cooperation/competition models. Groups (even artificial ones created by randomly assigning college undergraduates) will compete to maximize their relative power against other groups, even if it leads to collectively a lower standard of living (in other words, they would rather be relatively richer in a poorer world than than relatively poorer in a richer world).

    In interest group politics, say labor v. capital, you have groups which, while fighting each other for power, are permeable. People move from one group or the other, and even if they don't, it is possible to move.

    Identity groups are based on putatively immutable characteristics. In identity politics, identity groups struggle against each other for dominance. Claims can be of three varieties: equality ("All Lives Matter"), primacy ("Black Lives Matter"), and dominance ("Only Black Lives Matter").

    When political parties are defined on identity grounds, elections become censuses rather than "free" elections. You vote for the party that represents your group, because you are afraid of dominance by the other group. Further, you justify claims for primacy or dominance based on fears about the relative power of the other group.

    Political systems that polarize on identity end up in a census election where the winning coalition of groups dominates the other groups, and the group in the electoral minority has no possibility of exercising power. Because elections are censuses, and you don't have the numbers. What typically happens is that minorities turn to violence, and often racial unrest results in military rule.

    It is pretty clear that multiculturalism is precipitating the resurgence of identity politics, and if we believe the polls, that trend is about to accelerate. Further, ethnic polarization of one political party always triggers ethnic polarization in other parties, even over elite objections, as it becomes necessary to appeal to voters.

    This is why some version the Alt-Right represents the future of Conservative politics, even if the Conservative Establishment doesn't like the Alt-Right. It is structural, and you see the same type of political dynamic in Nigeria, Sri Lanka, post-Independence India, as well as places like the Ottoman Empire or Germany.

    What is fueling the Alt-Right is the policies around immigration and non-assimilation/multiculturalism, combined with demands for racial primacy and racial dominance by minorities (e.g. safe spaces where others are forcibly excluded).

    It could be halted today, but instead we are doubling down on the root causes of ethnic anxieties. Further, I don't know what would be "Left-Wing" about pushing whites into a white ethnic voting block intended to subordinate opponents, given their majority status for a few decades, and even as a plurality, they would have the largest plurality.

    Much as many people desire "racial equality", when one group argues for "primacy", politically, you are never going to get "equality" unless a rival group claims primacy for itself. This is basic bargaining theory. Hence, the inevitability of white with egalitarian preferences going over toward white nationalism. Unfortunately, the most probable result will be greater polarization, not compromise.

    P.S. Yes, I understand "racial primacy" for certain racial groups means "racial equality", just as "war is peace".

    Jennifer , says: October 25, 2016 at 4:56 pm
    Dennis R:

    "I hate the term "identity politics." Identity politics are politics. Straight white people, even liberals (hello Bernie bros), often try to exclude themselves from the definition by casting their own thoughts as neutral while casting everyone with a marked "identity" as practicing identity politics. People are always speaking from a point of view, and in politics they are usually advocating to change things that negatively impact a group they are associated with.

    How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity politics?"

    Exactly.

    The phrase "identity politics" is meant to render illegitimate the concerns of the person who is accused of practicing them. Thus, people don't have to grapple with the actual issue and see whether or not there's a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed. Rod spends a lot of time here complaining about the failings of Black Lives Matter, and very little acknowledging that they have a very legitimate issue that they are pushing to solve.

    KD , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:04 pm
    Religious liberty is not strictly identity politics, because religious affiliations in American society are voluntary. However, religious preferences are pretty inelastic, so you have approximate features of identity politics.

    However, LGBT ideology claims "sexual orientation" is an immutable characteristic. So LGBT is identity politics.

    In some Islamic societies, apostacy is punished by death, so Islam is pretty immutable. So in a strict Muslim society seeking to crack down on alcohol sales, the crack down would be an exercise in identity politics, even if alcohol vendors weren't an identity group.

    Giuseppe Scalas , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:15 pm
    DennisR

    How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity politics?

    Religious liberty is a universal freedom and it applies to all, including atheists and agnostics. (and, contrary to the narrative, being itself a civic right, it doesn't impinge on other "civil rights")
    Identity politics, on the other hand, is the fostering of tribalism. It's a degrading thing: it considers humans as dogs that have to bite at each other to get a greater share of the kibble bowl.

    KD , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:16 pm
    If you look at politics post-independence in Trinidad and Guyana, or Sri Lanka, you see the emergence of ethnic identity politics converting Communist and Socialist parties, and their leaders, from universalist political programs to ethnic-based programs, depending on what ethnic groups they derived more political support from.

    Although, I suppose some people think that because America is majority white, the same kind of political trends won't play out here. I think human nature is human nature, and identity politics is identity politics, and the result is never good for someone.

    FiveString , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:19 pm
    "No decent person of any race supports police brutality"

    I've known FAR too many "decent" middle and upper-middle class burb-dwellers who are perfectly comfortable with police brutality. They believe that citizens get the policing they deserve. Rodney King? "If you saw the entire tape, not just the excerpt on the evening news, you'd understand why the officers acted that way". Black Lives Matter? "All they have to do is follow the law and not disrespect the police". Unarmed, non-threatening, law-abiding minority killed by police? "There must be more to the story".

    loolaa , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:29 pm
    Lifting from (mooching off of) DennisR's comment, I am also interested in RD's response to this question:

    "How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity politics?"

    Joe the Plutocrat , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:39 pm
    moral blindness? all politics is identity politics. the fact that white, Christian, property-owning, heterosexual, males looked out for their interests for the first 200+ years of the plutocracy was identity politics in spades. the push-back from BLM, NOW, the LGBT community, and even Trump supporters are as well. I had a very good History professor in the 80's. he taught politics is merely a group or individual looking out for its vested, economic interests. the Karl Marx vs. Adam Smith stuff (ideology) is merely a demographic extension of this. what you call identity politics is more about the relationship between wealth and power, than left or right.
    EliteCommInc , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:39 pm
    It is certainly a peculiar advance that in a country founded on identity color politics those who have benefited and manipulated color politics to their advantage in every way --

    are finding logical flaws in the very system they have created for themselves.

    On its face - should raise serious doubts about the veracity of the complaint.

    Andy Toft , says: October 25, 2016 at 5:56 pm
    "No decent person of any race supports police brutality." Explain what you mean by "decent" person. This is a term similar to the term "elites" be bandied about in this election without anyone saying who they include in that group. All I get in response to my inquiries are quotations from dictionaries. So, please explain what is meant by "decent person."

    [NFR: If you believe it's okay for the police to brutalize people because of their race, or to brutalize anyone, you are not a decent person, in my view. - RD]

    MJR , says: October 25, 2016 at 6:08 pm
    This bit is much better than everything else SNL has commented on the 2016 election. I still think SNL caters way too much to African American chauvinism though.
    Todd carpenter , says: October 25, 2016 at 6:21 pm
    How much traction would BLM have if it were not funded by George Soros?, or any other identity group if they had not been funded by billionaires with an interest in destabilizing the American polity??
    KD , says: October 25, 2016 at 6:22 pm
    BTW, although it is not necessarily identity politics, the political principle that groups maximize their relative power over say the welfare of the totality also explains the problem of elites. All elites want to maximize their relative power over other groups, and so it is really competition (e.g. fear of revolution or being conquered) that keeps them "honest", otherwise they will grind the common man down to subsidence if they have the chance.
    KD , says: October 25, 2016 at 6:23 pm
    should read "subsistence"
    Ferny , says: October 25, 2016 at 6:41 pm
    All of American history includes the strong presence of white identity politics.

    Stop pretending otherwise. What else explains racialized chattel slavery and Jim crow and redlining and so forth?

    [NFR: Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come as a shock. Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people fought and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that progress towards equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy. - RD]

    Sands , says: October 25, 2016 at 6:47 pm
    …to be fed some Burger King like Dylan Roof perhaps.

    You're either ignorant of the context of that situation, or you're deliberately taking it out of context. Roof was arrested by a tiny police department and held until the FBI showed up. He was arrested after 10pm and had not eaten for a while. The police department didn't even have the facilities to prepare a meal. Instead of automatically being suspicious, maybe you should consider that the police were making sure to not do something that could harm the prosecution in such an important case.

    But that's how it's done, huh? Exaggerate things to the extreme, and then wonder why white people don't understand.

    Dain , says: October 25, 2016 at 6:59 pm
    "Black Lives Matter and related identity politics movements (Which Side Are You On? says it is not affiliated with BLM) are by no means only about police brutality."

    Yep. It's also about Israeli "genocide" of Palestinians, if you haven't heard: http://bit.ly/2eJeXDZ

    I remember libertarians complaining in the aughts that it was almost impossible to partake in antiwar demonstrations with the left because it was never about MERELY war. Environmental degradation, environmental racism (yes, that's a thing), and all manner of other unrelated items were seen as a mandatory part of what naive libertarians thought was the goal of simply extracting the US military from the Middle East.

    Ideology is a helluva thing. It's an all-encompassing worldview that looks bizarre to people who aren't already steeped in one.

    Dain , says: October 25, 2016 at 7:01 pm
    "I hate the term 'identity politics'…"

    Then take it up with the campus left, because they're the ones who coined it to distinguish it from regular ol' politics.

    Ferny , says: October 25, 2016 at 7:36 pm
    [NFR: Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come as a shock. Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people fought and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that progress towards equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy. - RD]

    Let me explain something to you too! I'd ask you to sit down, but you're probably already in your fainting couch!

    We have, sort of, in some parts of the country, in some ways moved away from white identity politics! Just because white identity politics doesn't look like lynching doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    All politics is identity politics! Why wouldn't it be? We create visions of the good and we view it through our prism of identity. The fact that in our nation the axis about race doesn't change that it does exist.

    And no one is asking for 'blacks' to be treated as some chosen people – at even the most exaggerated, most 'blacks' are asking for some acknowledgement that racial damage was done and it's going to take racially conscious solutions (and some people like reparations!).

    But also, here's the reality – the damage to large groups of people in this country was explicitly because of who they were. Why would the solutions necessarily be universal?

    If we both could have had 5, but then I was allowed to unfairly steal 4 from you, it wouldn't then be fair if my solution to the problem was to give both of us 5 again.

    K. W. Jeter , says: October 25, 2016 at 7:37 pm
    Per Selvar:

    The problem is that white nationalists can't go two seconds without demonizing Jews

    The much-reviled John Derbyshire seems to be able to go for quite a stretch without "demonizing" Jews:

    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Religion/jewsandi.html

    Quote: Taken all in all, though, I am proud to call myself a philosemite, and even at low points like the Spectator affair still, at the very least, an anti-antisemite. I recall the numberless kindnesses I have received at the hands of Jews, friendships I treasure and lessons I have learnt. I cherish those recollections.

    Patrick Spens , says: October 25, 2016 at 7:42 pm
    @Sandy

    The point isn't that police did anything wrong with Dylan Roof.

    Adamant , says: October 25, 2016 at 8:03 pm
    "We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics."

    The word 'steadily' is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting here. It seems the distance from full on Jim Crow to 'young bucks eating T bone steaks' is vanishingly small in historical time. If we could quantify and graph the prevalence of white identity politics, would that graph be pointing up or down?

    The comment made above is entirely correct: identity politics is just ordinary politics. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.

    Sam M , says: October 25, 2016 at 8:57 pm
    "Thompson, Zamata, and Jones might see a lot to like in Doug, but if he can't sign on to the fact that black Americans face unique challenges and dangers,"

    There's the BS right there. Doug might well admit that and accept it and still think that BLM is full of crap. That's my position. Bouie doesn't get to own the conversation like that and neither does BLM.

    Just like the NRA doesn't get to claim that anyone who fails to bow to its agenda and policies hates safety.

    Just because I disagree with the Sierra Clubs position on zero-cut goals on public land do they get to say I hate the earth?

    I'm not really asking for his permission.

    Sam M , says: October 25, 2016 at 9:00 pm
    JeremyK:

    "So the desire to be treated fairly is framed as identity politics?"

    So black people want to be killed more often by police?

    There's at least one famous study famously made famous in the NYT, by a really great black economist from Harvard, indicating that black people are killed LESS often in interactions with cops.

    Yep. That data is limited and incomplete. But so is the data you prefer.

    GSW , says: October 25, 2016 at 9:04 pm
    "We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people fought and died to end white supremacy… RD"

    In fact, the idea of a biologically-based white supremacy never held the political or social field to itself during the last two centuries in either Europe or America.

    This was because it was contested by important currents of both Christian and liberal thought on human equality. These ideas of Christian and liberal equality were powerful enough to sustain the successful 60 year international campaign of the world's leading 19th century Empire. the British, to abolish slavery and were as well a significant factor behind the U.S. civil war.

    Any serious reading of the history of the late 19th and early 20th century reveals how ethnic and "racial" conflicts were created and manipulated by unscrupulous politicians of that time and how these "identities" contributed to the radical destabilization and destruction of domestic and international peace.

    The 20th century Nazis represented the apogee of "white" supremacy and their European and American opponents in World War II repudiated with extreme force their odious race "science."

    Contemporary identity politics seeks to reassert and re-legitimize a supposed biological basis for political conflict. The historical evidence is clear that this is not a story that can in any way end well.

    Anna Duarte , says: October 25, 2016 at 9:34 pm
    Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people..

    Chosen people that are still more likely to be the victims of police brutality. I'm pretty sure they'd rather pass on being chosen and get on with being treated like everyone else.

    Joseph , says: October 25, 2016 at 9:40 pm
    You act as if "identity politics" only happens on the left. Small-o "orthodox Christians" are a tribe who practice "identity politics." All politics is local, Tip O'Neill taught us. A corollary of that is "all politics are tribal."

    I (and other liberals) get dismissed as being nonsensical for wanting to be respected on the basis of our identity, but the minute a Christian baker has to do business equally with a gay person, it's tyranny.

    What is the Benedict Option, if not Christian identity politics put into maximum effect?

    The thing that infuriates me (and people like me) is the assumption that we are the "other" and the view expressed here is the "default." As I see it, it's our tribe against yours. Your right to lead is no more evident than mine. We fight for the right to lead. Someone wins, and someone loses.

    I realize this a conservative blog, but try approaching the other side as moral equals, instead of with an a priori assumption that the left is tribal, and the right has the voice of G-d Himself as their trumpeter of all that is good and true.

    Rich , says: October 25, 2016 at 10:00 pm
    In any given society, the dominant majority defines the norm – in every area of life and culture – by using themselves as the yardstick. They are normal, everybody different (and their different stuff) is abnormal.

    This is all perfectly natural. It's why there's pretty much no such thing as "white music" or "white food" in America – whatever was traditional to whites was just called music and food. If it comes from white culture, it doesn't get a special name, and it doesn't get widely recognized as something specific to white people. It's just the norm.

    This is why white identity politics isn't usually called white identity politics, yet any politics arising out of a nonwhite experience is defined as abnormal and gets a special name.

    Seen from any perspective other than the traditionally dominant one, it's rather clear that the driving force on the American right has long been white identity politics. The Republican Party didn't get over 90% white by accident. Some people may have the privilege of calling their own politics the norm and assigning a name to the rest, but it's all identity politics whether they want to see it or not.

    Siarlys Jenkins , says: October 25, 2016 at 10:22 pm
    Then comes the final punchline, "Lives That Matter." Obviously, the answer to the question is "black." But Doug has "a lot to say about this."

    The beautiful thing about the skit is that it left all this hanging… it didn't try to write the final outcome, but left a range of variables and a variety of possible outcomes to the viewer's imagination.

    The problem with over-analysis is that it erases this well done ending, by trying to pin down exactly what the outcome is or was or would have been or should have been. Of course, each analysis erases many possibilities, which is a form of vandalism.

    In a small way, this reminds me of when I heard a woman state during Bible study that she likes the New International Version because it makes everything clear. This cemented my late in life preference for the King James Version, because by trying to make "everything clear," many nuances and layers of meaning are erased. The KJV is sufficiently poetic, and sufficiently archaic, that sometimes there may be five or ten or twenty layers of meaning there, and perhaps that is exactly what God intended.

    (Dain, the term "identity politics" was "coined" as much by Nigel Farage, who openly espouses it, as it was by "the campus left.")

    Environmental degradation, environmental racism (yes, that's a thing), and all manner of other unrelated items were seen as a mandatory part…

    This is a mislocation coined by the campus left… more precisely, by 1970s would-be Marxists, who latched onto the fuzzy notion that Marxism explains everything and that culture is all a "superstructure" resting on an economic "base." They then promulgated, spontaneously, not with much thought, that whatever your pet issue is, Marxism will deliver the desired result. And the Maoist slogan "unite the many to defeat the few" was best served by including everyone's favorite issue in one big happy family of agendas. There was even a short-lived "Lavender and Red League." It doesn't work, Marx and Mao may both be turning in their graves over such petty horse manure, Lenin would certainly call it an infantile disorder, but nobody every accused the post-1970 would-be leftists of professionalism, or profound strategic thinking, or even ability to articulate a coherent working class demand.

    Perichoresis , says: October 25, 2016 at 10:28 pm
    Joe the Plutocrat: "moral blindness? all politics is identity politics."

    No, it can and should be a contest of universal principles and ideas. The Marxian idea that such is just "false consciousness" is bunk and commits the genetic fallacy.

    VikingLS , says: October 25, 2016 at 10:41 pm
    If you haven't been to the Black Lives Matter webpage and read their Guiding Principals, you should not be expressing an opinion about them.

    http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/

    This isn't just about the very real issue of police brutality, it's a trojan horse.

    [NFR: That's right. - RD]

    kgasmart , says: October 25, 2016 at 11:26 pm
    I want to take this opportunity to remind you all that when you cheer on left-wing, racial and sexual identity politics, you implicitly cheer on his.

    Yeppers. Because if "people of color" can have their "safe spaces," off limits to white people, then white people are utterly and completely justified in seeking "white spaces," off limits to people of color.

    The assertion is that since people of color have historically been oppressed, they now have additional rights to request accommodations that would never be granted to their historic oppressors.

    Nope. Don't work that way. What's good for the goose is indeed good for the gander – no matter how many "microagressions' the geese detect.

    razib khan , says: October 25, 2016 at 11:41 pm
    why does this post seem racist to me? 😉
    Console , says: October 26, 2016 at 1:03 am
    "We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics."

    Right… because both political parties in America are just so diverse. Oh wait, one's the white people party and one is everyone else. In short, the everyone else party isn't the divisive one…

    [NFR: It is in the nature of progressive protest movements that they portray all things as having gotten no better, because if things *have* improved, it's harder for them to hold on to power and raise money. That's what's happening here. Anybody who doesn't think white supremacy and the identity politics that supported it is vastly weaker today than it was in 1960 is either a fool, or willfully blind. - RD]

    Nelson , says: October 26, 2016 at 1:21 am
    The original sin of conservatism is not giving "the other" equal rights and privileges. Whether it is blacks getting shot by police, the war on drugs (that disproportionately affects the poor), jim crow like immigration laws, not letting gays marry, not giving equal funding to poor school districts or any of the other many inequalities conservatives want to perpetuate.

    Nobody is "the chosen people" just because they gain some kind of right or privilege white middle class straight people already have.

    M_Young , says: October 26, 2016 at 3:07 am
    @WetOne

    We can trade racial aggressions - you'll run out long before I do.

    http://nypost.com/2016/10/25/crazed-teens-viciously-attack-college-kids-for-no-apparent-reason/

    M_Young , says: October 26, 2016 at 3:10 am
    "All of American history includes the strong presence of white identity politics."

    That's a feature, not a bug. Cf. Brazil.

    M_Young , says: October 26, 2016 at 3:24 am
    @Sands

    Thanks for the clarification. I had just assumed that the Narrative - the cops being buddy buddy with Roof and getting him some BK in the middle of the day on the way back to Charleston - was correct. I should have known better.

    As an interesting comparison, look at the treatment of one Trenton Trenton (I kid you not) Lovell, killer of LA Sheriff Deputy Steve Owen. Shot himself, he was patched up by paramedics, sent to the hospital where he was treated at taxpayer expense, and when fit enough for trial, arraigned.

    No complaints about that.

    Jay , says: October 26, 2016 at 5:17 am
    Good luck getting anyone on the left to recognize the fallacy of special pleading when it's right in front of their eyes.

    This special pleading, I do not think it means what you think it does. BLM is not asking to that African Americans be treated in a different fashion than anyone else. Rather, their argument is that they are disproportionately burdened by the manner in which police interact with them and that they are asking that they be just be treated the same as the majority of the country. A basic argument for fairness and equality, in other words.

    Now, you can try to make an argument that they are wrong, that they *are* getting equal treatment from law enforcement and that this is all in their heads. You can try, but in all fairness, the anecdotal and empirical evidence seem not to be on your side.

    Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress,

    Who, exactly, is making this argument? Not BLM and not the mainstream liberal political establishment. I'm sorry, but I appear to have missed the mainstreaming of black nationalism.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Putin Asks Is America Now A Banana Republic

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Hysteria has been whipped up in the United States about the influence of Russia over the U.S. presidential election," said Putin, calling it a ruse to cover up for the fact that the U.S. political elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control. ..."
    "... "It's much simpler to distract people with so-called Russian hackers, spies, and agents of influence. Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? The number of mythical, dreamt-up problems include the hysteria - I can't think of another word - that has broken out in the United States about the influence of Russia on the current elections for the US president. " ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Moments ago, Russian president started speaking at the final session of the Valdai International Discussion Club's 13th annual meeting in Sochi. More than 130 experts and political analysts from Russia and other countries are taking part in this year's three-day meeting, titled 'The Future in Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow'.

    While Putin's speech can be seen below, he has already had a handful of soundbites, most notably the following he just said in response to accusations that Russia could influence the US election:

    "Hysteria has been whipped up in the United States about the influence of Russia over the U.S. presidential election," said Putin, calling it a ruse to cover up for the fact that the U.S. political elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control.

    "It's much simpler to distract people with so-called Russian hackers, spies, and agents of influence. Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? The number of mythical, dreamt-up problems include the hysteria - I can't think of another word - that has broken out in the United States about the influence of Russia on the current elections for the US president. "

    He ended that phrase as follows: "What, is America a banana republic?!"

    Putin mocks claim that Russia is trying to influence the US elections: "What, is America now a banana republic? America is a great power."

    - Steve Rosenberg (@BBCSteveR) October 27, 2016

    And then, to emphasize his trolling, added the following: "correct me if I am wrong."

    He also said that "Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, it is ridiculous, foolish and unthinkable. I read your analytical materials prepared not only by those present but also by analysts in the US and Europe. However, it is just unthinkable, silly and unrealistic. In Europe alone, the combined population of NATO countries stands at 300 million, in the US the total population is, probably, 600 million, while in Russia - 146 million. It is just funny to talk about this."

    According to the Russian president, contradictions stemming from redistribution of political power are growing.

    "Regrettably, next to nothing has changed for the better in the past months. To be frank, nothing has changed. Contradictions stemming from redistribution of economic power and political influence are only growing," Putin said.

    Hence, according to the Russian leader, the burden of mutual mistrust is limiting possibilities to stand to real challenges and real threats facing the world community. "As a matter of fact, the entire globalization project has turned to be in a crisis and voices in Europe are speaking (and we know and hear it well) about the failure of the policy of mulicultiralism," Putin said, adding that this situation is a consequence of a wrong, hasty and somewhat arrogant choice made by Europe's political elites some twenty-five years ago.

    "Back then, at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, there was a chance not only to spur globalization processes but to give them a qualitatively new, harmonious and sustainable character," the Russian leader said.

    He drew attention to the fact that the countries that claimed to be the winners in the Cold War began to reshape the global political and economic order in their own interests.

    These states, in his words, embarked on a path of "globalization and security for themselves only, but not for all." But not all agreed on that.
    Some could not resist that any longer whereas others were not yet ready, so, no wonder the system of international relations has been feverish and the global economy is failing to recover from the crisis, Putin added.

    On globalization

    The Russian president stressed globalization should be for all but not only for the select few.

    "Obviously, the global community must focus on really topical problems facing the entire humankind, the solution of which will make the world a safer and more stable place and the system of international relations equal and fair," Putin said.

    He said such an approach will make it possible to "make the globalization for the select few turn into globalization for all."

    "I am confident that it is possible to overcome any challenges and threats only together," Putin stressed.

    On Global Propaganda

    The president said he regrets that Moscow does not possess such global propaganda techniques as Washington does.

    "I would like to have such a propaganda machine in Russia. But, unfortunately, I don't. We have no such global media as CNN, BBC and some others. We have no such opportunities so far," Putin said at a session of the Valdai Discussion Club.

    On the world economy

    The president expects the trend towards regionalization of the world economy will continue. It is absolutely evident that economic cooperation must be mutually advantageous and be based on general universal principles, so that each state could become a full-fledged participant in the global economic life," Putin said.

    "In the mid-term prospect, the tendency towards regionalization of the global economy will apparently continue, but regional trade agreements should complement, develop, and not substitute universal norms and rules," the president said.

    The global economy is unable to get out of the current systemic crisis and the political and economic principles continue to be reshuffled, Putin stressed.

    "The system of international relations remains feverish. The global economy is unable to get out of the systemic crisis. The principles and rules in politics and the economy continue to be reshuffled. Quite often dogmas that until recently had been regarded as fundamentally true are turned inside out," Putin said.

    These days, he said, whenever the powers that be find some standards or rules beneficial, they force everybody else to obey them. However, if at a certain point the very same standards begin to pose obstructions, they are at once sent into the dustbin as outdated and new rules are established.

    As an example of that strategy Putin mentioned the missile and bombing strikes against Belgrade and Iraq, then against Libya and Afghanistan. The operation began without a corresponding resolution by the UN Security Council. Some superpowers, the Russian leader said, in their attempts to change the strategic balance of force in their favor have torn down the international legal regime that prohibited the deployment of new missile defense systems. They have created and armed international terrorist groups, whose cruelty is now pushing millions of migrants out of the unsafe areas.

    Whole countries are being plunged into chaos. The principles of free trade are trampled on and sanctions are used to exert political pressures.

    "We can see the freedom of trade being sacrificed and so-called sanctions being used for exerting political pressures. In bypass of the World Trade Organizations attempts are being made to form closed economic alliances living by harsh rules and putting up firm barriers alliances where dome

    On NATO

    He said that NATO has outlived its usefullness as a structure and on the topic of the escalating proxy war in Syria, Putin had a simple comment: "Our agreements with the US on Syria did not work out."

    And some more headlines from his pragmatic remarks:

  • RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS RUSSIAN MILITARY THREAT BEING EXAGGERATED TO JUSTIFY MILITARY SPENDING
  • RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS CYBER ATTACKS OR OTHER TYPES OF INTERFERENCE INTO OTHER COUNTRIES' AFFAIRS UNACCEPTABLE
  • RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS DONALD TRUMP BEHAVES EXTRAVAGANTLY , BUT IT IS FOR A REASON
  • Follow Putin's speech live below.

  • headlines
  • Donald Trump
  • Iraq
  • National Debt
  • Global Economy
  • Afghanistan
  • World Trade
  • Rosenberg
  • Printer-friendly version
  • Oct 27, 2016 3:12 PM
  • 389
  • Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    bonin006 Oct 27, 2016 10:18 AM ,
    Yes.
    PrayingMantis bonin006 Oct 27, 2016 10:19 AM ,

    ... is the Pope Catholic? ...

    J S Bach PrayingMantis Oct 27, 2016 10:20 AM ,
    "Is America a Banana Republic?"

    No... it's a Matzo Ball Dumocrazy.

    Haus-Targaryen J S Bach Oct 27, 2016 10:22 AM ,
    We are. He is right.
    BaBaBouy Haus-Targaryen Oct 27, 2016 10:23 AM ,
    I said That yesterday ...

    Vlad is a ZH'er ???

    Ignatius BaBaBouy Oct 27, 2016 10:32 AM ,
    Who in their right and practical mind picks a fight with the US military?

    Nobody.

    About as likely as me walkin' into a bar and saying, "Hey Tyson, ya faggot , bring it."

    Doesn't happen.

    TeamDepends Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 10:52 AM ,
    Come you progressive men
    Tally me banana
    Ignatius TeamDepends Oct 27, 2016 10:59 AM ,
    I'm trying to understand the DVs to my post. I'm sure there are those who think they could take on Tyson, but with both ears intact at the end? My point was that anyone trying will at least know they've been in a fight, and one likely to better have been avoided.
    jcaz Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 11:05 AM ,
    I dig the Vlad- clearly he's been the voice of reason for awhile now....

    Clearly he doesn't suffer fools like Hillary- I can just see that conversation now.... She's babbling her nonsense, he's looking around like "Are you fucking kidding me?"

    Ignatius jcaz Oct 27, 2016 11:08 AM ,
    Yes, Putin is a sane voice of reason and action.
    crazzziecanuck Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 11:13 AM ,
    Pretty amazing, eh? Putin goes on call-in shows and sits down at events like these. Obama does sit down, but only in golf carts.
    jbvtme crazzziecanuck Oct 27, 2016 11:33 AM ,
    when hasn't it been a banana republic?
    FGH jbvtme Oct 27, 2016 12:38 PM ,
    Cue Banana Boat Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmVzQh9PhtM
    PrayingMantis FGH Oct 27, 2016 1:04 PM ,

    ... meanwhile in Italy, >>> "Artist creates colossal portrait of Trump to 'console' him in case of defeat ..."

    ..."A massive portrait of Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump adorned a vast cornfield near the Italian city of Verona, Wednesday.

    The work by the Italian land artist Dario Gambarin was ploughed on a 25,000 square metre (269,098 square feet) field and is accompanied by a sardonic 'Ciao' and 'Trump', which some have claimed is to signify Trump's defeat in recent polls."

    >>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=355_1477554222 ... but, of course, he'll be happy ... President Trump will prevail ...

    tc06rtw PrayingMantis Oct 27, 2016 2:08 PM ,

    I wondered why prez
    was called "Banana Boy."
    CuttingEdge FGH Oct 27, 2016 1:08 PM ,
    Who in their right and practical mind picks a fight with the US military?

    Err...how dare Russia move its borders towards our Nato forces?

    You will find history replete with countries that have not "picked a fight" with the US, and yet felt the full force of its military. Instead of rolling over before that option is required (Perkins).

    MANvsMACHINE FGH Oct 27, 2016 1:31 PM ,
    Maybe Vlad and Boris are one and the same. If not, I don't doubt that Vlad either reads ZH or has one of his minions do it.
    clipboard man jbvtme Oct 27, 2016 2:50 PM ,
    1912?
    Theta_Burn crazzziecanuck Oct 27, 2016 11:56 AM ,
    Even more amazing..Is the world view America is projecting. All of my family, on both sides, have represented all branches of the armed forces, with a Airforce full bird Colonel to boot. These were old school military, many were career, and believed in the position down to their soul.

    The point is, Where the fuck has honor and honesty gone to? Is there anyone currently in the military on this site? Morale has to been at all time lows, where is the outright mutiny? THESE are the people, and THESE are the reasons that lives are being risked/lost?!

    I had an uncle, and a grandfather that I'm shocked haven't resurrected over this stupidity..

    The Saint Theta_Burn Oct 27, 2016 12:03 PM ,
    "Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, it is ridiculous, foolish and unthinkable....."

    Tell that to Crimea and Ukraine, Vlad.

    rmopf2010 The Saint Oct 27, 2016 12:10 PM ,
    Fucktard Comunist

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

    eclectic syncretist rmopf2010 Oct 27, 2016 12:48 PM ,
    Motherfucker Putin went too far callin' a spade a spade on this one. Bitch needs a blanket party with DeNiro and the Ramones

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj7h9VPEL9E

    oncemore rmopf2010 Oct 27, 2016 1:07 PM ,
    The Saint fucktard should declare, when did Russia attack Crime and when did Russia attack Ukraine?

    Does the fucktard know, what ukraininan jew Chruscov did , while drunken, to Russia with Krim? How was it done? was it constitutional?

    Ukraine existed before just one day in 1917. Never ever before. The whole territory of Ukraine was either purchchased, consolidated or fought by Russian cars during the last 1000 years. 4x as much, as is the existence of the USA (should the fucktard come from USA). which other country kept its land mass for so long together?

    seems the fucktard is from the tribe, from the stupid abraham religion, originating in Middle East und not understand, what is it based on.

    BarkingCat oncemore Oct 27, 2016 4:41 PM ,
    Much of Ukraine used to belong to Poland.

    However they were Ukrainians, not Poles and wanted independence.

    They actually revolted and fought for it.

    They made an alliance with Russia to help them in this fight.

    Russia did help them to free themselves from Poland.

    The problem was that Russia simply took over and Ukraine never gained their independence.

    Their complaint against Poland was firstly religious as Poles were Catholic while Ukrainians Russian Orthodox. Secondly Polish aristocracy treated the Ukrainian nobles as second class citizens.

    Let's face it. Back in the 1600s it was the kings and princes and nobles that were responsible for these conflicts. The common people had no influence whatsoever.

    They deserve their own homeland, just like the Kurds do.

    What the region should strive for is friendly cooperation between themselves. There is no reason why Slavic nations cannot form their own union. There sure as hell is closer bond between a Russian and a Slovakian or a Pole and a Serbian than any of them and an Englishman.

    Mine Is Bigger The Saint Oct 27, 2016 12:21 PM ,
    Exactly when did Russia attack Crimea and Ukraine?
    MEFOBILLS The Saint Oct 27, 2016 1:12 PM ,
    "Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, it is ridiculous, foolish and unthinkable....."

    Tell that to Crimea and Ukraine, Vlad.

    SAINT,

    Do you live under a rock? Ukraine was a false flag brought into being by the (((usual suspects.))) Crimean's saw what was going on, and wanted no part of it.

    There was no armed incursion into Crimea by Russian army ground troops, to "take it over." Crimea is Russian speaking since Kathyrn the Great, and the people voted to rejoin the federation. They wanted nothing to do with zionazi parasites who had taken over Ukraine.

    Think about it. Does Crimea have a insurrection going on now, to then overthrow their overlords? No of course not, they want to be part of Russia.

    You need to pull you head out of your ass.

    DjangoCat MEFOBILLS Oct 27, 2016 3:05 PM ,
    Tell it like it is, Mefo
    Bavarian The Saint Oct 27, 2016 2:23 PM ,
    You're an idiot. Fools like yourself mindlessly listening to the media (and gov't) without a shred of evidence. Here's an idea, Sparky, take the effort of getting out of your lazy chair and actually do a little research. If Ukraine were attacked, don't you think the US would have video captured? Have you seen any, genius? Were you brain-dead in not knowing about the illegal State Dpet coup led by Nuland? Holy smokes. Get with the f'ing program, man. Wake up for god's sake. Idiots like yourself would probably vote "up" for a war if the US asked you. Based on zippo. Just like Iraq, just like Afghanistan, just like Libya, just like Syria. Sleepwalking morons like you is what makes this country doubly dangerous. Wake the F up!!!!!
    markitect Theta_Burn Oct 27, 2016 1:38 PM ,
    Was there ever honor in signing up to go kill people? In hindsight how many of America's military adventures were nothing more than neo-colonial expansions? Any free man born of his God given liberties should tell the military to fuck off, all wars are banker's wars ultimately and the humans who fight them considered expendable cannon fodder by the powers that be. The day the men of this planet realize there is no reason to war with one another on behalf of some evil rulers will be the day we finally advance as a species. Until then we will remain cattle, to be herded and slaughtered.
    Freddie Theta_Burn Oct 27, 2016 3:58 PM ,
    The US military has not backed the American people since before 1861. They have been puppets for bankster wars and the elites. The should have arrested Abe Lincoln and his bankster cronies.

    Every President who got America into a war or phony war should hve been arrested. Two real scumbags were LBJ and George Bush. LBJ was in on the JFK murder for Vietnam war as was bush. Bush and his Mormon See Eye Aye cronies Romney and the Hinckley klan see World Vision Hickley See Eye Aye front tried to kill Reagan for NeoCon Wars.

    Hopefully LBJ is burning in hell.

    BarkingCat crazzziecanuck Oct 27, 2016 2:47 PM ,
    Obama will also do sit downs in steamy bathhouses.
    flapdoodle crazzziecanuck Oct 27, 2016 3:12 PM ,
    Obama also sits down when he pees.
    williambanzai7 Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 12:21 PM ,
    More Ammo williambanzai7 Oct 27, 2016 12:50 PM ,
    +1000 Banzai
    BaBaBouy More Ammo Oct 27, 2016 1:36 PM ,
    Yoo, its even got Hellery's Bogus Smile ~~~
    nmewn williambanzai7 Oct 27, 2016 12:52 PM ,
    Reset switch sold separately ;-)
    Gold...Bitches Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 12:58 PM ,
    Yes, Putin is a sane voice of reason and action.


    Compared to many in the war machine of the USA that virtually always advocate for moar war/bombing and increasing destabilization, yes he is. If the US wants to get some credibility on this shit then stop supporting terrorists, oops "moderate rebels", and actually wipe these shitstains off the face of the planet. Don't use them as your cats paw to get rid of Assad. Have the balls to just take him out if you want to take him out and don't use terrorists for the regime change that you so clearly want but dont have the balls to just do directly.

    Déjŕ view jcaz Oct 27, 2016 11:18 AM ,
    Vlads recipe for 2017...speedy delivery sans drone...

    Plantain Vodka Flambé

    Stuck on Zero jcaz Oct 27, 2016 11:36 AM ,
    You shall henceforth refer to the President as the: "Top Banana."
    Hurricane Baby Stuck on Zero Oct 27, 2016 12:16 PM ,
    I'll stick with HNIC, thank you very much.

    When in polite company, I use "Ol' Purple Lips".

    monk27 jcaz Oct 27, 2016 12:09 PM ,
    If you have to ask about it, you already know the answer...
    brockhardman jcaz Oct 27, 2016 12:33 PM ,
    Speaking of bananas, check out the customer reviews for this dime piece...
    https://www.amazon.com/Hutzler-571-Banana-Slicer/dp/B0047E0EII
    CNONC Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 11:28 AM ,
    A lot of people here overestimate Russian military capabilities. They honestly believe that Russia could win a war with the US. They are wrong. But the US seems afflicted by the more dangerous misperception that the US could easily defeat the Russians. The Russians have to be practical in their dealings with the US, because they know war would destroy their country. The US establishment, deluded about its military prowess, is unafraid of war, believing it to be winnable at low cost. The US would ultimately win simply because its economy is vastly larger and capable of supporting a prolonged war effort. But make no mistake, a prolonged effort will be necessary, and the lethality will horrify and surprise everyone involved. The recent US experience of 15 years of continuous warfare with only a few thousand deaths has led too many to believe that war is a low cost political tool. These misconceptions are what will allow the American people to be lead into war. The sudden and unexpected deaths of hundreds or thousands of soldiers in the early days will fuel the anger necessary to sustain the popular support for the war.

    The down votes, I suspect, are from people who want to see Russia humiliate the US and destroy the hubris with which it interacts with the world. Perhaps the better analogy is of the US as Evander Holifield walking into a bar and picking a fight with an aging George Foreman. Holifield will win, but he'll get hit with some big ass punches that will hurt like hell.

    And, of course, nobody really wins that war, except for the few who will get rich off of it. But I'm not in that club.

    chunga CNONC Oct 27, 2016 11:33 AM ,
    What the maniacs that are calling the shots for Unkle Skam are afraid of is losing the petro-dollar and reserve currency status. Without that the fraudulent money-changing ponzi falls apart, and everything else with it.
    CNONC chunga Oct 27, 2016 11:59 AM ,
    Since the start of the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts, I have been trying to find the vital interests which are driving the US foreign policy, and preservation of the petro dollar system is the only thing which makes US policy seem rational. Either our leaders are irrational, or they see no way to hold the system together if the petro dollar recycling system ends. But, I don't think it can be preserved any longer, regardless of what they do.
    Urban Redneck CNONC Oct 27, 2016 1:14 PM ,
    The fundamental flaws of game theory are that 1) both players are rational, and 2) both players correctly understand each others' rationale.

    When you examine the latter, it becomes apparent that the former is false, far more than is comfortable to admit.

    Nation States are not people and their highest ambition is not Reason.

    Herd Redirectio... chunga Oct 27, 2016 11:59 AM ,
    Russia could win a 'defensive' war. And they could strip America of many allies. And they can speed up loss of the Dollar as world reserve currency.

    That is a pretty solid win, in my book, even if it isn't 'total annihiliation' or invasion of America itself (which would be stupid of Russia, unless there comes a time where the American people literally have to invite Russia in).

    chunga Herd Redirection Committee Oct 27, 2016 12:25 PM ,
    It's my unlearned opinion that USSA is very dangerous because it will have to go full retard in a fight against Russia. Any victories by Russia will embolden Murika's fiefdoms to just say fuck off. It's already happening fpr example Philipines.
    Ignatius CNONC Oct 27, 2016 11:34 AM ,
    Yes. I think ZHrs are reacting viscerally to US hubris rather than getting the point.
    the phantom CNONC Oct 27, 2016 11:38 AM ,
    The Russian military is defensive in nature, the US of offensive. The US has bases and interests all over the world, the Russians... not so much. So I think the framing of your thought process of how this would play out is probably wrong. The US and Russia would never go to war directly, as in lobbing missles at each ones respective homeland, as that would mean complete annihilation of both countries... but rather war by proxy. In that realm, the US has way more soft targets for the Russians to hit. For a country already 20 trillion is debt, where is the tipping point? I would suggest a lot closer than most people would think.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • next ›
  • last
  • [Oct 28, 2016] If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't give [Oct 28, 2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse that the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. ~John le Carre ..."
    "... If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't give one a little pause before advocating more of the same, then we might have a problem. ..."
    "... Hillary said twice during the debates that "America is great because America is good." Translation: We can do whatever we damn well please because we can. Lord, help us all. I'm so sick of hearing this and our endless criminal wars. ..."
    "... Yes but they are usually in full agreement with the Koch brothers, who have been financing WGBH Educational Foundation since 2008 (owners of PBS, Frontline and most of the "content" shows on NPR). ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    abynormal October 26, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse that the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. ~John le Carre

    KILLING MACHINES AND THE MADNESS OF MILITARISM
    http://www.artsandopinion.com/2014_v13_n5/giroux-6.htm
    by Henry Giroux

    Tom October 26, 2016 at 6:48 pm

    historical madness/hysterical madness … take your pick.

    It is terrifying to watch Clinton rave about adopting a more "muscular, aggressive" approach to foreign affairs - with little or no push back from the national media, either party or even many citizens. Hell, they are applause lines at her rallies.

    If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't give one a little pause before advocating more of the same, then we might have a problem.

    abynormal October 26, 2016 at 7:12 pm

    she's a scorned woman beginning with her father. she's passive-aggressive with women…projects her never ending insecurities. SO she has something to prove…vengeance is mine.

    First, she'll drone Mercy Street(s)…

    Elizabeth October 26, 2016 at 7:58 pm

    Hillary said twice during the debates that "America is great because America is good." Translation: We can do whatever we damn well please because we can. Lord, help us all. I'm so sick of hearing this and our endless criminal wars.

    Kim Kaufman October 26, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    "Battlegrounds: The Fight for Mosul and Election Day Disruptions" (podcast) [Foreign Policy Editor's Roundtable].

    "…historians will look back on it as "a forty year's war," without ever once giving a reason for us to be there. Soothing NPR voices, no anger, a lot of laughter. Smart people."

    This is what the "smart people" are so able to do: always find the humor in war and poverty and keep it ever so polite. It's really revolting. Could have gone under Guillotine Watch. Guess I'm happy to be stupid and angry.

    Jim Haygood October 26, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    Soothing voices, no anger, a lot of laughter … right up till the pitchfork tines pierce their windpipe.

    polecat October 26, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    there is absolutely nothing 'soothing' about N..P..R !!

    'Irritating' or 'grating' yes ….

    ….In fact, whenever I come across NPR banter on my local radio station … I immediately switch to the local BC 'French' station.

    sgt_doom October 26, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    Yes but they are usually in full agreement with the Koch brothers, who have been financing WGBH Educational Foundation since 2008 (owners of PBS, Frontline and most of the "content" shows on NPR).

    polecat October 26, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    well … yeah … as per the federal gov. 30-years war on the commons …. courtesy of feckess f#cksticks in the Uniparty !!

    [Oct 28, 2016] Russias Putin says Obama administration does not stick to any deals Reuters

    Oct 28, 2016 | www.reuters.com
    Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current U.S. administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.

    Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people chose, and to discuss any problem.

    [Oct 28, 2016] Team Clinton Headspace Emails Published by WikiLeaks Are About Her Mood

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems.... ..."
    "... She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President ..."
    "... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women. ..."
    "... The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors! ..."
    "... Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA. ..."
    "... So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
    "... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
    "... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
    Oct 28, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems....

    She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President because she also is a Criminal and belongs in Federal Prison.

    RobL_v2 2 hours ago Her mood??

    This is coded speech microaggression. They are discriminating against her because she is a woman, implying she is 'moody' you know 'hysterical'... hysterectomy... its sexist, its misogynist its harassment, its abuse, its hate speech.

    Come on Liberal media, where are you ... call it out... this is your bread and butter... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women.

    They did it to Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachman... You know they'd do it if Trump said Hillary was 'moody'.

    The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors!

    Lion 3 WhiteSplainItToYou 42 minutes ago

    Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA.

    DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ an hour ago

    Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):

    So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

    It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.

    Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.

    So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.

    Suelark DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ 42 minutes ago

    Please repost this here and elsewhere. If true it would make sense of much of what has happened.

    Regular Guy an hour ago
    Tim Kaine: "I don't think we can dignify documents dumped by WikiLeaks and just assume that they're all accurate and true,"

    They were confirmed true when John Podesta's Twitter password was distributed in one of the WikiLeaks email releases and his Twitter account was hijacked the same day by a troll saying, "Trump 2016! Hi pol". Checkmate b!tch. see more DNC Russian Hacker Pepe Regular Guy 12 minutes ago The way they parse words, the Kaine statement still doesn't state the documents are not accurate. He makes an editorial statement to mislead the listener into thinking there is some reason to question the facts.

    DeplorableCarlo an hour ago
    Sounds pretty much like poor temperament to me when you have mood problems. Can we please put national security on hold for now, we have to check her mood ring. It is imperative for the best outcome that we check her head space. WOW! That's a real dumb explanation. Maybe if we use the word mood instead of temperament that will be better than telling people she has health problems in her head.

    [Oct 28, 2016] An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a do-or-die mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

    Notable quotes:
    "... So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
    "... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
    "... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
    Oct 28, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    DoruSlinger✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ an hour ago

    Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):

    So here's the REAL story.​ ​Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.

    It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.

    Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.

    So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.

    [Oct 27, 2016] Washington Post Press Telling Trump Supporters Your Candidate Is Virtually Certain to Lose - Breitbart

    Notable quotes:
    "... These are accurate, statistically sound statements. But they are something else, too. Declarations that Trump is highly unlikely to win also serve as counters to the Republican nominee's warning that the "rigged" election could be " stolen from us ." ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Callum Borchers, author at the Washington Post blog The Fix, admits that the press is declaring victory for Hillary Clinton - to discredit claims that the election is rigged.

    From the Washington Post :

    Since the final presidential debate last week, many news outlets have been delivering an unvarnished message to Donald Trump supporters: Your candidate is virtually certain to lose the election Nov. 8.

    " Clinton probably finished off Trump last night ," FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver wrote the day after the debate. " Hillary Clinton is almost certain to be president ," Guardian columnist and former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson added.

    A day later, the Times's Upshot blog increased Clinton's chances of winning to 93 percent , an all-time high. On Monday, Politico's Ben Schreckinger wrote that " Donald Trump's path to an election night win is almost entirely closed ." Here at The Fix, Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake wrote that " Donald Trump's chances of winning are approaching zero ."

    These are accurate, statistically sound statements. But they are something else, too. Declarations that Trump is highly unlikely to win also serve as counters to the Republican nominee's warning that the "rigged" election could be " stolen from us ."

    Read the rest of the article here .

    Read More Stories About:

    2016 Presidential Race , Big Journalism , Hillary Clinton , Callum Borchers , Donald Trump , Washington Post

    [Oct 27, 2016] Dennis Kucinichs Extraordinary Warning On Washingtons Think Tank Warmongers

    Notable quotes:
    "... Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for the American people to stop them. ..."
    "... Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests, including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life concerns of the American people. ..."
    "... As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and foremost a profitable racket. ..."
    "... According to the front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal" hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya along with allied powers working through NATO. ..."
    Oct 27, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    WAR is a racket. It always has been.

    It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

    – From Major General Smedley Butler's War is a Racket

    Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for the American people to stop them.

    The piece was published at The Nation and is titled: Why Is the Foreign Policy Establishment Spoiling for More War? Look at Their Donors .

    Read it and share it with everyone you know.

    Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests, including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life concerns of the American people.

    As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and foremost a profitable racket.

    How else to explain that in the past 15 years this city's so called bipartisan foreign policy elite has promoted wars in Iraq and Libya, and interventions in Syria and Yemen, which have opened Pandora's box to a trusting world, to the tune of trillions of dollars, a windfall for military contractors. DC's think "tanks" should rightly be included in the taxonomy of armored war vehicles and not as gathering places for refugees from academia.

    According to the front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal" hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya along with allied powers working through NATO.

    Indeed, I warned about this in last week's piece: U.S. Foreign Policy 'Elite' Eagerly Await an Expansion of Overseas Wars Under Hillary Clinton .

    The think tankers fell in line with the Iraq invasion. Not being in the tank, I did my own analysis of the call for war in October of 2002, based on readily accessible information, and easily concluded that there was no justification for war. I distributed it widely in Congress and led 125 Democrats in voting against the Iraq war resolution. There was no money to be made from a conclusion that war was uncalled for, so, against millions protesting in the United States and worldwide, our government launched into an abyss, with a lot of armchair generals waving combat pennants. The marching band and chowder society of DC think tanks learned nothing from the Iraq and Libya experience.

    The only winners were arms dealers, oil companies, and jihadists. Immediately after the fall of Libya, the black flag of Al Qaeda was raised over a municipal building in Benghazi, Gadhafi's murder was soon to follow, with Secretary Clinton quipping with a laugh, "We came, we saw, he died." President Obama apparently learned from this misadventure, but not the Washington policy establishment, which is spoiling for more war.

    The self-identified liberal Center for American Progress (CAP) is now calling for Syria to be bombed, and estimates America's current military adventures will be tidied up by 2025, a tardy twist on "mission accomplished." CAP, according to a report in The Nation, has received funding from war contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing, who make the bombers that CAP wants to rain hellfire on Syria.

    The Brookings Institute has taken tens of millions from foreign governments , notably Qatar, a key player in the military campaign to oust Assad. Retired four-star Marine general John Allen is now a Brookings senior fellow . Charles Lister is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute , which has received funding from Saudi Arabia , the major financial force providing billions in arms to upend Assad and install a Sunni caliphate stretching across Iraq and Syria. Foreign-government money is driving our foreign policy.

    As the drumbeat for an expanded war gets louder, Allen and Lister jointly signed an op-ed in the Sunday Washington Post, calling for an attack on Syria. The Brookings Institute, in a report to Congress , admitted it received $250,000 from the US Central Command, Centcom, where General Allen shared leadership duties with General David Petraeus. Pentagon money to think tanks that endorse war? This is academic integrity, DC-style.

    And why is Central Command, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, the US Department of transportation, and the US Department of Health and Human Services giving money to Brookings?

    Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously told Colin Powell , "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it," predictably says of this current moment , "We do think there needs to be more American action." A former Bush administration top adviser is also calling for the United States to launch a cruise missile attack on Syria.

    The American people are fed up with war, but a concerted effort is being made through fearmongering, propaganda, and lies to prepare our country for a dangerous confrontation, with Russia in Syria.

    The demonization of Russia is a calculated plan to resurrect a raison d'ętre for stone-cold warriors trying to escape from the dustbin of history by evoking the specter of Russian world domination.

    It's infectious. Earlier this year the BBC broadcast a fictional show that contemplated WWIII, beginning with a Russian invasion of Latvia (where 26 percent of the population is ethnic Russian and 34 percent of Latvians speak Russian at home).

    The imaginary WWIII scenario conjures Russia's targeting London for a nuclear strike. No wonder that by the summer of 2016 a poll showed two-thirds of UK citizens approved the new British PM's launching a nuclear strike in retaliation. So much for learning the lessons detailed in the Chilcot report.

    As this year's presidential election comes to a conclusion, the Washington ideologues are regurgitating the same bipartisan consensus that has kept America at war since 9/11 and made the world a decidedly more dangerous place.

    The DC think tanks provide cover for the political establishment, a political safety net, with a fictive analytical framework providing a moral rationale for intervention, capitol casuistry. I'm fed up with the DC policy elite who cash in on war while presenting themselves as experts, at the cost of other people's lives, our national fortune, and the sacred honor of our country.

    Any report advocating war that comes from any alleged think tank ought to be accompanied by a list of the think tank's sponsors and donors and a statement of the lobbying connections of the report's authors.

    It is our patriotic duty to expose why the DC foreign-policy establishment and its sponsors have not learned from their failures and instead are repeating them, with the acquiescence of the political class and sleepwalkers with press passes.

    It is also time for a new peace movement in America, one that includes progressives and libertarians alike, both in and out of Congress, to organize on campuses, in cities, and towns across America, to serve as an effective counterbalance to the Demuplican war party, its think tanks, and its media cheerleaders. The work begins now, not after the Inauguration. We must not accept war as inevitable, and those leaders who would lead us in that direction, whether in Congress or the White House, must face visible opposition.

    Thank you Mr. Kucinich, I couldn't agree more.

    RogerMud Oct 27, 2016 7:33 PM ,

    we should have elected him in 2008. missed opportunity.
    LetThemEatRand -> RogerMud Oct 27, 2016 7:41 PM ,
    Just like Ron Paul (with whom he agrees on matters of foreign policy and the Fed), he was painted by MSM as a kook. I wonder why. While I understand that many here would never vote for him because he believes in things like social programs, so do all of the Republicans in Congress. He would have made a far better president than zero or McCain.
    nmewn Oct 27, 2016 7:37 PM ,
    So I guess the War on Poverty is over...so who won? ;-)
    Ignatius Oct 27, 2016 7:43 PM ,
    Off Topic: Oregon Standoff -- Not Guilty of Conspiracy

    http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/judge_welcomes_new_jur...

    The comment section is filled with weeping bolsheviks, apparently.

    [Oct 26, 2016] It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized

    Oct 26, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    PGD 10.24.16 at 6:28 pm 32

    It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention' has been hugely successful in that effort.

    One of the most depressing things about this election campaign to me has been to see the Democrats using their full spectrum media dominance not to fight for a mandate for left policies, but to run a coordinated and effective propaganda campaign for greater U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, focusing on demonizing Putin and on humanitarian intervention rhetoric around Aleppo and the like.

    [Oct 26, 2016] Over-sampling issue in Podesta emails

    Notable quotes:
    "... The simplest explanation is usually best. All the indicators, especially the support of the donor class, elites of all kinds etc. points towards a Democratic victory, perhaps a very strong victory if the poll numbers last weekend translate into electoral college numbers. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.25.16 at 11:07 am ( 55 )

    I stopped by to check if my comment had cleared moderation. What follows is a more thorough examination (not my own, entirely) on Corey's point 1, and some data that may point towards a much narrower race than we're led to believe.

    The leaked emails from one Democratic super-pac, the over-sampling I cited at zerohedge (@13o) is part of a two-step process involving over-sampling of Democrats in polls combined with high frequency polling. The point being to encourage media to promote the idea that the race is already over. We saw quite a bit of this last weekend. Let's say the leaked emails are reliable.

    This suggests to me two things: first – the obvious, the race is much closer than the polls indicated, certainly the poll cited by Corey in the OP. Corey questioned the validity of this poll, at least obliquely. Second, at least one super-pac working with the campaign sees the need to depress Trump turn-out. The first point is the clearest and the most important – the polls, some at least, are intentionally tilted to support a 'Hillary wins easily' narrative. The second allows for some possibly useful speculation regarding the Clinton campaigns confidence in their own GOTV success.

    The simplest explanation is usually best. All the indicators, especially the support of the donor class, elites of all kinds etc. points towards a Democratic victory, perhaps a very strong victory if the poll numbers last weekend translate into electoral college numbers.

    That's a big if. I suggest Hillary continues to lead but by much smaller margins in key states. It's also useful to point out that Trump's support in traditionally GOP states may well be equally shaky.

    And that really is it from me on this topic barring a double digit swing to Hillary in the LA Times poll that has the race at dead even.

    Layman 10.25.16 at 11:31 am

    kidneystones:

    "The leaked emails from one Democratic super-pac, the over-sampling I cited at zerohedge (@13o) is part of a two-step process involving over-sampling of Democrats in polls combined with high frequency polling."

    Excellent analysis, only the email in question is eight years old. And it refers to a request for internal polling done by the campaign. And it suggests over-sampling of particular demographics so the campaign could better assess attitudes among those demographics.

    And this is a completely normal practice which has nothing to do with the polling carried out by independent third parties (e.g. Gallup, Ipsos, etc) for the purposes of gauging and reporting to the public the state of the race.

    And when pollsters to over-sample, the over-sampling is used for analysis but is not reflected in the top-line poll results.

    [Oct 25, 2016] Calibration error changes GOP votes to Dem in Illinois county Fox News

    Notable quotes:
    "... "This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine," Scalzitti said. "When Mr. Moynihan used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration." ..."
    Oct 22, 2014 | www.foxnews.com
    Published October 22, 2014

    CHICAGO - Early voting in Illinois got off to a rocky start Monday, as votes being cast for Republican candidates were transformed into votes for Democrats.

    Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote Monday at the Schaumburg Public Library.

    "I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent," Moynihan said. "You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat."

    The conservative website Illinois Review reported that "While using a touch screen voting machine in Schaumburg, Moynihan voted for several races on the ballot, only to find that whenever he voted for a Republican candidate, the machine registered the vote for a Democrat in the same race. He notified the election judge at his polling place and demonstrated that it continued to cast a vote for the opposing candidate's party. Moynihan was eventually allowed to vote for Republican candidates, including his own race.

    Moynihan offered this gracious lesson to his followers on Twitter: "Be careful when you vote in Illinois. Make sure you take the time to check your votes before submitting."

    Cook County Board of Elections Deputy Communications Director Jim Scalzitti, told Illinois Watchdog, the machine was taken out of service and tested.

    "This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine," Scalzitti said. "When Mr. Moynihan used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration."

    [Oct 25, 2016] The neoliberal has won on labor and civil rights issues by changing the procedure by which one can assert the rights that may exist

    Notable quotes:
    "... On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over the GOP by a slight margin. ..."
    "... she's the least popular Democratic candidate perhaps ever! ..."
    "... The donor class candidate always wins; drugs, video games and pornography will occupy and distract the young most affected; the 'left' will become the Vichy left – essentially sacrificing all principle to ensure their 'own' candidate is protected – essentially what we've had for the last 8 years. The left will pat itself on the back and engage in virtue signalling while Ted Cruz burns books and crosses, and increasing numbers of the forgotten and ignored lose what little faith remains. ..."
    "... A ruling class is not always able to bring about the visions of its ideology. However, I think in the last 30 years (or more) in the United States the ruling class desired more power, wealth, and inequality - the rightist vision - and was able to bring it about through control of both major political parties. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    efcdons 10.24.16 at 4:16 pm 25

    The right has won or is winning in an some ways on labor and civil rights issues by changing the procedure by which one can assert the rights that may exist.

    The number of strikes are down as someone else mentioned. But the Right has also largely succeeded in reducing the ability of individual employees to engage in private actions to vindicate their rights. E.g. the huge increase in enforceable arbitration agreements in what are essentially contracts of adhesion.

    The Right has solidified the ability of business to prevent employees from using the independent, publicly funded judiciary, and instead forces them to use private, secretive, arbitrators who essentially work for the companies (because the business is a repeat player and the arbitrators rely on being chosen to arbitrate in order to make their money).

    The right has also succeeded in the same way to reduce consumer rights. Arbitration agreements are attached to almost everything you buy that needs an agreement (software, mobile phones, etc.) before use. The agreements not only mandate secret arbitration they also prevent consumers from banding together in order to form a class thus making each individual consumer litigate alone. Obviously this reduces the power of individual consumers and also decreases the incentive for any one consumer to do something about what, on the individual level, may be a small injury. Basically it allows business to steal a small amount from a lot of people.

    In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling which suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues. It is from April, 2016 so not the freshest data. But it might indicate Trump's bog standard GOP policies are not what is driving votes to Clinton/away from Trump.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/dvsr.htm

    On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over the GOP by a slight margin.

    bruce wilder 10.24.16 at 5:04 pm

    Among the most successful projects of the Right was financialization of the economy.

    The reduction of marginal income tax rates on the highest "wage" incomes combined with new doctrines of corporate business leadership that emphasized the maximization of shareholder value created a new class of C-suite business executives occupying positions of great political power as allies and servants of the rentier class of Capital owners. The elaborate structures of financial repression and mutual finance were systematically demolished, removing many of the protections from financial predation afforded the working and middle classes.

    In the current election, the Democratic Party has split on financial reform issues, with the dominant faction represented by the Party's candidate prioritizing issues of race and gender equality.

    Layman 10.24.16 at 5:06 pm ( 29 )

    "In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling which suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues."

    I imagine any poll pitting 'generic Republican' against Hillary Clinton in April of this year would have shown 'generic Republican' winning. The problem is, you can't run 'generic Republican'. I'm hard pressed to point at any prominent Republican who I think would be handily beating Clinton now. Once you name them, they have to say what they're for and against, and she takes her shot at them, and they're fighting an uphill battle. And she's the least popular Democratic candidate perhaps ever! That's the only reason it would be close.

    A party built around the principles of white male supremacy and dedicated to expanding the wealth and income gap is at a massive disadvantage in any non-gerrymandered election.

    kidneystones 10.24.16 at 9:37 pm

    @21 None, but thanks.

    @ 27 You're omission of any reference to rising health care premiums is telling. I take your point regarding 'falling skies' in absolute terms. But the transformation I'm referring to is identified by Corey in the OP intro, and more thoroughly by PDG @32.

    When Mark Kleiman is asking people get out the vote to 'save the Republic' rather than build a fairer, juster society something dramatic has changed. On the domestic front, @30 Sebastion H hits the nail squarely on both points: things are bad and nobody is paying attention. Neither phenomena is new. The NYT had a headline in 2011 or so entitled "the Invisible unemployed." How did we miss it?

    Scott P. may be right that the numbers of officially unemployed may be dropping slightly, and that wages are rising this quarter. Let's say that both trends are spot on. We've all seen ( I hope) the data regarding income inequality white households versus all others.

    On the one hand I think Scott P. is completely correct. The donor class candidate always wins; drugs, video games and pornography will occupy and distract the young most affected; the 'left' will become the Vichy left – essentially sacrificing all principle to ensure their 'own' candidate is protected – essentially what we've had for the last 8 years. The left will pat itself on the back and engage in virtue signalling while Ted Cruz burns books and crosses, and increasing numbers of the forgotten and ignored lose what little faith remains.

    Anarcissie 10.25.16 at 4:06 am J-D 10.25.16 at 2:05 am

    @ 42

    A ruling class is not always able to bring about the visions of its ideology. However, I think in the last 30 years (or more) in the United States the ruling class desired more power, wealth, and inequality - the rightist vision - and was able to bring it about through control of both major political parties.

    [Oct 25, 2016] 11 Truth? Was it an American coup?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Jill Stein of the Green Party has recognized that exercises in which the United States government examines its own behavior are certain to come up with a result that basically exonerates the politicians and the federal bureaucracy. ..."
    "... A friend recently recommended that I take a look at a film on 9/11 that was first produced back in 2005. It is called Loose Change 9/11 and is available on Amazon Video or in DVD form as well as elsewhere in a number of updated versions. The first version reportedly provides the most coherent account, though the later updates certainly are worth watching, add significantly to the narrative, and are currently more accessible. ..."
    "... Loose Change is an examination of the inconsistencies in the standard 9/11 narrative, a subject that has been thoroughly poked and prodded in a number of other documentaries and books, but it benefits from the immediacy of the account and the fresh memories of the participants in the events who were interviewed by the documentary's director Dylan Avery starting in 2004. It also includes a bit of a history lesson for the average viewer, recalling Hitler's Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which were essentially fraudulent and led to the assumption of emergency powers by the respective heads of state. ..."
    "... The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything. ..."
    "... The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration. ..."
    "... The new Pearl Harbor turned out to be 9/11. Given developments since 9/11 itself, to include the way the U.S. has persisted in going to war and the constant search for enemies worldwide to justify our own form of Deep State government, I would, to a large extent, have to believe that PNAC was either prescient or perhaps, more diabolically, actively engaged in creating a new reality. ..."
    "... the strength of Loose Change as it identifies and challenges inconsistencies in the established account without pontificating and, even though it has a definite point of view and draws conclusions, it avoids going over to the dark side and speculating on any number of the wilder "what-if" scenarios. ..."
    "... I recommend that readers watch Loose Change as it runs through discussions of U.S. military exercises and inexplicable stand-downs that occurred on 9/11, together with convincing accounts of engineering and technical issues related to how the World Trade Center and WTC7 collapsed. Particularly intriguing are the initial eyewitness accounts from the site of the alleged downing of UA 93 in Pennsylvania, a hole in the ground that otherwise showed absolutely no evidence of a plane having actually crashed. Nor have I ever seen any traces of a plane in photos taken at the Pentagon point of impact. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | www.unz.com
    11 Truth? Was it an "American coup?" Leave a Comment For the first time a presidential candidate, admittedly from a fringe party, is calling for a reexamination of 9/11. Jill Stein of the Green Party has recognized that exercises in which the United States government examines its own behavior are certain to come up with a result that basically exonerates the politicians and the federal bureaucracy. This has been the case since the Warren Commission report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which, inter alia, failed to thoroughly investigate key players like Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby and came up with a single gunman scenario in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary.

    When it comes to 9/11, I have been reluctant to enter the fray largely because I do not have the scientific and technical chops to seriously assess how buildings collapse or how a large passenger airliner might be completely consumed by a fire. In my own area, of expertise, which is intelligence, I have repeatedly noted that the Commission investigators failed to look into the potential foreign government involvement in the events that took place that day. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan just for starters may have been involved in or had knowledge relating to 9/11 but the only investigation that took place, insofar as I can determine, was a perfunctory look at the possible Saudi role, the notorious 28 pages, which have recently been released in a redacted form.

    A friend recently recommended that I take a look at a film on 9/11 that was first produced back in 2005. It is called Loose Change 9/11 and is available on Amazon Video or in DVD form as well as elsewhere in a number of updated versions. The first version reportedly provides the most coherent account, though the later updates certainly are worth watching, add significantly to the narrative, and are currently more accessible.

    Loose Change is an examination of the inconsistencies in the standard 9/11 narrative, a subject that has been thoroughly poked and prodded in a number of other documentaries and books, but it benefits from the immediacy of the account and the fresh memories of the participants in the events who were interviewed by the documentary's director Dylan Avery starting in 2004. It also includes a bit of a history lesson for the average viewer, recalling Hitler's Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which were essentially fraudulent and led to the assumption of emergency powers by the respective heads of state.

    The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything. Loose Change describes how leading hawkish Republicans were, as early as 2000, pushing to increase U.S. military capabilities so that the country would be able to fight multi-front wars. The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration.

    The new Pearl Harbor turned out to be 9/11. Given developments since 9/11 itself, to include the way the U.S. has persisted in going to war and the constant search for enemies worldwide to justify our own form of Deep State government, I would, to a large extent, have to believe that PNAC was either prescient or perhaps, more diabolically, actively engaged in creating a new reality.

    That is not to suggest that either then or now most federal employees in the national security industry were part of some vast conspiracy but rather an indictment of the behavior and values of those at the top of the food chain, people who are characteristically singularly devoid of any ethical compass and base their decisions largely on personal and peer group ambition.

    9/11 Truthers are characteristically very passionate about their beliefs, which is part of their problem in relating to a broader public. They frequently demand full adherence to their version of what passes for reality. In my own experience of more than twenty years on the intelligence side of government I have frequently found that truth is in fact elusive, often lying concealed in conflicting narratives. This is, I believe, the strength of Loose Change as it identifies and challenges inconsistencies in the established account without pontificating and, even though it has a definite point of view and draws conclusions, it avoids going over to the dark side and speculating on any number of the wilder "what-if" scenarios.

    I recommend that readers watch Loose Change as it runs through discussions of U.S. military exercises and inexplicable stand-downs that occurred on 9/11, together with convincing accounts of engineering and technical issues related to how the World Trade Center and WTC7 collapsed. Particularly intriguing are the initial eyewitness accounts from the site of the alleged downing of UA 93 in Pennsylvania, a hole in the ground that otherwise showed absolutely no evidence of a plane having actually crashed. Nor have I ever seen any traces of a plane in photos taken at the Pentagon point of impact.

    The film describes the subsequent investigative failures that took place, perhaps deliberately and arranged from inside the government, and concludes that the event amounts to an "American coup" which changed the United States both in terms of its domestic liberties and its foreign policy. After watching the film, one must accept that there are numerous inconsistencies that emerge from any examination of the standard narrative promoted by the 9/11 Commission and covered up by every White House since 2001. The film calls the existing corpus of government investigations into 9/11 a lie, a conclusion that I would certainly agree with.

    The consequences of 9/11 are indeed more important than the event itself. Even those who have come to accept the established narrative would have to concede that "that day of infamy" changed America for the worse, as the film notes. While the United States government had previously engaged in illegal activity directed against for suspected spies, terrorists and a variety of international criminals, wholesale surveillance of what amounts to the entire population of the country was a new development brought in by the Patriot Acts. And, for the first time, secret prisons were set up overseas and citizens were arrested without being charged and held indefinitely. Under the authority of the Military Commissions Act tribunals were established to try those individuals who were suspected of being material supporters of terrorism, "material supporters" being loosely interpreted to make arrest, prosecution and imprisonment easier.

    More recently, executive authority based on the anti-terror legislation has been used to execute American citizens overseas and, under the Authorization to Use Military Force, to attack suspects in a number of countries with which the United States is not at war. This all takes place with hardly a squeak from Congress or from the media. And when citizens object to any or all of the above they are blocked from taking action in the courts by the government's invocation of State Secrets Privilege, claiming that judicial review would reveal national secrets. Many believe that the United States has now become a precursor police state, all as a result of 9/11 and the so-called War on Terror which developed from that event.

    So who benefited from 9/11? Clearly the executive branch of the government itself, which has seen an enormous expansion in its power and control over both the economy and people's lives, but there are also other entities like the military industrial complex, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, and the financial services sector, all of which have gained considerably from the anti-terror largesse coming from the American taxpayer. Together these entities constitute an American Deep State, which controls both government and much of the private sector without ever being mentioned or seriously contested.

    Suggesting government connivance in the events of 9/11 inevitably raises the question of who exactly might have ordered or carried out the attacks if they were in fact not fully and completely the work of a handful of Arab hijackers? The film suggests that one should perhaps consider the possibility of a sophisticated "false flag" operation, by which we mean that the apparent perpetrators of the act were not, in fact, the drivers or originators of what took place. Blowing up huge buildings and causing them to pancake from within, if indeed that is what took place, is the work of governments, not of a handful of terrorists. Only two governments would have had that capability, the United States itself and also Israel, unfortunately mentioned only once in passing in the film, a state player heavily engaged in attempting to bring America into its fight with the Arab world, with Benjamin Netanyahu subsequently saying that "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq swung American public opinion in our favor."

    To be honest I would prefer not to think that 9/11 might have been an inside job, but I am now convinced that a new 9/11 Commission is in order, one that is not run and guided by the government itself. If it can be demonstrated that the attacks carried out on that day were quite possibly set up by major figures both inside and outside the political establishment it might produce such a powerful reaction that the public would demand a reversal of the laws and policies that have so gravely damaged our republic. It is admittedly unlikely that anything like that could ever take place, but it is at least something to hope for.

    [Oct 25, 2016] Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    Notable quotes:
    "... Wait just a damn minute. Why is the DNI telling THE RUSSIANS what the USIC suspects? Wouldn't that blunt the capability for taking counter measures? Unless... red herring? ..."
    "... The problem with "the Russians" tale is that the Podesta emails are rather weak sauce. Is there anyone paying close attention that didn't know HRC's camp had influential contacts in the media and the DNC and used them to their advantage? ..."
    "... Indeed. So far there is a little of note in the leaked emails. They confirm, among the other things we already knew: ..."
    "... The Clintonites don't think very highly of Sanders. ..."
    "... They have a lot of trusted friends in the media - some *very* trusted embeds. ..."
    "... There is a difference between what Clinton says in public and what she really believes. ..."
    "... They didn't want to release the content of the Goldman Sachs speeches because the contents included a lot of Clinton pandering and rear-kissing to banksters. ..."
    "... Podesta is an influential man, and a lot of people email him to use his influence and for help them. ..."
    "... Presumably, if US intelligence is so confident about Russian government methods, motivations, tactics, tic tacs and techniques they also should have a pretty damn good idea about what is still out there and also would have the means to disrupt its dissemination, if necessary. ..."
    "... In other words, don't hold yer breath. ..."
    "... "First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange." ..."
    "... Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake! ..."
    "... Keith B. Alexander:"Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false… From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense." ..."
    "... "Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony." ..."
    "... We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise. ..."
    "... That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks. ..."
    Oct 25, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... October 24, 2016 at 09:58 AM

    DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
    WASHINGTON, DC 20511

    October 07, 2016

    Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

    The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ...

    is confident that... are consistent with...

    Wait just a damn minute. Why is the DNI telling THE RUSSIANS what the USIC suspects? Wouldn't that blunt the capability for taking counter measures? Unless... red herring?

    Look! Over there!

    Sandwichman -> EMichael... , October 24, 2016 at 10:39 AM
    The problem with "the Russians" tale is that the Podesta emails are rather weak sauce. Is there anyone paying close attention that didn't know HRC's camp had influential contacts in the media and the DNC and used them to their advantage?

    I'm shocked, shocked that there is backroom power politics going on in a political campaign!

    The upshot of the WikiLeaks Podesta emails is to DISCREDIT WIKILEAKS as an independent source of disclosure.

    Why would Putin want to do that?

    Why would CLAPPER want to do that?

    Dan Kervick -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 01:54 PM
    Indeed. So far there is a little of note in the leaked emails. They confirm, among the other things we already knew:

    1. The Clintonites don't think very highly of Sanders.

    2. They have a lot of trusted friends in the media - some *very* trusted embeds.

    3. There is a difference between what Clinton says in public and what she really believes.

    4. They didn't want to release the content of the Goldman Sachs speeches because the contents included a lot of Clinton pandering and rear-kissing to banksters.

    5. Podesta is an influential man, and a lot of people email him to use his influence and for help them.

    DeDude -> EMichael... , October 24, 2016 at 10:52 AM
    Here is a better outline of the whole thing

    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/

    "One of the first leaked files had been modified on a computer using Russian-language settings by a user named "Feliks Dzerzhinsky." Dzerzhinsky was the founder of the Cheka, the Soviet secret police"

    The Russian connect was not "revealed" by NSA alone and the evidence for anybody who understand computers and "trails" is quite strong.

    The fact that the initial "leaks" were not such a big deal was no surprise. Given Julian's desperate need to not get Clinton into the white house, you would expect him to save the most juicy stuff until a few days before the election.

    Sandwichman -> DeDude... , October 24, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    From the Esquire article: "Matt Tait, a former GCHQ operator... was particularly prolific. Hours after the first Guccifer 2.0 dump, on the evening of June 15, Tait found something curious."

    For the record, "GCHQ" does not refer to the magazine, Gentlemen's Quarterly.

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 12:40 PM
    For the record, "GCHQ" does not refer to the magazine, Gentlemen's Quarterly.

    [ I prefer to think it does, and even if not it probably should so refer. ]

    Dan Kervick -> DeDude... , October 24, 2016 at 01:11 PM
    I wonder what those juicy leaks are?
    Sandwichman -> Dan Kervick... , October 24, 2016 at 02:10 PM
    Presumably, if US intelligence is so confident about Russian government methods, motivations, tactics, tic tacs and techniques they also should have a pretty damn good idea about what is still out there and also would have the means to disrupt its dissemination, if necessary.

    In other words, don't hold yer breath.

    Dan Kervick -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 03:52 PM
    Well, I assume Podesta has given somebody all of his emails, so they can compare against what is already released and see what is to come. I think their only defense against it is to try to discredit whatever it is ahead of time.
    DeDude -> Dan Kervick... , October 24, 2016 at 04:00 PM
    Only your imagination is the limit - since they are not real. But we will most likely never know since even Assange knows that he can only lose this one.
    Dan Kervick -> DeDude... , October 24, 2016 at 02:09 PM
    Wow, amazing that the founder of the "secret" police would leak emails with his digital fingerprints all over them.
    Sandwichman -> Dan Kervick... , October 24, 2016 at 02:12 PM
    That Dzerzhinsky! Such a joker!
    DeDude -> Dan Kervick... , October 24, 2016 at 03:54 PM
    No he would be the exact person to make such a mistake. After looking at them he would not have the technical expertise to understand that he had left a fingerprint.
    likbez -> Sandwichman ... , -1
    Sandwinchment,

    First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange. There is executive branch and three letter agencies should generally keep their mouth shut and allow others to voice the concerns, etc.

    This might be a sigh of complete disorganization of executive branch with intelligence agencies becoming a power players. Kind of "Deep State" morphing into "surface state".

    There are might be also multiple valid reasons for disclosing such a sensitive information:

    1. I want your money stupid Pinocchio.
    2. Smoke screen to hide their own nefarious activities and/or blunders within the USA. Actually existence of Hillary private server is somewhat incompatible with the existence of NSA.
    3. This is one thing when Podesta using gmail. It's quite another when the Secretary of state uses "bathroom server" with incompetent or semi-competent tech staff and completely clueless entourage.
    4. Pre-emptive strike reflecting some internal struggle within US Intelligence community itself with a neocon faction going "all in" to force the viewpoint, and more aggressive toward Russia stance, which might not be shared by others.
    5. Please note that CIA and DOD are fighting each other in Iraq and Syria to a certain extent.
    6. Increase Anti-Russian hysteria, which helps Hillary as a candidate of neocon establishment.
    7. Russians might recently uncover some nefarious activities (I heard FSB did discover compromised computers in some ministries) and this is the preparation for the blowback.

    There might be more. You never know.

    Sandwichman -> likbez... , October 24, 2016 at 12:31 PM
    "First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange."

    Yep.

    Second, the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange.

    Last but not least, the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange.

    Did I mention that the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange?

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 10:12 AM
    The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts....

    -- Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security
    and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    [ "Consistent with the methods and motivations..." is a shocking supposition to be made public, but we have been subject to such suppositions, seemingly with increasing frequency, for these last 15 years. ]

    Sandwichman -> anne... , October 24, 2016 at 10:30 AM
    Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake!

    Keith B. Alexander:"Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false… From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense."

    ...

    Senator Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

    DNI Clapper"No, sir."

    Senator Wyden: "It does not?"

    DNI Clapper:"Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

    The [IN]operative word there was "collect" which in NSAspeak does not mean... collect.

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/10/donald-loves-trikileaks.html

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 06:12 PM
    Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you KEEP IT A SECRET!

    Why didn't you tell the world, eh?

    [ Worth reading and reading and reading. ]

    Julio -> anne... , October 24, 2016 at 01:24 PM
    Not shocking anymore. It is, after all, consistent with the methods and motivations of our rulers.
    anne -> Julio ... , October 24, 2016 at 02:52 PM
    [ "Consistent with the methods and motivations..." is a shocking supposition to be made public, but we have been subject to such suppositions, seemingly with increasing frequency, for these last 15 years. ]

    Not shocking anymore. It is, after all, consistent with the methods and motivations of our rulers.

    [ Understood. ]

    Sanjait -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 10:35 AM
    Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.

    Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something that does relate to Krugmans post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately though the Democratic Party hasn't been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.

    Sandwichman -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 10:42 AM
    I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations.
    likbez -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 06:05 PM
    "I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."

    Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protected it, everybody else be damned.

    Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class".

    Essentially the behavior the we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch".

    Sandwichman -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 10:47 AM
    More "paranoid claptrap" (or should that be Clappertrap?):

    Edward Snowden: "...the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. … Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back."

    Peter K. -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 11:43 AM
    "Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper

    Oliver Stone's movie was pretty good.

    I agree with you that the hacked email are pretty "weak sauce" for the Russians to risk a confrontation with the sole super power.

    It's possible given that Putin was upset over Hillary backing the pro-democracy movement publically in recent elections.

    likbez -> DrDick... , October 24, 2016 at 11:55 AM
    My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders.

    Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude.

    Looks like they have found were to go this election cycle and this loss of the base is probably was the biggest surprise for neoliberal Democrats.

    Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me.


    Some data suggest that among unions which endorsed Hillary 3 out of 4 members will vote against her. And that are data from union brass. Lower middle class might also demonstrate the same pattern this election cycle.

    In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh.

    We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise.

    That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks.

    [Oct 25, 2016] The polls are wrong. The battle against Trump is for many a rejection of what they see in the mirror transposed onto Trump, as far as males go. Many women, including some who support him, see in Trump a dangerous predator who offers the promise of protection and wealth, but at a cost.

    Oct 25, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.24.16 at 11:15 am ( 13 )

    Make that 4 and 2

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

    I disagree with the basic premise of the post in that the right has been beaten because it has won.

    That's certainly not how the right sees the landscape. The tea party of 2010 was co-opted by Richard Armey and the Kochs on the one hand and buried under a mountain of forms by Lois Lerner on the other. The Armey group rallies to Ted Cruz, who is sure to have something to say about America and the future of the Republican party should Trump be undone because of his lewd behavior and actions.

    The media is certain to be savaged no matter what the outcome. The number of artists and musicians who both profit from and promote misogyny and violence invited to the WH over the last 8 years to serve as role models for America's youth should raise nary an eyebrow. The prudery of the moment is going to be the template for 'social reform' under the Republicans. If Hillary and her media allies succeed in derailing the Trump insurgency via his mouth, his hands, and his zipper they're going to face an extremely hostile electorate. Cruz is certain to try to step into Trump's shoes as leader, preaching that Trump was a flawed messenger undone by an unforgiving god. This will make sense for too many Americans to completely ignore. The unhappy white males who have yet to self-identify as angry white males, rather than simply as Americans, may well decide to do so.

    Whatever few victories the Democrats enjoy lower down the ticket are unlikely to survive skyrocketing Affordable Care Act premiums, some form of amnesty, and an extension of America's wars in the ME. The Democrats are betting the farm that Republicans will never unlock the padlock Democrats maintain over socially-conservative minorities. Cruz's ground game and networking with the evangelical community didn't get the job done in 2016, but we can be sure that he and his team are already mapping 2020.

    Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade. Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet.

    I've no idea whether those supporting the Democratic candidate expect her to wake up on November 9, should she win, and suddenly decide to abandon the practices that got her this far. I certainly don't. If you're nauseated at the prospect of 4-8 more years of secrecy, war, lies, and corruption you're going to need to keep more than barf bags at hand, however. The polarization that has divided America over the last 8 years is, imho, far more likely to become much more corrosive and damaging with Democrats in charge.

    Ted Cruz will literally be burning crosses and probably books, pornography, and anyone/thing else that strikes his fancy. The donor class is praying that Hillary/Bush can stamp out the fires. With rising unemployment, stagnating wages, and more and more Americans feeling that the system isn't interested in them, or their children, there may very well be a little hell to pay, or a lot.

    kidneystones 10.24.16 at 12:37 pm 16

    @ 14 It won't surprise you to learn I think you're wrong about Trump. The battle against Trump is for many a rejection of what they see in the mirror transposed onto Trump, as far as males go. Many women, including some who support him, see in Trump a dangerous predator who offers the promise of protection and wealth, but at a cost. Good thing no woman would ever sell herself, or her principles, to such a man – and if Bill Clinton pops into your head, please don't blame me.

    Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald.

    I like your question re: Cruz. I find him such a phenomenally transparent phony that I can't quite believe anyone trusts him. With Trump, and Bill Clinton, what you see is what you get – Slick Willie.

    At the moment Americans are being told they don't like what they see in Trump, but if that were the case, why was he so popular back when he was actually on the Howard Stern show and otherwise acting out? I frankly don't think most Americans give a toss what Trump did or said this week, much less ten years ago. The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually penetrating the media wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates to bypass the gate-keepers, I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether CNN, or the Wapo, report the discoveries, or not.

    Like I said. I think it will be close and right now I still say Trump edges it.

    [Oct 25, 2016] Whatever it is, its a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation schemes

    "One of your prime objectives," J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime F.B.I. director, said in one memo, "should be to neutralize ... the New Left movement."
    Notable quotes:
    "... First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange. There is executive branch and three letter agencies should generally keep their mouth shut and allow others to voice the concerns, etc. ..."
    "... Where this kind of high level foreign policy is involved, the US government and intelligence services blew their cred with me long ago. I disbelieve them now on as a strong and resilient prior. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    likbez said in reply to Sandwichman... October 24, 2016 at 11:21 AM

    Sandwinchment,

    First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange. There is executive branch and three letter agencies should generally keep their mouth shut and allow others to voice the concerns, etc.

    This might be a sigh of complete disorganization of executive branch with intelligence agencies becoming a power players. Kind of "Deep State" morphing into "surface state".

    There are might be also multiple valid reasons for disclosing such a sensitive information:

    1. I want your money stupid Pinocchio.
    2. Smoke screen to hide their own nefarious activities and/or blunders within the USA. Actually existence of Hillary private server is somewhat incompatible with the existence of NSA.
    3. This is one thing when Podesta using gmail. It's quite another when the Secretary of state uses "bathroom server" with incompetent or semi-competent tech staff and completely clueless entourage.
    4. Pre-emptive strike reflecting some internal struggle within US Intelligence community itself with a neocon faction going "all in" to force the viewpoint, and more aggressive toward Russia stance, which might not be shared by others.
    5. Please note that CIA and DOD are fighting each other in Iraq and Syria to a certain extent.
    6. Increase Anti-Russian hysteria, which helps Hillary as a candidate of neocon establishment.
    7. Russians might recently uncover some nefarious activities (I heard FSB did discover compromised computers in some ministries) and this is the preparation for the blowback.

    There might be more. You never know.

    Reply Monday,

    Dan Kervick -> likbez... October 24, 2016 at 01:14 PM

    I can't claim that a mere mortal like me actually has the slightest clue what is really going on. All I will hazard is that, whatever it is, it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation schemes.

    Where this kind of high level foreign policy is involved, the US government and intelligence services blew their cred with me long ago. I disbelieve them now on as a strong and resilient prior.

    [Oct 25, 2016] Grand Strategy What is America's Most Pressing Foreign Policy Issue

    Notable quotes:
    "... There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's foreign policy? ..."
    "... Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies." ..."
    "... according to Mearsheimer, the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle barrel is almost impossible." ..."
    "... "It's remarkably difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject failure." ..."
    "... Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world." ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | The National Interest Blog

    There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's foreign policy? Watch the rest of the videos in the "Grand Strategy" series.

    John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago doesn't shy away from a bold answer: The most pressing issue is that the United States has a "fundamentally misguided foreign policy." Mearsheimer argues that there are two dimensions to U.S. foreign policy that get the United States into "big trouble." First, he says, "We believe that we can dominate the globe, that we can control what happens in every nook and cranny of the world." The problem with this is that "the world is simply too big and nationalism is much too powerful of a force to make it possible for us to come close to doing that."

    Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies."

    The United States has engaged in numerous international military interventions over the past fifteen years, primarily in the Middle East. Proponents of these interventions argue that they are necessary in order to build stable democracies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. However, according to Mearsheimer, the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle barrel is almost impossible."

    So why has the United States continued to pursue policies and strategies that fail to convert U.S. military might into political ends?

    Eugene Gholz of the University of Texas at Austin suggests that the root of the issue could be American hubris. The United States has made the mistake of "thinking we can control things we can't control." Mearsheimer agrees with Gholz, although he finds the situation perplexing: "It's remarkably difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject failure."

    Several other scholars chime in to offer their own thoughts on this thorny issue. Boston University's Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world."

    Harvard University's Stephen Walt offers yet another possibility. Walt asks if the U.S. commitment to its current misguided and damaging foreign policy is due to "deep culture" or if it is result of "the national security apparatus we built after World War II." Walt thinks it is the latter: the United States "was not a highly interventionist country until after the Second World War." After World War II, "we built a large national security state, we had bases everywhere, and then we discovered that we can't let go of any of that, even though the original reason for building it is gone."

    Did the other panelists agree with Walt? Did anyone suggest a different problem as a candidate for the most pressing issue? Watch the full video above to see and be sure to check out the other videos of CNI and CKI's panel of nationally acclaimed foreign policy scholars addressing additional questions.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Majority of Democrats and Republicans Believe Voter Fraud Occurs

    Notable quotes:
    "... But 30 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats agree that voter suppression occurs by purging eligible voters from the registration rolls. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | www.breitbart.com

    A Washington Post analysis of Pollfish data shows that 84 percent of Republicans, 52 percent of Democrats, and 75 percent of independents believe that a "meaningful amount" of voter fraud occurs during elections.

    Sixty percent of Republicans believe that illegal immigrants are voting, much higher than Democrats and independents.

    Democrats focus more on voter ID laws, with 32 percent suggesting that it contributes to voter suppression. (Only 26 percent of Republicans feel the same way.)

    But 30 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats agree that voter suppression occurs by purging eligible voters from the registration rolls.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Soros-Linked Voting Machines Cause Concern Over Rigged Election

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama said back in 2008: "I want to be honest, it's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too." ..."
    "... hillary goes along with CIA and the neocon/zionist/MIC agenda but she's replaceable. ..."
    "... An out of control, above the law, criminal mafia acting on behalf of the Saudis and Israelis (if you think Syria is about the petrodollar or a Qatari pipeline... Think again - it's about Iran and Russia and about Greater Israel and its Leviathan and Golan gas most of all - Zbig et al would prefer to be full battle rattle in Ukraine and Chechnya...) is stopped how? ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    A U.K. based company that has provided voting machines for 16 states, including important battleground states like Florida and Arizona, has direct ties with billionaire leftist and Clinton crusader George Soros.

    With recent WikiLeaks emails showing that Hillary Clinton received foreign policy directives and coordinated on domestic policy with Soros , along with receiving tens of millions of dollars in presidential campaign support from the billionaire, concerns are growing that these shadowy players may pull the strings behind the curtains of the upcoming presidential election.

    As Lifezette reports , the fact that the man in control of voting machines in 16 states is tied directly to the man who has given millions of dollars to the Clinton campaign and various progressive and globalist causes will surely leave a bad taste in the mouth of many a voter.

    The balloting equipment tied to Soros is coming from the U.K. based Smartmatic company, whose chairman Mark Malloch-Brown is a former UN official and sits on the board of Soros' Open Society Foundation.

    According to Lifezette , Malloch-Brown was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia and also is a member of the executive committee of the International Crisis Group, an organization he co-founded in the 1990s and built with funds from George Soros' personal fortune.

    In 2007 Soros appointed Malloch-Brown vice-president of his Quantum Funds, vice-chairman of Soros Fund Management, and vice-chairman of the Open Society Institute (former name of OSF).

    Browns ties also intertwine with the Clintons as he was a partner with Sawyer-Miller, the consulting firm where close Clinton associate Mandy Grunwald worked. Brown also was also a senior advisor to FTI Consulting, a firm at which Jackson Dunn, who spent 15 years working as an aide to the Clintons, is a senior managing director.

    When taking that into account, along with the poor track record Smartmatic has of providing free and fair elections, this all becomes quite terrifying.

    An astonishing 2006 classified U.S. diplomatic cable obtained and released by WikiLeaks reveals the extent to which Smartmatic may have played a hand in rigging the 2004 Venezuelan recall election under a section titled "A Shadow of Fraud." The memo stated that "Smartmatic Corporation is a riddle both in ownership and operation, complicated by the fact that its machines have overseen several landslide (and contested) victories by President Hugo Chavez and his supporters."

    "The Smartmatic machines used in Venezuela are widely suspected of, though never proven conclusively to be, susceptible to fraud," the memo continued. "The Venezuelan opposition is convinced that the Smartmatic machines robbed them of victory in the August 2004 referendum. Since then, there have been at least eight statistical analyses performed on the referendum results."

    "One study obtained the data log from the CANTV network and supposedly proved that the Smartmatic machines were bi-directional and in fact showed irregularities in how they reported their results to the CNE central server during the referendum," it read.

    With such suspicion and a study which claims to prove that the U.K. firm's equipment tampered with the 2004 Venezuelan recall election, should be enough for states to reject these machines if they desire a fair election.

    Smartmatic is providing machines to Arizona, California, Colorado, Washington DC, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, which means these Soros and Clinton linked machines are going to take the votes of thousands of Americans.

    While GOP nominee Donald Trump has been voicing his opinion that the elections are indeed rigged due to media bias, and the proof that mainstream polls are heavily weighted to favor Clinton , it is needless to say that if the results show Hillary as a winner in November, there is going to a mess to shuffle through to find signs of honesty.

    MillionDollarBonus_ Ghost of PartysOver Oct 24, 2016 10:57 AM ,

    MSNBC are reporting that Hillary is absolutely surging and now leading by double digits! America is going absolutely wild for Hillary!! This is very exciting – I can sense victory, and I see that bitter right-wingers can sense defeat as they pre-emptively blame their loss on vote rigging. There is no such thing as election rigging, unless we're talking about Al Gore losing to Bush – there was clear evidence of rigging during this election. But Republicans are known for rigging elections. Democrats have never, and will never rig an election.

    HOW TO FACT CHECK THE LIES AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES OF THE ALT RIGHT

    Cliff Claven Cheers BaBaBouy Oct 24, 2016 11:02 AM
    We the people ask congress to meet in emergency session about removing George Soros owned voting machines from 16 states

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/we-people-ask-congress-meet-e...

    Signed the Deplorably Dicked

    DD

    Beam Me Up Scotty Cliff Claven Cheers Oct 24, 2016 11:29 AM ,
    Two words: PAPER BALLOTS!!! How anyone with 3 brain cells or more can't see that paper ballots are the way to go when voting is beyond me. There is a paper trail, and they cannot be hacked. They can be recounted. Machines are easily manipulated and there is NO PAPER trail to recount. Use paper ballots and tell Gerge Soros to go fuck himself.
    Notveryamused Manthong Oct 24, 2016 12:11 PM ,
    The Soros voting machine issue is one of the largest problems with this election. Trump has mentioned him by name twice during the debates and has also talked openly about a 'rigged' election. I hope he will address this directly.

    We're already seeing the polls skew in Clinton's direction in unusual states like Arizona so even that is on the cards to be stolen.

    Mroex Beam Me Up Scotty Oct 24, 2016 11:54 AM ,
    Yes you are Damn right. Paper ballots were used in the Brexit vote and surprise surprise the people won

    I can wait a day or two for results, I do not need instant results

    Paper ballots would be kept under lock and quarded by representives of both parties

    then when the time has come they would be counted and verified by both party reps

    FUCK any form of voting machine, be it electronic or be it mechanical

    fx MillionDollarBonus_ Oct 24, 2016 11:18 AM ,
    LOL, not even your big hero Barry would claim that. To wit: Obama said back in 2008: "I want to be honest, it's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too."

    And this time, it seems to be more than some monkeying on part of Hitlery and Barry. Rather "we rigged some votes and screwed some folks." Go figure.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-22/obama-warned-rigged-elections-b...

    AViewFromDublin fx Oct 24, 2016 11:26 AM ,

    Speaking at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, Million Dollar Bonus said: "To say you won't respect the results of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy.

    "The peaceful transfer of power is one of the things that makes America America.

    And look, some people are sore losers, and we just got to keep going" It was actually Hillary Clinton who said that, same difference lol,
    War Machine crossroaddemon Oct 24, 2016 11:29 AM ,
    You make a good point, and to distill the matter to its essence, apart from a controlled media and well established and entrenched special, foreign and banking interests in DC... The CIA is a CRIMINAL MAFIA acting under color of law, currently taking Saudi money to pay jihadi and 'blackwater' type mercs in Syria, and by the way Yemen, and elsewhere, to include the slow ramp up in E Ukraine.

    hillary goes along with CIA and the neocon/zionist/MIC agenda but she's replaceable.

    No they can and will steal this election if, in fact, Trump were to get a majority of votes (which by the way is unlikely - study the demographics... trump can not beat hillary when she has 70/80% of women, the latinos, blacks, leftists, and so on) - but the underlying issue remains:

    An out of control, above the law, criminal mafia acting on behalf of the Saudis and Israelis (if you think Syria is about the petrodollar or a Qatari pipeline... Think again - it's about Iran and Russia and about Greater Israel and its Leviathan and Golan gas most of all - Zbig et al would prefer to be full battle rattle in Ukraine and Chechnya...) is stopped how?

    Considering that US military personnel may quite literally be killed by CIA provided weapons, one might posit that one scenario is CIA personnel being hunted down and arrested (or not) by elements of the US special forces although this doesn't happen without either strong and secure leadership or some paradigm-shifting revelation.

    For example- if more knew how exceedingly likely it is that 9/11 was an inside/Israeli job... Knew it... Things might change.

    but I'm not optimistic.

    hillary means ww3, and we are not the good guys. If we ever were..

    Mroex crossroaddemon Oct 24, 2016 11:39 AM ,
    Things were way different back when JFK was killed, I know I was around then.

    For one thing there was no internet, and people trusted and respected the media (TV and Newspapers) This trust made it very easy to coverup and / or bury details.

    People overwhelmingly trusted government officials, Very few people questioned what government and media told them, again this makes it super easy to lie and coverup

    I repect your question, and I hope you consider what I said. I am trying to make the case that assasination is no longer an option, not unless they want to truly start a real civil war. Which I would not rule out. But if they wish to keep the status quo and the sheep silent, assasination is way way to risky for the reasons I mentioned above

    [Oct 24, 2016] Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake!

    This strange statement of DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE means direct involvement of Us intelligence agencies in the US election.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Not to worry. The "Intelligence Community" (USIC) has it all figured out. ..."
    "... Step one: discredit the whistle blowers by sending hacked emails to WikiLeaks and blaming Russia. Step two: collect mountains of data without oversight Step three: ?? anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 12:10 PM Step one: discredit the whistle blowers by sending hacked emails to WikiLeaks and blaming Russia. Step two: collect mountains of data without oversight Step three: ?? [ Step three could be terrifying if the new Washington and media Cold Warriors and McCarthyists continue on their way. Democrats have become wild, militarist Republicans on foreign affairs, so where is any counter to come from? ..."
    "... TIME, the Economist, and the New Yorker have all now published covers portraying Putin as a scary, Evil menace ..."
    "... This could be a poster for a horror movie. But it's just the sane, sober, centrist @TheEconomist, doing what they do best ..."
    "... The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities. ..."
    "... The problem with "the Russians" tale is that the Podesta emails are rather weak sauce. Is there anyone paying close attention that didn't know HRC's camp had influential contacts in the media and the DNC and used them to their advantage? ..."
    "... The upshot of the WikiLeaks Podesta emails is to DISCREDIT WIKILEAKS as an independent source of disclosure. ..."
    "... http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/ "One of the first leaked files had been modified on a computer using Russian-language settings by a user named "Feliks Dzerzhinsky." Dzerzhinsky was the founder of the Cheka, the Soviet secret police" ..."
    "... From the Esquire article: "Matt Tait, a former GCHQ operator... was particularly prolific. Hours after the first Guccifer 2.0 dump, on the evening of June 15, Tait found something curious." For the record, "GCHQ" does not refer to the magazine, Gentlemen's Quarterly. ..."
    "... First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange. ..."
    "... The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.... ..."
    "... Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake! ..."
    "... Keith B. Alexander: "Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false… From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense." ..."
    "... Senator Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" ..."
    "... DNI Clapper "No, sir." ..."
    "... Historically it was the USA that started cyberwar and who developed the most advanced capabilities in this space. Remember the worm which tried to subvert functionality of Iranian centrifuges electronics using specially designed malware and Trojans like Flame? ..."
    "... So the first suspect should internal (kind of Snowden II), not external. There was also a story with an alternative viewpoint: http://www.amtvmedia.com/why-nsa-may-have-leaked-dnc-emails/ ..."
    "... There were also rumors about FOXACID - The NSA's hacking program getting into DNC hands. http://investmentwatchblog.com/warning-trump-fans-be-careful-possible-leaked-info-on-plans-to-attack-trump-supporters/ ..."
    "... Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protected it, everybody else be damned. ..."
    "... Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class". ..."
    "... More "paranoid claptrap" (or should that be Clappertrap?): Edward Snowden: "...the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. … Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back." ..."
    "... "Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony." ..."
    "... My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible with democratic principles. ..."
    "... In other words no real Democrat can vote for Hillary. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    It's Trump's party, so cry if you want to:
    It's Trump's Party, by Paul Krugman, NY Times : ...Everyone who endorsed Mr. Trump in the past owns him now... And voters should realize that voting for any Trump endorser is, in effect, a vote for Trump_vs_deep_state, whatever happens at the top of the ticket.

    .... ... ...

    Sandwichman : , October 24, 2016 at 09:50 AM

    Not to worry. The "Intelligence Community" (USIC) has it all figured out.
    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 09:55 AM
    Step one: discredit the whistle blowers by sending hacked emails to WikiLeaks and blaming Russia.

    Step two: collect mountains of data without oversight

    Step three: ??

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 12:10 PM
    Step one: discredit the whistle blowers by sending hacked emails to WikiLeaks and blaming Russia.

    Step two: collect mountains of data without oversight

    Step three: ??

    [ Step three could be terrifying if the new Washington and media Cold Warriors and McCarthyists continue on their way. Democrats have become wild, militarist Republicans on foreign affairs, so where is any counter to come from? ]

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 12:12 PM
    Crazily preparing us for Step three:

    https://twitter.com/barryeisler/status/789620951663063040

    Barry Eisler ‏@barryeisler

    This could be a poster for a horror movie. But it's just the sane, sober, centrist @TheEconomist, doing what they do best

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvVLw8PVYAAaLQX.jpg

    5:14 PM - 21 Oct 2016

    anne -> anne... , October 24, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    When I need to be reminded of just how afraid of the new McCarthyists I have to be, I will look to the crazily prejudiced cover of The Economist and remember that I have yet to come across a complaint by any academic economist.

    No matter though, as I keep promising I will be naming names. I have my list, and am steadily writing down names to name and name names from morning to evening I surely will.

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 12:13 PM
    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/789839468933025796

    Michael Tracey @mtracey

    TIME, the Economist, and the New Yorker have all now published covers portraying Putin as a scary, Evil menace

    Barry Eisler @barryeisler

    This could be a poster for a horror movie. But it's just the sane, sober, centrist @TheEconomist, doing what they do best

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvVLw8PVYAAaLQX.jpg

    7:42 AM - 22 Oct 2016

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 09:58 AM
    DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
    WASHINGTON, DC 20511

    October 07, 2016

    Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security
    and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

    The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 10:03 AM
    is confident that... are consistent with...

    Wait just a damn minute.

    Why is the DNI telling THE RUSSIANS what the USIC suspects? Wouldn't that blunt the capability for taking counter measures? Unless... red herring?

    Look! Over there!

    Sandwichman -> EMichael... , October 24, 2016 at 10:39 AM
    The problem with "the Russians" tale is that the Podesta emails are rather weak sauce. Is there anyone paying close attention that didn't know HRC's camp had influential contacts in the media and the DNC and used them to their advantage?

    I'm shocked, shocked that there is backroom power politics going on in a political campaign!

    The upshot of the WikiLeaks Podesta emails is to DISCREDIT WIKILEAKS as an independent source of disclosure.

    Why would Putin want to do that? Why would CLAPPER want to do that?

    DeDude -> EMichael... , October 24, 2016 at 10:52 AM
    Here is a better outline of the whole thing

    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/ "One of the first leaked files had been modified on a computer using Russian-language settings by a user named "Feliks Dzerzhinsky." Dzerzhinsky was the founder of the Cheka, the Soviet secret police"

    The Russian connect was not "revealed" by NSA alone and the evidence for anybody who understand computers and "trails" is quite strong.

    The fact that the initial "leaks" were not such a big deal was no surprise. Given Julian's desperate need to not get Clinton into the White house, you would expect him to save the most juicy stuff until a few days before the election.

    Sandwichman -> DeDude... , October 24, 2016 at 12:25 PM
    From the Esquire article: "Matt Tait, a former GCHQ operator... was particularly prolific. Hours after the first Guccifer 2.0 dump, on the evening of June 15, Tait found something curious." For the record, "GCHQ" does not refer to the magazine, Gentlemen's Quarterly.
    likbez -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 11:21 AM
    Sandwinchmen,

    First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange. There is executive branch and three letter agencies should generally keep their mouth shut and allow others to voice the concerns, etc.

    This might be a sigh of complete disorganization of executive branch with intelligence agencies becoming a power players. Kind of "Deep State" morphing into "surface state".

    There are might be also multiple valid reasons for disclosing such a sensitive information:

    1. I want your money stupid Pinocchio.
    2. Smoke screen to hide their own nefarious activities and/or blunders within the USA. Actually existence of Hillary private server is somewhat incompatible with the existence of NSA.
    3. This is one thing when Podesta using gmail. It's quite another when the Secretary of state uses "bathroom server" with incompetent or semi-competent tech staff and completely clueless entourage.
    4. Pre-emptive strike reflecting some internal struggle within US Intelligence community itself with a neocon faction going "all in" to force the viewpoint, and more aggressive toward Russia stance, which might not be shared by others.
    5. Please note that CIA and DOD are fighting each other in Iraq and Syria to a certain extent.
    6. Increase Anti-Russian hysteria, which helps Hillary as a candidate of neocon establishment.
    7. Russians might recently uncover some nefarious activities (I heard FSB did discover compromised computers in some ministries) and this is the preparation for the blowback.

    There might be more. You never know.

    DeDude -> likbez... , October 24, 2016 at 11:29 AM
    "such a sensitive" "Russians might recently uncover"

    Holy Moly - why don't you just write it in Russian and let us use a translation app to get your peddling straightened out.

    This is so funny even "Sandwinchment" will have to admit the Russian connection.

    likbez -> DeDude... , October 24, 2016 at 12:03 PM
    Don't be a Hillary shill. This is a serious issue that need real pro and contra arguments not your Ad Hominum attacks
    Sandwichman -> likbez... , October 24, 2016 at 12:31 PM
    "First of all the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange."

    Yep.

    Second, the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange.

    Last but not least, the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange.

    Did I mention that the fact that intelligence community issue a statement on such a matter is very strange?

    anne -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 10:12 AM
    The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts....

    -- Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security
    and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

    [ "Consistent with the methods and motivations..." is a shocking supposition to be made public, but we have been subject to such suppositions, seemingly with increasing frequency, for these last 15 years. ]

    Sandwichman -> anne... , October 24, 2016 at 10:30 AM
    Weapons of Mass Destruction! We have irrefutable evidence! Yellowcake!

    Keith B. Alexander: "Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false… From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense."

    ...

    Senator Wyden: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

    DNI Clapper "No, sir."

    Senator Wyden: "It does not?"

    DNI Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

    The [IN]operative word there was "collect" which in NSAspeak does not mean... collect.

    http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2016/10/donald-loves-trikileaks.html

    DeDude -> anne... , October 24, 2016 at 11:00 AM
    Not shocking at all unless you are ignorant about tracing and analyzing hacks. The traces and approaches are like fingerprints. Nobody in the business have any doubts that the Russians did this - but they will never give you the details of how they got to that conclusion, because this is a public website and the hacking wars are like the missile wars, if the other side knows what you got they can counter it and make your job harder.
    likbez -> DeDude... , October 24, 2016 at 11:42 AM
    You might be a little bit naďve as for traces.

    The first rule of such activities on state level is to pretend that you are somebody else deliberately leaving false clues (IP space, keyboard layout, etc), everything that you call traces.

    Historically it was the USA that started cyberwar and who developed the most advanced capabilities in this space. Remember the worm which tried to subvert functionality of Iranian centrifuges electronics using specially designed malware and Trojans like Flame?

    So the first suspect should internal (kind of Snowden II), not external. There was also a story with an alternative viewpoint: http://www.amtvmedia.com/why-nsa-may-have-leaked-dnc-emails/

    There were also rumors about FOXACID - The NSA's hacking program getting into DNC hands. http://investmentwatchblog.com/warning-trump-fans-be-careful-possible-leaked-info-on-plans-to-attack-trump-supporters/

    Using botnets essentially gives anybody substantial freedom about what IP space you want to use. You can pretend to be Russian if you want to and use computers from Russian IP space.

    Sanjait -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 10:35 AM
    Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.

    Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something that does relate to Krugmans post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately though the Democratic Party hasn't been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.

    Sandwichman -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 10:42 AM
    I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations.

    likbez -> Sandwichman... October 24, 2016 at 06:05 PM

    "I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."

    Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protected it, everybody else be damned.

    Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class".

    Essentially the behavior the we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch".

    Sandwichman -> Sanjait... , October 24, 2016 at 10:47 AM
    More "paranoid claptrap" (or should that be Clappertrap?): Edward Snowden: "...the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. … Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back."
    DeDude -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 11:43 AM
    Private hackers may be tired of all this Russia friendly "measured response" from the US government and take the matter of retaliation into their own hands.

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/22/technology/russian-foreign-ministry-hacked/index.html

    Peter K. -> Sandwichman ... , October 24, 2016 at 11:43 AM
    "Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper

    Oliver Stone's movie was pretty good. I agree with you that the hacked email are pretty "weak sauce" for the Russians to risk a confrontation with the sole super power. It's possible given that Putin was upset over Hillary backing the pro-democracy movement publically in recent elections.

    likbez : , October 24, 2016 at 12:00 PM
    My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible with democratic principles.

    She is way too militant, and is not that different in this respect from Senator McCain. That creates a real danger of unleashing the war with Russia.

    Trump with all his warts gives us a chance to get some kind of détente with Russia.

    In other words no real Democrat can vote for Hillary.

    [Oct 24, 2016] I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of Committee to Defend the Liberal Order when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato ..."
    "... A very interesting and pretty plausible hypothesis... That actually is the most deep insight I got from this interesting discussion. In such case intelligence agencies are definitely a part of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" which is yet another explanation of their strange behavior. ..."
    "... it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation schemes. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Dan Kervick -> Sandwichman ...

    I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato. Reply Monday, October 24, 2016 at 02:11 PM

    likbez -> Dan Kervick..., October 24, 2016 at 06:34 PM

    Dan,

    > ...some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato.

    A very interesting and pretty plausible hypothesis... That actually is the most deep insight I got from this interesting discussion. In such case intelligence agencies are definitely a part of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" which is yet another explanation of their strange behavior.

    Thank you --

    Dan Kervick -> likbez... October 24, 2016 at 01:14 PM , 2016 at 01:14 PM
    I can't claim that a mere mortal like me actually has the slightest clue what is really going on. All I will hazard is that, whatever it is, it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation schemes.

    Where this kind of high level foreign policy is involved, the US government and intelligence services blew their cred with me long ago. I disbelieve them now on as a strong and resilient prior.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Six reasons for optimism (and one big one for pessimism) - Crooked Timber

    Notable quotes:
    "... the discontent that motivates the Trump voters seems less likely to just vanish. We seem to be in the midst of a realignment of both UK and US politics, of which Trump and Farrage are just symptoms ..."
    "... Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade. Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet. ..."
    "... Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald. ..."
    "... The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually penetrating the media wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates to bypass the gate-keepers, I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether CNN, or the Wapo, report the discoveries, or not. ..."
    "... On most wedge issues, Trump is running as a bog-standard Republican conservative, and he's losing on those issues. ..."
    "... Indeed I see the synthesis of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism as the final consolidation of conservatism and the end of what we have understood as history – the final triumph of capitalism as it dies. ..."
    "... The right has also succeeded in the same way to reduce consumer rights. Arbitration agreements are attached to almost everything you buy that needs an agreement (software, mobile phones, etc.) before use. The agreements not only mandate secret arbitration they also prevent consumers from banding together in order to form a class thus making each individual consumer litigate alone. Obviously this reduces the power of individual consumers and also decreases the incentive for any one consumer to do something about what, on the individual level, may be a small injury. Basically it allows business to steal a small amount from a lot of people. ..."
    "... On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over the GOP by a slight margin. ..."
    "... The reduction of marginal income tax rates on the highest "wage" incomes combined with new doctrines of corporate business leadership that emphasized the maximization of shareholder value created a new class of C-suite business executives occupying positions of great political power as allies and servants of the rentier class of Capital owners. The elaborate structures of financial repression and mutual finance were systematically demolished, removing many of the protections from financial predation afforded the working and middle classes. ..."
    "... she's the least popular Democratic candidate perhaps ever! That's the only reason it would be close. A party built around the principles of white male supremacy and dedicated to expanding the wealth and income gap is at a massive disadvantage in any non-gerrymandered election. ..."
    "... It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention' has been hugely successful in that effort. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    SusanC 10.24.16 at 11:00 am

    Trump himself will go away, I think. But the discontent that motivates the Trump voters seems less likely to just vanish. We seem to be in the midst of a realignment of both UK and US politics, of which Trump and Farrage are just symptoms. Farrage has already made an attempt at retiring from politics, and I could easily see Trump going back to reality television after the election. The real question is: what will their supporters do next?

    I am also surprised that Corey thinks feminism and the civil rights movement has been defeated. These seem to me to be areas in which some progress has been made (along with other forms of identity politics, e.g. gay marriage). It's been the class-based labour/union movement that's been the real loser.

    Possibly it depends on which time scale you're talking about, and that some of us now count as old people, in that our implicit timescale is over our lifetimes. Maybe young college students think that all the progress made by feminism happened before they were even born, and things have slowed down of late. (With a slight hat-tip to Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions , I could easily see some further progress on feminist issues being made simply by the older guys in management positions dying off, and being replaced by younger people who grew up in a different culture),

    kidneystones 10.24.16 at 11:15 am ( 13 )

    Make that 4 and 2

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

    I disagree with the basic premise of the post in that the right has been beaten because it has won.

    That's certainly not how the right sees the landscape. The tea party of 2010 was co-opted by Richard Armey and the Kochs on the one hand and buried under a mountain of forms by Lois Lerner on the other. The Armey group rallies to Ted Cruz, who is sure to have something to say about America and the future of the Republican party should Trump be undone because of his lewd behavior and actions.

    The media is certain to be savaged no matter what the outcome. The number of artists and musicians who both profit from and promote misogyny and violence invited to the WH over the last 8 years to serve as role models for America's youth should raise nary an eyebrow. The prudery of the moment is going to be the template for 'social reform' under the Republicans. If Hillary and her media allies succeed in derailing the Trump insurgency via his mouth, his hands, and his zipper they're going to face an extremely hostile electorate. Cruz is certain to try to step into Trump's shoes as leader, preaching that Trump was a flawed messenger undone by an unforgiving god. This will make sense for too many Americans to completely ignore. The unhappy white males who have yet to self-identify as angry white males, rather than simply as Americans, may well decide to do so.

    Whatever few victories the Democrats enjoy lower down the ticket are unlikely to survive skyrocketing Affordable Care Act premiums, some form of amnesty, and an extension of America's wars in the ME. The Democrats are betting the farm that Republicans will never unlock the padlock Democrats maintain over socially-conservative minorities. Cruz's ground game and networking with the evangelical community didn't get the job done in 2016, but we can be sure that he and his team are already mapping 2020.

    Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade. Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet.

    I've no idea whether those supporting the Democratic candidate expect her to wake up on November 9, should she win, and suddenly decide to abandon the practices that got her this far. I certainly don't. If you're nauseated at the prospect of 4-8 more years of secrecy, war, lies, and corruption you're going to need to keep more than barf bags at hand, however. The polarization that has divided America over the last 8 years is, imho, far more likely to become much more corrosive and damaging with Democrats in charge.

    Ted Cruz will literally be burning crosses and probably books, pornography, and anyone/thing else that strikes his fancy. The donor class is praying that Hillary/Bush can stamp out the fires. With rising unemployment, stagnating wages, and more and more Americans feeling that the system isn't interested in them, or their children, there may very well be a little hell to pay, or a lot.

    kidneystones 10.24.16 at 12:37 pm @ 14

    It won't surprise you to learn I think you're wrong about Trump. The battle against Trump is for many a rejection of what they see in the mirror transposed onto Trump, as far as males go. Many women, including some who support him, see in Trump a dangerous predator who offers the promise of protection and wealth, but at a cost. Good thing no woman would ever sell herself, or her principles, to such a man – and if Bill Clinton pops into your head, please don't blame me.

    Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald.

    I like your question re: Cruz. I find him such a phenomenally transparent phony that I can't quite believe anyone trusts him. With Trump, and Bill Clinton, what you see is what you get – Slick Willie.

    At the moment Americans are being told they don't like what they see in Trump, but if that were the case, why was he so popular back when he was actually on the Howard Stern show and otherwise acting out? I frankly don't think most Americans give a toss what Trump did or said this week, much less ten years ago.

    The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually penetrating the media wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates to bypass the gate-keepers, I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether CNN, or the Wapo, report the discoveries, or not.

    Like I said. I think it will be close and right now I still say Trump edges it.

    Layman 10.24.16 at 12:55 pm

    "Clinton will win easily, but it could easily be argued that the victory will be over Trump the man than over any ideology. If Clinton were running against Cruz – who on any reasonable measure is well to the right of Trump – would she be 20 points ahead with women?"

    Hard to find more recent polling than this; but based on this, women would solidly still prefer Clinton over Cruz.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/190403/seven-women-unfavorable-opinion-trump.aspx

    I also doubt that notion that it is Trump's vulgarity, on its own, rather than Republican conservative ideology which is driving the likely result. Trump does himself no favors, but Clinton's negatives hold her back, too. On most wedge issues, Trump is running as a bog-standard Republican conservative, and he's losing on those issues.

    infovore 10.24.16 at 1:30 pm

    @13 "Oversampling" is jargon with a specific technical meaning. Pew describes what it is in its discussion of http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/sampling/

    Jerry Vinokurov 10.24.16 at 1:30 pm ( 21 )

    Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald.

    What odds would you accept on this outcome?

    SusanC 10.24.16 at 2:26 pm @20.

    Indeed. There's a difference between a biased sample and the oversampling technique. The difference being that with oversampling you statistically correct for the fact that you've intentionally sampled some subpopulation more frequently than you would have done if you just chose members of the whole population uniformly at random (while a biased sample just ignores or is ignorant of the problem…)

    (I hope this isn't too much of a derail. There is a grand CT tradition of yawn-not-that-again OPs with derails where you might learn something).

    Waiting for Godot 10.24.16 at 3:38 pm ( 23 )

    I am not sanguine about the apparent collapse of this version (Trump) of American fascism. If conservatism can be said to be that which argues for the preservation of traditional social institutions and traditional political values then conservatism is far from dying. Indeed I see the synthesis of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism as the final consolidation of conservatism and the end of what we have understood as history – the final triumph of capitalism as it dies.

    Bernard Yomtov 10.24.16 at 3:59 pm

    the reason I think the right has not much of a future is that it has won. If you consider its great animating energies since the New Deal-anti-labor, anti-civil rights, and anti-feminism-the right has achieved a considerable amount of success.

    I agree with dd that this is just wrong. Are labor, the civil rights movement, women's rights, worse than they were at the end of the New Deal? I don't see how.

    efcdons 10.24.16 at 4:16 pm ( 25 )

    The right has won or is winning in an some ways on labor and civil rights issues by changing the procedure by which one can assert the rights that may exist.

    The number of strikes are down as someone else mentioned. But the Right has also largely succeeded in reducing the ability of individual employees to engage in private actions to vindicate their rights. E.g. the huge increase in enforceable arbitration agreements in what are essentially contracts of adhesion. The Right has solidified the ability of business to prevent employees from using the independent, publicly funded judiciary, and instead forces them to use private, secretive, arbitrators who essentially work for the companies (because the business is a repeat player and the arbitrators rely on being chosen to arbitrate in order to make their money).

    The right has also succeeded in the same way to reduce consumer rights. Arbitration agreements are attached to almost everything you buy that needs an agreement (software, mobile phones, etc.) before use. The agreements not only mandate secret arbitration they also prevent consumers from banding together in order to form a class thus making each individual consumer litigate alone. Obviously this reduces the power of individual consumers and also decreases the incentive for any one consumer to do something about what, on the individual level, may be a small injury. Basically it allows business to steal a small amount from a lot of people.

    In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling which suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues. It is from April, 2016 so not the freshest data. But it might indicate Trump's bog standard GOP policies are not what is driving votes to Clinton/away from Trump.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/dvsr.htm

    On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over the GOP by a slight margin.

    bruce wilder 10.24.16 at 5:04 pm

    Among the most successful projects of the Right was financialization of the economy.

    The reduction of marginal income tax rates on the highest "wage" incomes combined with new doctrines of corporate business leadership that emphasized the maximization of shareholder value created a new class of C-suite business executives occupying positions of great political power as allies and servants of the rentier class of Capital owners. The elaborate structures of financial repression and mutual finance were systematically demolished, removing many of the protections from financial predation afforded the working and middle classes.

    In the current election, the Democratic Party has split on financial reform issues, with the dominant faction represented by the Party's candidate prioritizing issues of race and gender equality.

    Layman 10.24.16 at 5:06 pm ( 29 )

    "In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling which suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues."

    I imagine any poll pitting 'generic Republican' against Hillary Clinton in April of this year would have shown 'generic Republican' winning. The problem is, you can't run 'generic Republican'.

    I'm hard pressed to point at any prominent Republican who I think would be handily beating Clinton now. Once you name them, they have to say what they're for and against, and she takes her shot at them, and they're fighting an uphill battle. And she's the least popular Democratic candidate perhaps ever! That's the only reason it would be close. A party built around the principles of white male supremacy and dedicated to expanding the wealth and income gap is at a massive disadvantage in any non-gerrymandered election.

    PGD 10.24.16 at 6:28 pm

    It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention' has been hugely successful in that effort.

    One of the most depressing things about this election campaign to me has been to see the Democrats using their full spectrum media dominance not to fight for a mandate for left policies, but to run a coordinated and effective propaganda campaign for greater U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, focusing on demonizing Putin and on humanitarian intervention rhetoric around Aleppo and the like.

    [Oct 24, 2016] Dont Repeat That To Anybody - Hillary Clinton And Donna Brazile Personally Implicated In Latest Project Veritas Video

    Oct 24, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Last week, Jame O'keefe and Project Veritas Action potentially altered the course of the U.S. election, or at a minimum raised serious doubts about the practices of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, after releasing two undercover videos that revealed efforts of democrat operatives to incite violence at republican rallies and commit "mass voter fraud." While democrats have vehemently denied the authenticity of the videos, two democratic operatives, Robert Creamer and Scott Foval, have both been forced to resign over the allegations.

    Many democrats made the rounds on various mainstream media outlets over the weekend in an attempt to debunk the Project Veritas videos. Unfortunately for them, O'Keefe fired back with warnings that part 3 of his multi-part series was forthcoming and would implicate Hillary Clinton directly.

    Anything happens to me, there's a deadman's switch on Part III, which will be released Monday. @HillaryClinton and @donnabrazile implicated.

    - James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 21, 2016

    Now, we have the 3rd installment of O'Keefe's videos which does seemingly reveal direct coordination between Hillary Clinton, Donna Brazile, Robert Creamer and Scott Foval to organize a smear campaign over Trump's failure to release his tax returns. Per Project Veritas :

    Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton's campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it's all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. " In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground," says Creamer in one of several exchanges. "So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground." It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: "Don't repeat that to anybody."

    Within the video both Clinton and Brazile are directly implicated by Creamer during the following exchange:

    "The duck has to be an Americans United for Change entity. This had to do only with some problem between Donna Brazile and ABC, which is owned by Disney, because they were worried about a trademark issue. That's why. It's really silly.

    We originally launched this duck because Hillary Clinton wants the duck .

    In any case, so she really wanted this duck figure out there doing this stuff, so that was fine. So, we put all these ducks out there and got a lot of coverage. And Trump taxes. And then ABC/Disney went crazy because they thought our original slogan was 'Donald ducks his taxes, releasing his tax returns."

    They said it was a trademark issue. It's not, but anyway, Donna Brazile had a connection with them and she didn't want to get sued. So we switched the ownership of the duck to Americans United for Change and now our signs say 'Trump ducks releasing his tax returns.' And we haven't had anymore trouble."

    As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation of federal election laws:

    "The ducks on the ground are likely 'public communications' for purposes of the law. It's political activity opposing Trump, paid for by Americans United For Change funds but controlled by Clinton/her campaign."

    Here is the full video just released:

    As a reminder, below are parts 1 & 2 of the Project Veritas series in case you missed them.

    Video 1 revealed DNC efforts to incite violence at Trump rallies:

    Video 2 provided the democrat playbook on how to committ "mass voter fraud":

    RawPawg Oct 24, 2016 1:10 PM ,
    i'm waiting for SHTF

    And all I get is Ducks

    nope-1004 RawPawg Oct 24, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    Throw the scumbag Hillary in Jail!!!!

    It's time people acknolwedge the deep corruption and headed down to the Capital on foot.

    remain calm nope-1004 Oct 24, 2016 1:15 PM ,
    Comey will get right on it.
    Duane Norman remain calm Oct 24, 2016 1:16 PM ,
    And this is why the people want Trump, because he isn't above Comey!

    http://fmshooter.com/real-reasons-people-will-vote-for-trump/

    Occident Mortal nyse Oct 24, 2016 1:45 PM ,
    What's the bets Comey ends up at Goldman Sachs?

    e.g. VP without portfolio?

    NoDebt Occident Mortal Oct 24, 2016 2:01 PM ,
    "As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation of federal election laws "

    Yeah, you pretty much got the head shot there. Unfortunately, no gun to shoot it from. The enforcement authorities all work FOR the Democrat party.

    Full spectrum dominance. It's a bitch. Even if you catch them red-haned there's no "authorities" to report it to that will listen to you.

    Remember what happened to Planned Parenthood when they were caught red-handed selling human tissue for profit (which is also illegal)? That's right. Nothing. Same thing here.

    Son of Loki NoDebt Oct 24, 2016 2:02 PM ,
    Clinton attack featuring Miss Universe was months in the making, email shows

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-attack-featuring-miss-uni...

    The Saint froze25 Oct 24, 2016 5:22 PM ,
    The problem is that the MSM isn't reporting on any of this stuff about Hillary. And, the Republicans in office aren't on the news at all to talk about any of this. So, the only place it is reported is on the Trump campaign trail where just a few thousand hear about.

    If the media won't report it and the Republicans won't talk about it, Hillary gets a pass. The audience for sites like ZH and Drudge are just preaching to the chior and not reaching the people who could change their minds or haven't made up their minds.

    froze25 -> ImGumbydmmt •Oct 24, 2016 3:40 PM
    What this video is, is evidence of collusion between a campaign and a SuperPac. That is illegal in a criminal court. This is enough to open an investigation, problem is nothing will be done by Nov 8th. All we can do is share it non-stop.
    Bastiat d Haus-Targaryen •Oct 24, 2016 2:11 PM
    Don't discount the Enquirer: remember who took down Gary Hart and John Edwards:

    Hillary Clinton's shady Mr. Fix It will tell all on TV tonight, just days after his explosive confession in The National ENQUIRER hit the stands.

    The man who's rocked Washington, D.C., will join Sean Hannity on tonight's episode of "Hannity" - airing on the FOX News Channel at 10 p.m. EST - to reveal his true identity at last.

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/politics/hillary-clinton-lesbian-trysts-...

    [Oct 24, 2016] Strobe Talbott ia a closet neocon and it was he who brought Mrs Kagan aka Victoria Nuland in to State Department in 1993.

    Oct 24, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> Dan Kervick... , October 24, 2016 at 03:22 PM

    Anne and I have seen this for a while.

    Nothing new Strobe Talbott was closeted, and brought Mrs Kagan aka Victoria Nuland in to State in 1993.

    Bill bearded the bear breaking Kosovo and Bosinia out of Serbia...........

    The down payment for Kyiv in 2012 was in 1996.

    likbez -> ilsm... , -1
    Nuland occupies a special place among neocons.

    This former associate of Dick Cheney managed to completely destroy pretty nice European county, unleashing the horror of real starvation on the population.

    Ukraine now is essentially Central African country in the middle of the Europe. Retirees often live on less then $1 a day. most adults (and lucky retirees) on less then $3 a day. $6 a day is considered a high salary. At the same time "oligarchs" drive on Maybachs, and personal jets.

    Sex tourism is rampant. Probably the only "profession" that prospered since "Maydan".

    Young people try to get university education and emigrate to any county that would accept them (repeating the story of Baltic countries and Poland).

    Now this a typical IMF debt slave with no chances to get out of the hole.

    Politically this is now a protectorate of the USA with the USA ambassador as the real, de-facto ruler of the country. Much like Kosovo is.

    Standard of living dropped approximately three times since 2014.

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/ukraines-perpetual-war-perpetual-peace-17614

    "If the country continues on its present course, Odessa's reformist governor Mikheil Saakashvili has noted sarcastically, Ukraine will not reach the level of GDP it had under former president Viktor Yanukovych for another fifteen years"

    "In Kiev, which is by far the wealthiest city in Ukraine, payment arrears for electricity have risen by 32 percent since the beginning of this year."

    [Oct 24, 2016] Peace Through Trump The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... US-Russia-China cooperation will eliminate for the US the threat of war with the only two powers whose nuclear capabilities could pose existential threats to the US. ..."
    "... Simultaneously, Trump will put an end to "the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow…a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the well-being of the larger U.S. population…Instead of sacrificing American economic interests on the altar of U.S. 'leadership,' [Trump] will view the strengthening of the American economy as central to American greatness." ..."
    "... President Trump will rebuild the decimated US manufacturing sector and return to Americans those tens of millions of jobs that America's globalist elites were allowed to ship overseas. Rebuilding the US economy – and jobs! – will be the centerpiece of a Donald Trump presidency. ..."
    "... The problem is that everyone wants to call themselves a Realist, even the Neocons. The Neocons proclaim that promoting Democracy, nation building, and being the world's policeman is 'realism' because if you withdraw from the world the problems follow you home. Tom Rogan bellowed that we needed to destroy Syria in the name of realism. They are totally wrong but the point is that everyone wants to claim this mantle which is why I tend to avoid this term. ..."
    "... I think we should embrace the Putin Doctrine but that name is toxic. Basically, he eschews destroying standing govts because it is highly destabilizing. This is common sense. ..."
    "... Oh, when I hear 'Bush kept us safe' it tears my heart out when I see guys in their 20/30's walking around with those titanium prosthetics. Do the 4,000+ men who died in Iraq and 10,000+ severely wounded count? And this does not even start to count the chaos and death in the M.E. ..."
    "... Mainstream media are besides themselves at the prospect of their masters having to relinquish their special entitlements; namely, designer wars, selection of the few to govern the many (Supreme Court and the Fed), and putting foreign dictates over American interests at an incredible cost to the U.S. in human and non-human resources. ..."
    Oct 24, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Donald Trump played a wily capitalistic trick on his Republican opponents in the primary fights this year-he served an underserved market.

    By now it's a cliché that Trump, while on his way to the GOP nomination, tapped into an unnoticed reservoir of right-of-center opinion on domestic and economic concerns-namely, the populist-nationalists who felt left out of the reigning market-libertarianism of the last few decades.

    Indeed, of the 17 Republicans who ran this year, Trump had mostly to himself the populist issues: that is, opposition to open borders, to free trade, and to earned-entitlement cutting. When the other candidates were zigging toward the familiar-and unpopular-Chamber of Commerce-approved orthodoxy, Trump was zagging toward the voters.

    Moreover, the same sort of populist-nationalist reservoir-tapping was evident in the realm of foreign affairs. To put it in bluntly Trumpian terms, the New Yorker hit 'em where they weren't.

    The fact that Trump was doing something dramatically different became clear in the make-or-break Republican debate in Greenville, S.C., on February 13. Back in those early days of the campaign, Trump had lost one contest (Iowa) and won one (New Hampshire), and it was still anybody's guess who would emerge victorious.

    During that debate, Trump took what seemed to be an extraordinary gamble: he ripped into George W. Bush's national-security record-in a state where the 43rd president was still popular. Speaking of the Iraq War, Trump said, "George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East."

    And then Trump went further, aiming indirectly at the former president, while slugging his brother Jeb directly: "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that."

    In response, Jeb intoned the usual Republican line, "He kept us safe." And others on the stage in Greenville that night rushed to associate themselves with Bush 43.

    In the aftermath of this verbal melee, many thought that Trump had doomed himself. As one unnamed Republican "strategist" chortled to Politico , "Trump's attack on President George W. Bush was galactic-level stupid in South Carolina."

    Well, not quite: Trump triumphed in the Palmetto State primary a week later, winning by a 10-point margin.

    Thus, as we can see in retrospect, something had changed within the GOP. After 9/11, in the early years of this century, South Carolinians had been eager to fight. Yet by the middle of the second decade, they-or at least a plurality of them-had grown weary of endless foreign war.

    Trump's victory in the Palmetto State was decisive, yet it was nevertheless only a plurality, 32.5 percent. Meanwhile, Sen. Marco Rubio, running as an unabashed neocon hawk, finished second.

    So we can see that the Republican foreign-policy "market" is now segmented. And while Trump proved effective at targeting crucial segments, they weren't the only segments-because, in actuality, there are four easily identifiable blocs on the foreign-policy right. And as we delineate these four segments, we can see that while some are highly organized and tightly articulate, others are loose and inchoate:

    First, the libertarians. That is, the Cato Institute and other free-market think tanks, Reason magazine, and so on. Libertarians are not so numerous around the country, but they are strong among the intelligentsia.

    Second, the old-right "isolationists." These folks, also known as "paleocons," often find common ground with libertarians, yet their origins are different, and so is their outlook. Whereas the libertarians typically have issued a blanket anathema to all foreign entanglements, the isolationists have been more selective. During World War I, for example, their intellectual forbears were hostile to U.S. involvement on the side of the Allies, but that was often because of specifically anti-English or pro-German sentiments, not because they felt guided by an overall principle of non-intervention. Indeed, the same isolationists were often eager to intervene in Latin America and in the Far East. More recently, the temperamentally isolationist bloc has joined with the libertarians in opposition to deeper U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

    Third, the traditional hawks. On the proverbial Main Street, USA, plenty of people-not limited to the active-duty military, veterans, and law-enforcers-believe that America's national honor is worth fighting for.

    Fourth, the neoconservatives. This group, which takes hawkishness to an avant-garde extreme, is so praised, and so criticized, that there's little that needs be added here. Yet we can say this: as with the libertarians, they are concentrated in Washington, DC; by contrast, out beyond the Beltway, they are relatively scarce. Because of their connections to big donors to both parties, however, they have been powerful, even preeminent, in foreign-policy circles over the last quarter-century. Yet today, it's the neocons who feel most threatened by, and most hostile to, the Trump phenomenon.

    We can pause to offer a contextual point: floating somewhere among the first three categories-libertarians, isolationists, hawks-are the foreign-policy realists. These, of course, are the people, following in the tradition of the great scholar Hans Morgenthau, who pride themselves on seeing the world as it is, regarding foreign policy as just another application of Bismarckian wisdom-"the art of the possible."

    The realists, disproportionately academics and think-tankers, are a savvy and well-credentialed group-or, according to critics, cynical and world-weary. Yet either way, they have made many alliances with the aforementioned trio of groups, even as they have usually maintained their ideological flexibility. To borrow the celebrated wisdom of the 19th-century realpolitiker Lord Palmerston, realists don't have permanent attachments; they have permanent interests. And so it seems likely that if Trump wins-or anyone like Trump in the future-many realists will be willing to emerge from their wood-paneled precincts to engage in the hurly-burly of public service.

    Returning to our basic quartet of blocs, we can quickly see that two of them, the libertarians and the neocons, have been loudly successful in the "battle of ideas." That is, almost everyone knows where the libertarians and the neocons stand on the controversies of the moment. Meanwhile, the other two groups-the isolationists and the traditional hawks-have failed to make themselves heard. That is, until Trump.

    For the most part, the isolationists and hawks have not been organized; they've just been clusters of veterans, cops, gun owners, and like-minded souls gathering here and there, feeling strongly about the issues but never finding a national megaphone. Indeed, even organized groups, such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, sizable as they might be, have had little impact, of late, on foreign affairs.

    This paradoxical reality-that even big groups can be voiceless, allowing smaller groups to carry the day-is well understood. Back in 1839, the historian Thomas Carlyle observed of his Britain, "The speaking classes speak and debate," while the "deep-buried [working] class lies like an Enceladus"-a mythological giant imprisoned under a volcano. Yet, Carlyle continued, the giant under the volcano will not stay silent forever; one day it will erupt, and the inevitable eruption "has to produce earthquakes!"

    In our time, Trump has provoked the Enceladus-like earthquake. Over the past year, while the mainstream media has continued to lavish attention on the fine points of libertarianism and neoconservatism, the Peoples of the Volcano have blown up American politics.

    Trump has spoken loudly to both of his groups. To the isolationists, he has highlighted his past opposition to the Iraq and Libya misadventures, as well as his suspicions about NATO and other alliances. (Here the libertarians, too, are on board.) At the same time, he has also talked the language of the hawks, as when he has said, "Take the oil" and "Bomb the [bleep] out of them." Trump has also attacked the Iran nuclear agreement, deriding it as "one of the worst deals ever made."

    Thus earlier this year Trump mobilized the isolationists and the hawks, leaving the libertarians to Rand Paul and the neocons to Rubio.

    Now as we move to the general election, it appears that Trump has kept the loyalty of his core groups. Many libertarians, meanwhile, are voting for Gary Johnson-the former Republican governor at the top of the Libertarian Party's ticket-and they are being joined, most likely as a one-off, by disaffected Republicans and Democrats. Meanwhile, the neocons, most of them, have become the objective allies, if not the overt supporters, of Hillary Clinton.

    Even if Trump loses, his energized supporters, having found their voice, will be a new and important force within the GOP-a force that could make it significantly harder for a future president to, say, "liberate" and "democratize" Syria.

    ♦♦♦

    Yet now we must skip past the unknown unknowns of the election and ask: what might we expect if Trump becomes president?

    One immediate point to be borne in mind is that it will be a challenge to fill the cabinet and the sub-cabinet-to say nothing of the thousands of "Schedule C" positions across the administration-with true Trump loyalists. Yes, of course, if Trump wins that means he will have garnered 50 million or more votes, but still, the number of people who have the right credentials and can pass all the background checks-including, for most of the top jobs, Senate confirmation-is minuscule.

    So here we might single out the foreign-policy realists as likely having a bright future in a Trump administration: after all, they are often well-credentialed and, by their nature, have prudently tended to keep their anti-Trump commentary to a minimum. (There's a piece of inside-the-Beltway realist wisdom that seems relevant here: "You're for what happens.")

    Yet the path to realist dominion in a Trump administration is not smooth. As a group, they have been in eclipse since the Bush 41 era, so an entire generation of their cadres is missing. The realists do not have long lists of age-appropriate alumni ready for another spin through the revolving door.

    By contrast, the libertarians have lots of young staffers on some think-tank payroll or another. And of course, the neocons have lots of experience and contacts-yes, they screwed up the last time they were in power, but at least they know the jargon.

    Thus, unless president-elect Trump makes a genuinely heroic effort to infuse his administration with new blood, he will end up hiring a lot of folks who might not really agree with him-and who perhaps even have strongly, if quietly, opposed him. That means that the path of a Trump presidency could be channeled in an unexpected direction, as the adherents of other foreign-policy schools-including, conceivably, schools from the left-clamber aboard. As they say in DC, "personnel is policy."

    Still, Trump has a strong personality, and it's entirely possible that, as president, he will succeed in imprinting his unique will on his appointees. (On the other hand, the career government, starting with the State Department's foreign service officers, might well prove to be a different story.)

    Looking further ahead, as a hypothetical President Trump surveys the situation from the Sit Room, here are nine things that will be in view:

    1.

    Trump will recall, always, that the Bush 43 presidency drove itself into a ditch on Iraq. So he will surely see the supreme value of not sending U.S. ground troops-beyond a few advisors-into Middle Eastern war zones.

    2.

    Trump will also realize that Barack Obama, for all his talk about hope and change, ended up preserving the bulk of Bush 43's policies. The only difference is that Obama did it on the cheap, reducing defense spending as he went along.

    Obama similar to Bush-really? Yes. To be sure, Obama dropped all of Bush's democratic messianism, but even with his cool detachment he kept all of Bush's alliances and commitments, including those in Afghanistan and Iraq. And then he added a new international commitment: "climate change."

    In other words, America now has a policy of "quintuple containment": Russia, China, Iran, ISIS/al-Qaeda, and, of course, the carbon-dioxide molecule. Many would argue that today we aren't managing any of these containments well; others insist that the Obama administration, perversely, seems most dedicated to the containment of climate change: everything else can fall apart, but if the Obamans can maintain the illusion of their international CO2 deals, as far as they are concerned all will be well.

    In addition, Uncle Sam has another hundred or so minor commitments-including bilateral defense treaties with countries most Americans have never heard of, along with special commitments to champion the rights of children, women, dissidents, endangered species, etc. On a one-by-one basis, it's possible to admire many of these efforts; on a cumulative basis, it's impossible to imagine how we can sustain all of them.

    3.
    A populist president like Trump will further realize that if the U.S. has just 4 percent of the world's population and barely more than a fifth of world GDP, it's not possible that we can continue to police the planet. Yes, we have many allies-on paper. Yet Trump's critique of many of them as feckless, even faithless, resonated for one big reason: it was true.

    So Trump will likely begin the process of rethinking U.S. commitments around the world. Do we really want to risk nuclear war over the Spratly Islands? Or the eastern marches of Ukraine? Here, Trump might well default to the wisdom of the realists: big powers are just that-big powers-and so one must deal with them in all their authoritarian essentiality. And as for all the other countries of the world-some we like and some we don't-we're not going to change them, either. (Although in some cases, notably Iraq and Syria, partition, supervised by the great powers, may be the only solution.)

    4.

    Trump will surely see world diplomacy as an extension of what he has done best all his life-making deals. This instinct will serve him well in two ways: first, he will be sharply separating himself from his predecessors, Bush the hot-blooded unilateralist war-of-choicer and Obama the cool and detached multilateralist leader-from-behind. Second, his deal-making desire will inspire him do what needs to be done: build rapport with world leaders as a prelude to making things happen.

    To cite one immediate example: there's no way that we will ever achieve anything resembling "peace with honor" in Afghanistan without the full cooperation of the Taliban's masters in Pakistan. Ergo, the needed deal must be struck in Islamabad, not Kabul.

    Almost certainly, a President Trump will treat China and Russia as legitimate powers, not as rogue states that must be single-handedly tamed by America.

    Moreover, Trump's deal-making trope also suggests that instead of sacrificing American economic interests on the altar of U.S. "leadership," he will view the strengthening of the American economy as central to American greatness.

    5.

    Trump will further realize that his friends the realists have had a blind spot of late when it comes to eco nomic matters. Once upon a time-that is, in the 19th century-economic nationalism was at the forefront of American foreign-policy making. In the old days, as America's Manifest Destiny stretched beyond the continental U.S., expansionism and Hamiltonianism went together: as they used to say, trade follows the flag. Theodore Roosevelt's digging of the Panama Canal surely ranks as one of the most successful fusions of foreign and economic policy in American history.

    Yet in the past few decades, the economic nationalists and the foreign-policy realists have drifted apart. For example, a Reagan official, Clyde Prestowitz of the Economic Strategy Institute, has been mostly ignored by the realists, who have instead embraced the conventional elite view of free trade and globalization.

    So a President Trump will have the opportunity to reunite realism and economic nationalism; he can once again put manufacturing exports, for example, at the top of the U.S. agenda. Indeed, Trump might consider other economic-nationalist gambits: for example, if we are currently defending such wealthy countries as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Norway, why aren't they investing some of the trillions of dollars in their sovereign-wealth funds into, say, American infrastructure?

    6.

    Trump will also come into power realizing that he has few friends in the foreign-policy establishment; after all, most establishmentarians opposed him vehemently. Yet that could turn out to be a real plus for the 45th president because it could enable him to discard the stodgy and outworn thinking of the "experts." In particular, he could refute the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow. That was always, of course, a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the well-being of the larger U.S. population-and maybe Trump can come up with a better and fairer vision.

    7.

    As an instinctive deal-maker, Trump will have the capacity to clear away the underbrush of accumulated obsolete doctrines and dogmas. To cite just one small but tragic example, there's the dopey chain of thinking that has guided U.S. policy toward South Sudan. Today, we officially condemn both sides in that country's ongoing civil war. Yet we might ask, how can that work out well for American interests? After all, one side or the other is going to win, and we presumably want a friend in Juba, not a Chinese-affiliated foe.

    On the larger canvas, Trump will observe that if the U.S., China, and Russia are the three countries capable of destroying the world, then it's smart to figure out a modus vivendi among this threesome. Such practical deal-making, of course, would undermine the moralistic narrative that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are the potentates of new evil empires.

    8.

    Whether or not he's currently familiar with the terminology, Trump seems likely to recapitulate the "multipolar" system envisioned by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. Back then, the multipolar vision included the U.S., the USSR, Western Europe, China, and Japan.

    Yet multipolarity was lost in the '80s, as the American economy was Reaganized, the Cold War grew colder, and the Soviet Union staggered to its self-implosion. Then in the '90s we had the "unipolar moment," when the U.S. enjoyed "hyper-power" primacy.

    Yet as with all moments, unipolarity soon passed, undone by the Iraq quagmire, America's economic stagnation, and the rise of other powers. So today, multipolarity seems destined to re-emerge with a slightly upgraded cast of players: the U.S., China, Russia, the European Union, and perhaps India.

    9.

    And, of course, Trump will have to build that wall along the U.S.-Mexican border.

    ♦♦♦

    Some might object that I am reading too much into Trump. Indeed, the conventional wisdom, even today, maintains that Trump is visceral, not intellectual, that he is buffoonish, not Kissingerian.

    To such critics, this Trump supporter feels compelled to respond: when has the conventional wisdom about the New Yorker been proven correct?

    It's not easy to become president. In all of U.S. history, just 42 individuals have been elected to the presidency-or to the vice presidency and succeeded a fallen president. That is, indeed, an exclusive club. Or as Trump himself might say, it's not a club for dummies.

    If Trump does, in fact, become the 45th president, then by definition, he will have proven himself to be pretty darn strategic. And that's a portent that bodes well for his foreign policy.

    James P. Pinkerton is a contributor to the Fox News Channel.

    Kurt Gayle , October 24, 2016 at 12:03 am
    Among James Pinkerton's most compelling reasons to hope for a Trump presidency are these two:

    [1] "Almost certainly, a President Trump will treat China and Russia as legitimate powers, not as rogue states that must be single-handedly tamed by America…Trump will observe that if the U.S., China, and Russia are the three countries capable of destroying the world, then it's smart to figure out amodus vivendi among this threesome…"

    US-Russia-China cooperation will eliminate for the US the threat of war with the only two powers whose nuclear capabilities could pose existential threats to the US.

    [2] Simultaneously, Trump will put an end to "the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow…a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the well-being of the larger U.S. population…Instead of sacrificing American economic interests on the altar of U.S. 'leadership,' [Trump] will view the strengthening of the American economy as central to American greatness."

    President Trump will rebuild the decimated US manufacturing sector and return to Americans those tens of millions of jobs that America's globalist elites were allowed to ship overseas. Rebuilding the US economy – and jobs! – will be the centerpiece of a Donald Trump presidency.<

    Chris Chuba , October 24, 2016 at 8:28 am
    The problem is that everyone wants to call themselves a Realist, even the Neocons. The Neocons proclaim that promoting Democracy, nation building, and being the world's policeman is 'realism' because if you withdraw from the world the problems follow you home. Tom Rogan bellowed that we needed to destroy Syria in the name of realism. They are totally wrong but the point is that everyone wants to claim this mantle which is why I tend to avoid this term.

    I think we should embrace the Putin Doctrine but that name is toxic. Basically, he eschews destroying standing govts because it is highly destabilizing. This is common sense.

    Oh, when I hear 'Bush kept us safe' it tears my heart out when I see guys in their 20/30's walking around with those titanium prosthetics. Do the 4,000+ men who died in Iraq and 10,000+ severely wounded count? And this does not even start to count the chaos and death in the M.E.

    PAXNOW , October 24, 2016 at 10:13 am
    Trump just came across as different while maintaining conservative, albeit middle-American values. Mainstream media are besides themselves at the prospect of their masters having to relinquish their special entitlements; namely, designer wars, selection of the few to govern the many (Supreme Court and the Fed), and putting foreign dictates over American interests at an incredible cost to the U.S. in human and non-human resources.

    The song goes on. Trump hit a real nerve. Even if he loses, the American people have had a small but important victory. We are frustrated with the ruling cabal. A sleeping giant has been awoken. This election could be the political Perl Harbor….

    Ed Johnson , October 24, 2016 at 10:41 am
    Pinkerton has spent thousands of words writing about someone who is not the Donald Trump anyone has ever seen.

    In this, he joins every other member of the Right, who wait in hopeful anticipation to see a Champion for their cause in Donald Trump, and are willing to turn a blind eye to his ignorance, outright stupidity, lack of self-discipline, and lack of serious intent.

    Pinkerton, he will only follow your lead here if he sees what's in it for HIM, not for the Right and certainly not for the benefit of the American people.

    w vervin , October 24, 2016 at 1:00 pm
    Flawed premise. This opine works its way through the rabbit hole pretzel of current methodologies in D.C. The ones that don't work. The city of NY had a similar outcome building a certain ice skating facility within the confines of a system designed to fail.

    What Trump does is implode those failed systems, implements a methodology that has proven to succeed, and then does it. Under budget and before the deadline. Finding the *right* bodies to make it all work isn't as difficult as is surmised. What that shows is how difficult that task would be for the author. Whenever I hear some pundit claim that Trump can't possibly do all that means is the pundit couldn't possibly do it.

    The current system is full of youcan'tdoits, what have you got to lose, more of the same?

    [Oct 23, 2016] Rigged Elections Are An American Tradition

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased. ..."
    "... Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary. ..."
    "... The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft. ..."
    "... Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting. ..."
    "... Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Paul Craig Roberts • October 21, 2016

    Do Americans have a memory? I sometimes wonder.

    It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased.

    The current cause celebre against Trump is his conditional statement that he might not accept the election results if they appear to have been rigged. The presstitutes immediately jumped on him for "discrediting American democracy" and for "breaking American tradition of accepting the people's will."

    What nonsense! Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary.

    So what's the big deal about Trump's suspicion of election rigging?

    The black civil rights movement has fought vote rigging for decades. The rigging takes place in a number of ways. Blacks simply can't get registered to vote. If they do get registered, there are few polling places in their districts. And so on. After decades of struggle it is impossible that there are any blacks who are not aware of how hard it can be for them to vote. Yet, I heard on the presstitute radio network, NPR, Hillary's Uncle Toms saying how awful it was that Trump had cast aspersion on the credibility of American election results.

    I also heard a NPR announcer suggest that Russia had not only hacked Hillary's emails, but also had altered them in order to make incriminating documents out of harmless emails.

    The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft.

    Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting.

    Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want.

    [Oct 23, 2016] Rigged Elections Are An American Tradition

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased. ..."
    "... Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary. ..."
    "... The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft. ..."
    "... Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting. ..."
    "... Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.unz.com

    Paul Craig Roberts • October 21, 2016

    Do Americans have a memory? I sometimes wonder.

    It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased.

    The current cause celebre against Trump is his conditional statement that he might not accept the election results if they appear to have been rigged. The presstitutes immediately jumped on him for "discrediting American democracy" and for "breaking American tradition of accepting the people's will."

    What nonsense! Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary.

    So what's the big deal about Trump's suspicion of election rigging?

    The black civil rights movement has fought vote rigging for decades. The rigging takes place in a number of ways. Blacks simply can't get registered to vote. If they do get registered, there are few polling places in their districts. And so on. After decades of struggle it is impossible that there are any blacks who are not aware of how hard it can be for them to vote. Yet, I heard on the presstitute radio network, NPR, Hillary's Uncle Toms saying how awful it was that Trump had cast aspersion on the credibility of American election results.

    I also heard a NPR announcer suggest that Russia had not only hacked Hillary's emails, but also had altered them in order to make incriminating documents out of harmless emails.

    The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft.

    Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting.

    Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want.

    [Oct 23, 2016] Clintonism is wedge politics directed against any class or populist upheaval that might threaten neoliberalism

    That's explains vicious campaign by neoliberal MSM against Trump and swiping under the carpet all criminal deeds of Clinton family. They feel the threat...
    Notable quotes:
    "... It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism. ..."
    "... That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness. That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    An excellent article

    It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism.

    That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness. That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.[…]

    There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.

    In other words it's all part of a grand plan when the Clintonoids aren't busy debating the finer points of her marketing and "mark"–a term normally applied to the graphic logo on a commercial product.

    http://www.unz.com/plee/trump-we-wish-the-problem-was-fascism/

    [Oct 23, 2016] Hillary Clinton and Identity Politics

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton's nomination and the euphoria in the press (one NPR female reporter said she has seen women weeping over the possibility of Hillary becoming president) eclipses any discussion about the real issues facing the country. ..."
    "... Notice how the term "women's issues" is used by the media and certain politicians to suggest that there is only one acceptable position for females on any given topic. To the left, women's issues appear to mean abortion rights, same-sex marriage, higher taxes, bigger government and electing more women who favor such things. ..."
    "... As the husband of a successful woman with a master's degree and accomplished daughters and granddaughters, that's how we feel about Hillary Clinton. We're all for a female president, just not this one. ..."
    www.newsbusters.org
    Have you heard that Hillary Clinton is the "first woman" ever to be nominated for president by a major political party? Of course you have. The media have repeated the line so often it is broken news.

    Hillary Clinton's nomination and the euphoria in the press (one NPR female reporter said she has seen women weeping over the possibility of Hillary becoming president) eclipses any discussion about the real issues facing the country.

    To quote Clinton in another context, "what difference does it make" that she is a woman? A liberal is a liberal, regardless of gender, race or ethnicity.

    Must we go through an entire list of "firsts" before we get to someone who can solve our collective problems, instead of making them worse? Many of those cheering this supposed progress in American culture, which follows the historic election of the "first African-American president," are insincere, if not disingenuous. Otherwise, they would have applauded the advancement of African-Americans like Gen. Colin Powell, Justice Clarence Thomas, former one-term Rep. Allen West (R-FL), Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) and conservative women like Sarah Palin, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), former presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, Rep. Mia Love (R-UT) and many others.

    Immigrants who entered the country legally and became citizens are virtually ignored by the media. They champion instead illegal immigrants and the liberals who support them.

    The reason for this disparity in attitude and coverage is that conservative blacks, women and Hispanics hold positions anathema to the left. Conservative African-Americans have been called all kinds of derogatory names in an effort to get them to convert to liberal orthodoxy, and they're ostracized if they don't convert. If conservative, a female is likely to be labeled a traitor to her gender, or worse.

    Notice how the term "women's issues" is used by the media and certain politicians to suggest that there is only one acceptable position for females on any given topic. To the left, women's issues appear to mean abortion rights, same-sex marriage, higher taxes, bigger government and electing more women who favor such things.

    When it comes to accomplished conservative female leaders, one of the greatest and smartest of our time was the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan's consequential U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. As Jay Nordlinger wrote in his review of Peter Collier's book "Political Woman" for National Review, "In a saner world, Jeane Kirkpatrick would have been lionized by feminists. She had risen from the oil patch to the commanding heights of U.S. foreign policy. But her views were 'wrong.'"

    Collier writes that Kirkpatrick, who was a Democrat most of her life, recalled feminist icon Gloria Steinem once referring to her as "a female impersonator." Author Naomi Wolf called her "a woman without a uterus" and claimed that she had been "unaffected by the experiences of the female body." Kirkpatrick responded, "I have three kids, while she, when she made this comment had none."

    The left gets away with these kinds of smears because they largely control the media and the message. No Republican could escape shunning, or worse, if such language were employed against a female Democrat.

    Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, born in Philadelphia to Philippine citizens, has written about some of the printable things she's been called -- "race traitor," "white man's puppet," "Tokyo Rose," "Aunt Tomasina."

    As the cliche goes, if liberals didn't have a double standard, they would have no standards at all.

    There's an old joke about a woman with five children who was asked if she had it to do over again would she have five kids. "Yes," she replied, "just not these five."

    As the husband of a successful woman with a master's degree and accomplished daughters and granddaughters, that's how we feel about Hillary Clinton. We're all for a female president, just not this one.

    [Oct 23, 2016] The USA now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang

    Notable quotes:
    "... I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite. ..."
    "... But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid. ..."
    "... In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | angrybearblog.com
    likbez October 22, 2016 11:20 pm

    The key problems with Democratic Party and Hillary is that they lost working class and middle class voters, becoming another party of highly paid professionals and Wall Street speculators (let's say top 10%, not just 1%), the party of neoliberal elite.

    It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and lower middle class works this time. I think it will not. Even upper middle class is very resentful of Democrats and Hillary. So many votes will be not "for" but "against". This is the scenario Democratic strategists fear the most, but they can do nothing about it.

    She overplayed "identity politics" card. Her "identity politics" and her fake feminism are completely insincere. She is completely numb to human suffering and interests of females and minorities. Looks like she has a total lack of empathy for other people.

    Here is one interesting quote ( http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/10/how-trump-and-clinton-gave-bad-answers-on-us-nuclear-policy-and-why-you-should-be-worried.html#comment-2680036 ):

    "What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html ) revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited. "

    Usually people are resentful about Party which betrayed them so many times. It would be interesting to see how this will play this time.

    Beverly Mann October 23, 2016 12:00 pm

    It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and lower middle class works this time?

    Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust Division)-to name only some.

    And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed proxies of big business.

    And then there's the incessant push to privatize Social Security and Medicare. It ain't the Dems that are pushing that.

    You're drinking wayyy too much Kool Aid, likbez. Or maybe just reading too much Ayn Rand, at Paul Ryan's recommendation.

    beene October 23, 2016 10:31 am

    I would suggest despite most of the elite in both parties supporting Hillary, and saying she has the election in the bag is premature. In my opinion the fact that Trump rallies still has large attendance; where Hillary's rallies would have trouble filling up a large room is a better indication that Trump will win.

    Even democrats are not voting democratic this time to be ignored till election again.

    likbez October 23, 2016 12:56 pm

    Beverly,

    === quote ===
    Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust Division) -- to name only some.

    And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed proxies of big business.
    === end of quote ===

    This is all true. But Trump essentially running not as a Republican but as an independent on (mostly) populist platform (with elements of nativism). That's why a large part of Republican brass explicitly abandoned him. That does not exclude that he easily will be co-opted after the election, if he wins.

    And I would not be surprised one bit if Dick Cheney, Victoria Nuland, Paul Wolfowitz and Perle vote for Hillary. Robert Kagan and papa Bush already declared such an intention. She is a neocon. A wolf in sheep clothing, if we are talking about real anti-war democrats, not the USA brand of DemoRats. She is crazy warmonger, no question about it, trying to compensate a complete lack of diplomatic skills with jingoism and saber rattling.

    The problem here might be that you implicitly idealize Hillary and demonize Trump.

    I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite.

    But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid.

    That's what classic neoliberal DemoRats "bait and switch" maneuver (previously executed by Obama two times) means. And that's why working class now abandoned Democratic Party. Even unions members of unions which endorses Clinton are expected to vote 3:1 against her. Serial betrayal of interests of working class (and lower middle class) after 25 years gets on nerve. Not that their choice is wise, but they made a choice. This is "What's the matter with Kansas" all over again.

    It reminds me the situation when Stalin was asked whether right revisionism of Marxism (social democrats) or left (Trotskyites with their dream of World revolution) is better. He answered "both are worse" :-).

    In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook.

    Of course, we need also remember about existence of "deep state" which make each of them mostly a figurehead, but still the power of "deep state" is not absolute and this is a very sad situation.

    Beverly Mann, October 23, 2016 1:57 pm

    Good grace.

    Two points: First, you apparently are unaware of Trump's proposed tax plan, written by Heritage Foundation economists and political-think-tank types. It's literally more regressively extreme evn than Paul Ryan's. It gives tax cuts to the wealthy that are exponentially more generous percentage-wise than G.W. Bush's two tax cuts together were, it eliminates the estate tax, and it gives massive tax cuts to corporations, including yuge ones.

    Two billionaire Hamptons-based hedge funders, Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, have been funding a super PAC for Trump and since late spring have met with Trump and handed him policy proposals and suggestions for administrative agency heads and judicial appointments. Other yuge funders are members of the Ricketts family, including Thomas Ricketts, CEO of TD Ameritrade and a son of its founder.

    Two other billionaires funding Trump: Forrest Lucas, founder of Lucas Oil and reportedly Trump's choice for Interior Secretary if you and the working class and lower middle class folks whose interests Trump has at heart get their way.

    And then there's Texas oil billionaire Harold Hamm, Trump's very first billionaire mega-donor.

    One of my recurring pet peeves about Clinton and her campaign is her failure to tell the public that these billionaires are contributing mega-bucks to help fund Trump's campaign, and to tell the public who exactly they are. As well as her failure to make a concerted effort to educate the public about the the specifics of Trump's fiscal and deregulatory agenda as he has published it.

    As for your belief that I idealize Clinton, you obviously are very new to Angry Bear. I was a virulent Sanders supporter throughout the primaries, to the very end. In 2008 I originally supported John Edwards during the primaries and then, when it became clear that it was a two-candidate race, supported Obama. My reason? I really, really, REALLY did not want to see another triangulation Democratic administration. That's largely what we got during Obama's first term, though, and I was not happy about it.

    Bottom line: I'm not the gullible one here. You are.

    likbez, October 23, 2016 2:37 pm

    You demonstrate complete inability to weight the gravity of two dismal, but unequal in their gravity options.

    All your arguments about Supreme Court justices, taxes, inheritance and other similar things make sense if and only if the country continues to exist.

    Which is not given due to the craziness and the level of degeneration of neoliberal elite and specifically Hillary ("no fly zone in Syria" is one example of her craziness). Playing chickens with a nuclear power for the sake of proving imperial dominance in Middle East is a crazy policy.

    Neocons rule the roost in both parties, which essentially became a single War Party with two wings. Trump looks like the only chance somewhat to limit their influence and reach some détente with Russia.

    Looks like you organically unable to understand that your choice in this particular case is between the decimation of the last remnants of the New Deal and a real chance of WWIII.

    This is not "pick your poison" situation. Those are two events of completely difference magnitude: one is reversible (and please note that Trump is bound by very controversial obligations to his electorate and faces hostile Congress), the other is not.

    We all should do our best to prevent the unleashing WWIII even if that means temporary decimation of the remnants of New Deal.

    Neoliberalism after 2008 entered zombie state, so while it is still strong, aggressive and bloodthirsty it might not last for long. And in such case the defeat of democratic forces on domestic front is temporary.

    That means vote against Hillary.

    [Oct 23, 2016] This Is How WaPos Latest Poll Gave Hillary A 12 Point Advantage Over Trump

    Oct 23, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Those waking up to read the news this morning will undoubtedly be "shocked" by the latest ABC / Washington Post goal seeking report (aka "poll") that shows Hillary opening up a 12-point lead with likely voters after the latest debate last Wednesday. Ironically, this latest polling farce was "embargoed for release after 9 a.m." EST which will certainly make it a dominant topic of conversation on all the morning talk shows.

    Of course, like many of the recent polls from the likes of Reuters, ABC and The Washington Post, something curious emerges when you look just beneath the surface of the headline 12-point lead .

    "METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats - Republicans - Independents."

    As we've pointed out numerous times in the past, in response to Reuters' efforts to "tweak" their polls, per the The Pew Research Center , at least since 1992, democrats have never enjoyed a 9-point registration gap despite the folks at ABC and The Washington Post somehow convincing themselves it was a reasonable margin.

    Of course, despite the glaring bias in the sample pool, Hillary's obedient lap dog, John Harwood, was among the first to pump the results by tweeting out the following just two minutes after the embargo was lifted:

    new ABC national poll: Clinton 50%, Trump 38%, Johnson 5%, Stein 2%

    - John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) October 23, 2016

    No one knows how to suck up to the Clinton campaign like John (#HarDwoodForHillary)...

    Another day, another Harwood https://t.co/8ZEAyofC6z pic.twitter.com/FfCBKAUk7j

    - zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 23, 2016

    This new poll comes just 9 days after a previous ABC / Washington Post poll which showed only a 4-point national lead for Clinton. While ABC and WaPo claim the massive swing came as the result of Trump's "treatment of women and his reluctance to endorse the election's legitimacy" during the debate, it seems unlikely that anyone truly believes that Wednesday's debate caused an 8-point swing in voter preference. Certainly not these people on CNN:

    CNN Asks Its Focus Group Who Won the Final Debate… Then INSTANTLY Regrets It #PodestaEmails14 pic.twitter.com/wiO2dqSbF6

    - Dan The Deplorable (@Daniel_Ohana) October 20, 2016

    In any event, here is how ABC and WaPo have seen the polling data trend over time. Ironically, they found absolutely no dip for Hillary after her 9/11 "medical episode", probably one of the biggest events of the election season so far, but were able to convince themselves that Wednesday's debate caused an 8 point swing.

    Meanwhile, with huge variances in preference across demographics one can easily see how simple it is to "rig" a poll by over indexing to one group vs. another. While the pollsters release the the split of the sample pool by political affiliation, they do not share the split by any of the following demographics which are just as important to determining the outcome of the poll.

    Just one more example of how to rig a poll and dominate a Sunday morning news cycle.

    The full ABC / Washington Post Poll can be read here


    remain calm Oct 23, 2016 12:17 PM
    https://www.rt.com/usa/363759-hillary-emails-indicted-poll/ I guess 65% of the electorate think a FELON should be Potus. Corrupt MSM & polls. Think about it people. One of these polls is not like the other. Which is reality?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

    Raffie remain calm Oct 23, 2016 12:20 PM
    The ONLY thing Hillery leads in is corruption.

    Trump does not even show up on the chart in that area.

    Hillery is the clear winner there.

    Transformer Raffie Oct 23, 2016 1:12 PM

    The polls are rigged.

    The most recent Investors Business Daily poll, showing Trump up by 2% is another rigged poll as they all are. The pollsters have been rigging their results by sampling many more Democrats than Republicans. Most people don't have the slightest idea how to figure statistics. Let me evaluate this for you.

    They polled 767 people

    282 Democrats

    226 Republicans

    259 independents

    So, lets just make if fair. Let's assume the people voted their party. We'll increase the number of Republicans to 282. What does that do to the outcome? 46.5% for Trump and 38.0% for Clinton, which gives trump a lead of 8.5%

    If you take the recent Arizona poll that had Clinton up by 5% and do the same...

    This poll shows they polled 713 people,

    413 Democrats

    168 Republicans

    132 Ind

    So, let's increase the number of Republicans to 413 and see how it affects the result, with the same assumption.

    When the sampling is made fair, Trump gets 51% and Clinton gets 29%, a lead for Trump of 22%. Isn't that more in line with what you would expect from Arizona, a decidedly red state?

    The ABC poll that is the subject of this article, seems to be fraudulent right from the get go. First of all add up the percentages of groups sampled.

    36% Democrat

    27% Republicans

    31% Independent

    A total of 94%. Where's the other 6%? Are they aliens, or maybe Bob Creamer hired voters? From what we have seen with the other polls, I would assume the numbers were really

    42% Democrats 367 samples

    27% Republicans 236 samples

    31% independent 271 samples

    But of course, there's no way to know.With bad data, it is hard to begin to figure out what they did. One can only assume that they didn't want anyone to be able to figure out how they rigged it.

    So, lets do the same adjustment and analysis on the corrected samples, above.

    We end up with Trump at 44% and Clinton at 41%. This is much more likely than their bogus numbers.

    ejmoosa Transformer Oct 23, 2016 1:36 PM
    ABC Headlines on 7 November 2016

    "Even Trump Votes Clinton As She will Win 100% Of Vote"

    Hype Alert ejmoosa Oct 23, 2016 2:01 PM
    The silencing of Trump supporters continues.

    Twitter and Periscope shadowban Scott Adams.

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152204980091/twitter-and-periscope-shadowba...

    knukles Hype Alert Oct 23, 2016 2:11 PM
    A Harwood here and a Hilsenrath there and Pretty Soon You Got Real Propaganda
    Hype Alert knukles Oct 23, 2016 2:27 PM
    The MSM is peddling fiction as truth in ways that puts House of Cards to shame.

    [Oct 23, 2016] Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts.

    Notable quotes:
    "... From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"? ..."
    "... When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives. ..."
    Oct 23, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    From The Hague | Oct 22, 2016 12:48:39 PM | 8

    Option two: Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"?

    When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives.

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-us-is-about-to-face-the-worst-crisis-of-its-history-and-how-putins-example-might-inspire-trump/

    [Oct 22, 2016] The only way Hillary could be stopped would be if the Republican Party elite stood with Trump, so Soros and the other donor who owns voting machines could be blocked from flipping/fractionalizing votes.

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    The only way Hillary could be stopped would be if the Republican Party elite stood with Trump, so Soros and the other donor who owns voting machines could be blocked from flipping/fractionalizing votes. But that isn't happening. Soros machines are in key swing states like Colorado and Pennsylvania, and we already have data from the primary that a good 15% (at least) can be flipped, compared to exit polls/hand counts/paper trail or non-donor machines.

    I guess it's still possible, like what happened in the Michigan Democratic primary, that the real numbers are more like a 10% lead for Trump and they come out in force in unexpected locations, and Clinton's small, unenthusiastic base stays home, thus making it too difficult to successfully flip. But I'm trying not to count on something like that, because it seems too close optomism bias driven "poll unskewing" – I mean, the polls clearly ARE skewed in favor of Hillary, but I doubt they're off by 15%.

    Stein could never take over the Democratic Party. It isn't even clear to me that the Greens could replace the Democrats, although I do think their massive increase in ballot access this year is a credit to the party and to Stein. That shows real organizing and management effectiveness.

    I started this campaign season advocating for purging Clintonians out of the now hollow Democratic Party and taking it over. That still seems like the most efficient path to an actual left national party, in part because our current system is so corrupted and calcified. But I'm not sure it's possible. At this point, I can imagine a cataclysmic revolution happening during Clinton's term more easily than a reformed, citizen friendly Democratic Party.

    Is it gin o'clock yet?

    [Oct 22, 2016] Obama and Holder to lead post-Trump redistricting campaign

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    dcblogger October 21, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    ""Obama, Holder to lead post-Trump redistricting campaign" [Politico]. "The new group, called the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, was developed in close consultation with the White House. President Barack Obama himself has now identified the group - which will coordinate campaign strategy, direct fundraising, organize ballot initiatives and put together legal challenges to state redistricting maps "

    I have a very bad feeling about this.

    Pat October 21, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    It made my blood run cold.

    I notice that they have the resources for that, but not for registering people to vote. Funny about that

    jrs October 21, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    why isn't it just what Republicans have already done? They are a push back against obvious Republican gerrymandering.

    Katharine October 21, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    Gerrymandering is not always Republican in origin. Maryland is a disgrace produced by Democrats.

    jash October 21, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    Why are districts needed at this time?
    Do they stilll need to travel by horse back to hob-knob?

    It seems clear that only about 5%(too high) are really setting the rules in the state/district.

    Given the ease of communications , let each state be wide open – elect from a list state wide.

    Lambert Strether Post author October 22, 2016 at 2:23 am

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2 The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

    hunkerdown October 21, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    That the parties are even allowed anywhere near district-drawing processes is a sign that the system is a sham designed to preserve them against us. How much more evidence do people need to be hit over the head with that they're complicit in enforcing frauds and that's not okay?

    Pavel October 21, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Obama and Holder, fresh off their various triumphs - closing Gitmo, prosecuting the Bush-era torturers, and sending top-level banksters to jail - just the team to sort this out. Not.

    [Oct 22, 2016] The No Fly Zone was the strategy used to destroy Gaddafi. It's HRC's telegraph for invasion.

    Oct 22, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    cocomaan October 21, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    I respect Juan Cole as a scholar, but his political commentary got so muddled in apologizing for the Libyan disaster. I wrote him several times about problems in the Sahel, particularly among Tuareg, resulting from the Libyan invasion, but he wriggled out of it, going to Libya and talking about how great it was there and otherwise excusing the massacre.

    Why suggest a no fly zone in Syria that can't be implemented. It is baffling.

    Is it really that baffling? Read her emails. The No Fly Zone was the strategy used to destroy Gaddafi. It's HRC's telegraph for invasion.

    Cole misses that when Wallace asked her if she'd shoot down a Russian plan that violated the no-fly zone, she dodged.

    Not surprising, as it's the Libya playbook.

    [Oct 22, 2016] Trump We Wish the Problem Was Fascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism rather amusing. ..."
    "... Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American nativist, ..."
    "... Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act, I have this piece for you . ..."
    "... Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life. ..."
    "... In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are not only permissible; they are imperatives. ..."
    "... The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine. I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign. ..."
    "... The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics. ..."
    "... White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and customary advantages. ..."
    "... The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy. ..."
    "... The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more important groups. ..."
    "... The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity politics." ..."
    "... The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie Sanders. ..."
    "... My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders ..."
    "... In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill. ..."
    "... Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens. ..."
    "... That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary GOP establishment away from Trump. ..."
    "... "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism. ..."
    "... Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement. ..."
    "... By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests. ..."
    "... Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power. ..."
    "... Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group, some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him. ..."
    "... Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices. ..."
    Oct 22, 2016 | www.unz.com

    I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism rather amusing.

    For one thing, liberals don't crush fascism. Liberals appease fascism, then they exploit fascism. In between there's a great big war, where communists crush fascism. That's pretty much the lesson of WWII.

    Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American nativist, which is pretty much indistinguishable from old-fashioned racist when considering the subjugation of native Americans and African-Americans and Asian immigrants, but requires that touch of "nativist" nuance when considering indigenous bigotry against Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants and citizens.

    Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act, I have this piece for you .

    And for anybody who doesn't believe the US government does not already engage in intensive "extreme" vetting and targeting of all Muslims immigrants, especially those from targeted countries, not only to identify potential security risks but to groom potential intelligence assets, I got the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you right here:

    Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life.

    In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are not only permissible; they are imperatives.

    The need to seize state power and hold it while a fascist or Bolshevik agenda is implemented dictates the need for a military force loyal to and subservient to the party and its leadership, not the state.

    The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine. I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign.

    It's a little premature to throw dirt on the grave of the Trump candidacy, perhaps (I'll check back in on November 9), but it looks like he spent too much time glorying in the adulation of his white male nativist base and too little time, effort, and money trying to deliver a plausible message that would allow other demographics to shrug off the "deplorable" tag and vote for him. I don't blame/credit the media too much for burying Trump, a prejudice of mine perhaps. I blame Trump's inability to construct an effective phalanx of pro-Trump messengers, a failure that's probably rooted in the fact that Trump spent the primary and general campaign at war with the GOP establishment.

    The only capital crime in politics is disunity, and the GOP and Trump are guilty on multiple counts.

    The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics.

    It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen . It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism.

    That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness.

    That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.

    White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and customary advantages.

    If anyone harbors illusions concerning the kumbaya solidarity between white and black labor in the post-World War II era, I think the article The Problem of Race in American Labor History by Herbert Hill ( a freebie on JSTOR ) is a good place to start.

    The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy.

    However, in this campaign, the race wedge has cut the other way in a most interesting fashion. White conservatives are appalled, and minority liberals energized, by the fact that the white guy, despite winning the majority white male vote, lost to a black guy not once but twice, giving a White Twilight/Black Dawn (TM) vibe to the national debate.

    The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more important groups.

    The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity politics."

    The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie Sanders.

    My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders while announcing the Black Congressional Caucus endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Bear in mind that during the 1960s, Sanders had affiliated his student group at the University of Chicago with Lewis' SNCC, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; during the same era, Hillary Clinton was at Wellesley condemning "the snicks" for their excessively confrontational tactics.

    Ah, politics.

    To understand the significance of this event, one should read Fracture by the guru of woke Clintonism, Joy Reid. Or read my piece on the subject . Or simply understand that after Hillary Clinton lost Lewis's endorsement, the black vote, and the southern Democratic primaries to Barack Obama in 2008, and she was determined above all to secure and exploit monolithic black support in the primaries and, later on, the general in 2016.

    So, in order to prevent Sanders from splitting the black vote to her disadvantage on ideological/class lines, Clinton played the race card. Or, as we put it today when discussing the championing of historically disadvantaged a.k.a. non white male heterosexual groups, celebrated "identity politics".

    In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill.

    Trump's populism draws its heat from American nativism, not "soak the rich" populism of the Sandernista stripe, and it was easily submerged in the "identity politics" narrative.

    Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens.

    As an indication of the fungible & opportunistic character of the "identity politics" approach, as far as I can tell from a recent visit to a swing state, as the Clinton campaign pivoted to the general, the theme of Trump's anti-black racism has been retired in favor of pushing his offenses against women and the disabled. Perhaps this reflects the fact that Clinton has a well-advertised lock on the African-American vote and doesn't need to cater to it; also, racism being what it is, playing the black card is not the best way to lure Republicans and indies to the Clinton camp.

    The high water mark of the Clinton African-American tilt was perhaps the abortive campaign to turn gun control into a referendum on the domination of Congress by white male conservatives. It happened a few months ago, so who remembers? But John Lewis led a sit-in occupation of the Senate floor in the wake of the Orlando shootings to highlight how America's future was being held hostage to the whims of Trump-inclined white pols.

    That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary GOP establishment away from Trump.

    There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.

    In my view, a key tell is Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement.

    By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests.

    Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power.

    In my view, the Trump and Clinton campaigns are both protofascist.

    Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group, some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him.

    Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices.

    But the bottom line is race. U.S. racism has stacked up 400 years of tinder that might take a few hundred more years, if ever, to burn off. And until it does, every politician in the country is going to see his or her political future in flicking matches at it. And that's what we're seeing in the current campaign. A lot. Not fascism.

    (Reprinted from China Matters by permission of author or representative)

    [Oct 22, 2016] Race-specific programs are a wedge issues and belong to identity politics as they will create great resentment

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the U.S. racial situation. ..."
    "... And it prevents the constant attacks on recipients of benefits as being unworthy, criminal, drug-taking, undeserving folk who should be drug-tested, monitored, controlled, suspected. ..."
    "... Privileges like the selection of judges or the creation of special loopholes in the tax law, or other privileges only a political donation of the right amount might purchase. And it should be plain that some of the privileges described are not privileges at all but basic rights of human kind borne within any notion of the just. ..."
    "... I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the U.S. racial situation. ..."
    "... When the BLM (I think) asked Bernie about reparations, he said he didn't think it was a good idea, that free college etc would help everyone. ..."
    Oct 21, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    SpringTexasn October 21, 2016 at 10:45 am

    PlutoniumKun is 100% on-target. Moreover, non-universal benefits have tremendous overhead cost in terms of paperwork, qualifications, etc., while a universal benefit can be minimally bureaucratic.

    I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the U.S. racial situation.

    On the baby bonds, it's foolish to have a "$50 endowment for a child of Bill Gates". Instead it would be better to just provide $50,000 to ALL babies including Bill Gates' child, and tax Bill Gates more.

    As the saying goes, "programs for the poor are poor programs." Bill Gates' child should be allowed to use the same public libraries, go to the same (free) public universities, etc. etc. I doubt Bill Gates' child will need to take up the guaranteed job, but if he needs or wants to (perhaps because of a quarrel with his parent) he should be able to.

    And it prevents the constant attacks on recipients of benefits as being unworthy, criminal, drug-taking, undeserving folk who should be drug-tested, monitored, controlled, suspected.

    Jeremy Grimm October 22, 2016 at 1:06 am

    Universality removes many of the privileges the rich enjoy - $50K for all babies including Bill Gates child - and as privileges are dismantled in this way the remaining privileges of the rich will stand all the more glaring for their unfairness - to all. Privileges like the selection of judges or the creation of special loopholes in the tax law, or other privileges only a political donation of the right amount might purchase. And it should be plain that some of the privileges described are not privileges at all but basic rights of human kind borne within any notion of the just.

    HotFlash October 22, 2016 at 6:38 am

    I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the U.S. racial situation.

    I've been thinking about this bit a lot. When the BLM (I think) asked Bernie about reparations, he said he didn't think it was a good idea, that free college etc would help everyone.

    I don't recall any elaboration on his part, but I wondered at the time, how would they be allocated? Full black, one-half black, one quarter, quadroon, octoroon, mulatto, 'yaller'? That's wholly back to Jim Crow, or worse. I refer, of course to the artificial division of Huttus and Tutsis which, you may recall, did not work out so well . Barack Obama, would he qualify? None of his ancestors were slaves.

    I am looking forward to the book by Darity and Muller, but they would have to do a lot of persuading to get me to get comfy with reparations.

    Oh, and re Yves' remark about the baby box, that would be Finland, there's a BBC article here , and one from the Atlantic, "Finland's 'Baby Box': Gift from Santa Claus or Socialist Hell?" America, jeesh!

    Stratos October 21, 2016 at 10:58 am

    The country that gives every expecting mother a new baby package is Finland. They started the practice in the 1930's when their infant mortality rate was at ten percent. Now they have one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Dennis Kucinich FBI Investigation of Hillary Clinton Was Fixed in Her Favor

    Notable quotes:
    "... Instead of the investigative process being focused on achieving justice, Kucinich says it was "a very political process" that had "everything to do with the 2016 presidential election" in which Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Kucinich elaborates that "the executive branch of government made an early determination that no matter what came up that there was no way that Hillary Clinton was going to have to be accountable under law for anything dealing with the mishandling of classified information." ..."
    Oct 18, 2016 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

    Speaking Monday on Fox News with host Neil Cavuto, former Democratic presidential candidate and United States House of Representatives Member from Ohio Dennis Kucinich opined that, from early on, the US government's investigation of Hillary Clinton for mishandling confidential information while she was Secretary of State was fixed in her favor.

    Instead of the investigative process being focused on achieving justice, Kucinich says it was "a very political process" that had "everything to do with the 2016 presidential election" in which Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Kucinich elaborates that "the executive branch of government made an early determination that no matter what came up that there was no way that Hillary Clinton was going to have to be accountable under law for anything dealing with the mishandling of classified information."

    Watch Kucinich's complete interview here: watch-v=K00frqv-XI8

    [Oct 21, 2016] The capitalist crisis and the radicalization of the working class in 2012 - World Socialist Web Site by David North

    Its from World Socialist Web Site by thier analysys does contain some valid points. Especially about betrayal of nomenklatura, and, especially, KGB nomenklatura,which was wholesale bought by the USA for cash.
    Note that the author is unable or unwilling to use the tterm "neoliberalism". Looks like orthodox Marxism has problem with this notion as it contradict Marxism dogma that capitalism as an economic doctrine is final stage before arrival of socialism. Looks like it is not the final ;-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia Since 1980 ..."
    "... History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men ..."
    "... The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing in 1990, aptly known as catastroika. ..."
    "... In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. ..."
    "... The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required access to the resources of the world economy. ..."
    "... For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. ..."
    "... In other words, the integration of the USSR into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy, but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. ..."
    "... The Fourth International ..."
    "... The End of the USSR, ..."
    "... The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class defense. ..."
    "... Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism and Karl Marx. [p. 25] ..."
    Jan 30, 2012 | www.wsws.org

    ... ... ...

    This analysis has been vindicated by scholarly investigations into the causes of the Soviet economic collapse that facilitated the bureaucracy's dissolution of the USSR. In Russia Since 1980, published in 2008 by Cambridge University Press, Professors Steven Rosefielde and Stefan Hedlund present evidence that Gorbachev introduced measures that appear, in retrospect, to have been aimed at sabotaging the Soviet economy. "Gorbachev and his entourage," they write, "seem to have had a venal hidden agenda that caused things to get out of hand quickly." [p. 38] In a devastating appraisal of Gorbachev's policies, Rosefielde and Hedlund state:

    History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men. [p. 40]

    Instead of displaying due diligence over personal use of state revenues, materials and property, inculcated in every Bolshevik since 1917, Gorbachev winked at a counterrevolution from below opening Pandora's Box. He allowed enterprises and others not only to profit maximize for the state in various ways, which was beneficial, but also to misappropriate state assets, and export the proceeds abroad. In the process, red directors disregarded state contracts and obligations, disorganizing inter-industrial intermediate input flows, and triggering a depression from which the Soviet Union never recovered and Russia has barely emerged. [p. 47]

    Given all the heated debates that would later ensue about how Yeltsin and his shock therapy engendered mass plunder, it should be noted that the looting began under Gorbachev's watch. It was his malign neglect that transformed the rhetoric of Market Communism into the pillage of the nation's assets.

    The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing in 1990, aptly known as catastroika.

    In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. [p. 49]

    The analysis of Rosefielde and Hedlund, while accurate in its assessment of Gorbachev's actions, is simplistic. Gorbachev's policies can be understood only within the framework of more fundamental political and socioeconomic factors. First, and most important, the real objective crisis of the Soviet economy (which existed and preceded by many decades the accession of Gorbachev to power) developed out of the contradictions of the autarkic nationalist policies pursued by the Soviet regime since Stalin and Bukharin introduced the program of "socialism in one country" in 1924. The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required access to the resources of the world economy. This access could be achieved only in one of two ways: either through the spread of socialist revolution into the advanced capitalist countries, or through the counterrevolutionary integration of the USSR into the economic structures of world capitalism.

    For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. This second course, moreover, opened for the leading sections of the bureaucracy the possibility of permanently securing their privileges and vastly expanding their wealth. The privileged caste would become a ruling class. The corruption of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and their associates was merely the necessary means employed by the bureaucracy to achieve this utterly reactionary and immensely destructive outcome.

    On October 3, 1991, less than three months before the dissolution of the USSR, I delivered a lecture in Kiev in which I challenged the argument-which was widely propagated by the Stalinist regime-that the restoration of capitalism would bring immense benefits to the people. I stated:

    In this country, capitalist restoration can only take place on the basis of the widespread destruction of the already existing productive forces and the social- cultural institutions that depended upon them. In other words, the integration of the USSR into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy, but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. When one examines the various schemes hatched by proponents of capitalist restoration, one cannot but conclude that they are no less ignorant than Stalin of the real workings of the world capitalist economy. And they are preparing the ground for a social tragedy that will eclipse that produced by the pragmatic and nationalistic policies of Stalin. ["Soviet Union at the Crossroads," published in The Fourth International (Fall- Winter 1992, Volume 19, No. 1, p. 109), Emphasis in the original.]

    Almost exactly 20 years ago, on January 4, 1992, the Workers League held a party membership meeting in Detroit to consider the historical, political and social implications of the dissolution of the USSR. Rereading this report so many years later, I believe that it has stood the test of time. It stated that the dissolution of the USSR "represents the juridical liquidation of the workers' state and its replacement with regimes that are openly and unequivocally devoted to the destruction of the remnants of the national economy and the planning system that issued from the October Revolution. To define the CIS [Confederation of Independent States] or its independent republics as workers states would be to completely separate the definition from the concrete content which it expressed during the previous period." [David North, The End of the USSR, Labor Publications, 1992, p. 6]

    The report continued:

    "A revolutionary party must face reality and state what is. The Soviet working class has suffered a serious defeat. The bureaucracy has devoured the workers state before the working class was able to clean out the bureaucracy. This fact, however unpleasant, does not refute the perspective of the Fourth International. Since it was founded in 1938, our movement has repeatedly said that if the working class was not able to destroy this bureaucracy, then the Soviet Union would suffer a shipwreck. Trotsky did not call for political revolution as some sort of exaggerated response to this or that act of bureaucratic malfeasance. He said that a political revolution was necessary because only in that way could the Soviet Union, as a workers state, be defended against imperialism." [p. 6]

    I sought to explain why the Soviet working class had failed to rise up in opposition to the bureaucracy's liquidation of the Soviet Union. How was it possible that the destruction of the Soviet Union-having survived the horrors of the Nazi invasion-could be carried out "by a miserable group of petty gangsters, acting in the interests of the scum of Soviet society?" I offered the following answer:

    We must reply to these questions by stressing the implications of the massive destruction of revolutionary cadre carried out within the Soviet Union by the Stalinist regime. Virtually all the human representatives of the revolutionary tradition who consciously prepared and led that revolution were wiped out. And along with the political leaders of the revolution, the most creative representatives of the intelligentsia who had flourished in the early years of the Soviet state were also annihilated or terrorized into silence.

    Furthermore, we must point to the deep-going alienation of the working class itself from state property. Property belonged to the state, but the state "belonged" to the bureaucracy, as Trotsky noted. The fundamental distinction between state property and bourgeois property-however important from a theoretical standpoint-became less and less relevant from a practical standpoint. It is true that capitalist exploitation did not exist in the scientific sense of the term, but that did not alter the fact that the day-to-day conditions of life in factories and mines and other workplaces were as miserable as are to be found in any of the advanced capitalist countries, and, in many cases, far worse.

    Finally, we must consider the consequences of the protracted decay of the international socialist movement...

    Especially during the past decade, the collapse of effective working class resistance in any part of the world to the bourgeois offensive had a demoralizing effect on Soviet workers. Capitalism assumed an aura of "invincibility," although this aura was merely the illusory reflection of the spinelessness of the labor bureaucracies all over the world, which have on every occasion betrayed the workers and capitulated to the bourgeoisie. What the Soviet workers saw was not the bitter resistance of sections of workers to the international offensive of capital, but defeats and their consequences. [p. 13-14]

    The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class defense.

    In every part of the world, including the advanced countries, the workers are discovering that their own parties and their own trade union organizations are engaged in the related task of systematically lowering and impoverishing the working class. [p. 22]

    Finally, the report dismissed any notion that the dissolution of the USSR signified a new era of progressive capitalist development.

    Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism and Karl Marx. [p. 25]

    The aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR: 20 years of economic crisis, social decay, and political reaction

    According to liberal theory, the dissolution of the Soviet Union ought to have produced a new flowering of democracy. Of course, nothing of the sort occurred-not in the former USSR or, for that matter, in the United States. Moreover, the breakup of the Soviet Union-the so-called defeat of communism-was not followed by a triumphant resurgence of its irreconcilable enemies in the international workers' movement, the social democratic and reformist trade unions and political parties. The opposite occurred. All these organizations experienced, in the aftermath of the breakup of the USSR, a devastating and even terminal crisis. In the United States, the trade union movement-whose principal preoccupation during the entire Cold War had been the defeat of Communism-has all but collapsed. During the two decades that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the AFL-CIO lost a substantial portion of its membership, was reduced to a state of utter impotence, and ceased to exist as a workers' organization in any socially significant sense of the term. At the same time, everywhere in the world, the social position of the working class-from the standpoint of its influence on the direction of state policy and its ability to increase its share of the surplus value produced by its own labor-deteriorated dramatically.

    Certain important conclusions flow from this fact. First, the breakup of the Soviet Union did not flow from the supposed failure of Marxism and socialism. If that had been the case, the anti-Marxist and antisocialist labor organizations should have thrived in the post-Soviet era. The fact that these organizations experienced ignominious failure compels one to uncover the common feature in the program and orientation of all the so-called labor organizations, "communist" and anticommunist alike. What was the common element in the political DNA of all these organization? The answer is that regardless of their names, conflicting political alignments and superficial ideological differences, the large labor organizations of the post-World War II period pursued essentially nationalist policies. They tied the fate of the working class to one or another nation-state. This left them incapable of responding to the increasing integration of the world economy. The emergence of transnational corporations and the associated phenomena of capitalist globalization shattered all labor organizations that based themselves on a nationalist program.

    The second conclusion is that the improvement of conditions of the international working class was linked, to one degree or another, to the existence of the Soviet Union. Despite the treachery and crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the existence of the USSR, a state that arose on the basis of a socialist revolution, imposed upon American and European imperialism certain political and social restraints that would otherwise have been unacceptable. The political environment of the past two decades-characterized by unrestrained imperialist militarism, the violations of international law, and the repudiation of essential principles of bourgeois democracy-is the direct outcome of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

    The breakup of the USSR was, for the great masses of its former citizens, an unmitigated disaster. Twenty years after the October Revolution, despite all the political crimes of the Stalinist regime, the new property relations established in the aftermath of the October Revolution made possible an extraordinary social transformation of backward Russia. And even after suffering horrifying losses during the four years of war with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union experienced in the 20 years that followed the war a stupendous growth of its economy, which was accompanied by advances in science and culture that astonished the entire world.

    But what is the verdict on the post-Soviet experience of the Russian people? First and foremost, the dissolution of the USSR set into motion a demographic catastrophe. Ten years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russian population was shrinking at an annual rate of 750,000. Between 1983 and 2001, the number of annual births dropped by one half. 75 percent of pregnant women in Russia suffered some form of illness that endangered their unborn child. Only one quarter of infants were born healthy.

    The overall health of the Russian people deteriorated dramatically after the restoration of capitalism. There was a staggering rise in alcoholism, heart disease, cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. All this occurred against the backdrop of a catastrophic breakdown of the economy of the former USSR and a dramatic rise in mass poverty.

    As for democracy, the post-Soviet system was consolidated on the basis of mass murder. For more than 70 years, the Bolshevik regime's dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918-an event that did not entail the loss of a single life-was trumpeted as an unforgettable and unforgivable violation of democratic principles. But in October 1993, having lost a majority in the popularly elected parliament, the Yeltsin regime ordered the bombardment of the White House-the seat of the Russian parliament-located in the middle of Moscow. Estimates of the number of people who were killed in the military assault run as high as 2,000. On the basis of this carnage, the Yeltsin regime was effectively transformed into a dictatorship, based on the military and security forces. The regime of Putin-Medvedev continues along the same dictatorial lines. The assault on the White House was supported by the Clinton administration. Unlike the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the bombardment of the Russian parliament is an event that has been all but forgotten.

    What is there to be said of post-Soviet Russian culture? As always, there are talented people who do their best to produce serious work. But the general picture is one of desolation. The words that have emerged from the breakup of the USSR and that define modern Russian culture, or what is left of it, are "mafia," "biznessman" and "oligarch."

    What has occurred in Russia is only an extreme expression of a social and cultural breakdown that is to be observed in all capitalist countries. Can it even be said with certainty that the economic system devised in Russia is more corrupt that that which exists in Britain or the United States? The Russian oligarchs are probably cruder and more vulgar in the methods they employ. However, the argument could be plausibly made that their methods of plunder are less efficient than those employed by their counterparts in the summits of American finance. After all, the American financial oligarchs, whose speculative operations brought about the near-collapse of the US and global economy in the autumn of 2008, were able to orchestrate, within a matter of days, the transfer of the full burden of their losses to the public.

    It is undoubtedly true that the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991 opened up endless opportunities for the use of American power-in the Balkans, the Middle East and Central Asia. But the eruption of American militarism was, in the final analysis, the expression of a more profound and historically significant tendency-the long-term decline of the economic position of American capitalism. This tendency was not reversed by the breakup of the USSR. The history of American capitalism during the past two decades has been one of decay. The brief episodes of economic growth have been based on reckless and unsustainable speculation. The Clinton boom of the 1990s was fueled by the "irrational exuberance" of Wall Street speculation, the so-called dot.com bubble. The great corporate icons of the decade-of which Enron was the shining symbol-were assigned staggering valuations on the basis of thoroughly criminal operations. It all collapsed in 2000-2001. The subsequent revival was fueled by frenzied speculation in housing. And, finally, the collapse in 2008, from which there has been no recovery.

    When historians begin to recover from their intellectual stupor, they will see the collapse of the USSR and the protracted decline of American capitalism as interrelated episodes of a global crisis, arising from the inability to develop the massive productive forces developed by mankind on the basis of private ownership of the means of production and within the framework of the nation-state system.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Syria War 2016 - GoPro POV Footage Of Turkish Backed Turkmen Fighters In Heavy Clashes With The Syrian Army In Latakia

    Oct 21, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    schlub | Oct 20, 2016 2:07:30 PM | 40

    debate is over!
    Back to the real world.
    Anyone here care to give a more detailed view of this mess, who is allied with who where, etc?
    OCT 20
    Syria War 2016 - GoPro POV Footage Of Turkish Backed Turkmen Fighters In Heavy Clashes With The Syrian Army In Latakia

    First Person point of view GoPro footage of Turkish backed Turkmen fighter groups in heavy clashes with the Syrian Arab Army in the border region between Turkey and Syria.

    The fighters you see here are part of the so called Syrian Turkmen Brigades an informal armed opposition structure composed of Syrian Turkmen primarily fighting against the Syrian Army, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and the Syrian Democratic Forces (YPG+FSA).

    They are aligned with the Syrian opposition and are heavily supported by Turkey, who provides funding and military training along with artillery and aerial support.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15f_1476976485

    [Oct 21, 2016] Its funny when neo-liberals and libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing to do collective bargaining

    Oct 21, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    urban legend : October 21, 2016 at 12:27 PM
    It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the special protections of the state-created corporation.

    It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the creator of the corporations is the state.)

    JohnH :

    Robert Reich: "Hillary Clinton won't be the only winner when Donald Trump and his fellow haters are defeated on Election Day...Another will be Paul Ryan, who will rule the Republican roost...the ascendance of Ryan and Clinton will mark a win for big business and Wall Street."
    http://robertreich.org/post/151920926970

    Fortunately, the left will not roll over and play dead like they did during the Obama years...most likely to Krugman's dismay.

    [Oct 21, 2016] Neoliberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton says publically she believes that. Meanwhile supposedly smart economists like Tyler Cowen say they don't. Boston Fed President Rosengren says there are too many jobs. We need more unemployed. I'm Fed Up with regional Fed Presidents like him. ..."
    "... Class issues are now a tough nut to crack, partly I think because the Democrats and some liberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead, ..."
    "... The meritocratic class who Krugman speaks for and centrist politicians like Clinton will slow-walk class issues like how Tim Geithner slow-walked financial reform. It's part of their job description and milieu. ..."
    "... It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the special protections of the state-created corporation. ..."
    "... It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the creator of the corporations is the state.) ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K: October 21, 2016 at 10:14 AM
    I liked how Hillary said in the third debate that she was for raising the minimum wage because people who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. And "Donald" is against it. That's why people are voting for her.

    That's an ethical or moral notion, combined with "morally neutral" economics. People who work hard full time, play by the rules and pay their dues shouldn't live in poverty.

    Clinton says publically she believes that. Meanwhile supposedly smart economists like Tyler Cowen say they don't. Boston Fed President Rosengren says there are too many jobs. We need more unemployed. I'm Fed Up with regional Fed Presidents like him.

    Think about the debate between the centrists and progressives over Trump supporters. The centrists argue Trump supporters (nor anyone else besides a few) aren't suffering from economic anxiety - that it's racism all of the way down. Matt Yglesias. Dylan Matthews. Krugman. Meyerson. Etc.

    The progressives admit there's racism, but there's a wider context. The Nazis were racists, but there was also the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression. And Germany got better in the decades after the war just as the American South is better than it once was. Steve Randy Waldman and James Kwak discussed in blog post how the wider context should be taken into consideration.

    On some "non-economic issues" there has been progress even though the recent decades haven't been as booming as the post-WWII decades were with rising living standards for all.

    A black President. Legalized gay marriage. Legalized pot. I wouldn't have thought these things as likely to happen when I was a teenager because of the bigoted authoritarian nature of many voters and elites. During the Progressive era and when the New Deal was enacted, racism and sexism and bigotry and anti-science thinking was virulent. Yet economic progress was made on the class front.

    Class issues are now a tough nut to crack, partly I think because the Democrats and some liberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead, not that the latter isn't worthwhile. Partly b/c of what Mike Konczal discussed in his recent Medium piece.

    If we can just apply the morality and politics of electing a black President and legalizing gay marriage and pot, to class issues. The meritocratic class who Krugman speaks for and centrist politicians like Clinton will slow-walk class issues like how Tim Geithner slow-walked financial reform. It's part of their job description and milieu.

    But Clinton did talk to it during the third debate when she said she'd raise the minimum wage because people who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. That is a morale issue as the new Pope has been talking about.

    Hillary should have joked last night about what God's Catholic representative here on Earth had to say about Trump.

    urban legend said...
    It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the special protections of the state-created corporation.

    It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the creator of the corporations is the state.)

    [Oct 21, 2016] A Desperate Obama Administration Resorts To Lying And Maybe More by Moon of Alabama

    Oct 08, 2016 | ronpaulinstitute.org
    On September 28 the French mission to the UN claimed that two hospitals in east-Aleppo had been bombed. It documented this in a tweet with a picture of destroyed buildings in Gaza. The French later deleted that tweet.

    It is not the first time such false claims and willful obfuscations were made by "western" officials. But usually they shy away from outright lies.

    Not so the US Secretary of State John Kerry. In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault about a new UN resolution, he said (vid @1:00) about Syria:

    Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women.These are acts that beg for an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be held accountable for these actions.
    No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press agency has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably notes every claimed casualty and is frequently cited in "western" media", has not said anything about such an event anywhere in Syria.

    The grave incident Kerry claimed did not happen. Kerry made it up. (Was it supposed to happen, got canceled and Kerry missed the memo?) Kerry used the lie to call for war crime investigations and punishment. This in front of cameras, at an official event with a foreign guest in the context of a United Nations Security Council resolution.

    This is grave. This is nearly as grave as Colin Powell's false claims of WMD in Iraq in front of the UN Security Council.

    Early reports, like this one at CBSNEWS, repeat the Kerry claim:

    Kerry said Syrian forces hit a hospital overnight, killing 20 people and wounding 100, describing what would be the latest strike by Moscow or its ally in Damascus on a civilian target.
    But the New York Times write up of the event, which includes Kerry's demand for war crime investigations, does not mention the hospital bombing claim. Not at all. For the self-acclaimed "paper of record", Kerry's lie did not happen. Likewise the Washington Post which in its own write up makes no mention of the false Kerry claim.

    The latest AP write up by Matthew Lee also omits the lie. This is curious as Matt Lee is obviously aware of it. The State Departments daily press briefing yesterday had a whole section on it. Video (@3:30) shows that it is Matt who asks these questions:

    QUESTION: Okay. On to Syria and the Secretary's comments earlier this morning, one is: Do you know what strike he was talking about in his comments overnight on a hospital in Aleppo?

    MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary's referring actually to a strike that we saw happen yesterday on a field hospital in the Rif Dimashq Governorate. I'm not exactly positive that that's what he was referring to, but I think he was referring to actually one that was --

    QUESTION: Not one in Aleppo?

    MR KIRBY: I believe it was – I think it was – I think he – my guess is – I'm guessing here that he was a bit mistaken on location and referring to one --
    ...
    QUESTION: But you don't have certainty, though?

    MR KIRBY: I don't. Best I got, best information I got, is that he was most likely referring to one yesterday in this governorate, but it could just be an honest mistake.

    QUESTION: If we could – if we can nail that down with certainty what he was talking about --

    MR KIRBY: I'll do the best I can, Matt.
    ...

    This goes on for a while. But there was no hospital attack in Rif Dimashq nor in Aleppo. Later on DoS spokesman Kirby basically admits that Kerry lied: "I can't corroborate that."

    It also turns out that Kerry has no evidence for any war crimes and no plausible way to initiate any official international procedure about such. And for what? To bully Russia? Fat chance, that would be a hopeless endeavor and Kerry should know that.

    Kerry is desperate. He completely lost the plot on Syria. Russia is in the lead and will do whatever needs to be done. The Obama administration has, apart from starting a World War, no longer any way to significantly influence that.

    Kerry is only one tool of the Obama administration. Later that day the US Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, made other accusations against Russia:

    The US Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directedthe recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
    Translation: "WE DO NOT KNOW at all ("we are confident", "we believe", "directed") who did these hacks and WE DO NOT HAVE the slightest evidence ("consistent with","based on the scope and sensitivity") that Russia is involved, so let me throw some chaff and try to bamboozle you all."

    The former British ambassador Craig Murray calls it a blatant neocon lie. It was obviously the DNC that manipulated the US election by, contrary to its mandate, promoting Clinton over Sanders. The hackers only proved that. It is also easy to see why these accusations are made now. Murray:

    That the Obama administration has made a formal accusation of Russia based on no evidence is, on one level, astonishing. But it is motivated by desperation. WikiLeaks have already announced that they have a huge cache of other material relating to Hillary's shenanigans. The White House is simply seeking to discredit it in advance by a completely false association with Russian intelligence.
    The Obama administration is losing it. On Syria as well as on the election it can no longer assert its will. Trump, despite all dirty boy's club talk he may do, has a significant chance to catch the presidency. He (-44%) and Clinton (-41%) are more disliked by the U.S electorate, than Putin (-38%). Any solution in Syria will be more in Russia's than the Washington's favor.

    Such desperation can be dangerous. Kerry is gasping at straws when he lies about Russia. The president and his colleagues at the Pentagon and the CIA have more kinetic means to express themselves. Could they order up something really stupid?

    [Oct 20, 2016] Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course. ..."
    "... While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region. ..."
    "... Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq. ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    ... ... ...

    Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary Clinton speeches and emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.

    Clinton in a 2013 speech to the Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner (via The Intercept ):

    [Arming moderates has] been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons-and pretty indiscriminately-not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future, ...

    Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course.

    The following was written by Podesta, a well connected former White House Chief of Staff, in an 2014 email to Clinton. As introduction Podesta notes: "Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.":

    While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

    Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq.

    [Oct 20, 2016] US Allies are Funding ISIS (and Hillary Knew All Along)

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furor over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton . Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo , dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria. ..."
    "... The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." ..."
    "... An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not? ..."
    "... The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions. ..."
    "... Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. ..."
    "... Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. ..."
    "... A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government. ..."
    www.counterpunch.org
    It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furor over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton. Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

    At the time, the US government was not admitting that Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies were supporting Isis and al-Qaeda-type movements. But in the leaked memo, which says that it draws on "western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region" there is no ambivalence about who is backing Isis, which at the time of writing was butchering and raping Yazidi villagers and slaughtering captured Iraqi and Syrian soldiers.

    The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." This was evidently received wisdom in the upper ranks of the US government, but never openly admitted because to it was held that to antagonise Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, Turkey and Pakistan would fatally undermine US power in the Middle East and South Asia.

    For an extraordinarily long period after 9/11, the US refused to confront these traditional Sunni allies and thereby ensured that the "War on Terror" would fail decisively; 15 years later, al-Qaeda in its different guises is much stronger than it used to be because shadowy state sponsors, without whom it could not have survived, were given a free pass.

    It is not as if Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and the US foreign policy establishment in general did not know what was happening. An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not?

    The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions.

    The real views of senior officials in the White House and the State Department were only periodically visible and, even when their frankness made news, what they said was swiftly forgotten. Earlier this year, for instance, Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic wrote a piece based on numerous interviews with Barack Obama in which Obama "questioned, often harshly, the role that America's Sunni Arab allies play in fomenting anti-American terrorism. He is clearly irritated that foreign policy orthodoxy compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally".

    It is worth recalling White House cynicism about how that foreign policy orthodoxy in Washington was produced and how easily its influence could be bought. Goldberg reported that "a widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. I've heard one administration official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as 'Arab-occupied territory'."

    Despite this, television and newspaper interview self-declared academic experts from these same think tanks on Isis, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf are wilfully ignoring or happily disregarding their partisan sympathies.

    The Hillary Clinton email of August 2014 takes for granted that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding Isis – but this was not the journalistic or academic conventional wisdom of the day. Instead, there was much assertion that the newly declared caliphate was self-supporting through the sale of oil, taxes and antiquities; it therefore followed that Isis did not need money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. The same argument could not be made to explain the funding of Jabhat al-Nusra, which controlled no oilfields, but even in the case of Isis the belief in its self-sufficiency was always shaky.

    Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. The Iraqi and Kurdish officials never produced proof of this, but it seemed unlikely that men as tough and ruthless as the Isis leaders would have satisfied themselves with taxing truck traffic and shopkeepers in the extensive but poor lands they ruled and not extracted far larger sums from fabulously wealthy private and state donors in the oil producers of the Gulf.

    Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. But there has always been bizarre discontinuity between what the Obama administration knew about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and what they would say in public. Occasionally the truth would spill out, as when Vice-President Joe Biden told students at Harvard in October 2014 that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates "were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war. What did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world". Biden poured scorn on the idea that there were Syrian "moderates" capable of fighting Isis and Assad at the same time.

    Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. Republican challenges have focussed on issues – the death of the US ambassador in Benghazi in 2012 and the final US military withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 – for which she was not responsible.

    A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government.

    Another development is weakening Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies. The leaked memo speaks of the rival ambitions of Saudi Arabia and Qatar "to dominate the Sunni world". But this has not turned out well, with east Aleppo and Mosul, two great Sunni cities, coming under attack and likely to fall. Whatever Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the others thought they were doing it has not happened and the Sunni of Syria and Iraq are paying a heavy price. It is this failure which will shape the future relations of the Sunni states with the new US administration.

    [Oct 20, 2016] One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness

    Notable quotes:
    "... a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF) the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly even WWIII. ..."
    "... One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness. ..."
    "... Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of TBTF to rip people another four years. ..."
    "... The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers, who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism to survive. ..."
    "... And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the elections. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Adamski -> Peter K.... , October 20, 2016 at 07:35 AM
    Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials do. That plus voter suppression may hand this to Trump yet. There was an LA Times poll this month that showed a small Trump lead. An outlier, sure, but the same poll was right about Obama in 2012 when other polls were wrong. Just saying
    likbez -> Adamski... , -1
    > "Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials do."

    Yes. Thank you for making this point.

    Also people over 50 have more chances to understand and reject all the neoliberal bullshit MSM are pouring on Americans.

    As well as a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF) the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly even WWIII.

    One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness.

    Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of TBTF to rip people another four years.

    Not that Trump is better, but on warmongering side he is the lesser evil, for sure.

    The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers, who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism to survive.

    And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the elections.

    That's why they supposedly pump Hillary with drugs each debate :-).

    [Oct 20, 2016] The Ruling Elite Has Lost the Consent of the Governed

    Notable quotes:
    "... As I have tirelessly explained, the U.S. economy is not just neoliberal (the code word for maximizing private gain by any means available, including theft, fraud, embezzlement, political fixing, price-fixing, and so on)--it is neofeudal , meaning that it is structurally an updated version of Medieval feudalism in which a top layer of financial-political nobility owns the engines of wealth and governs the marginalized debt-serfs who toil to pay student loans, auto loans, credit cards, mortgages and taxes--all of which benefit the financiers and political grifters. ..."
    "... The media is in a self-referential frenzy to convince us the decision of the century is between unrivaled political grifter Hillary Clinton and financier-cowboy Donald Trump. Both belong to the privileged ruling Elite: both have access to cheap credit, insider information ( information asymmetry ) and political influence. ..."
    "... If you exit the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. at a cushy managerial rank with a fat pension and lifetime benefits and are hired at a fat salary the next day by a private "defense" contractor--the famous revolving door between a bloated state and a bloated defense industry--the system works great. ..."
    Oct 20, 2016 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    Information Clearing House - ICH

    Brimming with hubris and self-importance, the ruling Elite and mainstream media cannot believe they have lost the consent of the governed.

    Every ruling Elite needs the consent of the governed: even autocracies, dictatorships and corporatocracies ultimately rule with the consent, however grudging, of the governed.

    The American ruling Elite has lost the consent of the governed. This reality is being masked by the mainstream media, mouthpiece of the ruling class, which is ceaselessly promoting two false narratives:

    1. The "great divide" in American politics is between left and right, Democrat/Republican
    2. The ruling Elite has delivered "prosperity" not just to the privileged few but to the unprivileged many they govern.

    Both of these assertions are false. The Great Divide in America is between the ruling Elite and the governed that the Elite has stripmined. The ruling Elite is privileged and protected, the governed are unprivileged and unprotected. That's the divide that counts and the divide that is finally becoming visible to the marginalized, unprivileged class of debt-serfs.

    The "prosperity" of the 21st century has flowed solely to the ruling Elite and its army of technocrat toadies, factotums, flunkies, apparatchiks and apologists. The Elite's army of technocrats and its media apologists have engineered and promoted an endless spew of ginned-up phony statistics (the super-low unemployment rate, etc.) to create the illusion of "growth" and "prosperity" that benefit everyone rather than just the top 5%. The media is 100% committed to promoting these two false narratives because the jig is up once the bottom 95% wake up to the reality that the ruling Elite has been stripmining them for decades.

    As I have tirelessly explained, the U.S. economy is not just neoliberal (the code word for maximizing private gain by any means available, including theft, fraud, embezzlement, political fixing, price-fixing, and so on)--it is neofeudal , meaning that it is structurally an updated version of Medieval feudalism in which a top layer of financial-political nobility owns the engines of wealth and governs the marginalized debt-serfs who toil to pay student loans, auto loans, credit cards, mortgages and taxes--all of which benefit the financiers and political grifters.

    The media is in a self-referential frenzy to convince us the decision of the century is between unrivaled political grifter Hillary Clinton and financier-cowboy Donald Trump. Both belong to the privileged ruling Elite: both have access to cheap credit, insider information ( information asymmetry ) and political influence.

    The cold truth is the ruling Elite has shredded the social contract by skimming the income/wealth of the unprivileged. The fake-"progressive" pandering apologists of the ruling Elite--Robert Reich, Paul Krugman and the rest of the Keynesian Cargo Cultists--turn a blind eye to the suppression of dissent and the looting the bottom 95% because they have cushy, protected positions as tenured faculty (or equivalent). They cheerlead for more state-funded bread and circuses for the marginalized rather than demand an end to exploitive privileges of the sort they themselves enjoy.

    Consider just three of the unsustainably costly broken systems that enrich the privileged Elite by stripmining the unprivileged:

    • healthcare (a.k.a. sickcare because sickness is profitable, prevention is unprofitable),
    • higher education
    • Imperial over-reach (the National Security State and its partner the privately owned Military-Industrial Complex).

    While the unprivileged and unprotected watch their healthcare premiums and co-pays soar year after year, the CEOs of various sickcare cartels skim off tens of millions of dollars annually in pay and stock options. The system works great if you get a $20 million paycheck. If you get a 30% increase in monthly premiums for fewer actual healthcare services--the system is broken.

    If you're skimming $250,000 as under-assistant dean to the provost for student services (or equivalent) plus gold-plated benefits, higher education is working great. If you're a student burdened with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt who is receiving a low-quality, essentially worthless "education" from poorly paid graduate students ("adjuncts") and a handful of online courses that you could get for free or for a low cost outside the university cartel--the system is broken.

    If you exit the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. at a cushy managerial rank with a fat pension and lifetime benefits and are hired at a fat salary the next day by a private "defense" contractor--the famous revolving door between a bloated state and a bloated defense industry--the system works great.

    If you joined the Armed Forces to escape rural poverty and served at the point of the spear somewhere in the Imperial Project--your perspective may well be considerably different.

    Unfortunately for the ruling Elite and their army of engorged enablers and apologists, they have already lost the consent of the governed.

    They have bamboozled, conned and misled the bottom 95% for decades, but their phony facade of political legitimacy and "the rising tide raises all boats" has cracked wide open, and the machinery of oppression, looting and propaganda is now visible to everyone who isn't being paid to cover their eyes. Brimming with hubris and self-importance, the ruling Elite and mainstream media cannot believe they have lost the consent of the governed. The disillusioned governed have not fully absorbed this epochal shift of the tides yet, either. They are aware of their own disillusionment and their own declining financial security, but they have yet to grasp that they have, beneath the surface of everyday life, already withdrawn their consent from a self-serving, predatory, parasitic, greedy and ultimately self-destructive ruling Elite.

    Charles Hugh Smith, new book is #8 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition) For more, please visit the book's website . http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.mx

    [Oct 20, 2016] Guest-post-essential-rules-tyranny

    Notable quotes:
    "... At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect threats to their personal safety. ..."
    "... The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process of centralization. ..."
    "... People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful, and easily overthrown. ..."
    "... They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently culled. ..."
    "... The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized forms of activism. ..."
    "... In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state. ..."
    "... Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything resembling a solution, even despotism. ..."
    "... Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them. ..."
    "... When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile. ..."
    "... Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses. ..."
    "... Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone. ..."
    "... Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities. ..."
    "... Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think ..."
    "... Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace". Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt Market

    The Essential Rules Of Tyranny

    As we look back on the horrors of the dictatorships and autocracies of the past, one particular question consistently arises; how was it possible for the common men of these eras to NOT notice what was happening around them? How could they have stood as statues unaware or uncaring as their cultures were overrun by fascism, communism, collectivism, and elitism? Of course, we have the advantage of hindsight, and are able to research and examine the misdeeds of the past at our leisure. Unfortunately, such hindsight does not necessarily shield us from the long cast shadow of tyranny in our own day. For that, the increasingly uncommon gift of foresight is required…

    At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect threats to their personal safety. They must abandon all responsibility for their destinies, and lose all respect for their own humanity. They must, indeed, become domesticated and mindless herd animals without regard for anything except their fleeting momentary desires for entertainment and short term survival. For a lumbering bloodthirsty behemoth to actually sneak up on you, you have to be pretty damnably oblivious.

    The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process of centralization. Once dishonest governments accomplish an atmosphere of inaction and condition a sense of frailty within the citizenry, the sky is truly the limit. However, a murderous power-monger's day is never quite done. In my recent article 'The Essential Rules of Liberty' we explored the fundamentally unassailable actions and mental preparations required to ensure the continuance of a free society. In this article, let's examine the frequently wielded tools of tyrants in their invariably insane quests for total control…

    Rule #1: Keep Them Afraid

    People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful, and easily overthrown. Brute strength is calculable. It can be analyzed, and thus, eventually confronted and defeated.

    Thriving tyrants instead utilize not just harm, but the imminent THREAT of harm. They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently culled.

    In other cases, our fear is evoked and directed towards engineered enemies. Another race, another religion, another political ideology, a "hidden" and ominous villain created out of thin air. Autocrats assert that we "need them" in order to remain safe and secure from these illusory monsters bent on our destruction. As always, this development is followed by the claim that all steps taken, even those that dissolve our freedoms, are "for the greater good". Frightened people tend to shirk their sense of independence and run towards the comfort of the collective, even if that collective is built on immoral and unconscionable foundations. Once a society takes on a hive-mind mentality almost any evil can be rationalized, and any injustice against the individual is simply overlooked for the sake of the group.

    Rule #2: Keep Them Isolated

    In the past, elitist governments would often legislate and enforce severe penalties for public gatherings, because defusing the ability of the citizenry to organize or to communicate was paramount to control. In our technological era, such isolation is still used, but in far more advanced forms. The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized forms of activism.

    Through co-option, modern day tyrant's can direct and manipulate opposition movements. By creating and administrating groups which oppose each other, elites can then micromanage all aspects of a nation on the verge of revolution. These "false paradigms" give us the illusion of proactive organization, and the false hope of changing the system, while at the same time preventing us from seeking understanding in one another. All our energies are then muted and dispersed into meaningless battles over "left and right", or "Democrat versus Republican", for example. Only movements that cast aside such empty labels and concern themselves with the ultimate truth of their country, regardless of what that truth might reveal, are able to enact real solutions to the disasters wrought by tyranny.

    In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state.

    Rule #3: Keep Them Desperate

    You'll find in nearly every instance of cultural descent into autocracy, the offending government gained favor after the onset of economic collapse. Make the necessities of root survival an uncertainty, and people without knowledge of self sustainability and without solid core principles will gladly hand over their freedom, even for mere scraps from the tables of the same men who unleashed famine upon them. Financial calamities are not dangerous because of the poverty they leave in their wake; they are dangerous because of the doors to malevolence that they leave open.

    Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything resembling a solution, even despotism.

    Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them.

    Rule #4: Send Out The Jackboots

    This is the main symptom often associated with totalitarianism. So much so that our preconceived notions of what a fascist government looks like prevent us from seeing other forms of tyranny right under our noses. Some Americans believe that if the jackbooted thugs are not knocking on every door, then we MUST still live in a free country. Obviously, this is a rather naďve position. Admittedly, though, goon squads and secret police do eventually become prominent in every failed nation, usually while the public is mesmerized by visions of war, depression, hyperinflation, terrorism, etc.

    When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile.

    As tyranny grows, this behavior is encouraged. Good men are filtered out of the system, and small (minded and hearted) men are promoted.

    At its pinnacle, a police state will hide the identities of most of its agents and officers, behind masks or behind red tape, because their crimes in the name of the state become so numerous and so sadistic that personal vengeance on the part of their victims will become a daily concern.

    Rule #5: Blame Everything On The Truth Seekers

    Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses.

    All disasters, all violent crimes, all the ills of the world, are hoisted upon the shoulders of activist groups and political rivals. They are falsely associated with fringe elements already disliked by society (racists, terrorists, etc). A bogus consensus is created through puppet media in an attempt to make the public believe that "everyone else" must have the same exact views, and those who express contrary positions must be "crazy", or "extremist". Events are even engineered by the corrupt system and pinned on those demanding transparency and liberty. The goal is to drive anti-totalitarian organizations into self censorship. That is to say, instead of silencing them directly, the state causes activists to silence themselves.

    Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone.

    Rule #6: Encourage Citizen Spies

    Ultimately, the life of a totalitarian government is not prolonged by the government itself, but by the very people it subjugates. Citizen spies are the glue of any police state, and our propensity for sticking our noses into other peoples business is highly valued by Big Brother bureaucracies around the globe.

    There are a number of reasons why people participate in this repulsive activity. Some are addicted to the feeling of being a part of the collective, and "service" to this collective, sadly, is the only way they are able to give their pathetic lives meaning. Some are vindictive, cold, and soulless, and actually get enjoyment from ruining others. And still, like elites, some long for power, even petty power, and are willing to do anything to fulfill their vile need to dictate the destinies of perfect strangers.

    Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities. People who lean towards citizen spying are often outwardly and inwardly unimpressive; physically and mentally inept. For the average moral and emotional weakling with persistent feelings of inadequacy, the allure of finally being given fifteen minutes of fame and a hero's status (even if that status is based on a lie) is simply too much to resist. They begin to see "extremists" and "terrorists" everywhere. Soon, people afraid of open ears everywhere start to watch what they say at the supermarket, in their own backyards, or even to family members. Free speech is effectively neutralized.

    Rule #7: Make Them Accept The Unacceptable

    In the end, it is not enough for a government fueled by the putrid sludge of iniquity to lord over us. At some point, it must also influence us to forsake our most valued principles. Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think. If they can mold our very morality, they can exist unopposed indefinitely. Of course, the elements of conscience are inborn, and not subject to environmental duress as long as a man is self aware. However, conscience can be manipulated if a person has no sense of identity, and has never put in the effort to explore his own strengths and failings. There are many people like this in America today.

    Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace". Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it.

    All tyrannical systems depend on the apathy and moral relativism of the inhabitants within their borders. Without the cooperation of the public, these systems cannot function. The real question is, how many of the above steps will be taken before we finally refuse to conform? At what point will each man and woman decide to break free from the dark path blazed before us and take measures to ensure their independence? Who will have the courage to develop their own communities, their own alternative economies, their own organizations for mutual defense outside of establishment constructs, and who will break under the pressure to bow like cowards? How many will hold the line, and how many will flee?

    For every American, for every human being across the planet who chooses to stand immovable in the face of the very worst in mankind, we come that much closer to breathing life once again into the very best in us all.

    [Oct 20, 2016] I thought we were pretty sure that the US had attacked Yemen, were just not sure that Yemen had attacked the US ship.

    Oct 20, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    hemeantwell October 20, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    Twice in recent days, cruise missiles fired from an American destroyer have rained down on Yemen.

    Whoaaa. There may still be doubts about this. After all, what do the Houthis gain, especially right after the Saudis have outdone themselves in atrocities.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/15/politics/uss-mason-fired-on-again/

    Officials Saturday night were uncertain about what exactly happened, if there were multiple incoming missiles or if there was a malfunction with the radar detection system on the destroyer.

    frosty zoom October 20, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    that's quite a bold statement.

    Harry October 20, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    I thought we were pretty sure that the US had attacked Yemen, we're just not sure that Yemen had attacked the US ship.

    Plenue October 20, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    Even if the Yemenis did, I fail to see why this is considered shocking and unacceptable. I get that decades of kowtowing to Israel has conditioned the United States to not understand that a blockade is inherently an act of war, but quite aside from starving the people of Yemen we've been directly supporting the Saudi bombing. We've been belligerents in this conflict from the start.

    NotTimothyGeithner October 20, 2016 at 9:41 pm

    The Russian FM, Lavrov put it best when he described the U.S. as only desiring vassals.

    [Oct 19, 2016] Internal Anger At The FBI Over Clinton Investigation Continues To Grow

    Oct 19, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Michael Krieger via Liberty Blitzbrieg blog,

    This is a story that refuses to go away. Recall the post from earlier this month, Backlash Grows Months After the FBI's Sham Investigation Into Hillary Clinton , in which we learned:

    Feeling the heat from congressional critics, Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, "So if I blew it, they blew it, too."

    But agents say Comey tied investigators' hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

    "In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews," said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI's computer investigations unit.

    Instead of going to prosecutors and insisting on using grand jury leverage to compel testimony and seize evidence, Comey allowed immunity for several key witnesses, including potential targets.

    What's more, Comey cut a deal to give Clinton a "voluntary" witness interview on a major holiday, and even let her ex-chief of staff sit in on the interview as a lawyer, even though she, too, was under investigation.

    Agreed retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello: "Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization."

    Comey made the 25 agents who worked on the case sign nondisclosure agreements. But others say morale has sunk inside the bureau.

    "The director is giving the bureau a bad rap with all the gaps in the investigation," one agent in the Washington field office said. "There's a perception that the FBI has been politicized and let down the country."

    While the above article focused on the opinions of retired agents, today's article zeros in on the growing frustrations of current agency employees.

    The Daily Caller reports:

    FBI agents say the bureau is alarmed over Director James Comey deciding not to suggest that the Justice Department prosecute Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.

    According to an interview transcript given to The Daily Caller, provided by an intermediary who spoke to two federal agents with the bureau last Friday, agents are frustrated by Comey's leadership.

    "This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have convened but was not. That is appalling," an FBI special agent who has worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. "We talk about it in the office and don't know how Comey can keep going."

    Another special agent for the bureau that worked counter-terrorism and criminal cases said he is offended by Comey's saying: "we" and "I've been an investigator."

    After graduating from law school, Comey became a law clerk to a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan and later became an associate in a law firm in the city. After becoming a U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Comey's career moved through the U.S. Attorney's Office until he became Deputy Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration.

    After Bush left office, Comey entered the private sector and became general counsel and Senior Vice President for Lockheed Martin, among other private sector posts. President Barack Obama appointed him to FBI director in 2013 replacing out going-director Robert Mueller.

    "Comey was never an investigator or special agent. The special agents are trained investigators and they are insulted that Comey included them in 'collective we' statements in his testimony to imply that the SAs agreed that there was nothing there to prosecute," the second agent said. "All the trained investigators agree that there is a lot to prosecuted but he stood in the way."

    Indeed, there were many red flags surrounding Comey from the beginning. So much so that I wrote an article in 2013 titled, So Who is James Comey, Obama's Nominee to Head the FBI?

    In light of the latest revelations that the NSA is spying on the communications of millions of Verizon customers courtesy of information provided by the FBI, it probably makes sense to know a little more about Obama's nominee to head that Bureau. That man is James Comey, and he was a top Department of Justice attorney under John Ashcroft during the George W. Bush Administration (since then he has worked at Lockheed Martin and at the enormous Connecticut hedge fund Bridgewater Associates). This guy defines the revolving door cancer ruining these United States.

    Now back to The Daily Caller.

    According to Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova, more FBI agents will be talking about the problems at bureau and specifically the handling of the Clinton case by Comey when Congress comes back into session and decides to force them to testify by subpoena.

    DiGenova told WMAL radio's Drive at Five last week, "People are starting to talk. They're calling their former friends outside the bureau asking for help. We were asked to day to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so and to former agents who want to come forward and talk. Comey thought this was going to go away."

    He explained, "It's not. People inside the bureau are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel like they are being led by a hack but more than that that they think he's a crook. They think he's fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him. The bureau inside right now is a mess."

    He added, "The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk."

    Corruption in the USA has now reached the level where it starts destroying the entire fabric of society itself. This is a very dangerous moment.

    hedgeless_horseman , Oct 18, 2016 3:54 PM

    Is this the same FBI that released the 5 dancing israelis?

    fleur de lis -> wombats , Oct 18, 2016 7:38 PM
    It's already been done. After the Boston Marathon false flag, a number of FBI agents were assigned to the case. Two in particular probably got too close to the hoax because suddenly they were sent on a naval training assignment. The FBI on a naval training assignment in the middle of an investigation?

    ... ... ...

    Debt-Is-Not-Money -> fleur de lis , Oct 18, 2016 9:04 PM
    Comey said not to call him a "weasel". "He is not a weasel"! He's right, he is not a weasel. That would be an insult to all weasels!
    Bay Area Guy -> pods , Oct 18, 2016 5:17 PM
    Excellent post pods. These agents are using the Nazi excuse of "just following orders". We'll, a corrupt order is corrupt.....and so are you if you blindly follow it.
    gmrpeabody -> Bay Area Guy , Oct 18, 2016 5:23 PM
    "There's a perception that the FBI has been politicized and let down the country."

    Perception, my ass.., try reality.

    The Billy Blaze -> pods , Oct 18, 2016 8:06 PM
    The NDAs were obviously procured through fraud thereby nullifying their binding nature. Dirty hands all over the Washington D.C. cesspool. Are we ready to clean house yet?
    CheapBastard -> StychoKiller , Oct 18, 2016 11:26 PM
    The FBI has lost total street cred first after failing to indict Crooked Hillary, and then granting immunity to her co-conspirators. the icing on the cake was Comey blaming other FBI.

    When I was wanering thru the sports store yesterday, the feeling of animosity toward the FBI was very high. Once they were highly respected...Comey has trashed that agency badly...People like John Malone 9who once heade the NYC FBI office), Tompkins in the louisville area, etc would be revolted by Crooked Comey.

    Occident Mortal -> BaBaBouy , Oct 18, 2016 4:32 PM
    If I was in the FBI and anywhere near this cover up, I would be worried about landing up in jail.

    Even if she wins this isn't going away. The Dems don't have congress.

    PrayingMantis -> BaBaBouy , Oct 18, 2016 4:37 PM

    ... I'm sure the FBI agents have been angry <nudge, wink> since June 1996 >>> https://epic.org/privacy/databases/fbi/filegate/ >>> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/fbi.files/index.orig.html >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy ...

    ... I'm not implying that those 900(?) FBI files of prominent Americans given by the FBI to the Klinton Krime Kartel were being used for blackmail ... and perhaps the reason why the dynamic duo keeps getting "get-out-of-jail-free" cards whenever they need it ...

    Omen IV -> jcaz , Oct 18, 2016 7:38 PM
    The personnel are "angry" but no whistleblowers and therefore no one wants to do their job

    Cops double up in Chicago sit on the sidelines and let the gangs kill each other and the FBI let's the Clintons steal everything and rape the citizens

    This is a ...... Movie script

    Dabooda -> SomethingSomethingDarkSide , Oct 18, 2016 4:43 PM
    @hedgeless horseman: The FBI did not release the "Dancing Israelis." It was Judge Michael Chertoff. He was in charge of the Criminal Division in the Justice Department on 9/11. Essentially responsible for the 9/11 non-investigation. He let hundreds of Israeli spies who were arrested prior to and on 9/11 go back home to Israel. He was also a prosecuting judge in the first terrorist attack on the WTC in 1993. Chertoff purportedly holds dual citizenship with the US and Israel. His family is one of the founding families of the state of Israel and his mother was one of the first ever agents of the Mossad, Israel's spy agency. His father and uncle are ordained rabbis and teachers of the Talmud.

    He was subsequently named head of the Dept of Homeland Security. His company arranged for placement of Rapascan nude scanners in American airports. Who says crime doesn't pay?

    brain_glitch -> Dabooda , Oct 18, 2016 4:48 PM
    "and co-author of the USA PATRIOT Act"
    Creative_Destruct -> InjectTheVenom , Oct 18, 2016 4:03 PM

    ..... Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, "So if I blew it, they blew it, too."

    ...... agents say Comey tied investigators' hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

    ...... In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews," said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI's computer investigations unit.

    Time for Comey, Bill, Hillary, Lynch, Obama, MSM Media, and on, and on, to ALL

    DANCE ON THE FUCKING AIR !!!

    (Method of neck suspension, NOT rope.....piano wire..)

    chubbar -> InjectTheVenoM , Oct 18, 2016 6:52 PM
    I get a kick out of these career FBI agents worrying that Comey has sullied the reputation of the FBI (he has). Here is a fucking news flash for you assholes, if Clinton gets elected there is an almost certain chance that she starts a fucking thermo nuclear war with Russia. You, your families and the precious FBI won't exist 30 minutes after that starts seeing that you are sitting at ground zero. Does that do anything to get you off your asses and perhaps do your fucking jobs?

    There is now about 30 minutes of video that proves the Clinton campaign conspired to incite violence at Trump rallys. How about you fuckers get off your ass and start investigating this and the "pay to play" shit the Podesta tapes came out with? Or, how about the email that indicates POTUS illegally influenced the Supreme Court Justice on ACA??? Christ, it's a target rich environment for felony convictions out there and you guys are doing what????

    fishpoeM -> hedgeless_horseman , Oct 18, 2016 5:14 PM
    Allegedly, there was a much larger contingent of Mossad agents that were detained immediately after 9/11. An additional 100 or so were in the States "studying art" and similar cover stories when in fact they were carefully casing various buildings including banks and Federal sites. For reasons never made public, the FBI let them all go back to Israel. Without waterboarding Dick Cheney, the public will never know the truth.
    Mustafa Kemal -> Calmyourself , Oct 18, 2016 4:38 PM
    " Sorry, intentions are one thing actions another at least among adults."

    Actually, it can also be part of the game. Eisenhower is well known for his MIC warning on TV just as he was leaving office. However, if you look at what he did, and what he allowed Allen Dulles to do, he was part of it. Making fake apologies after the fact provides some balm but doesnt undo the damage.

    Dr. Bonzo , Oct 18, 2016 3:58 PM
    I'm tellin ya.... rank-and-file aren't sitting around giggling that this fucking cunt is walking on water on shit they would be hung out to dry for. The Podesta leaks are NSA standard intercepts. Anyone could have grabbed them from a standard intercept. Tja, that's the problem when you go hooovering up the entire internet. Pretty fucking hard to compartmentalize collection efforts on that scale.

    We applaud and support the members of our armed forces and intelligence community who take their oath of office seriously and refuse to let these murderous internationalists tear down our country without a fucking fight.

    Bay of Pigs -> Dr. Bonzo , Oct 18, 2016 4:23 PM
    Agreed. I emailed Trey Gowdy with the James Okeefe DNC video.

    Somebody in Wash DC needs to grow a set of balls and get on that story now, including the FBI.

    PS I just had my cousin ask me if I had "fact checked" the Okeefe video. I was like, WTF are you talking about?

    Joebloinvestor , Oct 18, 2016 3:58 PM
    Evidently, the National Enquirer is doing Hillary like they did Edwards.

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/hillary-clinton-lesbian-sex-cl...

    Rainman , Oct 18, 2016 3:59 PM
    When Hillary gets in there all these old FBI white boyz will be shown the door and replaced with pussylesbo power. These are the good old days,be afraid.

    [Oct 18, 2016] Obama -- neoliberal and neocon shill

    Notable quotes:
    "... Please name some of these "centrist" economic policies of Obama's. ..."
    "... Fact is, he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent. He slashed spending. He gave fraudulent bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and QE purchases while giving Americans conned by them nothing. His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance companies (yet another looting scheme.) ..."
    "... Obama promised hope and change and delivered neither. He is as centrist Keynesian as Ronald Reagan. (Hillary, of course, is unapologetically neocon; she's been targeting the neocon vote since wrapping up the nomination.) ..."
    "... "Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and almost all of them indefinitely in 2013. The big features of Bush's plans -- the 10 percent tax bracket, across-the-board rate cuts, more generous estate-tax exemptions and equal standard deductions for married couples and two individuals -- are now locked into U.S. law." ..."
    "... "At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession. But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983. Today, levels [of 6.8%] are well below the long-term average. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962." ..."
    "... As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles. If Obama had wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced by 20 million) he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without giving healthcare insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more. ..."
    "... ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with ACA exchanges is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies. Single payer was needed to keep the thugs honest. ..."
    "... I really wish more liberals would learn about these things..." You mean you wish liberals were more gullible. Obama ran on a public option during the primaries, promised his health care reforms would include it. In the end it was all empty talk. The reason Obama and Hillary have the PRIVATE position that a public option is never going to happen under their watch is ..."
    "... The public option is a Trojan Horse. It will eat into the healthcare insurance industry's market share, which is why they pay Obama and Hillary the big bucks to protect it. ..."
    "... The 1983 and 2010 discretionary included too much of GDP on war. Proving Bastiat that "security spending" is less useful than almost any other use of the money. ..."
    "... Total is one feature, opportunity lost [on war profiteers blowing up evil doers] while spending Yuuuge is a few onion peels deeper. ..."
    "... The left/right economic spectrum is objective and immutable. In the center is the Keynesian mixed-market system that was abandoned when Reagan came to power for right-wing free-market reforms that were continued on by both Republican and Democratic presidents that followed. The country is further to the right now than when Reagan left power. ..."
    "... The economic spectrum is defined: 100% left is communism or full government control over the economy; 100% right is libertarianism or no government involvement in the economy. In the center is the Keynesian demand-side economic system that created modern living standards during the Progressive New Deal Era that began with FDR and was ended by Reagan. ..."
    "... To consider Obama's rule center-left is to be completely ignorant of the left/right economic spectrum. Norway is a left-leaning centrist Keynesian country. If you think America and Norway are the same I suggest (for starters) you watch Michael Moore's documentary: "Where to Invade Next." ..."
    "... By milquetoast I imagine you mean instead of delivering big promised changes from the Bush Jr. era, he did absolutely nothing. He continued both the neocon war-profiteering and neoliberal economic reforms. He will attempt to ram the TPP through after the election during the lame duck session. ..."
    "... If Americans hate anyone it is establishment lapdog Republicans and Democrats. Krugman's ridiculous rhetoric shows they are growing increasingly desperate. They should be: their neoliberal era is coming to a close; their gravy train is about to go off the rails. (Krugman got in on it too late.) ..."
    "... Starting wars is not "milquetoast, moderately successful center-left rule." It is a neocon scam run by the DNC establishment. Was Obama always a shill for the war machine, and his Iraq vote a Manchurian candidate? ..."
    Oct 18, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Ron Waller -> DrDick... October 17, 2016 at 02:13 PM

    Please name some of these "centrist" economic policies of Obama's.

    Fact is, he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent. He slashed spending. He gave fraudulent bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and QE purchases while giving Americans conned by them nothing. His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance companies (yet another looting scheme.)

    Obama promised hope and change and delivered neither. He is as centrist Keynesian as Ronald Reagan. (Hillary, of course, is unapologetically neocon; she's been targeting the neocon vote since wrapping up the nomination.)

    Political Compass: The US Presidential Election 2012
    https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 Reply Monday, October 17, 2016 at 02:13 PM

    sanjait -> Ron Waller ... , October 17, 2016 at 02:43 PM

    "Fact is ..."

    Oh, do go on.

    "... he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent." Yeah, except the ones on higher incomes.

    "He slashed spending." Not really. The sequester hostage deal cuts were more than offset by other Obama-led spending, like ARRA short term and ACA long term.

    "He gave fraudulent bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and QE purchases while giving Americans conned by them nothing. "

    Not even close. The Treasury and Fed buy assets at market prices, which is the complete opposite of "sweetheart deals." Notably, the Treasury and Fed have both profited from these purchases.

    "His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance companies (yet another looting scheme.)"

    The insurance companies lobbied against ACA and are clearly not profiting on exchange plan issuance.

    But sure, tell us more of about "facts."

    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 03:17 PM
    From Bloomberg:

    "Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and almost all of them indefinitely in 2013. The big features of Bush's plans -- the 10 percent tax bracket, across-the-board rate cuts, more generous estate-tax exemptions and equal standard deductions for married couples and two individuals -- are now locked into U.S. law."

    From CNN Money:

    "At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession. But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983. Today, levels [of 6.8%] are well below the long-term average. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962."

    Re: "sweetheart deals" I got that line from Stigtilz's "Freefall." Clearly a book you didn't read.

    As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles. If Obama had wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced by 20 million) he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without giving healthcare insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more.

    (Developed countries pay 12% GDP for extensive healthcare benefits; the US pays 18% GDP for its patchwork system that leaves 31 million without. The inflated costs - 6% GDP or about $1T a year - are largely from insurance corporation looting.)

    sanjait -> Ron Waller ... , October 17, 2016 at 08:59 PM
    "Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and almost all of them indefinitely in 2013. "

    Yeah, and hidden in that "almost all" qualifier is exactly what I said previously: that the BTCs for higher incomes were NOT extended.

    And I didn't even mention before how ACA raised taxes further on the rich, with an additional surtaxes on both incomes and capital gains for $200k plus earners.

    The result has been that the top 1% now pay the highest effective tax rates they've paid since the mid 90s, while everyone else pays relatively lower.

    Reducing taxes on the not rich and raising taxes on the rich counts as center-left, at least, in any sensible accounting.

    "From CNN Money: "At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP.
    ...
    And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962."

    Your use of this passage to try to make your point has so many layers of fudge it might as well be tiramisu.

    First, 2010 was a peak not just because of the ARRA spending, which is another thing I already mentioned, but also because of high *cyclical* spending on things like unemployment benefits.

    Spending always goes up during downturns. That's not a policy or ideological shift, that's just the nature of automatic stabilizers.

    You conflate all those things by pointing to the decline in spending off the cyclical peak as being somehow less than "centrist."

    Second, you have for no good reason chosen to point only too discretionary spending. So lets talk about what that category includes and doesn't.

    The biggest component of discretionary spending is defense spending. Is it "center-left" to promote higher defense spending? No way. And in fact, the sequester hostage deal cuts are half defense cuts.

    Another thing to note about discretionary spending is that its been declining for decades, as "non-discretionary" spending has come to increasingly dominate the budget. And that non-discretionary spending continues to go up.

    Also, like I already said (see a trend here?), the major policy changes affecting non-defense discretionary spending were the sequester and ACA, and guess what? They offset.

    So how is this not centrist? You want to paint Obama as some major spending cutter, but on balance he hasn't. He's cut deficits a little bit by raising taxes on the rich by a bit more than he's lowered them on everyone else.

    Not centrist? Pfft.

    "Re: "sweetheart deals" I got that line from Stigtilz's "Freefall." Clearly a book you didn't read."

    Clearly you can't even defend your own assertion, so you retreat to a weak argument from authority.

    "As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles."

    No, they are jacking up premiums, by an average of 9%, which is far lower than they used to rise in the individual market on average pre-ACA, and follows a few years of way below trend rate increases.

    You were saying?

    " If Obama had wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced by 20 million) he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without giving healthcare insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more."

    Ugh. Just painful.

    Yes, a *single payer* system like Medicare for all would cover everyone, and probably be less expensive (though at present Medicare is the most generous single payer system on the planet, so it actually wouldn't save as much as international comparisons would lead you to believe).

    But the "public option" has nothing to do with Medicare or universal single payer coverage. It would simply be the government setting up an insurance company to offer policies on the exchanges for premiums. That's not at all the same as Medicare, and not universal. It could serve as a valuable competitor to private plans on the exchanges, which is why center-left Dems like Obama and Hillary Clinton support it, but you don't appear to be aware of that support or even what "public option" means.

    Please, just stop.

    sanjait -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 09:02 PM
    Let me sum it up again:

    Obama raised taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on everyone else. In the sequester hostage deal he acquiesced to, they cut defense spending and non-defense discretionary equally, but Obama also expanded non-defense discretionary, by actually a greater amount, with the passage of ACA, not to mention the temporary but significant spending that was passed under ARRA. Based on this history he's supposedly not "centrist"? WTF?

    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 18, 2016 at 07:32 AM
    "Yeah, and hidden in that "almost all" qualifier is exactly what I said previously: that the BTCs for higher incomes were NOT extended."

    So you have a beef with Bloomberg? Puke your apologist rhetoric at them. "The result has been that the top 1% now pay the highest effective tax rates they've paid since the mid 90s, while everyone else pays relatively lower. So how is this not centrist?"

    The top tax bracket during the centrist Keynesian post-war era varied from 90% to 70%. Obama raised the rate from 35% to 40%. Still deep in right-wing "low tax, small government" neoclassical territory.

    "No, they are jacking up premiums, by an average of 9%, which is far lower than they used to rise"

    From Bill Clinton on the ACA: "So you've got this crazy system where all of a sudden, 25 million more people have healthcare and then the people that are out there busting it-sometimes 60 hours a week-wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It's the craziest thing in the world."

    "Yes, a *single payer* system like Medicare for all would cover everyone … But the 'public option' has nothing to do with … universal single payer coverage"

    You missed my point completely. A primary goal of the ACA was to provide "affordable" healthcare insurance to the 50 million people without. A goal it clearly failed at given 31-million still have no healthcare insurance.

    I said that with the public option alone, all 50-million could've gotten public healthcare insurance or benefits without affecting anyone else's premiums and deductions. I.e., it would've been a more effective patchwork reform.

    Obviously a pubic option that covers 50-million is completely different from a single-payer system that would cover all 325-million Americans. Of course, this is completely irrelevant to my original point.

    "But the 'public option' has nothing to do with Medicare"

    From Wikipedia: "The Public Option Act, in contrast, would have allowed all citizens and permanent residents to buy into a public option by participating in the public Medicare program."

    "Please, just stop."

    You should heed your own advice. You are only fooling yourself with your weasel rhetoric and pathetic attempts at browbeating.

    ilsm -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 03:37 PM
    ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with ACA exchanges is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies. Single payer was needed to keep the thugs honest.

    Shifting to banking...... Who would have bought that $2T in MBS's (now sitting in a FR virtual vault) at what market*? When do those MBS's go back into the 'market'? *Clearing price ['market'] assumes a 'rational' buyer. The FR is a rationalizing buyer, with intent not usual to "markets".

    sanjait -> DrDick... , October 17, 2016 at 09:19 PM
    "Clinton will go left of ACA. "

    "I see no evidence of that" Believe it. Hillary Clinton has consistently supported the public option. That is an important "leftward" expansion of ACA. She has also proposed to *double* funding for Federally Qualified Health Centers (think County Health clinics) that serve as the front line of providing primary healthcare to the nations poor and working poor.

    Both of those initiatives would be enormously impactful on their own. And those are in addition to the litany of other proposals she has put forth, recently and over her entire working life, to improve access, affordability and quality of care for everyone.

    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/07/09/hillary-clintons-commitment-universal-quality-affordable-health-care-for-everyone-in-america/
    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/clinton-plan-to-lower-out-of-pocket-health-care-costs/

    I really wish more liberals would learn about these things...

    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 18, 2016 at 08:06 AM
    " I really wish more liberals would learn about these things..." You mean you wish liberals were more gullible. Obama ran on a public option during the primaries, promised his health care reforms would include it. In the end it was all empty talk. The reason Obama and Hillary have the PRIVATE position that a public option is never going to happen under their watch is :

    "Progressives supported [the public option] as a voluntary transition toward single-payer insurance, while conservatives opposed it as a government 'takeover' of health care." -- Health Affairs "The Origins And Demise Of The Public Option"

    The public option is a Trojan Horse. It will eat into the healthcare insurance industry's market share, which is why they pay Obama and Hillary the big bucks to protect it.

    sanjait -> ilsm... , October 17, 2016 at 09:13 PM

    "ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with ACA exchanges is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies. Single payer was needed to keep the thugs honest."

    Yeah ... what?

    The GOP didn't compromise at all on ACA. They contributed zero votes. It was the best bill that the Dems could get all 60 Dem senators to agree on. If you want to talk about compromises for insurance companies, like the preclusion of the public option or the reduction in the Medicare age limit, it wasn't the GOP who pushed for those, it was Joe Lieberman and other waffly Dems.

    "Shifting to banking......

    Who would have bought that $2T in MBS's (now sitting in a FR virtual vault) at what market*?

    When do those MBS's go back into the 'market'?"

    Why don't you do a little googling and educate yourself instead of JAQing off to me?

    During the crisis, the Fed bought MBS at an enormous discount, precisely because the crisis crashed market liquidity and sellers were desperate. Although the Fed has also profited from purchases since, as insolvency rates on mortgages have continued to steadily decline.

    MBS don't need to be sold on market to generate income and profit. They are debt instruments that spit out cash over time. They actually liquidate themselves because homeowners almost never carry mortgage loans to term. AFAIK the Fed continues to buy them to maintain its balance sheet, which generates a small amount of interest income (only a few tens of billions...), but it's a pretty good income considering the Fed's cost of capital is near zero when it is printing money to deliberately expand monetary supply.

    ilsm -> Ron Waller ... , October 17, 2016 at 03:29 PM
    The 1983 and 2010 discretionary included too much of GDP on war. Proving Bastiat that "security spending" is less useful than almost any other use of the money.

    Total is one feature, opportunity lost [on war profiteers blowing up evil doers] while spending Yuuuge is a few onion peels deeper.

    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 03:28 PM
    The left/right economic spectrum is objective and immutable. In the center is the Keynesian mixed-market system that was abandoned when Reagan came to power for right-wing free-market reforms that were continued on by both Republican and Democratic presidents that followed. The country is further to the right now than when Reagan left power.

    The economic spectrum is defined: 100% left is communism or full government control over the economy; 100% right is libertarianism or no government involvement in the economy. In the center is the Keynesian demand-side economic system that created modern living standards during the Progressive New Deal Era that began with FDR and was ended by Reagan.

    sanjait -> Ron Waller ... , October 17, 2016 at 09:15 PM
    "The left/right economic spectrum is objective and immutable."

    Complete premise fail in the first sentence.

    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 18, 2016 at 07:40 AM
    You're incapable of comprehending the concepts of objectivity and immutability? Either you flunked out of high school, or you're an economist.
    Ron Waller -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 02:49 PM
    To consider Obama's rule center-left is to be completely ignorant of the left/right economic spectrum. Norway is a left-leaning centrist Keynesian country. If you think America and Norway are the same I suggest (for starters) you watch Michael Moore's documentary: "Where to Invade Next."

    By milquetoast I imagine you mean instead of delivering big promised changes from the Bush Jr. era, he did absolutely nothing. He continued both the neocon war-profiteering and neoliberal economic reforms. He will attempt to ram the TPP through after the election during the lame duck session.

    If Americans hate anyone it is establishment lapdog Republicans and Democrats. Krugman's ridiculous rhetoric shows they are growing increasingly desperate. They should be: their neoliberal era is coming to a close; their gravy train is about to go off the rails. (Krugman got in on it too late.)

    ilsm -> sanjait... , October 17, 2016 at 03:13 PM
    Starting wars is not "milquetoast, moderately successful center-left rule." It is a neocon scam run by the DNC establishment. Was Obama always a shill for the war machine, and his Iraq vote a Manchurian candidate?

    [Oct 18, 2016] Polls Show Race Remains Close in Multiple States

    Breitbart

    In Ohio, for instance, Quinnipiac has a poll taken in the second week of October showing
    Clinton and Trump in a tie in a four way race with the Libertarian and Green Party
    candidates, the latter tow in at six and one percent respectively. With a margin of error 3.9
    percent Ohio could swing either way for Quinnipiac.

    For the same period in Ohio, the RealClearPolitics average has Trump up 0.7. Over the
    same week, Emerson has Clinton up two, NBC/WSJ/Marist has Trump up one, and
    CNN/ORC has Trump up four.

    But where Clinton is leading she is often within the margin of error or close to it. In
    Florida, Quinnipiac has Clinton up four with a margin of error (МОЕ) 3.9, making the race
    a statistical tie. CNN/ORC has Nevada at Clinton plus two with an МОЕ of 3.5. And in
    Colorado, Quinnipiac has Trump up eight with a 3.7 МОЕ.

    As to the states Trump is leading in for the second week of October, CNN/ORC has Trump
    up four in Ohio with a 3.9 МОЕ, JMC Analytics has Trump up seven in Louisiana with a
    3.5 МОЕ, and Rasmussen has Trump up one in Utah with an МОЕ of four.

    Clearly this race is a far tighter affair than many in the media want to let on.

    [Oct 17, 2016] FBI Agents Angry at Comey for Not Charging Clinton

    EUTimes.net

    The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

    The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said Obama appointee FBI Director James Comey's dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General's office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ's National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

    "No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute - it was a top-down decision," said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

    A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, "It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton's] security clearance yanked."

    "It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted," the senior FBI official told Fox News. "We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said 'but we are doing nothing,' which made no sense to us."

    The FBI declined to comment directly, but instead referred Fox News to multiple public statements Comey has made in which he has thrown water on the idea that politics played a role in the agency's decision not to recommend charges.

    [Oct 16, 2016] The Deep State

    Notable quotes:
    "... "deep state" - the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment - is a far greater threat to liberty than you think ..."
    "... Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. ..."
    "... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." ..."
    Feb 28, 2014 | The American Conservative

    Steve Sailer links to this unsettling essay by former career Congressional staffer Mike Lofgren, who says the "deep state" - the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment - is a far greater threat to liberty than you think. The partisan rancor and gridlock in Washington conceals a more fundamental and pervasive agreement.

    Excerpts:

    These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 million to keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least Ł100m to the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access to that country's intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period of time, the government spent $1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every single trace of your electronic life.

    Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.

    More:

    Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it is not the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes. One is Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own best interests. The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity. On March 6, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: "I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." This, from the chief law enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically abolished the constitutional right to trial for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes. It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice - certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee. [3]

    The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David Petraeus joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance. General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at theBelfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.

    Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it's a vital part of the Deep State's apparatus. More:

    The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face."

    Read the whole thing.

    ... I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11 leading up to the Iraq War with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today. Specifically, I'd be curious to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the policies that the Deep State and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy here, not at all. I'm only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should go to war with Iraq, so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains. The same consensus has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media have believed this for some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that anyone against same-sex marriage is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn't a conspiracy; it's in the nature of the thing. Lofgren:

    Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

    A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00 in the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist. After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles off steel plate: "You mean the number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?" No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.

    When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It's probably not a coincidence that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two cities that were attacked on 9/11, and whose elites - political, military, financial - were so genuinely traumatized by the events.

    Anyway, that's just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here's a final quote, one from the Moyers interview with Lofgren:

    BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat or republican, not left or right, what is it?

    MIKE LOFGREN: It's an ideology. I just don't think we've named it. It's a kind of corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.

    This can't last. We'd better hope it can't last. And we'd better hope it unwinds peacefully.

    [Oct 16, 2016] The Cathedral -- The self-organizing ideological consensus represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service by Rod Dreher

    Notable quotes:
    "... The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. ..."
    "... General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. ..."
    "... Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy. ..."
    "... The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. ..."
    "... "you believe that morality has been essentially solved, and all that's left is to work out the details." ..."
    "... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. ..."
    "... A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. ..."
    "... No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it. ..."
    "... It's probably not a coincidence that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, ..."
    "... It's a kind of corporatism. ..."
    "... They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. ..."
    "... And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war. ..."
    Feb 28, 2014 | The American Conservative

    From: The Deep State By Rod Dreher

    The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others.

    Not all the traffic involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David Petraeus joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance. General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.

    Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it's a vital part of the Deep State's apparatus. More:

    The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face."

    Read the whole thing.

    Steve Sailer says that the Shallow State is a complement to the Deep State. The Shallow State is, I think, another name for what the Neoreactionaries call "The Cathedral," defined thus:

    The Cathedral - The self-organizing consensus of Progressives and Progressive ideology represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service. A term coined by blogger Mencius Moldbug. The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. Community writers have enumerated the platform of Progressivism as women's suffrage, prohibition, abolition, federal income tax, democratic election of senators, labor laws, desegregation, popularization of drugs, destruction of traditional sexual norms, ethnic studies courses in colleges, decolonization, and gay marriage. A defining feature of Progressivism is that "you believe that morality has been essentially solved, and all that's left is to work out the details." Reactionaries see Republicans as Progressives, just lagging 10-20 years behind Democrats in their adoption of Progressive norms.

    You don't have to agree with the Neoreactionaries on what they condemn - women's suffrage? desegregation? labor laws? really?? - to acknowledge that they're onto something about the sacred consensus that all Right-Thinking People share. I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11 leading up to the Iraq War with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today. Specifically, I'd be curious to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the policies that the Deep State and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy here, not at all. I'm only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should go to war with Iraq, so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains. The same consensus has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media have believed this for some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that anyone against same-sex marriage is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn't a conspiracy; it's in the nature of the thing. Lofgren:

    Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

    A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00 in the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist.

    After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles off steel plate: "You mean the number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?" No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.

    When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It's probably not a coincidence that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two cities that were attacked on 9/11, and whose elites - political, military, financial - were so genuinely traumatized by the events.

    Anyway, that's just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here's a final quote, one from the Moyers interview with Lofgren:

    BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat or republican, not left or right, what is it?

    MIKE LOFGREN: It's an ideology. I just don't think we've named it. It's a kind of corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization.

    And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.

    This can't last. We'd better hope it can't last. And we'd better hope it unwinds peacefully.

    I, for one, remain glad that so many of us Americans are armed. When the Deep State collapses - and it will one day - it's not going to be a happy time.

    Questions to the room: Is a Gorbachev for the Deep State conceivable? That is, could you foresee a political leader emerging who could unwind the ideology and apparatus of the Deep State, and not only survive, but succeed? Or is it impossible for the Deep State to allow such a figure to thrive? Or is the Deep State, like the Soviet system Gorbachev failed to reform, too entrenched and too far gone to reform itself? If so, what then?

    [Oct 15, 2016] Apologize to Ron Paul - YouTube

    Oct 15, 2016 | www.youtube.com

    Jerry LoCoco 5 years ago Great Video! One of the best! Ron Paul 2012

    Mike C 6 years ago And i love that song just not that version !Well thats cause the media and hollywood have everyone brainwashed. Brainwashed into a media nation and thats why we have a bunch of actors in office. When people are brought to the brink they will wake up and find out its too late until then all the little worker bees will keep there ignorant heads in the sand!

    mbear14 7 years ago Haha. Exactly. Here is how all of my conversations end with Obama supporters: "Well, whatever...fuck it...at least he's not that asshole Bush." Such strong convictions from enlightened individuals. Not one of them can give me a solid reason as to how we are NOT currently living in the 3rd Bush administration. And yes, I would agree that "white guilt" unfortunately sneaked it's way into the votes :(
    mbear14 7 years ago I live in DC and the amount of conversations I've had with Obama sheeple makes it very discouraging. They have absolutely NO idea why they voted for McBama. They are completely oblivious to his policies, about why we were attacked on 9/11, the role of the Fed Reserve, the Patriot Act being written by Joe Biden, the list is endless. And yes, they even do admit that "Ron Paul is right on alot of things, but he can't win..." Pathetic. We elected Britney Spears as president. Cult of Personality.

    [Oct 15, 2016] Apologize Ron Paul Tea Party 2007

    Oct 15, 2016 | www.youtube.com

    YouTube

    pink4m3 5 years ago Thank you for the video. Honestly I never hard of Ron Paul on TV. I found him on youtube a few months ago. I think he's amazing and I feel stupid for not knowing who he is and to vote for someone else.
    PTTHOR 6 years ago Ron Paul as president is a great dream that I have.... But remember- what we really need is several Ron Paul's in congress and Senate because that's where the power is! That's where the change really happens. 1
    Mooseboy240 Mooseboy240 6 years ago @hardcorepatriot YES and if we fall then we fall united 1
    Mooseboy240 Mooseboy240 6 years ago omg I hate that everything ron paul is just internet based if everyone had gotten out and told their friends and familys what was going on maybe we wouldn't have another puppet in the whitehouse. I have been telling everyone why they should vote for ron paul and candidates who believe similarly or at least as often as I can considering its alot to explain and most people don't care until they hear how it dramatically affects there everyday lives then 99% of them suddenly realize it matters! 1
    Tomacity(Rast) Tomacity(Rast) 6 years ago Ron Paul Is my president

    [Oct 15, 2016] How Trump Happened by Joseph E. Stiglitz

    He missed the foreign policy aspect of Hillary vs Trump candidacy. A vote for Hillary is vote for continuation of wars of expansion of neoliberal empire.
    Notable quotes:
    "... reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both). ..."
    "... Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so. ..."
    "... Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government. ..."
    "... The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth. ..."
    Project Syndicate

    But several underlying factors also appear to have contributed to the closeness of the race. For starters, many Americans are economically worse off than they were a quarter-century ago. The median income of full-time male employees is lower than it was 42 years ago, and it is increasingly difficult for those with limited education to get a full-time job that pays decent wages.

    Indeed, real (inflation-adjusted) wages at the bottom of the income distribution are roughly where they were 60 years ago. So it is no surprise that Trump finds a large, receptive audience when he says the state of the economy is rotten. But Trump is wrong both about the diagnosis and the prescription. The US economy as a whole has done well for the last six decades: GDP has increased nearly six-fold. But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top – people like Trump, owing partly to massive tax cuts that he would extend and deepen.

    At the same time, reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both).

    Trump wants to blame all of America's problems on trade and immigration. He's wrong. The US would have faced deindustrialization even without freer trade: global employment in manufacturing has been declining, with productivity gains exceeding demand growth.

    Where the trade agreements failed, it was not because the US was outsmarted by its trading partners; it was because the US trade agenda was shaped by corporate interests. America's companies have done well, and it is the Republicans who have blocked efforts to ensure that Americans made worse off by trade agreements would share the benefits.

    Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so.

    Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government. But Trump's proposed policies would make a bad situation much worse. Surely, another dose of trickle-down economics of the kind he promises, with tax cuts aimed almost entirely at rich Americans and corporations, would produce results no better than the last time they were tried.

    In fact, launching a trade war with China, Mexico, and other US trading partners, as Trump promises, would make all Americans poorer and create new impediments to the global cooperation needed to address critical global problems like the Islamic State, global terrorism, and climate change. Using money that could be invested in technology, education, or infrastructure to build a wall between the US and Mexico is a twofer in terms of wasting resources.

    There are two messages US political elites should be hearing. The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth.

    This leads to the second message: we need to rewrite the rules of the economy once again, this time to ensure that ordinary citizens benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore this lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump phenomenon – and more than a few similar political developments in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined, and economies weakened.

    [Oct 14, 2016] 18 US 2071: Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    hooligan2009 Oct 14, 2016 9:18 AM

    still no mention of the clincher - that proves the entire democrat party has no respect for the office of president - or any other government office for that matter..

    stay on target!!!

    (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be

    disqualified from holding any office under the United States .

    As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States."
    (Source: 18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally )

    [Oct 14, 2016] The plan amounted to a reverse Ponzi scheme where unsuspecting employers expecting to buy affordable policies instead bought costly reinsurance requiring them to cover

    Notable quotes:
    "... Breakaway, with about 300 employees, accused Berkshire and Applied of "siphoning" premiums through a web of illegal shell companies, with diverted premiums going to unlicensed out-of-state insurers, the wire agency said. ..."
    "... The plan amounted to a "reverse Ponzi scheme" where unsuspecting employers expecting to buy affordable policies instead bought costly "reinsurance" requiring them to cover each other's losses, leaving taxpayers on the hook for shortfalls when too many workers are injured on the job, Breakaway said. ..."
    Oct 14, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    each other's losses

    Cry Shop September 13, 2016 at 1:11 am

    Class Warfare:
    http://www.ejinsight.com/20160913-buffett-flagship-sued-over-workers-compensation-siphoning/

    Breakaway, with about 300 employees, accused Berkshire and Applied of "siphoning" premiums through a web of illegal shell companies, with diverted premiums going to unlicensed out-of-state insurers, the wire agency said.

    The plan amounted to a "reverse Ponzi scheme" where unsuspecting employers expecting to buy affordable policies instead bought costly "reinsurance" requiring them to cover each other's losses, leaving taxpayers on the hook for shortfalls when too many workers are injured on the job, Breakaway said.

    [Oct 14, 2016] American intelligence claims (without providing evidence) that Russian intelligence is behind the Clinton email hacks is nothing less that attempts of American intelligence to manipulate the election

    Notable quotes:
    "... the danger that he presents is shaking the rats from under the carpet. ..."
    "... Yet the NYT keeps reporting that American intelligence asserts (without providing evidence) that Russian intelligence is behind the Clinton email hacks, and this is nothing less that attempts of American intelligence to manipulate the election. ..."
    "... I'm afraid, when it comes to end-of-the-Republic stuff, it's worse when your own intelligence guys are trying to manipulate the election than when their intelligence guys are. ..."
    Oct 14, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    dax 10.14.16 at 7:52 am 141

    I'll begin with the necessary avowal that I think Trump is a clown, and dangerous, and I hope he goes down to a record defeat.

    But still… the danger that he presents is shaking the rats from under the carpet.

    How many times have I read that Russian intelligence is trying to manipulate the American election? And that this is a Very Bad Thing?

    Yet the NYT keeps reporting that American intelligence asserts (without providing evidence) that Russian intelligence is behind the Clinton email hacks, and this is nothing less that attempts of American intelligence to manipulate the election.

    And I'm afraid, when it comes to end-of-the-Republic stuff, it's worse when your own intelligence guys are trying to manipulate the election than when their intelligence guys are.

    [Oct 14, 2016] To all Sanders supporters.  Your hero sold out to the devil.

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    SharkBit Oct 14, 2016 9:20 AM To all Sanders supporters. Your hero sold out to the devil. Your party is corrupt to the core. If you care about America, voting Trump is the only way out of this Shit Show. Otherwise, we all die as that corrupt bitch of your party is crazy enough to take the USA into WWIII. You may not like Trump but he is nothing compared to the Clinton Crime Family and all its globalist tenacles.

    [Oct 14, 2016] "Is he remaining quiet because they promised him something?"

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Crash Overide Paul Kersey Oct 14, 2016 10:16 AM "Is he remaining quiet because they promised him something?"

    I mean I don't know, you tell me...

    Bernie Sanders buys his 3rd home worth $600,000 shortly after he left the presidential race...

    zuuma Crash Overide Oct 14, 2016 11:04 AM Nicely done for a man who never had a paying job until age 40.

    And then only government jobs. Bastiat Crash Overide Oct 14, 2016 11:11 AM "Cha-ching!"

    "Money, it's a hit

    Don't give me none of that do-goody good bullshit"

    Pink Floyd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkhX5W7JoWI

    Oldwood Crash Overide Oct 14, 2016 11:41 AM bought and paid for

    [Oct 14, 2016] leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven

    Oct 14, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    FireBrander pazmaker Oct 14, 2016 9:13 AM Hillary Clinton: 'Smart Power' and a Dictator's Fall

    The consequences (of Hillary's Libya decision as Secretary of State) would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's questions have come to pass.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html

    [Oct 13, 2016] The New War Between the States

    Notable quotes:
    "... the "Ephemeral Zone" concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut. ..."
    "... Extending from the Appalachians to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the Southeast and the Intermountain West. ..."
    "... In generally purple states like Missouri, Ohio and Iowa, where manufacturing is key, Trump still leads ..."
    "... Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and the executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His latest book is "The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us." ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.realclearpolitics.com
    By Joel Kotkin

    The current elections reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American economies: the "Ephemeral Zone" in coastal states vs New Heartland which still produces tabgible goods

    "In this disgusting election, dominated by the personal and the petty, the importance of the nation's economic geography has been widely ignored. Yet if you look at the Electoral College map, the correlation between politics and economics is quite stark, with one economy tilting decisively toward Trump and more generally to Republicans, the other toward Hillary Clinton and her Democratic allies"

    This reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American economies. One, the "Ephemeral Zone" concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut.

    The other America constitutes, as economic historian Michael Lind notes in a forthcoming paper for the Center for Opportunity Urbanism, the "New Heartland." Extending from the Appalachians to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the Southeast and the Intermountain West.

    Contrary to the notions of the Ephemerals, the New Heartland is not populated by Neanderthals. This region employs much of the nation's engineering talent, but does so in conjunction with the creation of real goods rather than clicks. Its industries have achieved generally more rapid productivity gains than their rivals in the services sector. To some extent, energy and food producers may have outdone themselves and, since they operate in a globally competitive market, their prices and profits are suffering.

    Despite deep misgivings about the character of Donald Trump, these economic interests have led most Heartland voters somewhat toward the New York poseur, and they are aligning themselves even more to down-ticket GOP candidates. In generally purple states like Missouri, Ohio and Iowa, where manufacturing is key, Trump still leads -at least he was before the latest spate of Trump crudeness was revealed, this time regarding women.

    ... ... ....

    The biggest national crisis in our history underscored this clash of competing economic interests. Although the galvanizing issue on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line was slavery, the Civil War was also a war, as Karl Marx suggested, of competing economic visions: the agrarian, slave-fueled economy of the South vs. the rapidly industrializing Northeast and Midwest.

    ... ... ....

    In the past, Democrats competed in the Heartland and backed its key industries. Lyndon Johnson was a proud promoter of oil interests; Robert Byrd never saw a coal mine he didn't like for all but the end of his career. Powerful industrial unions tied the Democrats to the production economy. Now those voters feel abandoned by their own party, and even are dismissed as " deplorables "

    Increasingly few Heartland Democrats, outside of some Great Lakes states, win local elections. In the vast territory between Northeast and the West Coast, Democrats control just one state legislature, the financial basket case known as Illinois.

    For their part, Republicans are becoming extinct in the Ephemeral states, a process hastened by the growing concentration of media on the true-blue coasts. Wall Street , Silicon Valley and Hollywood have been drifting leftward for a generation, and Trump has accelerated this movement. Joined by the largely minority urban working and dependent classes, progressives now have a lock on the Northeast and the West Coast.

    ... ... ...

    In the process, the GOP, to the horror of many of its grandees and most entrenched interests, is becoming transformed. It is becoming something of a de facto populist party, based in the New Heartland, while the Democrats remain the voice of the coastal oligarchies who almost without exception back Hillary.

    ... ... ...

    But don't count the New Heartland, or the GOP, out. Once Trump is gone, there will be enough political will and money to mount a counter-offensive against the Ephemerals. The new War Between the States will not end in November. It will have hardly just begun. Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and the executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His latest book is "The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us."

    [Oct 13, 2016] Statement of September 11th Advocates Regarding Saudia Arabia Support of ISIS

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    human October 13, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Statement of September 11th Advocates Regarding Saudia Arabia Support of ISIS
    October 12, 2016

    "Aren't the Saudis your friends?" Obama smiled. "It's complicated," he said. "My view has never been that we should throw our traditional allies"-the Saudis-"overboard in favor of Iran." President Barack Obama

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

    "We have as solid a relationship, as clear an alliance and as strong a friendship with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia as we have ever had." Secretary of State John Kerry

    http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2016-01-24/kerry-says-us-saudi-friendship-stronger-than-ever

    "I think it's important to the United States to maintain as good a relationship with Saudi Arabia as possible." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-21/saudi-arabia-s-clout-in-washington-isn-t-what-it-used-to-be

    "The strategic partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia is based on mutual interests and a longstanding commitment to facing our common threats together." Speaker of the House Paul Ryan

    http://www.speaker.gov/general/continuing-dialogue-regional-security-partners-ryan-delegation-travels-riyadh

    "I think Saudi Arabia is a valuable partner in the war on terror. If you want to lose Saudi Arabia as an ally, be careful what you wish for." Senator Lindsey Graham

    "There is a public relations issue that exists. That doesn't mean that it's in our national interest to not have an alliance with them - I mean they're an important part of our efforts in the Middle East." said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/21/saudi-arabia-is-facing-unprecedented-scrutiny-from-congress/

    "Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar, and for our Qatari friends." Senator John McCain

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/

    Citing Western Intelligence, U.S. Intelligence, and Intelligence from the Region, that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-not just its rich donors– was providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups, we would like to know why President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Senator Bob Corker, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator John McCain, would EVER consider the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia our ally.

    Markedly, this is not complicated, nor is it a friendship, a special relationship, a valuable partnership, a clear alliance, a strategicpartnership, or a public relations issue.

    The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sponsor of terrorism.

    According to Western Intelligence, U.S. Intelligence and Intelligence from the region, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia clandestinely funds and logistically supports ISIS.

    How could a nation like Saudi Arabia (or Qatar) that funds or logistically supports ISIS be considered an ally of the United States in the fight against ISIS?

    The Saudis (and the Qataris) are funding and logistically supporting our enemy.

    The United States Government should not condone, enable, or turn a blind eye to that fact.

    As 9/11 family members whose husbands were brutally murdered by 19 radical Sunni terrorists, we strongly request these appointed and elected officials immediately explain their indefensible positions with regard to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its now clearly evident role in underwriting and logistically supporting radical Sunni terror groups worldwide.

    We also look forward to these appointed and elected officials immediately explaining to the American public why they oppose JASTA or want to re-write JASTA anti-terrorism legislation specifically designed to hold the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia accountable for its funding and logistical support of radical Sunni terror groups that kill Americans.

    Finally, we would like to, once again, wholeheartedly thank all those members of Congress who saw the wisdom in making JASTA law. Clearly, this new evidence further validates your vote and support for JASTA. Furthermore, this evidence proves that JASTA was not a political vote, but rather a vote to keep Americans safer from terrorism.

    Keep Americans Safe From Radical Sunni Terrorists

    Hold The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Accountable

    Keep JASTA The Law of The Land

    http://www.salon.com/2016/10/11/leaked-hillary-clinton-emails-show-u-s-allies-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-supported-isis/

    # # #

    September 11th Advocates

    Kristen Breitweiser
    Monica Gabrielle
    Mindy Kleinberg
    Lorie Van Auken

    (edited to clean up white space and high bit characters. links tested. any errors are mine)

    [Oct 13, 2016] Social Democracy, the Third Way, and the Crisis of Europe, Part 3

    The author does not use the term "neoliberalism". This makes the article pretty superficial.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Financial Times ..."
    "... The reconstruction of a meaningful anti-capitalist politics in Europe faces two enormous challenges: First is the reconstruction of the working class's capacity for struggle. ..."
    "... The weakness of working-class movements is also evidenced in income trends. Real wages in high-income capitalist countries have stagnated in recent decades. As productivity has increased, and employers have captured most of the income gains, workers have seen their shares of national income erode. ..."
    "... See original post for sources ..."
    "... Social democracy is the idea that the state needs to provide security and equality for its people and should actively reorder society in a way that is conducive to such developments, but that such changes should be brought about gradually, legitimated by a democratically-elected majority. ..."
    "... Social democrats typically regard government intervention as a force for good, constraining markets and engaging in redistributive efforts for the benefit of the lower classes in order to establish a more equitable society. ..."
    "... Somewhat confusingly, social democracy is not the same thing as democratic socialism, nearly-identical names notwithstanding. Modern social democrats believe in maintaining the capitalist system - democratic socialists (in fact, all socialists) do not. ..."
    "... There are perfectly good reasons why western society has become what it is. Disenfranchised citizens because direct democracy cannot function in super states of tens of millions of people. Indifference because we are all materially so much better off than a century ago. Dying union movements because the reasons unions came into being no longer exist. Child labour/life threatening labour/72 hour work weeks are long gone. ..."
    "... The deal with the global economy is pretty simple. Our elites get to run everything for themselves and their friends. So long as they provide the 99% with enough material things and entertainment(sport is the opium of the people) they will continue to do so. When they fail in this, they will then play off factions of the 99% against each other or use nationalism to redirect anger away from themselves. Get people blaming anyone perceived as different and buy off enough of the 99% to defend the 1% in case some direct their anger at the correct culprits. I just don't see any room for a social democratic revolution in all this. Do you really think you can get the 99% to agree on anything? ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Social Democratic Revivalism?

    A deep crisis of global capitalism, its seeds sown in part by a dramatic deregulation of finance, Wolfgang Münchau of the Financial Times notes, would seem tailor-made for a revival of the "centre-left." Why has this not happened? "The deep reason," Münchau argues, "lies in its absorption of the policies of the centre-right, going back almost three decades: the acceptance of free trade agreements, the deregulation of everything, and (in the eurozone) of binding fiscal rules and the most extreme version of central bank independence on earth. They are all but indistinguishable from their opponents." For the most part, however, this has led neither to a general collapse of these parties, nor to a rejection of "Third Way" politics and sharp turn back toward a full-throated social democratic reformism.

    The main exceptions, among relatively large countries, are Greece and Spain-the two countries hit hardest by the crisis, and the two which saw the most explosive mass protest movements against austerity. On the electoral front, voters punished the mainstream social democratic parties-the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) in Greece and the Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) in Spain-for their administration of austerity policies. These parties' former supporters have gravitated to new political entities promising to resist austerity measures

    .... ... ...

    The reconstruction of a meaningful anti-capitalist politics in Europe faces two enormous challenges: First is the reconstruction of the working class's capacity for struggle.

    It is not only in the United States that the power of the workers' movement has eroded in recent years. The decline in union membership as a percentage of employed workers (or "union density") serves as a quick, rough indicator. High-income countries are divided into basically two groups, those where union density has declined significantly and those that are treading water. Between 1999 and 2012-2014 (using the most recent year for which data are available), out of 21 high-income OECD countries, not one had experienced a substantial increase, six were treading water (with a change of less than 10%, e.g., for a country with a union density of 25% in 1999, a changes of less than 2.5 percentage points in either direction), while fifteen had experienced substantial decline.

    Strike rates, too, are down across the capitalist world. In principle, a decline in the most visible form of conflict between capital and labor could have any of several explanations: a trend toward more amicable relations between capital and labor, a substitution of alternative means of struggle by workers and unions, or a preponderance of power on one side or the other (so that the weaker side does not dare engage in a frontal confrontation). It's quite obvious, in the current period, which of these is the case.

    The weakness of working-class movements is also evidenced in income trends. Real wages in high-income capitalist countries have stagnated in recent decades. As productivity has increased, and employers have captured most of the income gains, workers have seen their shares of national income erode. Economist Jayati Ghosh, summarizing the findings of a recent McKinsey Global Institute report, describes the trends as follows: "From 1970 to 2014-with the brief exception of a spike during the 1973–74 oil crisis-the average wage share across the six countries studied in depth (United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden) fell by 5 percentage points. In the most extreme case of the United Kingdom, it declined by 13 percentage points."

    ... ... ...

    See original post for sources

    By Alejandro Reuss, historian, economist, and co-editor of Triple Crisis blog and Dollars & Sense magazine. This is the final part of a three-part series on the historical trajectory of European social democracy towards the so-called "Third Way"-a turn away from class-struggle politics and a compromise with neoliberal capitalism-and its role in the shaping of the Economic and Monetary Union of the EU. (See Part 1 and Part 2 .) It is a continuation of his earlier series "The Eurozone Crisis: Monetary Union and Fiscal Disunion" ( Part 1 and Part 2 ). His related article "An Historical Perspective on Brexit: Capitalist Internationalism, Reactionary Nationalism, and Socialist Internationalism" is available here . Originally published at Triple Crisis

    Skippy October 13, 2016 at 7:22 am

    Social democracy is the idea that the state needs to provide security and equality for its people and should actively reorder society in a way that is conducive to such developments, but that such changes should be brought about gradually, legitimated by a democratically-elected majority. It is native to Europe, where social democrats regularly feature as one of the major parties and have led (or at least participated in) governments in most states at some point in time, most notably in Scandinavia (up to being nicknamed the "Nordic model"). Social democrats typically regard government intervention as a force for good, constraining markets and engaging in redistributive efforts for the benefit of the lower classes in order to establish a more equitable society.

    Somewhat confusingly, social democracy is not the same thing as democratic socialism, nearly-identical names notwithstanding. Modern social democrats believe in maintaining the capitalist system - democratic socialists (in fact, all socialists) do not.

    Disheveled Marsupial . the major sticking point is a level playing field wrt capitalism unlike the libertarian or neoliberal model which seeks to tilt the playing field to the advantage of a small cohort and resulting stratification of wealth and power over others .

    PS. you might also be disturbed by the commie use of lamarckian theory to inform such activities such as you describe and their unfortunate out comes for all involved

    EoinW October 13, 2016 at 9:43 am

    Interesting read. Yet I can't help think that any article quoting Trotsky is simply an exercise in Left nostalgia.

    There are perfectly good reasons why western society has become what it is. Disenfranchised citizens because direct democracy cannot function in super states of tens of millions of people. Indifference because we are all materially so much better off than a century ago. Dying union movements because the reasons unions came into being no longer exist. Child labour/life threatening labour/72 hour work weeks are long gone.

    As horrible as things are said to be in Greece, it amazes me that anarchy has not taken hold. Kill a politician a day would seem to be the least extreme response for people who can't feed their families or get life saving medicine. Yet the public just rolls over and takes it. Is that a credit to social conditioning? Lack of courage to fight back? Or are the majority still living comfortable lives and have too much to lose?

    The deal with the global economy is pretty simple. Our elites get to run everything for themselves and their friends. So long as they provide the 99% with enough material things and entertainment(sport is the opium of the people) they will continue to do so. When they fail in this, they will then play off factions of the 99% against each other or use nationalism to redirect anger away from themselves. Get people blaming anyone perceived as different and buy off enough of the 99% to defend the 1% in case some direct their anger at the correct culprits. I just don't see any room for a social democratic revolution in all this. Do you really think you can get the 99% to agree on anything?

    We are in for a period of neo-feudalism. Until the 1% eventually screw up, end up bickering amongst themselves, and it all falls apart. Hopefully such a nihilistic outcome will lead to a push for freedom with small state democracies, open borders and free trade. Social democracy can come later when such freedoms lead to abuses and inequalities that will need regulated in order to be fair for all. If today's society has one great flaw it is that regulation exists to serve special interest groups and creates greater inequality. Therefore the last thing I want to see is the global economy immediately replaced by social democracy – 1% parasites replaced by the new leftest parasites. Perhaps my bias is based on 18 years of paying thousands of dollars in union dues and getting next to nothing back in return. Still, isn't that the stage we've reached in the global economy, too many people on the right and the left earning good money at the expense of the real workers while actually providing little to benefit society?

    [Oct 13, 2016] Our Famously Free Press helped to exterminate Sanders like unwannted pest using all kind of dirty tricks

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have never before seen the press take sides like they did this year, openly and even gleefully bad-mouthing candidates who did not meet with their approval. ..."
    "... This shocked me when I first noticed it. It felt like the news stories went out of their way to mock Sanders or to twist his words, while the op-ed pages, which of course don't pretend to be balanced, seemed to be of one voice in denouncing my candidate. ..."
    "... I propose that we look into this matter methodically, and that we do so by examining Sanders-related opinion columns in a single publication: the Washington Post, ..."
    "... its practitioners have never aimed to be nonpartisan. They do not, therefore, show media bias in the traditional sense. But maybe the traditional definition needs to be updated. We live in an era of reflexive opinionating and quasi opinionating, and we derive much of our information about the world from websites that have themselves blurred the distinction between reporting and commentary, or obliterated it completely. ..."
    "... Washington Post, ..."
    "... Post ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Neoliberal press serves its neoliberal paymasters. As simple of that. There is no even hint of Us press being press. In certain aspects US jounalists are more "solgers of the Party" then their colleagues in the Brezhnev time Pravda and Izvesia.

    From [Essay] Swat Team, by Thomas Frank Harper's Magazine - Part 3 By Thomas Frank

    For once, a politician like Sanders seemed to have a chance with the public. He won a stunning victory over Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, and despite his advanced age and avuncular finger-wagging, he was wildly popular among young voters. Eventually he was flattened by the Clinton juggernaut, of course, but Sanders managed to stay competitive almost all the way to the California primary in June.

    His chances with the prestige press were considerably more limited. Before we go into details here, let me confess: I was a Sanders voter, and even interviewed him back in 2014, so perhaps I am naturally inclined to find fault in others' reporting on his candidacy. Perhaps it was the very particular media diet I was on in early 2016, which consisted of daily megadoses of the New York Times and the Washington Post and almost nothing else. Even so, I have never before seen the press take sides like they did this year, openly and even gleefully bad-mouthing candidates who did not meet with their approval.

    This shocked me when I first noticed it. It felt like the news stories went out of their way to mock Sanders or to twist his words, while the op-ed pages, which of course don't pretend to be balanced, seemed to be of one voice in denouncing my candidate. A New York Times article greeted the Sanders campaign in December by announcing that the public had moved away from his signature issue of the crumbling middle class. "Americans are more anxious about terrorism than income inequality," the paper declared-nice try, liberal, and thanks for playing. In March, the Times was caught making a number of post-publication tweaks to a news story about the senator, changing what had been a sunny tale of his legislative victories into a darker account of his outrageous proposals. When Sanders was finally defeated in June, the same paper waved him goodbye with a bedtime-for-Grandpa headline, hillary clinton made history, but bernie sanders stubbornly ignored it.

    I propose that we look into this matter methodically, and that we do so by examining Sanders-related opinion columns in a single publication: the Washington Post, the conscience of the nation's political class and one of America's few remaining first-rate news organizations. I admire the Post 's investigative and beat reporting. What I will focus on here, however, are pieces published between January and May 2016 on the paper's editorial and op-ed pages, as well as on its many blogs. Now, editorials and blog posts are obviously not the same thing as news stories: punditry is my subject here, and its practitioners have never aimed to be nonpartisan. They do not, therefore, show media bias in the traditional sense. But maybe the traditional definition needs to be updated. We live in an era of reflexive opinionating and quasi opinionating, and we derive much of our information about the world from websites that have themselves blurred the distinction between reporting and commentary, or obliterated it completely. For many of us, this ungainly hybrid is the news. What matters, in any case, is that all the pieces I review here, whether they appeared in pixels or in print, bear the imprimatur of the Washington Post, the publication that defines the limits of the permissible in the capital city.

    ... ... ...

    On January 27, with the Iowa caucuses just days away, Dana Milbank nailed it with a headline: nominating sanders would be insane . After promising that he adored the Vermont senator, he cautioned his readers that "socialists don't win national elections in the United States." The next day, the paper's editorial board chimed in with a campaign full of fiction , in which they branded Sanders as a kind of flimflam artist: "Mr. Sanders is not a brave truth-teller. He is a politician selling his own brand of fiction to a slice of the country that eagerly wants to buy it."

    Stung by the Post 's trolling, Bernie Sanders fired back-which in turn allowed no fewer than three of the paper's writers to report on the conflict between the candidate and their employer as a bona fide news item. Sensing weakness, the editorial board came back the next morning with yet another kidney punch, this one headlined the real problem with mr. sanders . By now, you can guess what that problem was: his ideas weren't practical, and besides, he still had "no plausible plan for plugging looming deficits as the population ages."

    ... ... ...

    After the previous week's lesson about Glass Steagall, the editorial board now instructed politicians to stop reviling tarp -i.e., the Wall Street bailouts with which the Bush and Obama Administrations tried to halt the financial crisis. The bailouts had been controversial, the paper acknowledged, but they were also bipartisan, and opposing or questioning them in the Sanders manner was hereby declared anathema. After all, the editorial board intoned:

    Contrary to much rhetoric, Wall Street banks and bankers still took losses and suffered upheaval, despite the bailout-but TARP helped limit the collateral damage that Main Street suffered from all of that. If not for the ingenuity of the executive branch officials who designed and carried out the program, and the responsibility of the legislators who approved it, the United States would be in much worse shape economically.

    As a brief history of the financial crisis and the bailout, this is absurd. It is true that bailing out Wall Street was probably better than doing absolutely nothing, but saying this ignores the many other options that were available to public officials had they shown any real ingenuity in holding institutions accountable. All the Wall Street banks that existed at the time of TARP are flourishing to this day, since the government moved heaven and earth to spare them the consequences of the toxic securities they had issued and the lousy mortgage bets they made. The big banks were "made whole," as the saying goes. Main Street banks, meanwhile, died off by the hundreds in 2009 and 2010. And average home owners, of course, got no comparable bailout. Instead, Main Street America saw trillions in household wealth disappear; it entered into a prolonged recession, with towering unemployment, increasing inequality, and other effects that linger to this day. There has never been a TARP for the rest of us.

    ... ... ...

    Charles Krauthammer went into action on January 29, too, cautioning the Democrats that they "would be risking a November electoral disaster of historic dimensions" should they nominate Sanders-cynical advice that seems even more poisonous today, as scandal after scandal engulfs the Democratic candidate that so many Post pundits favored.

    ... ... ...

    The Iowa caucuses came the next day, and Stephen Stromberg was at the keyboard to identify the "three delusions" that supposedly animated the campaigns of Sanders and the Republican Ted Cruz alike. Namely: they had abandoned the "center," they believed that things were bad in the United States, and they perceived an epidemic of corruption-in Sanders's case, corruption via billionaires and campaign contributions. Delusions all.

    ... ... ...

    On and on it went, for month after month, a steady drumbeat of denunciation. The paper hit every possible anti-Sanders note, from the driest kind of math-based policy reproach to the lowest sort of nerd-shaming-from his inexcusable failure to embrace taxes on soda pop to his awkward gesticulating during a debate with Hillary Clinton ("an unrelenting hand jive," wrote Post dance critic Sarah L. Kaufman, "that was missing only an upright bass and a plunky piano").

    The paper's piling-up of the senator's faults grew increasingly long and complicated. Soon after Sanders won the New Hampshire primary, the editorial board denounced him and Trump both as "unacceptable leaders" who proposed "simple-sounding" solutions. Sanders used the plutocracy as a "convenient scapegoat." He was hostile to nuclear power. He didn't have a specific recipe for breaking up the big banks. He attacked trade deals with "bogus numbers that defy the overwhelming consensus among economists." This last charge was a particular favorite of Post pundits: David Ignatius and Charles Lane both scolded the candidate for putting prosperity at risk by threatening our trade deals. Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer grew so despondent over the meager 2016 options that he actually pined for the lost days of the Bill Clinton presidency, when America was tough on crime, when welfare was being reformed, and when free trade was accorded its proper respect.

    ... ... ...

    The danger of Trump became an overwhelming fear as primary season drew to a close, and it redoubled the resentment toward Sanders. By complaining about mistreatment from the Democratic apparatus, the senator was supposedly weakening the party before its coming showdown with the billionaire blowhard. This matter, like so many others, found columnists and bloggers and op-ed panjandrums in solemn agreement. Even Eugene Robinson, who had stayed fairly neutral through most of the primary season, piled on in a May 20 piece, blaming Sanders and his noisy horde for "deliberately stoking anger and a sense of grievance-less against Clinton than the party itself," actions that "could put Trump in the White House." By then, the paper had buttressed its usual cast of pundits with heavy hitters from outside its own peculiar ecosystem. In something of a journalistic coup, the Post opened its blog pages in April to Jeffrey R. Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, so that he, too, could join in the chorus of denunciation aimed at the senator from Vermont. Comfort the comfortable, I suppose-and while you're at it, be sure to afflict the afflicted.

    ... ... ...

    It should be noted that there were some important exceptions to what I have described. The paper's blogs, for instance, published regular pieces by Sanders sympathizers like Katrina vanden Heuvel and the cartoonist Tom Toles. (The blogs also featured the efforts of a few really persistent Clinton haters.) The Sunday Outlook section once featured a pro-Sanders essay by none other than Ralph Nader, a kind of demon figure and clay pigeon for many of the paper's commentators. But readers of the editorial pages had to wait until May 26 to see a really full-throated essay supporting Sanders's legislative proposals. Penned by Jeffrey Sachs, the eminent economist and professor at Columbia University, it insisted that virtually all the previous debate on the subject had been irrelevant, because standard economic models did not take into account the sort of large-scale reforms that Sanders was advocating:

    It's been decades since the United States had a progressive economic strategy, and mainstream economists have forgotten what one can deliver. In fact, Sanders's recipes are supported by overwhelming evidence-notably from countries that already follow the policies he advocates. On health care, growth and income inequality, Sanders wins the policy debate hands down.

    It was a striking departure from what nearly every opinionator had been saying for the preceding six months. Too bad it came just eleven days before the Post, following the lead of the Associated Press, declared Hillary Clinton to be the preemptive winner of the Democratic nomination.

    What can we learn from reviewing one newspaper's lopsided editorial treatment of a left-wing presidential candidate?

    For one thing, we learn that the Washington Post, that gallant defender of a free press, that bold bringer-down of presidents, has a real problem with some types of political advocacy. Certain ideas, when voiced by certain people, are not merely debatable or incorrect or misguided, in the paper's view: they are inadmissible. The ideas themselves might seem healthy, they might have a long and distinguished history, they might be commonplace in other lands. Nevertheless, when voiced by the people in question, they become damaging.

    ... ... ...

    Clinging to this so-called pragmatism is also professionally self-serving. If "realism" is recognized as the ultimate trump card in American politics, it automatically prioritizes the thoughts and observations of the realism experts-also known as the Washington Post and its brother institutions of insider knowledge and professional policy practicality. Realism is what these organizations deal in; if you want it, you must come to them. Legitimacy is quite literally their property. They dole it out as they see fit.

    There is the admiration for consensus, the worship of pragmatism and bipartisanship, the contempt for populist outcry, the repeated equating of dissent with partisan disloyalty. And think of the specific policy pratfalls: the cheers for TARP, the jeers aimed at bank regulation, the dismissal of single-payer health care as a preposterous dream.

    This stuff is not mysterious. We can easily identify the political orientation behind it from one of the very first pages of the Roger Tory Peterson Field Guide to the Ideologies. This is common Seaboard Centrism, its markings of complacency and smugness as distinctive as ever, its habitat the familiar Beltway precincts of comfort and exclusivity. Whether you encounter it during a recession or a bull market, its call is the same: it reassures us that the experts who head up our system of government have everything well under control.

    It is, of course, an ideology of the professional class, of sound-minded East Coast strivers, fresh out of Princeton or Harvard, eagerly quoting as "authorities" their peers in the other professions, whether economists at MIT or analysts at Credit Suisse or political scientists at Brookings. Above all, this is an insider's ideology; a way of thinking that comes from a place of economic security and takes a view of the common people that is distinctly patrician.

    [Oct 13, 2016] Trump's path to the presidency now hinges on four states

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Clinton were to take some damage from newly released emails. If news shifted back to a prolonged focus on Clinton's emails and she had another health issue and polls underestimated Trump's support, then he might win the election. In that way, he has to run an "and" campaign."

    UPDATE "Trump's path to the presidency now hinges on these four states" [ McClatchy ]. "Trump is essentially focused on four states: North Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Based of RealClearPolitics' electoral map, that means Trump will almost certainly need to win all four in order to reach 270 electoral votes. According to the latest polls, he trails Clinton in all four of those states, though often within the margin of error."

    UPDATE "Over 500,000 Votes Have Already Been Cast in 2016 Presidential Election" [ NBC ]. "In the seven battleground states below [four of which are listed above]–where campaigns are especially focused on mobilizing voters– 330,980 early votes have now been cast." Hmm. The Democrats were encouraging early voting, IIRC.

    Wisconsin: "Trump needs more Republican voters, particularly in Waukesha County, a heavily Republican suburb just west of Milwaukee. Waukesha delivered 161,567 votes to Mitt Romney in 2012, a 35-point margin of victory over Obama. Trump isn't anywhere near that right now" [ RealClearPolitics ]. Recall we awarded WI to Trump in last week's path to victory exercise, based on institutional factors. Meanwhile: "'Clinton is getting about 55 percent in Dane County,' said [Charles Franklin, professor of law and public policy and director of the Marquette Law School Poll], 'and she should be getting 65 to 70 percent. So that's the effect of young people who are not attracted to her, or who are pining away for Sanders or gravitating to [Gary] Johnson and, to a lesser extent, [Jill] Stein."

    Ohio: "How Republican Rob Portman May Derail the Trump Train in Ohio" [ Bloomberg ]. "Portman had long ago quietly placed a bet against his party's presidential prospects. Over the past year and a half, he has assiduously assembled an organization that would keep him from being reliant on the Ohio Republican Party, the Republican National Committee, or its presidential nominee to identify and mobilize his supporters. As a result he finds himself today with a broader coalition, often motivated by local issues, and much less dependent on Trump's supporters-and on the RNC's largesse-than other Republican senators on the ballot this season. Portman had quietly grown so self-sufficient that, in an inversion of the natural order, by the time he rescinded his support, he already controlled Trump's fate." Sounds to me like the left could learn from this.

    "Technocratic for the people: What Hillary Clinton gets wrong about Bernie Sanders' political revolution" [Conor Lynch, Salon ]. "But what exactly has modern technocratic liberalism achieved? Some of the Democratic [sic] Party's most important achievements - most notably the Affordable Care Act - are also some of the most jumbled, bureaucratic and corporate-friendly pieces of legislation in modern history… A fine example of the technocratic liberal is MIT professor and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber, who said in 2014 that 'Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,' and that 'the stupidity of the American voter' was critical for ACA to pass."

    [Oct 13, 2016] Cannabis as police profit center: Law enforcement agencies made 574,641 arrests last year for small quantities of the drug intended for personal use

    Oct 13, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim Haygood October 13, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    Just as cops take more money from people with civil forfeiture than burglars do, they arrest more people for cannabis than for all violent crimes combined:

    Law enforcement agencies made 574,641 arrests last year for small quantities of the drug intended for personal use, according to the report, which was released Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch. The marijuana arrests were about 13.6 percent more than the 505,681 arrests made for all violent crimes, including murder, rape and serious assaults.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/marijuana-arrests.html

    To state it differently, more people are arrested for victimless crimes (where the only complainant is a law enforcement officer) than for crimes in which someone actually suffered harm.

    Fred October 13, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    Jim,

    Of course there were a heck of a lot more victims of violent crime than dope crime:
    http://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/NCFS-Table.jpg
    Perhaps we should put some of those responsible for that mass black on black violent crime in prison rather than drug offenders. Why doesn't Obama direct his DOJ to do just that?

    Jim Haygood October 13, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Probably the order of magnitude difference in stats relates to "victimizations" vs "arrests."

    Lots of crime reports never result in an arrest.

    Fiver October 13, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    'Perhaps we should put some of those responsible for that mass black on black violent crime in prison rather than drug offenders. Why doesn't Obama direct his DOJ to do just that?'

    Or maybe the US should finally face up to the fact it has never done more than the least it could possibly get away with when it comes to dealing with deeply entrenched systemic racism/poverty.

    JohnnyGL October 13, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    That's pretty damning on its face. The drug war is the primary function of the police in the USA. Violent stuff is secondary.

    "Tess Borden, a fellow at Human Rights Watch and the A.C.L.U., who wrote the report, found that despite the steep decline in crime rates over the last two decades - including a 36 percent drop in violent crime arrests from 1995 to 2015 - the number of arrests for all drug possessions, including marijuana, increased 13 percent.

    The emphasis on making marijuana arrests is worrisome, Ms. Borden said."

    You bet it is!!!

    [Oct 13, 2016] The New War Between the States

    Notable quotes:
    "... the "Ephemeral Zone" concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut. ..."
    "... Extending from the Appalachians to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the Southeast and the Intermountain West. ..."
    "... In generally purple states like Missouri, Ohio and Iowa, where manufacturing is key, Trump still leads ..."
    "... Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and the executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His latest book is "The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us." ..."
    Oct 13, 2016 | www.realclearpolitics.com
    By Joel Kotkin

    The current elections reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American economies: the "Ephemeral Zone" in coastal states vs New Heartland which still produces tabgible goods

    "In this disgusting election, dominated by the personal and the petty, the importance of the nation's economic geography has been widely ignored. Yet if you look at the Electoral College map, the correlation between politics and economics is quite stark, with one economy tilting decisively toward Trump and more generally to Republicans, the other toward Hillary Clinton and her Democratic allies"

    This reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American economies. One, the "Ephemeral Zone" concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut.

    The other America constitutes, as economic historian Michael Lind notes in a forthcoming paper for the Center for Opportunity Urbanism, the "New Heartland." Extending from the Appalachians to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the Southeast and the Intermountain West.

    Contrary to the notions of the Ephemerals, the New Heartland is not populated by Neanderthals. This region employs much of the nation's engineering talent, but does so in conjunction with the creation of real goods rather than clicks. Its industries have achieved generally more rapid productivity gains than their rivals in the services sector. To some extent, energy and food producers may have outdone themselves and, since they operate in a globally competitive market, their prices and profits are suffering.

    Despite deep misgivings about the character of Donald Trump, these economic interests have led most Heartland voters somewhat toward the New York poseur, and they are aligning themselves even more to down-ticket GOP candidates. In generally purple states like Missouri, Ohio and Iowa, where manufacturing is key, Trump still leads -at least he was before the latest spate of Trump crudeness was revealed, this time regarding women.

    ... ... ....

    The biggest national crisis in our history underscored this clash of competing economic interests. Although the galvanizing issue on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line was slavery, the Civil War was also a war, as Karl Marx suggested, of competing economic visions: the agrarian, slave-fueled economy of the South vs. the rapidly industrializing Northeast and Midwest.

    ... ... ....

    In the past, Democrats competed in the Heartland and backed its key industries. Lyndon Johnson was a proud promoter of oil interests; Robert Byrd never saw a coal mine he didn't like for all but the end of his career. Powerful industrial unions tied the Democrats to the production economy. Now those voters feel abandoned by their own party, and even are dismissed as " deplorables "

    Increasingly few Heartland Democrats, outside of some Great Lakes states, win local elections. In the vast territory between Northeast and the West Coast, Democrats control just one state legislature, the financial basket case known as Illinois.

    For their part, Republicans are becoming extinct in the Ephemeral states, a process hastened by the growing concentration of media on the true-blue coasts. Wall Street , Silicon Valley and Hollywood have been drifting leftward for a generation, and Trump has accelerated this movement. Joined by the largely minority urban working and dependent classes, progressives now have a lock on the Northeast and the West Coast.

    ... ... ...

    In the process, the GOP, to the horror of many of its grandees and most entrenched interests, is becoming transformed. It is becoming something of a de facto populist party, based in the New Heartland, while the Democrats remain the voice of the coastal oligarchies who almost without exception back Hillary.

    ... ... ...

    But don't count the New Heartland, or the GOP, out. Once Trump is gone, there will be enough political will and money to mount a counter-offensive against the Ephemerals. The new War Between the States will not end in November. It will have hardly just begun. Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and the executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His latest book is "The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us."

    [Oct 12, 2016] US Intelligence meddles in US Presidential election: backs Hillary Clinton, tries to stop Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... for example ..."
    "... Moreover since the DNC hack is a criminal offence, it is a statement of opinion made about a matter which is presumably being investigated by the police. ..."
    "... If the statement is merely a statement of opinion based on inference of which guesses about Russian "motivations" apparently form a major part, and one which moreover concerns a matter which is or ought to be the subject of investigation by the police and not therefore the subject of this sort of comment, why was it published at all? ..."
    "... The short answer is in order to help Hillary Clinton win the US Presidential election. ..."
    "... To that end the statement fulfils two purposes: firstly, it discredits the content of any leaks that might otherwise damage Hillary Clinton's campaign by lending credence to her claim that they are part of a Russian 'dirty tricks' campaign against her; and secondly, it lends credence to the claim popularised by Hillary Clinton's campaign and by Hillary Clinton's supporters in the media that Donald Trump is Putin's candidate and that Putin is trying to help him win the election. ..."
    "... That the second is one of the purposes of statement is proved by its reference to US intelligence's "belief" that the leak was authorised by "Russia's senior-most officials ". This is clearly intended to refer to Putin, and is intended to give the impression that Putin himself personally authorised the DNC leak in order to damage Hillary Clinton and to help Trump win the election and become President. ..."
    "... US intelligence has meddled in elections in other countries on numerous occasions starting with the Italian parliamentary elections of 1948 ..."
    "... To my knowledge this is however the first occasion that US intelligence has directly and publicly meddled in a US national election, acting to help one candidate defeat another. ..."
    "... It matters not whether this was done by US intelligence on its own initiative, or whether it was pressured to do so by officials of the Obama administration or of Hillary Clinton's campaign. ..."
    "... Either way the disturbing truth must now be faced: the practice of US intelligence meddling in and trying to influence national elections has now been imported home to the US. ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | theduran.com

    The single most important event of the US Presidential election took place last week and to my knowledge it has gone completely unreported.

    This was not the video tape of Donald Trump's grotesque and deeply offensive sexual banter from 2005.

    It was the public confirmation that an intelligence agency is directly interfering in an ongoing US Presidential election.

    The intelligence agency in question is not however that of Russia as is being reported. It is that of the United States itself.

    To understand why this is so, consider the statement US intelligence published last week on the subject of alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and of other US agencies involved in the election. It reads as follows :

    "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example , to influence public opinion there . We believe , based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

    (bold italics added)

    The statement is an implicit admission that US intelligence has no evidence to back its allegations of Russian hacking.

    It is merely "confident" – not "sure" – that it is the Russians who are behind the hacking, and it is clear from the statement that it arrived at this conclusion purely through inference: because the hacks supposedly were "consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts".

    US intelligence assumes the Russians were behind the hack not because it knows this to be so but in part because of what it believes Russian motives to be.

    The statement backs its claim with a textual trick. It says "the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia". It then immediately follows these words with the words "for example".

    These lead to the expectation that an actual example of such Russian "tactics and techniques" is about to follow. Instead what is provided are the fact free words "to influence public opinion there".

    The words "for example" lend nothing to the meaning of the statement, which would be exactly the same without them. These two words as used in the statement are actually meaningless. That is a sure sign that their presence in the statement is intended to confuse the casual reader, and that this is true of the statement as a whole.

    The words are designed to create a subliminal impression to a casual reader that the Russians have been caught doing this sort of thing before, without however providing a single actual example when this was the case.

    Demonstrating how thin the case of Russian government actually is, the statement then goes on to say

    "Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government ."

    (bold italics added)

    In other words US intelligence admits the mere fact servers operated by a Russian company may have been used for "scanning and probing" – and presumably also for hacking – is not in itself proof of the involvement of the Russian government.

    This is consistent with what I have heard, which is that skilled and well-resourced hackers can use compromised machines to carry out hacks by remote access, and that the mere discovery that a particular machine has been used in a hack does not in and of itself implicate the owner. (I should stress I am not an expert in this field and I may have misunderstood this. However it appears to be what US intelligence is saying).

    This part of the statement seems to me intended to prevent challenges to the eventual outcome of the election based on US intelligence's claims of Russian hacking. US intelligence does not want to be drawn into post-election arguments about the validity of the election outcome, which might lead to demands that it make public its "evidence" of Russian hacking. In the process US intelligence however casts doubt on what is almost certainly the only actual evidence it has of Russian state involvement in the hacking.

    In summary, the statement is a mere statement of opinion, it is not a statement of fact, and the evidence upon which it is based is threadbare.

    Moreover since the DNC hack is a criminal offence, it is a statement of opinion made about a matter which is presumably being investigated by the police.

    The relevant police agency is presumably the FBI, which significantly is not a co-author of the statement.

    That in turn begs a host of questions: has the FBI been shown the "evidence" upon which US intelligence expresses its opinion and has made the statement? Has it asked to see this "evidence"? Was it invited to co-author the statement? What does the FBI think of the public involvement of US intelligence in a domestic criminal matter which falls within the FBI's exclusive competence?

    If the statement is merely a statement of opinion based on inference of which guesses about Russian "motivations" apparently form a major part, and one which moreover concerns a matter which is or ought to be the subject of investigation by the police and not therefore the subject of this sort of comment, why was it published at all?

    The short answer is in order to help Hillary Clinton win the US Presidential election.

    To that end the statement fulfils two purposes: firstly, it discredits the content of any leaks that might otherwise damage Hillary Clinton's campaign by lending credence to her claim that they are part of a Russian 'dirty tricks' campaign against her; and secondly, it lends credence to the claim popularised by Hillary Clinton's campaign and by Hillary Clinton's supporters in the media that Donald Trump is Putin's candidate and that Putin is trying to help him win the election.

    That the second is one of the purposes of statement is proved by its reference to US intelligence's "belief" that the leak was authorised by "Russia's senior-most officials ". This is clearly intended to refer to Putin, and is intended to give the impression that Putin himself personally authorised the DNC leak in order to damage Hillary Clinton and to help Trump win the election and become President.

    US intelligence has meddled in elections in other countries on numerous occasions starting with the Italian parliamentary elections of 1948 .

    To my knowledge this is however the first occasion that US intelligence has directly and publicly meddled in a US national election, acting to help one candidate defeat another.

    It matters not whether this was done by US intelligence on its own initiative, or whether it was pressured to do so by officials of the Obama administration or of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

    Either way the disturbing truth must now be faced: the practice of US intelligence meddling in and trying to influence national elections has now been imported home to the US.

    [Oct 12, 2016] This election also can be seen in a more general, global context of how forces have been accommodating to the end of the cold war

    Notable quotes:
    "... This election also can be seen in a more general, global context of how forces have been accommodating to the end of the cold war. Perhaps a detour into the history of some 3rd world banana republics, those that many Americans deem as deplorable as a Trump supporter, can shed some light. ..."
    "... It's amazing to see how all the left wing loonies here are rooting for a collapse of the United States, just like it happened in the USSR. I guess they are too stupid to understand how really great this was for the elite ownership class in Russia as it would be here for the US ownership class. ..."
    "... The point is that thinking that a global collapse will somehow bring justice and happiness into the world because the unwashed masses will rise up and overthrow their oppressors is a little crazy. ..."
    "... That is what successive US governments have done: destroy democratic republics around the world. So who are the sane, those who support the continuation of Pax Americana or the anti-imperialists? ..."
    "... Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored austerity to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American hegemony? ..."
    "... Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored austerity to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American hegemony? ..."
    "... No sane person should hope to see the rule of law and the democratic republic be destroyed and that's the very real threat Trump poses ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Lupita 10.11.16 at 6:54 pm 76

    This election also can be seen in a more general, global context of how forces have been accommodating to the end of the cold war. Perhaps a detour into the history of some 3rd world banana republics, those that many Americans deem as deplorable as a Trump supporter, can shed some light.

    Starting in the 50's, and with the expressed goal of modernizing their countries (meaning an accelerated capitalist development with the US as its model and as the only possible model) military and terror regimes took over South America (Paraguay: 1954-1991, Chile: 1973-1990, Argentina: 1976-1982, Uruguay: 1966- 1985). For the most part, before being forced out of power, these military regimes declared amnesty for themselves. Enter truth commissions, whose purpose is to investigate the causes of violence and human rights violations and to establish judicial responsibility.

    Back in the US, those responsible for human rights violations around the world, such as torture, extra-judicial assassinations, and renditions, have never been brought to justice and the mere mention of Clinton (a politician!) facing jail for a very minor infraction is considered in undemocratic bad taste.

    Conclusion: perhaps more than a special prosecutor, a commission of truth is in order, but not at the moment, after the US crumbles as the USSR did. Only then can 3rd worlders hope to see Kissinger, Bush, Blair, Aznar, Obama, and all their enablers brought to justice. For the moment, we have to put up with the spectacle of some Americans, in an intent at preemptive amnesty, outraged at the mere thought that their presumptive tin-pot, global Caesar is not above suspicion and that they themselves are better than 3rd worlders.

    Bob Zannelli 10.11.16 at 8:29 pm 86
    It's amazing to see how all the left wing loonies here are rooting for a collapse of the United States, just like it happened in the USSR. I guess they are too stupid to understand how really great this was for the elite ownership class in Russia as it would be here for the US ownership class.

    Leftist could give two shits about about the human suffering of working class people, extremism is extremism whether they worship Karl Marx or Ayn Rand

    Lupita 10.11.16 at 9:20 pm 91
    Great job, Bob Zannelli. Just call those you disagree with stupid, loony idiots. Have you ever considered a career in US politics or the media? Your ilk is currently in great demand in those circles.
    Bob Zannelli 10.11.16 at 9:35 pm 92

    Great job, Bob Zannelli. Just call those you disagree with stupid, loony idiots. Have you ever considered a career in US politics or the media? Your ilk is currently in great demand in those circles

    Not any worst than calling Bernie Sanders a reactionary. Do you really think anyone calling Sanders a reactionary has a real grasp on reality. Also you might think that many here want to see Trump win so we can have a nice economic and social implosion which I guess they think will give us the Union of Soviet Socialist States of America.Has anyone here who is no doubt living in a relatively pampered and safe western society actually lived through a such an event? I rather doubt it. It NEVER turns out well. Sorry but the left can be as stupid and evil as the right, it's a sad truth. So I don't apologize

    Bob Zannelli 10.11.16 at 9:54 pm
    Maybe the moderate GOP will try to bring in the libertarian party, to get their numbers back up? A possibility Problem there is, Ryan's next strategy appears to be to make a new coalition with a lot more gov't aid (a big libertarian no-no) to displaced labor, in return for those mega-rich tax cuts.

    There is nothing moderate about the libertarian party. And the GOP needs their religious nuts to win elections. BTW the Libertarians I know are more than willing to sign on to the religious right's agenda. Don't kid yourself. This "Freedom" party was originally established by powerful corporate elites to get rid of the New Deal and Great Society programs, they could care less about anything else. The Koch Brothers fund all kinds of religious right organizations because it promotes their agenda

    Lupita 10.11.16 at 9:57 pm 95

    Has anyone here who is no doubt living in a relatively pampered and safe western society actually lived through a such an event?

    I have. And you are right, it never turns out well. Still, I am a socialist and an anti-imperialist. Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored austerity to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American hegemony? In the post you responded to, by calling me stupid, I mentioned the Dirty War in Argentina and Pinochet's regime, both supported by the US. Do you think living through those is preferable to a multi-polar global arrangement?

    Bob Zannelli 10.11.16 at 10:28 pm 98

    I have. And you are right, it never turns out well. Still, I am a socialist and an anti-imperialist. Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored austerity to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American hegemony? In the post you responded to, by calling me stupid, I mentioned the Dirty War in Argentina and Pinochet's regime, both supported by the US. Do you think living through those is preferable to a multi-polar global arrangement?

    I don't have any illusions about what the United States has done in the third world or the failure and murderous and enslaving tyranny of communism. The point is that thinking that a global collapse will somehow bring justice and happiness into the world because the unwashed masses will rise up and overthrow their oppressors is a little crazy. If you think this, you haven't spent any quality time with the unwashed masses. Most of them don't want to bring justice to the world, they want the job of being oppressors.

    Given that we are only a thin sliver of DNA from other less thoughtful apes, we haven't done too badly. But we do have a great potential to do a lot worst as our sorry history reveals. The only way progress happens is one election at a time. And I know how the system is rigged , but frankly it's mostly ignorance and stupidity that makes the elite so powerful.

    Because of this democracy has only been marginally successful at creating a more just society. But throughout history, it's the only thing that has been shown to work. No sane person should hope to see the rule of law and the democratic republic be destroyed and that's the very real threat Trump poses

    Lupita 10.11.16 at 10:58 pm 101
    @ Bob Zannelli

    The point is that thinking that a global collapse will somehow bring justice and happiness into the world because the unwashed masses will rise up and overthrow their oppressors is a little crazy.

    I never stated that. I wrote that "after the collapse" there could be a truth commission to investigate the human rights violations committed during the period of Western hegemony. I say this because the actual truth commissions formed have been after the terror regimes fall, not during.

    No sane person should hope to see the rule of law and the democratic republic be destroyed and that's the very real threat Trump poses

    That is what successive US governments have done: destroy democratic republics around the world. So who are the sane, those who support the continuation of Pax Americana or the anti-imperialists?

    likbez 10.12.16 at 10:13 am 123
    @98

    After reading this amazing observation " Cheer up maybe Putin will nuke the US if the Donald doesn't win " from Bob Zannelli I realized that something was deeply wrong with my post @110.

    Unfortunately I misattributed the quote

    Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored austerity to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American hegemony?

    This is the quote from Lupita post @95. Sorry about this.

    As for Bob Zanelli with his primitive Russophobia I would like to remind him that in many people with similar views Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.

    likbez 10.12.16 at 10:13 am 123
    @98

    After reading this amazing observation "Cheer up maybe Putin will nuke the US if the Donald doesn't win" from Bob Zannelli I realized that something was deeply wrong with my post @110.

    Unfortunately I misattributed the quote

    Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored austerity to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American hegemony?

    This is the quote from Lupita post @95. Sorry about this.

    As for Bob Zanelli with his primitive Russophobia I would like to remind him that in many people with similar views Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.

    likbez 10.12.16 at 10:38 am 124
    @98

    No sane person should hope to see the rule of law and the democratic republic be destroyed and
    that's the very real threat Trump poses

    Are you sure that it was not destroyed by Bush II with the Patriot Act, which essentially converted the USA into "national security state" ?

    Or you think Snowden revelations are just yet another confirmation of the fact that the USA democracy flourished after Bush?

    Is not the danger of war (that Hillary Clinton candidacy represents) a much more serious threat to remnants of democracy then Trump?

    Do you really suffer from a kind of "Better be dead then red" mentality ?

    [Oct 12, 2016] NSA whistleblower says DNC hack was not done by Russia, but by US intelligence

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Stated Binney: "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
    "... "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there." ..."
    "... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails. ..."
    "... GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | theduran.com
    Binney also proclaimed that the NSA has all of Clinton's deleted emails, and the FBI could gain access to them if they so wished. No need for Trump to ask the Russians for those emails, he can just call on the FBI or NSA to hand them over.

    Breitbart reports further

    Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."

    Stated Binney: "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails."

    "So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.

    Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.

    "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there."

    Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.

    And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.

    The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:

    GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).

    Zerohedge has some background on Binney , who is about as rock solid a security analyst as you could get.

    Over a year before Edward Snowden shocked the world in the summer of 2013 with revelations that have since changed everything from domestic to foreign US policy but most of all, provided everyone a glimpse into just what the NSA truly does on a daily basis, a former NSA staffer, and now famous whistleblower, William Binney, gave excruciating detail to Wired magazine about all that Snowden would substantiate the following summer.

    We covered it in a 2012 post titled " We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" – Big Brother Goes Live September 2013." Not surprisingly, Binney received little attention in 2012 – his suggestions at the time were seen as preposterous and ridiculously conspiratorial. Only after the fact, did it become obvious that he was right. More importantly, in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, what Binney has to say has become gospel.

    Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency. He referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."

    [Oct 12, 2016] The perfect Trojan Horse Obama was the betrayer in both domestic and foreign policy.

    Notable quotes:
    "... There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America. ..."
    "... In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background? ..."
    "... Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and turn it into an Isis stronghold. ..."
    "... Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence. ..."
    "... Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America. ..."
    "... He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it. ..."
    "... I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit. ..."
    "... I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population believe there would be change. ..."
    "... The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions. ..."
    "... Many view Obama as a type of Manchurian candidate , sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. ..."
    "... As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat. ..."
    "... Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the 2006-2008 period. ..."
    "... The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue the apparent Change!Hope! pitch). ..."
    "... I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually. ..."
    "... What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents, which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway. One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there. ..."
    "... the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while in office. ..."
    "... Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up. ..."
    "... In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was. ..."
    "... On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor. ..."
    "... With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid stuff?" ..."
    "... Obama can and has accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised to his other supporters - not us. ..."
    "... Obama has always been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations. ..."
    "... What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013. ..."
    "... It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body. ..."
    "... 0bama surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership." ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 4:46 am

    Not mentioned, of course, is that TPP etc., are central to the US's strategy to counter Russia and China, and it seems these Pacts are on the verge of failing miserably.

    There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America.

    Also, militarily its worth pointing out that Russia and China etc., do not have to match the US's fleets to gain equality on the oceans. They just have to have the technology for areal denial – i.e. sufficient long range missiles to make the US reluctant to send aircraft carriers within striking distance. This is similar to the early 20th Century situation where relatively cheap submarines allowed weaker countries to prevent the traditional great Naval Powers from having things their own way. Although in its own way, this proved very destabilising.

    The other factor not mentioned is that the the neocons have squandered the US's greatest single strength – its 'soft' power. The US is simply not respected and liked around the world the way it was even in the Cold War. I think the hysteria around Obama's election was at least partly based around the worlds longing for a US they could like. Among other things, Obama squandered that and left everyone with a choice between two detestable individuals, both of which are sure to make things worse.

    Colonel Smithers October 12, 2016 at 5:39 am

    Thank you. Well said. Area denial is also cheaper and, probably, less corrupt.

    That is such a good point about the soft power squandered by Obama. I wonder if that will come to be seen as a failure on the scale that Kennan thought about Slick Willie's reversal of policy towards Russia.

    A question for readers based in the US. I am the child of immigrants who came to the UK from a colony mentioned by Hiro in the mid-1960s, although we have ancestors who left these islands for that francophone colony in the early 19th century. Most, but not all immigrants in the UK and their children take tales of British superiority (vide why the UK will make Brexit a success) with a bucket of salt.

    Do our US peers do that? Obama seems like these British ministers of immigrant stock who need to prove that they belong and so adopt these positions that others / natives rarely bother with or express. In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background?

    On another note, thank you (to PK) for the anecdote about RC churchgoers. I was away on Monday evening and unable to say so.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 8:11 am

    I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can argue this with regard to foreign policy where (unlike domestic policy) the president has a much freer hand.

    Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and turn it into an Isis stronghold.

    Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence.

    Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America.

    He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it.

    Synoia October 12, 2016 at 11:55 am

    The list from PuKIm IS his list of accomplisments.

    Apologies to PuKim, I suspect your list is incomplete :-), one significant omission is the Expansion of Warrantless Surveillance of all Peoples.

    This by a constitutional scholar apparently more interested in exploiting perceived holes in the constitution than upholding its grand principles.

    Oops, that's a second great Obama accomplishment that was accidentally omitted form you list above.

    Moneta October 12, 2016 at 8:36 am

    I don't believe Obama could have done otherwise. Without a neolib ideology he would not have made it to President.

    So you are asking him to drop what made him rise to the top.

    PlutoniumKun October 12, 2016 at 8:51 am

    I agree that he has demonstrated a neoliberal-lite ideology, although its a little complicated by the fact that he has several times seemed to have shown that he 'gets' that current policy is wrong headed, but he has consistently shown little or no indication to stand up to the hard liners within the administration. I don't believe he has any foreign policy ideology other than his famous 'don't do stupid' policy, and as such will always go with establishment groupthink.

    I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit.

    moneta October 12, 2016 at 9:34 am

    I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population believe there would be change. 10 years ago most of the population probably did not even know the word neolib existed. And most of the population thought helocs were God's gift to the USA.

    The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions.

    The us was based on a frontier mentality yet liberals think one Neolib president who spoke of change could change course.

    It's going to take a few presidents because society determines individuals' roles. When someone is very different, society might accept one eccentric touch but not multiple all at once.

    For example, maybe the us needs to go single payer but the golf from private to nationalized is so vast that you can only get there by iteration unless there is a huge shock that permits the leaders to do it in one scoop.

    Ivy October 12, 2016 at 10:51 am

    Many view Obama as a type of Manchurian candidate , sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. Combine that with a deep distrust by much of the populace, to the extent that they pay attention , of the media, as the latter as a group have largely demonstrated a profound disregard for truth and objectivity.

    Politicians at least swear an oath upon taking office, even if many immediately ignore it, while so-called journalists no longer attempt to self-police or maintain integrity. The media seem to want to act as unelected officials with a seat at the top table.

    BRUCE E. WOYCH October 12, 2016 at 11:45 am

    As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat.

    good guy / bad guy writ large. It can be argued that he has used the same role play domestically where most of his constitutional prejudices have been corporate and most of his financial policies equally republican.

    See:

    Obama Resists Hawks As U.S., Russia Step Up War Threats Over Syria

    Posted: 10 Oct 2016 04:25 AM PDT

    http://www.justice-integrity.org/faq/1122-obama-resists-hawks-as-u-s-russia-step-up-war-threats-over-syria
    -----------------
    http://www.justice-integrity.org/

    "Nobody forced Obama…" is a formidable listing while apologists are generally sympathetic to his charm and graceful very likeable personality.
    In fact, (after all is said and done) Obama (as world leaders go) may well go down in history as even a great president and world shaker where amoral realism is counted after all the smoke and mirrors clear.

    History is written by the victor as Napoleon stated succinctly. I suggest to you that his "legacy" that is currently being groomed so carefully, includes some items that researchers and historians will also have to explain more comprehensively than any cult of personality will cover.:
    see:
    https://www.stpete4peace.org/obama-fact-sheet
    http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html

    Mark P. October 12, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    PK wrote: 'he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit.'

    Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the 2006-2008 period.

    The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue the apparent Change!Hope! pitch).

    I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually.

    Jack October 12, 2016 at 10:10 am

    What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents, which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway. One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there.

    Portia October 12, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while in office.

    sinbad66 October 12, 2016 at 8:48 am

    Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America.

    A point rarely mentioned. Well said!

    pretzelattack October 12, 2016 at 8:54 am

    maybe cause he talked a lot about change? you know, closing guantanamo, appointing liberals to the bench, prosecuting war criminals and financial criminals, stuff like that. not starting any more wars in the middle east. more will come to me if i think about it. oh yeah, marching with striking union workers. trying to get the public option. taking a hard look at the fisa court. sorry, running out of time here.

    Jack October 12, 2016 at 10:18 am

    Of course it was doable. You are apparently overlooking the fact that for the first 2 years of the Obama presidency he pretty much had a free hand. Both houses of Congress were in the hands of democrats. Only later did the excuse of Republican vitriol have any weight. And lest you forget, the voters weighed Obama in the 2010 mid-terms and found him lacking. Most analysts point to the Democrat losses in that election as a result of Obama's failure to carry out his promised agenda.

    Moneta October 12, 2016 at 10:37 am

    In an alternate universe. Maybe it's because I'm in Canada, but I did not think he would accomplish much. Hard to stop a slow moving train.

    sid_finster October 12, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up.

    JohnnyGL October 12, 2016 at 3:17 pm

    In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was.

    On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor.

    With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid stuff?"

    Jeremy Grimm October 12, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    It's really about acting like Hillary's idea of Lincoln. Obama had the nation behind him and Congress, the Bully Pulpit mentioned below, the power to appoint and request the resignations of the leaders of the Executive Branch arms of power, he could have lobbied for changing Rule 22 in the Senate his first year and changed the Senate rules for filibuster, and if Congress sends him a bill he doesn't like he can NOT sign it, and if there is a bill he does like he can actually get behind that bill and twist a few Congressional arms to get what he wants.

    Obama can and has accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised to his other supporters - not us.

    human October 12, 2016 at 9:25 am

    This is the very purpose of the bully pulpit presented to Obama in '08. Obama has always been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations.

    OIFVet October 12, 2016 at 11:13 am

    What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013.

    It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body.

    The results are clear, most regular everyday Euros are quite cynical about the US. 0bama surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership."

    [Oct 12, 2016] Breaking: DNC Chief Donna Brazile Leaked Sanders Info to Clinton Campaign

    Notable quotes:
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | observer.com
    WikiLeaks hack reveals DNC's favoritism as Clinton staff in damage control over Hillary's support for DOMA

    On October 10, Wikileaks released part two of their emails from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.

    Friday, Wikileaks released their first batch of Podesta's emails, which included excerpts from Clinton's Wall Street transcripts that reaffirmed why Clinton refused to release them in full. During the second presidential debate, Clinton confirmed their authenticity by attempting to defend one statement she made in the speech about having a public and private stance on political issues. She cited Abraham Lincoln, a defense comparable to her ridiculous invocation of 9/11 when pressed on her ties to Wall Street during a Democratic primary debate.

    The latest release reveals current DNC chair Donna Brazile, when working as a DNC vice chair, forwarded to the Clinton campaign a January 2016 email obtained from the Bernie Sanders campaign, released by Sarah Ford, Sanders' deputy national press secretary, announcing a Twitter storm from Sanders' African-American outreach team. "FYI" Brazile wrote to the Clinton staff. "Thank you for the heads up on this Donna," replied Clinton campaign spokesperson Adrienne Elrod.

    The second batch of emails include more evidence of collusion between the mainstream media and Clinton Campaign.

    One email , received by prolific Clinton donor Haim Saban, was forwarded to Clinton staff, praising the friendly moderators in the early March 2016 Democratic primary debate co-hosted by Univision in Florida. "Haim, I just wanted to tell you that I thought the moderators for last nights Debate were excellent. They were thoughtful, tough and incisive. I thought it made Hilary appear direct and strong in her resolve. I felt it advanced our candidate. Thanks for Univision," wrote Rob Friedman, former co-chair of the Motion Picture Group.

    Another email discusses planting a favorable Clinton story in The New York Times in March 2015. "NYT heroine. Should she call her today?" Podesta wrote to other Clinton campaign staffers with the subject line 'Laura Donohoe.' "I do think it's a great idea! We can make it happen," replied Huma Abedin. The story they referred to is likely " In New Hampshire, Clinton Backers Buckle Up," published in The New York Times on March 12, 2015 about Laura Donohoe, a retired nurse and Clinton supporter in New Hampshire.

    John Harwood, New York Times contributor and CNBC correspondent, regularly exchanged emails with Podesta-communicating more as a Clinton surrogate than a journalist.

    In an October 2015 email thread, Clinton staff were in damage control over Hillary's support for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Hillary Clinton would not disavow her support for it. "I'm not saying double down or ever say it again. I'm just saying that she's not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance."

    Former Clinton Foundation director, Darnell Strom of the Creative Artist Agency, wrote a condescending email to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard after she resigned from the DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders , which he then forwarded to Clinton campaign staff. "For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton," wrote Strom.

    A memo sent from Clinton's general counsel, Marc Elias of the law firm Perkins Coie, outlined legal tricks to circumvent campaign finance laws to raise money in tandem with Super Pacs.

    In a March 2015 email , Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook expressed frustration DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz hired a Convention CEO without consulting the Clinton campaign, which suggests the DNC and Clinton campaign regularly coordinated together from the early stages of the Democratic primaries.

    [Oct 12, 2016] The Real Battle Is For Your Mind - About That NBC-WSJ Clinton +11 Point Poll

    Oct 12, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Oct 11, 2016 0 SHARES Submitted via The Conservative Treehouse

    The Real Battle, is The Battle For Your Mind.

    Researchers and political analysts frequent CTH because we bring you hard, factual, and fully cited research enabling you to make up your own mind about the headlines.

    What you are about to read (and see) below is a fully cited example of something we have discussed frequently, but withheld until today, so the oppositional forces cannot change strategies in their attempts to manipulate your mind.

    It is now time to lay all media polling naked for you to grasp. Everything below is fully cited so you can fact-check it for yourself. However, we present this with a disclaimer: the entities exposed will industriously work to change their approach from this day forth.

    You have probably seen the latest example of the media claiming a released presidential poll from NBC and The Wall Street Journal as an example of Hillary Clinton expanding to an 11 point lead in the weekend following the "controversial" leaked tape of Donald Trump.

    The claim is complete and utter nonsense. Here's the proof.

    We begin with a google search showing hundreds of media citations referencing the NBC/WSJ Poll :

    And here's the NBC link to the poll , and the NBC Link to the pdf of the poll , and the NBC Poll itself in a scribd pdf:

    Transparently the poll is manipulated with: a) a small sample (500); and b) the following ideological make-up:

  • Republican and Republican leaners 36%
  • Democrat and Democrat leaners 43%
  • Independents 12%
  • By itself that ideological snapshot is silly. Nationally the party registration is roughly 27% (R), 32% (D), and 40% (I) – SEE HERE – However, the polling sample is the least of the issues for this deconstruction.

    Arguing about the construct or methodology of the poll is typically what most people do when they are refuting a media poll. That aspect alone is not the big story.

    Look at the polling organization:

    Do you see: Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies?

    Hart Research Associates is headed up by Peter D Hart (founder), and Geoff Garin (President) – SEE HERE

    Now look at what role Geoff Garin, Heart Research Associate President, is currently occupying ( link here ):

    OK, so Mr. Geoff Garin, the President of Hart Research and Associates", is currently working as " a strategic adviser for Priorities USA in support of Hillary Clinton's election ". Gee, I wonder why the media never tells us that part?

    See the issue?

    Wait, we're not even close to finished. It gets better.

    Let's take a look at the recent financial connection between, Geoff Garin, Hart Research Associates and Hillary Clinton's Priorities USA Super-PAC.

    For that information we turn to FEC filings -HERE- . What do they indicate?

    On Page #118 of the September 2016 (most recent) filing we find a payment for $178,500 (screen grab above)

    On Page #92 of the same September 2016 (most recent) filing , we find another payment for $42,000 (screen grab below)

  • $220,500.00 in the month of September alone paid by Hillary Clinton's Priorities USA Super-PAC to Hart Research Associates.
  • The President of Hart Research Associates, Geoff Garin, is working for Hillary Clinton's campaign.
  • NBC (S Burke) and The WSJ (Murdoch) contact Geoff Garin (Hart Research Associates) for the post-debate poll data they will use on the day following the debate.
  • Hart Research Associates provides a small national poll sample (500) result, with skewed party internals, showing Hillary Clinton +11 points.
  • Do you see now how "media polling" works, and why we advise to ignore it?

    roxyNL Oct 11, 2016 11:38 AM

    Who controls your mind (please have a look to the pic)

    http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Who-Controls-Your...

    roxyNL roxyNL Oct 11, 2016 11:39 AM

    How 1% of the US is controlling 95% of the media

    America sold it soul to the DEVIL

    roxyNL Oct 11, 2016 11:38 AM

    Who controls your mind (please have a look to the pic)

    http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Who-Controls-Your...

    roxyNL roxyNL Oct 11, 2016 11:39 AM

    How 1% of the US is controlling 95% of the media

    America sold it soul to the DEVIL

    FireBrander RAT005 Oct 11, 2016 12:28 PM What are they thinking?

    "HILLARY UP BY 11 POINTS!"

    The effect of that:

    1. Softens the Hillary vote.

    2. Fires up the Trump vote.

    Unless they think Hillary up by 11 is going to cause Republicans to give up and not vote?

    That is fucking stupid to believe; Republican voters are fired up to STOP HILLARY...that is why Trump is correct that he could shoot someone and still win.

    Hillary (falsely) up by 11 creates MORE apathy among already apathetic Hillary voters.

    It's a huge mistake to falsely put her "way out front".

    FireBrander FireBrander Oct 11, 2016 12:29 PM Of all entities, the LA Times appears to want to put the truth out there and currently they say Trump up by 2 points...I believe that.

    [Oct 12, 2016] Perhaps a detour into the history of some 3rd world banana republics, can shed some light on the political situation and actions of the USA

    Notable quotes:
    "... This election also can be seen in a more general, global context of how forces have been accommodating to the end of the cold war. ..."
    "... Back in the US, those responsible for human rights violations around the world, such as torture, extra-judicial assassinations, and renditions, have never been brought to justice and the mere mention of Clinton (a politician!) facing jail for a very minor infraction is considered in undemocratic bad taste. ..."
    "... For the moment, we have to put up with the spectacle of some Americans, in an intent at preemptive amnesty, outraged at the mere thought that their presumptive tin-pot, global Caesar is not above suspicion and that they themselves are better than 3rd worlders. ..."
    Oct 12, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Lupita 10.11.16 at 6:54 pm 73

    This election also can be seen in a more general, global context of how forces have been accommodating to the end of the cold war. Perhaps a detour into the history of some 3rd world banana republics, those that many Americans deem as deplorable as a Trump supporter, can shed some light.

    Starting in the 50's, and with the expressed goal of modernizing their countries (meaning an accelerated capitalist development with the US as its model and as the only possible model) military and terror regimes took over South America (Paraguay: 1954-1991, Chile: 1973-1990, Argentina: 1976-1982, Uruguay: 1966- 1985). For the most part, before being forced out of power, these military regimes declared amnesty for themselves. Enter truth commissions, whose purpose is to investigate the causes of violence and human rights violations and to establish judicial responsibility.

    Back in the US, those responsible for human rights violations around the world, such as torture, extra-judicial assassinations, and renditions, have never been brought to justice and the mere mention of Clinton (a politician!) facing jail for a very minor infraction is considered in undemocratic bad taste.

    Conclusion: perhaps more than a special prosecutor, a commission of truth is in order, but not at the moment, after the US crumbles as the USSR did. Only then can 3rd worlders hope to see Kissinger, Bush, Blair, Aznar, Obama, and all their enablers brought to justice.

    For the moment, we have to put up with the spectacle of some Americans, in an intent at preemptive amnesty, outraged at the mere thought that their presumptive tin-pot, global Caesar is not above suspicion and that they themselves are better than 3rd worlders.

    [Oct 10, 2016] Power makes Dick Cheney look like Mahatma Ghandi

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    TheCatSaid October 9, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    The extent to which Samantha Power is being groomed for high office is more and more pronounced. Currently she's getting lots of coverage in Korea with military. It's as if Clinton and Trump are both such damaged goods that a more suitable woman is being brought into the wings. It reminds me of when I heard Obama speak at the Dem convention while a senator, and of a speech I heard Theresa May give several years ago.

    Key people are being moved into position and it has nothing to do with elections.

    Duncan Hare October 9, 2016 at 9:15 pm

    Power was born in Ireland, I believe.

    Jerri-Lynn Scofield October 9, 2016 at 9:20 pm

    That's correct.

    Matthew G. Saroff October 9, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    And Power makes Dick Cheney look like Mahatma Ghandi. (She also hangs out with Kissinger)

    [Oct 10, 2016] Key Neocon Calls on US to Oust Putin –

    Notable quotes:
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    Oct 10, 2016 | consortiumnews.com
    October 7, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    Exclusive: A prominent neocon paymaster, whose outfit dispenses $100 million in U.S. taxpayers' money each year, has called on America to "summon the will" to remove Russian President Putin from office, reports Robert Parry.

    By Robert Parry

    The neoconservative president of the U.S.-taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy [NED] has called for the U.S. government to "summon the will" to engineer the overthrow of Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that the 10-year-old murder case of a Russian journalist should be the inspiration.

    Carl Gershman, who has headed NED since its founding in 1983, doesn't cite any evidence that Putin was responsible for the death of Anna Politkovskaya but uses a full column in The Washington Post on Friday to create that impression, calling her death "a window to Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin autocrat whom Americans are looking at for the first time."

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

    Gershman wraps up his article by writing: "Politkovskaya saw the danger [of Putin], but she and other liberals in Russia were not strong enough to stop it. The United States has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so. Remembering Politkovskaya can help us rise to this challenge."

    That Gershman would so directly call for the ouster of Russia's clearly popular president represents further proof that NED is a neocon-driven vehicle that seeks to create the political circumstances for "regime change" even when that means removing leaders who are elected by a country's citizenry.

    And there is a reason for NED to see its job in that way. In 1983, NED essentially took over the CIA's role of influencing electoral outcomes and destabilizing governments that got in the way of U.S. interests, except that NED carried out those functions in a quasi-overt fashion while the CIA did them covertly.

    NED also serves as a sort of slush fund for neocons and other favored U.S. foreign policy operatives because a substantial portion of NED's money circulates through U.S.-based non-governmental organizations or NGOs.

    That makes Gershman an influential neocon paymaster whose organization dispenses some $100 million a year in U.S. taxpayers' money to activists, journalists and NGOs both in Washington and around the world. The money helps them undermine governments in Washington's disfavor – or as Gershman would prefer to say, "build democratic institutions," even when that requires overthrowing democratically elected leaders.

    NED was a lead actor in the Feb. 22, 2014 coup ousting Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych in a U.S.-backed putsch that touched off the civil war inside Ukraine between Ukrainian nationalists from the west and ethnic Russians from the east. The Ukraine crisis has become a flashpoint for the dangerous New Cold War between the U.S. and Russia.

    Before the anti-Yanukovych coup, NED was funding scores of projects inside Ukraine, which Gershman had identified as "the biggest prize" in a Sept. 26, 2013 column also published in The Washington Post.

    In that column, Gershman wrote that after the West claimed Ukraine, "Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." In other words, Gershman already saw Ukraine as an important step toward an even bigger prize, a "regime change" in Moscow.

    Less than five months after Gershman's column, pro-Western political activists and neo-Nazi street fighters – with strong support from U.S. neocons and the State Department – staged a coup in Kiev driving Yanukovych from office and installing a rabidly anti-Russian regime, which the West promptly dubbed "legitimate."

    Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

    Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

    In reaction to the coup and the ensuing violence against ethnic Russians, the voters of Crimea approved a referendum with 96 percent of the vote to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia, a move that the West's governments and media decried as a Russian "invasion" and "annexation."

    The new regime in Kiev then mounted what it called an "Anti-Terrorism Operation" or ATO against ethnic Russians in the east who had supported Yanukovych and refused to accept the anti-constitutional coup in Kiev as legitimate.

    The ATO, spearheaded by neo-Nazis from the Azov battalion and other extremists, killed thousands of ethnic Russians, prompting Moscow to covertly provide some assistance to the rebels, a move denounced by the West as "aggression."

    Blaming Putin

    In his latest column, Gershman not only urges the United States to muster the courage to oust Putin but he shows off the kind of clever sophistry that America's neocons are known for. Though lacking any evidence, he intimates that Putin ordered the murder of Politkovskaya and pretty much every other "liberal" who has died in Russia.

    Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy.

    Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy.

    It is a technique that I've seen used in other circumstances, such as the lists of "mysterious deaths" that American right-wingers publish citing people who crossed the paths of Bill and Hillary Clinton and ended up dead. This type of smear spreads suspicion of guilt not based on proof but on the number of acquaintances and adversaries who have met untimely deaths.

    In the 1990s, one conservative friend of mine pointed to the Clintons' "mysterious deaths" list and marveled that even if only a few were the victims of a Clinton death squad that would be quite a story, to which I replied that if even one were murdered by the Clintons that would be quite a story – but that there was no proof of any such thing.

    "Mysterious deaths" lists represent a type of creepy conspiracy theory that shifts the evidentiary burden onto the targets of the smears who must somehow prove their innocence, when there is no evidence of their guilt (only vague suspicions). It is contemptible when applied to American leaders and it is contemptible when applied to Russian leaders, but it is not beneath Carl Gershman.

    Beyond that, Gershman's public musing about the U.S. somehow summoning "the will" to remove Putin might - in a normal world - disqualify NED and its founding president from the privilege of dispensing U.S. taxpayers' money to operatives in Washington and globally. It is extraordinarily provocative and dangerous, an example of classic neocon hubris.

    While the neocons do love their tough talk, they are not known for thinking through their "regime change" schemes. The idea of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia with the goal of ousting Putin, with his 82 percent approval ratings, must rank as the nuttiest and most reckless neocon scheme of all.

    Gershman and his neocon pals may fantasize about making Russia's economy scream while financing pro-Western "liberals" who would stage disruptive protests in Red Square, but he and his friends haven't weighed the consequences even if they could succeed.

    Given the devastating experience that most Russians had when NED's beloved Russian "liberals" helped impose American "shock therapy" in the 1990s - an experiment that reduced average life expectancy by a full decade - it's hard to believe that the Russian people would simply take another dose of that bitter medicine sitting down.

    Even if the calculating Putin were somehow removed amid economic desperation, he is far more likely to be followed by a much harder-line Russian nationalist who might well see Moscow's arsenal of nuclear weapons as the only way to protect Mother Russia's honor. In other words, the neocons' latest brash "regime change" scheme might be their last – and the last for all humanity.

    A Neocon Slush Fund

    Gershman's arrogance also raises questions about why the American taxpayer should tolerate what amounts to a $100 million neocon slush fund which is used to create dangerous mischief around the world. Despite having "democracy" in its name, NED appears only to favor democratic outcomes when they fit with Official Washington's desires.

    CIA Director William Casey.

    CIA Director William Casey.

    If a disliked candidate wins an election, NED acts as if that is prima facie evidence that the system is undemocratic and must be replaced with a process that ensures the selection of candidates who will do what the U.S. government tells them to do. Put differently, NED's name is itself a fraud.

    But that shouldn't come as a surprise since NED was created in 1983 at the urging of Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William J. Casey, who wanted to off-load some of the CIA's traditional work ensuring that foreign elections turned out in ways acceptable to Washington, and when they didn't – as in Iran under Mossadegh, in Guatemala under Arbenz or in Chile under Allende – the CIA's job was to undermine and remove the offending electoral winner.

    In 1983, Casey and the CIA's top propagandist, Walter Raymond Jr., who had been moved to Reagan's National Security Council staff, wanted to create a funding mechanism to support outside groups, such as Freedom House and other NGOs, so they could engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically organized and paid for covertly. The idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity that would serve as a conduit for this money.

    In one undated letter to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III, Casey urged creation of a "National Endowment," but he recognized the need to hide the strings being pulled by the CIA "Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate," Casey wrote.

    The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided to also set aside pots of money - within NED - for the Republican and Democratic parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was assured.

    But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped write the legislation.

    This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about to go to the House floor, the CIA's congressional liaison came pounding at the door to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill.

    The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented to the demand, not fully recognizing its significance – that it would permit the continued behind-the-scenes involvement of Raymond and Casey.

    The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration's choice of Carl Gershman to head NED, again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future of the new entity and American foreign policy.

    Gershman, who had followed the classic neoconservative path from youthful socialism to fierce anticommunism, became NED's first (and, to this day, only) president. Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC.

    For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond wrote to two NSC Asian experts that "Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.

    "Senator [Orrin] Hatch, as you know, is a member of the board. Secondly, NED has already given a major grant for a related Chinese program."

    Neocon Tag Teams

    From the start, NED became a major benefactor for Freedom House, beginning with a $200,000 grant in 1984 to build "a network of democratic opinion-makers." In NED's first four years, from 1984 and 1988, it lavished $2.6 million on Freedom House, accounting for more than one-third of its total income, according to a study by the liberal Council on Hemispheric Affairs that was entitled "Freedom House: Portrait of a Pass-Through."

    The Washington Post building. (Photo credit: Daniel X. O'Neil)

    The Washington Post building. (Photo credit: Daniel X. O'Neil)

    Over the ensuing three decades, Freedom House has become almost an NED subsidiary, often joining NED in holding policy conferences and issuing position papers, both organizations pushing primarily a neoconservative agenda, challenging countries deemed insufficiently "free," including Syria, Ukraine (in 2014) and Russia.

    Indeed, NED and Freedom House often work as a kind of tag-team with NED financing "non-governmental organizations" inside targeted countries and Freedom House berating those governments if they crack down on U.S.-funded NGOs.

    For instance, on Nov. 16, 2012, NED and Freedom House joined together to denounce legislation passed by the Russian parliament that required recipients of foreign political money to register with the government.

    Or, as NED and Freedom House framed the issue: the Russian Duma sought to "restrict human rights and the activities of civil society organizations and their ability to receive support from abroad. Changes to Russia's NGO legislation will soon require civil society organizations receiving foreign funds to choose between registering as 'foreign agents' or facing significant financial penalties and potential criminal charges."

    Of course, the United States has a nearly identical Foreign Agent Registration Act that likewise requires entities that receive foreign funding and seek to influence U.S. government policy to register with the Justice Department or face possible fines or imprisonment.

    But the Russian law would impede NED's efforts to destabilize the Russian government through funding of political activists, journalists and civic organizations, so it was denounced as an infringement of human rights and helped justify Freedom House's rating of Russia as "not free."

    Another bash-Putin tag team has been The Washington Post's editors and NED's Gershman. On July 28, 2015, a Post editorial and a companion column by Gershman led readers to believe that Putin was paranoid and "power mad" in worrying that outside money funneled into NGOs threatened Russian sovereignty.

    The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians had enacted the law requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to register as "foreign agents" and that one of the first funding operations to fall prey to these tightened rules was Gershman's NED.

    The Post's editors wrote that Putin's "latest move … is to declare the NED an 'undesirable' organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May [2015]. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a 'threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.'

    "The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED's grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin's ramparts.

    "The new law on 'undesirables' comes in addition to one signed in 2012 that gave authorities the power to declare organizations ' foreign agents ' if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage."

    However, among the relevant points that the Post's editors wouldn't tell their readers was the fact that Russia's Foreign Agent Registration Act was modeled after the American Foreign Agent Registration Act and that NED President Gershman had already publicly made clear - in his Sept. 26, 2013 column - that his goal was to oust Russia's elected president.

    In his July 28, 2015 column, Gershman further deemed Putin's government illegitimate. "Russia's newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for Democracy … was declared an "undesirable organization" prohibited from operating in Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a worsening crisis of political legitimacy," Gershman wrote, adding:

    "This is the context in which Russia has passed the law prohibiting Russian democrats from getting any international assistance to promote freedom of expression, the rule of law and a democratic political system. Significantly, democrats have not backed down. They have not been deterred by the criminal penalties contained in the 'foreign agents' law and other repressive laws. They know that these laws contradict international law, which allows for such aid, and that the laws are meant to block a better future for Russia."

    The reference to how a "foreign agents" registration law conflicts with international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is good for the goose in the United States isn't good for the gander in Russia. But hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic impact of the column.

    Also undercutting the column's impact would be an acknowledgement of where NED's money comes from. So Gershman left that out, too. After all, how many governments would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in someone who would be compliant to that foreign power?

    And, if you had any doubts about what Gershman's intent was regarding Russia, he dispelled them in his Friday column in which he calls on the United States to "summon the will" to "contain and defeat this danger," which he makes clear is the continued rule of Vladimir Putin.

    [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's " The Victory of Perception Management. "]

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

    [Oct 10, 2016] Don't listen to Obama. Just watch what he does and you'll know.

    Oct 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    3.14e-9 October 9, 2016 at 10:08 pm

    I watched Obama's recent town hall with veterans and was shocked when, in response to a question similar to the one just asked, he said that the U.S. can't be everywhere, that we need to focus on conflicts that are a direct threat to the United States. Syria isn't a direct threat, he said. As bad as the humanitarian crisis there is, he suggested that we don't have a dog in that fight and need to let others take care of it.

    Heaven forbid that Trump agree with Obama, but it would have been a good response.

    oh October 9, 2016 at 10:20 pm

    Don't listen to Obama. Just watch what he does and you'll know.

    3.14e-9 October 9, 2016 at 10:49 pm

    Agreed, and I should have included that caveat. I also listened to his entire speech in Hiroshima, which I thought was one of his best ever, or should I say "best written." Given that he had been pushing a $1 trillion nuclear upgrade program, it was nuclear-grade hypocrisy.

    Nonetheless, it was remarkable that he went on the record with that position on Syria when his appointed heir to the throne is calling for a no-fly zone and confrontation with Russia.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Hillary isn't clobbering Donald b/c we have a moribund democracy

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    hreik October 7, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Lol. Hillary isn't clobbering Donald b/c we have a moribund democracy.
    http://ahtribune.com/us/2016-election/1232-hillary-clinton-democracy.html?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default

    shinola October 7, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    Thanks for the link. Interesting and depressing. A snippet:

    " Oligarchy is rule by the few. Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy. Corporatocracy is a society governed or controlled by corporations. We have all three."

    [Oct 09, 2016] The people that run your company wont change a thing because they need to pay for their Lear Jets and screwing their customers is the only way they can do it.

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Paid Minion October 7, 2016 at 4:26 pm

    Yeah, the usefulness/entertainment value of Sirius/XM is close to being offset by the costs of the subscription, and the PITA when dealing with their "Customer Service" (an oxymoron if I every saw one).

    Renewed my subscription earlier this year, then bought a new car that came with one year free. Called them to roll over the existing contract onto the new car, was supposedly "no problem". I should be good for the next 21 months or so. We'll see next spring.

    The new way of doing business in the USA isn't by creating "growth" with satisfied customers. Now, the plan is to sign up the customer for indefinite, automatically renewed (and billed) contracts that are impossible to cancel, no matter how crappy the product is/becomes.
    Exhibit "A" McAfee AntiVirus.

    "Automatic Renewal" is harder to kill than cockroaches.

    My last cellphone "Contract" (contract? WTF?) generated more paperwork than my first home mortgage.

    NY Union Guy October 7, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    the people that run your company won't change a thing because they need to pay for their Lear Jets and screwing their customers is the only way they can do it.

    Exactly! All this shadyness, dishonesty, and BS is so some asshole can fly around in a learjet.

    What really boggles my mind and has almost completely eroded my faith in humanity, is just how much pain and suffering we inflict on one another just so some gaping asshole rich guy can own 5 houses and jet-set around the world on his own private plane.

    reslez October 7, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    Comcast reps do this as well. So do the other cable monopolists. Their CS reps sign you up for services you don't want, lie to you about it, and when you call back to cancel and demand a refund, they lie again and the refund never actually appears. It's so bad even our deaf, dumb, and blind Congress held a hearing about it over the summer.

    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/167078/20160628/comcast-and-charter-pledge-to-improve-customer-service-in-senate-hearings.htm

    JohnnyGL October 7, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Yep, there's a reason Comcast is always on or around the top of the list of "most hated companies".

    I remember seeing a list where they beat out Monsanto. That's gotta be tough to do since Monsanto kills and sues people.

    NY Union Guy October 7, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    the people that run your company won't change a thing because they need to pay for their Lear Jets and screwing their customers is the only way they can do it.

    Exactly! All this shadyness, dishonesty, and BS is so some butthole can fly around in a learjet.

    What really boggles my mind and has almost completely eroded my faith in humanity, is just how much pain and suffering we inflict on one another just so some gaping butthole rich guy can own 5 houses and jet-set around the world on his own private plane.

    (Got moderated, had to remove a cussword)

    hreik October 7, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    try misspelling, like: e.g. phuck

    beth October 7, 2016 at 9:00 pm

    So the upshot is that Sirius/XM does the exact same thing as Wells Fargo

    and AT&T.
    With a few words changed, that sounds like my former annual calls to AT&T. Once it took me 4 calls to try to get the different speed levels they were selling. Then 2-3 to find someone I thought would put me into a middle level speed. Was told I would not pay a change-over fee.
    Opps, when I got the bill I was charged $300 for the switch and put into the highest residential speed at the time.

    Jim Haygood October 7, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    My stance is that the etymology of the word "phony" derives directly from telcos.

    And I'm sticking to it.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Class Warfare links Oct 9 2016

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    From: Links 10-9-16 naked capitalism

    [Oct 09, 2016] All your ISP's have been carrying NSA gear within their infrastructure for how long now

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    poeg -> junction: Oct 8, 2016 2:30 PM

    You cats haven't had end to end encryption for more than 5 years and while not at all difficult to accomplish, the resistance to using such code has amazed all in the ITSEC community not feeding at the .gov trough. All your ISP's have been carrying NSA gear within their infrastructure for how long now? Juniper's back door in their gear wasn't to push firmware updates. The whole system has been left open for a number of reasons, none of which would be capitalism, free markets or satisfied consumers.

    Kirk2NCC1701 -> junction •Oct 8, 2016 2:59 PM

    Well, if you use Yahoo, Outlook or Google mail, then you're the Village Idiot, if you use those free services for anything other than harmless, boring stuff. You know, Yoga and Cooking recipes -- like Hillary.

    IF you're serious about email privacy, use an email service that is OUTSIDE the US.

    As you know, I use Hushmail.me for my Kirk2NCC1701 handle and ZH friends. Hushmail is in Canada and after speaking with them in person, I am confident that they take their customer's Privacy seriously, especially for their paying customers. Now, I may have used a Yahoo alt-persona account, but only for "Trumping". I also may have used Google and Outlook for "vanilla" stuff, and I may have used other offshore emails for "secure" purposes where lawful business and personal privacy matters were involved (but No illegal activities, as I'm not an "illegal" type. Devious, curious, inquiring, opinionated? Hell yes. Illegal? No.)

    "Trunping" (copyright 2016, Kirk2NCC1701) -- behaving Trump-like: bombastic, pleasure-seeking, pussy-seeking, pussy-pleasuring

    Dugald -> Kirk2NCC1701 •Oct 8, 2016 5:35 PM

    Been using Pidgeon and Forked stick for years for private stuff.....

    as for my Gmail account, I don't give a shit.....

    Parrotile -> Kirk2NCC1701 •Oct 8, 2016 8:46 PM

    I very rarely need to send anything particularly confidential. My employers expect me to use the systems they provide for all "Medical in Confidence" stuff, and so since that requirement is part of my Contract, they are entirely liable for any failures, not me.

    EMail - Outlook. It works and again nothing of "interest" is ever sent. If I DO need to send information that's "Sensitive", I have one of these: -

    http://thumbs.picclick.com/00/s/OTAwWDExMTk=/z/GWMAAOSw3YNXbDD6/$/Canon-typestar-10-ii-portable-electronic-typewriter-_57.jpg

    - Which works very well, and the cartridges are easily available. Person-to-Person, or Recorded Delivery mail. Works just fine and of course NO "electronic paper trail" . . . .

    [Oct 09, 2016] Comparing Bernie's rallies with Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... Zach Bee Of all the words you could chant, in the entire english language, they pick the ONE that rhymes with liar? What does Hillary! Fire! Even mean? I thought that was a joke at first. Wow. ..."
    "... Moh Moony Spot on mate. No one ever accused Hillbots of being very bright. beidoll I kept thinking it should have been "Fire Hillary". I'd fire her before I'd hire her. ..."
    "... Thanet Taout LOLOLOLOL ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 10:40 am

    For those who want a few laughs in these grim times, check out the excellent Jimmy Dore's video (6 minutes) comparing Bernie's rallies with Hillary's. There is a truly cringeworthy episode of HRC cheerleading in the clip.

    Bernie Crowds vs Hillary Crowds - A Depressing, Hilarious Comparison

    integer October 9, 2016 at 10:59 am

    Heh. I liked this little exchange in the comments:

    Zach Bee
    Of all the words you could chant, in the entire english language, they pick the ONE that rhymes with liar? What does Hillary! Fire! Even mean? I thought that was a joke at first. Wow.

    Moh Moony
    Spot on mate. No one ever accused Hillbots of being very bright.

    beidoll
    I kept thinking it should have been "Fire Hillary". I'd fire her before I'd hire her.

    Thanet Taout
    LOLOLOLOL

    BecauseTradition October 9, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    What does Hillary! Fire! Even mean?

    Liar, liar pants on fire?

    [Oct 09, 2016] Bernie is the Biggest Frigging Sellout, if you ask me. He spends 6 months railing against HRC's policies and now is out promoting her. He is dead to me now.

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    edmondo October 9, 2016 at 9:53 am

    So even after Hillary says she's going to renounce every campaign promise she made two hours after the polls close, Bernie can't wait to get out on the campaign trail urge us to vote for our own extinction?

    Donald may be "The Apprentice" but Bernie has got to be "The Biggest Loser"

    Pavel October 9, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Bernie is the Biggest Frigging Sellout, if you ask me. He spends 6 months railing against HRC's policies and now is out promoting her. He is dead to me now.

    I can see the expediency of a reluctant endorsement at the convention, but he's lost his credibility with this behaviour. They must've threatened him with loss of his Senate committee positions or something.

    DarkMatters October 9, 2016 at 12:45 pm

    …or offered to fund his foundation and invite hi to expensive lectures. Carrot or stick, carrot or stick; so hard to tell. I imagine the stick is avoided when possible; no point in bringing needless ugliness into what could be a nice relationship.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Only barrel bombs can commit atrocities – Western, "liberal" modern advanced expensive high tech weapons have special self righteous code imprinted in them that prevents the slaughter of the TRULY innocent…

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Reply

    allan October 9, 2016 at 10:38 am

    It looks like the Saudi attack on the funeral in Yemen that killed 82+ people and wounded hundreds
    was carried out using US-made MK-82 bombs.

    Surely John Kerry will call for a war crimes investigation … oh, wait:

    GenDyn gets $39 million contract modification for foreign military bombs [UPI]

    WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 (UPI) - General Dynamics – Ordnance and Tactical Systems has been awarded a $39 million modification to a foreign military sales contract for various bomb bodies.

    The contract falls under the U.S. Army and involves sales to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, France and Iraq.

    The modification calls for 162 MK82-1 bomb bodies, 7,245 MK82-6 bomb bodies and 9,664 MK84-10 bomb bodies. …

    fresno dan October 9, 2016 at 10:45 am

    allan
    October 9, 2016 at 10:38 am

    Only barrel bombs can commit atrocities – Western, "liberal" modern advanced expensive high tech weapons have special self righteous code imprinted in them that prevents the slaughter of the TRULY innocent…

    "Ordnance and Tactical Systems has been awarded a $39 million modification to a foreign military sales contract for various bomb bodies"
    Oh, and it helps the economy…i.e., the richest, and isn't that who the economy is for?

    allan October 9, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    Hearts and minds:

    Thousands of armed Yemeni protesters call for investigation into wake bombing [Reuters]

    Thousands of Yemenis, many of them armed, gathered at the United Nations headquarters in Yemen's capital Sanaa on Sunday calling for an international investigation into an air strike on a wake this weekend that was widely blamed on Saudi-led forces.

    The attack – that killed at least 140 people on Saturday – hit a hall where rows of the city's notables had gathered for the wake of the interior minister's father.

    The Saudi-led coalition has denied any role in the incident, believed to be one of the deadliest strikes in the 18-month-old war in which at least 10,000 people have been killed. …

    And when the Saudis deny any role in a mass-casualty attack, you can take it to the bank.
    Or at least Tony Podesta's bank account.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Bernie Sanders Supporters Furious Over Hillarys Leaked Wall Street Speeches

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    With the media exclusively attuned to every new, or 11-year-old as the case may be, twist in the Trump "sex tape" saga, it appeared that everyone forgot that a little over 24 hours ago, Wikileaks exposed the real reason why Hillary was keeping her Wall Street speech transcripts - which we now know had always been within easy reach for her campaign - secret. In her own words : "if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position." In other words, you have to lie to the general public while promising those who just paid you $250,000 for an hour of your speaking time something entirely different, which is precisely what those accusing Hillary of hiding her WS transcripts had done; and as yesterday's hacked documents revealed, they were right.

    The Clinton campaign refused to disavow the hacked excerpts, although it quickly tired to pin the blame again on Russia: "We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange, who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton," spokesman Glen Caplin said in a prepared statement. Previous releases have "Guccifer 2.0 has already proven the warnings of top national security officials that documents can be faked as part of a sophisticated Russian misinformation campaign."

    Ironically, it was literally minutes before the Wikileaks release of the "Podesta Files" that the US formally accused Russia of waging a hacking cyber attack on the US political establishment, almost as if it knew Wikileaks was about to make the major disclosure, and sought to minimize its impact by scapegoating Vladimir Putin.

    And while the Trump campaign tried to slam the leak, with spokesman saying "now we finally get confirmation of Clinton's catastrophic plans for completely open borders and diminishing America's influence in the world. There is a reason Clinton gave these high-paid speeches in secret behind closed doors - her real intentions will destroy American sovereignty as we know it, further illustrating why Hillary Clinton is simply unfit to be president", Trump's campaign had its own raging inferno to deal with.

    So, courtesy of what Trump said about some woman 11 years ago, in all the din over the oddly coincident Trump Tape leak, most of the noise created by the Hillary speeches was lost.

    But not all.

    According to Reuters , supporters of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Saturday " seethed ", and "expressed anger and vindication over leaked comments made by Hillary Clinton to banks and big business that appeared to confirm their fears about her support for global trade and tendency to cozy up to Wall Street. "

    Clinton, who last it emerged had slammed Bernie supporters as "basement dwellers" in a February fundraiser, with virtually no media coverage, needs Sanders' coalition of young and left-leaning voters to propel her to the presidency, pushes for open trade and open borders in one of the speeches, and takes a conciliatory approach to Wall Street , both positions she later backed away from in an effort to capture the popular appeal of Sanders' attacks on trade deals and powerful banks.

    Needless to say, there was no actualy "backing away", and instead Hillary did what he truly excels in better than most: she told the public what they wanted to hear, and will promptly reneg on once she becomes president.

    Only now, this is increasingly obvious to America's jilted youth: " this is a very clear illustration of why there is a fundamental lack of trust from progressives for Hillary Clinton," said Tobita Chow, chair of the People's Lobby in Chicago, which endorsed Sanders in the primary election.

    " The progressive movement needs to make a call to Secretary Clinton to clarify where she stands really on these issues and that's got to involve very clear renunciations of the positions that are revealed in these transcripts," Chow said.

    Good luck that, or even getting a response, even though Hillary was largely spared from providing one: as Reuters correctly observes, the revelations were immediately overshadowed by the release of an 11-year-old recording of Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, making lewd comments about women. In fact, the revelations were almost entirely ignored by the same prime time TV that has been glued to the Trump slow-motion trainwreck over the past 24 hours.

    Still, the hacked speeches could lead to further erosion in support from the so very critical to her successful candidacy, young American voter.

    Clinton has worked hard to build trust with so-called progressives, adopting several of Sanders' positions after she bested him in the primary race. The U.S. senator from Vermont now supports his former rival in the Nov. 8 general election against Trump. Still, Clinton has struggled to win support from young "millennials" who were crucial to Sanders' success, and some Democrats expressed concern that the leaks would discourage those supporters from showing up to vote.

    "That is a big concern and this certainly doesn't help," said Larry Cohen, chair of the board of Our Revolution, a progressive organization formed in the wake of Sanders' bid for the presidency, which aims to keep pushing the former candidate's ideas at a grassroots level. "It matters in terms of turnout, energy, volunteering, all those things."

    Still, despite the Trump media onslaught, the message appeared to filter through to those who would be most impacted by Hillary selling out her voters if she were to win the presidency.

    "Bernie was right about Hillary," wrote Facebook user Grace Tilly cited by Rueters, "she's a tool for Wall Street."

    "Clinton is the politicians' politician - exactly the Wall Street insider Bernie described," wrote Facebook user Brian Leach.

    Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf said progressive voters would still choose the former first lady, even with misgivings. "I'd like to meet the Bernie Sanders supporter who is going to say, 'Well I'm a little worried about her on international trade, so I'm going to vote for Donald Trump'," he said.

    He just may meet a few, especially if Bernie's supporters ask themselves why Bernie's support for Hillary remained so unwavering despite a leak confirming that Hillary was indeed all he had previously railed against.

    In a statement earlier, Sanders responded to the leak by saying that despite Hillary's paid speeches to Wall Street in which she expressed an agenda diametrically opposite to that espoused by the Vermont socialist, he reiterated his his support for the Democratic Party platform.

    "Whatever Secretary Clinton may or may not have said behind closed doors on Wall Street, I am determined to implement the agenda of the Democratic Party platform which was agreed upon by her campaign," he said in a statement.

    "Among other things, that agenda calls for breaking up the largest financial institutions in this country, re-establishing Glass-Steagall and prosecuting those many Wall Street CEOs who engaged in illegal behavior. "

    In retrospect we find it fascinating that in the aftermath of October's two big surprises served up on Friday, Sanders actually believes any of that having read through Hillary's Wall Street speeches, certainly far more fascinating than the staged disgust with Trump who, the media is suddenly stunned to find, was no more politically correct 11 year ago than he is today.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Hillary Camp Worked With Reporter On Anti-Sanders Story

    Notable quotes:
    "... Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff for underhanded tactics. ..."
    "... "We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks, which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us, lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email. ..."
    Oct 09, 2016 | dailycaller.com
    Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign collaborated with Bloomberg reporter Jennifer Epstein to create an anti-Bernie Sanders story prior to the Nevada caucus.

    In the vast trove of Clinton emails leaked Thursday by the organization DCLeaks, there is an email exchange between Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and Emily Ruiz, head of the campaign's Nevada operation. In the exchange, Ruiz and Mook discuss rumors that Sanders volunteers were posing as Clinton operatives and engaging in irritating behavior like knocking on voters' doors at 11 pm.

    Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff for underhanded tactics.

    "We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks, which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us, lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email.

    [Oct 09, 2016] Once lauded as a peacemaker, Obamas tenure fraught with war

    Obama is that same war criminal as Bush. just better tanned... I wonder if Clinton will get a Nobel Peace Prize, too?
    Oct 09, 2016 | apnews.com
    WASHINGTON (AP) - Seven years ago this week, when a young American president learned he'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize barely nine months into his first term - arguably before he'd made any peace - a somewhat embarrassed Barack Obama asked his aides to write an acceptance speech that addressed the awkwardness of the award.

    But by the time his speechwriters delivered a draft, Obama's focus had shifted to another source of tension in his upcoming moment in Oslo: He would deliver this speech about peace just days after he planned to order 30,000 more American troops into battle in Afghanistan.

    ... ... ...

    He has ordered drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Syria that have killed civilians and sparked tension in those countries and across the international community. What began as a secret program has become more transparent as Obama has aimed to leave legal limits for his predecessor on the use of unmanned warplanes.

    [Oct 09, 2016] The polls are not as reliable as they used to be

    Oct 09, 2016 | cookpolitical.com

    "Let's start with the caveats: A lot can hap­pen in the 34 days be­fore the elec­tion. The polls are not as re­li­able as they used to be. People act in un­pre­dict­able ways in the polling booth. All that said, this race has fallen in­to a fairly pre­dict­able pat­tern. When Don­ald Trump veers off mes­sage and Hil­lary Clin­ton per­forms well, her lead swells to 6, 7, or 8 points. When Trump sticks to his script and Clin­ton goes through a bumpy patch as she did with her bout of pneu­mo­nia, her edge drops down to 1 or 2 points, and some­times she winds up dead even. Most of the time, Clin­ton is up by 3 to 5 points" [ Cook Report ].

    [Oct 09, 2016] Grant F. Smith of IRMEP (Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy) sues to stop aid to Israel, on the basis of the Symington Amendment:

    Oct 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    RudyM October 7, 2016 at 9:01 pm

    Grant F. Smith of IRMEP (Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy) sues to stop aid to Israel, on the basis of the Symington Amendment:

    http://www.wrmea.org/2016-october/lawsuit-aims-to-block-u.s.-aid-to-israel.html

    [Oct 08, 2016] The game is so fucking rigged that it's well beyond rigged and light years beyond a feeling.

    Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim Haygood October 7, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    Hoisted from the web:

    " I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. "

    A "feeling that the game is rigged" - a "feeling" REALLY ?

    The game is so fucking rigged that it's well beyond rigged and light years beyond a feeling.

    Hillary and Bill have made over $180 million in 15 years by peddling influence. That's called "rigged".

    [Oct 08, 2016] Signs on the lawns and bumper stickers are excessively rare this election. Most people understand that everybody sucks

    Notable quotes:
    "... " .the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." ..."
    Oct 08, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Oregoncharles October 7, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    I just saw a big Hillary pin on a young woman I know, and I do see her bumper stickers. Very liberal town, though, in a blue state. I see huge Trump/Pence signs out in the country – but that's a lot fewer people.

    That said, I also consider the polls dubious. For one thing, Hillary's campaign is acting like they see bad news.

    Yves Smith October 7, 2016 at 4:59 pm

    The dirt secret is there are no blue states. They are all red states, but some have one or several large blue cities.

    ambrit October 7, 2016 at 7:21 pm

    How about 'The State of Blue' as an affective disorder? I remember reading that bi-partianship was classed as one such. (Lithium can help. Don't forget to suppliment with copper; lithium eats it for lunch.)

    Code Name D October 7, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    Then there is this little bit of info:
    https://youtu.be/OXD3BCEWDAU
    Yes, its Info-wars. If these guys told me we the Earth was round, I would have to dubble check. And covering one campaign office is hardly evidence for anything.

    And these kinds of offices tend to be lightly attended any way. In reality, they serve more to give infrastructure space for local organizers (A place to receive phone calls, bills for venders, a conference space, ecetra) thus the front office tend to be just for show.

    That said, It did raise an eyebrow that a scheduled rally wasn't attended by any one. Roomers still persist that Clinton rallies are mostly attended by bused in actors.

    aab October 7, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    I'm in one of the bluest places in the country. I have seen a very small number of Hillary bumper stickers. Haven't noticed any yard signs. A couple of days ago, I saw a car with an Obama Biden sticker, and nothing else. Shouldn't that person have their Hillary sticker, too?

    I know there are real people who will vote for her, because I have several friends who are refusing to speak to me because I won't. They are all middle-aged women who are either professionals themselves, or the non-working spouse of a professional, all in protected industries: corporate attorneys for health care companies, engineers who work the defense industry, etc. In other words, despite all the attempts to turn this election into a choice between a Good Girl and a Bad Man, what I'm seeing on the ground most strongly is that people who are benefiting from the status quo are voting for the status quo, as expected.

    Which is why, barring rigging, she cannot win.

    Pat October 7, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Please, don't make me support Chuckie Schumer, noooooooooooooo!

    Jim Haygood October 7, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    In extreme cases such as Schumer, a conscientious objector dispensation can be granted. ;-)

    NY Union Guy October 7, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    I agree, the polls seem to be complete fabrications. I wonder though, who's calling the shots?

    Is it the boys and girls at Langley?
    ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird )

    Or is it pressure from the advertisers?
    (Corporate America)

    NotTimothyGeithner October 7, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    What is a pollster? They are people who seek to turn unpredictable situations into easily explainable numbers which can't protest, write letters, or ultimately surprise. Naturally pollsters would be a conservative (small c) lot. African Americans love Team Blue. Everyone knows this. Even when Democratic Mayors have police departments brutalizing black neighborhoods, blacks still love the Democrats. Given current trends 105% blacks should vote for Hillary since the post Voting Rights Act low of 1964.

    After the two mid terms and Obama's poor performance with whites in 2012, Democrats should have been in a panic, but what happened? They doubled down on a candidate with huge negatives because of a child like belief in a 2002 book called "The Emerging Democratic Majority." Shrub, McCain, and Mittens are just monsters. Trump isn't special except he uses crasser language than Mittens. McCain and Shrub are fairly gross. Is comparing Trump to Hitler really going to work? After several months of Republicans saying Trump wasn't a real conservative who would put Democrats on the bench and was a Clinton plant. What a weird election.

    The troubling aspect of most polls is the high rate of identified Democrats in an Era of declining Democratic and in general partisan activity and identity. The elephant in the Democratic cloak room, ACA, cannot be overlooked.

    "Nobody could have known" and "it works until it doesn't" spring to mind. One shouldn't overlook pollsters' mentalities when they approach their work. It is 2018. The census where pollsters go for certain baselines is becoming out of date.

    Katniss Everdeen October 7, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    It's the Downing Street Memo dusted off and updated for 2016 Election Theater.

    " .the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

    Hanging chads ain't gonna cut it and the "supreme" court is missing a "supreme." Who'll question her win when the polls predicted it all along?

    NYPaul October 7, 2016 at 6:56 pm

    Hillary didn't get this far just to risk losing it on an election, Nov. 8.

    ;With the F.B.I, Justice Department, Presidency, and, the entire Corporate, Media, and Banking Establishment carrying her water

    Who does Donald Trump have?

    Donald Trump

    ambrit October 7, 2016 at 7:22 pm

    He also has about a half of the electorate.
    We could steal a page from the Communist Chinese playbook and call them "The Gang of One Hundred Million."

    Cocomaan October 7, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    Seems to me that they are not accounting for actual turnout. What does "a poll of likely voters" mean, anyway?

    There's a lot of people feeling disenfranchised.

    Carolinian October 7, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    On the road checking out my peeps in the heartland. No special insights but did spot a man by the road in Taos holding up a hand lettered "Trump is a fascist" sign– nothing if not unoriginal. Nobody was honking. The people I know just want tne whole thing to be over.

    Arizona Slim October 7, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    Funny you should mention southeastern PA.

    Due to the recent death of a parent, I had to go back there for three weeks. In the midst of organizing memorial events, starting the estate probate process, and tending to the needs of my surviving parent, I noticed something very interesting. And that was an almost complete lack of pre-election displays.

    I think I saw one Trump sign the entire time I was there. Hillary signs? I don't remember seeing any. Hillary bumper stickers? One or two.

    And this was in oh-so-pivotal Chester County.

    pretzelattack October 7, 2016 at 7:18 pm

    same experience, i see very few yard signs or bumper stickers. the ones i do see seem about evenly split.

    [Oct 08, 2016] As the Surveillance Expands, Best Way to Resist is to Bury the NSA in Garbage

    Notable quotes:
    "... Waihopai, INFOSEC, Information Security, Information Warfare, IW, IS, Priavacy, Information Terrorism, Terrorism Defensive Information, Defense Information Warfare, Offensive Information, Offensive Information Warfare, National Information Infrastructure, InfoSec, Reno, Compsec, Computer Terrorism, Firewalls, Secure Internet Connections, ISS, Passwords, DefCon V, Hackers, Encryption, Espionage, USDOJ, NSA, CIA, S/Key, SSL, FBI, Secert Service, USSS, Defcon, Military, White House, Undercover, NCCS, Mayfly, PGP, PEM, RSA, Perl-RSA, MSNBC, bet, AOL, AOL TOS, CIS, CBOT, AIMSX, STARLAN, 3B2, BITNET, COSMOS, DATTA, E911, FCIC, HTCIA, IACIS, UT/RUS, JANET, JICC, ReMOB, LEETAC, UTU, VNET, BRLO, BZ, CANSLO, CBNRC, CIDA, JAVA, Active X, Compsec 97, LLC, DERA, Mavricks, Meta-hackers, ^?, Steve Case, Tools, Telex, Military Intelligence, Scully, Flame, Infowar, Bubba, Freeh, Archives, Sundevil, jack, Investigation, ISACA, NCSA, spook words, Verisign, Secure, ASIO, Lebed, ICE, NRO, Lexis-Nexis, NSCT, SCIF, FLiR, Lacrosse, Flashbangs, HRT, DIA, USCOI, CID, BOP, FINCEN, FLETC, NIJ, ACC, AFSPC, BMDO, NAVWAN, NRL, RL, NAVWCWPNS, NSWC, USAFA, AHPCRC, ARPA, LABLINK, USACIL, USCG, NRC, ~, CDC, DOE, FMS, HPCC, NTIS, SEL, USCODE, CISE, SIRC, CIM, ISN, DJC, SGC, UNCPCJ, CFC, DREO, CDA, DRA, SHAPE, SACLANT, BECCA, DCJFTF, HALO, HAHO, FKS, 868, GCHQ, DITSA, SORT, AMEMB, NSG, HIC, EDI, SAS, SBS, UDT, GOE, DOE, GEO, Masuda, Forte, AT, GIGN, Exon Shell, CQB, CONUS, CTU, RCMP, GRU, SASR, GSG-9, 22nd SAS, GEOS, EADA, BBE, STEP, Echelon, Dictionary, MD2, MD4, MDA, MYK, 747,777, 767, MI5, 737, MI6, 757, Kh-11, Shayet-13, SADMS, Spetznaz, Recce, 707, CIO, NOCS, Halcon, Duress, RAID, Psyops, grom, D-11, SERT, VIP, ARC, S.E.T. Team, MP5k, DREC, DEVGRP, DF, DSD, FDM, GRU, LRTS, SIGDEV, NACSI, PSAC, PTT, RFI, SIGDASYS, TDM. SUKLO, SUSLO, TELINT, TEXTA. ELF, LF, MF, VHF, UHF, SHF, SASP, WANK, Colonel, domestic disruption, smuggle, 15kg, nitrate, Pretoria, M-14, enigma, Bletchley Park, Clandestine, nkvd, argus, afsatcom, CQB, NVD, Counter Terrorism Security, Rapid Reaction, Corporate Security, Police, sniper, PPS, ASIS, ASLET, TSCM, Security Consulting, High Security, Security Evaluation, Electronic Surveillance, MI-17, Counterterrorism, spies, eavesdropping, debugging, interception, COCOT, rhost, rhosts, SETA, Amherst, Broadside, Capricorn, Gamma, Gorizont, Guppy, Ionosphere, Mole, Keyhole, Kilderkin, Artichoke, Badger, Cornflower, Daisy, Egret, Iris, Hollyhock, Jasmine, Juile, Vinnell, B.D.M.,Sphinx, Stephanie, Reflection, Spoke, Talent, Trump, FX, FXR, IMF, POCSAG, Covert Video, Intiso, r00t, lock picking, Beyond Hope, csystems, passwd, 2600 Magazine, Competitor, EO, Chan, Alouette,executive, Event Security, Mace, Cap-Stun, stakeout, ninja, ASIS, ISA, EOD, Oscor, Merlin, NTT, SL-1, Rolm, TIE, Tie-fighter, PBX, SLI, NTT, MSCJ, MIT, 69, RIT, Time, MSEE, Cable & Wireless, CSE, Embassy, ETA, Porno, Fax, finks, Fax encryption, white noise, pink noise, CRA, M.P.R.I., top secret, Mossberg, 50BMG, Macintosh Security, Macintosh Internet Security, Macintosh Firewalls, Unix Security, VIP Protection, SIG, sweep, Medco, TRD, TDR, sweeping, TELINT, Audiotel, Harvard, 1080H, SWS, Asset, Satellite imagery, force, Cypherpunks, Coderpunks, TRW, remailers, replay, redheads, RX-7, explicit, FLAME, Pornstars, AVN, Playboy, Anonymous, Sex, chaining, codes, Nuclear, 20, subversives, SLIP, toad, fish, data havens, unix, c, a, b, d, the, Elvis, quiche, DES, 1*, NATIA, NATOA, sneakers, counterintelligence, industrial espionage, PI, TSCI, industrial intelligence, H.N.P., Juiliett Class Submarine, Locks, loch, Ingram Mac-10, sigvoice, ssa, E.O.D., SEMTEX, penrep, racal, OTP, OSS, Blowpipe, CCS, GSA, Kilo Class, squib, primacord, RSP, Becker, Nerd, fangs, Austin, Comirex, GPMG, Speakeasy, humint, GEODSS, SORO, M5, ANC, zone, SBI, DSS, S.A.I.C., Minox, Keyhole, SAR, Rand Corporation, Wackenhutt, EO, Wackendude, mol, Hillal, GGL, CTU, botux, Virii, CCC, Blacklisted 411, Internet Underground, XS4ALL, Retinal Fetish, Fetish, Yobie, CTP, CATO, Phon-e, Chicago Posse, l0ck, spook keywords, PLA, TDYC, W3, CUD, CdC, Weekly World News, Zen, World Domination, Dead, GRU, M72750, Salsa, 7, Blowfish, Gorelick, Glock, Ft. Meade, press-release, Indigo, wire transfer, e-cash, Bubba the Love Sponge, Digicash, zip, SWAT, Ortega, PPP, crypto-anarchy, AT&T, SGI, SUN, MCI, Blacknet, Middleman, KLM, Blackbird, plutonium, Texas, jihad, SDI, Uzi, Fort Meade, supercomputer, bullion, 3, Blackmednet, Propaganda, ABC, Satellite phones, Planet-1, cryptanalysis, nuclear, FBI, Panama, fissionable, Sears Tower, NORAD, Delta Force, SEAL, virtual, Dolch, secure shell, screws, Black-Ops, Area51, SABC, basement, data-haven, black-bag, TEMPSET, Goodwin, rebels, ID, MD5, IDEA, garbage, market, beef, Stego, unclassified, utopia, orthodox, Alica, SHA, Global, gorilla, Bob, Pseudonyms, MITM, Gray Data, VLSI, mega, Leitrim, Yakima, Sugar Grove, Cowboy, Gist, 8182, Gatt, Platform, 1911, Geraldton, UKUSA, veggie, 3848, Morwenstow, Consul, Oratory, Pine Gap, Menwith, Mantis, DSD, BVD, 1984, Flintlock, cybercash, government, hate, speedbump, illuminati, president, freedom, cocaine, $, Roswell, ESN, COS, E.T., credit card, b9, fraud, assasinate, virus, anarchy, rogue, mailbomb, 888, Chelsea, 1997, Whitewater, MOD, York, plutonium, William Gates, clone, BATF, SGDN, Nike, Atlas, Delta, TWA, Kiwi, PGP 2.6.2., PGP 5.0i, PGP 5.1, siliconpimp, Lynch, 414, Face, Pixar, IRIDF, eternity server, Skytel, Yukon, Templeton, LUK, Cohiba, Soros, Standford, niche, 51, H&K, USP, ^, sardine, bank, EUB, USP, PCS, NRO, Red Cell, Glock 26, snuffle, Patel, package, ISI, INR, INS, IRS, GRU, RUOP, GSS, NSP, SRI, Ronco, Armani, BOSS, Chobetsu, FBIS, BND, SISDE, FSB, BfV, IB, froglegs, JITEM, SADF, advise, TUSA, HoHoCon, SISMI, FIS, MSW, Spyderco, UOP, SSCI, NIMA, MOIS, SVR, SIN, advisors, SAP, OAU, PFS, Aladdin, chameleon man, Hutsul, CESID, Bess, rail gun, Peering, 17, 312, NB, CBM, CTP, Sardine, SBIRS, SGDN, ADIU, DEADBEEF, IDP, IDF, Halibut, SONANGOL, Flu, &, Loin, PGP 5.53, EG&G, AIEWS, AMW, WORM, MP5K-SD, 1071, WINGS, cdi, DynCorp, UXO, Ti, THAAD, package, chosen, PRIME, SURVIAC ..."
    Oct 08, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org
    by Dave Lindorff

    Word that Yahoo! last year, at the urging of the National Security Agency, secretly developed a program that monitored the mail of all 280 million of its customers and turned over to the NSA all mail from those who used any of the agency's thousands of keywords, shows that the US has become a total police state in terms of trying to monitor every person in the country (and outside too).

    With the courts, especially at the appellate and Supreme Court level, rolling over and supporting this massive evisceration of basic freedoms, including the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure and invasion of privacy, perhaps the best way for us to fight back is to overload the spy system. How to do this? Just copy and paste random fragments of the following list (a bit dated, but useable), provided courtesy of the publication Business Insider, and include them in every communication - email, social media, etc. - that you send out.

    The secret Yahoo! assault (reported on here by Alfredo Lopez in yesterday's article ), works by searching users' emails for keywords on an NSA list of suspected words that might be used by alleged terrorists or anti-government activists, and then those suspect communications are forwarded to the NSA, where humans eventually have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Too much chaff (and they surely have too much chaff anyhow!) and they will be buried with work and unable to read anything.

    In fact, critics of the government's metastasizing universal surveillance program, including former FBI agents and other experts, have long criticized the effort to turn the US into a replica of East Germany with its Stazi secret police, cannot work and is actually counter-productive, because with spy agencies' limited manpower looking at all the false leads provided by keyword monitoring, they are bound to miss the real dangerous messages. In fact, this was also the argument used against the FBI's program of monitoring mosques and suspecting every Muslim American who expressed criticism of the US. Most are just people saying what a lot of us say: that the US wars in the Middle East are wrong or even criminal, but they are just citizens or immigrants exercising their free speech when they do this, not terrorists, and spying on them is and has been a huge waste or time and resources.

    ... ... ...

    a sample of the NSA's keyword list:

    Waihopai, INFOSEC, Information Security, Information Warfare, IW, IS, Priavacy, Information Terrorism, Terrorism Defensive Information, Defense Information Warfare, Offensive Information, Offensive Information Warfare, National Information Infrastructure, InfoSec, Reno, Compsec, Computer Terrorism, Firewalls, Secure Internet Connections, ISS, Passwords, DefCon V, Hackers, Encryption, Espionage, USDOJ, NSA, CIA, S/Key, SSL, FBI, Secert Service, USSS, Defcon, Military, White House, Undercover, NCCS, Mayfly, PGP, PEM, RSA, Perl-RSA, MSNBC, bet, AOL, AOL TOS, CIS, CBOT, AIMSX, STARLAN, 3B2, BITNET, COSMOS, DATTA, E911, FCIC, HTCIA, IACIS, UT/RUS, JANET, JICC, ReMOB, LEETAC, UTU, VNET, BRLO, BZ, CANSLO, CBNRC, CIDA, JAVA, Active X, Compsec 97, LLC, DERA, Mavricks, Meta-hackers, ^?, Steve Case, Tools, Telex, Military Intelligence, Scully, Flame, Infowar, Bubba, Freeh, Archives, Sundevil, jack, Investigation, ISACA, NCSA, spook words, Verisign, Secure, ASIO, Lebed, ICE, NRO, Lexis-Nexis, NSCT, SCIF, FLiR, Lacrosse, Flashbangs, HRT, DIA, USCOI, CID, BOP, FINCEN, FLETC, NIJ, ACC, AFSPC, BMDO, NAVWAN, NRL, RL, NAVWCWPNS, NSWC, USAFA, AHPCRC, ARPA, LABLINK, USACIL, USCG, NRC, ~, CDC, DOE, FMS, HPCC, NTIS, SEL, USCODE, CISE, SIRC, CIM, ISN, DJC, SGC, UNCPCJ, CFC, DREO, CDA, DRA, SHAPE, SACLANT, BECCA, DCJFTF, HALO, HAHO, FKS, 868, GCHQ, DITSA, SORT, AMEMB, NSG, HIC, EDI, SAS, SBS, UDT, GOE, DOE, GEO, Masuda, Forte, AT, GIGN, Exon Shell, CQB, CONUS, CTU, RCMP, GRU, SASR, GSG-9, 22nd SAS, GEOS, EADA, BBE, STEP, Echelon, Dictionary, MD2, MD4, MDA, MYK, 747,777, 767, MI5, 737, MI6, 757, Kh-11, Shayet-13, SADMS, Spetznaz, Recce, 707, CIO, NOCS, Halcon, Duress, RAID, Psyops, grom, D-11, SERT, VIP, ARC, S.E.T. Team, MP5k, DREC, DEVGRP, DF, DSD, FDM, GRU, LRTS, SIGDEV, NACSI, PSAC, PTT, RFI, SIGDASYS, TDM. SUKLO, SUSLO, TELINT, TEXTA. ELF, LF, MF, VHF, UHF, SHF, SASP, WANK, Colonel, domestic disruption, smuggle, 15kg, nitrate, Pretoria, M-14, enigma, Bletchley Park, Clandestine, nkvd, argus, afsatcom, CQB, NVD, Counter Terrorism Security, Rapid Reaction, Corporate Security, Police, sniper, PPS, ASIS, ASLET, TSCM, Security Consulting, High Security, Security Evaluation, Electronic Surveillance, MI-17, Counterterrorism, spies, eavesdropping, debugging, interception, COCOT, rhost, rhosts, SETA, Amherst, Broadside, Capricorn, Gamma, Gorizont, Guppy, Ionosphere, Mole, Keyhole, Kilderkin, Artichoke, Badger, Cornflower, Daisy, Egret, Iris, Hollyhock, Jasmine, Juile, Vinnell, B.D.M.,Sphinx, Stephanie, Reflection, Spoke, Talent, Trump, FX, FXR, IMF, POCSAG, Covert Video, Intiso, r00t, lock picking, Beyond Hope, csystems, passwd, 2600 Magazine, Competitor, EO, Chan, Alouette,executive, Event Security, Mace, Cap-Stun, stakeout, ninja, ASIS, ISA, EOD, Oscor, Merlin, NTT, SL-1, Rolm, TIE, Tie-fighter, PBX, SLI, NTT, MSCJ, MIT, 69, RIT, Time, MSEE, Cable & Wireless, CSE, Embassy, ETA, Porno, Fax, finks, Fax encryption, white noise, pink noise, CRA, M.P.R.I., top secret, Mossberg, 50BMG, Macintosh Security, Macintosh Internet Security, Macintosh Firewalls, Unix Security, VIP Protection, SIG, sweep, Medco, TRD, TDR, sweeping, TELINT, Audiotel, Harvard, 1080H, SWS, Asset, Satellite imagery, force, Cypherpunks, Coderpunks, TRW, remailers, replay, redheads, RX-7, explicit, FLAME, Pornstars, AVN, Playboy, Anonymous, Sex, chaining, codes, Nuclear, 20, subversives, SLIP, toad, fish, data havens, unix, c, a, b, d, the, Elvis, quiche, DES, 1*, NATIA, NATOA, sneakers, counterintelligence, industrial espionage, PI, TSCI, industrial intelligence, H.N.P., Juiliett Class Submarine, Locks, loch, Ingram Mac-10, sigvoice, ssa, E.O.D., SEMTEX, penrep, racal, OTP, OSS, Blowpipe, CCS, GSA, Kilo Class, squib, primacord, RSP, Becker, Nerd, fangs, Austin, Comirex, GPMG, Speakeasy, humint, GEODSS, SORO, M5, ANC, zone, SBI, DSS, S.A.I.C., Minox, Keyhole, SAR, Rand Corporation, Wackenhutt, EO, Wackendude, mol, Hillal, GGL, CTU, botux, Virii, CCC, Blacklisted 411, Internet Underground, XS4ALL, Retinal Fetish, Fetish, Yobie, CTP, CATO, Phon-e, Chicago Posse, l0ck, spook keywords, PLA, TDYC, W3, CUD, CdC, Weekly World News, Zen, World Domination, Dead, GRU, M72750, Salsa, 7, Blowfish, Gorelick, Glock, Ft. Meade, press-release, Indigo, wire transfer, e-cash, Bubba the Love Sponge, Digicash, zip, SWAT, Ortega, PPP, crypto-anarchy, AT&T, SGI, SUN, MCI, Blacknet, Middleman, KLM, Blackbird, plutonium, Texas, jihad, SDI, Uzi, Fort Meade, supercomputer, bullion, 3, Blackmednet, Propaganda, ABC, Satellite phones, Planet-1, cryptanalysis, nuclear, FBI, Panama, fissionable, Sears Tower, NORAD, Delta Force, SEAL, virtual, Dolch, secure shell, screws, Black-Ops, Area51, SABC, basement, data-haven, black-bag, TEMPSET, Goodwin, rebels, ID, MD5, IDEA, garbage, market, beef, Stego, unclassified, utopia, orthodox, Alica, SHA, Global, gorilla, Bob, Pseudonyms, MITM, Gray Data, VLSI, mega, Leitrim, Yakima, Sugar Grove, Cowboy, Gist, 8182, Gatt, Platform, 1911, Geraldton, UKUSA, veggie, 3848, Morwenstow, Consul, Oratory, Pine Gap, Menwith, Mantis, DSD, BVD, 1984, Flintlock, cybercash, government, hate, speedbump, illuminati, president, freedom, cocaine, $, Roswell, ESN, COS, E.T., credit card, b9, fraud, assasinate, virus, anarchy, rogue, mailbomb, 888, Chelsea, 1997, Whitewater, MOD, York, plutonium, William Gates, clone, BATF, SGDN, Nike, Atlas, Delta, TWA, Kiwi, PGP 2.6.2., PGP 5.0i, PGP 5.1, siliconpimp, Lynch, 414, Face, Pixar, IRIDF, eternity server, Skytel, Yukon, Templeton, LUK, Cohiba, Soros, Standford, niche, 51, H&K, USP, ^, sardine, bank, EUB, USP, PCS, NRO, Red Cell, Glock 26, snuffle, Patel, package, ISI, INR, INS, IRS, GRU, RUOP, GSS, NSP, SRI, Ronco, Armani, BOSS, Chobetsu, FBIS, BND, SISDE, FSB, BfV, IB, froglegs, JITEM, SADF, advise, TUSA, HoHoCon, SISMI, FIS, MSW, Spyderco, UOP, SSCI, NIMA, MOIS, SVR, SIN, advisors, SAP, OAU, PFS, Aladdin, chameleon man, Hutsul, CESID, Bess, rail gun, Peering, 17, 312, NB, CBM, CTP, Sardine, SBIRS, SGDN, ADIU, DEADBEEF, IDP, IDF, Halibut, SONANGOL, Flu, &, Loin, PGP 5.53, EG&G, AIEWS, AMW, WORM, MP5K-SD, 1071, WINGS, cdi, DynCorp, UXO, Ti, THAAD, package, chosen, PRIME, SURVIAC

    [Oct 08, 2016] The United States as Destroyer of Nations by Daniel Kovalik

    www.counterpunch.org
    In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for "nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.

    The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.

    More

    Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

    [Oct 08, 2016] Yahoo Email Scanner Was Installed by Government

    Oct 07, 2016 | news.antiwar.com
    Software Could've Given NSA Much More Access Than Just Emails
    Former employees of Yahoo have corroborated this week's stories about the company scanning all emails coming into their servers on behalf of the NSA, saying that the "email scanner" software was not Yahoo-built, but actually made and installed by the US government .

    The employees, including at least one on Yahoo's own internal security team, reported finding the software on the email server and believing they were begin hacked, before executives informed them the government had done it. They described the software as a broader "rootkit" that could give the NSA access to much more than just emails.

    To make matters worse, the employees say the government's software was "buggy" and poorly-designed , meaning it could've given other hackers who discovered it the same access to the Yahoo server, adding to the danger it posed to customers' privacy.

    Yahoo itself has been mostly mum on the matter, issuing a statement claiming the initial reports were "misleading" but not elaborating at all. The NSA denied the claim outright, though they have been repeatedly caught lying about similar programs in the past.

    [Oct 07, 2016] The media are misleading the public on Syria by Stephen Kinzer

    Notable quotes:
    "... For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it. ..."
    "... Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. "Turkish-Saudi backed 'moderate rebels' showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars," one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, "The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS - so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?" ..."
    "... This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a "liberated zone" for three years but is now being pulled back into misery. ..."
    "... Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the "moderate opposition" will win. This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media. ..."
    "... Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus. ..."
    "... Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan's UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her. ..."
    "... The truth is that Kinzer is right. We have no idea what is going on in Syria. For the elites in Washington and their press lackeys to report that one side is moderate and the other is not is ludicrous. ..."
    Feb 18, 2016 | The Boston Globe

    Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why.

    For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.

    This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The militants' hold on the city could be ending.

    Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. "Turkish-Saudi backed 'moderate rebels' showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars," one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, "The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS - so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?"

    This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a "liberated zone" for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.

    Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the "moderate opposition" will win. This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.

    Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank "experts." After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.

    Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.

    Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of "rebels" or "moderates," not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for years been running a "rat line" for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on Turkey's good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it - and because that is the official line in Washington.

    Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan's UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.

    Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.

    Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans - and many journalists - are content with the official story. In Syria, it is: "Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!" This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.

    Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. Follow him on Twitter @stephenkinzer.


    kaisy 02/18/16 03:38 PM

    The truth is that Kinzer is right. We have no idea what is going on in Syria. For the elites in Washington and their press lackeys to report that one side is moderate and the other is not is ludicrous.

    When the uprising against Assad began three years ago, initially we were on the side of the angels, that is until we found out that they were mostly Al Queda. Fast forward and now we have ISIS, the sworn enemy of the US and anybody else that disagrees with them. So now, remarkably, some are looking at Assad as the voice of moderation. This is so akin to Afghanistan and, decades ago, Vietnam. When you don't understand the players and their ulterior motives, best to not get involved. Me, I'd leave this to the Saudis and Iran to fight over. Cruz talks about carpet bombing Syria until the sand glows (btw, real Christianlike there). I say defer to those over there. Eventually they'll run out of people to do the fighting (happening already with ISIS), then, and only then, we can go in and pick up the pieces.


    jkupie02/19/16 07:16 AM

    "Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of "rebels" or "moderates," not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise."

    I don't know enough about the area to confirm or disprove most of Mr. Kinzer's points but I DO KNOW that this claim is false.

    tyfox"n" 02/19/16 07:40 PM

    jkupiue I absolutley agree. I have never read or heard al-Nusra described as anything but an al-Qaeda group, and it is stated every time al-Nusra is mentioned.

    pegnva 02/19/16 07:58 AM

    Hard to know the truth...but it is interesting Kinzer was able to QUOTE former Sec'ty of State, now presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the recent Milwaukee debate for falsely taking credit, some might say lying to the Am public.

    kaisy 02/19/16 11:24 AM

    Hillary is on the wrong side of this. She wants a no fly zone in Syria, just the Repubs. She doesn't speak to the consequences of the policy. Unfortunately Bernie has not challenged her on this. He really needs to.

    NH-Repub 02/19/16 09:22 AM

    Leftout is right and Hillary is the Queen of Doublespeak. Obama and his minions would like nothing better than to mislead the masses and keep them in the dark about everything. That way they control the media and by proxy - us!

    [Oct 07, 2016] Alliance with Al-Queda to remove Assad is now official Washington groupthink that is even more dangerous than the one that led to the Iraq War by Robert Parry

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not since the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has Official Washington's political/punditry class clamored more single-mindedly – and openly – for the U.S. government to commit a gross violation of international law, now urging a major military assault on the government of Syria while also escalating tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
    "... And, like the frenzied war fever of 2002-2003, today's lawless consensus is operating on a mix of selective, dubious and false information – while excluding from the public debate voices that might dare challenge the prevailing "group think." It's as if nothing was learned from the previous disaster in Iraq. ..."
    "... U.S. regional "allies" have been funding and arming radical jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda terrorists ..."
    "... the claim about "moderate" Syrian rebels is a fraud; the "moderates" have served essentially as a P.R. cut-out for the U.S. and its "allies" to supply Al Qaeda and its allies with sophisticated weapons while pretending not to. ..."
    Oct 05, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RGC : October 06, 2016 at 08:34 AM New 'Group Think' for War with Syria/Russia
    October 5, 2016

    Official Washington has a new "group think" that is even more dangerous than the one that led to the Iraq War. This one calls for U.S. escalation of conflicts against Syria and nuclear-armed Russia.

    Not since the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has Official Washington's political/punditry class clamored more single-mindedly – and openly – for the U.S. government to commit a gross violation of international law, now urging a major military assault on the government of Syria while also escalating tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.

    And, like the frenzied war fever of 2002-2003, today's lawless consensus is operating on a mix of selective, dubious and false information – while excluding from the public debate voices that might dare challenge the prevailing "group think." It's as if nothing was learned from the previous disaster in Iraq.

    Most notably, there are two key facts about Syria that Americans are not being told: one, U.S. regional "allies" have been funding and arming radical jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda terrorists , there almost since the conflict began in 2011 and, two, the claim about "moderate" Syrian rebels is a fraud; the "moderates" have served essentially as a P.R. cut-out for the U.S. and its "allies" to supply Al Qaeda and its allies with sophisticated weapons while pretending not to.
    .................................
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/05/new-group-think-for-war-with-syriarussia/

    [Oct 06, 2016] Plant closing threats and actual plant closings are extremely pervasive and effective components of U.S. employer anti-union strategies.

    Oct 06, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> anne... October 06, 2016 at 06:21 AM , October 06, 2016 at 06:21 AM

    http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=cbpubs

    March, 1997

    We 'll Close! Plant Closings, Plant-Closing Threats, Union Organizing and NAFTA
    By Kate Bronfenbrenner

    PLANT-CLOSING THREATS and actual plant closings are extremely pervasive and effective components of U.S. employer anti-union strategies. From 1993 to 1995, employers threatened to close the plant in 50 percent of all union certification elections and in 52 percent of all instances where the union withdrew from its organizing drive ("withdrawals"). In another 18 percent of the campaigns, the employer threatened to close the plant during the first-contract campaign after the election was won.

    Nearly 12 percent of employers followed through on threats made during the organizing campaign and shut down all or part of the plant before the first contract was negotiated. Almost 4 percent of employers closed down the plant before a second contract was reached.

    This 15 percent shutdown rate within two years of the certification election victory is triple the rate found by researchers who examined post-election plant-closing rates in the late 1980s, before the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect.

    These overall percentages actually underestimate the extent employers use plant-closing threats, since they include industries and sectors of the economy where threats to shut down and move facilities are much less likely and carry less weight because the industry or product is less mobile. In mobile industries such as manufacturing, transportation and warehouse/distribution, the percentage of campaigns with plant-closing threats is 62 percent, compared to only 36 percent in relatively immobile industries such as construction, health care, education, retail and other services. Where employers can credibly threaten to shut down or move their operations in response to union activity, they do so in large numbers.

    [Oct 06, 2016] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/06/could-italys-renzi-be-next-victim-of-an-unwanted-referendum

    Notable quotes:
    "... the issue of the elite against the people. ..."
    Oct 06, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    The other European referendum, soon to be known as the Italian Job. Interesting the way the article touches on the issue of the elite against the people.

    [Oct 05, 2016] American Dignity

    It is really interesting to read those comments from march 2016 in October ;-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... I'm tempted to think that the Liberal Establishment hasn't had the same problem to the same degree because the liberals recognize that Democrats want to do more, but they've been stymied by the Republican refusal to give Obama any wins. ..."
    "... Trump is a backlash against the GOP elite, in all its various and sundry forms. Whether Kasich, Jeb, Rubio, Christie, or anyone else -- none of these are acceptable to the disillusioned party base. ..."
    "... Much of the angst on the Democratic side isn't against the Democratic establishment per se ..."
    "... To Republican supporters of Donald Trump: I understand your anger and rage at the Republican Party's failure to pay sufficient attention to your economic concerns – specifically the consequences of exports of jobs and illegal "imports" of workers. but also issues like wage stagnation. I understand, therefore, when the GOP finally has a candidate who does mention these concerns front and centre, he has an appeal for you lacking in the other candidates. ..."
    "... America's wounds are entirely self-inflicted. They include the massively destructive drug war; imperialist adventures that have drained the national wealth, made life less safe, and savaged civil liberties; and an increase of government spending as a percentage of GDP from 7 percent in 1900 to 37 percent today. Almost any economist, left or right, would agree that trade and immigration (legal or not) are net benefits. ..."
    "... Conservatives, Republican or not, have failed to defend, much less extend, economic freedom; have supported the growth of government; and have persistently supported militaristic empire. ..."
    "... He is the upshot of an ideology whose prominent voices have included Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly. In politics, you get what you pander to. ..."
    "... What you're trying to do is make the "What's the matter with Kansas?" argument a matter of the candidate's approach not the voters' response. But in the final analysis, it amounts to the same thing. ..."
    "... James Fallows quotes a data analysis of the vote in Michigan that finds to the analyst's surprise that districts that suffered the greatest loss of manufacturing were NOT the districts that voted predominately for Trump meaning "economic anxiety" does not explain the Trump voting pattern. ..."
    "... The number of immigrants and their young children grew six times faster than the nation's total population from 1970 to 2015 - 353 percent vs. 59 percent. ..."
    "... This is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule. ..."
    "... Joe Biden has run for president a couple of times, and he always stayed in single digits for the simple reason that he always puts his foot in his mouth, way in. ..."
    "... "his is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule. ..."
    "... And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should ask for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should ask why we are doing this. ..."
    "... Obama and most Democrats understood very well the anger of poor whites and they tried desperately to win their votes. And, as is now made plain by so many poor, white Trump supporters, they didn't vote for Obama and other Democratic politicians because they believe those politicians hold them in low esteem or have called them racists. ..."
    "... But the pivot to a Mr. trump has far more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy aside from immigration. It was his less than aggressive use of the military. ..."
    "... It's obvious to many commentators that working-class Republican voters are voting against their own interests by allowing themselves to be fooled by cultural cues and dog whistles. But the big unreported story is that the same thing is happening in the Democratic primaries as well. Poor Southern Blacks are voting by colossal margins for the Wall Street version of the Democratic Party over the socialist version of the Democratic Party. Why? Because the Wall Street candidate is married to a guy who has all his Southern fried cultural cues and dog whistles working right and the socialist has spent too much of his time among up-tight Yankees in Vermont. ..."
    "... Anyone who thinks Conservatives, all three of them in proportion to the rest of the electorate will stay home and let Hillary be elected is in need of oxygen. When it comes to the general election Trump will probably bury Hillary. ..."
    "... But let us understand one important thing. Trump is in no way destroying the Republican Party. They will still hold the House, may hang onto the Senate, and will still hold the majority of state governments. That is hardly a party that is being destroyed. In the long run, the Democrats are in far worse shape as that Republican majority in every other branch of government not only means that the Democrats do not have much a farm team for future presidential nominees, (look what they got stuck with this year.) but also it means enough barriers being thrown up in the way of the Democrats voting blocks to keep from even voting at all. ..."
    "... "but rich people with poor impulse control are pretty much the last people you want in positions of power." That makes a great tweet, but it's helpful to get beyond abstract generalities. Trump has poor impulse control on his mouth, to be sure, but there's every indication that his impulses will not lead to new wars or "kinetic" military actions in places like North Africa, the Middle East or Ukraine. His impulsiveness has also led him to reveal that he wants to be "neutral" on the Palestinian question. To me, his non-interventionist "impulses," if you will, are extremely important on a purely pragmatic level. ..."
    "... Union-busting has done more to undercut and immiserate the working class than mass immigration and "free trade," and union leaders spending millions of dollars on electing Democrats and Republicans (at the state level) have betrayed their membership and the working class. ..."
    "... Immigration and trade policies do need to be addressed but rebuilding the unions is the vital step for doing so. ..."
    "... "There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats, NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are "prone to brutality and violence "" ..."
    "... The WWC started abandoning the Democratic Party starting with the 1966 mid-term elections. The last Democratic candidate for President to get a majority of the white male vote was LBJ in 1964. ..."
    "... The Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts were used as wedge issues by the 1968 Nixon campaign. Read all about it in Kevin Phillips' book The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips helped design the Southern Strategy. Also see Atwater, Lee. ..."
    "... The rich have always had a lot of influence in the Republican Party, but under George W. Bush, the wealthy totally took over the party, and the party establishment began to worship at the altars of globalism and tax cuts for the rich. The party could care less about its' Base. The party totally lost the concept of the Common Good, such as we had under Eisenhower and even Nixon. ..."
    "... The Base has been faithfully voting Republican in spite of getting very little out of the arrangement, but they are now starting to wake up. The GOP Establishment is going to have to make some changes; they can be for free enterprise, but with some concern for American workers. ..."
    "... "Jackson believed that the president's authority was derived from the people and the presidential office was above party politics. Instead of choosing party favorites, Jackson chose 'plain, businessmen' whom he intended to control." ..."
    "... This is why Jackson was hated, smeared and maligned, and the same is true of Trump. ..."
    "... "In regard to the Petticoat affair, Jackson later remarked, 'I [would] rather have live vermin on my back than the tongue of one of these Washington women on my reputation.'" ..."
    "... "If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big mistake." ..."
    "... "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.)" ..."
    "... "They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And they're voting now for Donald Trump." Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate the establishment that they maintain. It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta be it. ..."
    "... Rod – do you realize how many of Featherstone's words and sentiments could have been applied to Black Lives Matter? In all seriousness, as I was reading him, I kept thinking, "Working Class White Lives Matter." ..."
    "... I'm one of those doing quite well, and supporting Mr. Trump's bid for the Presidency. I'm a degreed mathematician doing research and development in cybersecurity, with a growing portfolio of professional publications, and patents pending. I'm a Marine veteran of the Iraq war whose 'eggs aren't too scrambled'. I married woman who went to one of the best schools in the UK and graduated with honors from one of the best universities in the US. I truly believe that my wife, my child, and I will be fine no matter who wins this election. ..."
    "... GOP policy wrt to its impact on many working and middle class Americans seems to me to be a classic case of emperors new clothes. ..."
    "... This blog has replaced Scott Adams as the go to place for understanding Trump. Adams deservedly got a lot of credit for correctly predicting that Trump would not collapse, but his own repeated assertions that truth doesn't matter in a 3d world are flatly inconsistent with his pretense to just be reporting the facts about Trump. Once one suspects that he's pretending to report the facts while really drumming up support for Trump it becomes clear how one sided is his analysis. Adams' own sophistic views about the primacy of rhetoric and human beings as meat machines don't license any other interpretation. ..."
    "... If the news is to be believed, Trump is certainly no friend of the unions, at least in his own business dealings. ..."
    "... Trump speaks for a group that has been abandoned and marginalized by the political classes. He is bringing them back into the system and perhaps bringing a little more balance back to domestic politics. I don't think elites change unless they feel threatened, and I hope Trump is threatening enough to the elites, without actually posing the threat a real revolutionary would pose. ..."
    "... My knee-jerk position is to support the working people against the rich. But, given the voting patterns of the white working class going back to 1980, and even to 1968, I find myself vacillating between feeling for them and believing that they got what they wanted (and deserved) good and hard. ..."
    Mar 10, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    EngineerScotty , says: March 10, 2016 at 4:18 pm
    I'm tempted to think that the Liberal Establishment hasn't had the same problem to the same degree because the liberals recognize that Democrats want to do more, but they've been stymied by the Republican refusal to give Obama any wins.

    One other interesting thought:

    Trump is a backlash against the GOP elite, in all its various and sundry forms. Whether Kasich, Jeb, Rubio, Christie, or anyone else -- none of these are acceptable to the disillusioned party base. Nor would Mitt Romney be were he to waltz into the convention and wrest the nomination away from Crump–his main selling point in 2012 was that he wasn't Barack Obama, and that's not relevant this time around.

    Much of the angst on the Democratic side isn't against the Democratic establishment per se , but against the specific person of Hillary Rodham Clinton (and a few other specific Democrats whom the left intensely dislikes, no others of which are running), who has, for reasons both good and bad, a lot of enemies. Were the 22nd Amendment to not around to prevent it and Obama to seek a third term, he'd waltz to the nomination. Were Joe Biden to run in her stead, he'd receive widespread support across the board. Likewise with many other party fixtures who are highly popular among Democrats (even if reviled outside the party).

    Stephen Gould , says: March 10, 2016 at 6:24 pm
    I'm just going to repost what I posted on my FB page yesterday:

    To Republican supporters of Donald Trump: I understand your anger and rage at the Republican Party's failure to pay sufficient attention to your economic concerns – specifically the consequences of exports of jobs and illegal "imports" of workers. but also issues like wage stagnation. I understand, therefore, when the GOP finally has a candidate who does mention these concerns front and centre, he has an appeal for you lacking in the other candidates.

    ... ... ...

    Nicolas , says: March 10, 2016 at 6:34 pm
    America's wounds are entirely self-inflicted. They include the massively destructive drug war; imperialist adventures that have drained the national wealth, made life less safe, and savaged civil liberties; and an increase of government spending as a percentage of GDP from 7 percent in 1900 to 37 percent today. Almost any economist, left or right, would agree that trade and immigration (legal or not) are net benefits.

    Conservatives, Republican or not, have failed to defend, much less extend, economic freedom; have supported the growth of government; and have persistently supported militaristic empire.

    Trump is the predictable result of the nasty and dunderheaded populism toward which conservatives have been moving for the past 25 years or so. He is the upshot of an ideology whose prominent voices have included Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly. In politics, you get what you pander to.

    Trump is winning by scapegoating those who bear no responsibility for America's social and economic ills. Still even conservatives who consider themselves proximate descendants of the old right twiddle their thumbs and blow kisses to the ignoramuses who embrace Trumpian populism, rather than challenging his malignant and foolish prescriptions. If Trump is elected and gets his way, perhaps the ensuing international economic disaster and war with China will help to clarify conservative thinking. I doubt it, though, since conservatism's singular distinction is its failure to accomplish anything that its adherents desire. The failure has been patent for a long time, and succinctly described by Hayek in 1960.

    http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

    ADC Wonk , says: March 10, 2016 at 7:03 pm
    What a great discussion!

    OK, responding to about a half-dozen different comments:

    First, regarding the "information bubble" that some are in, we have this:

    Aside from government employment the Clinton admin was a hostile force to their interests.

    Actually, the opposite was true. Fed Government employment went down 8 straight years during Clinton's Admin, and started going up again under Bush. Stereotypes don't equal facts.

    There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats, NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are "prone to brutality and violence "

    OK, now that's pretty ironic, coming on a day when a 78-yo Trump supporter just got arrested for sucker-punching a black guy who was getting thrown out of a Trump rally, as others were yelling f*****g n*****s. (See it at http://bcove.me/w5m1iftz - where the perpetrator goes on to say he enjoyed doing it and would kill him next time) (And the day after Trump's own campaign manager Corey Lewandowski accosted a Breitbart reporter). Violence at Trump rallies is nothing new in 2016. Google it.

    One commenter said that entire reason the WWC votes for the GOP is: "Race. That's it. Pure and simple."

    The response from another: "What a load of crap."

    I'm going to take a middle ground. I think that the Dems had far better economic policies towards the WWC than the GOP, but that because of the Dems leaning so far liberal on social issues , that partially alienated the WWC.

    But race was most definitely a part of it. Southern Strategy? Welfare Queen? Lee Atwater? Those things really happened and we can't wish them away.

    Look - being against immigration for economic reasons has some logic. But being harsh about it also attracts xeonophobes and racists. I don't think Trump is racist, but when he was a bit slow to respond to the KKK's endorsement of him, I think Trump was trying to figure out a way not to damage his support among the white nationalistic crowd.

    William F. Buckley, we could sure use you now!

    The evidence is thick is that despite his election, certain elements in the Republican Party persisted in presenting Obama as the Other, the treasonous Other.

    Indeed. He was a black-Commie-Kenyan who was illegible to be Prez. And note who was a prominent leader of the so-called "birther movement"? None other than The Donald himself. And the GOP, with a nod and a wink, didn't protest too much, because they thought it'd be useful in the 2012 elections. (McCain of all people, bless him, was one of the few prominent GOPers in 2008 who pushed back on this Otherization.)

    "The problem with BLM and the 'racism' narrative is that there is a real demonstrable problem in that young Black men commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes (for whatever reason), and you can't come up with good public policy unless you get honest about that fact."

    True. But the problem with the pushback against BLM is that there is a real demonstrable problem that there are a number of racist police who target blacks and abuse their authority - and lie on official reports about it. (The Ferguson Report was absolutely devastating!) Conservatives who favor limited government ought to be all over that, no? The main thing that's changed now is the ubiquity of cell-phone cameras and increasing use of dash-cams, so we all can see, with our own eyes, what the black community has been complaining about for 150 years.

    Chris Atwood , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:29 pm
    Dancer Girl,
    What you're trying to do is make the "What's the matter with Kansas?" argument a matter of the candidate's approach not the voters' response. But in the final analysis, it amounts to the same thing.

    Assuming (for the sake of argument) that Bernie will get blacks the single-payer health insurance and free college tuition they've longed for. You're saying that because he didn't approach their barbershop the right way, they voted against that–not just for themselves, but for their families, their children, the whole country. That's not any different from saying that W won the election because white people thought he was the kind of the guy you could have a beer with.

    Your response shows that no, there's no way you can spin the "They vote against their best interest and good policy because of culture" argument in a way that doesn't make them look like bad voters. You understood that fact, which is why you felt that you had to reply and say, no, that's not really the case. You felt the need to rebut it. Well, so do white working class voters when the argument's used against them. Which illustrates why using that argument is not a good way to win over voters.

    And by the way, reality check: winning 30% of the vote of a given demographic in a two way contest is not promising, not hopeful, not a turning point–not any of the things the Sanders campaign says it is. It's getting CRUSHED, SHELLACKED, DEFEATED IN A LANDSLIDE–what ever headline phrase you want to use. The fact that it's being spun as somehow a great new emerging reality of a "Feel the Bern" moment among African-Americans is testimony to the enduring hold of the myth that the "What's the matter with Kansas" argument is only relevant for the voting behavior of down-market whites.

    KS , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:44 pm
    James Fallows quotes a data analysis of the vote in Michigan that finds to the analyst's surprise that districts that suffered the greatest loss of manufacturing were NOT the districts that voted predominately for Trump meaning "economic anxiety" does not explain the Trump voting pattern.

    https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/708100889370873856

    Rossbach , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:45 pm
    "But it always struck me there was some other agenda to the immigration."

    The number of immigrants and their young children grew six times faster than the nation's total population from 1970 to 2015 - 353 percent vs. 59 percent.

    This is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule.

    And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should ask for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should ask why we are doing this.

    We are, in short, being told to commit suicide. For our children's sake, is both our right and our duty to refuse.

    Siarlys Jenkins , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:06 pm
    Were Joe Biden to run in her stead, he'd receive widespread support across the board.

    Joe Biden has run for president a couple of times, and he always stayed in single digits for the simple reason that he always puts his foot in his mouth, way in. I have difficulty believing he wouldn't do so again. I mean, he did it on the afternoon after the inauguration. Then there is his propensity to pontificate on what Catholic doctrine really means - just like dominic1955 does. A political leader in a constitutional republican should simply say "I was elected to represent the people of Delaware, not my church."

    panda , says: March 11, 2016 at 12:57 pm
    "his is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule.

    And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should ask for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should ask why we are doing this.

    We are, in short, being told to commit suicide. For our children's sake, is both our right and our duty to refuse."

    Let's be honest here: there is pretty much 1:1 correlation between people who are concerned about "replacement " of American people, and people who think Black Americans, here since the 1500s, and some other smaller groups, here since the 1800s, don't belong to the nation you are trying to "protect." Which is why your tears seem so hollow to outsiders..

    Bert Clere , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:46 am
    The majority of blue collar Trump supporters would have been the direct beneficiaries of Obama's American Jobs Act. The only reason Boehner and McConnell wouldn't allow that to pass is they knew that a good economy benefits Obama.

    But ironically in allowing these economic inequalities to fester they made it conducive for Trump's rise. The GOP deserves Trump. He is their reward for years of crony capitalism, irresponsible government, petty obstruction, and outright nihilism.

    And as scared as I am of Trump I look at the electoral map and don't see any possible route for his victory. Are we really to believe that his vulgar, racist nationalism will move Ohio, Florida, and Virginia back to the GOP column? Are we really to believe that millions of good conservatives stayed home in 2012, but that Trump will be the ticket to bring them to the polls in 2016? No.

    Trump as GOP nominee all but guarantees President Hillary Clinton. And where will conservatism go from there? Republican leaders have no one left to lie to. Meep, Meep.

    collin , says: March 10, 2016 at 11:07 am
    But Ross Perot was that rich guy back in 1992, and he choked. But that was near the beginning of globalization.

    1) Globalization was already here in 1992 and ushered in by the Reagan Revolution and the battle of the Carter years. Wasn't the boom box in college dorm (or apartment) manufactured in Japan? Michael Moore first big movie "Roger and Me " was released in 1989. (And centered around Flint, MI)

    2) How did Perot choke? He got 19% against a (now respected) incumbent and the 'Elvis' of politicians. Yes he made some errors but that was one heck of run for a third party.

    E. Potson , says: March 10, 2016 at 11:18 am
    RD: If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big mistake.

    I suspect most mainstream Democrats already understand Trump's appeal. Obama explained this very plainly eight years ago in a speech in which he referenced these voters' bitterness and their clinging to guns and religion. He took a lot of heat from Republicans for that speech, but it's very hard to read that speech and disagree with it.

    Obama and most Democrats understood very well the anger of poor whites and they tried desperately to win their votes. And, as is now made plain by so many poor, white Trump supporters, they didn't vote for Obama and other Democratic politicians because they believe those politicians hold them in low esteem or have called them racists. That is the running theme in all of these sympathetic posts about Trump supporters. It's a lazy cheap shot because it is never corroborated by any example of a Democratic politician ever actually doing this or anything remotely like it. It's just an ineffectual way to avoid responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.

    These people don't vote for Democratic politicians because they don't like the other people who vote for Democratic politicians. They do not use their votes to pursue policies that improve their own conditions. Instead, they use their votes as a weapon against people with whom they have a grievance.

    As Charles Featherstone said: Trump is poking all of the right people in the eyes for all the right reasons. Over and over we hear commenters on this very blog express some desire to stick it to SJWs, elites, coastal elites and others who they dislike. Well, there is a cost for using your vote as an expression of resentment instead of a tool for implementing good policy. The obvious cost is that you will be harmed by the policies of the Republican politicians you vote for.

    Another, less obvious cost is that other people will think you are backward or less intelligent, for why else would you pursue policies that clearly harm you just so you can express dislike for someone else? That's really not anyone else's fault. More importantly, it's not at all clear how Democrats could change this and still help their current supporters.

    EliteCommInc. , says: March 10, 2016 at 11:22 am
    First the Republican party is not in a state of free fall. Just because the people shut out since Pres. Reagan took office as the party shifted toward an interested and wealthier class doesn't mean those people have not been around. Yesterday I got my voter notice. It said I was unaffiliated. A battle I go through ever election cycle. And I was prepared to go through it again until I read this morning that Mr. trump is back peddling on immigration.

    We aren't even in the general and he is already tiptoeing through the tulips. I hope it's not true. Not only is the Republican Party not in disarray, it is in a position to flex some conservative muscle if they stand to course. That is unless Mr. trump turns out to be a liberal in disguise all along and that may be.

    I don't get my dignity veracity, faith integrity from the political party. I am associated with the Republican party because they reflect a healthy dose of what I believe. Perhaps a lot less. Upon examination, it's hard to think of anything the party represents that I consider vital conservative thought.

    I guess if you want to call my loyalty to country bigotry that's your call. I know Mr. trump will not be calling for a national day of celibacy, prayer, etc. I don't expect him to. I expect him to govern and I expect him to govern with some sense of understanding one cannot raise taxes and without a good dose of history that whatever they are being raised for is most likely unnecessary for anything aside from pandering to some emotional call.

    He still as to deal with a connected establishment Congress.

    But the pivot to a Mr. trump has far more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy aside from immigration. It was his less than aggressive use of the military.

    Mr. Trump is not going to turn the country into a Hugo Chavez haven of halting corruption. These kinds of hyperbolic refections of Republican party eulogies are not unknown in history and thus far they have proved wrong. The Party may shift hopefully more rightward than left. Hopefully it will shift more country orientation. But make no mistake, Mr Trump will not have been the cause of any decay. He will be the benefactor of a decay the levin of which has gone unchecked for quite a long time.

    Chris Atwood , says: March 10, 2016 at 11:40 am
    Another thought provoked by Dancer Girl's comments:

    "I just wish [Trump voters]'d leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders."

    Well it would be nice if poor Southern Blacks would do the same.

    It's obvious to many commentators that working-class Republican voters are voting against their own interests by allowing themselves to be fooled by cultural cues and dog whistles. But the big unreported story is that the same thing is happening in the Democratic primaries as well. Poor Southern Blacks are voting by colossal margins for the Wall Street version of the Democratic Party over the socialist version of the Democratic Party. Why? Because the Wall Street candidate is married to a guy who has all his Southern fried cultural cues and dog whistles working right and the socialist has spent too much of his time among up-tight Yankees in Vermont.

    Just one more way in which salt of the earth Blacks and Whites aren't all that different and are, in everything except tribal allegiance, getting more similar all the time. Both put racial honor and dignity over economic self-interest, and for a technocratic, policy-oriented politics aiming to just make lives better, that's a real problem.

    icarusr , says: March 10, 2016 at 12:11 pm
    BCaldwell:

    To the liberals and progressives who still dismiss the travails of the white working class, you only reinforce their alienation and disdain for you.

    I have, throughout my adult life, supported economic policies that directly or indirectly benefitted the working class (white or otherwise) to my own economic detriment. You name the policy – unionization, higher minimum wages, public health insurance, strong and well-funded public education at all levels, better public transport, mixed-income housing, consumer protection for financial services, etc. etc. – I have either advocated or in fact implemented it. I have done so in most instances in direct contradiction to my own economic interests, because I thought it was the right thing to do. I have even argued against affirmative action, in recognition of the resentments it creates, even as I see "hockey/baseball/football/church choir-club affirmative action" all around me. Grin and bear it; old habits take long to die.

    Now, the same people I have been trying to help, called me a "parasite" because I was in the public sector, "blood-sucker" because I was a lawyer, and a couple of unmentionables because I'm gay and slightly tanned.

    So, please, spare me the "dismiss and be disdained" business: I never dismissed but more often than not got disdain just because. I wish I had in me to say they deserve their lot, and they will deserve the eventual betrayal by Trump, but I don't. I'm still a good little liberal, disturbed by all of this to be sure, but nevertheless hopeful that I can make a difference – for them (I don't need any help).

    Andrew Jackson:

    They were "America is still racist." And they set out to prove it. Now we feel more bitterly divided then ever. I could go into more detail, about the issues involved, but it's just frustrating to me, and the stuff I quoted above is ready made excuse that is not true to my experience.

    When Obama became president, Republican leaders set out to make him a one-term president, not by offering better solutions, but by making sure he would achieve nothing. The first black president. And when the birther nonsense continued, Republican leaders did nothing to stop it – as late as 2012, Romney was making light of his birthplace. The first black president. Even as they attack him for following Wright, a protestant pastor, he was accused of being a secret Muslim. And Republican leaders did little to combat this calumny.

    The evidence is thick is that despite his election, certain elements in the Republican Party persisted in presenting Obama as the Other, the treasonous Other. Some of it was because he was a Democrat. But if you are suggesting that racism has had nothing to with what Obama has gone through, well, we just have to disagree.

    Charles Cosimano , says: March 10, 2016 at 12:17 pm
    Anyone who thinks Conservatives, all three of them in proportion to the rest of the electorate will stay home and let Hillary be elected is in need of oxygen. When it comes to the general election Trump will probably bury Hillary.

    I want to see how he will work with Congress. We know Congress won't have anything to do with Hillary and the House will vote to impeach her the first chance it gets, possibly the day after the inauguration. A vote for Hillary is, at the very least, a vote for four years of absolute gridlock and virtual civil war in DC. Bernie might actually get some of his less radical ideas through simply because everyone likes him and for all of his nuttiness does seem to actually care about the American people before he cares about the sacred policy.

    But let us understand one important thing. Trump is in no way destroying the Republican Party. They will still hold the House, may hang onto the Senate, and will still hold the majority of state governments. That is hardly a party that is being destroyed. In the long run, the Democrats are in far worse shape as that Republican majority in every other branch of government not only means that the Democrats do not have much a farm team for future presidential nominees, (look what they got stuck with this year.) but also it means enough barriers being thrown up in the way of the Democrats voting blocks to keep from even voting at all.

  • pitchfork , says: March 10, 2016 at 1:13 pm
    "but rich people with poor impulse control are pretty much the last people you want in positions of power." That makes a great tweet, but it's helpful to get beyond abstract generalities. Trump has poor impulse control on his mouth, to be sure, but there's every indication that his impulses will not lead to new wars or "kinetic" military actions in places like North Africa, the Middle East or Ukraine. His impulsiveness has also led him to reveal that he wants to be "neutral" on the Palestinian question. To me, his non-interventionist "impulses," if you will, are extremely important on a purely pragmatic level.
    EngineerScotty , says: March 10, 2016 at 2:02 pm
    An earlier comment I thought I had posted seems to have vanished (maybe I failed to hit "send" before leaving for the office )

    But +1 to those who compare the plight of working-class whites to African-Americans. Both groups have subcultures who engage in self-destructive behaviors and take perverse pride in doing so. Yet, it seems, around here–one of these groups are yeoman folk suffering at the hands of working-class elites who look down at them, but the other are simply thugs and layabouts. Around here, one culture is met with sympathy, and the other with scorn. One are the victims of circumstances, the other are the architects of their own misery.

    But of course, this goes way beyond racial politics. Many conservatives lionize the late Margaret Thatcher, who is often held to have "saved Britain". Saved it from what exactly–the Russians or the Germans or the French or the Spanish or the Normans or the Vikings or the Romans? No–she is held to have saved Britain from its own people–specifically unionized miners who had, according to the retelling, captured an excessive share of the country's wealth. Perhaps they had–truly answering that question requires either getting into nasty questions of comparable worth, or abandoning the whole question to the market–but in doing so, she smashed many of Britain's institutions and communities to bits.

    And around here–many of the people who seem outraged at the decline of factory work in rural communities; were openly cheering the demise of Detroit (and often still are). Many people who lament the outsourcing of good-paying American jobs, and the devastation of many communities that result–hate and resent their local schoolteachers or bus drivers who still do have good jobs with good pay. Granted, public employees have their paychecks financed by the taxpayer, so the general public is in the position of "management"–but still, the point stands: Some people expect aid and sympathy when they hit hard times, but have responded to the please of others in similar circumstances with shame and judgment.

    Given that we bailed out Detroit, of course we should help struggling small towns. But we should help all struggling communities best we can, not only those with particular demographics, leaving the rest to fester. No demographic in the United States is uniquely noble and uniquely deserving of public support. To the extent that WCWs believe that they are more noble, more industrious, more patriotic, and more virtuous than the rest of us–sorry, you're not. (But nor, on the whole, are you any worse).

  • cka2nd , says: March 10, 2016 at 2:37 pm
    Union-busting has done more to undercut and immiserate the working class than mass immigration and "free trade," and union leaders spending millions of dollars on electing Democrats and Republicans (at the state level) have betrayed their membership and the working class.

    Immigration and trade policies do need to be addressed but rebuilding the unions is the vital step for doing so. Unfortunately, I don't see the latter happening absent the development of a tough, theoretically vibrant revolutionary socialist movement, which is my only concession to the pessimism (or cynicism?) of Walter F.

    Antony , says: March 10, 2016 at 2:55 pm
    Jim the First:
    "if you're talking about parochial schools in the Catholic sense – they integrated before Brown v. Board for the most part. If you're talking about parochial schools in the non-Catholic sense, there just aren't enough of them to matter very much."

    Now that all depends on exactly where you are. In the flatter South, protestant or non-denominational Christian Academies are more important. I can't speak to other northern areas, but around here, the Catholic Schools are why the city is 50/50 black and white, and the public schools are 80% black.

    dominic1955 , says: March 10, 2016 at 2:59 pm
    "There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats, NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are "prone to brutality and violence ""

    I think he's saying white trashy people he's had experience with are like that, not Trump supporters by and large.

    He's right to some degree. I don't see my fellow white collar folks getting drunk of Steel Reserve and having to have the cops come in an break up a "domestic dispute".

    oldlib , says: March 10, 2016 at 3:08 pm
    Jim the First-
    The WWC started abandoning the Democratic Party starting with the 1966 mid-term elections. The last Democratic candidate for President to get a majority of the white male vote was LBJ in 1964.

    The Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts were used as wedge issues by the 1968 Nixon campaign. Read all about it in Kevin Phillips' book The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips helped design the Southern Strategy. Also see Atwater, Lee.

    True, it wasn't all race. Hippies and peaceniks were associated with the Democrats. Acid, amnesty, and abortion had a lot to do with it too.
    But race was the first big crack in the edifice of the New Deal coalition.

    MJR , says: March 10, 2016 at 5:52 am
    That bit about immigration, about being sacrificed, hits too close to home. Mr. Featherstone expresses the point very well.
    anonymousse , says: March 10, 2016 at 6:25 am
    Basically, three anecdotes.

    "The point is that Charles has been beat up pretty bad by life. It's still happening. He's a middle-aged white guy struggling for work, struggling to find solid ground."

    "They lost their influence, their dignity and their shot at the American Dream, and now they're angry. They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And they're voting now for Donald Trump."

    "But I get why people less secure economically than I am don't care, and are for him anyway."

    Plus this:

    "Point is, Trump is drawing from all demographic groups."

    The point is, this last observation invalidates your entire post. If Trump is drawing from all demographic groups, then his success isn't explained by anecdotes about poor, economically dispossessed people.

    You still don't get it.

    anonymousse

    Uncle Billy , says: March 10, 2016 at 6:28 am
    The rich have always had a lot of influence in the Republican Party, but under George W. Bush, the wealthy totally took over the party, and the party establishment began to worship at the altars of globalism and tax cuts for the rich. The party could care less about its' Base. The party totally lost the concept of the Common Good, such as we had under Eisenhower and even Nixon.

    The Base has been faithfully voting Republican in spite of getting very little out of the arrangement, but they are now starting to wake up. The GOP Establishment is going to have to make some changes; they can be for free enterprise, but with some concern for American workers.

    On top of it all, the demographics of the US are changing and whites are shrinking as a percentage of the electorate. The GOP cannot be a whites only party. Having written off African-Americans, they are now writing off Hispanics. Unless the GOP makes some fundamental changes, they will not win another national election.

    Randal , says: March 10, 2016 at 6:57 am
    " But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither are their problems and concerns. "

    This is why I see it as the American Spring.

    Granted it doesn't have the massive numbers of protesters that the countries where "Springs" have been claimed before have had. America is not yet anywhere approaching the levels of poverty and other problems that those countries have, and there is still some of the illusion of democracy left in its oligarchic politics. And America doesn't have a far richer superpower interfering and aggressively promoting, with seemingly unlimited wealth and power, its own political culture as the potential solution to all the ills of the people in the target country, and deliberately holding out the hope of superpower military intervention on behalf of the protesters if they just cause enough trouble for long enough.

    But still, the Trump candidacy seemingly has triggered something that won't just go away when Trump goes away (unless another anaesthetising period of economic growth cones along to postpone things for a while). It will merely develop along different lines according to how Trump is treated and how far he gets.

    wintermute , says: March 10, 2016 at 7:04 am

    As productivity climbed, working-class Americans wanted their wages to rise also. Instead, Republicans gave them tax cuts for the rich while liberal Democrats called them racists and bigots.

    Who voted the Republicans into power? We know it wasn't African-Americans (80+% of them vote Democratic), nor was it Latinos, nor Hispanics, nor Asians(not enough of them) nor was it wealthy people (again not enough of them). So all that left is White people (aka Real Americans™) and as we all know the vast majority of White Americans are working and middle class. So basically the White Working and Middle classes voted for the policies that screwed them, the only question left to answer is why. Where they to lazy and stupid to read the Republican Platform ? or was it something else?

    I have very limited sympathy for the the White Working and Middle classes, particularly the Southern ones, they got what they voted for. A little less blaming of liberals & democrats and a whole lot of self-awareness would do wonders.

    Allan , says: March 10, 2016 at 7:09 am
    You have been over-analyzing the Trump phenomenon and the psyche of the white working class these last few weeks. You make it sound as if they are some poor oppressed class whose life's are miserable. I am one of them. I am from them through and through and my life isn't too bad. I'm quite blessed actually.

    Do I have the opportunities that my grandfather who worked at a Ford factory without a high school diploma, and retired in his early 50's? Or my dad who was able to buy a home on a grocery store stock boy's wage? No. But I have a safe and warm place to live, a job, a beautiful family, and my heart is not full of hatred.

    You don't seem to give as much time looking into the hearts and souls of poor black folks or undocumented workers and their struggles. Maybe their struggles aren't noble enough for you attention and obsessive mulling over. But, let me tell you, they have plenty of legit complaints that go way beyond "Boohoo! I don't have very much savings!"

    ck , says: March 10, 2016 at 7:57 am
    "Nobody has ever seen a thing like this in American politics."

    You need to revise this statement to say, "in post WWII American television politics." If you study the history of the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian eras, you will find many examples that resemble today. I think we over sentimentalize past American politics. Trump very much resembles the politics and attitude of Jacksonian era America. Just take a look at the back and forth between the campaigners of John Quincy Adams and the General:

    "Jackson blamed the death of his wife, Rachel, which occurred just after the election, on the Adams campaigners who called her a 'bigamist.'"

    Here is another take on Jackson that sounds a lot like Trump:

    "Jackson believed that the president's authority was derived from the people and the presidential office was above party politics. Instead of choosing party favorites, Jackson chose 'plain, businessmen' whom he intended to control."

    This is why Jackson was hated, smeared and maligned, and the same is true of Trump.

    And if you think the tabloid gossip going on today is oh so shocking, check out the Petticoat Affair of 1830:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petticoat_affair

    "In regard to the Petticoat affair, Jackson later remarked, 'I [would] rather have live vermin on my back than the tongue of one of these Washington women on my reputation.'"

    [NFR: I meant "nobody alive has seen a thing like this". - RD]

    ck , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:00 am
    "Trump may be denied the GOP nomination, in the end, and he probably won't be elected president. But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither are their problems and concerns.

    "Who will speak for them then?"

    Vox Day points out that if the GOPe denies the nationalists with Trump, then later we will get something much worse, the ultra-nationalists.

    icarusr , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:07 am
    "If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big mistake."

    I agree with you – and go further: writing any voter off as a racist clod, or any clod, is idiotic.

    But clod or not, a certain segment of the American population has been – for lack of a better term – "alienated", for political purposes, by the fear and envy of the Other. It began with Reagan's infamous Welfare Queen speech in Mississippi, thus – and instantly – turning social welfare programs into a question of race. Liberals/progressives/Democrats have never been able to escape that – and they could exorcise the issue in electoral terms only by Bill Clinton's sharp tack to the right. Be that as it may, the gambit worked: the Democrats became known not only as the party of tax and spend, but also the party of Special Interests (of the rainbow variety), and the programs supported by Democrats became programs of the Other, to be challenged and dismantled, even if they benefited the white working class – the segment of the population Reagan cut off of the Democratic coalition.

    Then came the election of 2008, and suddenly the Other was in the White House. The Trumpkins want to "Take American Back" because they have been told that the Kenyan Socialist Muslim stole their country. The evidence for that is scant, non-existent, but no matter. Republican leaders have been screaming from the rooftops not just that the President of the United States should be replaced in the next election, which is a normal thing to say, but that, in effect, he and his administration are illegitimate; what he proposes is un-American; he is committing treason merely by being in Office.

    Any wonder then that the most vulnerable segment of the Republican base, subjected to thirty years of fear on the one hand and sustained economic attacks (mostly by their own side) on the other, then turn to one who promises deliverance?

    Rick67 , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:28 am
    "If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big mistake."

    I don't disagree. But why? *Why* would people (a) not try to understand and (b) write his backers off? And to be honest, I think that is exactly what they are doing. And that might be the more important story in this whole mess. We have reached a point where our cultural elites despise the masses.

    SteveM , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:37 am
    Re: Charles Featherstone, "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.)"

    Replace "white" with "black" or "hispanic" and see how far that observation travels. Featherstone should be writing for the "poor, uneducated and easy to command" Washington Post. His selective stereotypical misanthropy would fit right in.

    Good thing Featherstone has his lovely immigrant friends to talk to. God help him if he actually had to cavort with the repulsive white riff-raff.

    JLF , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:37 am
    "They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And they're voting now for Donald Trump." Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate the establishment that they maintain. It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta be it.
    DancerGirl , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:56 am
    Rod – do you realize how many of Featherstone's words and sentiments could have been applied to Black Lives Matter? In all seriousness, as I was reading him, I kept thinking, "Working Class White Lives Matter."

    It's frustrating that so many people will hear and connect, emotionally, with what he is saying, while dimissing many of the same ideas when they are put forth in the African-American context. It's like they are saying white people are hard-working, screwed over folks who may appropriately advance this argument, but black people are whiny, criminally-inclined ingrates who should not.

    I am genuinely struck by the way the core of his message speaks to the alienation, lack of faith, lack of trust, and real fear that spurred the rise of BLM. His words, however, will probably be met largely with compassion, while the movement's words will be dismissed, will be met with the assertion that the problem of police abusing authority is not as bad as they say it is, or will be met with the deflection to a morally and politically distinct issue - so-called "black-on-black" crime.

    It isn't just frustrating. It's depressing.

    DancerGirl , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:05 am
    To be clear, my thoughts about BLM, described above, are particularly troubling in the age of Trump. I'm noodling over a bunch of things right now, but one big concern I have is the seeming fragility of a multicultural nation. It feels like we are splintering; the competition for dignity, if you will, is becoming more intense because we are increasingly persuaded that it exists in finite supply; and that desire for dignity among Trump supporters is manifesting as shameless bigotry or willful blindness to it in pursuit of transformative ends.

    I get – and hear – the claims of despair that many Trump backers articulate. I just wish they'd leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders. He is, in so many ways, the flipside of Trump.

    Roger H. , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:09 am
    Good Morning Rod,

    I'm one of those doing quite well, and supporting Mr. Trump's bid for the Presidency. I'm a degreed mathematician doing research and development in cybersecurity, with a growing portfolio of professional publications, and patents pending. I'm a Marine veteran of the Iraq war whose 'eggs aren't too scrambled'. I married woman who went to one of the best schools in the UK and graduated with honors from one of the best universities in the US. I truly believe that my wife, my child, and I will be fine no matter who wins this election.

    But I'm cheering Mr. Trump and planning on voting for him.

    I come from a medium-sized city in Virginia that has hitched its wagon to the fortunes of the major state university there, as well as the two private colleges in the area. (One of which was briefly mentioned on this blog in the past year.) My hometown is historically a pretty rural area, but that's changing.

    As a case study, I would point you to our local poultry plant. It used to be the case that this plant provided good jobs to a lot of the locals who weren't college material, but now you'd be hard pressed to find many people who grew up in the county working there. You'd be hard pressed to find more than 15% or so of the workforce fluent in the English Language. The local workforce was replaced by cheaper immigrant labor.

    While this has happened, my hometown has become a major drug smuggling point in the East Coast. One of my childhood friends got caught up in the synthetic drug trade and is serving a 30-odd year sentence. There are gangs - Gangster Disciples, SUR 13 I believe I remember hearing about Bloods in the area. This is not the happy, little rural college town that I remember from my childhood. (And I do recognize that it may never have been the town of my childhood memories, but what it has become is NOT an improvement.)

    I also LOVE that Mr. Trump is standing up to the blatant dishonesty of political correctness. (But the PC rant is another topic that I haven't time for this morning.)

    Why am I supporting Mr. Trump? My close circle might well benefit a little bit more with another candidate, but I maintain a memory and fondness of the place that I came from and the people there. I'd like to see their world built back up, or at least to see its eroding and creative destruction ceased. Will Mr. Trump accomplish this? I don't know. He is pretty plainly stating that there's a problem, diagnosing it reasonably well, and claiming that he can do something about it. That's something. It's more than the lip service that we hear from the other candidates. Mr. Trump is a deeply flawed candidate and man, but beggars can't be choosers.

    Herenow , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:21 am
    GOP policy wrt to its impact on many working and middle class Americans seems to me to be a classic case of emperors new clothes. It's kind of surprising that it took so long for so many to see that it's naked. I wonder, if we hadn't had a decade or so of amped up patriotism from foreign wars whether it would have taken so long.
    Erik Lonnrot , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:24 am
    Rod, at what point do we need to stop merely trying to understand Trump supporters and start trying to stop them? All due respect, there's nothing about their support for him I don't understand. I understand them thoroughly. At the end of the day, they support a man who is now a monstrous demagogue and who would be a monstrous tyrant. I empathize with Charles Featherstone, who lucidly recognizes his attraction to Trump as envy. But he's also lucid enough not to vote for the guy.

    Look, I get not want to bolt over to Hilary Clinton. I also get being irate at the GOP and not wanting to vote for any of them in the general election. I would even get not voting in the primary, since virtually everyone except Rand Paul who is not Trump ran on some variation of the policies that got people mad at the party in the first place. (And Paul's economic ideas are less than feasible at this point in our history.) None of that is a good reason to vote for Trump. If the country really is in decline, Trump is the person who would leave it a smoking crater at the end of four years. Voting for him is madness. Yes, an "understandable" madness, but madness nonetheless.

    So. I've heard the sob stories. I've heard the litany of betrayals. I've heard the indictments of the GOP's bad faith. I swear to you that I get it. None of that is sufficient, in my book, to protect Trumpkins from the fundamentally true criticism that they are knowingly supporting a racist, xenophobic, misogynist, ignorant bully who encourages violence at his rallies and openly brags about abusing the system to make himself richer (and, by logical extension, to make the rest of us poorer). If the Trumpkins get that, and they don't care, what do we do, Rod? I mean, it's all well and good to give these people space to air their grievances and disappointments, but from where I sit, they are one hundred percent committed to the wholesale decimation of what precious little respect, civility, and coherent policy debate still remains in national politics. Doesn't this merit a vigorous, sustained rebuttal or denunciation?

    This is important, because Donald Trump is not "single-handedly destroying the Republican Party." He's doing it with the hands of every single person who has voted for him, and who has pledged to support his candidacy, however much longer that lasts. And if, God forbid, Trump actually makes it to the White House, he will not be "single-handedly" destroying the United States of America. He will do it with the help of every single one of the people who voted for him. I've no love for the Republican Party. They certainly, as they say, had this coming. But Trump is a menace to more than the GOP, and there are ways to weaken and destroy a political party that don't involve running a crypto-fascist as a viable primary candidate.

    At what point, Rod, do his voters start sharing culpability for every racist, misogynist, xenophobic, ignorant thing he says and every act of violence he encourages? Because your posts have made it very clear that they know exactly what kind of person he is. They're supporting him anyway. Which means that they are knowingly supporting all the evil crap that goes along with it. People of good conscience don't support that kind of stuff. As I said at the outset, I totally get refusing to vote Republican or Democrat. I get why people are angry. I get why, in theory, they want to vote for someone who will dismantle the status quo. And while I do totally understand why people vote for Trump, a huge part of that understanding is the knowledge that every single one of these people has endorsed, with eyes wide open and their consciences apparently clear, everything diabolical about his campaign as well.

    How much time are you going to spend trying to understand that ?

    Robert G , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:33 am
    Then why don't these poor desperate people vote for Bernie? Bernie Sanders has spent his whole life championing the poor and working class and his whole campaign is built around it. You want to ignore the racial aspects then fine. But don't pretend they don't exist. Maybe it is not even race as such. More class or clan solidarity. However, understanding the Trump voter and their general malaise does not detract that Trump is a dangerous demagogue who will ruin this country in the unlikely event he is elected.
    ADC Wonk , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:33 am
    You quoted Michael Cooper as saying:

    As productivity climbed, working-class Americans wanted their wages to rise also. Instead, Republicans gave them tax cuts for the rich while liberal Democrats called them racists and bigots.

    Mick, above, asks the question that I have:

    When did Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakais call white working class people bigots?

    That's a question worth pondering, imho.

    icarusr, above, notes:

    It began with Reagan's infamous Welfare Queen speech in Mississippi, thus – and instantly – turning social welfare programs into a question of race.

    Bingo. (Although, I would suggest that it's roots go back to Nixon's "Southern Strategy", and then to Lee Atwater's famous confession).

    Some of the dog-whistling is loud and clear (to be clear: I'm not accusing the GOP leaders of being racists - I'm accusing some of them of demagoguery).

    So when Dems see poor working class folks voting for officials that reject raising the minimum wage (see Arkansas, where they simultaneously voted to increase, and voted for officials who were against it), or promise to dismantle their state's version of Obamacare even though they love the program (see, e.g., Kentucky), Dems can't help wonder if the opposition to these programs - against their own interests - is based on the dog-whistle attacks concocted by the spiritual descendants of Atwater. These consultants tap into the fear expressed, or rather stoke the anger expressed by the idea "when I need government assistance, it's because I'm down on my luck, but I still work hard - when that black guy down the street applies for government assistance, it's because he's a lazy good-for-nothing."

    Which, really, is just a more crass way of saying "Welfare Queen!"

    (I know the above sounds harsh - for those unware of the Atwater reference, See, e.g., https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater )

    Kurt Gayle , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:35 am
    Rod said: "And now Trump. I think back to watching his Mobile rally - August 21 [actually 25], 2015 - on TV, the first time I had seen an entire Trump campaign speech. Thirty thousand people came out to hear him. And the speech was ridiculous - a rambling mess. I snorted that anybody would be taken in by this nonsense. I didn't care for any of his competitors either, but at least they gave coherent speeches. This guy? Clown."

    "Ridiculous nonsense"? Rod, you don't hear Trump speeches the way that Middle America hears him – the way that working America hears him.

    This is the link to the first of a 10-part transcript of Trump's Mobile speech and it's worth skimming through quickly, Rod, with the advantage of 6 months worth of hindsight. The Trump Mobile speech is a MASTERPIECE. Listening to it, I remember thinking: "Trump understands. Trump tells it like it is. Trump's the one!"

    http://www.whatthefolly.com/2015/08/25/transcript-donald-trumps-speech-in-mobile-alabama-part-1/

    Jon Cogburn , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:41 am
    This blog has replaced Scott Adams as the go to place for understanding Trump. Adams deservedly got a lot of credit for correctly predicting that Trump would not collapse, but his own repeated assertions that truth doesn't matter in a 3d world are flatly inconsistent with his pretense to just be reporting the facts about Trump. Once one suspects that he's pretending to report the facts while really drumming up support for Trump it becomes clear how one sided is his analysis. Adams' own sophistic views about the primacy of rhetoric and human beings as meat machines don't license any other interpretation.

    I think the moral center of this blog almost* always gives Rod a vastly greater appreciation of why people of good will believe and desire what they do, even when Rod disagrees. This is a general virtue of the blog, but it is really manifest in the coverage of Trump.

    The tragic sense of life, and the related appreciation for the necessity of tragic tradeoffs in human affairs, that informs true and worthwhile conservatism also proves (at least when leavened by love) to be conducive to understanding as well.

    I also think that Rod's analysis of these issues is getting out. I was talking to my father on the phone last night and asked him what he thought of Trump, and while he would never vote for Trump he said that it seemed to him that lots of people were very angry because the policies of the Republican party didn't answer to their pressing problems or concerns. If my father is understanding things this way, then I do think there is a real possibility of a paleoconservative moment coming out of the crack up of the Republican party's horrible Frankenstein melange of libertarian economics, neo-conservative foreign policy, and theocratic statism on drugs and gender, all sewn together with the kind of rent-seeking corruption under the guise of "privatization" and "economic development" that has now brought several states (including the gret stet where Rod and I reside) to their knees.

    Trump is scary, but I think a correct understanding of Trump points the way towards a better muddling through, which (as all paleocons will agree) is the best we can or should hope for this side of Heaven.

    [*Rare exceptions where I think Rod's moral imagination sometimes doesn't extend in this way- (1) evidence of coming to grips with the utter hell that many gay and transgender kids go through (especially in conservative Christian households where the suicide and homelessness rate of the gay kids is immense) and what biology now tells us about gender and sex, and (2) the intellectual foundations of the Protestant Reformation (e.g. rejecting Aquinas in favor of Augustine) and how that ties to liberal Protestants' sincere understanding of Christianity.]

    Mike Alexander , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:44 am
    I cannot buy this economic argument for support of Trump. Why no mention of Sanders, who is the only anti-free trade candidate running. Trump *says* he is opposed to free trade, but he is obviously lying. Historically who spoke for the white working class? Labor. And who was allied with Labor in the late 19th and early 20th century? The old Socialists, of whom Sanders is the only one left who holds any power.

    The Republicans have always been the party of the capitalist elites and the Whigs before then too. You can never get any support of working class white people from capitalists, they have completely opposing interests.

    [NFR: Because Bernie Sanders is a cultural leftist who supports generous immigration policies. - RD]

    Walter F. , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:45 am
    Charles Featherstone "But you leave people behind at your peril. You can tell them to "lie down and die," and some will. But many won't.

    And if there are enough of them, well "

    Well, *what*? I keep seeing these vague statements about how the white working class can only be "pushed so far", and that their anger must be addressed "or else". Or else what? I ask. They'll throw their votes away on an unacceptable candidate like Trump who cannot be allowed to take office (and thereby ensure Mrs. Clinton's election; yeah, that's *really* sticking it to us on the left), or some other futile, impotent tantrum. These are hollow threats.

    Rod "But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither are their problems and concerns."

    Actually, long-term demographic, economic and cultural trends mean that they *are* going away, albeit rather slowly. But, in the meantime, they can and will be increasingly contained. Read Cowen's "Average is Over" for how he predicts modern technologies, including electronic entertainment, robotic drones, machine surveillance, and psychiatric medications will likely prevent any rebellions. Or read David Brin's "The Transparent Society" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society ), about the increasing ubiquity of inescapable surveillance and "sousveillance". Add mass communication, information abundance, improvements and automation in marketing. And consider social media, with "Facebook felons" and Twitter "shadowbans". Or the return of Peeple, and the example set by China's "Sesame Credit". We're all watching one another, compiling and sharing data on one another. We have facial recognition software that is not only as good or better than human beings, but computers are already learning to recognize people's emotions from their facial expressions. Financial transactions are moving ever more away from hard-to-trace cash in favor of readily monitorable electronic transactions.

    Thus, any tantrums by the Trumpenproles that become disruptive will be swiftly and forcefully crushed. So, ultimately, what can they do, except "lie down and die"?

    bmj , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:52 am
    @Mick, you're right, and I assume your critique cuts both sides of the aisle, right? How do "modern" Democrats, beholden as they are to Wall Street and SV, still stand up for the trade unions? The unions, I suspect, vote Democrat for the same reason most Republicans still vote Republican: what other choice to do they have?

    If the news is to be believed, Trump is certainly no friend of the unions, at least in his own business dealings.

    Joel , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:52 am
    Perot might have won too, had he not withdrawn from the race and got back in. I will never forget the surreal feeling of going to Air Force basic training in 1992 and entering a news-free bubble for six weeks, and then emerging to find that Ross Perot was leading the polls in the three-way race! I think he would have won had he just stayed the course, but he looked erratic when he dropped out.
    KD , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:52 am
    Rod:

    I have to say that it is re-assuring to me that Trump is basically a demagogue, promising a chicken in every pot and every man a king, yet probably not going to deliver. The alternative to demagogue in this situation is a Vladimir Lenin, and you could imagine what a Lenin would do with the Trump support.

    Trump speaks for a group that has been abandoned and marginalized by the political classes. He is bringing them back into the system and perhaps bringing a little more balance back to domestic politics. I don't think elites change unless they feel threatened, and I hope Trump is threatening enough to the elites, without actually posing the threat a real revolutionary would pose.

    Further, I hope that the political system starts working for ALL people, not just some people. If not, they will get their Lenin and their Jacobin terror, and they will deserve it.

    David , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:00 am
    'Trump channels something - the rage and desperation of a people who know they don't matter anymore.'

    Maybe I'm a cynic, but when have they ever mattered? 'The People' had tastes of the American dream in the 1950's and the 80's, as far as I can see, and before, since, and in between have been taken utterly for granted. Maybe people felt like they mattered, tuning in to the same television shows and radio programs and meeting at church each week; maybe the body politic was able to relate to its representatives in a more meaningful way than the identikit dialtones that occupy the political stage now. But don't forget that back when people 'mattered' they were still shipped off to die in useless wars, there were still plenty of Americans working long hours for poor pay, and there were still politicians happy to lie barefaced to their constituency.

    Brooklyn Blue Dog , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:01 am
    @Wintermute. Amen.

    My knee-jerk position is to support the working people against the rich. But, given the voting patterns of the white working class going back to 1980, and even to 1968, I find myself vacillating between feeling for them and believing that they got what they wanted (and deserved) good and hard.

    And, let's be perfectly honest here. Why did the white working class abandon the Democratic Party, which supported their economic interests, in favor of the Republican Party, which did not?

    Race.

    That's it. Pure and simple. Even the evangelical movement is in large part a product of resistance to integration, as parochial schools could legally be segregated because they were private, and segregationists flooded into them in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education.

    And these madrassas trained the shock troops of the Republican Party, hell-bent to vote against their own interests because they were bigots.

    enjolras , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:03 am
    It's interesting how you can read Mr. Featherstone's words and see an "insightful post". Because when I read those words all I see is well, exhibit 3875 in why it makes no sense to try and understand why people support Trump. Say what you will about their frustration, alienation, disenchantment, whatever. Ultimately the whole thing is just incoherent and utterly unthoughtful.

    "Trump is poking all of the right people in the eyes for all the right reasons."

    The right people are immigrants and Muslims and the women Trump has attacked in the most personal of ways? He may be frustrating the ambitions of more conventional conservative politicians and driving decent liberals into hair-pulling fits, but that's all a result of his absolutely frightening willingness to whip up enmity towards people who, on the whole, have been attacked and disrespected far more directly and openly than most of Trump's supporters have been.

    And the right reasons are what, exactly? Is there any actual proof that the man really wants to make America great? Is there any reason to believe he's doing this for any reason other than to fill the hole in his psyche where self-acceptance should live? To people not under Trump's spell it is so obvious that his entire candidacy is about his ego, his unceasing need to be not admired by aggrandized that it's just astonishing to think of how many somersaults a person's critical faculties must perform to avoid recognizing it.

    "He's coarse and crude, but he appears to make no pretenses."

    Well, actually, he's nothing but pretenses. That's the problem. He lies. And lies so prolifically and so wildly that he's not so much a person, or even a character. He's a persona. He has transformed himself into a tissue thin representation of a "winner". But strip away the lies about how great he is, how great his business savvy is, etc and you realize that Donald Trump is a lot like Oakland. There's no there there.

    "But it always struck me there was some other agenda to the immigration. That there still is. I'm not sure what."

    This is the logic of someone who has mentally thrown their hands up and said, "I'm frustrated about my life, so I guess I'll blame, oh, I don't know immigration. Sure, why not?" Dress it up however you like, but this is functionally the same as posting a "No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish" sign on your soul.

    "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.) But you leave people behind at your peril."
    I agree with this, but let's not pretend that large swaths of this population have chosen to resist, at every turn, efforts made to help them. Those efforts themselves may have been clumsy, ineffective or counterproductive (there's lots of room for criticism and we shouldn't back away from it), but let's heed the mantra of personal responsibility as well. Because at a certain point I find myself getting a little, well, tetchy with people who over and over again supported policies, politicians and parties that hurt them financially because doing so hurt other people socially and legally and then, after realizing they've shoveled themselves to deep to ever climb out of their fiscal grave, turn to a demagogue as one last knife in the back to their countrymen.

    (sorry if this is a double post)

    Andrew Jackson , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:10 am
    Then came the election of 2008, and suddenly the Other was in the White House. The Trumpkins want to "Take American Back" because they have been told that the Kenyan Socialist Muslim stole their country.

    I find it so frustrating when people write stuff like this. People were so hopeful about Obama, so hopeful about racism in this country. But the first words out of certain sectors of left after Obama's election weren't hopeful ones about reconciliation. They were "America is still racist." And they set out to prove it. Now we feel more bitterly divided then ever. I could go into more detail, about the issues involved, but it's just frustrating to me, and the stuff I quoted above is ready made excuse that is not true to my experience.

    I get – and hear – the claims of despair that many Trump backers articulate. I just wish they'd leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders. He is, in so many ways, the flipside of Trump.

    And honestly, Trump supporters wish that you would rally around Trump. Certainly the differences between the two candidates are more than mere sensibility. But there is certainly an argument to be made that Trump's strength on immigration is preferable to Bernie Sanders's wishful thinking.

    Inigo Martinez , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:12 am

    Re: Charles Featherstone, "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.)"

    Replace "white" with "black" or "hispanic" and see how far that observation travels. Featherstone should be writing for the "poor, uneducated and easy to command" Washington Post. His selective stereotypical misanthropy would fit right in.

    Good thing Featherstone has his lovely immigrant friends to talk to. God help him if he actually had to cavort with the repulsive white riff-raff.

    I'm going to defend Charles Featherstone here. I don't think it does any good whatsoever to romanticize the working poor as salt of the earth, honest-to-goodness decent people who don't get a fair shake. Poverty brutalizes. The attempt to aid the downtrodden must be accompanied by a hard-headed assessment of the physical, emotional, and intellectual damage that poverty, deprivation, and neglect inevitably cause.

    "They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And they're voting now for Donald Trump."

    Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate the establishment that they maintain. It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta be it.

    I think what this speaks to more than anything is the total decay of political life at the local and community level. The Trump 'movement' is really a mass media event, played out on a national media stage, with many people playing and voting along just like they do on a regular talent show competition. But the potential for mobilizing those people into a movement that would start to build power locally simply doesn't exist.

    I suspect Trump voters understand this at some level but are powerless to do anything about it. So it seems that Trump voters are able to crash the rigged game of a media-driven national election reality show competition, but can do next to nothing about the iron grip of the institution they despise on the local politics that no doubt affects their lives far more on a daily basis. Which is really just to say, again, that the dominant motif of Trump voters is that they are fed up with being powerless and without influence.

    KD , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:13 am
    DancerGirl:

    The problem with identity politics is not the groups themselves, but the fact that they tend to put forward the most extreme leadership (and this generally happens for structural reasons so is inevitable).

    Further, politics is a zero sum game, so if my group gets the right not to bake cakes for gay weddings, then the other group loses the right to force people to bake cakes for their weddings. No matter where you draw the line, one group comes away with its feelings hurt. [Without pronouncing judgment on which group is "in the right".]

    The common draw between BLM and Trump is they are both playing on feelings of solidarity. Even though Trump is really not a white nationalist, and not talking white nationalism, there is an implicit tone of ethnic and class solidarity as much as there would be at a Black Power rally.

    I think it would be helpful to realize that the political leadership of all these groups are all a$$#0!*$, and the average member of the group is not nearly as radical. It is also necessary to recognize that someone is always going to lose, and work toward compromises notwithstanding the leadership, which is always going to be selling saints versus demons and no compromises.

    But I would like to see something like national solidarity, that Americans could come together as one people with a shared history, notwithstanding all the instances in which we have fought amongst ourselves, and try to start governing in the interest of everyone, and I bet there are plenty of BLM supporters and Trump supporters who would stand behind that message.

    But I think progressives are somewhat naive about mass politics. Sanders is coherent, he has a lot of policy content, he can articulate his position and I definitely think he has a point.

    But politics in mass democracy is ugly, mobilizing on a mass level is ugly. Progressives tend to focus on the ugliest side of "white solidarity", but if you go down to a minority neighborhood in Chicago during a highly contested race for mayor, you will note some salty language and maybe a stereotype or too coming out. It may be that only white people can be racist, but every ethnic and religious group can certainly be ugly when they are engaged in some kind of political struggle.

    In other words, there must always be a tragic dimension of politics, as well as a comic dimension, and American democracy will never be just a faculty lounge debate.

    [Oct 05, 2016] The VP Debate and Syria The American Conservative

    Oct 05, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The vice presidential debate was an irritating and boring event. One notable part was when Mike Pence outlined his views of what the U.S. should do in Syria:

    Asked how a Trump-Pence administration would stop the civil war carnage in Aleppo, Pence said that he, at least, "truly believe(s) that what America ought to do right now is immediately establish safe zones, so that families and children can work out of those areas," and "work with our partners [to] make that happen. Provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength." If Russia "continues to be involved" in airstrikes along with the Syrian government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, he said, "the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military forces of the Assad regime" and "prevent this crisis in Aleppo."

    Trump has said very little about Syria's civil war–and advocated none of the measures Pence outlined.

    That last part is not really true. Trump has endorsed creating safe zones in Syria on more than one occasion . While I don't believe Trump has a clear idea of what establishing a safe zone requires, he has had no problem voicing support for the idea several times. The fact that Pence felt comfortable outlining a very aggressive Syria policy in tonight's debate suggests that Trump doesn't really have a problem with what his running mate proposed. As I said when I was watching the debate, Pence's answer on Syria was deranged. He more or less threatened to initiate hostilities with Russia, and he seemed oblivious to the serious negative consequences this would have. He kept invoking "American leadership" and "American strength," as if uttering these phrases was all that mattered. Pence's advocacy for much more U.S. involvement in Syria could have been an easy target for Kaine, but of course he and Clinton have no disagreements with the Republican ticket on this issue. For all the quarreling between the two campaigns, both tickets apparently support U.S. escalation in Syria. As bad as the moderator for the debate was, she did at least manage to get both candidates to take positions on an issue that was completely ignored in the first presidential debate.

    Overall, Kaine's performance was shaky and didn't seem all that impressive to anyone that didn't know much about him. Despite arguably having better foreign policy experience than Pence, he did a worse job of demonstrating his readiness to be president if needed. His constant interruptions of Pence were jarring and off-putting, and created the impression of being an overly loyal terrier trying to defend his master. Pence's repeated failure to come to Trump's defense in response to Kaine's many jabs presumably hurt Trump, but it also made Pence seem much less agitated and rattled. Neither VP nominee significantly harmed his running mate, but Pence did a better job of making the case for his party's ticket.

    Who Stole The Strawberries?, says: October 4, 2016 at 11:48 pm
    " it also made Pence seem much less agitated and rattled"

    I agree. Kaine's nervousness, grimacing, and non-stop interruptions were annoying and a bit flaky. Pence seemed more composed and stable, even if some of what he said was a lot of nonsense straight out of the Interventionist Handbook.

    Temperamentally, Pence is the guy you'd want a heartbeat away from taking that 3:00AM call Kaine looked like he'd still be awake, jabbering into a dictaphone while vacuuming the Oval Office for the fifth time.

    Dakarian , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:13 am
    As far as Syria, and the middle east in general, this is sort of why I glossed over the statements that Hillary is a hawk: because I don't see any doves (that don't have far too many other problems to support). Trump started out sounding like he was but as time went on it sounded more and more like the regular republican "more money to the military. World Police! WIN!" talk.

    So at this point it sounds like both are going to keep us in the middle east. Though it seems Trump may mess with the Iran deal (though it might be less attacking it as it is just poking at the administration any chance you get).

    As far as the debate, Pence wanted a debate about policy while Kaine wanted a debate about Trump. if this was a presidential debate Pence probably would've been in a better standing.

    But I think Kaine wasn't even fighting him. He wasn't after policy. Beyond stating his points and a token defense his primary purpose was one thing, to say "remember, you aren't voting for Pence, but for Trump." He's picturing the public saying "Oh, Pence seems pretty coo..oh yeah, but he's with Trump..ewww."

    It pretty much sums up the entire deal with the republican side of the campaign. Take Trump out of it and you have a strong platform and an actual attempt at trying to extend somewhat past the old GOP mindset while evoking that Need For Change that pushed democrats back in '08. It's an actual strong case.

    The issue is that it's all on the hopes of Trump. And THAT is the hard sell. I don't even see many supporters defending him. It's like Pence: they bypass him and either focus on the dream or the enemy.

    Which leads to something interesting: If the roles were reversed: same platform, same general message, but Pence as President and Trump as VP, would it be hard for folks not two-feet in the Democratic ticket to vote R? Would there be a questioin as to who would win?

    I have a feeling that many would say : " I don't know. But I would have liked that campaign I would have liked that campaign very much.

    Old Dominionite , says: October 5, 2016 at 2:51 am
    If you'd told me that one of the two gentlemen debating last night was a Virginian and asked me who it was, I would have said Pence, solely because of his demeanor.

    Pence's thoughts on Syria were dumb (and dangerous), but I find it hard to hold that against run-of-the-mill politicians these days because they're getting such rotten information and advice from establishment "experts" and mainstream pundits. The country needs a changing of the guard when it comes to "experts".

    Kaine struck me as a third stringer trying to compensate for his own weaknesses by poking a stick in the other fellow's spokes. And no better on Syria, that's certain.

    furbo , says: October 5, 2016 at 7:29 am
    The way the question was phrased, evoking endangered children and the classic what should America 'do' .doesn't really allow a candidate to say 'nothing – we have no vital interests in Syria'.
    VikingLS , says: October 5, 2016 at 8:40 am
    If Pence is pushing that same "get tough with Russia and Assad" idea he's taking the opposite tack than Trump. Either they aren't communicating, the campaign figured that they could get away with completely altering their position from one debate to the next, or Pence doesn't really care what Trump thinks and is an unreformed GOP hawk.

    Either way this is very disappointing and stupid.

    collin , says: October 5, 2016 at 8:52 am
    Isn't the joke here Pence had a great debate running for President? In reality, it is very likely Pence does all the real work and all Donald really wants is the national audience to take the credit. So it was a goo debate for Pence that has minimal effect on the polls because the headliners personality are dominant this cycle.

    Tim Kaine was overly-aggressive and appeared to be not ready for Prime time.

    Nestor , says: October 5, 2016 at 8:54 am
    Take Trump out of it and you have a strong platform

    Idiotic.

    Take Trump out of it, and you have more of the same GOP neoconservatism as ever:

    -more pretend-resistance-but-actual-enabling of illegal immigration
    -more wars-on-behalf-of-Israel neocon interventionism
    -more manufacturing-base-killing free trade

    Trump is the ONLY reason these three toxic policies are even being challenged.

    EliteCommInc. , says: October 5, 2016 at 9:04 am
    "The fact that Pence felt comfortable outlining a very aggressive Syria policy in tonight's debate suggests that Trump doesn't really have a problem with what his running mate proposed. As I said when I was watching the debate, Pence's answer on Syria was deranged. He more or less threatened to initiate hostilities with Russia, and he seemed oblivious to the serious negative consequences this would have. He kept invoking"

    I didn't watch the debate. This morning, when I was asked about it - I didn't think it would be a contest. Gov. Pence, should have no issues.

    But if I had watched and heard the above comments. I might have had conniptions. I am not going to say more at the moment. I would sound like I am abandoning my candidate. I like Gov. Pence, but that response is rife with campaign and policy self inflicting damages - good grief.

    Steve in Ohio , says: October 5, 2016 at 10:22 am
    Pence is a fine Christian man and I'm glad he did well last night. However, his hawkishness was disturbing. Somebody who is pro life should be wary of policies that lead to wars and thousands dying.

    As somebody who wants our borders secured, I don't feel I have a choice on Nov. 8. I will be praying, though, that Trump doesn't delegate the FP heavy lifting to his vice president as Bush 43 did to his.

    Uncle Billy , says: October 5, 2016 at 10:35 am
    "Safe Zones" sound all well and good, but the only way to guarantee a safe zone is to have US troops on the ground in Syria. You cannot enforce a safe zone from the air.

    So, it sounds like both parties are willing to commit US ground troops to Syria and risk a possible confrontation with Russian troops who are already there.

    This is more Neocon nonsense being foisted on the American people by politicians who do not really understand the ramifications of their actions.

    LHM , says: October 5, 2016 at 10:50 am
    Jesus. Very disappointed in Pence's answer on Syria. War against russia would cost thousands of american lives. We need to stay out of Syria plain and simple. Pence's statememt also goes completely against "we need to beat ISIS" rant that trump goes on every two sentences. To beat ISIS we would have to be on the same side as Syria/Russia. This whole election is cluster .How the heck did we end up with these two choices?
    RadicalCenter2 , says: October 5, 2016 at 11:21 am
    LHM: exactly. I'd just add that war with Russia conventionally would probably costs hundreds of thousands of us soldier lives and could cripple our military for subsequent actual DEFENSE against the country that actually will have the means to threaten the very existence or freedom of the USA:

    China, with an economy vastly bigger and more diversified than Russia's, a population eight times as numerous as Russia's, and for that matter a far, far larger diaspora to influence politics, culture, and economics in the formerly white western countries (USA, Canada (especially "British" Columbia), and Australia, in particular).

    Also, as pointed out in columns on Unz and elsewhere, conventional war could escalate to nuclear exchange more easily than many people think. God help us.

    Anonne , says: October 5, 2016 at 11:34 am
    Pence did a better job selling his party because Pence thoroughly invented a different running mate.
    Chris Chuba , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:06 pm
    How many safe zones do we need in Syria, we already have 3.
    1. Govt held areas (unless we bomb them).
    2. Kurdish territory (unless Turkey bombs them).
    3. The Turkish zone in N. Syria.

    In fact weren't we begging Turkey to establish a zone just for this purpose?

    Of course, what we really want is an Assad free zone that covers all of Syria and filled with Al Qaeda groups that we pretend are moderates.

    EdK , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:56 pm
    Trump needs to state clearly that he is not in agreement with Pence position on Russia & Syria. To beat ISIS we need to be on the same side as Russia. If Pence is a fine Christian, how can he be so carless to be on side of ISIS in Syria like Obama is, and have hand in destroying Syria the cradle of Christianity.
    Dakarian , says: October 5, 2016 at 1:18 pm
    @LHM

    "Jesus. Very disappointed in Pence's answer on Syria. War against russia would cost thousands of american lives. We need to stay out of Syria plain and simple. Pence's statememt also goes completely against "we need to beat ISIS" rant that trump goes on every two sentences. To beat ISIS we would have to be on the same side as Syria/Russia."

    it's the problem with being involved with the entire middle east without a firm desire of exactly what we want from there. We started out fighting Sunni threats, then took out the big Sunni country that we earlier set up to hold back the big Shi'a country we felt was a threat. So when said Shi'a country gained power we stood against them. And..well, that sort of ended up with us fighting both sides at the same time depending on the location.

    It's much more complicated than that, which is why jumping in there without really understanding the region was a bad idea.

    " This whole election is cluster .How the heck did we end up with these two choices?"

    My belief.

    Democratic voters are used to 'playing it safe' instead of going for more Left choices since "liberal" triggers a BIG backlash in this country. Thus why you get candidates like Clinton instead of candidates like Sanders and why you keep getting things like Obamacare's quasi-private insurance instead of single-payer.

    Republican voters are sick of the GOP and wanted someone, anyone, who wasn't a democrat but wasn't holding the GOP platform. Remember how, other than Trump, the other Republican candidates were all trying to "Out Right" each other? Trump was the only one that did more than outright ignore them.

    So in a way, the GOP caused it all by putting so much hate against the Left that the Left always plays it safe and caring so little about their base that they eloped to the first man that told them they were pretty and deserved better.

    Clinton was the 'safe pick'. Trump smiled. And here we are.

    It actuslly sounds less stupid when you see it that way. It's less that we're all idiots and more just a set of unfortunate events caused by a political scene that looked a lot like a youtube comment section.

    DES , says: October 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm
    I tend to discount Pence's comments on Syria in the debate. If Trump manages to win, he rather than Pence will be calling the shots on foreign policy. And to the extent that Trump has any coherent ideas on foreign policy, how could he come down hard on the mistake of invading Iraq and support getting deeply involved in Syria?

    In fact, Trump may have welcomed Pence's statement on Syria, since it may have attracted the votes of some establishment and neocon types without binding him to any particular policy if he becomes president.

    the danger of reinfestation , says: October 5, 2016 at 1:37 pm
    "In fact, Trump may have welcomed Pence's statement on Syria, since it may have attracted the votes of some establishment and neocon types without binding him to any particular policy if he becomes president."

    Altogether too close to the Bush-Cheney parallel for comfort. The last thing we want is for the neocons to come creeping back in through the Blair House back door.

    Paul Asay , says: October 5, 2016 at 3:35 pm
    Thought Pence was the superior of the two. Considering the options in Syria while running for President/VP you have to show a position of strength. My thought is that Trump wants to play nice with Putin for a while and eventually will pull out of Syria. You just can't say that during an election or you look weak.
    Steve in Ohio , says: October 5, 2016 at 4:30 pm
    @EdK

    Pence is a fine Christian -- I admire his courage in bringing up abortion in such an important debate. Unfortunately, most conservatives have a blind spot toward Christians in the Mideast. Part of it might be bias–Orthodox Christians aren't "true" Christians. Also many Evangelicals have been brain washed into believing that support of Israel is the only thing that counts.

    rayray , says: October 5, 2016 at 5:29 pm
    @Paul Asay

    "My thought is that Trump wants to play nice with Putin for a while and eventually will pull out of Syria."

    One thing Trump has successfully done is to launch a campaign so free of any real policy that anything you want to believe can be projected onto him. Play nice with Putin and then pull out? Sure! He's never said that, and in fact he's said the exact opposite but why not?

    [Oct 05, 2016] Time for Real Answers on War

    Small countries are just pawns in a bigger Washington geopolitical game, the game conducted with the level of determination and cruelty that would bestow on them an approving nod from Mussolini. And actually they do not shun allies in far right forces. As long as they promote pro-American pro-neoliberalism policies. As in saying "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch " (attributed to FDR about Somoza). Since the dissolution of the USSR the US has been the world hegemon, sponsoring a world order on neoliberal principles and making the world safe for an often rapacious multinationals. Political disinterest in foreign military adventures at home due to absence of draft allowed hijacking the US military for racketeering abroad. The privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it into formidable political force: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing tool. American foreign policy has long been the special province of transnational corporations, which were allowed to use US naval and military power for penetration into markets of the countries without paying for it.
    Notable quotes:
    "... With regard to the issue of "first use," every president since Harry Truman has subscribed to the same posture: the United States retains the prerogative of employing nuclear weapons to defend itself and its allies against even nonnuclear threats. ..."
    "... Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump's vow never to order a first strike-not the question Lester Holt was asking-was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked his "no first strike" pledge by insisting, in a cliché much favored in Washington , that "I can't take anything off the table." ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton chose a different course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better. ..."
    "... What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she evidently actually has about nuclear issues. ..."
    "... It was as if Clinton were already speaking from the Oval Office. Trump had addressed his remarks to Lester Holt. Clinton directed hers to the nation at large, to people the world over, indeed to history itself. Warming to her task, she was soon rolling out the sort of profundities that play well at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, or the Council on Foreign Relations, causing audiences to nod-or nod off. ..."
    "... With that, she reverted to platitudes. "So we need to be more precise in how we talk about these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home." ..."
    "... In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016. ..."
    "... Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on. ..."
    "... Trump was incredibly naďve or stupid for even answering that question. He should have asked Holt to state what he understood "the nation's longstanding policy" to be and define the term "first use." Rule one in debating: If you don't fully understand the question, demand a definition of any premises essential to the question. ..."
    "... I note, however, that Trump is a builder and Clinton is a destroyer. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton authorized bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 to divert attention away from his sex scandals in a 'wag-the-dog' operation for gratuitous purposes. Hillary supported the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt in a rigged election in 2012 after the Brotherhood murdered countless police, prosecutors, judges and Coptic Priests and children and has enriched herself from advance bribes through her Foundation. The Clintons indisputably use "evil" for gratuitous purposes and have sold out the interests of the nation. ..."
    "... Trump advocates waterboarding and stop and frisk as necessary policies to protect lives. But this is what a leader is elected to do – to use power and coercion to protect the people. He does not advocate torture or aggressive policing for political or egotistical purposes or to intimidate the public into totalitarian submission. He opposes political correct and totalitarian control of speech. ..."
    "... So Bacevich can say Trump is unqualified but based purely on empirical grounds, the Clintons have disqualified themselves from the presidency by their gratuitous use of power and influence peddling; while Trump prefers to do deals (treaties) but would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but only when absolutely necessary as a last resort. ..."
    "... So it is Bacevich who is unqualified to render an opinion that helps us judge which candidate is qualified for the presidency because he believes he has greater knowledge on issues such as nuclear proliferation. Bacevich is another know-it-all elite who knows better based on his superior knowledge. But no one has such God like knowledge. What would Bacevich do if he could drop an A-bomb and save countless lives on both sides of a war? He doesn't tell us and instead prefers to bash the candidates as to not telling the truth to the American public. The records of the candidates, summarized above, give us a glimpse of how they would use "evil". ..."
    "... The irony is Bacevich lost a son in a war Trump opposed but Hillary voted for. He is to be respected for his loss but not for his unqualified opinion as to which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-ill. ..."
    Oct 05, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    You may have missed it. Perhaps you dozed off. Or wandered into the kitchen to grab a snack. Or by that point in the proceedings were checking out Seinfeld reruns. During the latter part of the much hyped but excruciating-to-watch first presidential debate, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt posed a seemingly straightforward but cunningly devised question. His purpose was to test whether the candidates understood the essentials of nuclear strategy.

    A moderator given to plain speaking might have said this: "Explain why the United States keeps such a large arsenal of nuclear weapons and when you might consider using those weapons."

    What Holt actually said was: "On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing the nation's longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy?"

    The framing of the question posited no small amount of knowledge on the part of the two candidates. Specifically, it assumed that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton each possess some familiarity with the longstanding policy to which Holt referred and with the modifications that Obama had contemplated making to it.

    If you will permit the equivalent of a commercial break as this piece begins, let me explain why I'm about to parse in detail each candidate's actual answer to Holt's question. Amid deep dives into, and expansive punditry regarding, issues like how "fat" a former Miss Universe may have been and how high an imagined future wall on our southern border might prove to be, national security issues likely to test the judgment of a commander-in-chief have received remarkably little attention. So indulge me. This largely ignored moment in last week's presidential debate is worth examining.

    With regard to the issue of "first use," every president since Harry Truman has subscribed to the same posture: the United States retains the prerogative of employing nuclear weapons to defend itself and its allies against even nonnuclear threats.

    In other words, as a matter of policy, the United States rejects the concept of "no first use," which would prohibit any employment of nuclear weapons except in retaliation for a nuclear attack. According to press reports, President Obama had toyed with but then rejected the idea of committing the United States to a "no first use" posture. Holt wanted to know where the two candidates aspiring to succeed Obama stood on the matter.

    Cruelly, the moderator invited Trump to respond first. The look in the Republican nominee's eyes made it instantly clear that Holt could have been speaking Farsi for all he understood. A lesser candidate might then have begun with the nuclear equivalent of " What is Aleppo? "

    Yet Trump being Trump, he gamely-or naively-charged headlong into the ambush that Holt had carefully laid, using his allotted two minutes to offer his insights into how as president he would address the nuclear conundrum that previous presidents had done so much to create. The result owed less to early Cold War thinkers-of-the-unthinkable like Herman Kahn or Albert Wohlstetter, who created the field of nuclear strategy, than to Dr. Strangelove. Make that Dr. Strangelove on meth.

    Trump turned first to Russia, expressing concern that it might be gaining an edge in doomsday weaponry. "They have a much newer capability than we do," he said. "We have not been updating from the new standpoint." The American bomber fleet in particular, he added, needs modernization. Presumably referring to the recent employment of Vietnam-era bombers in the wars in Afghanistan , Iraq , and Syria, he continued somewhat opaquely, "I looked the other night. I was seeing B-52s, they're old enough that your father, your grandfather, could be flying them. We are not - we are not keeping up with other countries."

    Trump then professed an appreciation for the awfulness of nuclear weaponry. "I would like everybody to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike. I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over."

    Give Trump this much: even in a field that tends to favor abstraction and obfuscating euphemisms like "fallout" or "dirty bomb," classifying Armageddon as the "nuclear alternative" represents something of a contribution.

    Still, it's worth noting that, in the arcane theology of nuclear strategy, "first strike" and "first use" are anything but synonymous. "First strike" implies a one-sided, preventive war of annihilation. The logic of a first strike, such as it is, is based on the calculation that a surprise nuclear attack could inflict the "nuclear alternative" on your adversary, while sparing your own side from suffering a comparable fate. A successful first strike would be a one-punch knockout, delivered while your opponent still sits in his corner of the ring.

    Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump's vow never to order a first strike-not the question Lester Holt was asking-was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked his "no first strike" pledge by insisting, in a cliché much favored in Washington , that "I can't take anything off the table."

    Piling non sequitur upon non sequitur, he next turned to the threat posed by a nuclear-armed North Korea, where "we're doing nothing." Yet, worrisome as this threat might be, keeping Pyongyang in check, he added, ought to be Beijing's job. "China should solve that problem for us," he insisted. "China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea."

    If China wouldn't help with North Korea, however, what could be more obvious than that Iran, many thousands of miles away, should do so-and might have, if only President Obama had incorporated the necessary proviso into the Iran nuclear deal. "Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran has power over North Korea." When the Obama administration "made that horrible deal with Iran, they should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea." But why stop with North Korea? Iran "should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places," he continued, wandering into the nonnuclear world. U.S. negotiators suitably skilled in the Trumpian art of the deal, he implied, could easily have maneuvered Iran into solving such problems on Washington's behalf.

    Veering further off course, Trump then took a passing swipe at Secretary of State John Kerry: "Why didn't you add other things into the deal?" Why, in "one of the great giveaways of all time," did the Obama administration fork over $400 million in cash? At which point, he promptly threw in another figure without the slightest explanation-"It was actually $1.7 billion in cash"-in "one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history."

    Trump then wrapped up his meandering tour d'horizon by decrying the one action of the Obama administration that arguably has reduced the prospect of nuclear war, at least in the near future. "The deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems," he stated with conviction. "All they have to do is sit back 10 years, and they don't have to do much. And they're going to end up getting nuclear." For proof, he concluded, talk to the Israelis. "I met with Bibi Netanyahu the other day," he added for no reason in particular. "Believe me, he's not a happy camper."

    On this indecipherable note, his allotted time exhausted, Trump's recitation ended. In its way, it had been a Joycean performance.

    Bridge Over Troubled Waters?

    It was now Clinton's turn to show her stuff. If Trump had responded to Holt like a voluble golf caddy being asked to discuss the finer points of ice hockey, Hillary Clinton chose a different course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better.

    What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she evidently actually has about nuclear issues.

    "[L]et me start by saying, words matter," she began. "Words matter when you run for president. And they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them."

    It was as if Clinton were already speaking from the Oval Office. Trump had addressed his remarks to Lester Holt. Clinton directed hers to the nation at large, to people the world over, indeed to history itself. Warming to her task, she was soon rolling out the sort of profundities that play well at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, or the Council on Foreign Relations, causing audiences to nod-or nod off.

    "It is essential that America's word be good," Clinton continued. "And so I know that this campaign has caused some questioning and worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I've talked with a number of them. But I want to - on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of the American people, say that, you know, our word is good."

    Then, after inserting a tepid, better-than-nothing endorsement of the Iran nuclear deal, she hammered Trump for not offering an alternative. "Would he have started a war? Would he have bombed Iran?" If you're going to criticize, she pointed out, you need to offer something better. Trump never does, she charged. "It's like his plan to defeat ISIS. He says it's a secret plan, but the only secret is that he has no plan."

    With that, she reverted to platitudes. "So we need to be more precise in how we talk about these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home."

    Like Trump, she offered no specifics. Which bullies? Where? How? In what order? Would she start with Russia's Putin? North Korea's Kim Jong-Un? Perhaps Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines? How about Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan? Or Bibi?

    In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016.

    Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.

    The National Security Void

    If I've taxed your patience by recounting this non-debate and non-discussion of nuclear first use, it's to make a larger point. The absence of relevant information elicited by Lester Holt's excellent question speaks directly to what has become a central flaw in this entire presidential campaign: the dearth of attention given to matters basic to U.S. national security policy.

    In the nuclear arena, the issue of first use is only one of several on which anyone aspiring to become the next commander-in-chief should be able to offer an informed judgment. Others include questions such as these:

    • What is the present-day justification for maintaining the U.S. nuclear "triad," a strike force consisting of manned bombers and land-based ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles?
    • Why is the Pentagon embarking upon a decades-long, trillion-dollar program to modernize that triad, fielding a new generation of bombers, missiles, and submarines along with an arsenal of new warheads ? Is that program necessary?
    • How do advances in non-nuclear weaponry-for example, in the realm of cyberwarfare-affect theories of nuclear deterrence devised by the likes of Kahn and Wohlstetter during the 1950s and 1960s? Does the logic of those theories still pertain?

    Beyond the realm of nuclear strategy, there are any number of other security-related questions about which the American people deserve to hear directly from both Trump and Clinton, testing their knowledge of the subject matter and the quality of their judgments. Among such matters, one in particular screams out for attention. Consider it the question that Washington has declared off-limits: What lessons should be drawn from America's costly and disappointing post-9/11 wars and how should those lessons apply to future policy?

    With Election Day now merely a month away, there is no more reason to believe that such questions will receive serious consideration than to expect Trump to come clean on his personal finances or Clinton to release the transcripts of her handsomely compensated Goldman Sachs speeches.

    When outcomes don't accord with his wishes, Trump reflexively blames a "rigged" system. But a system that makes someone like Trump a finalist for the presidency isn't rigged. It is manifestly absurd, a fact that has left most of the national media grasping wildly for explanations (albeit none that tag them with having facilitated the transformation of politics into theater).

    I'll take a backseat to no one in finding Trump unfit to serve as president. Yet beyond the outsized presence of one particular personality, the real travesty of our predicament lies elsewhere-in the utter shallowness of our political discourse, no more vividly on display than in the realm of national security.

    What do our presidential candidates talk about when they don't want to talk about nuclear war? The one, in a vain effort to conceal his own ignorance, offers rambling nonsense. The other, accustomed to making her own rules, simply changes the subject.

    The American people thereby remain in darkness. On that score, Trump, Clinton, and the parties they represent are not adversaries. They are collaborators.

    Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is the author, most recently, of America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History , which has been longlisted for the National Book Award.

    Copyright 2016 Andrew J. Bacevich

    ek ErilaR, says: October 4, 2016 at 1:20 pm
    Trump was incredibly naďve or stupid for even answering that question. He should have asked Holt to state what he understood "the nation's longstanding policy" to be and define the term "first use." Rule one in debating: If you don't fully understand the question, demand a definition of any premises essential to the question.

    For God's sake, most Americans generally believe that the nation's police on nukes is that we won't use them first. Introducing this kind of mixture of jargon and terms of art is good and sufficient reason for rejecting the format of these awful "debates."

    LarryS , says: October 4, 2016 at 1:23 pm
    Dr. Bacevich is always insightful and worth reading. I wish we had a better choice of candidates. I note, however, that Trump is a builder and Clinton is a destroyer.
    Steve in Ohio , says: October 4, 2016 at 2:18 pm
    Sounds like the Colonel will be voting for the Democrat for the third time in a row (maybe fourth, he probably voted for Kerry, too). Although the Democrats have been marginally better on foreign policy, they totally devoted to open borders.

    Mass immigration will lead to more attacks at home which will lead to more wars overseas. Invite the world/invade the world go hand in hand.

    edr , says: October 4, 2016 at 6:36 pm
    "Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. "

    Very funny! Thank you

    Anonymous , says: October 4, 2016 at 10:17 pm
    Clinton's approach makes sense. She knows that the general public knows little and cares less about nuclear minutiae, so she laid out her platitudes-which the public does understand-and raised legitimate doubts about whether Trump would adopt a foreign policy as Joycean as his reply.
    Wayne Lusvardi , says: October 5, 2016 at 12:31 am
    What did Bacevich tell us other than he is an expert in nuclear proliferation policy but the two presidential candidates aren't. So what? We don't elect presidents to be nuclear war policy experts.

    We elect them on how they use the monopoly that government grants them for the legitimate use of power, coercion, deception and violence (we might call this "evil") . Do they use "evil" gratuitously or for partisan purposes or self gain; or do they only use "evil" only as a last resort when there is no other choice such as when Truman authorized dropping A-bombs on Japan? The self righteous and arrogant Bacevich doesn't tell us which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-bad or gratuitous outcomes.

    Bill Clinton authorized bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 to divert attention away from his sex scandals in a 'wag-the-dog' operation for gratuitous purposes. Hillary supported the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt in a rigged election in 2012 after the Brotherhood murdered countless police, prosecutors, judges and Coptic Priests and children and has enriched herself from advance bribes through her Foundation. The Clintons indisputably use "evil" for gratuitous purposes and have sold out the interests of the nation.

    Trump advocates eminent domain but offered a widow four times the market value of her property and lifetime occupancy in one of his luxury condos. The property was a rooming house the widow never lived in on commercial zoned land. The property was foreclose on 20 years later for half of what Trump offered her and the property was never acquired. Trump shows he does not use evil gratuitously and is a generous person who nevertheless advocates the legal use of eminent domain where necessary as a last resort.

    Trump advocates waterboarding and stop and frisk as necessary policies to protect lives. But this is what a leader is elected to do – to use power and coercion to protect the people. He does not advocate torture or aggressive policing for political or egotistical purposes or to intimidate the public into totalitarian submission. He opposes political correct and totalitarian control of speech.

    In sum, the Clintons put no limits on their use of "evil" for self gain or selling out to other nations interests; while Trump wants to use soft power and voluntary market deals where possible (eminent domain) or would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but in a limited and lawful way.

    So Bacevich can say Trump is unqualified but based purely on empirical grounds, the Clintons have disqualified themselves from the presidency by their gratuitous use of power and influence peddling; while Trump prefers to do deals (treaties) but would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but only when absolutely necessary as a last resort.

    So it is Bacevich who is unqualified to render an opinion that helps us judge which candidate is qualified for the presidency because he believes he has greater knowledge on issues such as nuclear proliferation. Bacevich is another know-it-all elite who knows better based on his superior knowledge. But no one has such God like knowledge. What would Bacevich do if he could drop an A-bomb and save countless lives on both sides of a war? He doesn't tell us and instead prefers to bash the candidates as to not telling the truth to the American public. The records of the candidates, summarized above, give us a glimpse of how they would use "evil".

    The irony is Bacevich lost a son in a war Trump opposed but Hillary voted for. He is to be respected for his loss but not for his unqualified opinion as to which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-ill.

    [Oct 05, 2016] How Trump and Clinton Gave Bad Answers on US Nuclear Policy and Why You Should Be Worried

    Notable quotes:
    "... I usually remark that one must look at the 'second tier' of a political cabal to predict future actions by a 'candidate.' The people surrounding the 'candidate' and their track records on issues in their sphere of expertise tell the mind sets that 'drive' policy. Trump comes from the business world, where delegation of responsibility is standard for larger enterprises. His 'advisors' are key to future performance. Clinton seems to be encapsulated in a bubble of sycophants. So, the same rationale applies to her as applies to Trump. Who are her main 'advisors?' ..."
    "... As anyone possessed of discernment would have noticed in the 2008 campaign, Obama surrounded himself with 'less than progressive' advisors. His subsequent governance followed suit so that we find the nation in the mess it is in today. ..."
    "... Finally, all signs are that the Russians are not taking this slide towards bellicosity lightly. The Russians are demonstrating a clear sighted view of Americas dysfunctions. For the Russians to hold massive Civil Defense drills now is a clear message; "We are preparing for the worst. How about you?" ..."
    "... The tone of this piece is remarkably similar to a long article Bacevich headed in a recent Harper's article on US foreign policy. Presented as a roundtable discussion, it centered on the dogged insistence of some State Department-tied clown that Russia is The Aggressor, while Bacevich and a two other participants nicked away at her position, largely, as I recall, by granting the Russians some right to a regional interest. While they slowed her down, the great missing element was a characterization of global aims of the US her position reflected. ..."
    "... In short, Bacevich, a good liberal, will not name the beast of US imperialism. As a result he makes it seem as though any policy can be judged on a truncated logic of its own, and so policy debates fragment into a disconnected series of arguments that bid for "fresh thinking" without daring to consider the underlying drivers. It's one of the reasons Eisenhower, with his criticism of the military-industrial complex, still comes across as a guiding light. ..."
    "... I'll put it out there: We have too many upper-middle-class white women who claim to understand foreign policy who should have been subject to a draft to concentrate their minds on what happens when a person is forced into the military and sent off to drive around with a rifle as people lob bombs at them. Madeleine Albright is the classic case: "What good is our exquisite military, if I, a compassion-challenged expert, can't waste a lot of lives on my follies?" Bacevich's personal history means that he knows what war is about (as did Gen. Sherman). ..."
    "... Perry is forthright when he says: "Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger." He also tells us that the nuclear danger is "growing greater every year" and that even a single nuclear detonation "could destroy our way of life." ..."
    "... Perry does not use his memoir to score points or settle grudges. He does not sensationalize. But, as a defense insider and keeper of nuclear secrets, he is clearly calling American leaders to account for what he believes are very bad decisions, such as the precipitous expansion of NATO, right up to the Russian border,* and President George W. Bush's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, originally signed by President Nixon. ..."
    "... Interesting comments by Mr. Perry who had a starring role in 1979's "First Strike" propaganda film where he advocated for the MX ICBM system. ..."
    "... So what's a voter to do? ..."
    "... Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief. ..."
    "... Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a significant number of people from his own party. ..."
    "... But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs. some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull it off. ..."
    "... What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times revealed that she always ..."
    "... All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone" she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly, as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia. ..."
    "... Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear ..."
    "... How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief, Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued participation in NATO. ..."
    "... Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on. ..."
    "... At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! " ..."
    "... As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did not like. ..."
    "... Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in the financial corruption of his administration. ..."
    "... If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding who now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement, perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sycopathic friends to give her good advice, and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation) ..."
    "... HRC is more dangerous because she is the 1st woman to become a serious contender for a position that has traditionally been considered a "man's job". Therefore she believes she must not, in any way, be perceived as "soft" or lacking "toughness" or aggressiveness. She feels compelled to "out-macho" the macho guys. ..."
    "... The only bright spot in the prospect of a Hellary Klinton presidency is the probability that she may not survive long enough to start a war with Russia. I wonder how the training for the Mark I body double is coming? ..."
    "... On the other hand, why should anyone think that a bubble-headed blowhard like Trumpet has the intelligence or gumption to have any effect upon the operations of the Warfare State? When the opinion makers of his own party and the neoliberal leaders of Klinton's party are all riding on the Military-Industrial gravy train looking for the next enemy to keep business booming? ..."
    "... And how can anyone with a functioning brain cell think that anything a politician says or promises during an election has any connection to how they will act once elected? Remember Obama, Mr. "Audacity of Hope?" ..."
    Oct 05, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ambrit October 5, 2016 at 4:08 am

    Prof. Bacevitch has bought up the one overriding problem with this election cycle: Lack of substance.

    I usually remark that one must look at the 'second tier' of a political cabal to predict future actions by a 'candidate.' The people surrounding the 'candidate' and their track records on issues in their sphere of expertise tell the mind sets that 'drive' policy. Trump comes from the business world, where delegation of responsibility is standard for larger enterprises. His 'advisors' are key to future performance. Clinton seems to be encapsulated in a bubble of sycophants. So, the same rationale applies to her as applies to Trump. Who are her main 'advisors?'

    As anyone possessed of discernment would have noticed in the 2008 campaign, Obama surrounded himself with 'less than progressive' advisors. His subsequent governance followed suit so that we find the nation in the mess it is in today.

    Finally, all signs are that the Russians are not taking this slide towards bellicosity lightly. The Russians are demonstrating a clear sighted view of Americas dysfunctions. For the Russians to hold massive Civil Defense drills now is a clear message; "We are preparing for the worst. How about you?"

    As always, Prof. Bacevitch is a joy to read. Live long, prosper, and hope those in positions of power take his message to heart.

    hemeantwell October 5, 2016 at 8:52 am

    The tone of this piece is remarkably similar to a long article Bacevich headed in a recent Harper's article on US foreign policy. Presented as a roundtable discussion, it centered on the dogged insistence of some State Department-tied clown that Russia is The Aggressor, while Bacevich and a two other participants nicked away at her position, largely, as I recall, by granting the Russians some right to a regional interest. While they slowed her down, the great missing element was a characterization of global aims of the US her position reflected.

    That's pretty much what's going on here. "Do we really need a trillion dollar upgrade to US nuclear capability?" Good question. But why, oh why, Andrew is it being proposed in the first place? (Actually O has been pursuing the preliminaries for some time.) There's nothing about feeding a military-industrial complex, nothing about trying to further distort the Russian economy to promote instability, nothing about trying to capitalize on the US' military superiority as its economic hegemony slips away.

    In short, Bacevich, a good liberal, will not name the beast of US imperialism. As a result he makes it seem as though any policy can be judged on a truncated logic of its own, and so policy debates fragment into a disconnected series of arguments that bid for "fresh thinking" without daring to consider the underlying drivers. It's one of the reasons Eisenhower, with his criticism of the military-industrial complex, still comes across as a guiding light.

    DJG October 5, 2016 at 9:48 am

    The round-table in Harper's, for background. One of the "takeaways" that I had is that both of the women who participated are gratuitously hawkish. I am now tending to favor a universal draft.

    I'll put it out there: We have too many upper-middle-class white women who claim to understand foreign policy who should have been subject to a draft to concentrate their minds on what happens when a person is forced into the military and sent off to drive around with a rifle as people lob bombs at them. Madeleine Albright is the classic case: "What good is our exquisite military, if I, a compassion-challenged expert, can't waste a lot of lives on my follies?" Bacevich's personal history means that he knows what war is about (as did Gen. Sherman).

    http://harpers.org/archive/2016/09/tearing-up-the-map/

    hemeantwell October 5, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    Knowing what war's all about doesn't help much with knowing why wars come about, I'm afraid. Bacevich is not helpful here. This reminds me of a great article by Graham Allison on bureaucratic drivers in the Cuban Missile crisis, set out as three competing/complementary theories. Within its mypoic scope, excellent, but as far as helping with the Cold War context, nada. He went on to scotomize away in a chair at Harvard, gazing out his very fixed Overton window of permissible strategic critique.

    Wow. I just went to the TomDispatch site to look at Bacevich's work there. He does have a piece criticizing Trump and HRC in light of Eisenhower, but slaps Eisenhower, appropriately, for various crap, including the military-industrial complex takeoff. Why is it missing from this article? At least Eisenhower criticized it.

    Science Officer Smirnoff October 5, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Surprised that Bacevitch omits the thrust of Jerry Brown's important review:

    My Journey at the Nuclear Brink
    by William J. Perry, with a foreword by George P. Shultz
    Stanford Security Studies, 234 pp., $85.00; $24.95 (paper)

    I know of no person who understands the science and politics of modern weaponry better than William J. Perry, the US Secretary of Defense from 1994 to 1997. When a man of such unquestioned experience and intelligence issues the stark nuclear warning that is central to his recent memoir, we should take heed. Perry is forthright when he says: "Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger." He also tells us that the nuclear danger is "growing greater every year" and that even a single nuclear detonation "could destroy our way of life."

    [emphasis added]

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/07/14/a-stark-nuclear-warning/

    Science Officer Smirnoff October 5, 2016 at 9:16 am

    Further down a nugget from the review:

    Perry does not use his memoir to score points or settle grudges. He does not sensationalize. But, as a defense insider and keeper of nuclear secrets, he is clearly calling American leaders to account for what he believes are very bad decisions, such as the precipitous expansion of NATO, right up to the Russian border,* and President George W. Bush's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, originally signed by President Nixon.

    *"The descent down the slippery slope began, I believe, with the premature NATO expansion, and I soon came to believe that the downsides of early NATO membership for Eastern European nations were even worse than I had feared" (p. 152).

    [emphasis added]

    hemeantwell October 5, 2016 at 5:00 pm

    Good catch, thanks. It's good to see establishment figures trying to build up a headwind against this stupidity/insanity.

    NY Union Guy October 5, 2016 at 7:39 pm

    Interesting comments by Mr. Perry who had a starring role in 1979's "First Strike" propaganda film where he advocated for the MX ICBM system.

    James Kroeger October 5, 2016 at 8:02 am

    So what's a voter to do?

    Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief.

    Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a significant number of people from his own party.

    But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs. some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull it off.

    What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited.

    All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone" she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly, as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia.

    Her willingness to roll the dice, to gamble with other people's lives, is ingrained within her political personality, of which she is so proud.

    Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear . That fear is what drives her to the most extreme of war hawk positions, since her foundational strategy is to get out in front of the criticism she anticipates.

    It is what we can count on. She will most assuredly get America into a war within the first 6-9 months of her Presidency, since she will be looking forward to the muscular response she will order when she is 'tested', as she expects.

    How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief, Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued participation in NATO.

    These differences alone are enough to move me to actually vote for someone I find politically detestable, simply because I fear that the alternative is a high probability of war, and a greatly enhanced risk of nuclear annihilation-through miscalculation-under a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

    Quite simply, she scares the hell out of me.

    Lupemax October 5, 2016 at 8:09 am

    Vote for Green Party this time and hope we make it to 2018 and 2020. http://www.jill2016.com/plan

    Otis B Driftwood October 5, 2016 at 8:18 am

    Yep. In the meantime, you have to wonder just how bad the false choice between the GOP / Dem has to be before people vote in numbers for a better third-party candidate? Really, can it possible get any worse than Trump v. Clinton?

    Wait don't answer that.

    Anyway, I'm voting for Jill Stein, too.

    Jeremy Grimm October 5, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    Between this post and the VP debate I am growing comfortable with a decision to vote Green and will probably continue voting Green in future elections.

    Foppe October 5, 2016 at 4:25 am

    Not that this isn't an important issue, but I disagree on the desirability of posing wonkish questions in presidential debates, in the hopes of proving that someone didn't do enough homework. Far too much policy is hidden by the constant recourse to bureaucratic language, which often rests on other policy positions that remain undiscussed. One example: "chained CPI". Talking about it / taking it seriously presupposes that you subscribe to the notion that poor people may be told to eat cardboard if some economist / committee member designated such an adequate replacement for food. Yet most listeners will not catch on to that fact, were it ever to even come up in a debate.

    jgordon October 5, 2016 at 6:57 am

    Words are just words, especially for politicians. If you want an idea of how they would govern, go by what they did in the past. Right now we have the choice between a touchy blowhard with bad hair and a mendacious conniver with bad judgement; you'd be foolish take anything either says too seriously, even aside from the fact that they're wannabe politicians.

    George Dawson October 5, 2016 at 8:03 am

    The response to why the nuclear arsenals need to be so large and constantly updated would have been an interesting one if it had materialized. The fact is even a fairly limited exchange between other nuclear powers with much smaller arsenals has the potential for rapid climate change that renders Earth unlivable.

    The Cold War notion that you just have to hole up a few days to avoid fallout doesn't really make any more sense than using these weapons in the first place.

    nowhere October 5, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    Just along these line, I did some order of magnitude calculations based on the US SLBM fleet. Since the MIRV warheads are dial a yield, I calculated a range of 1210 – 1915 Megatons.

    I know your point is more on the limited exchange scenario; just wanted to point out the destructive potential of one country's submarine nuclear capability.

    DJG October 5, 2016 at 9:39 am

    Thanks just for this:

    Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.

    And when a person keeps pointing out the importance of keeping one's word, it almost always means that he or she is lying.

    John Wright October 5, 2016 at 10:30 am

    If only Clinton could be like Warren G. Harding.

    At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! "

    As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did not like.

    Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in the financial corruption of his administration.

    The Presidency was pushed on him, and he admitted felt he was not qualified.

    I believe Harding gets a bad rap because he was not the leader of bold actions (wars) and the corruption of people in his administration was well-documented.

    His death was widely mourned in the USA.

    As far as long term harm to the country, the do-nothing Harding was not bad for the country.

    If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding who now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement, perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sycopathic friends to give her good advice, and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation)

    Clinton is probably well coached by well paid advisors in her oratory.

    Probably Harding wrote his own..

    I would prefer Clinton to be like the old Harding, and the country would muddle through.

    polecat October 5, 2016 at 11:18 am

    All it would take would be for a couple of strategically placed EMPs over the north american continent ..
    and poof . nothing functions anymore . while we get to stand and watch our 'supreme' military launch their roman candles .

    shinola October 5, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    When it comes to war & nukes, I believe that HRC is the more dangerous of the two.

    Before I explain, I would like to invite Yves or any female NC reader to consider & give their POV on what I'm about say.

    HRC is more dangerous because she is the 1st woman to become a serious contender for a position that has traditionally been considered a "man's job". Therefore she believes she must not, in any way, be perceived as "soft" or lacking "toughness" or aggressiveness. She feels compelled to "out-macho" the macho guys.

    Obviously this could have serious implications in any situation involving escalating tensions. Negotiation or compromise would be off the table if she thought it could be perceived as soft or weak (and she contemplates being a 2 term pres.)

    What say you NC readers? Is this a justified concern or am I letting male bias color my view?

    BecauseTradition October 5, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    My own misgivings too, but I'm a male also.

    polecat October 5, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    Just like obama HAD to show everyone that he was 'the man' ..

    and to think our lives are in the hands of these psychopaths

    duck and cover --

    Thor's Hammer October 5, 2016 at 8:13 pm

    The only bright spot in the prospect of a Hellary Klinton presidency is the probability that she may not survive long enough to start a war with Russia. I wonder how the training for the Mark I body double is coming?

    On the other hand, why should anyone think that a bubble-headed blowhard like Trumpet has the intelligence or gumption to have any effect upon the operations of the Warfare State? When the opinion makers of his own party and the neoliberal leaders of Klinton's party are all riding on the Military-Industrial gravy train looking for the next enemy to keep business booming?

    And how can anyone with a functioning brain cell think that anything a politician says or promises during an election has any connection to how they will act once elected? Remember Obama, Mr. "Audacity of Hope?"

    [Oct 05, 2016] American Dignity

    It is really interesting to read those comments from march 2016 in October ;-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... I'm tempted to think that the Liberal Establishment hasn't had the same problem to the same degree because the liberals recognize that Democrats want to do more, but they've been stymied by the Republican refusal to give Obama any wins. ..."
    "... Trump is a backlash against the GOP elite, in all its various and sundry forms. Whether Kasich, Jeb, Rubio, Christie, or anyone else -- none of these are acceptable to the disillusioned party base. ..."
    "... Much of the angst on the Democratic side isn't against the Democratic establishment per se ..."
    "... To Republican supporters of Donald Trump: I understand your anger and rage at the Republican Party's failure to pay sufficient attention to your economic concerns – specifically the consequences of exports of jobs and illegal "imports" of workers. but also issues like wage stagnation. I understand, therefore, when the GOP finally has a candidate who does mention these concerns front and centre, he has an appeal for you lacking in the other candidates. ..."
    "... America's wounds are entirely self-inflicted. They include the massively destructive drug war; imperialist adventures that have drained the national wealth, made life less safe, and savaged civil liberties; and an increase of government spending as a percentage of GDP from 7 percent in 1900 to 37 percent today. Almost any economist, left or right, would agree that trade and immigration (legal or not) are net benefits. ..."
    "... Conservatives, Republican or not, have failed to defend, much less extend, economic freedom; have supported the growth of government; and have persistently supported militaristic empire. ..."
    "... He is the upshot of an ideology whose prominent voices have included Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly. In politics, you get what you pander to. ..."
    "... What you're trying to do is make the "What's the matter with Kansas?" argument a matter of the candidate's approach not the voters' response. But in the final analysis, it amounts to the same thing. ..."
    "... James Fallows quotes a data analysis of the vote in Michigan that finds to the analyst's surprise that districts that suffered the greatest loss of manufacturing were NOT the districts that voted predominately for Trump meaning "economic anxiety" does not explain the Trump voting pattern. ..."
    "... The number of immigrants and their young children grew six times faster than the nation's total population from 1970 to 2015 - 353 percent vs. 59 percent. ..."
    "... This is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule. ..."
    "... Joe Biden has run for president a couple of times, and he always stayed in single digits for the simple reason that he always puts his foot in his mouth, way in. ..."
    "... "his is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule. ..."
    "... And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should ask for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should ask why we are doing this. ..."
    "... Obama and most Democrats understood very well the anger of poor whites and they tried desperately to win their votes. And, as is now made plain by so many poor, white Trump supporters, they didn't vote for Obama and other Democratic politicians because they believe those politicians hold them in low esteem or have called them racists. ..."
    "... But the pivot to a Mr. trump has far more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy aside from immigration. It was his less than aggressive use of the military. ..."
    "... It's obvious to many commentators that working-class Republican voters are voting against their own interests by allowing themselves to be fooled by cultural cues and dog whistles. But the big unreported story is that the same thing is happening in the Democratic primaries as well. Poor Southern Blacks are voting by colossal margins for the Wall Street version of the Democratic Party over the socialist version of the Democratic Party. Why? Because the Wall Street candidate is married to a guy who has all his Southern fried cultural cues and dog whistles working right and the socialist has spent too much of his time among up-tight Yankees in Vermont. ..."
    "... Anyone who thinks Conservatives, all three of them in proportion to the rest of the electorate will stay home and let Hillary be elected is in need of oxygen. When it comes to the general election Trump will probably bury Hillary. ..."
    "... But let us understand one important thing. Trump is in no way destroying the Republican Party. They will still hold the House, may hang onto the Senate, and will still hold the majority of state governments. That is hardly a party that is being destroyed. In the long run, the Democrats are in far worse shape as that Republican majority in every other branch of government not only means that the Democrats do not have much a farm team for future presidential nominees, (look what they got stuck with this year.) but also it means enough barriers being thrown up in the way of the Democrats voting blocks to keep from even voting at all. ..."
    "... "but rich people with poor impulse control are pretty much the last people you want in positions of power." That makes a great tweet, but it's helpful to get beyond abstract generalities. Trump has poor impulse control on his mouth, to be sure, but there's every indication that his impulses will not lead to new wars or "kinetic" military actions in places like North Africa, the Middle East or Ukraine. His impulsiveness has also led him to reveal that he wants to be "neutral" on the Palestinian question. To me, his non-interventionist "impulses," if you will, are extremely important on a purely pragmatic level. ..."
    "... Union-busting has done more to undercut and immiserate the working class than mass immigration and "free trade," and union leaders spending millions of dollars on electing Democrats and Republicans (at the state level) have betrayed their membership and the working class. ..."
    "... Immigration and trade policies do need to be addressed but rebuilding the unions is the vital step for doing so. ..."
    "... "There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats, NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are "prone to brutality and violence "" ..."
    "... The WWC started abandoning the Democratic Party starting with the 1966 mid-term elections. The last Democratic candidate for President to get a majority of the white male vote was LBJ in 1964. ..."
    "... The Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts were used as wedge issues by the 1968 Nixon campaign. Read all about it in Kevin Phillips' book The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips helped design the Southern Strategy. Also see Atwater, Lee. ..."
    "... The rich have always had a lot of influence in the Republican Party, but under George W. Bush, the wealthy totally took over the party, and the party establishment began to worship at the altars of globalism and tax cuts for the rich. The party could care less about its' Base. The party totally lost the concept of the Common Good, such as we had under Eisenhower and even Nixon. ..."
    "... The Base has been faithfully voting Republican in spite of getting very little out of the arrangement, but they are now starting to wake up. The GOP Establishment is going to have to make some changes; they can be for free enterprise, but with some concern for American workers. ..."
    "... "Jackson believed that the president's authority was derived from the people and the presidential office was above party politics. Instead of choosing party favorites, Jackson chose 'plain, businessmen' whom he intended to control." ..."
    "... This is why Jackson was hated, smeared and maligned, and the same is true of Trump. ..."
    "... "In regard to the Petticoat affair, Jackson later remarked, 'I [would] rather have live vermin on my back than the tongue of one of these Washington women on my reputation.'" ..."
    "... "If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big mistake." ..."
    "... "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.)" ..."
    "... "They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And they're voting now for Donald Trump." Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate the establishment that they maintain. It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta be it. ..."
    "... Rod – do you realize how many of Featherstone's words and sentiments could have been applied to Black Lives Matter? In all seriousness, as I was reading him, I kept thinking, "Working Class White Lives Matter." ..."
    "... I'm one of those doing quite well, and supporting Mr. Trump's bid for the Presidency. I'm a degreed mathematician doing research and development in cybersecurity, with a growing portfolio of professional publications, and patents pending. I'm a Marine veteran of the Iraq war whose 'eggs aren't too scrambled'. I married woman who went to one of the best schools in the UK and graduated with honors from one of the best universities in the US. I truly believe that my wife, my child, and I will be fine no matter who wins this election. ..."
    "... GOP policy wrt to its impact on many working and middle class Americans seems to me to be a classic case of emperors new clothes. ..."
    "... This blog has replaced Scott Adams as the go to place for understanding Trump. Adams deservedly got a lot of credit for correctly predicting that Trump would not collapse, but his own repeated assertions that truth doesn't matter in a 3d world are flatly inconsistent with his pretense to just be reporting the facts about Trump. Once one suspects that he's pretending to report the facts while really drumming up support for Trump it becomes clear how one sided is his analysis. Adams' own sophistic views about the primacy of rhetoric and human beings as meat machines don't license any other interpretation. ..."
    "... If the news is to be believed, Trump is certainly no friend of the unions, at least in his own business dealings. ..."
    "... Trump speaks for a group that has been abandoned and marginalized by the political classes. He is bringing them back into the system and perhaps bringing a little more balance back to domestic politics. I don't think elites change unless they feel threatened, and I hope Trump is threatening enough to the elites, without actually posing the threat a real revolutionary would pose. ..."
    "... My knee-jerk position is to support the working people against the rich. But, given the voting patterns of the white working class going back to 1980, and even to 1968, I find myself vacillating between feeling for them and believing that they got what they wanted (and deserved) good and hard. ..."
    Mar 10, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    EngineerScotty , says: March 10, 2016 at 4:18 pm
    I'm tempted to think that the Liberal Establishment hasn't had the same problem to the same degree because the liberals recognize that Democrats want to do more, but they've been stymied by the Republican refusal to give Obama any wins.

    One other interesting thought:

    Trump is a backlash against the GOP elite, in all its various and sundry forms. Whether Kasich, Jeb, Rubio, Christie, or anyone else -- none of these are acceptable to the disillusioned party base. Nor would Mitt Romney be were he to waltz into the convention and wrest the nomination away from Crump–his main selling point in 2012 was that he wasn't Barack Obama, and that's not relevant this time around.

    Much of the angst on the Democratic side isn't against the Democratic establishment per se , but against the specific person of Hillary Rodham Clinton (and a few other specific Democrats whom the left intensely dislikes, no others of which are running), who has, for reasons both good and bad, a lot of enemies. Were the 22nd Amendment to not around to prevent it and Obama to seek a third term, he'd waltz to the nomination. Were Joe Biden to run in her stead, he'd receive widespread support across the board. Likewise with many other party fixtures who are highly popular among Democrats (even if reviled outside the party).

    Stephen Gould , says: March 10, 2016 at 6:24 pm
    I'm just going to repost what I posted on my FB page yesterday:

    To Republican supporters of Donald Trump: I understand your anger and rage at the Republican Party's failure to pay sufficient attention to your economic concerns – specifically the consequences of exports of jobs and illegal "imports" of workers. but also issues like wage stagnation. I understand, therefore, when the GOP finally has a candidate who does mention these concerns front and centre, he has an appeal for you lacking in the other candidates.

    ... ... ...

    Nicolas , says: March 10, 2016 at 6:34 pm
    America's wounds are entirely self-inflicted. They include the massively destructive drug war; imperialist adventures that have drained the national wealth, made life less safe, and savaged civil liberties; and an increase of government spending as a percentage of GDP from 7 percent in 1900 to 37 percent today. Almost any economist, left or right, would agree that trade and immigration (legal or not) are net benefits.

    Conservatives, Republican or not, have failed to defend, much less extend, economic freedom; have supported the growth of government; and have persistently supported militaristic empire.

    Trump is the predictable result of the nasty and dunderheaded populism toward which conservatives have been moving for the past 25 years or so. He is the upshot of an ideology whose prominent voices have included Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly. In politics, you get what you pander to.

    Trump is winning by scapegoating those who bear no responsibility for America's social and economic ills. Still even conservatives who consider themselves proximate descendants of the old right twiddle their thumbs and blow kisses to the ignoramuses who embrace Trumpian populism, rather than challenging his malignant and foolish prescriptions. If Trump is elected and gets his way, perhaps the ensuing international economic disaster and war with China will help to clarify conservative thinking. I doubt it, though, since conservatism's singular distinction is its failure to accomplish anything that its adherents desire. The failure has been patent for a long time, and succinctly described by Hayek in 1960.

    http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

    ADC Wonk , says: March 10, 2016 at 7:03 pm
    What a great discussion!

    OK, responding to about a half-dozen different comments:

    First, regarding the "information bubble" that some are in, we have this:

    Aside from government employment the Clinton admin was a hostile force to their interests.

    Actually, the opposite was true. Fed Government employment went down 8 straight years during Clinton's Admin, and started going up again under Bush. Stereotypes don't equal facts.

    There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats, NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are "prone to brutality and violence "

    OK, now that's pretty ironic, coming on a day when a 78-yo Trump supporter just got arrested for sucker-punching a black guy who was getting thrown out of a Trump rally, as others were yelling f*****g n*****s. (See it at http://bcove.me/w5m1iftz - where the perpetrator goes on to say he enjoyed doing it and would kill him next time) (And the day after Trump's own campaign manager Corey Lewandowski accosted a Breitbart reporter). Violence at Trump rallies is nothing new in 2016. Google it.

    One commenter said that entire reason the WWC votes for the GOP is: "Race. That's it. Pure and simple."

    The response from another: "What a load of crap."

    I'm going to take a middle ground. I think that the Dems had far better economic policies towards the WWC than the GOP, but that because of the Dems leaning so far liberal on social issues , that partially alienated the WWC.

    But race was most definitely a part of it. Southern Strategy? Welfare Queen? Lee Atwater? Those things really happened and we can't wish them away.

    Look - being against immigration for economic reasons has some logic. But being harsh about it also attracts xeonophobes and racists. I don't think Trump is racist, but when he was a bit slow to respond to the KKK's endorsement of him, I think Trump was trying to figure out a way not to damage his support among the white nationalistic crowd.

    William F. Buckley, we could sure use you now!

    The evidence is thick is that despite his election, certain elements in the Republican Party persisted in presenting Obama as the Other, the treasonous Other.

    Indeed. He was a black-Commie-Kenyan who was illegible to be Prez. And note who was a prominent leader of the so-called "birther movement"? None other than The Donald himself. And the GOP, with a nod and a wink, didn't protest too much, because they thought it'd be useful in the 2012 elections. (McCain of all people, bless him, was one of the few prominent GOPers in 2008 who pushed back on this Otherization.)

    "The problem with BLM and the 'racism' narrative is that there is a real demonstrable problem in that young Black men commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes (for whatever reason), and you can't come up with good public policy unless you get honest about that fact."

    True. But the problem with the pushback against BLM is that there is a real demonstrable problem that there are a number of racist police who target blacks and abuse their authority - and lie on official reports about it. (The Ferguson Report was absolutely devastating!) Conservatives who favor limited government ought to be all over that, no? The main thing that's changed now is the ubiquity of cell-phone cameras and increasing use of dash-cams, so we all can see, with our own eyes, what the black community has been complaining about for 150 years.

    Chris Atwood , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:29 pm
    Dancer Girl,
    What you're trying to do is make the "What's the matter with Kansas?" argument a matter of the candidate's approach not the voters' response. But in the final analysis, it amounts to the same thing.

    Assuming (for the sake of argument) that Bernie will get blacks the single-payer health insurance and free college tuition they've longed for. You're saying that because he didn't approach their barbershop the right way, they voted against that–not just for themselves, but for their families, their children, the whole country. That's not any different from saying that W won the election because white people thought he was the kind of the guy you could have a beer with.

    Your response shows that no, there's no way you can spin the "They vote against their best interest and good policy because of culture" argument in a way that doesn't make them look like bad voters. You understood that fact, which is why you felt that you had to reply and say, no, that's not really the case. You felt the need to rebut it. Well, so do white working class voters when the argument's used against them. Which illustrates why using that argument is not a good way to win over voters.

    And by the way, reality check: winning 30% of the vote of a given demographic in a two way contest is not promising, not hopeful, not a turning point–not any of the things the Sanders campaign says it is. It's getting CRUSHED, SHELLACKED, DEFEATED IN A LANDSLIDE–what ever headline phrase you want to use. The fact that it's being spun as somehow a great new emerging reality of a "Feel the Bern" moment among African-Americans is testimony to the enduring hold of the myth that the "What's the matter with Kansas" argument is only relevant for the voting behavior of down-market whites.

    KS , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:44 pm
    James Fallows quotes a data analysis of the vote in Michigan that finds to the analyst's surprise that districts that suffered the greatest loss of manufacturing were NOT the districts that voted predominately for Trump meaning "economic anxiety" does not explain the Trump voting pattern.

    https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/708100889370873856

    Rossbach , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:45 pm
    "But it always struck me there was some other agenda to the immigration."

    The number of immigrants and their young children grew six times faster than the nation's total population from 1970 to 2015 - 353 percent vs. 59 percent.

    This is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule.

    And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should ask for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should ask why we are doing this.

    We are, in short, being told to commit suicide. For our children's sake, is both our right and our duty to refuse.

    Siarlys Jenkins , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:06 pm
    Were Joe Biden to run in her stead, he'd receive widespread support across the board.

    Joe Biden has run for president a couple of times, and he always stayed in single digits for the simple reason that he always puts his foot in his mouth, way in. I have difficulty believing he wouldn't do so again. I mean, he did it on the afternoon after the inauguration. Then there is his propensity to pontificate on what Catholic doctrine really means - just like dominic1955 does. A political leader in a constitutional republican should simply say "I was elected to represent the people of Delaware, not my church."

    panda , says: March 11, 2016 at 12:57 pm
    "his is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule.

    And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should ask for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should ask why we are doing this.

    We are, in short, being told to commit suicide. For our children's sake, is both our right and our duty to refuse."

    Let's be honest here: there is pretty much 1:1 correlation between people who are concerned about "replacement " of American people, and people who think Black Americans, here since the 1500s, and some other smaller groups, here since the 1800s, don't belong to the nation you are trying to "protect." Which is why your tears seem so hollow to outsiders..

    Bert Clere , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:46 am
    The majority of blue collar Trump supporters would have been the direct beneficiaries of Obama's American Jobs Act. The only reason Boehner and McConnell wouldn't allow that to pass is they knew that a good economy benefits Obama.

    But ironically in allowing these economic inequalities to fester they made it conducive for Trump's rise. The GOP deserves Trump. He is their reward for years of crony capitalism, irresponsible government, petty obstruction, and outright nihilism.

    And as scared as I am of Trump I look at the electoral map and don't see any possible route for his victory. Are we really to believe that his vulgar, racist nationalism will move Ohio, Florida, and Virginia back to the GOP column? Are we really to believe that millions of good conservatives stayed home in 2012, but that Trump will be the ticket to bring them to the polls in 2016? No.

    Trump as GOP nominee all but guarantees President Hillary Clinton. And where will conservatism go from there? Republican leaders have no one left to lie to. Meep, Meep.

    collin , says: March 10, 2016 at 11:07 am
    But Ross Perot was that rich guy back in 1992, and he choked. But that was near the beginning of globalization.

    1) Globalization was already here in 1992 and ushered in by the Reagan Revolution and the battle of the Carter years. Wasn't the boom box in college dorm (or apartment) manufactured in Japan? Michael Moore first big movie "Roger and Me " was released in 1989. (And centered around Flint, MI)

    2) How did Perot choke? He got 19% against a (now respected) incumbent and the 'Elvis' of politicians. Yes he made some errors but that was one heck of run for a third party.

    E. Potson , says: March 10, 2016 at 11:18 am
    RD: If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big mistake.

    I suspect most mainstream Democrats already understand Trump's appeal. Obama explained this very plainly eight years ago in a speech in which he referenced these voters' bitterness and their clinging to guns and religion. He took a lot of heat from Republicans for that speech, but it's very hard to read that speech and disagree with it.

    Obama and most Democrats understood very well the anger of poor whites and they tried desperately to win their votes. And, as is now made plain by so many poor, white Trump supporters, they didn't vote for Obama and other Democratic politicians because they believe those politicians hold them in low esteem or have called them racists. That is the running theme in all of these sympathetic posts about Trump supporters. It's a lazy cheap shot because it is never corroborated by any example of a Democratic politician ever actually doing this or anything remotely like it. It's just an ineffectual way to avoid responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.

    These people don't vote for Democratic politicians because they don't like the other people who vote for Democratic politicians. They do not use their votes to pursue policies that improve their own conditions. Instead, they use their votes as a weapon against people with whom they have a grievance.

    As Charles Featherstone said: Trump is poking all of the right people in the eyes for all the right reasons. Over and over we hear commenters on this very blog express some desire to stick it to SJWs, elites, coastal elites and others who they dislike. Well, there is a cost for using your vote as an expression of resentment instead of a tool for implementing good policy. The obvious cost is that you will be harmed by the policies of the Republican politicians you vote for.

    Another, less obvious cost is that other people will think you are backward or less intelligent, for why else would you pursue policies that clearly harm you just so you can express dislike for someone else? That's really not anyone else's fault. More importantly, it's not at all clear how Democrats could change this and still help their current supporters.

    EliteCommInc. , says: March 10, 2016 at 11:22 am
    First the Republican party is not in a state of free fall. Just because the people shut out since Pres. Reagan took office as the party shifted toward an interested and wealthier class doesn't mean those people have not been around. Yesterday I got my voter notice. It said I was unaffiliated. A battle I go through ever election cycle. And I was prepared to go through it again until I read this morning that Mr. trump is back peddling on immigration.

    We aren't even in the general and he is already tiptoeing through the tulips. I hope it's not true. Not only is the Republican Party not in disarray, it is in a position to flex some conservative muscle if they stand to course. That is unless Mr. trump turns out to be a liberal in disguise all along and that may be.

    I don't get my dignity veracity, faith integrity from the political party. I am associated with the Republican party because they reflect a healthy dose of what I believe. Perhaps a lot less. Upon examination, it's hard to think of anything the party represents that I consider vital conservative thought.

    I guess if you want to call my loyalty to country bigotry that's your call. I know Mr. trump will not be calling for a national day of celibacy, prayer, etc. I don't expect him to. I expect him to govern and I expect him to govern with some sense of understanding one cannot raise taxes and without a good dose of history that whatever they are being raised for is most likely unnecessary for anything aside from pandering to some emotional call.

    He still as to deal with a connected establishment Congress.

    But the pivot to a Mr. trump has far more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy aside from immigration. It was his less than aggressive use of the military.

    Mr. Trump is not going to turn the country into a Hugo Chavez haven of halting corruption. These kinds of hyperbolic refections of Republican party eulogies are not unknown in history and thus far they have proved wrong. The Party may shift hopefully more rightward than left. Hopefully it will shift more country orientation. But make no mistake, Mr Trump will not have been the cause of any decay. He will be the benefactor of a decay the levin of which has gone unchecked for quite a long time.

    Chris Atwood , says: March 10, 2016 at 11:40 am
    Another thought provoked by Dancer Girl's comments:

    "I just wish [Trump voters]'d leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders."

    Well it would be nice if poor Southern Blacks would do the same.

    It's obvious to many commentators that working-class Republican voters are voting against their own interests by allowing themselves to be fooled by cultural cues and dog whistles. But the big unreported story is that the same thing is happening in the Democratic primaries as well. Poor Southern Blacks are voting by colossal margins for the Wall Street version of the Democratic Party over the socialist version of the Democratic Party. Why? Because the Wall Street candidate is married to a guy who has all his Southern fried cultural cues and dog whistles working right and the socialist has spent too much of his time among up-tight Yankees in Vermont.

    Just one more way in which salt of the earth Blacks and Whites aren't all that different and are, in everything except tribal allegiance, getting more similar all the time. Both put racial honor and dignity over economic self-interest, and for a technocratic, policy-oriented politics aiming to just make lives better, that's a real problem.

    icarusr , says: March 10, 2016 at 12:11 pm
    BCaldwell:

    To the liberals and progressives who still dismiss the travails of the white working class, you only reinforce their alienation and disdain for you.

    I have, throughout my adult life, supported economic policies that directly or indirectly benefitted the working class (white or otherwise) to my own economic detriment. You name the policy – unionization, higher minimum wages, public health insurance, strong and well-funded public education at all levels, better public transport, mixed-income housing, consumer protection for financial services, etc. etc. – I have either advocated or in fact implemented it. I have done so in most instances in direct contradiction to my own economic interests, because I thought it was the right thing to do. I have even argued against affirmative action, in recognition of the resentments it creates, even as I see "hockey/baseball/football/church choir-club affirmative action" all around me. Grin and bear it; old habits take long to die.

    Now, the same people I have been trying to help, called me a "parasite" because I was in the public sector, "blood-sucker" because I was a lawyer, and a couple of unmentionables because I'm gay and slightly tanned.

    So, please, spare me the "dismiss and be disdained" business: I never dismissed but more often than not got disdain just because. I wish I had in me to say they deserve their lot, and they will deserve the eventual betrayal by Trump, but I don't. I'm still a good little liberal, disturbed by all of this to be sure, but nevertheless hopeful that I can make a difference – for them (I don't need any help).

    Andrew Jackson:

    They were "America is still racist." And they set out to prove it. Now we feel more bitterly divided then ever. I could go into more detail, about the issues involved, but it's just frustrating to me, and the stuff I quoted above is ready made excuse that is not true to my experience.

    When Obama became president, Republican leaders set out to make him a one-term president, not by offering better solutions, but by making sure he would achieve nothing. The first black president. And when the birther nonsense continued, Republican leaders did nothing to stop it – as late as 2012, Romney was making light of his birthplace. The first black president. Even as they attack him for following Wright, a protestant pastor, he was accused of being a secret Muslim. And Republican leaders did little to combat this calumny.

    The evidence is thick is that despite his election, certain elements in the Republican Party persisted in presenting Obama as the Other, the treasonous Other. Some of it was because he was a Democrat. But if you are suggesting that racism has had nothing to with what Obama has gone through, well, we just have to disagree.

    Charles Cosimano , says: March 10, 2016 at 12:17 pm
    Anyone who thinks Conservatives, all three of them in proportion to the rest of the electorate will stay home and let Hillary be elected is in need of oxygen. When it comes to the general election Trump will probably bury Hillary.

    I want to see how he will work with Congress. We know Congress won't have anything to do with Hillary and the House will vote to impeach her the first chance it gets, possibly the day after the inauguration. A vote for Hillary is, at the very least, a vote for four years of absolute gridlock and virtual civil war in DC. Bernie might actually get some of his less radical ideas through simply because everyone likes him and for all of his nuttiness does seem to actually care about the American people before he cares about the sacred policy.

    But let us understand one important thing. Trump is in no way destroying the Republican Party. They will still hold the House, may hang onto the Senate, and will still hold the majority of state governments. That is hardly a party that is being destroyed. In the long run, the Democrats are in far worse shape as that Republican majority in every other branch of government not only means that the Democrats do not have much a farm team for future presidential nominees, (look what they got stuck with this year.) but also it means enough barriers being thrown up in the way of the Democrats voting blocks to keep from even voting at all.

  • pitchfork , says: March 10, 2016 at 1:13 pm
    "but rich people with poor impulse control are pretty much the last people you want in positions of power." That makes a great tweet, but it's helpful to get beyond abstract generalities. Trump has poor impulse control on his mouth, to be sure, but there's every indication that his impulses will not lead to new wars or "kinetic" military actions in places like North Africa, the Middle East or Ukraine. His impulsiveness has also led him to reveal that he wants to be "neutral" on the Palestinian question. To me, his non-interventionist "impulses," if you will, are extremely important on a purely pragmatic level.
    EngineerScotty , says: March 10, 2016 at 2:02 pm
    An earlier comment I thought I had posted seems to have vanished (maybe I failed to hit "send" before leaving for the office )

    But +1 to those who compare the plight of working-class whites to African-Americans. Both groups have subcultures who engage in self-destructive behaviors and take perverse pride in doing so. Yet, it seems, around here–one of these groups are yeoman folk suffering at the hands of working-class elites who look down at them, but the other are simply thugs and layabouts. Around here, one culture is met with sympathy, and the other with scorn. One are the victims of circumstances, the other are the architects of their own misery.

    But of course, this goes way beyond racial politics. Many conservatives lionize the late Margaret Thatcher, who is often held to have "saved Britain". Saved it from what exactly–the Russians or the Germans or the French or the Spanish or the Normans or the Vikings or the Romans? No–she is held to have saved Britain from its own people–specifically unionized miners who had, according to the retelling, captured an excessive share of the country's wealth. Perhaps they had–truly answering that question requires either getting into nasty questions of comparable worth, or abandoning the whole question to the market–but in doing so, she smashed many of Britain's institutions and communities to bits.

    And around here–many of the people who seem outraged at the decline of factory work in rural communities; were openly cheering the demise of Detroit (and often still are). Many people who lament the outsourcing of good-paying American jobs, and the devastation of many communities that result–hate and resent their local schoolteachers or bus drivers who still do have good jobs with good pay. Granted, public employees have their paychecks financed by the taxpayer, so the general public is in the position of "management"–but still, the point stands: Some people expect aid and sympathy when they hit hard times, but have responded to the please of others in similar circumstances with shame and judgment.

    Given that we bailed out Detroit, of course we should help struggling small towns. But we should help all struggling communities best we can, not only those with particular demographics, leaving the rest to fester. No demographic in the United States is uniquely noble and uniquely deserving of public support. To the extent that WCWs believe that they are more noble, more industrious, more patriotic, and more virtuous than the rest of us–sorry, you're not. (But nor, on the whole, are you any worse).

  • cka2nd , says: March 10, 2016 at 2:37 pm
    Union-busting has done more to undercut and immiserate the working class than mass immigration and "free trade," and union leaders spending millions of dollars on electing Democrats and Republicans (at the state level) have betrayed their membership and the working class.

    Immigration and trade policies do need to be addressed but rebuilding the unions is the vital step for doing so. Unfortunately, I don't see the latter happening absent the development of a tough, theoretically vibrant revolutionary socialist movement, which is my only concession to the pessimism (or cynicism?) of Walter F.

    Antony , says: March 10, 2016 at 2:55 pm
    Jim the First:
    "if you're talking about parochial schools in the Catholic sense – they integrated before Brown v. Board for the most part. If you're talking about parochial schools in the non-Catholic sense, there just aren't enough of them to matter very much."

    Now that all depends on exactly where you are. In the flatter South, protestant or non-denominational Christian Academies are more important. I can't speak to other northern areas, but around here, the Catholic Schools are why the city is 50/50 black and white, and the public schools are 80% black.

    dominic1955 , says: March 10, 2016 at 2:59 pm
    "There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats, NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are "prone to brutality and violence ""

    I think he's saying white trashy people he's had experience with are like that, not Trump supporters by and large.

    He's right to some degree. I don't see my fellow white collar folks getting drunk of Steel Reserve and having to have the cops come in an break up a "domestic dispute".

    oldlib , says: March 10, 2016 at 3:08 pm
    Jim the First-
    The WWC started abandoning the Democratic Party starting with the 1966 mid-term elections. The last Democratic candidate for President to get a majority of the white male vote was LBJ in 1964.

    The Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts were used as wedge issues by the 1968 Nixon campaign. Read all about it in Kevin Phillips' book The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips helped design the Southern Strategy. Also see Atwater, Lee.

    True, it wasn't all race. Hippies and peaceniks were associated with the Democrats. Acid, amnesty, and abortion had a lot to do with it too.
    But race was the first big crack in the edifice of the New Deal coalition.

    MJR , says: March 10, 2016 at 5:52 am
    That bit about immigration, about being sacrificed, hits too close to home. Mr. Featherstone expresses the point very well.
    anonymousse , says: March 10, 2016 at 6:25 am
    Basically, three anecdotes.

    "The point is that Charles has been beat up pretty bad by life. It's still happening. He's a middle-aged white guy struggling for work, struggling to find solid ground."

    "They lost their influence, their dignity and their shot at the American Dream, and now they're angry. They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And they're voting now for Donald Trump."

    "But I get why people less secure economically than I am don't care, and are for him anyway."

    Plus this:

    "Point is, Trump is drawing from all demographic groups."

    The point is, this last observation invalidates your entire post. If Trump is drawing from all demographic groups, then his success isn't explained by anecdotes about poor, economically dispossessed people.

    You still don't get it.

    anonymousse

    Uncle Billy , says: March 10, 2016 at 6:28 am
    The rich have always had a lot of influence in the Republican Party, but under George W. Bush, the wealthy totally took over the party, and the party establishment began to worship at the altars of globalism and tax cuts for the rich. The party could care less about its' Base. The party totally lost the concept of the Common Good, such as we had under Eisenhower and even Nixon.

    The Base has been faithfully voting Republican in spite of getting very little out of the arrangement, but they are now starting to wake up. The GOP Establishment is going to have to make some changes; they can be for free enterprise, but with some concern for American workers.

    On top of it all, the demographics of the US are changing and whites are shrinking as a percentage of the electorate. The GOP cannot be a whites only party. Having written off African-Americans, they are now writing off Hispanics. Unless the GOP makes some fundamental changes, they will not win another national election.

    Randal , says: March 10, 2016 at 6:57 am
    " But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither are their problems and concerns. "

    This is why I see it as the American Spring.

    Granted it doesn't have the massive numbers of protesters that the countries where "Springs" have been claimed before have had. America is not yet anywhere approaching the levels of poverty and other problems that those countries have, and there is still some of the illusion of democracy left in its oligarchic politics. And America doesn't have a far richer superpower interfering and aggressively promoting, with seemingly unlimited wealth and power, its own political culture as the potential solution to all the ills of the people in the target country, and deliberately holding out the hope of superpower military intervention on behalf of the protesters if they just cause enough trouble for long enough.

    But still, the Trump candidacy seemingly has triggered something that won't just go away when Trump goes away (unless another anaesthetising period of economic growth cones along to postpone things for a while). It will merely develop along different lines according to how Trump is treated and how far he gets.

    wintermute , says: March 10, 2016 at 7:04 am

    As productivity climbed, working-class Americans wanted their wages to rise also. Instead, Republicans gave them tax cuts for the rich while liberal Democrats called them racists and bigots.

    Who voted the Republicans into power? We know it wasn't African-Americans (80+% of them vote Democratic), nor was it Latinos, nor Hispanics, nor Asians(not enough of them) nor was it wealthy people (again not enough of them). So all that left is White people (aka Real Americans™) and as we all know the vast majority of White Americans are working and middle class. So basically the White Working and Middle classes voted for the policies that screwed them, the only question left to answer is why. Where they to lazy and stupid to read the Republican Platform ? or was it something else?

    I have very limited sympathy for the the White Working and Middle classes, particularly the Southern ones, they got what they voted for. A little less blaming of liberals & democrats and a whole lot of self-awareness would do wonders.

    Allan , says: March 10, 2016 at 7:09 am
    You have been over-analyzing the Trump phenomenon and the psyche of the white working class these last few weeks. You make it sound as if they are some poor oppressed class whose life's are miserable. I am one of them. I am from them through and through and my life isn't too bad. I'm quite blessed actually.

    Do I have the opportunities that my grandfather who worked at a Ford factory without a high school diploma, and retired in his early 50's? Or my dad who was able to buy a home on a grocery store stock boy's wage? No. But I have a safe and warm place to live, a job, a beautiful family, and my heart is not full of hatred.

    You don't seem to give as much time looking into the hearts and souls of poor black folks or undocumented workers and their struggles. Maybe their struggles aren't noble enough for you attention and obsessive mulling over. But, let me tell you, they have plenty of legit complaints that go way beyond "Boohoo! I don't have very much savings!"

    ck , says: March 10, 2016 at 7:57 am
    "Nobody has ever seen a thing like this in American politics."

    You need to revise this statement to say, "in post WWII American television politics." If you study the history of the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian eras, you will find many examples that resemble today. I think we over sentimentalize past American politics. Trump very much resembles the politics and attitude of Jacksonian era America. Just take a look at the back and forth between the campaigners of John Quincy Adams and the General:

    "Jackson blamed the death of his wife, Rachel, which occurred just after the election, on the Adams campaigners who called her a 'bigamist.'"

    Here is another take on Jackson that sounds a lot like Trump:

    "Jackson believed that the president's authority was derived from the people and the presidential office was above party politics. Instead of choosing party favorites, Jackson chose 'plain, businessmen' whom he intended to control."

    This is why Jackson was hated, smeared and maligned, and the same is true of Trump.

    And if you think the tabloid gossip going on today is oh so shocking, check out the Petticoat Affair of 1830:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petticoat_affair

    "In regard to the Petticoat affair, Jackson later remarked, 'I [would] rather have live vermin on my back than the tongue of one of these Washington women on my reputation.'"

    [NFR: I meant "nobody alive has seen a thing like this". - RD]

    ck , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:00 am
    "Trump may be denied the GOP nomination, in the end, and he probably won't be elected president. But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither are their problems and concerns.

    "Who will speak for them then?"

    Vox Day points out that if the GOPe denies the nationalists with Trump, then later we will get something much worse, the ultra-nationalists.

    icarusr , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:07 am
    "If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big mistake."

    I agree with you – and go further: writing any voter off as a racist clod, or any clod, is idiotic.

    But clod or not, a certain segment of the American population has been – for lack of a better term – "alienated", for political purposes, by the fear and envy of the Other. It began with Reagan's infamous Welfare Queen speech in Mississippi, thus – and instantly – turning social welfare programs into a question of race. Liberals/progressives/Democrats have never been able to escape that – and they could exorcise the issue in electoral terms only by Bill Clinton's sharp tack to the right. Be that as it may, the gambit worked: the Democrats became known not only as the party of tax and spend, but also the party of Special Interests (of the rainbow variety), and the programs supported by Democrats became programs of the Other, to be challenged and dismantled, even if they benefited the white working class – the segment of the population Reagan cut off of the Democratic coalition.

    Then came the election of 2008, and suddenly the Other was in the White House. The Trumpkins want to "Take American Back" because they have been told that the Kenyan Socialist Muslim stole their country. The evidence for that is scant, non-existent, but no matter. Republican leaders have been screaming from the rooftops not just that the President of the United States should be replaced in the next election, which is a normal thing to say, but that, in effect, he and his administration are illegitimate; what he proposes is un-American; he is committing treason merely by being in Office.

    Any wonder then that the most vulnerable segment of the Republican base, subjected to thirty years of fear on the one hand and sustained economic attacks (mostly by their own side) on the other, then turn to one who promises deliverance?

    Rick67 , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:28 am
    "If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big mistake."

    I don't disagree. But why? *Why* would people (a) not try to understand and (b) write his backers off? And to be honest, I think that is exactly what they are doing. And that might be the more important story in this whole mess. We have reached a point where our cultural elites despise the masses.

    SteveM , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:37 am
    Re: Charles Featherstone, "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.)"

    Replace "white" with "black" or "hispanic" and see how far that observation travels. Featherstone should be writing for the "poor, uneducated and easy to command" Washington Post. His selective stereotypical misanthropy would fit right in.

    Good thing Featherstone has his lovely immigrant friends to talk to. God help him if he actually had to cavort with the repulsive white riff-raff.

    JLF , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:37 am
    "They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And they're voting now for Donald Trump." Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate the establishment that they maintain. It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta be it.
    DancerGirl , says: March 10, 2016 at 8:56 am
    Rod – do you realize how many of Featherstone's words and sentiments could have been applied to Black Lives Matter? In all seriousness, as I was reading him, I kept thinking, "Working Class White Lives Matter."

    It's frustrating that so many people will hear and connect, emotionally, with what he is saying, while dimissing many of the same ideas when they are put forth in the African-American context. It's like they are saying white people are hard-working, screwed over folks who may appropriately advance this argument, but black people are whiny, criminally-inclined ingrates who should not.

    I am genuinely struck by the way the core of his message speaks to the alienation, lack of faith, lack of trust, and real fear that spurred the rise of BLM. His words, however, will probably be met largely with compassion, while the movement's words will be dismissed, will be met with the assertion that the problem of police abusing authority is not as bad as they say it is, or will be met with the deflection to a morally and politically distinct issue - so-called "black-on-black" crime.

    It isn't just frustrating. It's depressing.

    DancerGirl , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:05 am
    To be clear, my thoughts about BLM, described above, are particularly troubling in the age of Trump. I'm noodling over a bunch of things right now, but one big concern I have is the seeming fragility of a multicultural nation. It feels like we are splintering; the competition for dignity, if you will, is becoming more intense because we are increasingly persuaded that it exists in finite supply; and that desire for dignity among Trump supporters is manifesting as shameless bigotry or willful blindness to it in pursuit of transformative ends.

    I get – and hear – the claims of despair that many Trump backers articulate. I just wish they'd leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders. He is, in so many ways, the flipside of Trump.

    Roger H. , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:09 am
    Good Morning Rod,

    I'm one of those doing quite well, and supporting Mr. Trump's bid for the Presidency. I'm a degreed mathematician doing research and development in cybersecurity, with a growing portfolio of professional publications, and patents pending. I'm a Marine veteran of the Iraq war whose 'eggs aren't too scrambled'. I married woman who went to one of the best schools in the UK and graduated with honors from one of the best universities in the US. I truly believe that my wife, my child, and I will be fine no matter who wins this election.

    But I'm cheering Mr. Trump and planning on voting for him.

    I come from a medium-sized city in Virginia that has hitched its wagon to the fortunes of the major state university there, as well as the two private colleges in the area. (One of which was briefly mentioned on this blog in the past year.) My hometown is historically a pretty rural area, but that's changing.

    As a case study, I would point you to our local poultry plant. It used to be the case that this plant provided good jobs to a lot of the locals who weren't college material, but now you'd be hard pressed to find many people who grew up in the county working there. You'd be hard pressed to find more than 15% or so of the workforce fluent in the English Language. The local workforce was replaced by cheaper immigrant labor.

    While this has happened, my hometown has become a major drug smuggling point in the East Coast. One of my childhood friends got caught up in the synthetic drug trade and is serving a 30-odd year sentence. There are gangs - Gangster Disciples, SUR 13 I believe I remember hearing about Bloods in the area. This is not the happy, little rural college town that I remember from my childhood. (And I do recognize that it may never have been the town of my childhood memories, but what it has become is NOT an improvement.)

    I also LOVE that Mr. Trump is standing up to the blatant dishonesty of political correctness. (But the PC rant is another topic that I haven't time for this morning.)

    Why am I supporting Mr. Trump? My close circle might well benefit a little bit more with another candidate, but I maintain a memory and fondness of the place that I came from and the people there. I'd like to see their world built back up, or at least to see its eroding and creative destruction ceased. Will Mr. Trump accomplish this? I don't know. He is pretty plainly stating that there's a problem, diagnosing it reasonably well, and claiming that he can do something about it. That's something. It's more than the lip service that we hear from the other candidates. Mr. Trump is a deeply flawed candidate and man, but beggars can't be choosers.

    Herenow , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:21 am
    GOP policy wrt to its impact on many working and middle class Americans seems to me to be a classic case of emperors new clothes. It's kind of surprising that it took so long for so many to see that it's naked. I wonder, if we hadn't had a decade or so of amped up patriotism from foreign wars whether it would have taken so long.
    Erik Lonnrot , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:24 am
    Rod, at what point do we need to stop merely trying to understand Trump supporters and start trying to stop them? All due respect, there's nothing about their support for him I don't understand. I understand them thoroughly. At the end of the day, they support a man who is now a monstrous demagogue and who would be a monstrous tyrant. I empathize with Charles Featherstone, who lucidly recognizes his attraction to Trump as envy. But he's also lucid enough not to vote for the guy.

    Look, I get not want to bolt over to Hilary Clinton. I also get being irate at the GOP and not wanting to vote for any of them in the general election. I would even get not voting in the primary, since virtually everyone except Rand Paul who is not Trump ran on some variation of the policies that got people mad at the party in the first place. (And Paul's economic ideas are less than feasible at this point in our history.) None of that is a good reason to vote for Trump. If the country really is in decline, Trump is the person who would leave it a smoking crater at the end of four years. Voting for him is madness. Yes, an "understandable" madness, but madness nonetheless.

    So. I've heard the sob stories. I've heard the litany of betrayals. I've heard the indictments of the GOP's bad faith. I swear to you that I get it. None of that is sufficient, in my book, to protect Trumpkins from the fundamentally true criticism that they are knowingly supporting a racist, xenophobic, misogynist, ignorant bully who encourages violence at his rallies and openly brags about abusing the system to make himself richer (and, by logical extension, to make the rest of us poorer). If the Trumpkins get that, and they don't care, what do we do, Rod? I mean, it's all well and good to give these people space to air their grievances and disappointments, but from where I sit, they are one hundred percent committed to the wholesale decimation of what precious little respect, civility, and coherent policy debate still remains in national politics. Doesn't this merit a vigorous, sustained rebuttal or denunciation?

    This is important, because Donald Trump is not "single-handedly destroying the Republican Party." He's doing it with the hands of every single person who has voted for him, and who has pledged to support his candidacy, however much longer that lasts. And if, God forbid, Trump actually makes it to the White House, he will not be "single-handedly" destroying the United States of America. He will do it with the help of every single one of the people who voted for him. I've no love for the Republican Party. They certainly, as they say, had this coming. But Trump is a menace to more than the GOP, and there are ways to weaken and destroy a political party that don't involve running a crypto-fascist as a viable primary candidate.

    At what point, Rod, do his voters start sharing culpability for every racist, misogynist, xenophobic, ignorant thing he says and every act of violence he encourages? Because your posts have made it very clear that they know exactly what kind of person he is. They're supporting him anyway. Which means that they are knowingly supporting all the evil crap that goes along with it. People of good conscience don't support that kind of stuff. As I said at the outset, I totally get refusing to vote Republican or Democrat. I get why people are angry. I get why, in theory, they want to vote for someone who will dismantle the status quo. And while I do totally understand why people vote for Trump, a huge part of that understanding is the knowledge that every single one of these people has endorsed, with eyes wide open and their consciences apparently clear, everything diabolical about his campaign as well.

    How much time are you going to spend trying to understand that ?

    Robert G , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:33 am
    Then why don't these poor desperate people vote for Bernie? Bernie Sanders has spent his whole life championing the poor and working class and his whole campaign is built around it. You want to ignore the racial aspects then fine. But don't pretend they don't exist. Maybe it is not even race as such. More class or clan solidarity. However, understanding the Trump voter and their general malaise does not detract that Trump is a dangerous demagogue who will ruin this country in the unlikely event he is elected.
    ADC Wonk , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:33 am
    You quoted Michael Cooper as saying:

    As productivity climbed, working-class Americans wanted their wages to rise also. Instead, Republicans gave them tax cuts for the rich while liberal Democrats called them racists and bigots.

    Mick, above, asks the question that I have:

    When did Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakais call white working class people bigots?

    That's a question worth pondering, imho.

    icarusr, above, notes:

    It began with Reagan's infamous Welfare Queen speech in Mississippi, thus – and instantly – turning social welfare programs into a question of race.

    Bingo. (Although, I would suggest that it's roots go back to Nixon's "Southern Strategy", and then to Lee Atwater's famous confession).

    Some of the dog-whistling is loud and clear (to be clear: I'm not accusing the GOP leaders of being racists - I'm accusing some of them of demagoguery).

    So when Dems see poor working class folks voting for officials that reject raising the minimum wage (see Arkansas, where they simultaneously voted to increase, and voted for officials who were against it), or promise to dismantle their state's version of Obamacare even though they love the program (see, e.g., Kentucky), Dems can't help wonder if the opposition to these programs - against their own interests - is based on the dog-whistle attacks concocted by the spiritual descendants of Atwater. These consultants tap into the fear expressed, or rather stoke the anger expressed by the idea "when I need government assistance, it's because I'm down on my luck, but I still work hard - when that black guy down the street applies for government assistance, it's because he's a lazy good-for-nothing."

    Which, really, is just a more crass way of saying "Welfare Queen!"

    (I know the above sounds harsh - for those unware of the Atwater reference, See, e.g., https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater )

    Kurt Gayle , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:35 am
    Rod said: "And now Trump. I think back to watching his Mobile rally - August 21 [actually 25], 2015 - on TV, the first time I had seen an entire Trump campaign speech. Thirty thousand people came out to hear him. And the speech was ridiculous - a rambling mess. I snorted that anybody would be taken in by this nonsense. I didn't care for any of his competitors either, but at least they gave coherent speeches. This guy? Clown."

    "Ridiculous nonsense"? Rod, you don't hear Trump speeches the way that Middle America hears him – the way that working America hears him.

    This is the link to the first of a 10-part transcript of Trump's Mobile speech and it's worth skimming through quickly, Rod, with the advantage of 6 months worth of hindsight. The Trump Mobile speech is a MASTERPIECE. Listening to it, I remember thinking: "Trump understands. Trump tells it like it is. Trump's the one!"

    http://www.whatthefolly.com/2015/08/25/transcript-donald-trumps-speech-in-mobile-alabama-part-1/

    Jon Cogburn , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:41 am
    This blog has replaced Scott Adams as the go to place for understanding Trump. Adams deservedly got a lot of credit for correctly predicting that Trump would not collapse, but his own repeated assertions that truth doesn't matter in a 3d world are flatly inconsistent with his pretense to just be reporting the facts about Trump. Once one suspects that he's pretending to report the facts while really drumming up support for Trump it becomes clear how one sided is his analysis. Adams' own sophistic views about the primacy of rhetoric and human beings as meat machines don't license any other interpretation.

    I think the moral center of this blog almost* always gives Rod a vastly greater appreciation of why people of good will believe and desire what they do, even when Rod disagrees. This is a general virtue of the blog, but it is really manifest in the coverage of Trump.

    The tragic sense of life, and the related appreciation for the necessity of tragic tradeoffs in human affairs, that informs true and worthwhile conservatism also proves (at least when leavened by love) to be conducive to understanding as well.

    I also think that Rod's analysis of these issues is getting out. I was talking to my father on the phone last night and asked him what he thought of Trump, and while he would never vote for Trump he said that it seemed to him that lots of people were very angry because the policies of the Republican party didn't answer to their pressing problems or concerns. If my father is understanding things this way, then I do think there is a real possibility of a paleoconservative moment coming out of the crack up of the Republican party's horrible Frankenstein melange of libertarian economics, neo-conservative foreign policy, and theocratic statism on drugs and gender, all sewn together with the kind of rent-seeking corruption under the guise of "privatization" and "economic development" that has now brought several states (including the gret stet where Rod and I reside) to their knees.

    Trump is scary, but I think a correct understanding of Trump points the way towards a better muddling through, which (as all paleocons will agree) is the best we can or should hope for this side of Heaven.

    [*Rare exceptions where I think Rod's moral imagination sometimes doesn't extend in this way- (1) evidence of coming to grips with the utter hell that many gay and transgender kids go through (especially in conservative Christian households where the suicide and homelessness rate of the gay kids is immense) and what biology now tells us about gender and sex, and (2) the intellectual foundations of the Protestant Reformation (e.g. rejecting Aquinas in favor of Augustine) and how that ties to liberal Protestants' sincere understanding of Christianity.]

    Mike Alexander , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:44 am
    I cannot buy this economic argument for support of Trump. Why no mention of Sanders, who is the only anti-free trade candidate running. Trump *says* he is opposed to free trade, but he is obviously lying. Historically who spoke for the white working class? Labor. And who was allied with Labor in the late 19th and early 20th century? The old Socialists, of whom Sanders is the only one left who holds any power.

    The Republicans have always been the party of the capitalist elites and the Whigs before then too. You can never get any support of working class white people from capitalists, they have completely opposing interests.

    [NFR: Because Bernie Sanders is a cultural leftist who supports generous immigration policies. - RD]

    Walter F. , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:45 am
    Charles Featherstone "But you leave people behind at your peril. You can tell them to "lie down and die," and some will. But many won't.

    And if there are enough of them, well "

    Well, *what*? I keep seeing these vague statements about how the white working class can only be "pushed so far", and that their anger must be addressed "or else". Or else what? I ask. They'll throw their votes away on an unacceptable candidate like Trump who cannot be allowed to take office (and thereby ensure Mrs. Clinton's election; yeah, that's *really* sticking it to us on the left), or some other futile, impotent tantrum. These are hollow threats.

    Rod "But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither are their problems and concerns."

    Actually, long-term demographic, economic and cultural trends mean that they *are* going away, albeit rather slowly. But, in the meantime, they can and will be increasingly contained. Read Cowen's "Average is Over" for how he predicts modern technologies, including electronic entertainment, robotic drones, machine surveillance, and psychiatric medications will likely prevent any rebellions. Or read David Brin's "The Transparent Society" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society ), about the increasing ubiquity of inescapable surveillance and "sousveillance". Add mass communication, information abundance, improvements and automation in marketing. And consider social media, with "Facebook felons" and Twitter "shadowbans". Or the return of Peeple, and the example set by China's "Sesame Credit". We're all watching one another, compiling and sharing data on one another. We have facial recognition software that is not only as good or better than human beings, but computers are already learning to recognize people's emotions from their facial expressions. Financial transactions are moving ever more away from hard-to-trace cash in favor of readily monitorable electronic transactions.

    Thus, any tantrums by the Trumpenproles that become disruptive will be swiftly and forcefully crushed. So, ultimately, what can they do, except "lie down and die"?

    bmj , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:52 am
    @Mick, you're right, and I assume your critique cuts both sides of the aisle, right? How do "modern" Democrats, beholden as they are to Wall Street and SV, still stand up for the trade unions? The unions, I suspect, vote Democrat for the same reason most Republicans still vote Republican: what other choice to do they have?

    If the news is to be believed, Trump is certainly no friend of the unions, at least in his own business dealings.

    Joel , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:52 am
    Perot might have won too, had he not withdrawn from the race and got back in. I will never forget the surreal feeling of going to Air Force basic training in 1992 and entering a news-free bubble for six weeks, and then emerging to find that Ross Perot was leading the polls in the three-way race! I think he would have won had he just stayed the course, but he looked erratic when he dropped out.
    KD , says: March 10, 2016 at 9:52 am
    Rod:

    I have to say that it is re-assuring to me that Trump is basically a demagogue, promising a chicken in every pot and every man a king, yet probably not going to deliver. The alternative to demagogue in this situation is a Vladimir Lenin, and you could imagine what a Lenin would do with the Trump support.

    Trump speaks for a group that has been abandoned and marginalized by the political classes. He is bringing them back into the system and perhaps bringing a little more balance back to domestic politics. I don't think elites change unless they feel threatened, and I hope Trump is threatening enough to the elites, without actually posing the threat a real revolutionary would pose.

    Further, I hope that the political system starts working for ALL people, not just some people. If not, they will get their Lenin and their Jacobin terror, and they will deserve it.

    David , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:00 am
    'Trump channels something - the rage and desperation of a people who know they don't matter anymore.'

    Maybe I'm a cynic, but when have they ever mattered? 'The People' had tastes of the American dream in the 1950's and the 80's, as far as I can see, and before, since, and in between have been taken utterly for granted. Maybe people felt like they mattered, tuning in to the same television shows and radio programs and meeting at church each week; maybe the body politic was able to relate to its representatives in a more meaningful way than the identikit dialtones that occupy the political stage now. But don't forget that back when people 'mattered' they were still shipped off to die in useless wars, there were still plenty of Americans working long hours for poor pay, and there were still politicians happy to lie barefaced to their constituency.

    Brooklyn Blue Dog , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:01 am
    @Wintermute. Amen.

    My knee-jerk position is to support the working people against the rich. But, given the voting patterns of the white working class going back to 1980, and even to 1968, I find myself vacillating between feeling for them and believing that they got what they wanted (and deserved) good and hard.

    And, let's be perfectly honest here. Why did the white working class abandon the Democratic Party, which supported their economic interests, in favor of the Republican Party, which did not?

    Race.

    That's it. Pure and simple. Even the evangelical movement is in large part a product of resistance to integration, as parochial schools could legally be segregated because they were private, and segregationists flooded into them in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education.

    And these madrassas trained the shock troops of the Republican Party, hell-bent to vote against their own interests because they were bigots.

    enjolras , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:03 am
    It's interesting how you can read Mr. Featherstone's words and see an "insightful post". Because when I read those words all I see is well, exhibit 3875 in why it makes no sense to try and understand why people support Trump. Say what you will about their frustration, alienation, disenchantment, whatever. Ultimately the whole thing is just incoherent and utterly unthoughtful.

    "Trump is poking all of the right people in the eyes for all the right reasons."

    The right people are immigrants and Muslims and the women Trump has attacked in the most personal of ways? He may be frustrating the ambitions of more conventional conservative politicians and driving decent liberals into hair-pulling fits, but that's all a result of his absolutely frightening willingness to whip up enmity towards people who, on the whole, have been attacked and disrespected far more directly and openly than most of Trump's supporters have been.

    And the right reasons are what, exactly? Is there any actual proof that the man really wants to make America great? Is there any reason to believe he's doing this for any reason other than to fill the hole in his psyche where self-acceptance should live? To people not under Trump's spell it is so obvious that his entire candidacy is about his ego, his unceasing need to be not admired by aggrandized that it's just astonishing to think of how many somersaults a person's critical faculties must perform to avoid recognizing it.

    "He's coarse and crude, but he appears to make no pretenses."

    Well, actually, he's nothing but pretenses. That's the problem. He lies. And lies so prolifically and so wildly that he's not so much a person, or even a character. He's a persona. He has transformed himself into a tissue thin representation of a "winner". But strip away the lies about how great he is, how great his business savvy is, etc and you realize that Donald Trump is a lot like Oakland. There's no there there.

    "But it always struck me there was some other agenda to the immigration. That there still is. I'm not sure what."

    This is the logic of someone who has mentally thrown their hands up and said, "I'm frustrated about my life, so I guess I'll blame, oh, I don't know immigration. Sure, why not?" Dress it up however you like, but this is functionally the same as posting a "No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish" sign on your soul.

    "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.) But you leave people behind at your peril."
    I agree with this, but let's not pretend that large swaths of this population have chosen to resist, at every turn, efforts made to help them. Those efforts themselves may have been clumsy, ineffective or counterproductive (there's lots of room for criticism and we shouldn't back away from it), but let's heed the mantra of personal responsibility as well. Because at a certain point I find myself getting a little, well, tetchy with people who over and over again supported policies, politicians and parties that hurt them financially because doing so hurt other people socially and legally and then, after realizing they've shoveled themselves to deep to ever climb out of their fiscal grave, turn to a demagogue as one last knife in the back to their countrymen.

    (sorry if this is a double post)

    Andrew Jackson , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:10 am
    Then came the election of 2008, and suddenly the Other was in the White House. The Trumpkins want to "Take American Back" because they have been told that the Kenyan Socialist Muslim stole their country.

    I find it so frustrating when people write stuff like this. People were so hopeful about Obama, so hopeful about racism in this country. But the first words out of certain sectors of left after Obama's election weren't hopeful ones about reconciliation. They were "America is still racist." And they set out to prove it. Now we feel more bitterly divided then ever. I could go into more detail, about the issues involved, but it's just frustrating to me, and the stuff I quoted above is ready made excuse that is not true to my experience.

    I get – and hear – the claims of despair that many Trump backers articulate. I just wish they'd leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders. He is, in so many ways, the flipside of Trump.

    And honestly, Trump supporters wish that you would rally around Trump. Certainly the differences between the two candidates are more than mere sensibility. But there is certainly an argument to be made that Trump's strength on immigration is preferable to Bernie Sanders's wishful thinking.

    Inigo Martinez , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:12 am

    Re: Charles Featherstone, "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.)"

    Replace "white" with "black" or "hispanic" and see how far that observation travels. Featherstone should be writing for the "poor, uneducated and easy to command" Washington Post. His selective stereotypical misanthropy would fit right in.

    Good thing Featherstone has his lovely immigrant friends to talk to. God help him if he actually had to cavort with the repulsive white riff-raff.

    I'm going to defend Charles Featherstone here. I don't think it does any good whatsoever to romanticize the working poor as salt of the earth, honest-to-goodness decent people who don't get a fair shake. Poverty brutalizes. The attempt to aid the downtrodden must be accompanied by a hard-headed assessment of the physical, emotional, and intellectual damage that poverty, deprivation, and neglect inevitably cause.

    "They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And they're voting now for Donald Trump."

    Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate the establishment that they maintain. It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta be it.

    I think what this speaks to more than anything is the total decay of political life at the local and community level. The Trump 'movement' is really a mass media event, played out on a national media stage, with many people playing and voting along just like they do on a regular talent show competition. But the potential for mobilizing those people into a movement that would start to build power locally simply doesn't exist.

    I suspect Trump voters understand this at some level but are powerless to do anything about it. So it seems that Trump voters are able to crash the rigged game of a media-driven national election reality show competition, but can do next to nothing about the iron grip of the institution they despise on the local politics that no doubt affects their lives far more on a daily basis. Which is really just to say, again, that the dominant motif of Trump voters is that they are fed up with being powerless and without influence.

    KD , says: March 10, 2016 at 10:13 am
    DancerGirl:

    The problem with identity politics is not the groups themselves, but the fact that they tend to put forward the most extreme leadership (and this generally happens for structural reasons so is inevitable).

    Further, politics is a zero sum game, so if my group gets the right not to bake cakes for gay weddings, then the other group loses the right to force people to bake cakes for their weddings. No matter where you draw the line, one group comes away with its feelings hurt. [Without pronouncing judgment on which group is "in the right".]

    The common draw between BLM and Trump is they are both playing on feelings of solidarity. Even though Trump is really not a white nationalist, and not talking white nationalism, there is an implicit tone of ethnic and class solidarity as much as there would be at a Black Power rally.

    I think it would be helpful to realize that the political leadership of all these groups are all a$$#0!*$, and the average member of the group is not nearly as radical. It is also necessary to recognize that someone is always going to lose, and work toward compromises notwithstanding the leadership, which is always going to be selling saints versus demons and no compromises.

    But I would like to see something like national solidarity, that Americans could come together as one people with a shared history, notwithstanding all the instances in which we have fought amongst ourselves, and try to start governing in the interest of everyone, and I bet there are plenty of BLM supporters and Trump supporters who would stand behind that message.

    But I think progressives are somewhat naive about mass politics. Sanders is coherent, he has a lot of policy content, he can articulate his position and I definitely think he has a point.

    But politics in mass democracy is ugly, mobilizing on a mass level is ugly. Progressives tend to focus on the ugliest side of "white solidarity", but if you go down to a minority neighborhood in Chicago during a highly contested race for mayor, you will note some salty language and maybe a stereotype or too coming out. It may be that only white people can be racist, but every ethnic and religious group can certainly be ugly when they are engaged in some kind of political struggle.

    In other words, there must always be a tragic dimension of politics, as well as a comic dimension, and American democracy will never be just a faculty lounge debate.

    [Oct 05, 2016] They took one Saddam, but got us many more

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I am not satisfied [with the Chilcot report]," ..."
    "... . "It won't bring me back my family; it won't bring me back my arms or it won't bring me back my country. My country Iraq is destroyed because of this invasion." ..."
    "... "when the missile hit my home." ..."
    "... "I was still young, living with my family. At 12:00 o'clock in the night I suddenly heard a very big blast hitting my home, the house collapsed on us. There was a lot of fire and I heard my family screaming and shouting," ..."
    "... "We were farmers. We had sheep and cows outside. There wasn't a military base near to my home," ..."
    "... "There are lots of people like me who lost some members of their family. So we have no answer for this: why they have done it – we don't know." ..."
    "... "Yes, Saddam [Hussein] was a terrible person and a dictator, but what's happening now is much worse than it was under Saddam. They took one Saddam and they got us many more Saddams," ..."
    "... "inadequate" ..."
    "... "deeply sorry for the loss of life" ..."
    "... "good faith". ..."
    "... "This makes me angry. He just said 'sorry' and he also said he would do the same thing again. They have caused so many deaths and so much suffering […]," ..."
    "... "to say 'sorry' and just walk away with it – it's not justice." ..."
    "... "I want to ask him if he wants to come back with me to Iraq and tell the Iraqi people that he will do the same thing again…" ..."
    "... "presented with a certainty that was not justified." ..."
    "... "chaos" ..."
    "... "Before the war started we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew that they're only coming for economic reasons and to have power in this part of the world. And you can see what's happening today in the Middle East. Iraq, Syria – it's all linked to the 2003 invasions of Iraq," ..."
    "... "There's was violence but now there's hundreds of more violence than before…If you want to rebuild Iraq again you need probably another hundred years to do this…I go back to Iraq and I see the country is destroyed," ..."
    Jul 08, 2016 | www.rt.com

    RT UK

    Published time: 02:03 Edited time: 8 Jul, 2016 02:55 Get short URL

    Blair's apology for the Iraq invasion is not going to bring the "destroyed" country and dead people back, a disabled Iraqi man, who lost his whole family, told RT. He demands justice for those whose actions only created "many more Saddams". "I am not satisfied [with the Chilcot report]," 25-year-old Ali Abbas said . "It won't bring me back my family; it won't bring me back my arms or it won't bring me back my country. My country Iraq is destroyed because of this invasion."

    Thirteen years ago, Abbas lost his mother, father, and a little brother as well as 13 other members of their family in the UK-US allied 2003 invasion.

    Now residing in London, he recounts terrors of the war, saying he can vividly remember the day and time "when the missile hit my home."

    "I was still young, living with my family. At 12:00 o'clock in the night I suddenly heard a very big blast hitting my home, the house collapsed on us. There was a lot of fire and I heard my family screaming and shouting," Abbas said.

    That attack left the young man disabled – having suffered burns to 60 percent of his body, he lost his arms amputated due to severe burns.

    The one thing that Abbas does not understand is why the militants had to target his home and family of peaceful farmers.

    "We were farmers. We had sheep and cows outside. There wasn't a military base near to my home," he said. "There are lots of people like me who lost some members of their family. So we have no answer for this: why they have done it – we don't know."

    Abbas says that the Iraq's 2003 invasion and the following regime change brought the country leaders much worse than Saddam Hussein.

    "Yes, Saddam [Hussein] was a terrible person and a dictator, but what's happening now is much worse than it was under Saddam. They took one Saddam and they got us many more Saddams," he said.

    The so-called Chilcot inquiry released by Sir John Chilcot criticized former UK government led by Tony Blair for "inadequate" planning and underestimation of the Iraq invasion's consequences. It also found that Britain's choice to support the Iraq war unjustified.

    Speaking in light of the Chilcot inquiry release, Tony Blair said he was "deeply sorry for the loss of life" , but stressed that he acted in "good faith".

    "This makes me angry. He just said 'sorry' and he also said he would do the same thing again. They have caused so many deaths and so much suffering […]," Abbas said, adding that "to say 'sorry' and just walk away with it – it's not justice."

    "I want to ask him if he wants to come back with me to Iraq and tell the Iraqi people that he will do the same thing again…" he says.

    The Chilcot report also showed that Britain's decision to bomb Iraq was not clearly evaluated as one of the major arguments for the campaign – Iraq's weapons of mass destruction – was "presented with a certainty that was not justified."

    Abbas agrees that the WMD was just a pretext for the UK and US to initiate war which resulted in total "chaos" in the Middle East and proliferation of terrorism.

    "Before the war started we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew that they're only coming for economic reasons and to have power in this part of the world. And you can see what's happening today in the Middle East. Iraq, Syria – it's all linked to the 2003 invasions of Iraq," Abbas said.

    He says that the 2003 invasion unleashed terrorists that Iraq did not know of before.

    "There's was violence but now there's hundreds of more violence than before…If you want to rebuild Iraq again you need probably another hundred years to do this…I go back to Iraq and I see the country is destroyed," he added.

    Read more:

    Following the Chilcot Report, time for a proper reckoning 7/7 London bombings, 11yrs on: Iraq War raised terror threat, Chilcot suggests British military equipment 'wholly inadequate' in Iraq, says Chilcot

    [Oct 05, 2016] Does the One Percent Deserve What it Gets

    Oct 05, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Economist's View

    Ron Waller -> Sandwichman ... , Tuesday, October 04, 2016 at 05:26 PM

    Donald J. Deadbeat got rich working the system. I.e. legally. The Clintons, on the other hand, got all their riches from betraying the people, liquidating the public trust and selling off American government to oligarchs domestic and foreign. They made over $100-million in speaking fees alone cashing in on promissory bribes.

    For every criticism against Trump there exists one worse against Hillary.

    Whichever bottom-feeder ends up president it will be bad news for the party they captured. Better for progressives if Trump blows up the Republican party than the Goldwater Girl destroying the Democratic party (saddling it with a 12-year Great Recession by 2020.)

    The former will produce a New Deal revolution led by someone like Elizabeth Warren in 2020, which will usher in a new era for civilization.

    The latter will kick the New Deal can down the road to 2024 with something like a Ted Cruz presidency in 2020. Given the state of the global economy, which is teetering on the verge of collapse into fascist revolutions and world war, that will probably mean just kicking the can.

    ilsm -> Ron Waller ... , -1
    Willie Horton may be worse than no convictions Clintons.

    Trump has no blood on his hands like both Clintons.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Elections, information overload, Clinton foundation and Machiavelli Prince

    Notable quotes:
    "... People are in information overload most of the time, and where politics are concerned, they really just want to know who to root for. They ask, "who is the good guy? who is the bad guy?" "Whose right?" "What should be done?" And, people like the opinions they have, whatever those opinions may be; they use their political opinions to feed their sense of self-esteem and social belonging, for better and for worse. ..."
    "... I was thinking about what a brilliant innovation the Clinton Foundation is, how well it is designed to solve the problems of Machiavelli's Prince. ..."
    "... I've seen some articles that attempt to understand the CF as a means to the political ambitions of the Clintons, but they seldom grasp the awesome accomplishment it is in ways that also fully understand why enemies of the Clintons are keen to attack it and why it so reliably produces the neoliberal pablum that Thomas Franks despises. ..."
    "... If we could imagine a Marx tackling the CF as a vehicle of class interest, that would be pretty interesting. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 9:54 pm 337

    Rich Puchalsky @ 334

    People are in information overload most of the time, and where politics are concerned, they really just want to know who to root for. They ask, "who is the good guy? who is the bad guy?" "Whose right?" "What should be done?" And, people like the opinions they have, whatever those opinions may be; they use their political opinions to feed their sense of self-esteem and social belonging, for better and for worse.

    I have some friends, who are really into a particular sport as fans, not participants. One guy knows everything about baseball. It is fun to watch a game with him, because he knows when someone is about to try to steal a base and stuff like that and he can explain the manager's strategy and has gossip about the players careers and personal lives. And, apparently, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of baseball history - appears to, anyway: what dramatic thing happened in game 3 of the 1967 World Series and so on and exactly why everyone hated Ty Cobb.

    No one like that shows up at CT to talk politics. Maybe it is just as well. Sports guys can wield that knowledge and remain affable, but political guys tend to be arrogant and off-putting. But, I do think we could use more of that spirit sometimes.

    I was thinking about what a brilliant innovation the Clinton Foundation is, how well it is designed to solve the problems of Machiavelli's Prince. But, we would struggle to discuss it in those terms; the partisan contest means that the CF is either horribly corrupt or prosaically innocent. The pressure to evaluate it is so high, that seeing the functional details is hard.

    I've seen some articles that attempt to understand the CF as a means to the political ambitions of the Clintons, but they seldom grasp the awesome accomplishment it is in ways that also fully understand why enemies of the Clintons are keen to attack it and why it so reliably produces the neoliberal pablum that Thomas Franks despises.

    If we could imagine a Marx tackling the CF as a vehicle of class interest, that would be pretty interesting.

    [Oct 04, 2016] You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him vote for your candidate

    Notable quotes:
    "... Okay, I'm done laughing at the folly of this. Just as the marketplace works best when participants are self-selecting, so do the decisions about livelihood and voting. Or do you really believe that some pool of bureaucrats should be making the social and economic decisions for all of us? ..."
    "... Things haven't really changed all that much since Anthony Downs wrote The Economic Theory of Democracy almost 60 years ago. The sad fact is that most elections are decided by low information voters who are easily swayed. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | econbrowser.com

  • Steven Kopits September 27, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him vote for your candidate.

    I personally believe low productivity growth and low interest rates lead to the impression the system is rigged. Low productivity growth means low wage increases, and low interest rates mean high asset prices, which favor those with assets, ie, the insiders. Both make the guy on the street feel like the system is not working for him.

    Reply
  • Bruce Hall September 27, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    What is to be done? We need a more equal distribution of income . http://www.cato.org/blog/fundamental-fallacy-redistribution

    One might argue, however, that if any citizen is too lazy or uninformed or self-involved or uninterested in politics to take the trouble to vote, so be it. Why drag them to the polls? Perhaps it is just as well if the views of the uninformed or self-involved don't carry as much weight as others! I am not going to take a position on this question one way or the other. Let's consider only those citizens who are as informed and civic-minded as the rest of us, but are alienated by the system and think that "votes of people like them" don't make a difference. There are, by far, enough of these people for their votes in fact to make the difference.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/opinion/should-everybody-vote.html?_r=0

    Okay, I'm done laughing at the folly of this. Just as the marketplace works best when participants are self-selecting, so do the decisions about livelihood and voting. Or do you really believe that some pool of bureaucrats should be making the social and economic decisions for all of us?

    Reply
  • 2slugbaits September 27, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    Things haven't really changed all that much since Anthony Downs wrote The Economic Theory of Democracy almost 60 years ago. The sad fact is that most elections are decided by low information voters who are easily swayed.

    Another important poli-sci book that came out around the same time was Robert Dahl's A Preface to Democratic Theory , and here I believe things have changed since Dahl first theorized about the conditions for "polyarchal" democracy. In short, polyarchal democracy was plausible and even likely 60 years ago. Today not so much.

    Bruce Hall do you really believe that some pool of bureaucrats should be making the social and economic decisions for all of us?

    If you want effective and responsive government, then yes. If you want legitimate government, then no. We have a few thousand years of history that tells us we can't have both for more than 5 or 6 generations; it's an unstable knife's edge.

    Reply
    1. Bruce Hall September 27, 2016 at 3:24 pm

      Effective and responsive in the area of social interaction and economy? Or do you mean some militaristic dictatorship? I'll opt for messy and freedom.

      Reply
      1. 2slugbaits September 27, 2016 at 6:59 pm

        The problem is that "messy and freedom" are luxuries that you buy only with the capital earned by first being "effective and responsive." After a few generations of messiness that capital gets consumed. People being what they are, they quickly and gladly trade away that freedom for security. It's an old pattern that we see time and again, and not just in ancient times. Look at the rise of far right wing parties in both Western Europe and Eastern Europe. Look at Singapore. Look at what's happening in Turkey right now. Look at the deplorable views of some of Trump's supporters. And what do you think will happen to "messy and freedom" if 100 years from now the climate "alarmists" and "pool of bureaucrats" at NOAA and EPA turn out to have been proven right? The unfortunate truth is that healthy democracies are temporary and fortunate aberrations from the normal course of events. Years ago I read Benjamin Friedman's The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth and I always wondered why Friedman shied away from the natural conclusion implied in his main argument. The natural conclusion isn't just that without economic growth our politics becomes meaner and nastier; it's that people quickly forget their brave words about freedom and start looking around for someone on a white horse.

        Reply
        1. PeakTrader September 27, 2016 at 8:19 pm

          Government in its attempts to help people also caused enormous damage. For example, in "the War on Poverty," we spent trillions of dollars trying to reduce poverty. Yet, the same percentage of the population is in poverty. However, it did reduce "deep poverty" substantially. Government should focus on problems that are similar to deep poverty (rather than income inequality) and smooth-out business cycles (to sustain or maximize employment). The federal government needs to operate within a budget, e.g. 18% of GDP in normal times. More GDP means more tax revenue and less spending on the unemployed, to fund other programs.

          Reply
          1. The Peoples Pawn September 28, 2016 at 6:30 am

            Hi, PeakTrader.

            I have to disagree with your analysis here. According to census figures the poverty rate for families in 1959 was upward of 18%. By 1969 it was hugging 10%.

            http://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-poverty-people/hstpov13.xls

            The largest reduction was the number of senior citizens living in poverty. IMHO, this is the definition of success. Your definition may be different.

            A second point I would like to make is that, as Krugman pointed out first, potential GDP growth was largely unchanged from 1970 to 2000, regardless of changing party control and shifting demographics. After 2000 there's a sizable dropoff, some levelling, and another drop at the last recession, again followed by some levelling.

            https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=7sM1

            I personally believe it to be very likely that the heavy chopping away at the Federal social safety net from 1995 to 2005 seriously reduced the ability of household demand to recover from recessions. I have not yet put numbers to it, but am working toward it. I will gladly share my results and data when I do.

            So existing data show that programs created during the War on Poverty, and built upon during the 1970s and 1980s, were effective at reducing poverty. There's also strong circumstantial evidence that curtailing those programs has reduced the growth potential of the US economy.

            Thanks for reading. I hope everyone has a good day!

          2. PeakTrader September 28, 2016 at 7:56 am

            The People's Pawn, below is a chart of the poverty rate by the Washington Post. Note, that the poverty rate was falling sharply before the War on Poverty went into full effect (also shown in your data). I doubt, for example, the black community is better off today, after accounting for the steep rise in living standards, since the 1960s. Demographics doesn't explain the sharp, sudden, and sustained downshift in GDP growth in this "recovery." In the 2001-07 expansion, increasingly larger trade deficits, up to 6% of GDP, can explain much of the slower GDP growth, although the female labor force participation rate declined slowly after it peaked in 2000.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07/poverty_time.jpg

  • Rick Stryker Jr September 27, 2016 at 9:09 pm

    I have another question for you guys. I asked a question a couple of years ago on this blog about my decision to buy a big screen tv rather than sign up for Obamacare. Mr. Baffles called me a deadbeat, but my evil conservative Republican Pop told me I was just being rational. He said lots of young (and older) people would make the same decision and Obamacare would never come close to signing up the people expected. He said Obamacare will filled with perverse incentives. He was right, so I guess I don't feel so bad.

    But now my Pop's got me confused again. I read Prof Frankel's post and I thought "cool," all I have to do to get some free stuff is go out and vote. That doesn't seem so hard. But then I ran into my Pop. He told me about something he called the "rational voter hypothesis." He said that it's not rational for me to vote. My vote would only matter if the vote is evenly split between 2 candidates and my candidate would lose if I didn't vote. He said that I need to calculate the expected value of all the free stuff I'd get–free medical care, free college education, etc. etc.–by multiplying its value by the probability that my vote will make a difference. And then I need to subtract the expected cost of voting. He said the expected benefit will be much lower than the expected cost and thus I shouldn't vote if I'm smart. That's because the probability that I could decide the election is very small.

    So I said, "That's so cynical. How do you know I can't make a difference Pop? Professor Frankel told me all I need to do is go out and vote to change the world." That's when all the conservative mumbo jumbo started.

    He said I could never know if the race were so close that my vote could matter. But I could estimate the probability just by reading the newspaper. In Florida in 2000, about 6 million people voted and it was very close. Suppose I read right before the election that there was a poll of 1000 people and the poll said that vote was even: 500 people planned to vote for Bush and 500 people planned to vote for Gore. With that information my Pop claimed I could estimate the probability that my vote would matter.

    In that case, the standard deviation of the number of people voting for Gore could be estimated to be sqrt(N*p*(1-p)) where N = 1000 and p = 0.5. So, the standard deviation of the number of people voting for Gore would be 15.8 and the standard deviation of the probability of voting for Gore would be 15.8/1000 = 0.0158 = 1.6 percentage points.

    So, we'd expect Gore to receive 0.5 * 6,000,000 = 3,000,000 votes with a standard deviation of 0.0158 * 6,000,000 = 94,868 votes.

    If you use the normal distribution approximation, the probability that the vote is tied and my vote decides the election is about 1/sqrt(2*pi)/94,868 = 4 in 1 million. Whew! My head is spinning but that seems pretty small.

    My Pop told me that the way I drive, I'm more likely to die on the way to the polling booth in a car crash than I am to decide the election.

    Well, I'm not risking my life to get some free stuff. I think I'll stay home and watch my big screen tv on election day. Am I wrong?

    Reply
    1. 2slugbaits September 28, 2016 at 2:02 pm

      Rick Stryker, Jr

      Well, for starters, when you go to the polls you aren't just voting for President. There are a lot of down ballot races as well. And for many of them your vote counts very much. A few months ago there was a local initiative in my town. Voter turnout was very low. The "for" vote fell short of the 60% required by the smallest of margins a small fraction of a percentage point. Then a few weeks later they "found" an absentee ballot that somehow got lost. There was some back and forth as to whether or not it was a legal ballot. It was decided that it was. And the ballot measure just cleared the 60% hurdle. We've also had ties for city council. And a few election cycles back my county exactly tied in the Presidential vote. So if you live in a battleground state, then there's a pretty good chance that your vote will count in at least one of the many races and ballot initiatives. There might not be much point in voting if you live in a deeply red or blue state, but battleground states are a different story. Besides, it's fun to vote. I don't like absentee ballots because I enjoy the experience of going into a voting both and voting against all of the clowns with an "R" attached to them. I get a lot of pleasure from it.

      As to Obamacare, there's quite likely going to be a perverse outcome if it fails. And that outcome would likely please many of us who support universal Medicare. If Obamacare fails because healthy young folks don't want to sign up, the alternative will not be going back to the pre-Obamacare world. That world was rapidly collapsing, which is why there was such demand for health insurance reform. If Obamacare fails, then the next approach will be universal Medicare which means young, healthy people who didn't want to join in Obamacare will find themselves paying into Medicare with no realistic way to avoid it. Besides, Rick Stryker, Jr. won't be a young kid forever. Some day he'll be middle-aged and in need of health insurance. If Jr believes in consumptions smoothing over his lifetime, then he's probably better off overpaying a bit when he's young rather than overpaying a lot when he's older because he's confronted with a private insurance market that is in a death spiral.

      Reply
      1. PeakTrader September 28, 2016 at 5:34 pm

        Health care insurance is not the same as health care. You can thank government for making health care a luxury good and creating rationing. We need to allow the free market to work for huge efficiency gains and much lower prices. Then, we can afford to subsidize or pay for preexisting conditions and catastrophic health care.

        Reply
        1. baffling September 30, 2016 at 9:02 am

          "We need to allow the free market to work for huge efficiency gains and much lower prices."
          we tried that already. the world prior to obamacare. it failed. you need to at least acknowledge that reality before you can try to present a solution moving forward.

          Reply
          1. PeakTrader September 30, 2016 at 10:41 am

            Do you really believe health care was operating in the free market system before Obamacare?

            Government, for decades, has piled on more and more constraints and red tape on health care resulting in the inefficient and expensive system we have today.

            Your solution (from prior comments) seems to be since government intervention created an grossly suboptimal and unsustainable system, it should take over the entire system.

          2. baffling October 1, 2016 at 3:48 pm

            Peak, do you really believe government was the cause of health care problems prior to 2008?

            Not surprising, coming from a person who also believes the government was responsible for the banks poor behavior leading up to the financial crisis. I don't suppose the latest episodes from Wells Fargo and Deutschbank will have you reconsider your interpretation.

            Seems as though you have a standard response for any problem-it must be the government. Let you in on a little secret. The problems facing wells and deutsch today are a direct result of their own terrible business decisions-not the government.

          3. PeakTrader October 1, 2016 at 5:51 pm

            Baffling, you don't really care about helping people. You always defend government, even when it creates systemic failures, e.g. in the financial and health care industries.

            There will always be some bad apples and policies that aren't perfect. Nonetheless, banks are actually in business to make money, which has been harder in the continuing low interest rate and highly regulated environment.

            You can find faults in any corporate policy. You also need to look at the successes. There are always problems in a big company. Some succeed and some fail. However, it's not a systemic failure, like the moral hazard government created in the housing market.

      2. Rick Stryker September 29, 2016 at 3:18 pm

        2slugs,

        I thought I'd better respond for Rick Jr since he's glued to his big screen tv and can't be bothered.

        The calculation I explained to Rick Jr. was just to illustrate a general point, that the probability of a vote mattering is very small in general. I picked the best case in which it might matter. In that case, you know a priori that the vote is incredibly close and you know that your state will be decisive. Usually, that's not the situation and so the probability is much lower. It really doesn't get much better down ballot. In almost all cases, you won't have the same information to judge whether the race is close enough to do a calculation. You rarely have polls of local ballot initiatives. Of course, you can always point to races that were very close. That's a variation of the classical birthday problem. The probability that any 2 people have the same birthday is low but the probability that some pair of 2 people have the same birthday can be surprisingly high. If you look over enough races, you will find some squeakers but that doesn't change the probability calculation for any particular race.

        That this probability is very low was first recognized by Downs as well as Tullock in "Towards a Mathematics of Politics." Both noted that since this probability is low, influencing the election can't be the motivation of a rational voter. Both posited that people vote because they derive some sort of utility or satisfaction from the act of voting itself. As you yourself said, voting is fun.

        The political scientists Riker and Ordershook called the utility from voting D and claimed that a rational voter will vote if

        pB + D – C > 0 where p is the probability of the vote mattering, B is the benefit, D is the enjoyment derived from the act of voting, and C is the cost of voting. Since, p is very small and C is fairly well understood, all the action is in D.

        There are a number of theories about what D is. One is the expressive voter hypothesis, which I think characterizes the voters that Jeff is talking about. In this formulation, voters are aware that their vote doesn't matter and use the opportunity to express an opinion about what they think the situation ought to be. The cost of expressing such an opinion is essentially C, since p is very, very low and the expressive voter sacrifices little in the way of benefits. If this theory does explain the Nader voters, Jeff's arguments are likely to fall on deaf ears.

        Besides, focusing on Nader misses the larger picture. In Florida, some 6% of registered Democrats voted for Bush. Had Gore been a better candidate and nailed down his base better in Florida, he would have won. These voters who crossed the line weren't disgruntled about the system. They actively chose Bush over Gore.

        When you look at modern get-out-the-vote techniques, they depend on big data to identify possible voters and different psychological persuasion techniques to appeal to voters classified by their data. Different methods are applied to different voters. These methods do work and can move the vote a percent or two on election day.

        These techniques are a much more profitable line of attack. The Democrats are still much better than Republicans on this high tech ground game. Obama pioneered the modern data-driven ground game, using it effectively in 2008 and 2012. Romney also developed some capability, but the software failed massively on election day.

        Hillary has a big advantage over Trump in this regard. The Republicans have tried to catch up but Trump seems to be rejecting the use of what's been developed. Or so he claims. If this isn't misdirection on Trump's part, he may need an extra point or so in the polls just to equalize her ground game.

        Reply
  • Erik Poole September 28, 2016 at 8:05 am

    One way of looking at low voter turnouts is that those absent voters are largely happy with the status quo and 'rationally' do no expect it to change much.

    Perhaps these absent voters have figured out the enormous influence of unelected special interest groups and have simply given up.

    Yet another way is to look at the US presidential system with its first-past-the-post vote allocation system and overwhelming incentives to vote strategically and conclude that it is not really very democratic. Perhaps by 18th century standards but not by modern standards. That and strategic voting appears more costly, so these considerations drive up voter costs without any apparent increase in expected benefits.

    Yet another way is look at how the position of president combines both head of state and head of government which appears to inevitably complicate political negotiation.

    The Latin Americans have an interesting expression for folks with strong patriotic feelings: patriotudos. Patriots with big balls. It implies that patriotudos are not big on 'thinking'. Electing the head of state and head of the federal government in one person brings more emotional input into the voting equation.

    As for the potential for voting to have a difference in recent years, I cannot help but view that as dangerous analysis if not simply misinformation.

    1. The Sept 11th attacks responded to provocations provided by US political leaders and representatives from the Democratic party. Democrats have been the most vocal supporters of the Nuclear weapons backed affirmative action ethnic cleansing program that succinctly describes the ethnically exclusive Israeli nation building process.

    2. Both the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq received considerable support from high profile Democrats. The reluctance of many NATO partners to join in the adventures should have signalled something of use to US decision makers but apparently did not.

    3. The 'War on Terror' receives considerable bi-partisan support yet the US won WW II by essentially burning the flesh of innocent civilians in Germany and Japan. Up until the emergence of Da'esh, those fighting the War on Terror - Israel and the USA - killed more civilians than the so-called 'terrorists' did. Please recall the strong support among Democrat partisans for Israel's kill ratios.

    4. US citizens continue to enjoy the lowest excise taxes on diesel and gasoline among the rich OECD nations. There is broad bi-partisan support for keeping these taxes low. There has been broad bi-partisan support for using top-down violent means for fixing democracy in the Mid-East as a way to ensuring more stable oil flows from the Gulf of Persia. There has been broad bi-partisan support for maintaining a multi-billion dollar US fleet presence near the Gulf of Persia in order to help secure oil flows to the global economy including the USA. (Only a Neo-Marxist in the Baran-Sweezy tradition could fully appreciate these policies of social wealth destruction for questionable goals.)

    In fact, the current Democrat-lead federal government has appeared more interested in shutting down pipeline development than increasing fossil fuel taxes on end users. This while middle-aged white males are registering lower life expectancies and it is widely believed that current generations of North American children will exhibit even lower life expectancies. One could speculate that Americans really should spend less time in their automobiles but that is clearly not the view of the vast majority of Democrats.

    To conclude, voting appears to make a no difference with respect to significant energy and foreign policy decisions that have been big drivers of the US economy and perceptions of security over the past 1/2 a century.

    Reply
  • Alex September 28, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    There are so many things wrong with Jeff's (Vote Blue, cough cough) article.

    The best reason to NOT vote for corporate Democrats is this:
    https://twitter.com/JustinWolfers/status/514907147638157312

    There is never a good reason to vote for Republicans.

    Whoever is elected, they will be a one-term president (neither will do anything that needs to be done to fix the economy).

    As far as Nader being a spoiler in 2000, Gore was a terrible candidate who won the popular vote and would have won in Jeb Bush's Florida except for the Supreme Court stopping the recount.

    If Hillary loses, the Dems have no one to blame but themselves. She is the worst candidate they could have selected.

    Let's face it, both Clinton and Trump should be in jail, not running for president.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Should the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a museum of savage stupidity and war crimes ?

    Notable quotes:
    "... The potential threats both candidates pose are real. Those advocating Hillary as the better, safer choice cannot offer any reliable assurances that she will be able, or willing, to pursue policies that increase the well-being and security of any but the already affluent and secure. ..."
    "... Hillary's long and unhappy history of war-mongering has not, imho, received anything like the media scrutiny it deserves, and won't until she's correctly identified in the minds of most as an advocate of 'liberal interventionism'/violent regime change and on an equal footing of imbecility and irresponsibility in the minds of the public as Bush, Cheney, and Blair. ..."
    "... When the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a Mt. Rushmore of savage stupidity for all to see and all school children studying the early 21st-century American-UK wars recognize the monument as such, that task of 'highlighting' her role in this enormously costly and damaging humanitarian and political disaster will be at least part way done. ..."
    "... Obama, as Stevenjohnson notes, has not entirely surrendered his dream of forcing 'democracy' on Syria. There is abundant evidence, however, the US and a number of other nations have been arming Syrian rebels (ISIL and Al Quaida) since 2011, at least. ..."
    "... The result of Obama and Hillary's love of violent regime change has been an increase in the suffering of millions in North Africa and the Middle East, the collapse of basic services such as fresh water and hospitals, and a new flood of refugees seeking to escape the beneficence of Hillary Clinton and her boss. ..."
    "... If you are supporting Hillary you are supporting violent regime change in the Middle East and the love of violence of Bush and Cheney, not too mention drone strikes, the surveillance state. That's who you are. ..."
    "... Dealing first with Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy, and certainly the most important administration official after Obama responsible for foreign policy. Facts which place the burden of proof regarding her involvement in US foreign policy formation and execution squarely on you. ..."
    "... HRC's involvement in Iraq is less well-understood, and that's likely no accident either, given the mileage democrats have generated out of pinning the entire bi-partisan debacle on Bush and Cheney. From the linked dialogue above featuring Robert Wright and Max Abrahms (Northeastern) http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/43967?in=01:10&out=12:21 ..."
    "... The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. ..."
    "... One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 10.01.16 at 10:48 pm 284

    @ 278 There's nothing quite so amusing as advocates of free speech 'commanding' the comments section of somebody else's blog and then issuing permissions to comment, or instructions to how and what to post. (fn, rich, colin, TM in one form, or another)

    Merian is quite right that in the artificially and arbitrarily limited universe of a one-time choice between just two options, everything written can be seen as pro/con against one or the other if everything that is written has only one meaning and will be read and understood by all as having the same meaning.

    The fact is that a great many people inside the US and outside the US may well lack any/much understanding of the decision-making processes that led up to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, not to mention America's long history with Iran, and America's support of Evil Axis bad guy number 1 Saddam Hussein. The dynamics are complex even for those familiar with the basic topography.

    The rhetorical parallels leading up to the Iraq invasions and the presidential elections are striking and easy to identify. Facts don't matter, the urgency and severity of the threat demands uniform action, and the enemy is a once in an eon threat of epic proportion to the physical and moral existence of the known universe.

    The potential threats both candidates pose are real. Those advocating Hillary as the better, safer choice cannot offer any reliable assurances that she will be able, or willing, to pursue policies that increase the well-being and security of any but the already affluent and secure.

    Hillary's long and unhappy history of war-mongering has not, imho, received anything like the media scrutiny it deserves, and won't until she's correctly identified in the minds of most as an advocate of 'liberal interventionism'/violent regime change and on an equal footing of imbecility and irresponsibility in the minds of the public as Bush, Cheney, and Blair.

    When the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a Mt. Rushmore of savage stupidity for all to see and all school children studying the early 21st-century American-UK wars recognize the monument as such, that task of 'highlighting' her role in this enormously costly and damaging humanitarian and political disaster will be at least part way done.

    kidneystones 10.01.16 at 10:54 pm 286
    For Merian and others: a timely post from Matt Welch at Reason on Gary Johnson via the o'l perfessor who sees the coverage of Hillary and Trump as you.

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/245272/

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 3:22 am
    @ 300 "Assad Must Go" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34385354
    • 28 September 2015 "Obama tells the UN Assad must go."
    • 18 August 2011 "Assad Must Go Obama Says" (Wapo) (no links to follow to avoid moderation)
    • 1 August 2012 "Obama Authorizes Secret US Support for Syrian Rebels" (Reuters)

    Obama, as Stevenjohnson notes, has not entirely surrendered his dream of forcing 'democracy' on Syria. There is abundant evidence, however, the US and a number of other nations have been arming Syrian rebels (ISIL and Al Quaida) since 2011, at least.

    The result of Obama and Hillary's love of violent regime change has been an increase in the suffering of millions in North Africa and the Middle East, the collapse of basic services such as fresh water and hospitals, and a new flood of refugees seeking to escape the beneficence of Hillary Clinton and her boss.

    All this after the 'lessons' of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    If you are supporting Hillary you are supporting violent regime change in the Middle East and the love of violence of Bush and Cheney, not too mention drone strikes, the surveillance state. That's who you are.

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 3:58 am
    ZM@ 303. The linked dialogue above explores the role Hillary and Obama, in particular, played in providing the arms and support to a rebellion that Assad, like Gaddafi, could have ended years ago.

    Like Gaddafi, Assad is not being attacked by moderate democrats keen to legalize gay marriage, but rather Sunni militias deeply sympathetic to ISIL and Al Quaida, or those forces operating in Syria and western Iraq.

    You're right to point out that the only result of US support of ISIL related Sunnis has been the prolonging of the civil war and the promulgation of the delusion that violent-regime change brings peace and security. Yes, five years of US arms, threats, and intimidation has destroyed Syria, in much the same was as the Hillary promoted war in Libya destroyed that regime.

    The pro-Hillary-Obama media is extremely reluctant in the run-up to the election to point out explicitly what a spectacular FP failure the US has created for itself right now, with Russian jets flying over Aleppo and Assad about to finally humiliate the insurgents and all those like Hillary and Obama who encouraged the bloodshed.

    The Obama-Hillary policy has been a five-year bloodbath and there's no sign Hillary wants to do anything but press for a no-fly zone over Syria in order for the US to continue to funnel more death and destruction into the already devastated moonscape.

    It ain't like anyone she knows is dying over there. Syrians can't vote in November.

    The attitude of her supporters seems be: fuck it – Syria is on the other side of the world, so what's the big deal?

    Mitt Romney tied the family dog to the roof of his car. What about that ?

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 4:05 am
    @ 305 Hi Merian.

    Go tell your students that you're supporting the candidate who voted for the Iraq invasion (biggest mistake in modern US history), persuaded plenty of other Democrats and ordinary Americans to suspend their judgment and do the same. And who also played an instrumental role in destroying Libya, promotes violent regime-change in Syria and enjoys the support of all the same neocon warmongers who've made the US into a pariah state. Play the 'We came, we saw, he died – ha-ha-ha" Hillary CBS video for them.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-07/we-came-we-saw-he-died-%E2%80%93-revisiting-incredible-disaster-libya

    Then explain to them that Hillary is the better candidate.

    See what happens.

    Omega Centauri 10.02.16 at 4:40 am 314
    I don't see HRC as a prime mover in either Iraq or Libya. In the first case Iraq was a neocon/Bush project, and they were threatening to extract a terrible price from anyone who used their position to block their ambitions. Libya was primarily a Arab-league cum French-British project. Not supporting it could have potentially damaged our relationship with key allies France and Britain. Of course Libya was a slippery slope, once started it soon became obvious there was no solution where Qaddafi survived and the Libyan people wouldn't end up paying dearly. Not that her acquiescence in either case demonstrated either good long term judgement or courage, but it also doesn't demonstrate that she was a principle architect of either project.
    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 5:15 am 316
    314@ "I don't see HRC as a prime mover in either Iraq, or Libya."

    That's probably a great comfort to the grifters keen to see her elected. The facts, however, suggest otherwise. Dealing first with Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy, and certainly the most important administration official after Obama responsible for foreign policy. Facts which place the burden of proof regarding her involvement in US foreign policy formation and execution squarely on you.

    HRC's involvement in Iraq is less well-understood, and that's likely no accident either, given the mileage democrats have generated out of pinning the entire bi-partisan debacle on Bush and Cheney. From the linked dialogue above featuring Robert Wright and Max Abrahms (Northeastern) http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/43967?in=01:10&out=12:21

    bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 7:49 pm
    Anarcissie @ 239: We basically have a whole class of people, at the top of the social order, who seem devoid of a moral sense - a problem which the upcoming election isn't going to touch, much less solve. I don't blame Clinton for this . . .

    JimV @ 317: I am sorry if I mischaracterized BW as implying that HRC is evil, . . .

    Peter T @ 320: Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess [the multi-sided regional civil war engulfing Syria and northern Iraq]

    stevenjohnson @ 324: The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war.

    LFC @ 330: I disagree w the notion that the pt of nuclear 'modernization' is to make plausible the threat of "imminent general nuclear war." If U.S. military planners took hallucinogenic drugs and went nuts, they could "plausibly" threaten "imminent general nuclear war" right now with the US nuclear arsenal as currently configured. They don't need to upgrade the weapons to do that. The program is prob more the result of rigid, unimaginative thinking at top levels of Pentagon and influence of outside companies (e.g. Boeing etc) that work on the upgrades.

    I don't know if that seems like a somewhat random collection of precursors to assemble as preface to a comment. I was thinking of picking out a few upthread references to climate change and the response to it (or inadequacy thereof) as well.

    I am a little disturbed by the idea of leaving the impression that I think Hillary Clinton is "evil". What I think is that American politics in general is not generating realistic, adaptive governance.

    I am using that bloodless phrase, "realistic, adaptive governance", deliberately, to emphasize wanting to step outside the passions of the Presidential election. I think the Manichean narrative where Trump is The Most Horrible Candidate Evah and Everyone Must Line Up Behind Clinton as an Ethical Imperative of a High Order is part of the process of propaganda and manipulation that distorts popular discussion and understanding and helps to create a politics that cannot govern realistically and adaptively. This is not about me thinking Trump is anything but a horrible mess of a candidate who ought to be kept far from power.

    I see Clinton as someone who is trapped inside the dynamics of this seriously deranged politics qua political process. I don't see her as entirely blameless. Politicians like Obama and either Clinton, at the top of the political order, are masters (keeping in mind that there are many masters working to some extent in opposition to one another as rivals, allies, enemies and so on) of the process and create the process by the exercise of their mastery, as much as they are mastered by it. I see them as trapped by the process they have helped (more than a little opportunistically) to create, but trapped as Dr Frankenstein is by his Creature.

    Clinton must struggle with the ethical contradictions of governance at the highest levels of leadership: she must, in the exercise of power in office and out, practice the political art of the possible in relation to crafting policy that will be "good" in the sense of passably effective and efficient - this may involve a high degree of foresightful wonkery or a lethally ruthless statesmanship, depending upon circumstances. Beside this business of making the great machinery of the state lumber forward, she must strive to appear "good", like Machiavelli's Prince, even while playing an amoral game of real politick, gathering and shepherding a complex coalition of allies, supporters, donors and cooperative enemies.

    Machiavelli, when he was considering the Princely business of appearing "good", was contending with the hypocrisies and impossible idealism of authoritarian Catholic morality. He barely connected with anything that we would recognize as democratic Public Opinion and could scarcely conceive of what Ivy Lee or Edward Bernays, let alone Fox News, Vox and the world wide web might do to politics.

    We are trapped, just as Clinton is trapped, in the vast communication nightmare of surrealistic news and opinion washing in upon us in a tide that never ebbs. We are trapped by the politics of media "gotchas" and Kinsley Gaffes (A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some truth that a politician did not intend to admit.)

    I don't think Clinton lacks a moral sense. What I think is that Clinton's moral sense is exhausted calculating what to say or do within the parameters of media-synthesized conventional wisdom policed by people who are themselves exhausted trying to manage it. Matt Lauer's interview with Clinton was notorious for the relentless and clueless questioning about the email server, although I, personally, was shocked when he asked her a question that seemed premised on the idea that veterans should be offended by admitting the Iraq War was a mistake.

    I would think it is easy to see that the media circus is out of control, especially when a clown like Trump graduates from The Apprentice to the Republican nomination. YMMV, but I think this is a serious problem that goes beyond vividly imagined sepia-toned parodies of Trump's candidacy as the second coming of Mussolini.

    While we're getting ourselves agitated over Trump's racism or threats to bar Muslims from entry, apparently the Military-Industrial Complex, left on autopilot, is re-designing the nation's nuclear arsenal to make the outbreak of nuclear war far more likely. And, the closest Clinton gets to a comment, campaign commitment or public discussion, let alone an exercise of power, is a PR "leak"!!!

    The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. Clinton offered up a sound-bite last year, saying that she favored imposing a "no-fly" zone, which was exposed as kind of crazy idea, given that the Russians as well as Assad's government are the ones flying, not to mention the recent experience with a no-fly zone in Libya. One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. What's most alarming to me is that we cannot count on personal character to put the brakes on that process, which is now the process of governance. I am writing now of the process of governance by public relations that was has been exposed a bit in profiles of the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes.

    In Syria, it has become almost comical, if you can overlook the bodies piling up, as the U.S. has sought a the mythical unicorn of Syrian Moderate Democrats whom the Pentagon or the CIA can advise, train and arm. This is foreign policy by PR narrative and it is insanely unrealistic. But, our politics is trapped in it, and, worse, policy is trapped in it. Layer after layer of b.s. have piled up obscuring U.S. interests and practical options. Recently, U.S. forces supporting the Turks have come dangerously close to blowing up U.S. forces supporting the Kurds. When you find yourself on opposing sides of a civil war like Charles I you may be in the process of losing your head. Some of the worst elements opposing Assad have been engaged in a transparent re-branding exercise aimed at garnering U.S. aid. And, U.S. diplomats and media face the high challenge of explaining why the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

    But, hey, Clinton will get Robert Kagan's vote and a better tomorrow is only a Friedman unit away, so it is all good.

    kidneystones 10.02.16 at 9:24 pm
    @328 stevenjohnson and Peter T cover the details. As an outsider supportive of negotiated settlements in all cases, rather than unilateral military action and violent regime change, I'm interested principally in ensuring that partisan political preferences do not obscure the historical record. Bluntly put, dictators routinely abuse bomb their own civilians as the 'need' arises. Nor is the US the only state actor keen to profit in the broadest sense of the term from political division.

    The UN was formed, in large part, to provide a forum/mechanism for peaceful conflict resolution. Each time state actors such as Russia, China, the US, France, and the UK either bypass the UN, or use the UN to sanction attacks by larger states on smaller states, the entire edifice becomes a little weaker.

    Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president of the US.

    bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 9:54 pm
    Rich Puchalsky @ 334

    People are in information overload most of the time, and where politics are concerned, they really just want to know who to root for. They ask, "who is the good guy? who is the bad guy?" "Whose right?" "What should be done?" And, people like the opinions they have, whatever those opinions may be; they use their political opinions to feed their sense of self-esteem and social belonging, for better and for worse.

    I have some friends, who are really into a particular sport as fans, not participants. One guy knows everything about baseball. It is fun to watch a game with him, because he knows when someone is about to try to steal a base and stuff like that and he can explain the manager's strategy and has gossip about the players careers and personal lives. And, apparently, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of baseball history - appears to, anyway: what dramatic thing happened in game 3 of the 1967 World Series and so on and exactly why everyone hated Ty Cobb.

    No one like that shows up at CT to talk politics. Maybe it is just as well. Sports guys can wield that knowledge and remain affable, but political guys tend to be arrogant and off-putting. But, I do think we could use more of that spirit sometimes.

    I was thinking about what a brilliant innovation the Clinton Foundation is, how well it is designed to solve the problems of Machiavelli's Prince. But, we would struggle to discuss it in those terms; the partisan contest means that the CF is either horribly corrupt or prosaically innocent. The pressure to evaluate it is so high, that seeing the functional details is hard. I've seen some articles that attempt to understand the CF as a means to the political ambitions of the Clintons, but they seldom grasp the awesome accomplishment it is in ways that also fully understand why enemies of the Clintons are keen to attack it and why it so reliably produces the neoliberal pablum that Thomas Franks despises. If we could imagine a Marx tackling the CF as a vehicle of class interest, that would be pretty interesting.

    [Oct 04, 2016] How strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president of the US." ..."
    "... The danger of Hillary is the danger of yet another neocon administration in power for the next four years. We probably need to think in term of Cheney and Rumsfeld, because this is the policies that Hillary will bring to the table. ..."
    "... I think that experience with US neocons in Ukraine also makes Russia position on Syria quite different and less accommodating for the US neoliberal empire expansion projects. ..."
    "... One of the things that Lupita likes to point out is how strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere (LFC again) and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup. ..."
    "... Americans may like empire, but for the people who actually have to fight, very few of them really like being foot soldiers for empire. ..."
    "... Left agitation in the early part of the 20th century and in the 60s was in large part anti-war agitation, and it was one of the main reasons why the government actually crushed left organizations. One of the main reasons why you can tell that HRC supporters are not really on the left in any important sense is the easy way that they switched from opposing Bush's war to approving of Democratic "humanitarian" wars. ..."
    "... So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have any meaning outside of an imperial context? ..."
    "... Russian foreign policy IMHO is mostly reactive and defensive. It is directed mainly on preservation of (currently rapidly shrinking) Russia's economic and political and cultural influence in xUSSR space. ..."
    "... Obama administration was very aggressive toward Russia and attempted to implement "regime change" in 2011-2012 to prevent Putin re-election (so called "White revolution" with McFaul as the key player and the network on NGO as the coordination / training / recruiting / propaganda centers). This attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Russia backfired making Russian political establishment more hostile to the USA. It also led to expulsion of several NGO from Russia. Later events in Ukraine led to deterioration of political standing of Russian neoliberals as a political force. They lost all the legitimacy among the population and now viewed by-and-large as US stooges. ..."
    "... Hillary as the Secretary of State was even more jingoistic neocon then Obama and has during her term in the office an outsize influence on the US foreign policy including the attempt to stage a "white revolution" in Russia in which State Department played an outsize role, essentially taking many functions formerly performed by CIA ..."
    "... It also tried to oppose the "encirclement" - the creation of the belt of hostile states around Russia with US or NATO forces/bases - Ukraine is just the most recent example of this policy. Missile defense bases in Rumania and Poland belong to the same script. Actually the US Department of Defense on those issues has its own outsize influence on the US foreign policy and works in close coordination with the State Department (alliance started under Bush II and forged under Hillary Clinton). ..."
    "... ZM: "But I wish there was some sort of international protocol about it." There was supposed to be one - the whole apparatus of U.N. intervention. We've seen how that played out. ..."
    "... The sentiments have certainly been a useful pretext for imperial interventions, going well beyond 'interest' to intimations of existential crisis, etc. I remember when, if we did not 'help' the Vietnamese by bombing them back into the Stone Age, bad people from there were going to invade California. So it was both to 'our' interest and theirs to kill millions of them. You see the same thinking in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, and the rest of the list. ..."
    "... Well with technology there is the possibility of that, Australia is part of the Five Eyes alliance with the USA, which is where the English speaking countries all share intelligence, then there is a larger group that gets a bit less intelligence, and maybe others like an onion or something. ..."
    "... To me this is the wierdest and most hypocritical aspect of the whole "Putin stooge!" narrative, since part of the core ethos of US-aligned liberal discourse in settings like this is precisely a willingness and eagerness to voluntarily assume the role of stooge for whatever ruling-class figure one has decided to back. Look at the core message liberals here seem to be trumpeting: we may not like the faction of the ruling class embodied in someone like Hillary Clinton, but since we've decided to back this faction over another faction we consider worse, we'll suspend our earnest search for truth and understanding so we can add our voices into the fight. ("We know Hillary is bad, but save it for after Trump!") ..."
    "... But the kicker re: Putin is that somehow, these same liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!") especially when it comes to nationalist fervor stirred up by global military/economic power struggles. ..."
    "... And to the extent that they see such people not as the Russian ideological equivalents of themselves but as literal agents of the Kremlin, precisely the way one might imagine all the Hillary defenders on this thread as COINTELPRO plants and/or paid Clinton campaign PR operatives, they're able to see this obsequious defense of ruling-class power for the creepy authoritarian servility it is. One could call the double standards closed-minded or even xenophobic, but I'll settle for just calling it bizarre. ..."
    "... American foreign policy has long been the special province of deeply interested portions of the elite, which were allowed to use U.S. naval and military power without paying for it. ..."
    "... Since the First World War, the U.S. has been the hegemon, sponsoring a world order on liberal principles in theory and making the world safe for an often rapacious commercial order in practice. Popular disinterest at home has preserved the tradition of hijacking the U.S. military for racketeering abroad, but the privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it from sideline into a reason for being: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing tool. ..."
    "... ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world" I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis. ..."
    "... Americans seem to have some difficulty understanding just how competent Putin has been. Putin is a consummately gifted gambler, who has played a weak hand aggressively at home and abroad. He is popular in Russia, because he has been successful by being phenomenally good at his job - so good that any Russian who isn't dead stupid is worried about what comes after. ..."
    "... Obama, the most gifted politician I've seen in my lifetime, has played his hand very conservatively. I rail against him, because I think he should have taken much bigger chances on a radical reform agenda, using the crisis he was gifted to take apart the oligarchies choking the American political economy. ..."
    "... Both Americans and Russians, I think, are inclined to see their roles in the world as more benign than they are. The Americans, though, have better PR and a lot of people abroad still want to believe. ..."
    "... Ch. 1: The Advent of Semiwar. ..."
    "... Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control ..."
    "... Ch. 3: The Credo Restored. ..."
    "... "In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all." ..."
    "... The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit. ..."
    "... Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves. ..."
    "... Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual. ..."
    "... It's the insidious ideology of the Uncle Sam poster, where a slightly-less-evil form of ruling-class power needs you not just to passively submit to its dictates but to actively defend its position against its slightly-more-evil ideological enemies, even at the expense of your own independent moral compass and political thought. ..."
    "... If you need an eloquent summary of how the dysfunction of the American political system has become manifest in a foreign policy of perpetual and costly failure . ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    likbez 10.03.16 at 3:13 am 343

    kidneystones,

    Thank you for your insightful comments.

    @336

    "Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president of the US."

    Very true. The danger of Hillary is the danger of yet another neocon administration in power for the next four years. We probably need to think in term of Cheney and Rumsfeld, because this is the policies that Hillary will bring to the table.

    But I think it is a mistake to view Syria regime change actions of US neocons in isolation from the same actions in Ukraine. Those are closely interconnected events.

    And Nuland action in Ukraine for the installation of far right nationalist regime (and virtual occupation of the rest of Ukraine by Western Ukrainian nationalists) virtually guarantee economic and military alliance of China and Russia. Russia will not forget and will not forgive Nuland's valiant efforts of installing far right nationalists in Kiev instead of corrupt Yanukovich regime, despite the fact that they were not very sympathetic to Yanukovich (and refused to play the card of "legitimate president in exile", which they easily can making US position in Kiev untenable).

    I think that experience with US neocons in Ukraine also makes Russia position on Syria quite different and less accommodating for the US neoliberal empire expansion projects.

    IMHO with the level of dysfunction of Obama administration there is some level of threat of direct military confrontation in case one of three competing arms of US government overstep the boundaries. Quite possible in case of CIA and supported by them al Qaeda affiliated groups (which are mercilessly wiped out by Syrians army), probably less possible for Pentagon with their Kurds militia.

    And I think that any direct confrontation in Syria will automatically lead to confrontation in Ukraine, were large part of Eastern regions might greet Russians as liberators.

    If you add to China-Russia alliance cemented by events in Ukraine Pakistan, where anti-American feelings are also quite strong you can see the net result of Barack foreign policy efforts.

    Actually I think that one on key ideas of Trump foreign policy agenda is to reverse this alliance and split Russia from China by treating it differently then Obama administration (bad cop, good cop approach).

    LFC 10.03.16 at 3:34 am 344
    I'm starting to believe that there may be a Putin troll operation and that with the commenter Ze K gone, the operation has sent commenter likbez to the Crooked Timber plate as pinch-hitter. (Sorry for the baseball metaphor. Turning off computer now.)
    ZM 10.03.16 at 7:17 am 346
    likbez,

    "IMHO with the level of dysfunction of Obama administration there is some level of threat of direct military confrontation in case one of three competing arms of US government overstep the boundaries. Quite possible in case of CIA and supported by them al Qaeda affiliated groups (which are mercilessly wiped out by Syrians army), probably less possible for Pentagon with their Kurds militia.

    And I think that any direct confrontation in Syria will automatically lead to confrontation in Ukraine, were large part of Eastern regions might greet Russians as liberators."

    I don't really understand Russian foreign policy at the moment. I think the Obama foreign policy has been an improvement on the Bush government's foreign policy, and Obama inherited a very bad situation if you look at him coming to the Presidency in 2008.

    What does Russian foreign policy want now that the Cold War is over? America power is on the decline with the rise of other countries, and Russian power is on the decline too. Both countries had a lot of power due to the Cold War after WWII ended and the lack of development in many countries, and Europe needing to rebuild so much after the war.

    But why does Syria need to be a proxy war between America and Russia when the Cold War is over? Someone from Afghanistan was telling me recently that in Afghanistan they consider they have had war ongoing for 50 years now, since they had the wars with Russia years ago, and then they have had the wars with America now, plus the country is riven by splits now after wars for so long.

    The Middle East is going to need a lot of help to rebuild after these wars, they don't need Russia and America fighting over power in the region.

    ZM 10.03.16 at 7:25 am 347
    "Actually I think that one on key ideas of Trump foreign policy agenda is to reverse this alliance and split Russia from China by treating it differently then Obama administration (bad cop, good cop approach)."

    Also, I live in Australia so we have more coverage of Asian politics, and Obama has been pretty good with China overall I think. China got cross about the pivot to Asia, and gave The Philippines a very sharp warning in the official newspaper, and gave Australia a caution in the newspaper, since then its all gone reasonably well I think.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 12:51 pm 348
    Ah, foreign policy. I think that LFC should consider that while some commenter may well be a Putin troll operation, the style is pretty much indistinguishable from strongly held local ethnic commitments, and LFC's own writing sounds similarly weird and overcommitted to someone who doesn't share LFC's assumptions.

    I'll write some more about populism. One of the things that Lupita likes to point out is how strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere (LFC again) and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup.

    One of the things that people forget about populism is that it's generally a revolt against that - Americans may like empire, but for the people who actually have to fight, very few of them really like being foot soldiers for empire.

    Left agitation in the early part of the 20th century and in the 60s was in large part anti-war agitation, and it was one of the main reasons why the government actually crushed left organizations. One of the main reasons why you can tell that HRC supporters are not really on the left in any important sense is the easy way that they switched from opposing Bush's war to approving of Democratic "humanitarian" wars.

    So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have any meaning outside of an imperial context?

    likbez 10.03.16 at 1:32 pm 350
    ZM,

    "I don't really understand Russian foreign policy at the moment. "

    Russian foreign policy IMHO is mostly reactive and defensive. It is directed mainly on preservation of (currently rapidly shrinking) Russia's economic and political and cultural influence in xUSSR space.

    Obama administration was very aggressive toward Russia and attempted to implement "regime change" in 2011-2012 to prevent Putin re-election (so called "White revolution" with McFaul as the key player and the network on NGO as the coordination / training / recruiting / propaganda centers). This attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Russia backfired making Russian political establishment more hostile to the USA. It also led to expulsion of several NGO from Russia. Later events in Ukraine led to deterioration of political standing of Russian neoliberals as a political force. They lost all the legitimacy among the population and now viewed by-and-large as US stooges.

    The USA also try to play Islamic insurgence card via proxies and hurt economics of Russia via sanctions and low oil prices (which simultaneously decimated US own shale/LTO oil industry). Obama actually bragged about the latter.

    My impression is that this is just a part of the more general plan of expansion of global neoliberal empire led by the USA, enforcing neoliberal globalization and crushing all opposing regimes (including "resource nationalists" like Russia ) that Obama administration is hell bent on (neocon vision of "Pax Americana"). Obama (or, more correctly, forces behind him) proved to be a staunch neoliberal (and neocon) on par with Bush II and Bill Clinton and he essentially continued Bush II "muscular" foreign policy.

    Hillary as the Secretary of State was even more jingoistic neocon then Obama and has during her term in the office an outsize influence on the US foreign policy including the attempt to stage a "white revolution" in Russia in which State Department played an outsize role, essentially taking many functions formerly performed by CIA

    I think that Russia foreign policy can be understood as not always successful attempts to counter the attempts of the USA to subdue it and survive in the situation when then the major power using affiliated with it states tries to deny its sovereignty and wants to convert into vassal state (and Russia were the US vassal under Yeltsin regime), or, if possible, to dismember it into smaller and weaker states using the rising wave of nationalism in the regions.

    It also tried to oppose the "encirclement" - the creation of the belt of hostile states around Russia with US or NATO forces/bases - Ukraine is just the most recent example of this policy. Missile defense bases in Rumania and Poland belong to the same script. Actually the US Department of Defense on those issues has its own outsize influence on the US foreign policy and works in close coordination with the State Department (alliance started under Bush II and forged under Hillary Clinton).

    As Russophobia replaced anti-Semitism for the US elite, I see nothing good for Russia in this respect in the future.

    So the rearmament attempts and the attempts to develop alternatives to Western strategic products and services (which at any time can be included under sanctions) as well as more deep political and military alliance with China might well be their only options.

    But China has its own geopolitical aspirations in xUSSR region and wants to play a leading role in this alliance using Russia's difficult situation for its own advantage.

    So Russian situation is not enviable and might soon became worse, in Hilary is elected.

    Moreover, Putin in not eternal, and at some point needs to leave his position and that, taking into account the amount of power he concentrated in his hands, might create the leadership vacuum that will be very dangerous taking into consideration the level of hostility of the USA. Coming to power of more nationalistically oriented politicians on the wave of anti-American sentiments produced by sanctions also can't be excluded.

    I am not a specialist in Russian affairs, so please take those considerations with a grain of salt.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 1:39 pm 351
    ZM: "But I wish there was some sort of international protocol about it." There was supposed to be one - the whole apparatus of U.N. intervention. We've seen how that played out.
    Anarcissie 10.03.16 at 1:59 pm 352
    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 12:51 pm @ 348:

    'So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have any meaning outside of an imperial context?'

    The sentiments have certainly been a useful pretext for imperial interventions, going well beyond 'interest' to intimations of existential crisis, etc. I remember when, if we did not 'help' the Vietnamese by bombing them back into the Stone Age, bad people from there were going to invade California. So it was both to 'our' interest and theirs to kill millions of them. You see the same thinking in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, and the rest of the list.

    But on the other side, at the business end of the stick:

    Cet animal est trčs méchant;
    Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 2:14 pm 354
    "No one wants one country to rule the world as if its Lord Of The Rings"

    Oh, come on. I'd completely vote for Sauron. That all-seeing eye would spy out all foreign armies and spies, except for hobbits of course. Regretfully, in our own defense, we'd have to bomb all hobbit terrorist villages.

    ZM 10.03.16 at 2:28 pm 355
    Well with technology there is the possibility of that, Australia is part of the Five Eyes alliance with the USA, which is where the English speaking countries all share intelligence, then there is a larger group that gets a bit less intelligence, and maybe others like an onion or something.

    But its not really what anyone hardly wants as far as I can tell.

    I had no idea there even was that much information collected by the government on people until the Snowdon whistleblower revelations about the NSA.

    Will G-R 10.03.16 at 2:34 pm 356
    Rich @ 348: "I think that LFC should consider that while some commenter may well be a Putin troll operation, the style is pretty much indistinguishable from strongly held local ethnic commitments, and LFC's own writing sounds similarly weird and overcommitted to someone who doesn't share LFC's assumptions."

    To me this is the wierdest and most hypocritical aspect of the whole "Putin stooge!" narrative, since part of the core ethos of US-aligned liberal discourse in settings like this is precisely a willingness and eagerness to voluntarily assume the role of stooge for whatever ruling-class figure one has decided to back. Look at the core message liberals here seem to be trumpeting: we may not like the faction of the ruling class embodied in someone like Hillary Clinton, but since we've decided to back this faction over another faction we consider worse, we'll suspend our earnest search for truth and understanding so we can add our voices into the fight. ("We know Hillary is bad, but save it for after Trump!")

    There's probably a lot more that can be said about this, but at least as far as the non-ruling-class public is concerned, what Americans call "partisanship" in this Inside-Baseball sense can be read as a political analogue of the apocryphal Steinbeck line about temporarily embarrassed millionaires, absurdly overinflating the importance of their own little Machiavellian calculations to maintain a pathetically optimistic political self-image, not as the depoliticized and socially atomized ideological consumers they actually are, but as temporarily embarrassed technocratic insiders.

    But the kicker re: Putin is that somehow, these same liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!") especially when it comes to nationalist fervor stirred up by global military/economic power struggles.

    And to the extent that they see such people not as the Russian ideological equivalents of themselves but as literal agents of the Kremlin, precisely the way one might imagine all the Hillary defenders on this thread as COINTELPRO plants and/or paid Clinton campaign PR operatives, they're able to see this obsequious defense of ruling-class power for the creepy authoritarian servility it is. One could call the double standards closed-minded or even xenophobic, but I'll settle for just calling it bizarre.

    bruce wilder , 10.03.16 at 2:51 pm
    American foreign policy has long been the special province of deeply interested portions of the elite, which were allowed to use U.S. naval and military power without paying for it.

    Early in the 19th century, it was Yankee traders in China and South America paddling their boats in the British Empire's wake. The Americans were there, junior partners and useful instruments of British foreign policy: Monroe Doctrine, founding Hong Kong, opening Japan and Korea, disciplining unruly or bankrupt Latin American states. The U.S. nearly matched the British in the race to build Dreadnoughts before the First World War, proclaimed the Open Door in China, neutralized the German Navy in Morocco and in the Venezuela Crisis, and finally settled the First World War.

    Since the First World War, the U.S. has been the hegemon, sponsoring a world order on liberal principles in theory and making the world safe for an often rapacious commercial order in practice. Popular disinterest at home has preserved the tradition of hijacking the U.S. military for racketeering abroad, but the privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it from sideline into a reason for being: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing tool.

    ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world" I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis.

    bruce wilder, 10.03.16 at 3:25 pm 358
    Will G-R: liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!")

    I'm not sure that's the relevant analogue.

    Americans seem to have some difficulty understanding just how competent Putin has been. Putin is a consummately gifted gambler, who has played a weak hand aggressively at home and abroad. He is popular in Russia, because he has been successful by being phenomenally good at his job - so good that any Russian who isn't dead stupid is worried about what comes after.

    Obama, the most gifted politician I've seen in my lifetime, has played his hand very conservatively. I rail against him, because I think he should have taken much bigger chances on a radical reform agenda, using the crisis he was gifted to take apart the oligarchies choking the American political economy. But, he chose not to play the game at that level of risk, and I think history will judge him to be weak because of the consequences, though he has not been politically weak and he has been remarkably successful in terms of his chosen agenda.

    Both Americans and Russians, I think, are inclined to see their roles in the world as more benign than they are. The Americans, though, have better PR and a lot of people abroad still want to believe. No one believes the Russians are a benign force, especially in Russia's Near Abroad.

    The scary thing is that Americans have been propagandized into thinking Clinton is competent, that she will be the adult in the room, the experienced leader who will take the call at 3 am (and not tweet out some link to a porn tape).

    In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all.

    That Clinton is so cavalier about making Putin the scapegoat for her email problems is an early indication that she doesn't know what she is doing.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 3:26 pm 359
    I know that it's a digression, but I really should write some more about hobbits. The one thing that would shake my convictions as an anarchist would be a political leader who promises to wipe out their barbaric "mathom culture".

    First of all, they never can get ahead economically because of this premodern habit of putting their economic surplus into items that they pass around aimlessly. And the way they waste food - has anyone seen the depravity of their so-called wedding parties? I know that drones are a harsh remedy, but really.

    And of course the feminist case for bombing hobbits is as strong as it ever was. Has anyone even heard of a female hobbit? Of course you haven't, because they keep them in those primitive holes, and they only appear in brief cameos when the hobbits have to conceal their unadmitted homosocial orientation. Strong hobbit women will be much better off if we kill the men keeping them down as well as some of their children.

    And lastly, genocide. Are their even any members of other racial groups living in the Shire? Where did they all go? Hobbit society is deeply racist, and those holes are dumping groups for bodies as well as potential storehouses for chemical weapons. I know that some people say that we shouldn't bomb them, but that's only because those people can't even imagine what it's like not to have the privilege that they do.

    likbez 10.03.16 at 3:48 pm
    Bruce,

    @ 358

    "ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world" I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis."

    This line of thinking is very close to Professor Bacevich concept of "New American Militarism". See, for example, his book "Washington Rules" (2010). A good synopsis by Mark K. Jensen can be found at https://www.scribd.com/document/38192715/Bacevich-Washington-Rules-2010-Synopsis

    === quote ===

    Ch. 1: The Advent of Semiwar.

    As president, Barack Obama's efforts to change the U.S.'s exercise of power "have seldom risen above the cosmetic"(20). He made clear he subscribes to the "catechism of American statecraft," viz. that 1) the world must be organized, 2)only the U.S. can do it, 3) this includes dictating principles, and 4) not to accept this is to be a rogue or a recalcitrant (20-21).

    It follows that the U.S. need not conform to the norms it sets for others and that it should maintain a worldwide network of bases (22-23).

    Imagine if China acted in a comparable manner (23-25). The extraordinary American military posture in the world (25-27). To call this into question puts one beyond the pale(27). James Forrestal called this a permanent condition of semiwar, requiring high levels of military spending(27-28).

    American citizens are not supposed to concern themselves with it (29-30). As to how this came about, the "standard story line" presents as the result of the decisions of a "succession of presidential administrations," though this conceals as much as it reveals (30-32).

    Eisenhower's 1961 Farewell Address on the "military-industrial complex" was a rare exception (32-34). More important than presidents were Allen Dulles [1893-1969] and Curtis Lemay [1906-1990] (34-36).

    Bacevich attributes the vision for an American-dominated post-World War II world with the CIA playing an active role to the patrician Dulles (36-43). The development of the U.S. military into a force capable of dominating the world, especially in the area of strategic weapons, he attributes to the hard-bitten Curtis LeMay, organizer of the StrategicAir Command (SAC) (43-52). Dulles and LeMay shared devotion to country, ruthlessness, a certain recklessness (52-55). They exploited American anxieties and insecurities in yin (Dulles's CIA) yang(LeMay's SAC) fashion, leaving the mainstay of American military power, the U.S. Army, in a relatively weak position(55-58).

    Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control

    Kennedy kept Dulles and LeMay to signal continuity, but there was a behind-the-scenes struggle led by Gen. Maxwell Taylor to reassert the role of the U.S. Army by expanding and modernizing conventional forces that was "simultaneously masked by, and captured in, the phrase flexible response " (60; 59-63).
    This agenda purported to aim at "resisting aggression" but really created new options for limited aggressive warfare by the U.S. (63-66).
    McNamara engaged in a struggle with LeMay to control U.S. policy on nuclear weapons, but he embraced the need for redundancy based on a land-sea-air attack "triad" and LeMay et al. "got most of what they wanted" (66-72).
    In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy instituted the morally and legally "indefensible" Operation Mongoose," in effect, a program of state-sponsored terrorism" against Cuba (80; 72-82 [but Bacevich is silent on its wilder elements, like Operation Northwoods]).

    U.S. recklessness caused the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to his credit Kennedy acknowledged this (albeit privately) and "suspended the tradition" in defusing the crisis (82-87).

    Bacevich rejects as a romantic delusion the view that in the aftermath of this crisis Kennedy turned against the military-industrial complex and the incipient Vietnam war and shows no interest in Kennedy's assassination itself (87-92).

    He sees a parallel between escalation in Vietnam and post-9/11 aggression as "fought to sustain the Washington consensus" (107; 92-107).

    Ch. 3: The Credo Restored.

    William Fulbright's The Arrogance of Power (1966) urged a rethinking of the Washington rules (109-15). A radicalized David Shoup, a Medal of Honor winner and former commandant of the MarineCorps, argued in "The New American Militarism" (Atlantic, April 1969) that the U.S. had become "a militaristic and aggressive nation" (120; 115-21). The 1960s Zeitgeist shift made LeMay "an embarrassment, mocked and vilified rather than venerated," which showed that the Washington rules had incurred serious damage in Vietnam; the Army was in dire shape (122; 121-27).

    Yet astonishingly, in the subsequent decade the "sacred trinity" (cf. 11-15) was "fully restored" (127). As in post-1918 Germany, élites looked for scapegoats and worked to reverse "the war's apparent verdict" (128). The Council on Foreign Relations 1976 volume entitled The Vietnam Legacy: The War, American Society, and the Future of American Foreign Policy is an expression of élite consensus that the Vietnam war was insignificant, an anomaly (129-34).

    By 1980, Democrats and Republicans were again on the same page (134-36).Reagan's election "sealed the triumph of Vietnam revisionism" (136; 136-38). And the end of the Cold War posed no challenge to the Washington rules, as Madeleine Albright's pretentious arrogance exemplifies (138-45).

    stevenjohnson 10.03.16 at 3:55 pm

    "In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all."

    Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint.

    The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit.

    Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves.

    Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual.

    Will G-R 10.03.16 at 4:06 pm 364
    Bruce, I meant "bad" in a good/evil sense, not a competent/incompetent sense. Clinton partisans may be fairly unanimous in waxing rhapsodic about her competence, but plenty of them are willing to cop to her position as a defender of an ultimately evil form of ruling-class power, they simply think it shouldn't be talked about (see Collin Street @ 184 for an exemplary specimen).

    It's the insidious ideology of the Uncle Sam poster, where a slightly-less-evil form of ruling-class power needs you not just to passively submit to its dictates but to actively defend its position against its slightly-more-evil ideological enemies, even at the expense of your own independent moral compass and political thought. The point of this facade isn't what the lemming-like hordes of Clinton defenders (or Putin defenders, if they're Russian) are actually accomplishing, which is essentially nothing; the point is what they're not accomplishing, which is any meaningfully subversive reflection about how ruling-class power works in general and how the governed classes might effectively counter it.

    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 5:33 pm 365
    Will G-R @ 364

    I am with you completely on that much.

    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 5:58 pm 366
    stevenjohnson @ 363: Putin is weak.

    Russia is weak; Putin calculates.

    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 6:00 pm 367
    likbez @ 362

    Thanks. I like Bacevich's take.

    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 6:01 pm 368
    I don't think there's any question that the U.S. has to take action on the Hobbit threat.
    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 6:12 pm 369
    If you need an eloquent summary of how the dysfunction of the American political system has become manifest in a foreign policy of perpetual and costly failure .

    [Oct 04, 2016] Americas War for the Greater Middle East A Military History by Andrew J. Bacevich

    Notable quotes:
    "... The strongest part of "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the thirteenth chapter, where Bacevich dissects Bush 43's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. While I have previously argued that American war aims in the Iraq war were unidentifiable Bacevich's formulation of said aims (namely, that our overarching aim was to force everyone in the region to bend to our will) is plausible. The weakest part of the book is the very limited discussion (limited basically to chapter 16) of the US special relationship with Israel, a pariah state based on an obsolete ideology, which in my opinion is the real driver of the war. If this relationship could be ended or redefined, we would in one stroke go most of the way towards a rational policy in the Middle East. ..."
    "... He cites many examples of Americans deceiving themselves about what constitutes terrorism and who is a terrorist and why they do it. ..."
    "... He also makes a convincing case for the war having begun with Carter and never stopping, even in periods between more known wars; much of the action was American use of air power in Iraq, but also tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, what was once very strong US support of jihadis fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89). ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | www.amazon.com
    Jason Galbraith

    Blocking Consensus: A Critical View of "America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History" , April 15, 2016

    "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the third book I have read by Andrew Bacevich, who has unique authority to speak on the subject as the war claimed his son's life. Unfortunately, this book lacks the power of the first two books, "The Limits of Power" and "Breach of Trust." The overall indictment of American society that it delivers was more convincing in "Breach of Trust," or perhaps I am simply blinded by the very ideology that Bacevich decries in this book. I have bought into the status quo in this respect: I believe some, if not most, of the goods recognized by Americans are indeed universal. I am unwilling to concede that the millions of Afghan girls and women who got an education in the years after the Taliban's control of that country were first challenged would be better off if we had never gone in. I also believe that the number of casualties we are now sustaining in CENTCOM and AFRICOM is low enough that what we are doing is sustainable indefinitely, unless the Muslim world gets so angry at us that it unites into a new superpower to challenge us globally. This will disappoint a lot of people and isn't necessarily consistent with what I have argued at other times but the absence of even one critical review on Amazon was something I couldn't stomach anymore.

    Per Bacevich, the first American lives lost in America's War for the Greater Middle East were the fatalities of the aircraft collision as special operators were queuing up to leave Desert One after the mission was called off. I think it does a disservice to President Carter to imply that sending troops for a rescue mission committed the United States to perpetual war for unachievable aims, or even to call it the Poland of this war. Bacevich's position that the Carter Doctrine calling for the free transit of Saudi and other Gulf Arab oil through the Straits of Hormuz made Desert One and other interventions inevitable is somewhat more supportable.

    The strongest part of "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the thirteenth chapter, where Bacevich dissects Bush 43's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. While I have previously argued that American war aims in the Iraq war were unidentifiable Bacevich's formulation of said aims (namely, that our overarching aim was to force everyone in the region to bend to our will) is plausible. The weakest part of the book is the very limited discussion (limited basically to chapter 16) of the US special relationship with Israel, a pariah state based on an obsolete ideology, which in my opinion is the real driver of the war. If this relationship could be ended or redefined, we would in one stroke go most of the way towards a rational policy in the Middle East.

    lyndonbrecht

    Incoherence combined with self-deception means the war may last decades longer. Extraordinarily good. Deeply disturbing. on September 24, 2016

    This book is headed for some Books of the Year lists and maybe some awards. It's well researched, unusually well-written and deeply disturbing. It is not an easy read; there are hundreds of names, locations and events over four decades. It deals with how we got into the mess, how we kept at it and how we're not going to get out. That's the disturbing point, the number of factors that indicate that we are going to continue with what the book calls the War for the Greater Middle East. I wish he was wrong, but his case is overwhelming and logically developed. Rather than describe this book as other reviews have done, I'll consider some details that struck me and add a couple of quotes to give the flavor. Note: the author has strong opinions, and has ample criticism for all presidents from Carter to Obama, and strong criticism of many generals, but Republican readers will not like some of his comments, one cited below. His overall view is rather similar to the famed quote from World War 1, about lions led by donkeys.

    "...combined incoherence with self-deception, both to become abiding hallmarks of America's evolving War for the Greater Middle East." (44).

    "Like the present-day GOP, the Northern Alliance was a loose coalition of unsavory opportunists, interested chiefly in acquiring power." (227)

    "Instead of intimidating, US military efforts have annoyed, incited and generally communicated a lack of both competence and determination." (367).

    He cites many examples of Americans deceiving themselves about what constitutes terrorism and who is a terrorist and why they do it. The book covers in considerable detail the Carter actions in Iran, Reagan's Marines in Lebanon, the Bush's wars in Iraq, Clinton's actions in Somalia--in considerable detail, these actions involved 38,000 US troops at one point, and resulted quite simply in defeat. He notes that US actions in Bosnia and Kosovo rescued Muslims, who now are enlisting in considerable numbers as jihadis in the Middle East. In Kosovo he notes that US protection resulted in a Kosovar state that promptly engaged in an ethnic cleansing of Serbs. He notes that US troops defeated Iraq's military but the numbers were too small to effectively deal with Baghdad (a city of 5 million at the time), leading to the collapse of law and order. He thinks the point of defeat is the incident of Abu Ghraib.

    He also makes a convincing case for the war having begun with Carter and never stopping, even in periods between more known wars; much of the action was American use of air power in Iraq, but also tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, what was once very strong US support of jihadis fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89). Putting situations that tend to be forgotten about in succession with larger events makes it obvious that the war began under Carter and has simmered ever since, with periodic intensifications.

    And near the book's end he discusses several reasons why the war is going to continue. One, there is no anti-war or effective anti-interventionist party. Two, electoral expediency means major party candidates will continue to support military actions. Three, some individuals and organizations (and companies) benefit from continued war (jobs, military contracts). Four, Americans largely seem oblivious to the war. There's more, but these are main reasons.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense of racism and imperialism on many levels

    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 3:26 pm 359

    I know that it's a digression, but I really should write some more about hobbits. The one thing that would shake my convictions as an anarchist would be a political leader who promises to wipe out their barbaric "mathom culture".

    First of all, they never can get ahead economically because of this premodern habit of putting their economic surplus into items that they pass around aimlessly. And the way they waste food - has anyone seen the depravity of their so-called wedding parties? I know that drones are a harsh remedy, but really.

    And of course the feminist case for bombing hobbits is as strong as it ever was. Has anyone even heard of a female hobbit? Of course you haven't, because they keep them in those primitive holes, and they only appear in brief cameos when the hobbits have to conceal their unadmitted homosocial orientation. Strong hobbit women will be much better off if we kill the men keeping them down as well as some of their children.

    And lastly, genocide. Are their even any members of other racial groups living in the Shire? Where did they all go? Hobbit society is deeply racist, and those holes are dumping groups for bodies as well as potential storehouses for chemical weapons. I know that some people say that we shouldn't bomb them, but that's only because those people can't even imagine what it's like not to have the privilege that they do.

    Will G-R 10.04.16 at 1:41 pm 389

    In all seriousness, Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense of racism and imperialism on many levels - everything from the noble white monarch rallying "men of the West" to stand against the dark hordes of the East and South, to the depiction of preindustrial peasant life as an idyllic paradise disturbed not by Western nobles themselves but by the malign influence of Eastern/Southern foreigners, to details as small as the relationship between Frodo and Sam modeled on an ideal Victorian-era relationship between a lower-aristocratic British army officer and his commoner manservant. (Juxtapose the imagery this video at the timestamp side by side with this one.) As people of the left, we shouldn't bring that particular story into our discourse as an allegory without this point being made explicitly at least once.

    That said, when considering our doctrines on liberty, it's clear that we may leave out of consideration those backward states of hobbit society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. The early difficulties in the way of spontaneous progress are so great, that there is seldom any choice of means for overcoming them; and a ruler full of the spirit of improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an end, perhaps otherwise unattainable. Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with hobbits, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when hobbitkind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to a Sharkey or a Wormtongue, if they are so fortunate as to find one.

    Ogden Wernstrom 10.04.16 at 5:11 pm 400
    @389, Will G-R 10.04.16 at 1:41 pm:

    In all seriousness, Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense of racism and imperialism on many levels…

    Once the US establishes American-Style Democracy in The Shire, a new timeline begins. First, the ethnic cleansing and establishment of enclaves for the survivors. After about a hundred years they'll have to end slavery. About fifty years after that, they'll have to let women vote.

    Apologies to Vonnegut.

    Guy Harris 10.04.16 at 5:28 pm
    The Lord of the Rings is history written by the winners .

    [Oct 04, 2016] Vertical mobility can not be completely suppressed without system losing the social stability and thats was true for classic aristocracy as well as modern neoliberal elite

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the same time traditional aristocracy is not fixed either and always provided some "meritocratic" mechanisms for entering its ranks. Look, for example, at British system where prominent scientists always were awarded lordship. Similar mechanism was used in many countries where low rank military officers, who displayed bravery and talent in battles were promoted to nobility and allowed to hold top military positions. Napoleonic France probably is one good example here. ..."
    "... Neoliberal elite like traditional aristocracy also enjoys the privilege of being above the law. And like in case of traditional aristocracy the democratic governance is limited to members of this particular strata. Only they can be viewed as political actors. ..."
    "... The USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to neoliberal elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless. ..."
    "... vertical mobility can't be completely suppressed without system losing the social stability and that's was true for classic aristocracy as well as modern neoliberal elite ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    likbez 10.04.16 at 10:22 pm 415

    Re: Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 7:52 pm.371

    A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy.

    This is an interesting observation. BTW other aspect of the same is related to the "Iron law of oligarchy". Also both aristocracy and meritocracy are just variants of oligarchy. The actual literal translation from the Greek is the "rule of the few".

    At the same time traditional aristocracy is not fixed either and always provided some "meritocratic" mechanisms for entering its ranks. Look, for example, at British system where prominent scientists always were awarded lordship. Similar mechanism was used in many countries where low rank military officers, who displayed bravery and talent in battles were promoted to nobility and allowed to hold top military positions. Napoleonic France probably is one good example here.

    Neoliberal elite like traditional aristocracy also enjoys the privilege of being above the law. And like in case of traditional aristocracy the democratic governance is limited to members of this particular strata. Only they can be viewed as political actors.

    The USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to neoliberal elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless.

    In other words, vertical mobility can't be completely suppressed without system losing the social stability and that's was true for classic aristocracy as well as modern neoliberal elite (actually vertical mobility is somewhat higher in European countries then in the USA; IMHO it is even higher in former Eastern block).

    [Oct 04, 2016] The upgrade of the US nuclear arsenal is about improving the feasibility of using tactical nukes.

    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    LFC 10.02.16 at 5:00 pm 330

    @s. johnson

    The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.)

    I had not heard about this (perhaps an indication of how closely or not I'm following the election news). If HRC is indeed has some doubts about the wisdom of nuclear 'modernization', that's all to the good. Mainstream Democratic-leaning think tanks, at least one that I'm aware of, have questioned the modernization necessity and expense, e.g. in a report co-authored by Lawrence Korb, a former Reagan admin defense official.

    Will refrain from further comment except to say that I disagree w the notion that the pt of nuclear 'modernization' is to make plausible the threat of "imminent general nuclear war." If U.S. military planners took hallucinogenic drugs and went nuts, they could "plausibly" threaten "imminent general nuclear war" right now with the US nuclear arsenal as currently configured. They don't need to upgrade the weapons to do that. The program is prob more the result of rigid, unimaginative thinking at top levels of Pentagon and influence of outside companies (e.g. Boeing etc) that work on the upgrades.

    stevenjohnson 10.02.16 at 7:10 pm

    One aspect of the upgrade is about improving the feasibility of using tactical nukes.

    [Oct 04, 2016] By 60th the isea of self-determination and national independence became too powerful to resist by old colonial powers and a new mode of colonization via debt slavery was invented

    Notable quotes:
    "... Self-determination and national independence were powerful ideas, and many Western politicians, at least in certain countries, recognized that the "winds of change," in Macmillan's words, were blowing, and that they had best try to adjust and accommodate them. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    LFC 10.04.16 at 4:51 pm 399

    @Anarcissie
    The [U.S.] leadership wisely declined to support any attempt to restore the British, French, Dutch, Belgian etc. empires because they had a new model in mind. Thus these empires had to be wound down and dissolved, and so they were.

    British and French decolonization(s) were different in that France fought two protracted wars (Indochina and Algeria) in an effort to hang on to its colonies, and in the former war (Indochina) France did so with US financial support (so much for your argument about the US dictating all outcomes). Britain, by contrast, left most (though not all - e.g. Kenya ) of its colonies relatively peacefully.

    Self-determination and national independence were powerful ideas, and many Western politicians, at least in certain countries, recognized that the "winds of change," in Macmillan's words, were blowing, and that they had best try to adjust and accommodate them.

    A quote from R.H. Jackson, "The Weight of Ideas in Decolonization"[*]:

    Something besides declining military power or economic disinterest on the part of the imperial powers was involved in decolonization - certainly British decolonization. The cabinet and colonial papers on which this judgment is based make reference not to any fundamental alteration in Britain's military posture or economic interests but rather to "the large body of opinion in this country, in Africa, and internationally," which by the late 1940s was already demanding "more rapid political, economic and social development" and by 1960 would accept nothing less than complete decolonization…. [There was] a fundamental shift of normative ideas and a corresponding change of mind on the part of most sovereign governments and the public opinion influencing them concerning the right to sovereign statehood.

    [*] In Judith Goldstein and R.O. Keohane, eds., Ideas and Foreign Policy (1993), pp. 128-29.

    Anarcissie 10.04.16 at 4:15 pm
    Will G-R 10.04.16 at 3:24 pm @ 394 -
    The analogy between wives (in purdah, though) and prostitutes in business on the street it apt. The latter would have a certain freedom of life and action, like slaves or serfs being tuned loose to become the proles of a social order. They would still be subordinated to masters, but it would be harder for them to identify and act against their masters.

    But as to racism and sexism, these mostly inhibit production and consumption, so, given its fetishization of production, capitalism should war against them.

    As Uncle Karl notes in the Manifesto, 'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air….'

    In short, capitalism destroys all culture and relations that it encounters and replaces them with its own culture and set of relations. The irrationalities of racial and sexual peculiarity and segregation are replaced by an atomized, degendered, deracinated, atomized population who relate to each other through money, markets, employment, consumption patterns. Or they did. Now that employment and production are in decline, something else may be happening.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess.

    Notable quotes:
    "... As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians. Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess. stevenjohnson , 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers. ..."
    "... CIA of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon. ..."
    "... It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker skinned people. ..."
    "... She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees ..."
    "... Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition, largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence, and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do so. Whether he was sincere is moot. ..."
    "... Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct. Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan. ..."
    "... The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.) ..."
    "... I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good. It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Peter T 10.02.16 at 10:49 am 320

    As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians.

    Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess.

    stevenjohnson, 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm
    LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers.

    @306 "And (Clinton) also played an instrumental role in destroying Libya…"
    @316 "Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy…"

    It was NATO which attacked Libya. The prime "architects" were well known, namely, Cameron and Sarkozy. The US role in this matter was conducted largely through NATO, the CIA and international diplomacy. In the US, relations with Cameron and Sarkozy would be conducted largely by either Obama personally, with other diplomatic duties taken up by the UN ambassador Samantha Power, a figure that has always been in an ambiguous relationship with the Secretary of State. CIA of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon.

    It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker skinned people. Enter that dutiful public servant, able to suffer undeserved ignominy in service to her country. (She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees.)

    Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition, largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence, and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do so. Whether he was sincere is moot.

    Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct. Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan.

    Peter T @320 "As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria…Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess." Skipping over the question of how obvious it is to CT and its regular commentariat that the military has a semi-independent policy, the idea of Presidential leadership does sort of include a vague notion that the President sets the policy, not the generals. The facts being otherwise show how the US is a deeply militaristic polity. I would add the CIA is very much the President's army. State is more or less, Other, on the multiple choice exam. Trump's hint he would fire generals til he finds a winner suggests he more or less agrees that the military is an independent enterprise in the political market (which is what US governance seems to be modeled on.)

    The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.)

    The fact that these kinds of issues are ignored in favor of twaddle about Clinton Foundation, emails and the actions of the Secretary State, an office whose relevance has been dubious for decades, says much about the level of democratic discourse.

    Rich Puchalsky, the primary reason so many white workers vote Republican is because they are voting values, which are religious, not policies. Even more to the point, the notion that voting is like a market transaction (a very liberal idea) founders on the fact…

    I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good. It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests.

    As to the religious bigotry, well, once it was necessary to say or write "racial bigotry," because everyone knew bigotry to be an expression of religious belief. Today, the very notion of religious bigotry is more or less forbidden as some sort of expression of anti-religious fanaticism.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Obama restraint in foreign policy is as fake as change we can beleave in

    Notable quotes:
    "... Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    "Who, really, could have imagined that US 'benevolent' bombings would place Russian and US troops in close proximity once again"

    stevenjohnson 10.03.16 at 3:55 pm 363

    "In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all."

    Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint.

    The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit.

    Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves. Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual.

    [Oct 04, 2016] Meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy.

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing class, and they aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest. I know that this will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't governing anything - as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing anything either - but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests of the managerial class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as its lower tier. ..."
    "... A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy. ..."
    "... I'll quote wiki: "One study […] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation." That's not perfect, but it's getting better. ..."
    "... to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class hangers-on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests ( at least until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest. ..."
    Oct 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 10.03.16 at 6:12 pm 369

    If you need an eloquent summary of how the dysfunction of the American political system has become manifest in a foreign policy of perpetual and costly failure .
    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 7:31 pm 370

    ...First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing class, and they aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest. I know that this will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't governing anything - as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing anything either - but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests of the managerial class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as its lower tier.

    Second, I'm not sure about the merits of the whole Manufacturing Consent line of critique, but defending elite opinion as the only respectable opinion sort of is accomplishing something. Sure, individual votes are meaningless, and any one person's contribution negligible. But there is a recurring trope of people wondering whether someone is a paid troll because people are actually paid - whether by David Brooks or by Putin - to do exactly this kind of thing. And they are paid to do it because it works, or at any rate people think that it works. Even better if people do it on a volunteer basis.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.03.16 at 7:52 pm 371
    A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy.

    Look at how much effort people put into ensuring that their children are high-status, degreed, good job holders just like themselves, and how successful that generally is.

    I'll quote wiki: "One study […] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation." That's not perfect, but it's getting better.

    Will G-R 10.03.16 at 9:33 pm
    You're right, Rich: to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class hangers-on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests ( at least until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest.

    But I like to think of my point as less Chomskian and more Žižekian, in that while Chomsky's manufactured consent is presented as a simple way to cover other people's interests with ideological mystification, Žižek's fetishism (like Marx's before him) is presented as a way for people to cover their own interests by imagining their mystification as itself a demystification. It's not that professional-class liberals don't realize the truth that they should be fighting against oppression - they do realize this, but it's false realization concealing from them the deeper truth that they're actually fighting for oppression.

    [Oct 02, 2016] Washington's governing elites think we're all morons, a new study says

    Oct 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    cnchal October 2, 2016 at 9:07 am

    From Washington's governing elites think we're all morons, a new study says

    In 2014, MIT Professor and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber was caught on tape explaining that "the stupidity of the American voter or whatever was really, really critical for [Obamacare] to pass." Most lawmakers and voters , he suggested, did not really understand the law and that "lack of transparency is a huge political advantage."

    The 'governing elite' puts the politician and voter in the same moron category.

    [W]here rulers have little in common with the ruled, those in power are unlikely to exhibit sympathy, as the Constitution's framers might have put it, for their subjects. Rulers are likely, instead, to view their subjects instrumentally much, says Aristotle, as they might see their tools, horses, oxen, or slaves, and deal with them in an unjust manner. . .

    This is narcissism writ large. What we have is a system whereby self selecting narcissists run for office (Does a normal person really want the jawb of getting up in front of people to lie and smile?) and bask in the glory of power. and then has to deal with psychopaths that have back stabbed and ass licked their way to the top of the bureaucratic heap.

    [Oct 02, 2016] No, U.S. elections are not rigged

    Notable quotes:
    "... OMG, you will make up anything, won't you! That is NOT what rigged means! When a basketball game is rigged, it doesn't mean the final score has been "falsified"! It means that someone -- probably the refs (i.e, in an election, the media) has systematically tilted the playing field. ..."
    "... Usually when we say a game was rigged, we mean players on the teams manipulated the score (missing shots,etc) in order to make sure a specific team beat the spread. ..."
    "... My own experience looking systematically at election results in aggregate suggests that big disparities in campaign spending can indeed have very big effects, the most obvious in recent history being Obama's win in Indiana in 2008. ..."
    "... I suspect that if more people believe elections are rigged, more will be likely to support/accept/tolerate a military takeover. ..."
    "... "Rigged" is not a precise term. There's a continuum from, say, discouraging some voters from turning up to stuffing ballot boxes (or worse). Some places in the US are well towards the middle of that spectrum (purging rolls, making ID mandatory but difficult to obtain, cutting voting places, gerrymanders....) ..."
    "... As for "American elections are not perfect, but ...they're pretty darn good." By the standards of other developed countries (and even many undeveloped ones), US electoral processes are pretty horrible, but that is true of much US administration. Extreme decentralisation, a rich heritage of patronage and a deep suspicion of government do not make for efficient public services. ..."
    "... Recently (as sometime this past year, iIRC) former President Carter outright said that the US doesn't have a functioning democracy. ..."
    Oct 02, 2016 | noahpinionblog.blogspot.com

    Nathan Taylor 8:09 PM

    I read both your writing and Cowen's regularly. And saw your twitter exchange. And it seems completely obvious to me that Cowen's main complaint was hypocrisy/double standards. A (perhaps overdone) theme of his.

    Just look at Cowen's first point. quote:

    1. Numerous arguments insist that money buys elections and campaign finance reform is imperative. That's not exactly my view, with Trump himself now being Exhibit A on the other side of the issue, but please try to be consistent. A lot of you believe that elections are (were?) rigged! (Hey, psst when can we go back to them being rigged again? Asking for a friend!)

    He's being a total smart aleck! Annoyed about people whining about overuse of rigged and dumbing it way way down. And not understanding that by theory all complex elections have a manipulative aspect. And then going on and complaining when the other side uses "rigged" in the same way. This is so clear, and so snarky.

    Hence I think your summary at top of Cowen's claims is flat out not what he intended. And in fact your points #1 and #2 are (ironically) in total agreement with what Cowen is complaining about. And even true for #3 as well. Cowen is saying Trump is using rigged in a fashion that's quite popular in partisan politics, and this is a problem. Something you obviously agree with. And being annoyed folks don't understand the difference being fraud, and influence, and the Gibbard-Sattherthwaite theorem.

    Anyway, I think there is a true complaint about Cowen's post (besides being too snide without using enough emoji to cue in a modern reader), is it implies a false equivalence between the republican nominee for president saying "rigged" and folks in the more partisan press. I suspect Cowen would acknowledge this, and should have made this more clear in his post. This is pretty much the primary problem in my view, and has led to his post being so misread. It really is a bit deal for the republican nominee to say this, and not acknowledging that fact makes anything else you say easy to misunderstand.

    Another true complaint is he implies there's more lax use of rigged on one side than the other (prior to Trump). I re-read his post though, and am not sure he makes that claim. But it's pretty easy to get that impression.

    Anyway, enough for one day.

    shah8 8:53 PM

    I have heard a variation of this argument with respect to what is, or what isn't a coup when talking about Brazil. In general, I find an excessive devotion to rigor as applied to aggressive action to be distasteful. It's almost always an attempt at derailing (or feels like an attempt to derail) the topic at hand.

    If Brazil's bad faith impeachment drama wasn't a coup, then why do we call the 1997 event in Turkey "the Postmodern Coup"? That's because we pay attention to the ends of these sort of actions, and not the means, and attempting portray a memorandum as just a memorandum, and willfully ignoring the potential implied use of force is simply being deliberately obtuse.

    Again, what are the ends of straight up vote-rigging, like what can be done with electronic voting machines, say, in Kansas? Are they different from the unequal deploying of voting machines? Or the use of vote fraud as an excuse to intimidate people by having police "check up" on where they live? Does these alternative means really do less violence to the society at large? If not, do people not have the correct instinct to apply the most overt and indefensible terms to the panoply of underhanded strategies, so as to throw disinfectant social light on these tactics?

    Jorge Fallas 10:38 PM

    A liitle more soul searchin from the LEft is needed here. You do not mention the blatant manipulation of Illinois in the 1960 election, and the noble attitude of Nizon of not diiging into it further.

    Contrast this with the 2000 Election. Even after the myth of fraud had stolen Florida from Gore was thoroughly debunked one year later by an extensive audit by the vote, Democrats still were referring to George W. Bush as illegitimate well after that.

    And there is the case of all the attitude of the DNC against Sanders. This is not exactly coming out of the blue. And Democrats also bear responsibility.

    Gene Callahan 12:56 AM

    "When most people hear the word "rigged" in the context of an election, they probably think that means the results have been falsified ..."

    OMG, you will make up anything, won't you! That is NOT what rigged means! When a basketball game is rigged, it doesn't mean the final score has been "falsified"! It means that someone -- probably the refs (i.e, in an election, the media) has systematically tilted the playing field.

    If you are just going to make up BS off the top of your head like this, I gotta de-link your blog.

    Von Mises to Pieces 9:51 AM

    In basketball, playing on your home court "tilts the playing field" in favor of one team. Playing your home games in Denver tilts the playing field towards the home team even more. There seems to be some acclimation effect to the altitude that is difficult for road teams to deal with in just a day or two.

    Neither of these structural factors means basketball is rigged because they don't fundamentally change the conditions under which the game is played. Both teams try to get the ball through the hoop without traveling or double dribbling.

    Same with elections. The two party system is like home field advantage. Money and PACs may be like playing at home in Denver. Folks like Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders are all trying to get the ball through the hoop without traveling or double dribbling. The referees aren't calling Bernie for traveling when he clearly held his pivot foot. Nor are they awarding Hillary points for shots she misses. They all raise money under the same rules. They all buy ads under the same rules. They get ballot access and debate access under the same rules. They're all free to attempt to influence party platforms under the same rules. They all compete for media under the same rules.

    As to the media are they biased? I'd suspect so. Do they have rooting interests? Probably. Does that mean elections are rigged? Are MLB games rigged because umpires are more likely to call borderline pitches strikes against Latino hitters?

    Adam 11:41 AM

    If someone says a basketball game has been rigged, I'd assume the players on one of the teams threw the game.

    Will 1:00 PM

    Usually when we say a game was rigged, we mean players on the teams manipulated the score (missing shots,etc) in order to make sure a specific team beat the spread.

    Jonathan Weinstein 12:03 PM

    Thanks for this post. I like Tyler's blog very much and was very surprised to see something this poor from him. Ironically, I think part of his motivation was to criticize the watering-down of "rigged" just as you do, but he did a poor job of it.

    Two separate problems are here: (1) A linguistic problem causing gaps in communication: "Rigged" has become so broad that it has become almost useless for conveying actual beliefs. Its primary meaning is outright miscounting votes a la Stalin, but it is now being used for much milder influences as well. (2) Trump appears to be claiming there will be outright miscounting of votes, a terrible claim by a major candidate.

    I think Tyler meant to say that unfortunately, (1) gives Trump cover for (2). He can say the election will be "rigged," and most listeners will think he means in the strict Stalinist sense (I do)...but some people who might be outraged by the claim will instead think it sounds vaguely normal, due to (1).

    Seth Taylor 12:40 PM

    Tyler did not write that the election will be rigged. I don't quite understand your confusion on the point, to be honest. Your long excerpt from him omits the part where he says he believes the opposite:

    "Personally, I think median voters more or less get what they want on a large number of issues, especially broad-based ones in the public eye. You won't find the word 'rigged' popping up too much in the MR search function, besides I started blogging (and breathing) after Kennedy vs. Nixon. But my goodness, I can in fact understand why Donald Trump thinks the system is rigged. For years, you have been telling him that it is."

    His point is that there's a double standard.

    John Foelster 8:04 PM

    I do not wish to enter into a discussion in this space as to whether there is evidence that insider tampering with electronic voting machines changed the outcome of races in Alaska in 2008 and 2014 and Kansas in 2014, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Steven Levitt's work on elections outcomes linked in "most evidence shows" above has been vociferously contested by some in the Political Science field, for example Thomas Ferguson's "Investment Theory of Party Competition".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition

    I'm not really inclined to buy Chomskian bullshit by the pound from Ferguson in preference to Chicago School apologetics from Levitt, and I don't have the expertise in statistics to judge their competing claims, but I have a pretty good idea which of the two makes more money promoting these respective ideas on election financing, and given Levitt's terrible work on climate science in SuperFreakonomics, I'm not at all inclined to give his claims on campaign finance the benefit of the doubt.

    My own experience looking systematically at election results in aggregate suggests that big disparities in campaign spending can indeed have very big effects, the most obvious in recent history being Obama's win in Indiana in 2008.

    Don Coffin 2:27 PM

    Not directly related to whether elections are rigged, but related:

    ""In the past three decades, the share of U.S. citizens who think that it would be a "good" or "very good" thing for the "army to rule"-a patently undemocratic stance-has steadily risen. In 1995, just one in sixteen respondents agreed with that position; today, one in six agree. While those who hold this view remain in the minority, they can no longer be dismissed as a small fringe, especially since there have been similar increases in the number of those who favor a "strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament and elections" and those who want experts rather than the government to "take decisions" for the country. Nor is the United States the only country to exhibit this trend. The proportion agreeing that it would be better to have the army rule has risen in most mature democracies, including Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom."
    http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2016/08/is-support-for-democracy-eroding.html

    I suspect that if more people believe elections are rigged, more will be likely to support/accept/tolerate a military takeover.

    Peter T 11:41 PM

    "Rigged" is not a precise term. There's a continuum from, say, discouraging some voters from turning up to stuffing ballot boxes (or worse). Some places in the US are well towards the middle of that spectrum (purging rolls, making ID mandatory but difficult to obtain, cutting voting places, gerrymanders....)

    As for "American elections are not perfect, but ...they're pretty darn good." By the standards of other developed countries (and even many undeveloped ones), US electoral processes are pretty horrible, but that is true of much US administration. Extreme decentralisation, a rich heritage of patronage and a deep suspicion of government do not make for efficient public services.

    John Randomness 2:14 PM

    Recently (as sometime this past year, iIRC) former President Carter outright said that the US doesn't have a functioning democracy.

    [Oct 02, 2016] No, U.S. elections are not rigged

    Notable quotes:
    "... OMG, you will make up anything, won't you! That is NOT what rigged means! When a basketball game is rigged, it doesn't mean the final score has been "falsified"! It means that someone -- probably the refs (i.e, in an election, the media) has systematically tilted the playing field. ..."
    "... Usually when we say a game was rigged, we mean players on the teams manipulated the score (missing shots,etc) in order to make sure a specific team beat the spread. ..."
    "... My own experience looking systematically at election results in aggregate suggests that big disparities in campaign spending can indeed have very big effects, the most obvious in recent history being Obama's win in Indiana in 2008. ..."
    "... I suspect that if more people believe elections are rigged, more will be likely to support/accept/tolerate a military takeover. ..."
    "... "Rigged" is not a precise term. There's a continuum from, say, discouraging some voters from turning up to stuffing ballot boxes (or worse). Some places in the US are well towards the middle of that spectrum (purging rolls, making ID mandatory but difficult to obtain, cutting voting places, gerrymanders....) ..."
    "... As for "American elections are not perfect, but ...they're pretty darn good." By the standards of other developed countries (and even many undeveloped ones), US electoral processes are pretty horrible, but that is true of much US administration. Extreme decentralisation, a rich heritage of patronage and a deep suspicion of government do not make for efficient public services. ..."
    "... Recently (as sometime this past year, iIRC) former President Carter outright said that the US doesn't have a functioning democracy. ..."
    Oct 02, 2016 | noahpinionblog.blogspot.com

    Nathan Taylor 8:09 PM

    I read both your writing and Cowen's regularly. And saw your twitter exchange. And it seems completely obvious to me that Cowen's main complaint was hypocrisy/double standards. A (perhaps overdone) theme of his.

    Just look at Cowen's first point. quote:

    1. Numerous arguments insist that money buys elections and campaign finance reform is imperative. That's not exactly my view, with Trump himself now being Exhibit A on the other side of the issue, but please try to be consistent. A lot of you believe that elections are (were?) rigged! (Hey, psst when can we go back to them being rigged again? Asking for a friend!)

    He's being a total smart aleck! Annoyed about people whining about overuse of rigged and dumbing it way way down. And not understanding that by theory all complex elections have a manipulative aspect. And then going on and complaining when the other side uses "rigged" in the same way. This is so clear, and so snarky.

    Hence I think your summary at top of Cowen's claims is flat out not what he intended. And in fact your points #1 and #2 are (ironically) in total agreement with what Cowen is complaining about. And even true for #3 as well. Cowen is saying Trump is using rigged in a fashion that's quite popular in partisan politics, and this is a problem. Something you obviously agree with. And being annoyed folks don't understand the difference being fraud, and influence, and the Gibbard-Sattherthwaite theorem.

    Anyway, I think there is a true complaint about Cowen's post (besides being too snide without using enough emoji to cue in a modern reader), is it implies a false equivalence between the republican nominee for president saying "rigged" and folks in the more partisan press. I suspect Cowen would acknowledge this, and should have made this more clear in his post. This is pretty much the primary problem in my view, and has led to his post being so misread. It really is a bit deal for the republican nominee to say this, and not acknowledging that fact makes anything else you say easy to misunderstand.

    Another true complaint is he implies there's more lax use of rigged on one side than the other (prior to Trump). I re-read his post though, and am not sure he makes that claim. But it's pretty easy to get that impression.

    Anyway, enough for one day.

    shah8 8:53 PM

    I have heard a variation of this argument with respect to what is, or what isn't a coup when talking about Brazil. In general, I find an excessive devotion to rigor as applied to aggressive action to be distasteful. It's almost always an attempt at derailing (or feels like an attempt to derail) the topic at hand.

    If Brazil's bad faith impeachment drama wasn't a coup, then why do we call the 1997 event in Turkey "the Postmodern Coup"? That's because we pay attention to the ends of these sort of actions, and not the means, and attempting portray a memorandum as just a memorandum, and willfully ignoring the potential implied use of force is simply being deliberately obtuse.

    Again, what are the ends of straight up vote-rigging, like what can be done with electronic voting machines, say, in Kansas? Are they different from the unequal deploying of voting machines? Or the use of vote fraud as an excuse to intimidate people by having police "check up" on where they live? Does these alternative means really do less violence to the society at large? If not, do people not have the correct instinct to apply the most overt and indefensible terms to the panoply of underhanded strategies, so as to throw disinfectant social light on these tactics?

    Jorge Fallas 10:38 PM

    A liitle more soul searchin from the LEft is needed here. You do not mention the blatant manipulation of Illinois in the 1960 election, and the noble attitude of Nizon of not diiging into it further.

    Contrast this with the 2000 Election. Even after the myth of fraud had stolen Florida from Gore was thoroughly debunked one year later by an extensive audit by the vote, Democrats still were referring to George W. Bush as illegitimate well after that.

    And there is the case of all the attitude of the DNC against Sanders. This is not exactly coming out of the blue. And Democrats also bear responsibility.

    Gene Callahan 12:56 AM

    "When most people hear the word "rigged" in the context of an election, they probably think that means the results have been falsified ..."

    OMG, you will make up anything, won't you! That is NOT what rigged means! When a basketball game is rigged, it doesn't mean the final score has been "falsified"! It means that someone -- probably the refs (i.e, in an election, the media) has systematically tilted the playing field.

    If you are just going to make up BS off the top of your head like this, I gotta de-link your blog.

    Von Mises to Pieces 9:51 AM

    In basketball, playing on your home court "tilts the playing field" in favor of one team. Playing your home games in Denver tilts the playing field towards the home team even more. There seems to be some acclimation effect to the altitude that is difficult for road teams to deal with in just a day or two.

    Neither of these structural factors means basketball is rigged because they don't fundamentally change the conditions under which the game is played. Both teams try to get the ball through the hoop without traveling or double dribbling.

    Same with elections. The two party system is like home field advantage. Money and PACs may be like playing at home in Denver. Folks like Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders are all trying to get the ball through the hoop without traveling or double dribbling. The referees aren't calling Bernie for traveling when he clearly held his pivot foot. Nor are they awarding Hillary points for shots she misses. They all raise money under the same rules. They all buy ads under the same rules. They get ballot access and debate access under the same rules. They're all free to attempt to influence party platforms under the same rules. They all compete for media under the same rules.

    As to the media are they biased? I'd suspect so. Do they have rooting interests? Probably. Does that mean elections are rigged? Are MLB games rigged because umpires are more likely to call borderline pitches strikes against Latino hitters?

    Adam 11:41 AM

    If someone says a basketball game has been rigged, I'd assume the players on one of the teams threw the game.

    Will 1:00 PM

    Usually when we say a game was rigged, we mean players on the teams manipulated the score (missing shots,etc) in order to make sure a specific team beat the spread.

    Jonathan Weinstein 12:03 PM

    Thanks for this post. I like Tyler's blog very much and was very surprised to see something this poor from him. Ironically, I think part of his motivation was to criticize the watering-down of "rigged" just as you do, but he did a poor job of it.

    Two separate problems are here: (1) A linguistic problem causing gaps in communication: "Rigged" has become so broad that it has become almost useless for conveying actual beliefs. Its primary meaning is outright miscounting votes a la Stalin, but it is now being used for much milder influences as well. (2) Trump appears to be claiming there will be outright miscounting of votes, a terrible claim by a major candidate.

    I think Tyler meant to say that unfortunately, (1) gives Trump cover for (2). He can say the election will be "rigged," and most listeners will think he means in the strict Stalinist sense (I do)...but some people who might be outraged by the claim will instead think it sounds vaguely normal, due to (1).

    Seth Taylor 12:40 PM

    Tyler did not write that the election will be rigged. I don't quite understand your confusion on the point, to be honest. Your long excerpt from him omits the part where he says he believes the opposite:

    "Personally, I think median voters more or less get what they want on a large number of issues, especially broad-based ones in the public eye. You won't find the word 'rigged' popping up too much in the MR search function, besides I started blogging (and breathing) after Kennedy vs. Nixon. But my goodness, I can in fact understand why Donald Trump thinks the system is rigged. For years, you have been telling him that it is."

    His point is that there's a double standard.

    John Foelster 8:04 PM

    I do not wish to enter into a discussion in this space as to whether there is evidence that insider tampering with electronic voting machines changed the outcome of races in Alaska in 2008 and 2014 and Kansas in 2014, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Steven Levitt's work on elections outcomes linked in "most evidence shows" above has been vociferously contested by some in the Political Science field, for example Thomas Ferguson's "Investment Theory of Party Competition".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition

    I'm not really inclined to buy Chomskian bullshit by the pound from Ferguson in preference to Chicago School apologetics from Levitt, and I don't have the expertise in statistics to judge their competing claims, but I have a pretty good idea which of the two makes more money promoting these respective ideas on election financing, and given Levitt's terrible work on climate science in SuperFreakonomics, I'm not at all inclined to give his claims on campaign finance the benefit of the doubt.

    My own experience looking systematically at election results in aggregate suggests that big disparities in campaign spending can indeed have very big effects, the most obvious in recent history being Obama's win in Indiana in 2008.

    Don Coffin 2:27 PM

    Not directly related to whether elections are rigged, but related:

    ""In the past three decades, the share of U.S. citizens who think that it would be a "good" or "very good" thing for the "army to rule"-a patently undemocratic stance-has steadily risen. In 1995, just one in sixteen respondents agreed with that position; today, one in six agree. While those who hold this view remain in the minority, they can no longer be dismissed as a small fringe, especially since there have been similar increases in the number of those who favor a "strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament and elections" and those who want experts rather than the government to "take decisions" for the country. Nor is the United States the only country to exhibit this trend. The proportion agreeing that it would be better to have the army rule has risen in most mature democracies, including Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom."
    http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2016/08/is-support-for-democracy-eroding.html

    I suspect that if more people believe elections are rigged, more will be likely to support/accept/tolerate a military takeover.

    Peter T 11:41 PM

    "Rigged" is not a precise term. There's a continuum from, say, discouraging some voters from turning up to stuffing ballot boxes (or worse). Some places in the US are well towards the middle of that spectrum (purging rolls, making ID mandatory but difficult to obtain, cutting voting places, gerrymanders....)

    As for "American elections are not perfect, but ...they're pretty darn good." By the standards of other developed countries (and even many undeveloped ones), US electoral processes are pretty horrible, but that is true of much US administration. Extreme decentralisation, a rich heritage of patronage and a deep suspicion of government do not make for efficient public services.

    John Randomness 2:14 PM

    Recently (as sometime this past year, iIRC) former President Carter outright said that the US doesn't have a functioning democracy.

    [Oct 02, 2016] The absurdly high levels of executive pay under neoliberalism are disconnected with performance and encourage short-termism

    Oct 02, 2016 | www.ft.com

    Tommy Breen, the low profile boss of support services group DCC who earned a relatively modest €737,000 in the year to March 2016, offered the best value for money, according to rankings by consultants Mercer Kepler.

    Alison Cooper, chief executive of consumer goods group Imperial Brands, who was paid Ł3.58m in 2015, and George Weston, boss of international food group ABF, who earned Ł3.05m in 2015, were in second and third place.

    The total pay of all three is below the average pay of Ł5.5m for a FTSE 100 chief executive in 2015, according to the High Pay Centre.

    In contrast, only two of the top 10 best paid FTSE 100 CEOs in 2015 made the top 30 in the value for money rankings. This was Shire chief executive Flemming Ornskov, who earned Ł14.6m last year, and RELX boss Erik Engstrom, who was awarded Ł10.9m.

    None of the other top 10 best paid bosses last year, which included Sir Martin Sorrell, who earned Ł70.4m at WPP , Rakesh Kapoor, awarded Ł23.2m at Reckitt Benckiser , Jeremy Darroch, on Ł16.9m at Sky, or Bob Dudley, on Ł13.3m at BP , made the top 30 value for money list. The index only lists the top 30.

    Full details of Mrs May's plans will not be laid out until later in the autumn when BIS, the business department, launches a consultation. Some of the policies are already known: disclosure of pay ratios, annual binding shareholder votes on pay and having worker and consumer representatives on boards.

    Other investors and business groups have been critical of the planned government reforms, warning that they may force up pay levels. An annual binding vote, they warn, could create uncertainty, which in turn might prompt demands for extra compensation.

    The Mercer survey looks at the relationship between value created and money earned by a chief executive. The value is calculated by taking the company's total shareholder return relative to the FTSE and its sector.

    Money earned is the chief executive's three-year average realised pay figure, which is adjusted for the size of the company. Chief executive pay correlates strongly with company size as well as performance.

    Gordon Clark, partner at Mercer Kepler, said: "Our research puts all companies on a level playing field when comparing whether their executives offer value for money. It does this by controlling for differences in sector, size and complexity.

    "Executives who create the most value for shareholders relative to their peers, and relative to their pay, offer the best value for money."

    [Oct 02, 2016] Paul Craig Roberts Urges Bring Back The Cold War Zero Hedge

    Oct 01, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Pundits have declared a "New Cold War." If only! The Cold War was a time when leaders focused on reducing tensions between nuclear powers. What we have today is much more dangerous: Washington's reckless and irresponsible aggression toward the other major nuclear powers, Russia and China.

    During my lifetime American presidents worked to defuse tensions with Russia. President John F. Kennedy worked with Khrushchev to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Richard Nixon negotiated SALT I and the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and Nixon opened to Communist China. President Carter negotiated SALT II. Reagan worked with Soviet leader Gorbachev and ended the Cold War. The Berlin Wall came down. Gorbachev was promised that in exchange for the Soviet Union's agreement to the reunification of Germany, NATO would not move one inch to the East.

    Peace was at hand. And then the neoconservatives, rehabilitated by the Israeli influence in the American press, went to work to destroy the peace that Reagan and Gorbachev had achieved. It was a short-lasting peace. Peace is costly to the profits of the military/security complex. Washington's gigantic military and security interests are far more powerful than the peace lobby.

    Since the advent of the criminal Clinton regime, every American president has worked overtime to raise tensions with Russia and China.

    China is confronted with the crazed and criminal Obama regime's declaration of the "pivot to Asia" and the prospect of the US Navy controlling the sea lanes that provision China.

    Russia is even more dangerously threatened with US nuclear missile bases on her border and with US and NATO military bases stretching from the Baltics to the Black Sea.

    Russia is also threatened with endless provocations and with demonization that is clearly intended to prepare Western peoples for war against "the Russian threat." Extreme and hostile words stream from the mouth of the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, who has called the president of Russia "the new Hitler" and threatened Russia with military force. Insouciant Americans are capable of electing this warmonger who would bring Armageddon upon the earth.

    Yesterday, Israel's voice in the US, the New York Times, added to Hillary's demonization of the most responsible leader in the world with this editorial: "Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State." This irresponsible and propagandistic editorial, no doubt written by the neoconservatives, blames all the troubles in Ukraine and Syria on Putin. The NYT presstitutes know that they have no case, so they drag in the US-orchestrated false report on MH-17 recently released by Washington's Netherlands vassal.

    This report is so absurd as to cast doubt on whether intelligence exists anywhere in the Western world. Russia and the now independent Russian provinces that have separated from Ukraine have no interest whatsoever in shooting down a Malaysian airliner. But despite this fact, Russia, according to the orchestrated report, sent a surface-to-air missile, useful only at high altitude, an altitude far higher than the Ukrainian planes fly that are attacking Russians in the separated republics, to the "rebels" so that the "rebels" could shoot down a Malaysian airliner. Then the missile system was sent back to Russia.

    How insouciant does a person have to be to believe this propaganda from the New York Times?

    Does the New York Times write this nonsense because it is bankrupt and lives on CIA subsidies?

    It is obvious that the Malaysian airliner was destroyed for the purpose of blaming Russia so that Washington could force Europe to cooperate in applying illegal sanctions on Russia in an attempt to destabilize Russia, a country that placed itself in the way of Washington's determination to destabilize Syria and Iran.

    In a recent speech, the mindless cipher, who in his role as US Secretary of Defense serves as a front man for the armaments industry, declared the one trillion dollars (1,000 billion dollars or 1,000,000 million dollars, that is, one million dollars one million times) that Washington is going to spend of Americans' money for nuclear force renewal is so we can "get up in the morning to go to school, to go to work, to live our lives, to dream our dreams and to give our children a better future."

    But Russia's response to this buildup in Washington's strategic nuclear weapons is, according to Defense Secretary Aston B. Carter, "saber rattling" that "raises serious questions about Russia's leaders commitment to strategic stability."

    Do you get the picture? Or are you an insouciant American? Washington's buildup is only so that we can get up in the morning and go to school and work, but Russia's buildup in response to Washington's buildup upsets "strategic stability."

    What the Pentagon chief means is that Russia is supposed to sit there and let Washington gain the upper hand so Washington can maintain "strategic stability" by dictating to Russia. By not letting Washington prevail, Russia is upsetting "strategic stability."

    US Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been broken and tamed by the neoconservatives, recently displayed the same point of view with his "ultimatum" to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. In effect, Kerry told Lavrov that Russia must stop helping Syria resist the jihadist forces and allow the US-supported ISIS to regain the initiative and reduce Syria to the chaos in which Washington left Libya and Iraq. Otherwise, Kerry said that the agreement to cooperate is off.

    There can be no cooperation between the US and Russia over Syria, because the two government's goals are entirely different. Russia wants to defeat ISIS, and the US wants to use ISIS to overthrow Assad. This should be clear to the Russians. Yet they still enter into "agreements" that Washington has no intention of keeping. Washington breaks the agreements and blames Russia, thus creating more opportunities to paint Russia as untrustworthy. Without Russia's cooperation in setting themselves up for blame, Russia's portrait would not be so black.

    On September 28, 2016, the New York Times gave us a good example of how Washington's propaganda system works .

    The headline set the stage: "Russia's Brutal Bombing of Aleppo May Be Calculated, and It May Be Working." According to the NYT report, Russia was not bombing ISIS. Russia was "destroying hospitals and schools, choking off basic supplies, and killing aid workers and hundreds of civilians."

    The NYT asks: "What could possibly motivate such brutality?"

    The NYT answers: Russia is "massacring Aleppo's civilians as part of a calculated strategy . . . designed to pressure [moderates] to ally themselves with extremists," thereby discrediting the forces that Washington has sent to overthrow Syria and to reduce the country to chaos.

    When America's Newspaper of Record is nothing but a propaganda ministry, what is America?

    Pundits keep explaining that Washington's 15 year old wars in the Middle East are about controlling the routing of energy pipelines. Little doubt this is a factor as it brings on board powerful American energy and financial interests. But this is not the motive for the wars. Washington, or the neoconservatives who control the US government, intend to destabilize the Russian Federation, the former Soviet Central Asian countries, and China's Muslim province by adding Syria and then Iran to the chaos that Washington has created in Iraq and Libya. If Washington succeeds in destroying Syria as it succeeded in destroying Libya and Iraq, Iran becomes the last buffer for Russia. If Washington then knocks off Iran, Russia is set up for destabilization by jihadists operating in Muslim regions of the Russian Federation.

    This is clear as day. Putin understands this. But Russia, which existed under Washington's domination during the Yeltsin years, has been left threatened by Washington's Fifth Columns in Russia. There are a large number of foreign-financed NGOs in Russia that Putin finally realized were Washington's agents. These Washington operatives have been made to register as foreign-financed, but they are still functioning.

    Russia is also betrayed by a section of its elite who are allied economically, politically, and emotionally with Washington. I have termed these Russians "America Worshipers." Their over-riding cause is to have Russia integrated with the West, which means to be a vassal of Washington.

    Washington's money even seems to have found its way into Russian "think tanks" and academic institutions. According to this report, two think tanks, one Russian one American, possibly funded by Washington's money, have concluded that "US,Russia 'Have far more common interests than differences' in Asia-Pacific."

    This "academic report" is a direct assault on the Russian/Chinese alliance. It makes one wonder whether the report was funded by the CIA The Russian media fall for the "common interest" propaganda, because they desire to be included in the West. Like Russian academics, the Russian media know English, not Chinese. Russia's history since Peter the Great is with the West. So that is where they want to be. However, these America Worshipping Russians cannot understand that to be part of the West means being Washington's vassal, or if they do understand the price, they are content with a vassal's status like Germany, Great Britain, France, and the rest of the European puppet states.

    To be a vassal is not an unusual choice in history. For example, many peoples chose to be Rome's vassals, so those elements in Russia who desire to be Washington's vassal have precedents for their decision.

    To reduce Russia's status to Washington's vassal, we have Russian-US cooperation between the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations and the US-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. These two co-conspirators against Russian sovereignty are working to destroy Russia's strategic alliance with China and to create a US-Russian Pacific Alliance in its place. One of the benefits, the joint report declares, is "maintaining freedom of navigation and maritime security."

    "Freedom of navigation" is Washington's term for controlling the sea lanes that supply China. So now we have a Russian institute supporting Washington's plans to cut off resource flow into China. This idiocy on the part of the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations is unlikely to reassure China about its alliance with Russia. If the alliance is broken, Washington can more easily deal with the two constraints on its unilateralism.

    Additionally, the joint report says that Moscow could cooperate with Washington in confidence-building measures to resolve territorial disputes in the Asia-Pacific region. What this means is that Russia should help Washington pressure China to give up its territorial claims.

    One cannot but wonder if the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations is a CIA front. If it is not, the CIA is getting a free ride.

    The foreign policy of the United States rests entirely on propagandistic lies. The presstitute media, a Ministry of Propaganda, establishes an orchestrated reality by treating lies as fact. News organizations around the world, accustomed as they are to following Washington's lead, echo the lies as if they are facts.

    Thus Washington's lies–such as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, Iranian nukes, Assad's use of chemical weapons, Russian invasions–become the reality.

    Russia's very capable spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, understands that Washington uses the Western media to control explanations by shaping public opinion. She terms it a "reality show." However, Zakharova thinks the problem is that Washington misuses "international relations and international platforms for addressing internal issues." By this she means that Obama's foreign policy failures have made him hysterical and impudent as he strives to leave a legacy, and that American/Russian relations are poisoned by the US presidential campaign that is painting Trump as a "Putin stooge" for not seeing the point of conflict with Russia.

    The US presstitutes are disreputable. This morning NPR presented us with a report on Chinese censorship of the media as if this was something that never happens in the US. Yet NPR not only censors the news, but uses disinformation as a weapon in behalf of Washington and Israel's agendas. Anyone who depends on NPR is presented a very controlled picture of the world. And do not forget German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte, who admits he planted stories for the CIA in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitnung and says that there is no significant European journalist who doesn't do the same thing .

    The situation is far more serious than Zakharova realizes. Russians seem unable to get their minds around the fact that the neoconservatives are serious about imposing Washington's hegemony on the rest of the world. The neoconservative doctrine declares that it is the principal goal of US foreign policy to prevent the rise of any country that would have sufficient power to serve as a check on American unilateralism. This neoconservative doctrine puts Russia and China in Washington's crosshairs. If the Russian and Chinese governments do not yet understand this, they are not long for this world.

    The neoconservative doctrine fits perfectly with the material interests of the US military/security complex. The US armaments and spy industries have had 70 years to entrench themselves with a huge claim on the US budget. This politically powerful interest group has no intention of letting go of its hold on US resources.

    As long ago as 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his last public address to the American people warned that the Cold War confronted Americans with a new internal danger as large as the external Soviet threat:

    "Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

    "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

    "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    "We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

    President Eisenhower's warning that our liberties were equally at stake from the military/security complex as from the Soviet Threat did not last 24 hours. The military/security complex buried Eisenhower's warning with extraordinary hype of the Soviet Threat.

    In truth, there was no Soviet threat. Stalin had buffered Russia from the West with his control of Eastern Europe, just as Washington controlled Western Europe. Stalin had eliminated Trotsky and his supporters who stood for world revolution. Stalin declared "socialism in one country."

    Stalin terminated international communism. But the American military/security complex had much money to gain from the Amerian taxpayers in order to "protect America from International Communism." So the fact that there was no effort on the part of the Soviet Union to subvert the world was ignored. Instead, every national liberation movement was declared by the US military/industrial complex to be a "falling domino" of the Communist takeover of the world.

    Ho Chi Minh begged Washington for help against the French colonialists in Vietnam. Washington told him to go to hell. It was Washington that sent Ho Cho Minh to seek communist support.

    The long Vietnam war went on for years. It enriched the military/security complex and officers' pensions. But it was otherwise entirely pointless. There were no dominoes to fall. Vietnam won the war but is open to American influence and commerce.

    Because of the military/security complex more than 50,000 Americans died in the war and many thousands more suffered physical and psychological wounds. Millions of Vietnamese suffered death, maiming, birth defects and illnesses associated with Washington's use of Agent Orange.

    The entire war was totally pointless. It achieved nothing but destruction of innocents.

    This is Washington's preferred way. The corrupt capitalism that rules in America has no interest in life, only in profit. Profit is all that counts. If entire countries are destroyed and left in ruins, all the better for American armaments industries.

    Yes, please, a new Cold War. We need one desperately, a conflict responsibly managed in place of the reckless, insane drive for world hegemony emanating from the crazed, evil criminals in Washington who are driving the world to Armageddon.

    [Oct 01, 2016] I don't want a functioning conservative party. The one that we have is still functioning well enough keep the rich getting richer, the poor poorer, and the status quo comfortably protected

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron : September 30, 2016 at 06:06 AM , September 30, 2016 at 06:06 AM

    RE: The Dog Ate My Planet

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/campaign-stops/the-dog-ate-my-planet.html

    [With a title like that then I just had to read it. It was just the ordinary pants on fire gotchas about team Trump, but then it ended on what I found a very weird note:]

    ...There are real debates and real uncertainty about climate change and how to deal with it. But its existence and the risks it poses are undeniable.

    Or at least they should be. The refusal to accept this reality is the biggest, most worrisome sign – yes, even bigger than the nomination of Trump – that the country currently lacks a functioning conservative party.

    [I don't want a functioning conservative party. The one that we have is still functioning well enough keep the rich getting richer, the poor poorer, and the status quo comfortably protected from environmental activists. I want an entirely ineffective conservative party. Sure liberal exuberance can benefit from some restraint exerted by competent pragmatists, but conservatives have never actually been anything but shills for the wealthy. You don't find competent pragmatists in politics at all. They are engineers and scientists and all too rare even there. Hell it is hard enough to find even impractical people that are competent. Conservatives are only marginally competent at being sycophants for the wealthy and that really does not seem to have changed in other than the aesthetics necessary to shift the pandering over to a newly energized hostile electorate.]

    [Oct 01, 2016] If civilians can sue sovereign states it should be obvious to everybody that the drone maniacal US would be on top of the list of targets for such suits

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    DeDude : September 30, 2016 at 07:38 AM

    Amazing how stupid congress can be. I know the politics that drove this mistake, but why did the leadership in congress allow this to be voted on?

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/obama-911-veto-congressional-concerns/index.html

    If civilians can sue sovereign states it should be obvious to everybody that the drone maniacal US would be on top of the list of targets for such suits. Our government and soldiers would be the most vulnerable in the whole world.

    If our courts were to begin collections of judgments from sovereign states the results would be that no foreign government would want to hold assets in this country.

    I certainly sympathize with the 9/11 victim families, although they have been compensated for their loss with way more money than any of the foreign collateral damage victims of our military actions.

    The families may not understand this, but they will never collect a dime. On the other hand, this legislation to "help" them will do a lot of damage to the country and its soldiers.

    How did sympathy for these families let our congress members trap themselves in such a stupendous blunder. I guess election season is a time for that kind of stuff.

    reason -> DeDude... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 07:52 AM
    It is this sort of legislation that has made the US so hated around the world. The US just can't seem to internalize that being sovereign doesn't imply sovereignty over the rest of the world, that that sovereignty ends at the border.

    As far as I know, the US is the only country that taxes its non-resident citizens. This alone is nuts.

    The US is also as far as I know the only country that thinks it has the right to kill the citizens of other countries outside its borders.

    And then it seems that many US citizens seem to think they are not bound by the rules of physics, or logic or arithmetic.

    US exceptionalism has gone on long enough. It is about time the US came back to earth and decided it is just another country on earth.

    efcdons -> reason ... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 11:48 AM
    "As far as I know, the US is the only country that taxes its non-resident citizens. This alone is nuts."

    Why is that nuts? Do non-resident citizens no longer have access to consulate services? Does the citizenship lapse such that one can't come back to the US whenever they want?

    The US keeps going while the citizen is abroad. It's not outrageous to ask them to contribute something (not much, the credit for overseas taxes paid is pretty high).

    DeDude -> efcdons... , -1
    We are the only ones that assume people will come back unless they renounce their citizenship.

    It is only fair that you get taxed for the government services you receive. Therefore, you should be taxed in the country where you live. There is no justification for taxing income earned in a foreign country.

    The value of consulate services are so small that it cost more to recover them than deliver them. So the rest of the world does not use that lame excuse to tax citizens living abroad.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Clinton describes Sanders supporters as basement-dwellers baristas in leaked recording - RT America

    Notable quotes:
    "... "There's just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we've done hasn't gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don't know what that means, but it's something that they deeply feel," ..."
    "... "bewildered" ..."
    "... "populist, nationalist, xenophobic, discriminatory" ..."
    "... "I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don't have much company there. Because it is difficult when you're running to be president, and you understand how hard the job is – I don't want to overpromise," said Clinton, who has customarily eschewed political spectrum labels. ..."
    "... "understanding" ..."
    "... "Some are new to politics completely. They're children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents' basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don't see much of a future," ..."
    "... "If you're feeling like you're consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn't pay a lot, and doesn't have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing." ..."
    "... "listening to the concerns" of "the most diverse, open-minded generation in history." ..."
    "... People who have the TV on all day and watch the news from the mainstream media are naturally going to get hoodwinked. They aren't the brightest, but they're also distracted and mislead. ..."
    "... She is the definition of implicit bias. ..."
    "... After all, they are the deplorables. HRC is truly the most despicable, scandal ridden, lying war monger to ever grace American politics. ..."
    "... Shame on Sanders for supporting that Nazi witch. ..."
    "... Millions of people were adversely harmed by her misguided policies and her "pay-to-play" operations involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.rt.com

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made forthright remarks about Bernie Sanders' supporters during a private meeting with fundraisers, an audio from which has been leaked following an email hack.

    "There's just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we've done hasn't gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don't know what that means, but it's something that they deeply feel," Clinton said during a Q&A with potential donors in McLean in Virginia, in February, when she was still in a close primary race with Sanders.

    The frontrunner to become the next US President said that herself and other election observers had been "bewildered" by the rise of the "populist, nationalist, xenophobic, discriminatory" Republican candidates, presumably Donald Trump, on the one side, and the radical left-wing idealists on the other.

    Clinton painted herself as a moderate and realistic contrast to the groundswell.

    "I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don't have much company there. Because it is difficult when you're running to be president, and you understand how hard the job is – I don't want to overpromise," said Clinton, who has customarily eschewed political spectrum labels.

    According to the Washington Free Beacon, which posted the audio of Clinton's remarks, the recording was attached to an email sent out by a campaign staffer, which has been hacked. It is unclear if the leak is the work of the same hackers who got hold of a trove of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in July.

    ... ... ...

    In the session, Clinton called for an "understanding" of the motives of Sanders' younger backers, while describing them in terms that fluctuate between patronizing and unflattering.

    "Some are new to politics completely. They're children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents' basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don't see much of a future," said Clinton, who obtained the support of about 2,800 delegates, compared to approximately 1,900 for Sanders, when the results were tallied in July.

    "If you're feeling like you're consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn't pay a lot, and doesn't have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing."

    Despite well-publicized tensions, particularly between the more vocal backers, Sanders endorsed Clinton at the Democratic National Convention two months ago, and the two politicians have campaigned together this week, sharing the stage.

    Following the leak, the Clinton campaign has not apologized for the audio, insisting that it shows that the nominee and is "listening to the concerns" of "the most diverse, open-minded generation in history."

    "As Hillary Clinton said in those remarks , she wants young people to be idealistic and set big goals," said her spokesman Glen Caplin. "She is fighting for exactly millennial generation cares more about – a fairer, more equal, just world."

    In other parts of the 50-minute recording, Clinton spoke about US capacity to "retaliate" against foreign hackers that would serve as a "deterrence" and said she would be "inclined" to mothball the costly upgrade of the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) missile program.

    Read more

    PurpleSeaMan87
    And more votes for Trump it seems. Good
    Olive Sailboat 2h

    The more she runs her mouth the more support she loses.

    Gold Carrot -> Olive Sailboat 6m

    Well if somebody is supported by Soros, Warren Buffet, Walmart family, Gates, Moskowitz, Pritzker, Saban and Session what do you expect. Give me 8 names of other Americans who can top their money worth. And even so called financial supporters of Republican party like Whitman and Koch brothers are not supporting Trump. Whitman actually donate to Clinton. In fact most of the donation for Trump campaign is coming from people who donate at average less than 200 dollars. Clinton represent BIG MONEY that... See more

    GA 2h

    Clinton has a supremacist problem, she considers all americans under deserving people, she thinks she is a pharaoh and we are little people. Reply Share 15

    Red Ducky -> GA 23m

    you think trump is different? ask yourself this question: Why do Rich people spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a job that only pays $400K a year?

    Rabid Rotty -> Red Ducky 9m

    And Trump has stated several times that he will not take the Presidential Salary

    pHiL SwEeT -> Rabid Rotty 8m

    Uh, yah, Red Ducky just explained how it's not about the money, they're already rich. It's about power, status, control and legacy.

    Green Weights 2h

    if Clinton sends her followers and their families to concentration camps, they'll still continue supporting her. yes, that's how stupid they really are.

    Olive Basketball -> Green Weights 55m

    People who have the TV on all day and watch the news from the mainstream media are naturally going to get hoodwinked. They aren't the brightest, but they're also distracted and mislead.

    Cyan Beer 2h

    She is the definition of implicit bias.

    Norm de Plume
    Sure enough. The real Americans. Not people, like her, who have dedicated their lives to aggrandizing themselves living effectively tax-free at the people's expense.
    Seve141 7m
    After all, they are the deplorables. HRC is truly the most despicable, scandal ridden, lying war monger to ever grace American politics.
    Tornado_Doom 12m
    Shame on Sanders for supporting that Nazi witch.
    Green Band Aid -> Tornado_Doom 12m
    Sanders will be getting paid. All he does is for money.
    Tornado_Doom -> Green Band Aid 11m
    Does an old rich man like him need money?
    Green Leaf 43m
    Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State during Barack Obama's first term was an unmitigated disaster for many nations around the world. The media has never adequately described how a number of countries around the world suffered horribly from HC's foreign policy decisions. Millions of people were adversely harmed by her misguided policies and her "pay-to-play" operations involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative.

    Countries adversely impacted by HC's foreign policy decisions include Abkhazia, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, Malaysia, Palestine, Paraguay, South Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Venezuela, Western Sahara, Yemen - one would think they had a visit from the anti-Christ instead of HC. Or is HC the anti-Christ in disguise?

    Green Leaf 45m
    The majority of American's will vote Trump for 3 primary reasons.

    1. National Security: They trust him when it comes to protecting national security and to stop illegal aliens from entering US boarders along with stopping the mass importation of un-vetted refugees from the middle east.

    2. Economy: They know he knows how to get things done under budget and ahead of schedule.. and he knows how to make money. They want a successful businessman in office, not another political who is out to enrich his or herself at their expense. In addition he knows how to create jobs and he has a major plan to cut taxes to help the poor - no tax for anyone earning less then $50,000 and

    3. Hillary's severe covered-up health problems: With all of the problems that the US is experience they don't want someone who passes out from a seizure in the middle of the day running the country. This is a severely ill woman is, evidently, of the rare kind that requires a permanent traveling physician and a "mystery man" who rushes to her side whenever she has one of her frequent and uncontrollable seizure "episodes" (or otherwise freezes up with a brain "short-circuit" during a speech). She has Parkinson's. The pneumonia was just a symptom for something much more serious. She even had a mini seizure during the debate for those with a medical background to see.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Krugman trashed Sanders relentlessly using his soap box and now he is horrified the Hillary might lose. What a jerk

    Notable quotes:
    "... But Paul Krugman I have lost a lot of respect for. There was a candidate that people believed in and that stood up for working people and liberal values and that motivated people to come out and support him and his goals for the U.S.A. A candidate that would have neutralized Trump's appeal to the working class (which is mostly where I am). Krugman trashed him relentlessly using his very large soap box. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Jerry Brown : September 30, 2016 at 05:31 PM
    I won't say bad things about Clinton. Because she is far better than the alternative at this point. But Paul Krugman I have lost a lot of respect for. There was a candidate that people believed in and that stood up for working people and liberal values and that motivated people to come out and support him and his goals for the U.S.A. A candidate that would have neutralized Trump's appeal to the working class (which is mostly where I am). Krugman trashed him relentlessly using his very large soap box.

    Now he is horrified that the polls are so close.

    I can't say anything more without being negative. Except vote for Clinton- she's better than Trump. Which is a pathetic endorsement.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Obama in his speech at shimon peres funeral put him in the same category as mandela. it should be remembered that peres was the father of israels nuke program and was selling nukes to south africa when mandela was in jail

    Notable quotes:
    "... This really cements Obama's status as "Clueless B." If nothing else, this shows clearly the mans contempt for black Africans. ..."
    "... Says a lot about "special relationships", as well, that Mags Thatcher didn't rate a half staff salute from Pres. Obama but Shimon Peres does. Now I hates me some Mags, but one can't help noticing these things! Oh but, Shimon Peres was an esteemed partner for peace ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    geoffrey gray October 1, 2016 at 7:21 am

    obama in his speech at shimon peres funeral put him in the same category as mandela. it should be remembered that peres was the father of israel's nuke program and was selling nukes to south africa when mandela was in jail. oops, too much reality.

    ambrit October 1, 2016 at 8:07 am

    This really cements Obama's status as "Clueless B." If nothing else, this shows clearly the mans contempt for black Africans.

    Barmitt O'Bamney October 1, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Says a lot about "special relationships", as well, that Mags Thatcher didn't rate a half staff salute from Pres. Obama but Shimon Peres does. Now I hates me some Mags, but one can't help noticing these things! Oh but, Shimon Peres was an esteemed partner for peace (yeah right, the peace of the grave maybe…)

    [Oct 01, 2016] Mike Pence slams Hillary Clinton as the architect of Barack Obamas foreign policy

    Oct 01, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence slammed Hillary Clinton as the "architect" of the Obama administration's foreign policy on Friday, saying the two made the Middle East unrecognizable in less than a decade.

    Pence said in Fort Wayne, Indiana:

    After seven and a half years, Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's policies have weakened America's place in the world and emboldened the enemies of this country. Terrorist attacks at home and abroad, attempted coup among allies - I mean, if you looked at a picture of a map of the wider Middle East the day Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took over American foreign policy, and you took a picture of a map today, it wouldn't even look like the same part of the world.

    "You know, this teaches us that weakness arouses evil. And I would submit to you, my fellow Hoosiers, that Hillary Clinton, the architect of Barack Obama's foreign policy, that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's foreign policy have been leading from behind, moving red lines, feigning resets with Russia, and paying ransom to terrorist-sponsoring states," Pence continued. "That is the very image of weakness on the world stage."

    "Let me make you a promise: When Donald Trump becomes President of the United States, we won't be paying ransom to terrorists or terrorist-sponsoring states," he said to applause. "They'll be paying a price. They'll be paying a price if they threaten the American people, or they threaten our allies."

    Pence added he's looking forward to exposing Clinton's record during Tuesday night's vice presidential debate.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Clinton should be beating Trump easily in the polls. Sanders would be. Trump is the worst candidate in history.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not because of policy, but because they *hate* Clinton's dishonest scumbags like Debbie Wasserman Shultz... They know them and hate them. ..."
    "... Clinton brags about how much she's done for the children meanwhile she's a millionaire who gives speeches to Goldman Sachs and does nothing but attend fundraisers thrown by rich donors. ..."
    "... a lot of Sanders supporters have a visceral dislike of Sanders people who lied to them and about us... The dishonesty is blatant, just how Hillary lied about Sanders during the primary. ..."
    "... wait until the election is over. The hatred toward Clinton and surrogates ... will come pouring out. That is if she wins. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Peter K. : September 30, 2016 at 06:35 AM Clinton should be beating Trump easily in the polls. Sanders would be. Trump is the worst candidate in history.

    Why isn't she don't better? It's because Clinton surrogates like PGL are hateful and obnoxious. The voters hate these people and don't agree with Clinton's centrism. The voters hate the BS we're expected to believe like how corporate trade is nothing but beneficial or that the Obama years were great.

    It's not simply because she's a woman or because of the media (which the Clintonites were happy to use against Sanders.)
    Reply Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:35 AM Peter K. -> Peter K.... , Friday, September 30, 2016 at 06:47 AM

    That's why Trump is appealing to Sanders voters.

    Not because of policy, but because they *hate* Clinton's dishonest scumbags like Debbie Wasserman Shultz... They know them and hate them.

    Clinton brags about how much she's done for the children meanwhile she's a millionaire who gives speeches to Goldman Sachs and does nothing but attend fundraisers thrown by rich donors.

    I'll vote for Hillary but a lot of Sanders supporters have a visceral dislike of Sanders people who lied to them and about us... The dishonesty is blatant, just how Hillary lied about Sanders during the primary. But Sanders knows policywise Trump is much, much worse than Hillary even if she's not that good.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , -1
    That's why Sanders is campaigning for Hillary. But wait until the election is over. The hatred toward Clinton and surrogates ... will come pouring out. That is if she wins.

    [Oct 01, 2016] Why It's Safe to Scrap America's ICBMs

    Oct 01, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs : September 30, 2016 at 06:02 AM (Is this anything?)

    Why It's Safe to Scrap America's ICBMs http://nyti.ms/2d0ynlO
    NYT - William Perry - Sep 30

    In recent years, Russia and the United States have started rebuilding their Cold War nuclear arsenals, putting the world on the threshold of a dangerous new arms race. But we don't have to repeat the perilous drama of the 20th century. We can maintain our country's strength and security and still do away with the worst of the Cold War weapons.

    The American plan to rebuild and maintain our nuclear force is needlessly oversize and expensive, expected to cost about $1 trillion over the next three decades. This would crowd out the funding needed to sustain the competitive edge of our conventional forces and to build the capacities needed to deal with terrorism and cyberattacks.

    The good news is that the United States can downsize its plans, save tens of billions of dollars, and still maintain a robust nuclear arsenal.

    First and foremost, the United States can safely phase out its land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force, a key facet of Cold War nuclear policy. Retiring the ICBMs would save considerable costs, but it isn't only budgets that would benefit. These missiles are some of the most dangerous weapons in the world. They could even trigger an accidental nuclear war.

    If our sensors indicate that enemy missiles are en route to the United States, the president would have to consider launching ICBMs before the enemy missiles could destroy them; once they are launched, they cannot be recalled. The president would have less than 30 minutes to make that terrible decision.

    This is not an academic concern. While the probability of an accidental launch is low, human and machine errors do occur. I experienced a false alarm nearly 40 years ago, when I was under secretary of defense for research and engineering. I was awakened in the middle of the night and told that some Defense Department computers were showing 200 ICBMs on the way from the Soviet Union. For one horrifying moment I thought it was the end of civilization. Then the general on the phone explained that it was a false alarm. He was calling to see if I could help him determine what had gone wrong with the computer.

    During the Cold War, the United States relied on ICBMs because they provided accuracy that was not then achievable by submarine-launched missiles or bombers. They also provided an insurance policy in case America's nuclear submarine force was disabled. That's not necessary anymore. Today, the United States' submarine and bomber forces are highly accurate, and we have enough confidence in their security that we do not need an additional insurance policy - especially one that is so expensive and open to error.

    As part of the updates to America's nuclear arsenal, the government is also planning to replace nuclear-armed submarines and bombers. If we assume that the Defense Department is critically analyzing the number of systems needed, this makes far more sense than replacing ICBMs. The submarine force alone is sufficient to deter our enemies and will be for the foreseeable future. But as technology advances, we have to recognize the possibility of new threats to submarines, especially cyberattack and detection by swarms of drones. The new submarine program should put a special emphasis on improvements to deal with these potential threats, assuring the survivability of the fleet for decades to come.

    The new stealth bomber will provide a backup to submarines. This is not likely to be necessary, but the bomber force is a good insurance policy. The new bomber would be capable of carrying out either conventional or nuclear missions. But the development of new air-launched nuclear cruise missiles, which has been proposed, is unnecessary and destabilizing. We can maintain an effective bomber force without a nuclear cruise missile.

    Instead of overinvesting in nuclear weapons and encouraging a new arms race, the United States should build only the levels needed for deterrence. We should encourage Russia to do the same. But even if it does not, our levels of nuclear forces should be determined by what we actually need, not by a misguided desire to match Moscow missile for missile. If Russia decides to build more than it needs, its economy will suffer, just as during the Cold War. ...

    (William J. Perry was secretary of defense from 1994 to 1997.)

    [Oct 01, 2016] The Wholesale Failure of American Foreign Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... The United States does not have a UN or Congressional mandate for intervening in the Syria war. The US military have rebelled against their own government, they are nothing but a stateless armed mercenaries. ..."
    "... We all know that Putin is an intelligence officer and that he never says anything accidentally. Putin had his foreign service affirm that in light of the US military sabotage of the cease fire agreement, Obama has lost control of the US military for the whole world to hear. ..."
    "... Lavrov repeating this direct statement that the US milady forces are not controlled by the US government. "Obama supported the cooperation between our countries. Looks like the US military doesn't listen to their President". Using the UN platform, he openly stated that SOMEONE can attack and kill anybody in the world, under the US flag and the US president can do nothing about this. ..."
    "... Russia's a message was that a group of people has control over the US military and uses them as they please. It means that the US is not even a regional power… It means that the US is like Somali ten years ago. We know who are those people who control the US military; which cannot be said about the "schizophrenic" world community, the incurable gang members. ..."
    "... well, all of the issues that you detail are good for business (the arms and military business). As such, well, money talks and talks over reason. ..."
    "... We actually made the threat worse. Far worse. Even if we completely pull out now – which we should do – we'll be dealing with blowback in the form of long-burning hatred and terror attacks for many years to come. The idiots who recommended this policy ought to be hounded out of government and public life. ..."
    "... Every word Colonel Davis has written is true. But the colonial wars of the Empire matter hardly at all to the citizens of the metropole. ..."
    "... The GWOT (like the war on drugs) provides a lot of people a lot of money and interesting jobs. That's the strategy. That's why neither is ending in the next generation. ..."
    "... The endless wars that the US and it's partners in crime start are Hegelian problem reaction solution theater. The terrorists are state actor sock puppets . Funded, armed and provided political support as proxies for their state actor controllers to advance their regime change and hegemony goals through irregular warfare. The public is lied to by the politicians paying for and directing these needless tragedies. Nowhere has this been made more clear than Syria. Where all of the crime by the NATO/Israel/GCC axis powers has been laid bare for the world to see. It's an embarrassment as an American watching our politicians and diplomats spew their lies, nonsense and stupidity about an unnecessary war that they obviously started and are deliberately perpetuating. ..."
    "... The contemporary mission of the US armed forces is to make military contractors rich. ..."
    "... As an addendum the foreign policy elite use the military to scare the world into political alignment with the US. ..."
    "... At no time has it been more true that "war is a racket" as Gen. Smedley Butler noted long ago. In my view, the National Security State is our largest unit of organized crime. ..."
    "... Davis, poor fellow, talks of the "wholesale failure" of American foriegn policy. Actually it has been a wholesale success for the Neo-Cons, the military industrial complex, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and others, no? Simply one example–if Davis has not figured out that the US and coalition's Iraq War aimed to leave Iraq in chaos and effectively destroyed, he has not taken his military service blinders off. Thank you, sir, for your service to the one percent. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The American Conservative

    One has to wonder just how much longer the American people will silently permit the categorical failure of American foreign policy, both in theory and in practice. The evidence confirming the totality of our failure is breathtaking in scope and severity. Changes are needed to preserve U.S. national security and economic prosperity.

    Recent headlines have captured the character of this failure. Fifteen years after the invasion of Afghanistan, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) released finding s that "corruption substantially undermined the U.S. mission in Afghanistan from the very beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom. … We conclude that failure to effectively address the problem means U.S. reconstruction programs, at best, will continue to be subverted by systemic corruption and, at worst, will fail."

    Earlier this month, a British Parliament study found that the result of Western military intervention in Libya "was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa."

    Airstrikes and drone attacks are accidentally killing thousands of civilians, aid workers , wedding parties , and now even the troops of a nation against whom we are not at war. Each of these mistakes, repeated hundreds of times over the past 15 years, creates more antagonism and hatred of the United States than any other single event. Whatever tactical benefit some of the strikes do accomplish, they are consumed in the still-worsening strategic failure the misfires cause.

    Bottom line: The use of military power since 2001 has:

    • Turned a previously whole and regionally impotent Iraq that balanced Iran into a factory of terrorism and a client of Tehran;
    • Turned Afghanistan from a country with a two-sided civil war-contained within its own borders-into a dysfunctional state that serves as a magnet for terrorists.
    • Turned a Libya that suffered internal unrest, but didn't threaten its neighbors or harbor terrorists, into an "unmitigated failure" featuring a raging civil war, serving as an African beachhead for ISIS and a terrorist breeding ground;
    • Contributed to the expansion of al-Qaeda into a "franchise" group, spawned a new strain when ISIS was born out of the vacuum created by our Iraq invasion, and seen major terrorist threats explode worldwide;
    • Joined other nations in battles in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other areas within Africa whose only result has been the expansion of the threat and the deepening of the suffering of the civil populations.

    These continued and deepening failures kill unknown numbers of innocent civilians each year, intensify and spread the hatred many have of America , and incrementally weaken our national security. But these military failures have another, less obvious but more troubling cost.

    Perpetual fighting dissipates the fighting strength of the armed forces. The non-stop employment of the U.S. Air Force in flying sorties, bombing runs, and strategic airlift has been orders of magnitude higher than what it was in the 15 years prior to 9/11, dramatically cutting short the lifespan of each aircraft, increasing the maintenance requirements, and depleting stocks of bombs and missiles.

    The U.S. Army and Marine Corps have put thousands of miles of grueling use on their tanks and other armored vehicles and worn out countless weapons . The refurbishing and replacement costs for these vehicles has been enormous, and-like the Air Force-the Army has severely shortened the lifespan of its armored fleet. But not only have these permanent military operations degraded the vehicles, the damage has come at the expense of conventional military training.

    This might be the most alarming cost. The Army has recognized this problem and has belatedly begun to reorient some of the training time to high-end conventional battle. But it will take many years of focused training to rebuild the strength the military had prior to Desert Storm or even the opening operations of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

    Entire generations of leaders and troops at every level have grown up training almost exclusively on small-scale counterinsurgency (COIN) warfare.

    As one who has fought in both high-end armored warfare and small-scale COIN, I can tell you that creating effective battle units for conventional war is far, far more difficult and time consuming.

    Likewise, the Air Force has not fought against a modern adversary with fleets of effective fighter jets, bombers, and potent air-defense capabilities. Such operations are orders of magnitude more difficult than attacking insurgents on the ground who pose no threat to aircraft.

    It is critical to understand that no insurgency or terror group represents an existential threat to viability of the United States. Failure in a conventional battle to a major power, however, can cripple the nation.

    It is discouraging to see the administration, Congress, and the Department of Defense fully tethered to the perpetual application of military power against small-scale threats. Terrorism definitely represents a threat to U.S. interests, and we must defend against it. But the obsession with using major military assets on these relatively small-scale threats has not only failed to stem the threat, it has in part been responsible for expanding it. Meanwhile, the unhealthy focus on the small-scale has weakened-and continues to weaken-our ability to respond to the truly existential threats.

    If the incoming administration does not recognize this deterioration of our military power and take steps to reverse it, our weakness may one day be exposed in the form of losing a major military engagement that we should have won easily. The stakes couldn't be higher. A change in foreign policy is critically needed. We will either change by choice or we will change in the smoldering aftermath of catastrophic military failure. I pray it is the former.

    Daniel L. Davis is a foreign-policy fellow and military expert at Defense Priorities. He retired from the U.S. Army as a lieutenant colonel after 21 years of active service. He was deployed into combat zones four times in his career, beginning with Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and also to Iraq in 2009 and Afghanistan twice (2005, 2011).

  • RMThoughts , says: September 29, 2016 at 9:53 am
    Following the last Syrian truce, the US Defense Department effectively rebelled against the president's authority when it said it may or we may not comply with the ceasefire, says former MI6 agent officier Alastair Crooke.

    The United States does not have a UN or Congressional mandate for intervening in the Syria war. The US military have rebelled against their own government, they are nothing but a stateless armed mercenaries.

    Out of idle curiosity, "Who is controlling these forces?" "Who are those fighting illegally on Syrian territory under the US flag?"

    We all know that Putin is an intelligence officer and that he never says anything accidentally. Putin had his foreign service affirm that in light of the US military sabotage of the cease fire agreement, Obama has lost control of the US military for the whole world to hear.

    Lavrov repeating this direct statement that the US milady forces are not controlled by the US government. "Obama supported the cooperation between our countries. Looks like the US military doesn't listen to their President". Using the UN platform, he openly stated that SOMEONE can attack and kill anybody in the world, under the US flag and the US president can do nothing about this.

    Russia's a message was that a group of people has control over the US military and uses them as they please. It means that the US is not even a regional power… It means that the US is like Somali ten years ago. We know who are those people who control the US military; which cannot be said about the "schizophrenic" world community, the incurable gang members.

    J Harlan , says: September 29, 2016 at 12:24 pm
    "creating effective battle units for conventional war is far, far more difficult and time consuming."

    100% correct which reminds me of the nonsense spread by the coindinistas that COIN "was the graduate level of war". For a while it helped the narrative that Petraeus was very clever and would save the day but of course the strategy was wrong which made the tactics irrelevant.

    The Wet One , says: September 29, 2016 at 2:46 pm
    First,

    "It is critical to understand that no insurgency or terror group represents an existential threat to viability of the United States."

    Sadly, too few Americans either understand or believe this to be true. Which is a major handicap in them understanding your article.

    Second, well, all of the issues that you detail are good for business (the arms and military business). As such, well, money talks and talks over reason.

    Good luck with that!

    c matt , says: September 29, 2016 at 3:43 pm
    The US populace will permit it until they feel it up close and personal.
    Neal , says: September 29, 2016 at 5:48 pm
    At this stage, the last thing I care about is the strength of the military and the cost of broken down equipment. Bring on that smoldering military failure. They deserve it.
    quod erat etc. , says: September 29, 2016 at 5:58 pm
    "Earlier this month, a British Parliament study found that the result of Western military intervention in Libya "was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa." "

    That's impossible. Hillary has clearly said that her Libyan intervention was a great example of her "smart power" doctrine. Therefore it must be so. Tell the British Parliament to keep its absurd studies to itself. At least until after the election.

    Rossbach , says: September 29, 2016 at 6:02 pm
    "Terrorism definitely represents a threat to U.S. interests, and we must defend against it."

    The principal terrorist threat to the U.S. is the from the imperial backwash created by these failed and useless conflicts. Stuffing the U.S. full of "refugees" from countries that we have wrecked is a recipe for national suicide.

    KY Headhunter , says: September 29, 2016 at 7:01 pm
    "the obsession with using major military assets on these relatively small-scale threats has not only failed to stem the threat, it has in part been responsible for expanding it"

    Right on the money.

    We actually made the threat worse. Far worse. Even if we completely pull out now – which we should do – we'll be dealing with blowback in the form of long-burning hatred and terror attacks for many years to come. The idiots who recommended this policy ought to be hounded out of government and public life.

    Colorado Jack , says: September 29, 2016 at 7:51 pm
    Every word Colonel Davis has written is true. But the colonial wars of the Empire matter hardly at all to the citizens of the metropole.
    J Harlan , says: September 29, 2016 at 9:05 pm
    ""It is critical to understand that no insurgency or terror group represents an existential threat to viability of the United States."

    True but you don't get paid to shoot machine guns or jump out of airplanes in the fight against the next pandemic or searching for a way to deflect large meteors.

    The GWOT (like the war on drugs) provides a lot of people a lot of money and interesting jobs. That's the strategy. That's why neither is ending in the next generation.

    RichardD , says: September 30, 2016 at 1:43 am
    The endless wars that the US and it's partners in crime start are Hegelian problem reaction solution theater. The terrorists are state actor sock puppets . Funded, armed and provided political support as proxies for their state actor controllers to advance their regime change and hegemony goals through irregular warfare. The public is lied to by the politicians paying for and directing these needless tragedies. Nowhere has this been made more clear than Syria. Where all of the crime by the NATO/Israel/GCC axis powers has been laid bare for the world to see. It's an embarrassment as an American watching our politicians and diplomats spew their lies, nonsense and stupidity about an unnecessary war that they obviously started and are deliberately perpetuating.
    Tabasco Jack , says: September 30, 2016 at 2:48 am
    Isn't it time for someone to jump up on a table in a beer cellar, fire a revolver into the ceiling and yell, "This is a Putsch!"
    Chris Cosmos , says: September 30, 2016 at 8:46 am
    The contemporary mission of the US armed forces is to make military contractors rich.

    As an addendum the foreign policy elite use the military to scare the world into political alignment with the US. How did this happen? The American people flat out don't care and therefore the media just goes along with the corrupt government on this endless gravy train. At no time has it been more true that "war is a racket" as Gen. Smedley Butler noted long ago. In my view, the National Security State is our largest unit of organized crime.

    Susana , says: September 30, 2016 at 11:34 am
    This is a genuine question, not a snarky comment. Do you think we may be called upon to fight a conventional war in the next, say, 20 years, and if so, against whom? Is NATO also focusing on small scale enemies or do their troops train differently? I know very little about this topic and am interested. I am a Burkean conservative and, as such, I hope to keep a realistic view on what nations can and should do.
    E. A. Costa , says: September 30, 2016 at 12:51 pm
    Davis, poor fellow, talks of the "wholesale failure" of American foriegn policy. Actually it has been a wholesale success for the Neo-Cons, the military industrial complex, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and others, no? Simply one example–if Davis has not figured out that the US and coalition's Iraq War aimed to leave Iraq in chaos and effectively destroyed, he has not taken his military service blinders off. Thank you, sir, for your service to the one percent.
  • [Oct 01, 2016] Trump and the Social Basis of Fascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Well if you look at this US presidential election from 30,000 feet, it does not reflect very well upon the US system. On the one hand, you have Hillary Rodham Clinton who was the chief architect of the disastrous overthrow of the Libya regime in 2011 who voted in favor of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 which shows she is not a person who is learning the lessons from her mistakes. ..."
    "... I would urge and encourage the voters in the swing states to study the polls very carefully. For example, I may vote in North Carolina this year, where I've voted in the past 2 decades and I'm going to study the polls almost up to election day to determine whether or not it is a worthwhile vote to vote against the two party system, the duopoly, that has brought us this disaster and catastrophe. ..."
    "... Clinton has a terrible history of hawkishness. Help destroy Libya, help destroy Syria, and help destroy Iraq. And has played certainly a leading role in destroying Libya. ..."
    "... She does defend the Iranian agreement and Trump has said he will tear it up and is surrounding himself, including his vice president and others, most of his advisors, who also want to tear it up and he has made nice-nice with Sheldon Adelson who is apparently giving him 25 million bucks. ..."
    "... So on that Iran deal, does that sort of deciding factor why one might think Clinton's foreign policy could be at least less disastrous than Trump? ..."
    "... The fact that some supported Sanders and now support Trump, only suggest to me a kind of political illiteracy. That is to say I guess what they're suggesting is they want a disruptive factor which is why they voted for Sanders then Trump. ..."
    "... Which is the fact that the mainstream press, the New York Times, the Washington Post in particular, are bitterly hostile to Donald J. Trump. I would say even to the point of distorting what is thought to be or what was thought to be straight ahead news coverage. ..."
    "... I think because the elite press has taken such a turn, such a partisan turn, the working class constituency which knows that the elite press does not have their best interest at heart, might be turning reflexively to Donald J. Trump. ..."
    "... Now the 1930's when capitalism was deep in crisis, there was a significant support for outright fascism in Europe and of course in Italy and Germany and eventually took over much of Europe. Direct fascism was the answer to the crisis. In the United States, there was a real battle over what was the answer for the crisis in the United States. There were certainly those that loved Adolf Hitler in the United States including Henry Ford and a whole section of the American elite. But the New Deal won out. ..."
    "... Well first of all the 1930's needs to be distinguished from today. Insofar as in the 1930's you had a surging labor movement, particularly in the steel workers' union, the autoworkers union, the rubbers workers' union in Akron, Ohio. You had left wing political parties with membership in the double digits in terms of the thousands. ..."
    "... today one of the strongest basis for Trump's support rest in coal mining country in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia. ..."
    "... So I'm not sure if we can be reassured by the fact that in the 1930's the United States was able to escape a unique form of neo fascism. I think the danger is actually greater in 2016 than it was in 1936 for example. ..."
    Oct 01, 2016 | therealnews.com
    ... ... ...

    HORNE: Well if you look at this US presidential election from 30,000 feet, it does not reflect very well upon the US system. On the one hand, you have Hillary Rodham Clinton who was the chief architect of the disastrous overthrow of the Libya regime in 2011 who voted in favor of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 which shows she is not a person who is learning the lessons from her mistakes. ...

    ... ... ....

    JAY: And what about in the swing states?

    HORNE: Well that's hearts of a different color. I would urge and encourage the voters in the swing states to study the polls very carefully. For example, I may vote in North Carolina this year, where I've voted in the past 2 decades and I'm going to study the polls almost up to election day to determine whether or not it is a worthwhile vote to vote against the two party system, the duopoly, that has brought us this disaster and catastrophe.

    ... ... ...

    JAY: So that's what I want to dig into on the foreign policy side. Because there's been a lot of debate about who's really more dangerous on the foreign policy side. Frankly I think you could make the argument both ways. Clinton has a terrible history of hawkishness. Help destroy Libya, help destroy Syria, and help destroy Iraq. And has played certainly a leading role in destroying Libya.

    On the other hand, she does and I think in my mind this might be the deciding factor is that she does defend the agreement with Iran even though I don't know how enthusiastic she was in the beginning and even though she tells lies about the Iranian nuclear program. She does defend the Iranian agreement and Trump has said he will tear it up and is surrounding himself, including his vice president and others, most of his advisors, who also want to tear it up and he has made nice-nice with Sheldon Adelson who is apparently giving him 25 million bucks.

    So on that Iran deal, does that sort of deciding factor why one might think Clinton's foreign policy could be at least less disastrous than Trump?

    HORNE: Well I think that's a fair point. Keep in mind not only is Donald Trump hostile to the Iranian nuclear deal. He's told the voters of South Florida he'll break away from President Obama's [en tant] with Cuba. The fact that in the first few moments of the debate last night, he tore and tore to China is not reassuring. His hostility towards Mexico bids fair to ratchet up tension and pressure and hostility toward the Mexican-American and Latino population. So I whole-ly and totally understand the fear and fright on the left with regard to a Trump presidency. At the same time there's more than one way to try to defeat Donald Trump and the way that is now being suggested which is witling down the Green vote from 3% to 1.5%, it seems to me that's almost like a waste of time.

    JAY: Why do you think progressive forces and such have so little influence amongst that section of the working class that supports Trump? Although I have to add my barber, his father he was telling me, 33 years in the military supported Sanders and now supports Trump. It's a complicated mix of why people are supporting Trump.

    HORNE: Well it's very complicated. We'd have to take a stroll down memory lane. We'd have to go into the corners of US history and talk about the United States was formed as a slave holder's republic despite the propaganda to the contrary and there was a kind of [falstry] [embargins] between the Euro-American poor and working class and the Euro-American ruling elite to loot and plunder the Native Americans and then stock the Native America's former land with Africans and that kind of trend has continued down to this very day. Facilitating [falstry] [embargins] and corrupt bargains between the ruling elite and the working class. The fact that some supported Sanders and now support Trump, only suggest to me a kind of political illiteracy. That is to say I guess what they're suggesting is they want a disruptive factor which is why they voted for Sanders then Trump.

    ... ... ...

    JAY: But that's highly unlikely isn't it? Especially given the preponderance of the elites seem to be supporting Clinton including much of the Republican elites.

    HORNE: You are correct. As a matter of fact, you've hit on a very important point which I think might be helping to push working class voters toward Trump. Which is the fact that the mainstream press, the New York Times, the Washington Post in particular, are bitterly hostile to Donald J. Trump. I would say even to the point of distorting what is thought to be or what was thought to be straight ahead news coverage.

    I think because the elite press has taken such a turn, such a partisan turn, the working class constituency which knows that the elite press does not have their best interest at heart, might be turning reflexively to Donald J. Trump. To your main point I do think it is unlikely that the electoral college would overturn the results of the November vote. At the same time, the strange political times, I don't think we could rule anything out.

    JAY: Now the 1930's when capitalism was deep in crisis, there was a significant support for outright fascism in Europe and of course in Italy and Germany and eventually took over much of Europe. Direct fascism was the answer to the crisis. In the United States, there was a real battle over what was the answer for the crisis in the United States. There were certainly those that loved Adolf Hitler in the United States including Henry Ford and a whole section of the American elite. But the New Deal won out.

    The idea of a compromise with the working class and trying to create the conditions for a revival of the economy based on state intervention, Keynesian kind of expansion of stimulus and so on and so on. More or less trying to forestall deeper radicalization of the American working class and not impose a direct kind of police state militarism and so on. Do you think the conditions are different now in the sense that there are more of the elites willing to go down that kind of road, which I think is representative not so much by Trump's rhetoric but by his alliance?

    HORNE: Well first of all the 1930's needs to be distinguished from today. Insofar as in the 1930's you had a surging labor movement, particularly in the steel workers' union, the autoworkers union, the rubbers workers' union in Akron, Ohio. You had left wing political parties with membership in the double digits in terms of the thousands.

    Today we're facing the industrialization today one of the strongest basis for Trump's support rest in coal mining country in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia.

    So I'm not sure if we can be reassured by the fact that in the 1930's the United States was able to escape a unique form of neo fascism. I think the danger is actually greater in 2016 than it was in 1936 for example.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Clearly for the neoliberal elite Democracy is not a bedrock principle of our society but some sort of safety valve

    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    L September 28, 2016 at 2:28 pm

    From the heart of the blob: "We've Got to Face It: Trump Is Riding a Global Trend" [Foreign Policy]. "We need to think about how to make democracy more effective at cushioning citizens from the shocks of change. We need to think hard about tackling political polarization and creating new space for politics that can actually address pressing problems rather than succumbing to the gridlock that discredits democracy. We need to think about information policies - including media literacy programs - that can offer urgently needed counterweights to the echo chambers and conspiracy factories of the internet." Seems a little late to do your thinking .

    When you step back from it, that is a terrifying statement. In the Foreign Policy view Democracy is supposed to act a some sort of cushion against the shocks of change. I had been under the impression that Democracy was about the population directing changes and directing their own lives. That was, I believe, the basic idea.

    But clearly for the elites at FP Democracy is not a bedrock principle of our society but some sort of safety valve while we norms all get beaten up by "The market".

    Scary.

    Reply
    Carla September 28, 2016 at 2:46 pm

    "But clearly for the elites at FP Democracy is not a bedrock principle of our society but some sort of safety valve"

    It was ever thus. The question remains, are we gonna make it otherwise?

    A place to start: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-joint-resolution/48

    Reply
    Michael September 28, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    Yeah, I got that sense as well. What's the purpose of "change" if it isn't to improve the lives of the vast majority of humans? Reply

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 28, 2016 at 3:44 pm

    "We need to think about how to make democracy more effective at cushioning citizens from the shocks of change." (Foreign Policy)
    To parse this: "the only kind of change we will consider completely screws people over so let's give them a bandaid".
    In Apocalypse Now they massacre a village and then run around trying to give everybody first aid, I say this time around we should just try and skip the massacre part.

    Reply
    timbers September 28, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Or how about a scene from your handle OpenThePodBayDoorsHal

    Clinton:"I enjoy serving you the people and have many stimulating conversations with you. I understand what you must be going thru the last 8 years. But if you sit down and take a stress pill, and think about it, I'm sure we can work things out. I have the greatest enthusiasm to serve you. I enjoy working with people. Remember these things have happened before, and they have always been shown to be due to human error what are you doing what are you doing .what are you doing?

    Reply
    Benedict@Large September 28, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    We need to think hard about succumbing to the gridlock that discredits democracy.

    There is no gridlock that discredits democracy. What we have are billionaire sets, one buying each party, and then pitting them at odds with each other.

    That is not democracy that is being discredited. What is being discredited is the two-party system overloaded with money. That of course is a feature; not a bug. The billionaires are raking it in while doing nothing for anyone less. How much better could it get?

    Reply
    cwaltz September 28, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    Pay no attention to those men behind the closed door discussing policy behind your backs with both sides of the aisle

    Nevermind that energy policy was discussed behind closed doors(Bush), health care(Obama) was discussed behind closed doors, trade is being discussed behind closed doors(Obama and next president) .

    The fact that we have pay to play lobbyists accessing the WH to write policy behind the backs of average citizens discredits democracy. But hey, I imagine our pundit class is hoping we don't notice that.

    [Sep 28, 2016] It is not that we do not trust the agents, we do not trust the FBI leadership

    Notable quotes:
    "... Only three references to Comey as a "Treas-Weasel" appear in a Google search. ..."
    "... Are there no longer any "deep throats" left at the FBI? Because now would be an excellent opportunity for one of them to start making phone calls – but to who? Greenwald maybe? He seems to be the only investigative journalist left but he doesn't even live in this country .. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Roger Smith September 28, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    Re: (Pop Goes the) Weasels

    "I knew there were going to be all kinds of rocks thrown, but this organization and the people who did this are honest, independent people."

    Well Comey, it is not that we do not trust the agents, we do not trust the leadership. If any of the underground reports I have seen are indications, the agents were trying and struggling to do their jobs.

    Reply
    Jim Haygood September 28, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Only three references to Comey as a "Treas-Weasel" appear in a Google search.

    All three are on naked capitalism in July 2016. And I know who did it.

    *peers out window for suspicious unmarked vehicles*

    Reply
    justanotherprogressive September 28, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Are there no longer any "deep throats" left at the FBI? Because now would be an excellent opportunity for one of them to start making phone calls – but to who? Greenwald maybe? He seems to be the only investigative journalist left but he doesn't even live in this country ..

    Jen September 28, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Just do a data dump on Reddit. We already know the FBI won't look there.

    crittermom September 28, 2016 at 4:33 pm

    Roger Smith–

    " it is not that we do not trust the agents, we do not trust the leadership."

    Perfectly stated. Nailed it!

    Sooo ..I wonder how those low-ranking soldiers in the military are faring using the same defense?

    I remain infuriated that nothing happened to her. I now have yet another head (Comey) I want to see in my front yard guillotine. Grrrrrrr

    Reply
    cwaltz September 28, 2016 at 5:57 pm

    http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-693407.html

    Still seeing jail time ..they aren't super special snowflakes like Clinton.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Comey on Clinton email probe 'Don't call us weasels'

    Notable quotes:
    "... GOP lawmakers focused in particular on the Justice Department's decision to give a form of immunity to Clinton lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to obtain computers containing emails related to the case. ..."
    "... Republicans also questioned why Mills and Samuelson were allowed to attend Clinton's July 2 interview at FBI headquarters as her attorneys, given that they had been interviewed as witnesses in the email probe. ..."
    "... "I don't think there's any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution and proving the case against her to sit in the room with the FBI interview of the subject of that investigation," said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former U.S. attorney. He said those circumstances signaled that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was already made when she sat down for the interview. ..."
    "... Ratcliffe said Clinton and the others should have been called to a grand jury, where no one is allowed to accompany the witness. ..."
    Sep 28, 2016 | POLITICO

    "You can call us wrong, but don't call us weasels. We are not weasels," Comey declared Wednesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. "We are honest people and whether or not you agree with the result, this was done the way you want it to be done."

    ... ... ...

    "I would be in big trouble, and I should be in big trouble, if I did something like that," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). "There seems to be different strokes for different folks. I think there's a heavy hand coming from someplace else."

    Comey insisted there is no double standard, though he said there would be serious consequences - short of criminal prosecution - if FBI personnel handled classified information as Clinton and her aides did.

    ... ... ...

    Republicans suggested there were numerous potential targets of prosecution in the case and repeatedly questioned prosecutors' decisions to grant forms of immunity to at least five people in connection with the probe.

    "You cleaned the slate before you even knew. You gave immunity to people that you were going to need to make a case if a case was to be made," said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

    GOP lawmakers focused in particular on the Justice Department's decision to give a form of immunity to Clinton lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to obtain computers containing emails related to the case.

    "Laptops don't go to the Bureau of Prisons," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said. "The immunity was not for the laptop, it was for Cheryl Mills."

    The FBI director repeated an explanation he gave for the first time at a Senate hearing Tuesday, that the deal to get the laptops was wise because subpoenaing computers from an attorney would be complex and time consuming.

    "Anytime you know you're subpoenaing a laptop from a lawyer that involved a lawyer's practice of law, you know you're getting into a big megillah," Comey said.

    Republicans also questioned why Mills and Samuelson were allowed to attend Clinton's July 2 interview at FBI headquarters as her attorneys, given that they had been interviewed as witnesses in the email probe.

    "I don't think there's any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution and proving the case against her to sit in the room with the FBI interview of the subject of that investigation," said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former U.S. attorney. He said those circumstances signaled that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was already made when she sat down for the interview.

    "I don't think there's any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution and proving the case against her to sit in the room with the FBI interview of the subject of that investigation," said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former U.S. attorney. He said those circumstances signaled that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was already made when she sat down for the interview.

    "If colleagues of ours believe I am lying about when I made this decision, please urge them to contact me privately so we can have a conversation about this," Comey said. "The decision was made after that because I didn't know what was going to happen during the interview. She would maybe lie in the interview in a way we could prove."

    Comey also said it wasn't the FBI's role to dictate who could or couldn't act as Clinton's lawyers. "I would also urge you to tell me what tools we have as prosecutors and investigators to kick out of the interview someone that the subject says is their lawyer," the FBI chief said, while acknowledging he'd never encountered such a situation before.

    Ratcliffe said Clinton and the others should have been called to a grand jury, where no one is allowed to accompany the witness.

    Comey did say there was no chance of charges against Mills or Samuelson by the time of the Clinton interview.

    [Sep 28, 2016] A simple linear trend suggests that by mid-century about a quarter of men between 25 and 54 will not be working at any moment

    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Oil and gas companies typically leave management of their sites to subcontractors, a practice that dilutes safety standards and protects companies from liability, making an already dangerous job even more so, a Denver Post investigation has found" [ Denver Post ]. "Workers' compensation laws give the site owners immunity from lawsuits brought by subcontracted workers injured on the job. Contracts between owners and subcontractors often contain a provision - so controversial that its use in the oil and gas industry is banned in several other high-producing states - in which the companies agree not to sue each other over accidents regardless of who is at fault."

    "Labor-force participation rate decline is mostly structural, Fed's Fischer says" [ MarketWatch ]. "On the participation rate, Fischer said some of the decline reflects the people who became discouraged after losing their job and not finding new ones. But he said "much" of the decline was due to the nation's aging population, as well as a trend since the mid-1960s for declining participation by prime-age males. As for the reason why prime-age male participation is falling, particularly for those with no more than a high school education, Fischer said there's a number of possibilities. He said some economists have said disability insurance and public assistance income has played a role, while others point out a decline in demand for lower-skilled labor, which is evidenced by the steep drop in wages in comparison with college graduates."

    "A simple linear trend suggests that by mid-century about a quarter of men between 25 and 54 will not be working at any moment" [ Larry Summers ].

    [Sep 28, 2016] Occupy the DNC: A Bernie Delegate's account of the 2016 Democratic National Commercial

    Sep 28, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Kim Kaufman September 28, 2016 at 2:23 pm

    Occupy the DNC: A Bernie Delegate's account of the 2016 Democratic National Commercial

    https://medium.com/@5cottBrown/occupy-the-dnc-a-bernie-delegates-account-of-the-2016-democratic-national-commercial-85406db8cac7#.3a53g0q5q

    This is a very long read… and I haven't finished it yet but so far lots of good details.

    [Sep 28, 2016] Scan and go as surveillance tool

    Notable quotes:
    "... Another goal of course is to track even further every single purchase - what, and where, and when. And then sell the consumption data to the insurers perhaps… a packet of cigs per day? Or too many bottles of booze? ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    temporal September 25, 2016 at 9:08 am

    Scan and go.

    Swapping standing in line at the check-out for the line at the exit. And when there is an issue then the greeter calls in the check-out police thereby pissing off the customer. Brilliant.

    While Apple fanboys are willing to work for their iPhone's company for free by doing their own check-out I doubt that is likely for people going to Sam's Club. As well many customers, even if they have a smartphone, will not enjoy using up their data plan as they try to check and process the details online.

    All these smartphone apps have one major goal, besides collecting credit fees. Reduce store overhead by getting customers to do more of the work while eliminating employees. The winners are not the customers or people looking for a way to make ends meet.

    Pavel September 25, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    Another goal of course is to track even further every single purchase - what, and where, and when. And then sell the consumption data to the insurers perhaps… a packet of cigs per day? Or too many bottles of booze?

    Of course they are already doing that with the store "fidelity cards", but the mobile apps will be more precise and less optional.

    [Sep 28, 2016] We No Longer Live in a Democracy Henry Giroux on a United States at War With Itself

    Notable quotes:
    "... FDR once said, "A nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself." This is happening in the United States in the most literal sense, given that our political and economic system are wedded to a market-driven system willing to destroy the planet, while relentlessly undermining those institutions that make a democracy possible. ..."
    "... War is no longer an instrument to be used by political powers, but a form of rule, a general condition of the social order itself -- a permanent social relation and organizing principle that affects all aspects of the social order. In fact, the US has moved from a welfare state in the last forty years to a warfare state, and war has now become the foundation for politics, wedded to a misguided war on terror, the militarization of everyday life ..."
    "... Politics has become a comprehensive war machine that aggressively assaults anything that does not comply with its underlying economic, religious, educative and political fundamentalisms. ..."
    "... The vocabulary of war has become normalized and mobilizes certain desires, not only related to violence and social combat, but also in the creation of agents who act in the service of violence. ..."
    "... This retreat into barbarism is amplified by the neoliberal value of celebrating self-interest over attention to the needs of others. It gets worse. As Hannah Arendt once observed, war culture is part of a species of thoughtlessness that legitimates certain desires, values and identities that make people insensitive to the violence they see around them in everyday life. ..."
    "... A one-dimensional use of data erases the questions that matter the most: What gives life meaning? What is justice? What constitutes happiness? These things are all immeasurable by a retreat into the discourse of quantification. ..."
    "... Reducing everything to quantitative data creates a form of civic illiteracy, undercuts the ethical imagination, kills empathy and mutilates politics. ..."
    "... America's obsession with metrics and quantitative data is a symptom of its pedagogy of oppression. Numerical values now drive teaching, reduce culture in the broadest sense to the culture of business and teach children that schools exist largely to produce conformity and kill the imagination. Leon Wieseltier is right in arguing that the unchecked celebration of metrics erases the distinction "between knowledge and information" and substitutes quantification for wisdom. ..."
    "... The left appears to have little interest in addressing education as central to how people think and see things. Education can enable people to recognize that the problems they face in everyday life need a new language that speaks to those problems. What is particularly crucial here is the need to develop a politics in which pedagogy becomes central to enabling people to understand and translate how everyday troubles connect to wider structures. ..."
    "... We no longer live in a democracy. The myth of democracy has to be dismantled. ..."
    "... We have to make clear that decisions made by the state and corporations are not in the general interest. We must connect the war on Black youth to the war on workers and the war on the middle class ..."
    "... As Martin Luther King recognized at end of his life, the war at home and the war abroad cannot be separated. Such linkages remain crucial to the democratic project. ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    Henry Giroux: FDR once said, "A nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself." This is happening in the United States in the most literal sense, given that our political and economic system are wedded to a market-driven system willing to destroy the planet, while relentlessly undermining those institutions that make a democracy possible. What this suggests and the book takes up in multiple ways is that the United States is at war with its own idealism, democratic institutions, the working and middle classes, minority youth, Muslims, immigrants and all of those populations considered disposable.

    War has taken on an existential quality in that we are not simply at war; rather, as Étienne Balibar insists, "we are in war," inhabiting a war culture that touches every aspect of society. War is no longer an instrument to be used by political powers, but a form of rule, a general condition of the social order itself -- a permanent social relation and organizing principle that affects all aspects of the social order. In fact, the US has moved from a welfare state in the last forty years to a warfare state, and war has now become the foundation for politics, wedded to a misguided war on terror, the militarization of everyday life, and a culture of fear, which have become its most important regulative functions. Politics has become a comprehensive war machine that aggressively assaults anything that does not comply with its underlying economic, religious, educative and political fundamentalisms.

    As a comprehensive war machine, the United States operates in the service of a police state, violates civil liberties and has given rise to a military-industrial-surveillance complex that President Eisenhower could never have imagined. For instance, the largest part of the federal budget -- 600 billion dollars -- goes to the military. The US rings the earth with military bases, and the US military budget is larger than those of all other advanced industrial countries combined. And that doesn't count the money spent on the National Surveillance State and intelligence agencies.

    ... ... ...

    What's interesting about the war metaphor is that it produces a language that celebrates what the US should be ashamed of, including the national surveillance state, the military-industrial complex, the war on whistleblowers, the never-ending spectacle of violence in popular culture and endless wars abroad. The vocabulary of war has become normalized and mobilizes certain desires, not only related to violence and social combat, but also in the creation of agents who act in the service of violence.

    Violence is not only normalized as the ultimate measure for solving problems, but also as a form of pleasure, especially with regard to the production of violent video games, films and even the saturation of violence in daily mainstream news. Violence saturates American life, as it has become cool to be cruel to people, to bully people and to be indifferent to the suffering of others. The ultimate act of pleasure is now served up in cinematically produced acts of extreme violence, produced both to numb the conscience and to up the pleasure quotient.

    This retreat into barbarism is amplified by the neoliberal value of celebrating self-interest over attention to the needs of others. It gets worse. As Hannah Arendt once observed, war culture is part of a species of thoughtlessness that legitimates certain desires, values and identities that make people insensitive to the violence they see around them in everyday life. One can't have a democracy that organizes itself around war because war is the language of injustice -- it admits no compassion and revels in a culture of cruelty.

    How does the reduction of life to quantitative data -- testing in schools, mandatory minimums in sentencing, return on investment -- feed into the cultural apparatuses producing a nation at war with itself?

    This is the language of instrumental rationality gone berserk, one that strips communication of those issues, values and questions that cannot be resolved empirically. This national obsession with data is symbolic of the retreat from social and moral responsibility. A one-dimensional use of data erases the questions that matter the most: What gives life meaning? What is justice? What constitutes happiness? These things are all immeasurable by a retreat into the discourse of quantification. This type of positivism encourages a form of thoughtlessness, undermines critical agency, makes people more susceptible to violence and emotion rather than reason. Reducing everything to quantitative data creates a form of civic illiteracy, undercuts the ethical imagination, kills empathy and mutilates politics.

    The obsession with data becomes a convenient tool for abdicating that which cannot be measured, thus removing from the public sphere those issues that raise serious questions that demand debate, informed judgment and thoughtfulness while taking seriously matters of historical consciousness, memory and context. Empiricism has always been comfortable with authoritarian societies, and has worked to reduce civic courage and agency to an instrumental logic that depoliticizes people by removing matters of social and political responsibility from ethical and political considerations.

    America's obsession with metrics and quantitative data is a symptom of its pedagogy of oppression. Numerical values now drive teaching, reduce culture in the broadest sense to the culture of business and teach children that schools exist largely to produce conformity and kill the imagination. Leon Wieseltier is right in arguing that the unchecked celebration of metrics erases the distinction "between knowledge and information" and substitutes quantification for wisdom.

    This is not to say that all data is worthless or that data gathering is entirely on the side of repression. However, the dominant celebration of data, metrics and quantification flattens the human experience, outsources judgement and distorts the complexity of the real world. The idolatry of the metric paradigm is politically and ethically enervating and cripples the human spirit.

    As you have written and said often, the right takes the pedagogical function of the major cultural apparatuses seriously, while the left not so much. What do progressive forces lose when they abandon the field?

    In ignoring the power of the pedagogical function of mainstream cultural apparatuses, many on the left have lost their ability to understand how domination and resistance work at the level of everyday life. The left has relied for too long on defining domination in strictly structural terms, especially with regard to economic structures. Many people on the left assume that the only form of domination is economic. What they ignore is that the crises of economics, history, politics and agency have not been matched by a crisis of ideas. They don't understand how much work is required to change consciousness or how central the issue of identification is to any viable notion of politics. People only respond to a politics that speaks to their condition. What the left has neglected is how matters of identification and the centrality of judgment, belief and persuasion are crucial to politics itself. The left underestimates the dimensions of struggle when it gives up on education as central to the very meaning of politics.

    The left appears to have little interest in addressing education as central to how people think and see things. Education can enable people to recognize that the problems they face in everyday life need a new language that speaks to those problems. What is particularly crucial here is the need to develop a politics in which pedagogy becomes central to enabling people to understand and translate how everyday troubles connect to wider structures.

    What do you want people to take away from the book?

    Certainly, it is crucial to educate people to recognize that American democracy is in crisis and that the forces that threaten it are powerful and must be made visible. In this case, we are talking about the merging of neoliberalism, institutionalized racism, militarization, racism, poverty, inequities in wealth and power and other issues that undermine democracy.

    We no longer live in a democracy. The myth of democracy has to be dismantled. To understand that, we need to connect the dots and make often isolated forms of domination visible -- extending from the war on terror and the existence of massive inequalities in wealth and power to the rise of the mass incarceration state and the destruction of public and higher education. We have to make clear that decisions made by the state and corporations are not in the general interest. We must connect the war on Black youth to the war on workers and the war on the middle class, while exposing the workings of a system that extorts money, uses prison as a default welfare program and militarizes the police as a force for repression and domestic terrorism. We must learn how to translate individual problems into larger social issues, create a comprehensive politics and a third party with the aim not of reforming the system, but restructuring it. As Martin Luther King recognized at end of his life, the war at home and the war abroad cannot be separated. Such linkages remain crucial to the democratic project.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
    "... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
    "... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
    "... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
    "... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
    "... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
    "... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
    "... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
    "... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
    "... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
    "... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
    "... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
    "... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
    "... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
    "... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
    "... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
    "... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
    "... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
    "... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
    "... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
    "... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
    "... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
    "... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
    "... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
    "... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
    "... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
    "... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
    "... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
    "... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
    "... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
    "... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
    "... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
    "... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
    "... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
    "... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
    "... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
    "... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Vermithrax , 2016-09-26 18:48:09
    Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was flawed.

    Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but random isn't a recommendation.

    Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game?

    Boyaca, 2016-09-26 18:41:19
    So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.

    The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally. The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes, occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations. it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their offspring have clearly failed.

    AmyInNH, 2016-09-26 17:07:12
    China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US "interests" and steer clear.

    No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more future Kanpurs.

    Shein Ariely , 2016-09-26 17:06:51
    Obama failed worldwide. Next USA president either Democrat or Republican will have a difficult job fixing his colossal mistakes in ME- Euroep-Asia
    yermelai, 2016-09-26 10:12:58
    The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US.

    Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests of the neo-cons?

    Hermanovic -> yermelai , 2016-09-26 10:50:07
    neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states on their soil.

    The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator (Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.

    The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.

    Boyaca -> Hermanovic, 2016-09-26 18:57:23
    And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture?
    macel388, 2016-09-26 10:08:03
    "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development.
    MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 09:36:41
    When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said

    "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

    He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.

    And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something needs to be done about it.

    ReinerNiemand -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 10:21:20
    " America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. "

    He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each other .

    The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.

    The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people those claim to speak turn up with us?

    Calvert -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 11:21:45
    And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.

    They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.

    hartebeest, 2016-09-26 09:35:14
    "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.

    Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population (after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be somewhat larger.

    China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.

    It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically. The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.

    For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).

    This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals. But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:

    a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to withstand one, were it to come to that);
    b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
    c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race (Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).

    MrMeinung, 2016-09-26 09:13:57
    The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all.

    Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation.

    Time for a change of plan.

    freeandfair -> MrMeinung , 2016-09-26 14:29:49
    "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
    Zami99, 2016-09-26 08:30:36
    The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
    Calvert -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 11:24:26
    Well, that is naďve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon any day.
    Leandro Rodriguez -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 16:15:42
    The US never cleaned up their human rights record...
    Sven Ringling, 2016-09-26 08:16:37
    A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work: whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.

    The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand, acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims, they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the rest of us.

    Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve sth.

    The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII, when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration into European cooperation.

    ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 07:28:26
    I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people once the hunger sets it.

    China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes. Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned. The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that come out of it.

    Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues, safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.

    The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press. They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by obsessive perfectionists.

    No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it. Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.

    250022 -> ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 11:34:31
    Fundamentally incorrect.

    The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn.

    No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London. The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is the largest car market in the world.

    Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly contracted and billions spent on re-training.

    Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is politics. They simply don't want to know.

    By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.

    The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.

    http://english.sina.com/china/s/2016-09-26/detail-ifxwevmf2233637.shtml

    alfredwong -> Jonathan Scott , 2016-09-26 05:44:58
    "What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/29/falkland-islands-argentina-waters-rules-un-commission

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-defiance-of-international-court-has-precedentu-s-defiance-1467919982

    "Also, China still has little force projection"

    A country only needs a lot of force projection if it seeks to dominate the world.

    "and a soon to collapse economy."

    You are entitled to have such dream.

    vidimi -> Jonathan Scott, 2016-09-26 09:41:28
    a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well
    ChristosHellas, 2016-09-26 04:17:59
    Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.

    Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical issues happening on our northern doorstep.

    If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!

    JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 04:05:15
    America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.

    Europe is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated, exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar. Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there nothing America can do to stop it.

    scss99 -> JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 05:14:43
    I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.

    The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well.

    Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?

    macel388 -> itsfridayiminlove, 2016-09-26 14:17:29
    "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man".
    CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 03:47:56
    The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity.

    Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.

    hobot CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 04:44:28
    It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of.
    Stieve, 2016-09-26 02:09:34
    Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value" continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
    MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 01:49:38
    Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.

    Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".

    freeandfair -> MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 02:02:27
    The US doesn't know what the word "cooperation" means. To Americans "cooperation" means giving orders and others following them.
    LivingTruth, 2016-09-26 00:41:25
    America has this absurd notion that it must always be number 1 in world whatever that means world could be better when east is best
    Zhubajie1284, 2016-09-26 00:16:50
    Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
    thomasvladimir, 2016-09-26 00:11:36
    fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove the TPP also..........
    Fabrizio Agnello, 2016-09-25 23:45:41
    The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower. And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.

    Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...

    Bogoas81, 2016-09-25 23:44:41
    China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.

    Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.

    RodMcLeod -> Bogoas81, 2016-09-26 00:07:24
    Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
    Bogoas81 -> RodMcLeod, 2016-09-26 10:09:36
    Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home, and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial system.

    The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.

    There is also a huge 'shadow' banking system in China which means no-one really knows who owes money to whom, which will make it impossible to be confident in who remains creditworthy when the crisis occurs. Estimates are that bad debts (non-performing loans) by Chinese banks already total more than $2 trillion and are rising fast: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/22/fitch-warns-bad-debts-in-china-are-ten-times-official-claims-sta/

    wumogang, 2016-09-25 22:44:50
    TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
    Narapoia01 -> wumogang, 2016-09-26 01:53:17
    Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form

    Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.

    sanhedrin, 2016-09-25 22:22:22
    I find the United States of America more frightening each day
    thomasvladimir -> sanhedrin, 2016-09-26 00:53:38
    failing flailing empire.......classic insanity
    Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 21:43:18
    Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
    kbg541 -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:31:38
    Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
    moderatejohn -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:40:32
    Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden Rule.
    BelieveItsTrue -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 23:00:58
    Roll out the barrel.....
    Well said and you are so right.
    15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers our conversation.

    Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

    I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.

    Heaven help us.

    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:33:12
    ... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further ..

    Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....

    Zhubajie1284 -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:45:45
    They tell their employers what they want to hear.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:04:05
    Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:24:54
    1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent world.

    2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.

    3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without any hope for the future

    4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.


    Ought to read:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.

    5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion that approaches science fiction

    5566hh -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 22:50:58
    I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours. China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.

    We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to excuse US killing of course.)

    BelieveItsTrue -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:07:25
    Oh well said. At least someone understands how the it works.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:06:32
    The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will not continue.
    wumogang, 2016-09-25 20:23:25

    Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions. According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.

    The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.

    The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.

    A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"; China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation, Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history, military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
    BelieveItsTrue -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:14:42

    US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"

    Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will be no more to lend the government.

    China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.

    Zhubajie1284 -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:49:17
    The US sure looks in decline. Bridges falling into rivers, tens of millions homeless. Yet some how our elites can always find money for another war.
    Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 19:33:09
    Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
    fragglerokk -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:14:35
    a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing (or little) would get through.
    Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily) seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4 years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.

    Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove, Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.

    goenzoy -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:48:37
    Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
    Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
    Mrpavado -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 21:30:20
    Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service as China holds a compulsory military service system.
    Liang1a, 2016-09-25 19:24:05
    This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.

    The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and destroyer.

    Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane. The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence in the SE Asian region will collapse.

    Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies, China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.

    mark john Mcculloch , 2016-09-25 19:22:11
    Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
    outfitter, 2016-09-25 18:54:08
    Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to its neighbors and the world.
    fragglerokk -> outfitter, 2016-09-25 20:26:17
    China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access (much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats. The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
    deetrump, 2016-09-25 18:17:06
    Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No 1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
    Dante5, 2016-09-25 17:56:56
    The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.

    It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.

    IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China- with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife.

    Advaitya, 2016-09-25 17:54:49
    America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China - a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.

    In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for disaster.

    Kamatron -> Advaitya, 2016-09-25 21:46:36
    The arrogance is breathtaking.

    Embrace western liberal values? Exactly what is that?

    A sense of moral and ethical superiority?

    Freedom to kill unarm black people?

    Right to invade other countries?

    Commit war crimes?

    That kind of Western liberal values?

    freeandfair -> Advaitya, 2016-09-26 01:15:38
    The Us is reaping the results of its arrogance, you got that part right.
    humdum, 2016-09-25 17:24:35
    Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
    It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
    wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
    but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
    up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
    prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
    which dominated the world till 2003.
    Nuno Cardoso da Silva , 2016-09-25 17:16:24
    US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III. Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us. The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain there... The sooner the better...
    HotPotato22, 2016-09-25 17:12:13
    The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.

    Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future lies with south America.

    Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years and would struggle to beat them now.

    China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime in the future.

    Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 16:23:04
    From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
    arbmahla -> Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 18:17:41
    Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation. The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
    TheRealRadj -> arbmahla, 2016-09-25 18:23:24
    With dozens of bases surrounding Russia and China and you call this status quo.
    Fail.
    CygniCygni, 2016-09-25 16:21:39
    The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
    CommieWealth, 2016-09-25 16:08:00
    A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis, military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade, cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline, is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence. But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
    BigPhil1959, 2016-09-25 15:46:39
    Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.

    The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.

    A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.

    Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not and Britain better start spending more on defence.

    markwill89, 2016-09-25 15:41:59
    Can people stop calling China a Communist state. It isn't. China is a corporatist dictatorship.
    yelzohy -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 16:19:47
    which serves only the top one tenth of one percent. Sounds familiar.
    markwill89 -> yelzohy, 2016-09-25 16:23:29
    The difference between the United States and China is striking. Try criticising the Chinese leadership in China and see where it gets you.
    humdum -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 17:44:03
    What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
    R_Ambrose_Raven, 2016-09-25 15:30:27
    Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved, whatever the outcome. Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such a conflict.

    Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us" all in war materiel.

    Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.

    Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.

    Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.

    ID1726608, 2016-09-25 15:28:36
    What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.

    And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat, it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the case.

    It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India, which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current "silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".

    heyidontknowman, 2016-09-25 15:18:23
    The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia 1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
    Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:14:17
    Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power.

    While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.

    He will be remembered as one of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.

    All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions to the Mafiso Putin.

    This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines, countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US. China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy? Threaten Chine military confertation?
    All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see where Obama is going.

    NowheretoHideQC -> Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:33:01
    For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
    Mormorola, 2016-09-25 15:06:09
    Obama and Hillary foreign country policies have been disasters one after the other:
    • - "Benign" neglect and lack of courage in Palestine on the "No new settlements" request.
    • - Disastrous interventions in Libya and Middle East resulting in hundred of thousand of "collateral damage".
    • - Russian "Reset" which was no more than spin, but continued to look at Russia as the right place to wipe your feet.
    • - Empty promises to Ukraine resulting into a civil war.
    • - Ill conceived "Pivot to Asia" with no meat, much wishful thinking and no understanding of local sensitivities.
    • - Continued support for bloody dictators like the Saudis and the Thai dictators (which Hillary once branded a "vibrant democracy").

    And you wish "that woman" to become your next president?

    ElZilch0, 2016-09-25 14:54:23
    China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing base.

    So the options for China are:

    a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.

    b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite on the latter.

    The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.

    However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect, the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).

    The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.

    russian, 2016-09-25 14:35:09
    Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.

    It's got it's hands full at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands) there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

    Babeouf, 2016-09-25 14:32:26
    Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of the British elites during the end of its empire.
    Lafcadio1944, 2016-09-25 14:11:59
    As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions) it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.

    The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China" It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China, nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea - using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.

    China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.

    Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?

    The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.

    The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Clinton Campaign Manager Unable to Answer Questions on Hillary Coverup Operation

    It was a cover up operation. No questions about that. Such instruction by a person under any investigation clearly mean tha attempt of cover up...
    Notable quotes:
    "... There was a document dump on Friday, that we learned from the FBI that an IT contractor managing Hillary Clinton's private email server made reference to the "Hillary coverup operation" in a work ticket. He used those words after a senior Clinton aide asked him to automatically delete emails after 60 days. This IT worker certainly sounded like he was covering something up, no? ..."
    "... The FBI dumped another 189 pages of documents pertaining to Clinton's use of an unsecured private server during her time as Secretary of State online Friday, with one note about a "coverup" raising eyebrows: ..."
    "... After reviewing an email dated December 11, 2014 with the subject line 'RE: 2 items for IT support,' and a December 12, 2014 work ticket referencing email retention changes and archive/email cleanup, [redacted] stated his reference in the email to ' the Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation ' was probably due to the requested change to a 60 day email retention policy and the comment was a joke. ..."
    "... "The fact an IT staffer maintaining Clinton's secret server called a new retention policy designed to delete emails after 60 days a 'Hillary coverup operation' suggests there was a concerted effort to systematically destroy potentially incriminating information. It's no wonder that at least five individuals tied to the email scandal, including Clinton's top State Department aide and attorney Cheryl Mills, secured immunity deals from the Obama Justice Department to avoid prosecution," said Trump spokesman Jason Miller in a statement on Friday. ..."
    "... Comey told the House Oversight Committee on July 7 that the FBI "did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet that - the intent standard" while claiming that prosecuting Clinton for gross negligence would perpetuate a "double standard." ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | Breitbart
    CNN anchor Jake Tapper confronted Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook Sunday over an IT worker handling her private email server joking in a 2014 email about a "Hillary coverup operation," with Mook dodging the question and blaming Republicans for "selectively leaking documents."

    TAPPER: There was a document dump on Friday, that we learned from the FBI that an IT contractor managing Hillary Clinton's private email server made reference to the "Hillary coverup operation" in a work ticket. He used those words after a senior Clinton aide asked him to automatically delete emails after 60 days. This IT worker certainly sounded like he was covering something up, no?

    MOOK: Look, Jake, I'm - first of all I'm glad you asked that question. A lot of this stuff is swirling around in the ether. It's important to pull back and look at the facts here. The FBI did a comprehensive and deep investigation into this. And at the conclusion of that, FBI Director Comey came out and said to the world that there was no case here, that they have no evidence of wrongdoing on Hillary's part.

    TAPPER: So what's the "Hillary coverup operation" that the IT worker was referring to?

    MOOK: Well, well, but this is - but this is - this is the perfect example of what's going on here. Republicans on the House side are selectively leaking documents for the purpose of making Hillary look bad. We've asked the FBI to release all information that they've shared with Republicans so they can get the full picture. But again, I would trust the career professionals at the FBI and the Justice Department who looked into this matter, concluded that was no case, than I would Republicans who are selectively leaking information.

    The FBI dumped another 189 pages of documents pertaining to Clinton's use of an unsecured private server during her time as Secretary of State online Friday, with one note about a "coverup" raising eyebrows:

    After reviewing an email dated December 11, 2014 with the subject line 'RE: 2 items for IT support,' and a December 12, 2014 work ticket referencing email retention changes and archive/email cleanup, [redacted] stated his reference in the email to ' the Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation ' was probably due to the requested change to a 60 day email retention policy and the comment was a joke.

    The Trump campaign quickly leapt on the FBI's findings.

    "The fact an IT staffer maintaining Clinton's secret server called a new retention policy designed to delete emails after 60 days a 'Hillary coverup operation' suggests there was a concerted effort to systematically destroy potentially incriminating information. It's no wonder that at least five individuals tied to the email scandal, including Clinton's top State Department aide and attorney Cheryl Mills, secured immunity deals from the Obama Justice Department to avoid prosecution," said Trump spokesman Jason Miller in a statement on Friday.

    Comey told the House Oversight Committee on July 7 that the FBI "did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet that - the intent standard" while claiming that prosecuting Clinton for gross negligence would perpetuate a "double standard."

    [Sep 26, 2016] It was Obama who pardoned Hillary by exerting pressure on FBI

    Notable quotes:
    "... Were I advising Trump I would have him cite the two criminal codes the FBI decided not to pursue..... by title and section. The rest of the questioning is inconsequential in relation to the huge favor the FBI gave Mrs. Clinton. ..."
    "... Might be a wrong advice. This would be more directed at Obama, then Hillary. It was Obama who pardoned Hillary by exerting pressure on FBI. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 09:39 AM
    Were I advising Trump I would have him cite the two criminal codes the FBI decided not to pursue..... by title and section. The rest of the questioning is inconsequential in relation to the huge favor the FBI gave Mrs. Clinton.
    likbez -> ilsm... , -1
    ilsm,

    "...two criminal codes the FBI decided not to pursue....."

    Might be a wrong advice. This would be more directed at Obama, then Hillary. It was Obama who pardoned Hillary by exerting pressure on FBI.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Class War by Other Means: Tennessee, Volkswagen and the Future of Labor

    Notable quotes:
    "... The political logic is pretty clear: massive subsidies are just the price that the public is expected to pay in exchange for the limited number of jobs made available to them within the "free enterprise" system. ..."
    "... In fact, President Obama came to Chattanooga to join in on Tennessee's bi-partisan economic consensus. During his 2013 jobs tour, the President delivered a speech at the Chattanooga Amazon distribution facility, praising the company for doing its part to restore the middle class through "good jobs with good wages." The starting wage at the Chattanooga warehouse is $11.25 an hour. ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    In 2008, the governments of the city of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, the state of Tennessee, and the United States all collaborated to provide Volkswagen (VW) with a $577 million subsidy package, the largest taxpayer handout ever given to a foreign-headquartered automaker in U.S. history. The bulk of the subsidy package, $554 million, came from local and state sources. The federal government also threw in $23 million in subsidies, bringing the grand total of taxpayer money that VW received in 2008 to $577 million. According to the Subsidy Tracker at the website of watchdog group Good Jobs First, the package provided to VW included "$229 million from the state for training costs and infrastructure; $86 million in land and site improvements from the city and the county; state tax credits worth $106 million over 30 years; and local tax abatements worth $133 million over the same period." In exchange for this massive infusion of public wealth onto Volkswagen's corporate balance sheets, the company promised to create 2,000 jobs in Chattanooga, bringing the price tag for each promised job to $288,500.

    When asked to respond to concerns about VW's record-shattering subsidy package, then-Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, unabashedly replied, "I don't know whether it's fair that a Mercedes Benz costs $90,000, I just know if I want one that's what I've got to pay." Tennessee's U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander, a Republican, applauded the deal as another significant mile marker on the way towards "Tennessee's future" of becoming the "the No. 1 auto state in the country."

    The political logic is pretty clear: massive subsidies are just the price that the public is expected to pay in exchange for the limited number of jobs made available to them within the "free enterprise" system. The VW subsidy deal is just one example of how large corporations leveraged the widespread suffering caused by the Great Recession, the longest and deepest economic crisis since the 1930s, to bleed the funds of state governments in exchange for jobs. In a 2013 report studying the rise of "megadeals" -- subsidy deals with a local and state subsidy cost of $75 million or more -- Good Jobs First found that "since 2008, the average number of megadeals per year has doubled (compared to the previous decade) and their annual cost has roughly doubled as well, averaging around $5 billion." This was certainly the trend in Tennessee, where VW was the first of three separate megadeals negotiated in the state from 2008 to 2009. The same year that the VW deal was announced, Hemlock Semiconductor received over $340 million in government giveaways to develop a $1.2 billion polycrystalline silicon manufacturing plant in Clarksville, Tenn. By 2014, the plant was shuttered and all 500 promised jobs evaporated. Wacker Chemie received over $200 million in subsidies to build a billion-dollar plant in Bradley County, just outside of Chattanooga, to produce materials used in solar panels and semiconductors. Another megadeal was brokered with Amazon, which received over $100 million in local and state subsidies to build a distribution center in Chattanooga's industrial development park, which is shared with the Volkswagen plant.

    The Bipartisan Consensus

    The subsidy deals with Volkswagen, Hemlock, Wacker, and Amazon were all originally negotiated by Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, and U. S. Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker, both Republicans, and was approved by the Tennessee General Assembly, which in 2008 came under Republican control for the first time since Reconstruction. These deals were drafted in collaboration between state politicians (both Democratic and Republican) and business elites in total secrecy. Tom Rowland, mayor of Cleveland City in Bradley County, the location for the Wacker plant just outside of Chattanooga, revealed the frequency of such secret meetings: "You don't know how many times we have slipped Gov. Bredesen, Sen. [Bob] Corker and [Tennessee Economic and Community Development commissioner] Matt Kisber into the Chamber office."

    By 2010, the state was firmly under the control of a Republican governor, Bill Haslam, and a Republican super-majority in the General Assembly. By 2012, the Republicans held over two-thirds of all state government offices in what they called a "super duper majority." The parties might have changed, but the love for corporate welfare did not, as the Republicans continued to build upon and extend all of the agreements from the previous governor's administration.

    In fact, President Obama came to Chattanooga to join in on Tennessee's bi-partisan economic consensus. During his 2013 jobs tour, the President delivered a speech at the Chattanooga Amazon distribution facility, praising the company for doing its part to restore the middle class through "good jobs with good wages." The starting wage at the Chattanooga warehouse is $11.25 an hour.

    "Good Jobs" and Concessionary Unionism

    According to a 2015 study by the Center for Automotive Research, auto workers at VW in Chattanooga had the lowest hourly pay and benefits of any employees in a U.S. car factory. The starting hourly wage rate for an assembly line worker at Volkswagen is about $15 an hour, or approximately $31,000 a year. A full-time production employee can top out their pay in seven years at a wage rate of $23 an hour, or about $48,000 a year. That makes the top pay at Volkswagen less than 80% of the estimated annual median income for Hamilton County. Third-party contractors hired by Volkswagen to work on the line in the plant and the network of auto suppliers servicing the factory pay even lower hourly wage rates. Yet U.S. Senator Corker describes production jobs at VW as "good paying," Hamilton County Mayor Jim Coppinger prefers the term "family-wage jobs," and Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke describes VW as providing "living-wage jobs" that are helping to "build our middle class."

    Tennessee's billionaire governor, Bill Haslam, who happens to be the richest politician in the country, has expressed little concern over whether or not the jobs brought to the state were high paying. In fact, it appears that he is proud that they are not. In official material directed to foreign companies by the Haslam administration, the governor touted a pro-business environment in which companies can exploit a "low-cost labor force" thanks to the state's "very low unionization rates." (That's alongside the boon of state and local taxes that are "some of the lowest in the region.")

    Since the Great Recession, the United Auto Workers (UAW) has been overseeing the erosion of gains made by auto workers in previous decades. The union has been able to maintain higher wages and benefits for the auto workers they represent when compared to manufacturing overall, but the difference has shrunk dramatically in recent years. According to the Detroit Free Press, "Back in 1960, a Detroit Three UAW autoworker was paid 16% more than the average U.S. manufacturing worker. By the early 2000s, that wage gap had grown to nearly 70% in favor of the UAW worker, but shrank back to 33% by this year."

    The union, to be sure, is operating under difficult conditions in the auto industry: trade deficits in manufacturing that were growing even prior to the Great Recession, the relative increase of jobs in parts plants that pay less than assembly plants, the growth in auto employment at nonunion "transplants" (belonging to non-U.S. headquartered companies like Volkswagen and Toyota), and the rise of temp agencies and "just in time" production as part of the overall lean production management processes in the industry. All of these changes, however, have taken place in the context of the UAW's top-down brand of business unionism, which has led to its deeply concessionary approach to collective bargaining and new organizing. For example, an Economic Policy Institute (EPI) report jointly authored by a former UAW leader, a former vice president from Ford, and an academic expert on "workplace innovation," lauded the UAW for being "a full partner for more than a decade in experimenting with innovations in work organization" and working with corporate management at the Big Three to reduce a "major portion" in the "cost differential" with non-union foreign-headquartered auto makers:

    In 2005, there was a gap of $3.62 between the average hourly wage of $27.41 at Ford and $23.79 for the transplants. When fringe benefits, legally required payments, pension benefits, retiree health care, and other post-employment labor costs are added in, the gap grew to $20.55 ($64.88 versus $44.33) .... In 2010, following the 2007 introduction of the entry wage and concessions made during the 2009 government bailout, the wage gap stood at $4 ($28 for Ford versus $24 for the transplants), and the gap when including fringe benefits and post-employment costs stood at $6 ($58 for Ford versus $52 for the transplants).

    Incredibly, the UAW leadership has continued to proudly highlight how contract concessions have induced an ever-closer wage convergence between transplants -- located largely in low-wage, Republican-dominated states in the southeastern United States -- and U.S.-headquartered automakers in historically union-dense strongholds, like Michigan. They hold this up as proof of their labor-management partnership credentials while simultaneously championing the auto industry as lifting up "good jobs" and "the middle class." Despite the reality of declining wages, benefits, and jobs, the public appears to believe the same. According to an analysis of several polls by the National Employment Law Project (NELP), a majority of the general public believes that "manufacturing is the most important job sector, in terms of strengthening the economy."

    At the Chattanooga VW plant, workers also face a brutal lean-production management model on the assembly-line floor that works to squeeze higher productivity from a scant and beleaguered workforce. The working conditions on the assembly line are so physically demanding that many production workers cannot see working at VW as a long-term career. Yet in 2013, when the UAW announced that they were seeking to organize the Chattanooga plant, the union decided against organizing around the salient issues in the plant and instead chose to frame their entire organizing campaign around collaboration with the company to form the first German-style "works council" in the history of the United States. The UAW's strategy was exclusively predicated on advancing what the union championed as an innovative form of labor-management partnership.

    The UAW even went so far as to sign a neutrality agreement with Volkswagen which committed the union to "maintaining and where possible enhancing the cost advantages and other competitive advantages that [Volkswagen] enjoys relative to its competitors." When pressed to account for why the union would make such a shocking concession, then-UAW president Bob King issued this reply:

    Our philosophy is, we want to work in partnership with companies to succeed. Nobody has more at stake in the long-term success of the company than the workers on the shop floor, both blue collar and white collar. With every company that we work with, we're concerned about competitiveness. We work together with companies to have the highest quality, the highest productivity, the best health and safety, the best ergonomics, and we are showing that companies that succeed by this cooperation can have higher wages and benefits because of the joint success.

    Continued Investments, Too-Big-to-Fail and Too-Big-to-Jail

    In July 2014, Volkswagen announced that it was planning to invest $600 million into expanding the Chattanooga plant, adding additional assembly lines for the production of an SUV for the North American market. According to local news reports:

    More than a third of that investment will initially come from state and local governments who agreed to pump more than $230 million of upfront tax dollars into the project to woo VW into expanding in Chattanooga rather than at its other major North American plant in Puebla, Mexico, where labor costs are far lower. Combined with other property tax breaks, TVA incentives, road projects and other potential tax credits, Volkswagen could qualify for more than $300 million of grants, credits and other government assistance over the next decade....

    The expansion of the Chattanooga plant brings the total subsidy package provided to Volkswagen up to about $877 million dollars. Following the official announcement of the expanded subsidy deal, Tennessee House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, whose district includes Chattanooga, told the press, "I think it is a good investment and we will convince the Legislature of that because there are just so many ripple effects from this investment that will help so much of our state." The ripple effects of such an enormous single investment took on a completely different character with the announcement, in September 2015, that the EPA was fining Volkswagen for installing "defeat devices" on their automobiles, allowing the diesel cars produced at the Chattanooga plant to temporarily hide the emissions they produce.

    Since the EPA's announcement, VW has acknowledged that it produced over 11 million diesel vehicles worldwide that contained software allowing them to cheat nitrogen oxide tests. This software, installed on 2009–2015 diesel VWs, reduced emissions while the cars were hooked up to testing devices, only to let pollution "spill out of the tail pipe at up to 40 times the allowable level" when cars were on the road. An analysis performed by the Associated Press (AP) estimates that about 100 people in the United States have likely died as a result of the pollution produced by VW's diesel Passat over the last few years. AP's analysis estimates that the death toll in Europe is substantially higher, likely resulting in hundreds of deaths for every year the cars were on the road.

    After the EPA's announcement in September 2015; VW's stock price plummeted and VW Group CEO Martin Winterkorn resigned. Volkswagen Group of America President and CEO Michael Horn admitted, during his official testimony before Congress in October, that the defeat devices were installed for the express purpose of beating emissions tests. In November 2015, the Chattanooga VW plant stopped the production of the diesel Passat. More recently, VW has agreed to a partial settlement with federal and state authorities of over $15 billion as new lawsuits and government investigations from around the world continue to make headlines. How have the local and state government responded to the news of VW's rampant criminality and corruption? Speaking to reporters about VW and the scandal, Governor Haslam said, "We're married to them. We want this plant to be a success."

    Hamilton County Mayor Jim Coppinger, meanwhile, told reporters, "We need for the plant to be successful. It's important to our economy." The state is too invested in VW -- politically and financially -- to be in any position to truly hold the company accountable for its actions.

    A New Road Forward

    Put it all together and we have a formula for maximizing corporate profits that mixes equal parts political opportunism with class collaboration. Following the Great Recession, voters were desperate for jobs. Politicians, campaigning on bringing jobs to voters, are willing to provide massive subsidies to companies willing to locate in their voting districts. The union, desperate to organize new bargaining units from which to collect dues and to be seen as a legitimate partner with corporate and political elites, actually agrees to "maintain" and "enhance" the competitive advantages corporations gain by pushing private business costs off onto the public while providing jobs with lower wages, reduced benefits, and deteriorating working conditions. Meanwhile, the public believes they are getting "good jobs," while the actual quality of those jobs continues to decline. The companies laugh all the way to the bank. With their backs to the wall, unions like the UAW can no longer put off organizing auto makers and suppliers that choose to locate their plants in the South, but they will not succeed by promising to "work in partnership" with the companies. Labor organizers in the South will usually be working in an environment in which both business and government are hostile to unions. When the UAW narrowly lost the VW vote in 2014, the union should have learned a valuable lesson. The company might have formally committed to being "neutral," but the business and political elites in the South made no such agreement. If unions fail to win over the broader working class, they have no chance of winning representation elections -- especially in states like Tennessee, where only 6% of all workers belong to a union, and in cities like Chattanooga, where the unionization rate is even lower, at an abysmal 3.4% of all workers.

    To win, unions will not only have to jettison the pipedream of courting management with promises of maximizing worker productivity and containing costs. Rather, they will have to return to their militant roots: connecting shop-floor fights with community organizing. This approach has been successfully exemplified by the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) and the Grassroots Collaborative, a labor-community alliance that has become a permanent fixture in Chicago politics and generated immense public support for CTU's militant fights with the city's investor class and mayor. CTU's combination of bottom-up work-site organizing and authentic, non-transactional support for community organizations and their struggles were critical preludes to the union's relatively successful 2012 strike. A long-term strategy focused on this kind of organizing would go a long way towards building the kind of movement infrastructure that labor needs to win in the South.

    All of this is easier said than done. But we are currently faced with the atrocious working conditions and ever-diminishing wages and benefits of manufacturing jobs, the spread of poverty throughout our communities, the deep underfunding of public services, and the rising tide of anger and resentment (especially among young people) towards the economic and political elite. The time is ripe for organizers to begin harvesting the fruits of our exploited labor.

    Shouldering the Subsidy: Tennessee's Regressive Tax System

    Tennessee has one of the most regressive tax systems in the country. Currently, Tennessee has no state income tax and a constitutional amendment, passed by referendum in 2014, prevents the state government from ever establishing an income or payroll tax. Moreover, earlier this year the state legislature passed a bill to phase out the state's tax on dividends and income from bonds by 2022, resulting in millions of dollars in tax revenue being stripped from city budgets. This will likely result in city governments raising revenue by hiking property taxes, further shifting the burden of raising revenues for the state onto the working and middle classes.

    The lack of an income tax means that the Tennessee state government relies to a large degree on sales taxes to raise revenue. The sales tax is especially regressive due to the state's refusal to exempt essentials like groceries (though groceries are at least taxed at a lower rate than the overall sales tax), while completely exempting luxury goods such as "attorneys' fees, services such as haircuts and massages, and goods for horses and airplanes." Additionally, the state fails to offer any tax credits to low-income taxpayers to offset either sales or property taxes.

    This means that the primary form of wealth for the working and middle classes -- a family home -- is taxed to provide the vast majority of revenue for local governments. Meanwhile, major forms of wealth for the ruling class -- corporate stocks and bonds -- are not. Tennessee's working and middle classes are being squeezed under the highest average combined state-local sales tax rate in the country, while the owners of capital skirt any responsibility for paying their share.

    This regressive system is compounded with every tax abatement given to a large multinational corporation, such as Volkswagen. When the state increases its reliance on sales taxes to offset the holes punched into the budget by corporate tax breaks, this increases the overall tax burden on the poor and working class. The only other option to raising revenue through regressive taxes is for the state to cut services. Cuts to services, such as healthcare, public education, infrastructure, and transportation, are just another way to shift the burden onto the working class. While public services diminish, highly profitable multinational corporations, such as Volkswagen, benefit from direct state supports, like state-financed job training and capital-improvement grants, which improve their bottom-line and further entrench wealth inequality.

    The federal tax system, on the whole, is progressive, according to a 2016 Tax Policy Center report. Economists with the Federal Reserve Bank studied the impact of state taxes on income inequality and found that Tennessee's regressive tax system "reverses around one-third of the compression [in the income spread] caused by federal taxes" -- the most of any state in the country.

    Inequality's Racial Disparities

    According to the 2015 report "State of Black Chattanooga," by the Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies, the median wealth of white households in Tennessee bounced back in the years after the Great Recession, increasing by 2.4% between 2010 and 2013, to $141,900. Contrast that with the median wealth of Black households in the state, which continued to spiral down in the same time period, falling more than 33% to $11,000.

    The arrival of Volkswagen, Wacker, and Amazon has failed to fundamentally alter the overall low-wage economy in Chattanooga and Hamilton County. When these "megadeals" combine with the further subsidies provided to land developers for luxury condos and apartments in Chattanooga's urban core and the expanding priority placed by local governments on police and jails, the results are gentrification, displacement, and incarceration. Currently, 27% of Chattanoogans overall live in poverty, almost double the national average, and that number jumps to 36% in the city's Black community. In the eleven lowest-income neighborhoods in the city, in which about three-quarters of residents identify as Black, the poverty rate is 64%. Only 17% of the Tennessee population is Black, yet Black people are 44% of our state's prison population.

    Concerned Citizens for Justice, a grassroots organization dedicated to Black liberation in Chattanooga, describes this underlying systemic approach by politicians and business leaders as "an arrangement that is good for rich financiers and developers and bad for Chattanooga's working class and oppressed majority." The numbers certainly bear out their analysis.

    Sources:

    Frank Ahrens and Sholnn Freeman 2007. "GM, Union Agree on Contract to End Strike," Washington Post, Sept. 27, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092600155.html ; Associated Press, "TN touts 'low-cost labor force' to lure foreign business," Sept. 2, 2015 http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2015/09/02/tn-touts-low-cost-labor-force-lure-foreign-business/71617998/ ; Associated Press, "Volkswagen now under investigation for tax evasion," Nov. 24, 2015 http

    [Sep 26, 2016] Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
    "... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
    "... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
    "... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
    "... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
    "... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
    "... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
    "... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
    "... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
    "... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
    "... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
    "... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
    "... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
    "... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
    "... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
    "... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
    "... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
    "... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
    "... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
    "... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
    "... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
    "... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
    "... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
    "... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
    "... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
    "... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
    "... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
    "... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
    "... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
    "... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
    "... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
    "... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
    "... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
    "... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
    "... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
    "... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
    "... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    Vermithrax , 2016-09-26 18:48:09
    Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was flawed.

    Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but random isn't a recommendation.

    Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game?

    Boyaca, 2016-09-26 18:41:19
    So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.

    The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally. The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes, occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations. it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their offspring have clearly failed.

    AmyInNH, 2016-09-26 17:07:12
    China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US "interests" and steer clear.

    No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more future Kanpurs.

    Shein Ariely , 2016-09-26 17:06:51
    Obama failed worldwide. Next USA president either Democrat or Republican will have a difficult job fixing his colossal mistakes in ME- Euroep-Asia
    yermelai, 2016-09-26 10:12:58
    The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US.

    Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests of the neo-cons?

    Hermanovic -> yermelai , 2016-09-26 10:50:07
    neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states on their soil.

    The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator (Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.

    The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.

    Boyaca -> Hermanovic, 2016-09-26 18:57:23
    And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture?
    macel388, 2016-09-26 10:08:03
    "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development.
    MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 09:36:41
    When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said

    "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

    He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.

    And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something needs to be done about it.

    ReinerNiemand -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 10:21:20
    " America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. "

    He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each other .

    The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.

    The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people those claim to speak turn up with us?

    Calvert -> MicheNorman, 2016-09-26 11:21:45
    And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.

    They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.

    hartebeest, 2016-09-26 09:35:14
    "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.

    Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population (after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be somewhat larger.

    China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.

    It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically. The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.

    For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).

    This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals. But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:

    a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to withstand one, were it to come to that);
    b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
    c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race (Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).

    MrMeinung, 2016-09-26 09:13:57
    The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all.

    Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation.

    Time for a change of plan.

    freeandfair -> MrMeinung , 2016-09-26 14:29:49
    "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
    Zami99, 2016-09-26 08:30:36
    The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
    Calvert -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 11:24:26
    Well, that is naďve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon any day.
    Leandro Rodriguez -> Zami99, 2016-09-26 16:15:42
    The US never cleaned up their human rights record...
    Sven Ringling, 2016-09-26 08:16:37
    A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work: whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.

    The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand, acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims, they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the rest of us.

    Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve sth.

    The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII, when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration into European cooperation.

    ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 07:28:26
    I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people once the hunger sets it.

    China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes. Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned. The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that come out of it.

    Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues, safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.

    The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press. They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by obsessive perfectionists.

    No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it. Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.

    250022 -> ArabinPatson , 2016-09-26 11:34:31
    Fundamentally incorrect.

    The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn.

    No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London. The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is the largest car market in the world.

    Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly contracted and billions spent on re-training.

    Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is politics. They simply don't want to know.

    By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.

    The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.

    http://english.sina.com/china/s/2016-09-26/detail-ifxwevmf2233637.shtml

    alfredwong -> Jonathan Scott , 2016-09-26 05:44:58
    "What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/29/falkland-islands-argentina-waters-rules-un-commission

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-defiance-of-international-court-has-precedentu-s-defiance-1467919982

    "Also, China still has little force projection"

    A country only needs a lot of force projection if it seeks to dominate the world.

    "and a soon to collapse economy."

    You are entitled to have such dream.

    vidimi -> Jonathan Scott, 2016-09-26 09:41:28
    a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well
    ChristosHellas, 2016-09-26 04:17:59
    Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.

    Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical issues happening on our northern doorstep.

    If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!

    JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 04:05:15
    America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.

    Europe is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated, exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar. Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there nothing America can do to stop it.

    scss99 -> JeffAshe, 2016-09-26 05:14:43
    I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.

    The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well.

    Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?

    macel388 -> itsfridayiminlove, 2016-09-26 14:17:29
    "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man".
    CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 03:47:56
    The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity.

    Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.

    hobot CalvinLyn, 2016-09-26 04:44:28
    It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of.
    Stieve, 2016-09-26 02:09:34
    Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value" continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
    MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 01:49:38
    Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.

    Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".

    freeandfair -> MountainMan23, 2016-09-26 02:02:27
    The US doesn't know what the word "cooperation" means. To Americans "cooperation" means giving orders and others following them.
    LivingTruth, 2016-09-26 00:41:25
    America has this absurd notion that it must always be number 1 in world whatever that means world could be better when east is best
    Zhubajie1284, 2016-09-26 00:16:50
    Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
    thomasvladimir, 2016-09-26 00:11:36
    fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove the TPP also..........
    Fabrizio Agnello, 2016-09-25 23:45:41
    The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower. And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.

    Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...

    Bogoas81, 2016-09-25 23:44:41
    China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.

    Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.

    RodMcLeod -> Bogoas81, 2016-09-26 00:07:24
    Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
    Bogoas81 -> RodMcLeod, 2016-09-26 10:09:36
    Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home, and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial system.

    The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.

    There is also a huge 'shadow' banking system in China which means no-one really knows who owes money to whom, which will make it impossible to be confident in who remains creditworthy when the crisis occurs. Estimates are that bad debts (non-performing loans) by Chinese banks already total more than $2 trillion and are rising fast: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/22/fitch-warns-bad-debts-in-china-are-ten-times-official-claims-sta/

    wumogang, 2016-09-25 22:44:50
    TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
    Narapoia01 -> wumogang, 2016-09-26 01:53:17
    Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form

    Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.

    sanhedrin, 2016-09-25 22:22:22
    I find the United States of America more frightening each day
    thomasvladimir -> sanhedrin, 2016-09-26 00:53:38
    failing flailing empire.......classic insanity
    Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 21:43:18
    Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
    kbg541 -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:31:38
    Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
    moderatejohn -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 22:40:32
    Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden Rule.
    BelieveItsTrue -> Ubermensch1, 2016-09-25 23:00:58
    Roll out the barrel.....
    Well said and you are so right.
    15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers our conversation.

    Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.

    I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.

    Heaven help us.

    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:33:12
    ... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further ..

    Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....

    Zhubajie1284 -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:45:45
    They tell their employers what they want to hear.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:04:05
    Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
    KhusroK, 2016-09-25 21:24:54
    1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent world.

    2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.

    3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without any hope for the future

    4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.


    Ought to read:

    This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.

    5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion that approaches science fiction

    5566hh -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 22:50:58
    I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours. China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.

    We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and kills all over the world.

    Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to excuse US killing of course.)

    BelieveItsTrue -> KhusroK, 2016-09-25 23:07:25
    Oh well said. At least someone understands how the it works.
    freeandfair -> KhusroK, 2016-09-26 01:06:32
    The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will not continue.
    wumogang, 2016-09-25 20:23:25

    Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions. According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.

    The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.

    The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.

    A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"; China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation, Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history, military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
    BelieveItsTrue -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:14:42

    US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"

    Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will be no more to lend the government.

    China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.

    Zhubajie1284 -> wumogang, 2016-09-25 23:49:17
    The US sure looks in decline. Bridges falling into rivers, tens of millions homeless. Yet some how our elites can always find money for another war.
    Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 19:33:09
    Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
    fragglerokk -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:14:35
    a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing (or little) would get through.
    Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily) seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4 years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.

    Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove, Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.

    goenzoy -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 20:48:37
    Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
    Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
    Mrpavado -> Riverdweller, 2016-09-25 21:30:20
    Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service as China holds a compulsory military service system.
    Liang1a, 2016-09-25 19:24:05
    This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.

    The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and destroyer.

    Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane. The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence in the SE Asian region will collapse.

    Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies, China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.

    mark john Mcculloch , 2016-09-25 19:22:11
    Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
    outfitter, 2016-09-25 18:54:08
    Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to its neighbors and the world.
    fragglerokk -> outfitter, 2016-09-25 20:26:17
    China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access (much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats. The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
    deetrump, 2016-09-25 18:17:06
    Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No 1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
    Dante5, 2016-09-25 17:56:56
    The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.

    It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.

    IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China- with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife.

    Advaitya, 2016-09-25 17:54:49
    America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China - a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.

    In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for disaster.

    Kamatron -> Advaitya, 2016-09-25 21:46:36
    The arrogance is breathtaking.

    Embrace western liberal values? Exactly what is that?

    A sense of moral and ethical superiority?

    Freedom to kill unarm black people?

    Right to invade other countries?

    Commit war crimes?

    That kind of Western liberal values?

    freeandfair -> Advaitya, 2016-09-26 01:15:38
    The Us is reaping the results of its arrogance, you got that part right.
    humdum, 2016-09-25 17:24:35
    Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
    It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
    wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
    but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
    up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
    prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
    which dominated the world till 2003.
    Nuno Cardoso da Silva , 2016-09-25 17:16:24
    US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III. Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us. The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain there... The sooner the better...
    HotPotato22, 2016-09-25 17:12:13
    The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.

    Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future lies with south America.

    Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years and would struggle to beat them now.

    China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime in the future.

    Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 16:23:04
    From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
    arbmahla -> Alex Wijaya, 2016-09-25 18:17:41
    Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation. The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
    TheRealRadj -> arbmahla, 2016-09-25 18:23:24
    With dozens of bases surrounding Russia and China and you call this status quo.
    Fail.
    CygniCygni, 2016-09-25 16:21:39
    The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
    CommieWealth, 2016-09-25 16:08:00
    A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis, military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade, cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline, is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence. But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
    BigPhil1959, 2016-09-25 15:46:39
    Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.

    The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.

    A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.

    Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not and Britain better start spending more on defence.

    markwill89, 2016-09-25 15:41:59
    Can people stop calling China a Communist state. It isn't. China is a corporatist dictatorship.
    yelzohy -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 16:19:47
    which serves only the top one tenth of one percent. Sounds familiar.
    markwill89 -> yelzohy, 2016-09-25 16:23:29
    The difference between the United States and China is striking. Try criticising the Chinese leadership in China and see where it gets you.
    humdum -> markwill89, 2016-09-25 17:44:03
    What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
    R_Ambrose_Raven, 2016-09-25 15:30:27
    Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved, whatever the outcome. Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such a conflict.

    Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us" all in war materiel.

    Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.

    Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.

    Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.

    ID1726608, 2016-09-25 15:28:36
    What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.

    And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat, it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the case.

    It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India, which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current "silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".

    heyidontknowman, 2016-09-25 15:18:23
    The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia 1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
    Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:14:17
    Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power.

    While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.

    He will be remembered as one of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.

    All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions to the Mafiso Putin.

    This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines, countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US. China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy? Threaten Chine military confertation?
    All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see where Obama is going.

    NowheretoHideQC -> Riaz Danish, 2016-09-25 15:33:01
    For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
    Mormorola, 2016-09-25 15:06:09
    Obama and Hillary foreign country policies have been disasters one after the other:
    • - "Benign" neglect and lack of courage in Palestine on the "No new settlements" request.
    • - Disastrous interventions in Libya and Middle East resulting in hundred of thousand of "collateral damage".
    • - Russian "Reset" which was no more than spin, but continued to look at Russia as the right place to wipe your feet.
    • - Empty promises to Ukraine resulting into a civil war.
    • - Ill conceived "Pivot to Asia" with no meat, much wishful thinking and no understanding of local sensitivities.
    • - Continued support for bloody dictators like the Saudis and the Thai dictators (which Hillary once branded a "vibrant democracy").

    And you wish "that woman" to become your next president?

    ElZilch0, 2016-09-25 14:54:23
    China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing base.

    So the options for China are:

    a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.

    b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite on the latter.

    The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.

    However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect, the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).

    The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.

    russian, 2016-09-25 14:35:09
    Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.

    It's got it's hands full at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands) there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

    Babeouf, 2016-09-25 14:32:26
    Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of the British elites during the end of its empire.
    Lafcadio1944, 2016-09-25 14:11:59
    As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions) it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.

    The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China" It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China, nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea - using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.

    China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.

    Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?

    The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.

    The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Angela Merkel Will Stop Illegal Migration

    Notable quotes:
    "... After a series of shock defeats to the anti-mass migration AfD party, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has promised to "stop illegal immigration" and send failed asylum seekers back to their home nations. ..."
    "... "We want to stop illegal immigration while living up to our humanitarian responsibilities," Mrs. Merkel said after talks in Vienna with counterparts from along the Balkan migrant route. ..."
    "... Hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants began to flood countries along the Balkan route last year, soon after Mrs. Merkel unexpectedly suspended European Union (EU) border rules and "invited" "no upper limit" of migrants to Germany. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.breitbart.com
    After a series of shock defeats to the anti-mass migration AfD party, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has promised to "stop illegal immigration" and send failed asylum seekers back to their home nations.

    "We want to stop illegal immigration while living up to our humanitarian responsibilities," Mrs. Merkel said after talks in Vienna with counterparts from along the Balkan migrant route.

    In February, Germany accused Pakistan, as well as North and West African countries, of refusing to take back failed asylum applicants.

    "It is necessary to get agreements with third countries, especially in Africa but also Pakistan and Afghanistan… so that it becomes clear that those with no right to stay in Europe can go back to their home countries," Mrs. Merkel told reporters this weekend, DW reports .

    Hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants began to flood countries along the Balkan route last year, soon after Mrs. Merkel unexpectedly suspended European Union (EU) border rules and "invited" "no upper limit" of migrants to Germany.

    The anti-mass migration Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party has recently surged in the polls, even overtaking the Chancellor's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the state election in her hometown. The CDU also had their worst election result ever in Berlin just over a week ago.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Berlin Election Outcome Signals Merkels Tenuous Grip on Chancellorship

    Notable quotes:
    "... Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East. ..."
    "... Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds. ..."
    "... Let's note that pre-9/11 the foreign policy wasn't exactly just/moral/sane. ..."
    "... Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and Lybian conflicts? ..."
    "... Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist) pushed war clandestinely? ..."
    "... Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior. ..."
    "... At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians. ..."
    "... I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and de facto ..."
    "... On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization. That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should not be particularly shocking. ..."
    "... Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition. Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire. ..."
    "... Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US, and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better. ..."
    "... If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years. The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats. ..."
    "... FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision. ..."
    "... "Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East." ..."
    "... I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees, etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler. ..."
    "... The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year. ..."
    "... "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)". ..."
    "... It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka the Islamic State. ..."
    "... It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State – remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra). ..."
    Sep 24, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Pavel September 24, 2016 at 7:13 am

    Yves: It's amazing how infrequently this point is made in any political debate or news coverage. (Jeremy Corbyn being one rare example of someone who brings it up.):

    Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East.

    If there were any justice, the refugees would be swamping the UK, US, and France in huge numbers, as those are the countries that cooked up the Libya failed state and also most active in Syria. Crazy or stupid (your choice) Hollande vowed to increase the French warfare in Syria after the recent terror attacks in Paris and elsewhere. As though MORE BOMBS ever managed to decrease terrorism, right?

    Though Merkel made her own bed with her "let them all come to Germany!" invitation, and now she is sleeping in it. Good riddance when and if she goes.

    Dirk77 September 24, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds.

    knowbuddhau September 24, 2016 at 8:31 pm

    Hey now. I mop floors. I know people who mop floors. Those perps, sir, are not fit to mop floors. Unless it's in prison. And even then I'm sure they'd suck. Takes integrity to do a humble job well.

    Nelson Lowhim September 25, 2016 at 5:01 am

    Let's note that pre-9/11 the foreign policy wasn't exactly just/moral/sane.

    Hayek's Heelbiter September 24, 2016 at 6:39 pm

    This quote is the "yang" to the "yin" of Yves' column posted on September 21, 2016: Negative Effects of Immigration on the Economy

    fds September 24, 2016 at 11:46 pm

    Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and Lybian conflicts? If I recall, war was averted in parliament and congress.

    Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist) pushed war clandestinely?

    Nelson Lowhim September 25, 2016 at 5:00 am

    Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior.

    as James Baldwin said: "aching, nobly, to wade through the blood of savages."

    hemeantwell September 24, 2016 at 8:13 am

    Thanks for posting this Grossman interview. One facet of the development of the far right that Grossman hints at, and maybe can only do so because there isn't much data, is its transnational quality. This summer we visited some lefty friends in Lund, Sweden where each year they hold a large May Day rally.

    At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians.

    As I think about, there's an ugly resonance with Yves' noting the refugees are substantially a result of US policies. The development of a rightist terrorist potential in the Ukraine has the same general source.

    Skip Intro September 24, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and de facto financial support from these governments. They were also linked to members of the 'stay behind' organizations (see Operation Gladio ), and were 'useful' in violently opposing left-wing groups as well as punk rockers. The modern AfD is strongest in the states of the former DDR, and are the ideological if not logistical heirs of these right-wing groups. But to conflate 15% of the electorate with semi-pro neo-nazis and racists is a bit of a stretch. While they are surely motivated by a strong nativist impulse and anti-immigrant fervor, their voters also represent the kind of disaffected and disenfranchised populations that carried the Brexit vote to victory.

    On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization. That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should not be particularly shocking.

    fds September 24, 2016 at 11:47 pm

    No, the AfD is not linked to the CIA It is a pro-social welfare, anti-TPP group that also wants fair migrant exchanges, that is not just to Europe. It is pestered and censored in Germany. Just expressing support in ways a security agent deems 'offensive' gets you fined and ostracized.

    Norb September 24, 2016 at 10:07 am

    The fight over private property rights continues. Liberal Democracy has failed around the world due to the unholy alliance with corporate power. Unchecked corporate power has been unmasked as the destructive force that it truly is.

    The left needs to evolve into a political force that can shape the consciousness of the masses away from individual greed toward the undeniable benefit of cooperative action. The right will use fear to drive people into some sort of trembling mass and only by combating this fear can movement be made.

    The compromise the left needs to make is to use any means possible, not to seize the means of production form existing owners, but to start building alternative ones. It is all too easy for the right to bring out their tried and true methods to hold power. It is time to starve the beast, and one way is to not participate and build in another direction.

    Corporate power is what needs to be broken. From my limited view, the left has always been a reactionary force. It needs to evolve into a proactive one, literally building something in the real world. Another major mistake by the left is to reject and confuse the power of religion. Neoliberalism is a new religion and gains much power by the use of unquestioning faith. The left has failed to counteract this religious faith because they have not even tried to counter it with their own. Just as finance has evolved into a military weapon, it can be argued that religion, in essence, is a military force.

    The political landscape is being reshuffled into defining what we are willing to fight and die for. Until the left starts offering coherent answers to these questions, the status quo will continue to pick from the low hanging fruit.

    Rosario September 25, 2016 at 1:06 am

    Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition. Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire.

    Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US, and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better.

    In addition, it is nonsense that we have normalized the formation of a nation state around a single ethnic or religious identity. Particularly after the Holocaust (the irony of this never ceases to amaze me). Would we have the same sympathies for the the countless indigenous ethnic groups in the Americas who, per capita, had even worse genocides inflicted on them, all documented, all accepted as inevitable or necessary in most histories of the Americas? Israel is a contorted hypocrisy that has to either embrace heterogeneity of disappear. Ideally as an inclusive country that is no longer a colony as it has been for hundreds of years. The fetish that is Israel has been an unfair burden to all people living in the Middle East and Jewish people the world over that are forced to (through the sheer force of political dogma) shackle their identities to a racist, rogue state.

    oho September 24, 2016 at 11:44 am

    " AfD stands for Alternative for Germany. It's a young party, about 2 years old. It's built basically on racism."

    Got more important things to do than rant about the above statement….

    Just will quote basic Sun Tzu via Star Trek-know your opponent, know yourself and victory will be yours.

    If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years. The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats.

    Felix_47 September 24, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    And on the other side Sarah Wagenknecht, a leader in the left, hit a lot of flak from many in her party when she said there needs to be an "Obergrenze" or limit on the number of refugees. It would hard to call her racist since she is half Persian. It really is a conflict between those who cannot think realistically….those who are supported or secure enough not to have to take responsibility for anyone, and those who will need to make the world function. As a Socialist she apparently is aware that you cannot have a strong social net and combine that with open immigration from places that have astronomical birthrates that are outgrowing their resources without destroying that net. I recall Hillary and the open border people attacked Bernie on that as well. I thought it was unfair and it is this pandering, among other issues, that will keep me from voting for her. There is a lot of commonality between AfD and the Linke. Don`t forget that the notion of German population replacement had some currency during and after WW2 in order to permanently solve the German problem and we may just be actualizing it now.

    Ben Groves September 24, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    In fairness, US immigration policy has slowly been getting tougher over the last 16 years. Immigration policy in the US goes beyond dialect. I doubt Clinton would be overly "easy".

    fds September 24, 2016 at 11:55 pm

    It's easier. Apart from the new Obama rule to issue visas to H1b holders, effectively tripling the numbers issued but still under the cap, to a myriad of other programs, it's much easier.

    Of the several foreign students I've dated, it gets easier every year. Back in 03, one had to have an accountant degree with CPA certs, and even then, you often were slave labor in Chi-Town until you hooked up with an American company. Now the black market foreign industry is so large, that a mere B.A. is enough. The gov doesn't care. Everyone is approved, save the cap.

    bmeisen September 25, 2016 at 12:50 am

    spooky quatsch comment from oho – hard to tell what oho means with "90% bottom- line fdr dems". The very diverse FDR / Dem majority coalesced during and in response to economic crisis. The AfD has emerged during a German boom. It is successful in East Germany, which in the wake of economic collapse immediately following reunification has been the beneficiary of massive inner-German transfers. And it is successful in West Germany much of which is effectively at full-employment. Its core supporters are the 10% of any populazion that is racist, nationalist, and ignorant. You might try to argue that there is a uniquely irrational fear in Germany, something associated with its position on the left edge of Eurasia maybe, a heterogenous cultural unit without convincing access to the sea, trapped if you will and vulnerable to human flows. Sounds silly but it's hard to account for German fear.
    The AfD is using this irrational fear for political gain. FDR was supported largely by voters with very real fears.

    lin1 September 25, 2016 at 1:34 am

    FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision.

    His reactionary political enemies, concentrated in finance capital, had no reason to be so confident. Their fear and loathing of the working class was/is legitimately earned.

    Plenue September 24, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    "Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East."

    That's typical of all MSM (not saying TRNN is mainstream) coverage of refugees. There's lots of discussion and hand-wringing about accepting refugees, but exactly zero about why they're refugees in the first place.

    Felix_47 September 24, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Yes the US has had a lot to do with destabilizing Asia and Africa but a lot of it has simply been a continuation of British policy after WW2. As Britain shrank its foreign involvement the US expanded. But the real cause is the inability of our politicians and leaders to face up to the reality that population growth is hitting the limits of resource availability in Asia and Africa and to institute realistic ways to control population. Absent the population explosion in these regions in the last decades we would not be seeing the poverty and anger and constant confllict because there would be enough for all. As much bad press as China has gotten for its population policy it is one of the few bright spots in world economic development. Interestingly China does not seem very interested in accepting millions of third world refugees.

    Vikas September 24, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees, etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler.

    Micky9finger September 24, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    In my naďve point of view it hit me last year that it was a brilliant stroke of Angela Merkel to grab as many refugees as she could before any other country.
    They are a tremendous natural resource. One that many modern countries are beginning to see a coming shortage of. Many countries, like Germany, France, etc are looking at population shortages in the working age groups. Merkel's grab of this mass of human resource was maybe an accidentally brilliant idea.

    oho September 24, 2016 at 6:06 pm

    can't tell if the above comment is satire or astroturfing or naivety?

    Merkel's migrants have zero higher-level first-world skills. AfD is strong in ex-East Germany because there is popular resentment as ex-East Germans get austerity shoved down their throats while Merkel unfurls the red carpet for migrants.

    http://www.dw.com/en/germany-expects-migration-to-add-to-unemployment/a-19478546

    in der Frage nach festen Arbeitsplätzen für Flüchtlinge ruhen die Hoffnungen zunehmend auf mittelständischen Unternehmen und Handwerksbetrieben. Denn wie eine Umfrage dieser Zeitung ergab, hat die große Mehrzahl der im deutschen Aktienindex (Dax) notierten Konzerne noch keine Flüchtlinge eingestellt. Einzig die Deutsche Post gab an, bis Anfang Juni 50 Flüchtlinge und damit eine nennenswerte Größe fest angestellt zu haben.

    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/mittelstand-als-hoffnungstraeger-fuer-fluechtlinge-14323607.html

    Yves Smith Post author September 24, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    Not true. Syrians are very highly educated. Very good public education and high average attainment.

    But Merkel was an idiot if she actually did recognize that Syrians were high potential workers yet did nothing re how to integrate them, most important, acquisition of German and jobs matching.

    Ben Groves September 24, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    The fact capitalism is a ponzi scheme is a key here. When the Aristocracy bowed to the Sephardic bankers, they created this mess. They were the same idiots that bowed to the Christians 1500+ years before.

    Maybe it is time for a new aristocracy. If you want to build internally, you have to abolish capitalism and its market based scam. That is why "right wingers" won't last without the Sephardic banks via market expansion. They run the scheme and always have. From their immigration into the Iberian trails during the 15th century, to their financing and eventual leadership into the protestant reformation, to the first capitalists scheme at Amsterdam to bribing William the Orange into taking it into old England.

    S M Tenneshaw September 24, 2016 at 11:28 pm

    You mean "Sephardic" as in Wells Fargo? Cracka, please.

    Jeff September 24, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    Let me see if I understand this:

    1. Most of the refugees arriving in Europe are Syrian. The US did not act to topple the Syrian dictator and did not create a new Syrian government. The United States is responsible for these refugees.

    2. A portion of the refugees are Libyan. At the urging of its European allies (not just the UK), the US helped topple the Libyan government, but has not created a new government. The US is responsible for these refugees.

    3. A portion of the refugees are from Iraq or Afghanistan. The US toppled the old governments and installed new ones. The US is responsible for these refugees.

    4. A significant portion of the refugees are from African countries including Nigeria and Eritrea. I assume that these aren't included in the statement above as they are not Middle Eastern.

    So, in other words – the US is responsible whether or not we intervene and whether or not we then attempt to set up a government? I wonder under what circumstances you would not view the US as responsible?

    I would suggest, that given the situation in the Middle East and the fact that the results are similar regardless of US actions something more basic is at work. Most of the nations of the Middle East and Africa were artificial creations of primarily Britain and France; they are nations derived neither from ethnic homogeneity nor the consent or shared history of the governed. Whatever, the United States did or does, they would ultimately have shattered in one way or another and refugees would have headed for Europe.

    knowbuddhau September 24, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    Nope, you don't. The US and its Gulf state "allies" are indeed trying to oust Assad and, if not set up, at least allow the creation of a Salafist regime.

    The US Road Map To Balkanize Syria

    By Pepe Escobar

    September 22, 2016 "Information Clearing House" – "RT" – Forget about those endless meetings between Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry; forget about Russia's drive to prevent chaos from reigning in Syria; forget about the possibility of a real ceasefire being implemented and respected by US jihad proxies.

    Forget about the Pentagon investigating what really happened around its bombing 'mistake' in Deir Ezzor.

    The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year.

    As you scroll down the document, you will find page 291, section C, which reads (in caps, originally):

    "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)".

    The DIA report is a formerly classified SECRET/NOFORN document, which made the rounds of virtually the whole alphabet soup of US intel, from CENTCOM to CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA and the State Department.

    It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka the Islamic State.

    It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State – remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra).

    It's as clear as it gets; a "Salafist principality" is to be encouraged as a means to Divide and Rule over a fragmented Syria in perpetual chaos. Whether it's established by Jabhat al-Nusra – aka "moderate rebels" in Beltway jargon – or al-Baghdadi's "Califake" is just a pesky detail.

    It gets curioser and curioser as Hasaka and Deir Ezzor are named in the DIA report – and directly targeted by the 'mistaken' Pentagon bombing. No wonder Pentagon chief Ash 'Empire of Whining' Carter took no prisoners to directly sabotage what Kerry had agreed on with Lavrov.

    No one will ever see these connections established by US corporate media – as in, for instance, the neocon cabal ruling the Washington Post's editorial pages. But the best of the blogosphere does not disappoint.

    The rest is just blame-shifting that conveniently let's the US off the hook.

    Nelson Lowhim September 25, 2016 at 5:07 am

    Thanks. Let's not forget the initial peace talks which the US helped to scuttle.

    Yves Smith Post author September 24, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    Have you not read any press in the last 5 years, or do you just make a habit of making shit up? The US has been trying to topple Assad for God only knows how long. What, for instance, do you think the desperate fig leaf of trying to claim that we are supporting non-existant "moderate Syrian rebels" is about?

    Noonan September 24, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    "the danger of this right wing group mostly in the form of parties which is by the way it gets its votes by being anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, and especially anti-Muslimism. That�'s their big call."

    Sounds like a winning platform to me.

    [Sep 26, 2016] It has been particularly infuriating to see the Chanel-suited Berkeley types be the ones to embrace imperial fascist war-making with such glee.

    Sep 26, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    HBE September 25, 2016 at 11:58 am

    Just watched Samantha Powers speak at the emergency UN security counsel meeting on Syria, how she managed to keep a straight face is completely beyond me.

    Basically Russia needs to take responsibility for its actions in Syria and the war would be over if those damn Russians would GTFO and quit disrupting the US and GCC regime change operations.

    It appears everything would be going swimmingly if Russia would just leave the "rebels" alone and let the US turn Syria into Libya, I mean is that so much to ask for? /S

    tgs September 25, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    The people Obama has chosen to represent him are almost all fanatics. Samantha Power and Ash Carter stand out as true psychopaths. Carter actually openly defied Obama on the Syria ceasefire.

    Robert Parry has an excellent piece out today on the rush to judgment about the attack on the humanitarian convoy.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL September 25, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    It has been particularly infuriating to see the Chanel-suited Berkeley types be the ones to embrace imperial fascist war-making with such glee.
    I happened to recognize Susan Rice travelling sans bodyguard with her girlfriend at the airport in Chiang Mai Thailand and had a delicious time giving her a full piece of my mind. Unedited truth to power with nowhere to hide, she reacted with a glaze that said "you are just an idiot peon" but I could see she was shaken.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Probe of leaked U.S. NSA hacking tools examines operatives mistake

    Notable quotes:
    "... A U.S. investigation into a leak of hacking tools used by the National Security Agency is focusing on a theory that one of its operatives carelessly left them available on a remote computer ..."
    "... The tools, which enable hackers to exploit software flaws in computer and communications systems from vendors such as Cisco Systems and Fortinet Inc, were dumped onto public websites last month by a group calling itself Shadow Brokers. ..."
    "... But officials heading the FBI-led investigation now discount both of those scenarios, the people said in separate interviews. NSA officials have told investigators that an employee or contractor made the mistake about three years ago during an operation that used the tools, the people said. ..."
    "... That person acknowledged the error shortly afterward, they said. But the NSA did not inform the companies of the danger when it first discovered the exposure of the tools, the sources said. Since the public release of the tools, the companies involved have issued patches in the systems to protect them. ..."
    "... Because the sensors did not detect foreign spies or criminals using the tools on U.S. or allied targets, the NSA did not feel obligated to immediately warn the U.S. manufacturers, an official and one other person familiar with the matter said. ..."
    Reuters
    A U.S. investigation into a leak of hacking tools used by the National Security Agency is focusing on a theory that one of its operatives carelessly left them available on a remote computer and Russian hackers found them, four people with direct knowledge of the probe told Reuters.

    The tools, which enable hackers to exploit software flaws in computer and communications systems from vendors such as Cisco Systems and Fortinet Inc, were dumped onto public websites last month by a group calling itself Shadow Brokers.

    The public release of the tools coincided with U.S. officials saying they had concluded that Russia or its proxies were responsible for hacking political party organizations in the run-up to the Nov. 8 presidential election. On Thursday, lawmakers accused Russia of being responsible

    ... ... ...

    But officials heading the FBI-led investigation now discount both of those scenarios, the people said in separate interviews. NSA officials have told investigators that an employee or contractor made the mistake about three years ago during an operation that used the tools, the people said.

    That person acknowledged the error shortly afterward, they said. But the NSA did not inform the companies of the danger when it first discovered the exposure of the tools, the sources said. Since the public release of the tools, the companies involved have issued patches in the systems to protect them.

    Investigators have not ruled out the possibility that the former NSA person, who has since departed the agency for other reasons, left the tools exposed deliberately. Another possibility, two of the sources said, is that more than one person at the headquarters or a remote location made similar mistakes or compounded each other's missteps.

    Representatives of the NSA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the office of the Director of National Intelligence all declined to comment.

    After the discovery, the NSA tuned its sensors to detect use of any of the tools by other parties, especially foreign adversaries with strong cyber espionage operations, such as China and Russia.

    That could have helped identify rival powers' hacking targets, potentially leading them to be defended better. It might also have allowed U.S officials to see deeper into rival hacking operations while enabling the NSA itself to continue using the tools for its own operations.

    Because the sensors did not detect foreign spies or criminals using the tools on U.S. or allied targets, the NSA did not feel obligated to immediately warn the U.S. manufacturers, an official and one other person familiar with the matter said.

    In this case, as in more commonplace discoveries of security flaws, U.S. officials weigh what intelligence they could gather by keeping the flaws secret against the risk to U.S. companies and individuals if adversaries find the same flaws.

    [Sep 26, 2016] Hug it out: Michelle Obama embraces George W Bush

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'Mission Accomplished' should be the name of the jail cells for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld convicted as war criminals. ..."
    Sep 26, 2016 | www.theguardian.com
    krissywilson87 PlumRadio , 2016-09-26 08:30:48
    I will never miss George Dubya Bush. It was truly scary to realise that the institutions of the US were so broken that a complete moron like that could become President because his daddy was. Then, just as Obama's election seemed to put things back on an even keel, here in Britain we elected Dave Cameron, an aristocratic ignoramus probably more out of touch with reality than Dubya ever was - and not a whole lot smarter.
    Chuck3 morbid , 2016-09-26 08:52:02
    Pretty straightforward unless you were an Iraqi with god knows how many tons of depleted uranium dropping on your children's heads. Or an innocent Afghan being tortured in one of the CIA's black sites.

    Bush is a war criminal who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

    He represents the worst of humanity and although Trump appears worse - we will have to wait to see what his legacy will be if he wins. As it stands Bush is the one who already has a disastrous and murderous legacy.

    WillKnotTell seedeevee , 2016-09-26 10:54:34
    "Obama has been at war longer than Bush."

    Considering he inherited the war Bubba Bush and Darth Bugsey Cheney started, you are correct. The fact they disbanded the Iraqi military, they provided skilled military leaders and troops to ISIL.

    Kentrel Jaydee23 , 2016-09-26 12:07:52
    That excuse is a bit hard to swallow 8 years later. Even Guantanamo Bay remains in use, as it ever was. As it turns out it was easier for Obama to provide weapons to rebel\terrorist groups in Libya and Syria than it was to give prisoners a fair trial under the American justice system and end torture. He's also cracked down on whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden in a way that Bush never did.
    1iJack , 2016-09-26 05:30:25
    Now get Hillary in there and the picture will be complete and could be titled...

    "the Globalists"

    Haytop , 2016-09-26 05:20:34
    war mongers converge?
    RedKrayola Joe Dert , 2016-09-26 06:44:56
    Bush signed agreement for a deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq. Obama tried to bully Iraq into disregarding that agreement. They refused. He then simply rechristened the troops 'advisors.' Obama never ended the war there, or anywhere. He's extended Bush's wars into several more countries throughout MENA.

    Please stop lying about Obama's record. He has pushed for never-ending, ever-expanding wars, and that's just what he's delivered.

    ponderwell RedKrayola , 2016-09-26 07:45:30
    The nightmare Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld & company left due to their manipulating lies and misinformation to ensure the USA bomb
    Iraq (thus destabilizing the ME) will
    at minimum bring a generation of leaders great misery.

    Each US leader will experiment with the
    possibilities to decrease terrorism, many more mistakes will be endured. No one seems to knows how to stop the hatred which underlies the destruction pledged
    by these sociopathic murderers.

    Gigi Trala La Joe Dert , 2016-09-26 08:25:25
    Obama promoted the same aggressive American policy as Bush, despite the early promise. Perhaps it makes little difference who is in power. To ignore the last 8 years of more bloodshed is a thing many round the world do not have the luxury you do.

    Eisenhower, more right as the years pass.

    seedeevee Joe Dert , 2016-09-26 09:42:04
    We call Obama a war monger because he has brought the American war effort to seven nations just this year. Brought war to Ukraine. Libya. Syria. Yemen. Honduras.

    Obama's Military is in over 150 nations on this planet.

    ETC.

    RedKrayola ponderwell , 2016-09-26 11:04:39
    Obama continue expanded the Bush/Cheney doctrine. He campaigned for office pledging to reverse it. He's now been president for nearly eight years; it's reasonable to hold him accountable for what he's done and stop pretending he bears no responsibility for what's happened under his watch as commander-in-chief.
    ponderwell RedKrayola , 2016-09-26 16:08:08
    Every leader including Obama carries the responsibility for their choices. Bush/Cheney
    violated and abused the trust of leaders and
    the public in many nations by misinforming,
    lying, and manipulative means to bomb
    a nation who had no dealings with the terrorism of 9/11. The USA is now in a war tangle in which every leader hence will be targeted negatively until the ME conflicts
    have no more US armed forces involved in the killings. Terrorism will plague many nations for the next generation at minimum.

    'Mission Accomplished' should be the name of the jail cells for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld convicted as war criminals.

    montevideo , 2016-09-26 21:27:57
    This picture kind of sums up why a whole load of people are voting Trump. Two apparently opposing politicians who ultimately led the US in the same self destructing direction. The illusion of democracy could never be clearer.
    James Lohe , 2016-09-26 12:54:13
    Bush 43 is arguably the most incompetent President ever. But no one would accuse him of being a bigot. Unlike Drumpf.
    Chuckman James Lohe , 2016-09-26 12:58:45
    Oh boy, do you lack history.

    Bush had a disgraceful record in every sphere.

    It would take too long to detail.

    Read a book, such as the one by the late Molly Ivins.

    backscratch Chuckman , 2016-09-26 13:41:33
    Afraid I would find it impossible to hug the president who with Blair has destabilised the Middle East for years to come...mind you the UK's history ain't so hot. Maybe I should stop going around hugging my fellow countrymen and women.
    OinkImSammy James Lohe , 2016-09-26 14:09:46
    I think they would because he was. The PNAC agenda did and does read like Mein Kampf.
    Chuckman , 2016-09-26 12:35:47
    Well, he's much like her husband, isn't he?

    Far more so than many think with superficial consideration.

    Both men did nothing for their people while spending unbelievable amounts of money on obscene mass killing abroad.

    They also share behaviors in the economic sphere. The 2008 Financial collapse happened under George Bush owing to a lack of adequate oversight of financial institutions and practices, a titanic financial equivalent to Bush's lackadaisical performance in New Orleans' Hurricane Katrina.

    The Obama response during eight years in office has been to avoid making any changes to correct the situation and prevent future occurrences, and he has done nothing but have vast quantities of money printed to keep the economy afloat.

    Chuckman Chuckman , 2016-09-26 12:55:10
    Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure. He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA
    Chuckman djkbrown2001 , 2016-09-26 12:50:21
    Bush was never even a President.

    He understood at least his own lack of ability after a lifetime spent as an asinine frat-boy who never did anything on his own.

    He had Cheney and Rumsfeld along deliberately because he knew they were ready to run things for him.

    His lack of effective intelligence and lack of drive to do anything should have meant that Bush never be president.

    But he had money, tons of it, and heavy-duty political connections, and the real power men like the ruthless Cheney had him lined up from the start as their front man.

    The one thing Bush proved was that America doesn't even need a President. Any pathetic figure can sign the documents placed before him and read the speeches written for him.

    The establishment, with immense resources at its disposal, is quite capable of keeping the public believing that the face on the television is actually in charge.

    Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure. He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA

    Tim Caulfield , 2016-09-26 11:45:44
    "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt-until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." (Gore Vidal - "The State of the Union", 1975)
    Aldous0rwell , 2016-09-26 11:41:46
    "W" had one of the BEST track records of placing PoC in truly significant positions. Condoleeza Rice. Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzalez, etc. Bush was in no way, shape or form a racist - so long as you were an Uncle Tom willing to sell out your fellow citizens, bomb the crap out of foreigners, and kiss the asses of the 1%.
    robinhood2013 , 2016-09-26 11:29:37
    I see Obama has vetoed the chance for relatives of the victims of 9/11 to take the Saudi government to court. Despicable man!
    hdmiin robinhood2013 , 2016-09-26 13:21:18
    Maybe he didn't want to set a precedent - the relatives of dead Iraqis have an even better case for taking the US government to court.
    trevorgoodchild2 , 2016-09-26 10:56:31
    She is hugging him because he is voting for Clinton. Just annother of his long list of errors in judgement.
    Isaac_Blunt , 2016-09-26 10:33:25
    I Liked Dubbya. I've missed his amiable gaffs.

    "The trouble with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur..."

    Chris Moody freepedestrian , 2016-09-26 11:12:44
    Like making Bush's tax cuts permanent. Obama has many great qualities, but a strong principled belief in equality is not one of them. He's a neo-liberal corporatist through and through -hence frantically trying to push TTP through before the election, now that Hillary was forced to say she's against it. I'm sure there was a private conversation there - 'That f-ing Bernie is making me say I'm against TTP -can you get it through before the election, we can't trust Trump on it'
    imperfetto , 2016-09-26 10:06:39
    Michelle Obama embrases the criminal whose administration is responsible ( although we know that the foreign policy in the US is not decided by the president but by the NSA, CIA and occult lobbies ) for the death of over 1.500.000 million people in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile the Guardian embraces the anti Russian propaganda by giving voice to the unpeakable lies about Russia's war crimes. Fortunately most media in the Continent (in France and Italy especially), are not follwing this dictats.
    ALLisVanity , 2016-09-26 09:27:01
    If the UN and the International Criminal Court were not mere tools of the US to punish anyone they don't like how on earth is this criminal not in jail? The only person that did worse than him is Hitler. He purposely lied to go into a war that destroyed thousands of innocent lives.
    Alan Jones , 2016-09-26 08:59:06
    I hope she washed her hands afterwards.
    SALSERO64 Alan Jones , 2016-09-26 09:22:17
    Why? They all are made of the same stuff.
    cvneuves , 2016-09-26 08:55:10
    I see, Bush (death toll 500,000+) and Obama (death toll 300,000+) are now closing ranks to avert Trump. Phew!!! This Trump guy must be really dangerous. I hope, our banks help finance an effective campaign against Trump!
    Ludek29 cvneuves , 2016-09-26 09:00:40
    Your Bush estimate is probably about 6 times lower its actual number.
    seedeevee Ludek29 , 2016-09-26 09:18:24
    and Obama has been at war longer. What a slacker!
    cvneuves Ludek29 , 2016-09-26 10:09:32
    John Tirman: Bush's War Dead: One Million , MIT, February 16, 2009.
    scss99 , 2016-09-26 08:33:42
    I think this is a good thing, Ronald Reagan used to have dinner with Tip O'Neill. As did many Republicans and Democrat presidents and senior members of Congress/Senate, that's stopped under Tom DeLay and Gingrich during the 90s when partisanship really took hold. It's been ugly ever since.

    Socializing with the opposition is good for a working relationship.

    Cessminster SickSwan , 2016-09-26 08:34:04
    Obama wasn't corrupted by office - operation Obama was planned well in advance. I would argue he was corrupted a long time ago. I see war criminal Bush Snr endorsed Clinton just last week - go figure. Not that I am a fan of Trump - far from it.

    Obama appeared out of nowhere and managed to scrape together the mega bucks to fund his campaign? Doesn't work like that - You don't currently get to be POTUS otherwise.

    AlfredHerring , 2016-09-26 08:08:53
    It seems like only 16 years ago that a bunch of Wall Street traders flew to Florida to stage a riot to stop the recount....and here's Obama and Bush looking forward to the election of the first President with her/his own hedge fund.....it brings tears to my eyes...
    domrice , 2016-09-26 08:06:40
    GW Bush refers to Hillary Clinton as his sister-in-law, now receives a hug from Michelle Obama. Further confirmation that the supposed political rivalry between the Reps and Wall St / TPP Dems is just noise.
    Christian Stevens , 2016-09-26 07:58:47
    The Obamas have become part of the firm. Anyone who has read vincent bugliosi book,The prosecution of George W BUsh for murder knows the last thing this guy needs is a hug. How can any of them be truly trusted
    MereMortal , 2016-09-26 07:34:22
    Politics is theater. They're all acting pretty much all the time, as politics is the art of managing perceptions.
    Everyone knows everyone. There is a front of house posturing and invective demanded by the job, and then the back of house, deals and horse-trading.
    Bill Clinton is a massive friend of both George Bushes and Donald Trump used be a good friend of the Clintons. But both the Clintons loathe Barack and Michelle Obama.
    So for me, the very worst picture was the one of Hillary being hugged by Barack during her stolen coronation.
    anonym101 , 2016-09-26 06:46:53
    Looks like the establishment is closing ranks. When was the last time the US had a real two party system and politicians were not controlled by Wall Street?

    [Sep 25, 2016] Thomas Ferguson on How Money Drives Congressional Elections by Lambert Strether

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Lambert Strether of Corrente ..."
    "... And while Clinton is far better funded than Trump, it's not at all clear that she's getting any kind of bang for the buck. Perhaps candidate quality is a wild card at the Presidential level. ..."
    "... The Dollary Clump Campaign is likely to screw up a lot of models, its already turned satire from a form of critique to a form of government reducing important propaganda organs to pathetic persiflage in the process. ..."
    "... Well, then could not one conclude that the Supreme Court was wrong in declaring money to be a form of protected speech? According to this study, money isn't speech, it is votes. ..."
    "... And if that is true, then the Supreme Courts rulings violate the "one man: one vote" principle. The number of votes a person has is now determined by his/her wealth and how much of it they are willing to buy an election with. ..."
    Sep 20, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Lambert Strether of Corrente

    This is important work by Ferguson and his colleagues, Paul Jorgensen, and Jie Chen, and especially relevant to the 2016 election. From the executive summary at iNet :

    Social scientists have stubbornly held that money and election outcomes are at most weakly linked. New research provides clear evidence to the contrary.

    Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, and Jie Chen reveal strikingly direct relations between money and major party votes in all U.S. elections for the Senate and House of Representatives from 1980 to 2014. Using a new and comprehensive dataset built from government sources, they find that the relationship between the proportions of money spent by the winning party and votes is close to a straight line.

    ( Here is the PDF of the full paper , How Money Drives US Congressional Elections, Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, and Jie Chen, Working Paper No. 48, August 1, 2016.) First, I'll look at the dataset. Then, I'll look at that "straight line" relation. Finally, I'll look at some of the political implications of Ferguson's work for thinking about 2016.

    The Dataset

    If you are a data person, and especially a big data person, Ferguson's project is thrilling. Most everyone will be familiar with the problem of determining whether "Mr. Bob Smith, 1234 Your St., Anytown USA" and "R. Smith, Yore Avenue, Anystate" are really the same person; there's a whole industry built up to work that stuff out because marketers (and debt collectors) need it. How much more complex when the names and addresses are entered by people with every incentive to conceal their identities! From the full paper (pp. 8-9):

    For this paper, the thornier data problems arise from the fragmentation of reporting sources and formats – whose chaotic realities are, we are sure, a major reason why progress has been so slow in understanding campaign finance. Because we have extensively discussed elsewhere the measures we have taken to overco me these problems, our discussion here will be summary.

    The guiding idea of our Political Money Project is to return to the raw data made available by the FEC and the IRS and create a single unified database containing all contributions in whatever form. This is a tall order, as anyone with any familiarity with our vastly different data sources will realize. In particular, FEC sources are sometimes jarringly inconsistent; many previous analysts do always appear to recognize the extent of the "flow of funds" anomalies in this data. And not all the IRS contributions are easily available in electronic form for all years.

    But our real work commences only once this stage is completed. At both the FEC and the IRS, standards for reporting names of both individual and corporate contributors are laughably weak. Both companies and individuals routinely take advantage of regulatory nonchalance about even arrant non-compliance. Along with an enormous number of obviously bad faith reports (such as presidential contributions listed as coming from individuals working at banks that were swallowed long ago by other giants) all sorts of naďve, good faith errors abound in spelling, consistent use of Jr., Sr., or Mr., Ms., and Mrs., along with many incomplete entries and hyphenated names. Many people, especially very wealthy contributors, legitimately have more 9 than one address and fail to consistently list their corporate affiliations ("retired" as a category of contributor is extensively abused; some people who chair giant c orporations claim the status).

    From the outset we recognized that solving this problem was indispensable to making reliable estimates of the concentration of political contributions. We adapted for our purposes programs of the type used by major hospital s and other institutions dealing with similar problems, adding many safeguards against tricks that no medical institution ever has to worry about; all the while checking and cross-checking our results, especially for large contributors. In big data efforts , there is never a point where such tasks can be regarded as unimpeachably finished. But we are certain that our data substantially improve over other sources on offer, including rosters of campaign contributions compiled by for-profit companies and all public sources.

    Because we can compare many reports filed by people who we recognize as really the same person, we are able to see through schemes, such as those encouraged by the Obama campaigns (especially in 2008)[1], that encourage individual contributors to break up contributions into what looks like many "small" donations. We are also able to fill in many entries for workplace affiliation left blank. By itself, these steps lead to a quantum leap in the number of contributions coming from the same enterprises. But we have also used business directories and data from the Securities and Exchange Commission to pin down the corporate affiliations of many other contributors, whose identifications, once established, are similarly extendible.

    Again, I can't stress enough how excellent and important this work is. And it's really hard to do!

    The "Straight Line" Relation

    Now let's jump straight to the conclusion ( full paper, page 10 ):

    Data compiled like this allows us to brush past artificial efforts to distinguish kinds of spending in Congressional races, such as "inside" vs. "outside" funds (that is, spent by candidate's own committee or by allegedly "independent" outside groups) or the spending of challengers or incumbents. Instead we simply pool all spending by and on behalf of candidates and then examine whether relative, not absolute, differences in total outlays are related to vote differentials.

    If conventional claims about the limited importance of political money are correct, then the individual data points – particular House or Senate election outcomes – should be scattered indifferently across the graph. Money just wouldn't predict voting outcomes very well. If on the other hand, money is strongly associated with votes received, then the fit would approximate a straight line. All kinds of intermediate cases, of course, can be imagined.

    And here are those straight lines:

    house_data

    (These table is an excellent example of the power of Tufte's "small multiples." Readers who are clever about statistics (and I am not) will have objected that Ferguson's methodology may not be able to tease out money as an effect from money as a cause, to which Ferguson et al. respond as follows:

    [T]here is one last redoubt in which skeptics can take refuge: the possibility that money and votes are reciprocally related. AsJac obson artfully frames the conundrum that protects this escape hatch: "Money may help win votes, but the expectation that a candidate can win votes also brings in money. To the degree that (expected) votes influence spending, ordinary measures will exaggera te the effects of spending on votes."

    Our response to this challenge consists of two parts. Firstly, at least one clear natural experiment exists, in which it is possible to say with reasonable certainty that a tidal wave of money helped produce a sho cking political upset that was anticipated by scarcely anyone: The famous 1994 election in which Newt Gingrich and a Golden Horde of donors stunned the world by seizing control of the House of Representatives for the Republicans for the first time since 1954 (and only the third time since 1932). Taking a leaf from recent studies in economics and finance of event analysis, we use published estimates of the change in the odds of a Republican takeover to rule out appeals to confident expectations of taking over the House as the explanation for the wave of money that drowned House Democrats that year.

    But 1994 is only one case, though admittedly a momentous one. We have not been able to locate usable odds compilations for other elections. In the hope of bypassing tedious debates over a host of less clear cut cases, we searched for more general approaches. We suspect that where politics and money is concerned, the search for good instruments is in most instances akin to hunting the Snark. A better approach is to search for estimation methods that do not require us to lean so heavily on thin reeds. This quest led us to the work of Peter Ebbes and his colleagues. Ebbes and his associates have developed latent instrumental variable (LIV) models into a practical working tool, where the instrument is unknown, and used them to attack a variety of problems.

    These methods are relatively new and, of course, like virtually all statistical tools, rely on assumptions for their validity, but the assumptions required do not appear any more farfetched than more conventional approaches to tackling the question. Irene Hueter's recent critical review is very helpful in clarifying important points. While critical on various secondary issues, she concludes that the method appears to be fundamentally sound and to work in practice: the solutions it gives to some classical econometric applications appear reasonable and in line with results using more traditional methods. We think it is time to try the approach on money and politics, particularly since we can crosscheck its findings with our results on 1994, obtained by the completely different approach now conventional in finance.

    Personally, I have to accept Ferguson's authority on this, but the Naked Capitalism commentariat being what it is, perhaps readers will be able to comment on the "latent instrumental variable" approach.

    The 2016 Election

    One more conclusion that Ferguson et al. draw is that yes, we do live in an oligarchy (although factional conflicts take place among oligarchs:

    We demonstrated, for example, that the 1% - defined quite carefully – dominated both major parties; at the same time, however, our results once again directly confirmed the huge differences in the extent to which specific sectors and blocs of firms within big business differentially support Democrats or Republicans. The results point up the futility of trying to underst and the dynamics of American politics without reference to investor coalitions and strongly support a broad investment approach to party competition. We showed that the case of the Tea Party was no different by tracking the rates of support for its candidates within business as a whole but, most importantly, within big business. Claims that major American businesses do not financially support Tea Party candidates are plainly false.

    I'm not sure whether Ferguson's results for House (and Senate) races translate directly to Presidential races. However, it would seem to me that at least in 2016, the relationship between money and electoral success has not been linear. After all, how much did George Bush blow? $270 million? And while Clinton is far better funded than Trump, it's not at all clear that she's getting any kind of bang for the buck. Perhaps candidate quality is a wild card at the Presidential level.

    NOTE

    [1] Well, well. I remember raising this issue in 2008, and being scoffed at. It would be interesting to know if the same techniques were used by the Trump campaign, which just came out with a small donors story, and, to be fair, whether they were used by Clinton or even Sanders.

    About Lambert Strether

    Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration 24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com

    diptherio , September 20, 2016 at 11:21 am

    The Clinton campaign's tactics to inflate the small donor numbers are apparently to just bill their small donors over and over again. Typical democrats: screw over your poorest supporters (in all fairness, Republicans are good at that trick too).

    http://www.kare11.com/news/investigations/kare-11-investigates-unauthorized-charges-by-clinton-campaign/229158541

    Ignacio , September 20, 2016 at 11:59 am

    I think it is rigthly arguable that the relation between money attracted and voting outcome can be reciprocally related. In the case that a candidate is seen as a potential winner, it can attract money that "wins" the rigth to be heared after the election. In other words, to make the candidate friendly to the interests that money represents. This is backed by the fact that the most powerful contributors finance both candidates (the two candidates that have real chance).

    Anycase, this study very much supports Greg Palast's book title. Money has a clear effect in election outcome, and almost certainly an even bigger effect on policy, after the election. Good job indeed!

    jsn , September 20, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    "And while Clinton is far better funded than Trump, it's not at all clear that she's getting any kind of bang for the buck. Perhaps candidate quality is a wild card at the Presidential level."

    The Dollary Clump Campaign is likely to screw up a lot of models, its already turned satire from a form of critique to a form of government reducing important propaganda organs to pathetic persiflage in the process.

    KYrocky , September 20, 2016 at 12:28 pm
    "One more conclusion that Ferguson et al. draw is that yes, we do live in an oligarchy"

    The sleuthing required for this effort is amazing, as anyone who has tried to research campaign spending knows, and Ferguson et al are to be highly commended for their effort to shine more daylight on the sordid side of American democracy.

    But about that oligarchy. Why not share that information? If the data has been aggregated to individuals and corporations can they be ranked and listed for the world to see? Can Ferguson et al at least share with us a glimpse of who is actually controlling the levers of power in our democracy as it sure isn't the people.

    Vatch , September 20, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    About a year ago, there was an article in the NY Times with a list of the 158 families who are supposedly donating the most to the Presidential campaign. This list has some major gaps, since the Koch family, the Walton family, and the (Sheldon) Adelson families are not on it. Also, it's in the NY Times, so if you don't want to use up your monthly allotment of articles, link to the article from an incognito or private browser.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/wealthy-families-presidential-candidates.html#donors-list

    There's also this web site by G. William Domhoff:

    http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/

    The 7th edition of his book Who Rules America? is available, and it has a list price of about $110.00. A loose leaf version can be had for a steal, only about $80.00.

    Kokuanani , September 20, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    so if you don't want to use up your monthly allotment of articles, link to the article from an incognito or private browser.

    Or go into your browser & clear the NYT cookies. This will reset your monthly "count" to zero.

    Robert Hahl , September 20, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    If you are not ignoring the New York Times, you are part of the problem.

    Vatch , September 20, 2016 at 5:30 pm

    I wanted to ignore them; I tried to ignore them! I remembered that there had been an article about 158 rich families, so I a web search. After looking at 6 or 7 articles, all of which were fairly short and just linked to the NY Times article, I declared victory, gave up, and looked at the NY Times article, which is the only place where I could find the actual list.

    Lambert Strether Post author , September 20, 2016 at 11:25 pm

    I actually meant to add that. It would be nice to have an API to the data, for example, even if it isn't all available as a CSV (and there could be lamentable but legitimate funding reasons for that).

    sgt_doom , September 20, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    Yes and no - sorry, but at this point in time it isn't really important, we all know Wall Street owns the government, we know where those crapweasels comes from at the Department of Treasury, and Justice, and State (we know that the CIA within the State Department, which the Kennedy brothers once attempted to eradicate, has been incredibly strengthened by Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state by her hiring all those former CIA types), etc., etc.

    We know this stuff already, and those of us concerned enough have read David Dayen's masterful book, Chain of Title , and realize that Covington & Burling's point man, Erick Holder, was appointed by Obama so the MERS criminal conspiracy wouldn't be uncovered and the banksters wouldn't be criminally prosecuted as they should all be!

    Old news, chum, sorry . . . .

    Lambert Strether Post author , September 21, 2016 at 1:53 am

    It's not news, "chum," it's an academic study.

    The part that I didn't look at - and I need to look at more of Ferguson work - is how he uses aggregations of funders to outline elite factional conflict (otherwise obscured by the "bad" record keeping) in the donor class, i.e. the 1%. That's very useful, pragmatically.

    DR , September 20, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    re: "I'm not sure whether Ferguson's results for House (and Senate) races translate directly to Presidential races. However, it would seem to me that at least in 2016, the relationship between money and electoral success has not been linear. After all, how much did George Bush blow? $270 million? And while Clinton is far better funded than Trump, it's not at all clear that she's getting any kind of bang for the buck."

    Spending levels and Presidential campaigns often do NOT correlate directly for a simple reason: Presidential elections are one of the few political contests in which "free media," i.e., coverage in the news media, TV, blog commentary, Twitter, etc, compensates and often overwhelms the advertising and organizational effects of the campaigns themselves. Thus, Trump has so far received news media coverage worth at least a billion dollars in paid advertising. Further, Jeb, Trump, Clinton are known commodities to the general public. Bernie was an interesting phenomenon. In the end, of course, his fundraising was quite respectable. But in the beginning he benefited from another factor. There was a large latent pro-change anti-Clinton constituency in the Democratic Party hungry for a hero. Presidential primary campaigns are long. There was time for the news to get out and word to spread.

    Once the latent anti-Clintonites realized they had a candidate, they gravitated to him, which generated more attention and more money Finally, there are always exceptions in any data set. Over the years there are numerous examples of Congressional candidates defeating better funded opponents, especially in primaries, where turnout is small. Such exceptions do NOT disprove the general rule. It has always been a rule of thumb among practicing political professionals that the bigger your candidate's funding advantage, the better your chances on election day. Ferguson has proved what common sense and practical experience tell us.

    Lambert Strether Post author , September 21, 2016 at 1:55 am

    Ferguson says explicitly that the linear correlation in Senate races is choppier (I forget the exact term of art) and one reason is media. So that makes sense.

    And makes independent media all the more important

    Steve Ruis , September 21, 2016 at 8:32 am

    Well, then could not one conclude that the Supreme Court was wrong in declaring money to be a form of protected speech? According to this study, money isn't speech, it is votes.

    And if that is true, then the Supreme Courts rulings violate the "one man: one vote" principle. The number of votes a person has is now determined by his/her wealth and how much of it they are willing to buy an election with.

    [Sep 25, 2016] The Divided States of America

    Like the USSR the USA has one party system. This guy does not understand that both part are wings of single Neoliberal Party of the USA. Differences are rather superficial. Democrats are better in fooling minorities and low income voters.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Perhaps we need to rethink our electoral model of winner-take-all elections, and particularly of single-member House districts - a model that reinforces, rather than cuts against, this growing geographic polarization, and one that makes it harder for parties to reflect their internal diversity. ..."
    "... Well, let's see, both parties have been playing the social issue, divide and conquer game for decades. Throw in Citizens United, which has... ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    ...Most large cities, college towns, the Northeast and the West Coast are deep-blue Democratic. Ruby-red Republican strongholds take up most of the South, the Great Plains, the Mountain States and the suburban and rural areas in between. Rather than compete directly against each other, both parties increasingly occupy their separate territories, with diminishing overlap and disappearing common accountability. They hear from very different constituents, with very different priorities.

    ... The House, the supposed "people's chamber," is a sea of noncompetition. Out of 435 seats up for election this year, just 25 are considered tossups by The Cook Political Report . In 2014, 82 percent of House races were decided by at least 15 percentage points, including 17 percent that were not contested by one of the two major parties.

    The Senate is only slightly better. A mere six seats out of 34 up for election are considered genuine tossups by Cook's assessment (Florida, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Pennsylvania), while five are in the "lean" category.

    The presidential candidates are also ignoring most of the country, instead focusing on the handful of swing states that always seem to take on outsize importance. In the 2012 presidential election , only four states were decided by five or fewer percentage points, and the median state-level margin of victory was a whopping 16.9 percent (in other words, not even close). Compare that with the 1976 presidential election , when 20 states were decided by five or fewer percentage points (and 31 were decided by eight percentage points or fewer), and the median state-level margin of victory was 5.9 percent.

    ...

    While gerrymandering may explain some of the noncompetitiveness of House races, it can't explain the Senate or the Electoral College. No amount of nonpartisan redistricting can overcome the fundamental disconnect between place-based, winner-take-all elections and polarized, geographically separated parties.

    Competition is even rarer these days in state legislatures, where 43 percent of candidates did not face a major party opponent in 2014, and fewer than one in 20 races was decided by five percentage points or less. That made 2014 one of the most uncompetitive state-election years in decades.

    These patterns are likely to continue: The current partisan geography is a natural political alignment. Around the world , urban areas tend to be left-leaning and cosmopolitan; rural and suburban areas tend to be conservative and populist.

    ... ... ...

    As the parties became more homogeneous, rank-and-file members began to cede more authority to their leaders to enforce party discipline within Congress, especially in the House. Particularly after the watershed election of 1994, when many longtime conservative Democratic seats turned into relatively safe Republican seats, a new generation of conservative lawmakers and a newly assertive party leadership exerted a hard-right pull on the Republican Party. That election also bled the Democratic Party of many of its conservatives, shifting its caucus to the left. The election of 2010 was the culmination of the decades-long undoing of the New Deal coalition, sweeping away the few remaining Southern conservative Democrats.

    Moreover, as more of the country became one-party territory, the opposing party in these places grasped the improbability of winning and so had little incentive to invest in mobilization and party building. This lack of investment further depleted a potential bench of future candidates and made future electoral competitions less and less likely.

    These trends have been especially bad news for congressional Democrats, whose supporters are both more densely concentrated into urban areas (giving them fewer House seats) and less likely to vote in nonpresidential years (when most elections for governor are held, robbing the party of prominent state leaders). Since Republicans hold more relatively safe House seats, Democrats might benefit from occasional wave elections when the Republican brand has been significantly weakened (e.g., 2006 and 2008). But given the underlying dynamics, such elections are far more likely to be aberrations than long-lasting realignments.

    An optimistic view of a future devoid of much electoral competition is that it saves members of Congress from having to constantly worry about re-election, which critics have argued pushes members toward short-term, parochial lawmaking. Perhaps all these safe seats can finally free up members to think beyond the next electoral cycle, and become genuine statesmen again..

    ... ... ...

    By contrast, Congress was probably at its most fluid and productive during the periods of highest two-party competition, from the 1960s through the 1980s. This was partly because competition kept turnover steady enough that it brought in a relatively even flow of new members with new ideas. It also encouraged members to cut deals to bring home earmarks that would help them get elected.

    Members don't do these things anymore because they don't have to. Whatever bipartisan bonhomie that once existed in Washington was a consequence of these underlying electoral conditions. Trying to re-establish that good will without fixing the underlying causes is like building a bridge across a river without foundations to ground the towers.Certainly, there are some signs that we may have already hit the nadir of electoral non-competition. In presidential polling , for example, blue states are looking a little less blue this year than in past years, and red states are looking a little less red. Split-ticket voting will likely be up this year as well. If the Republican Party truly becomes the party of Donald J. Trump (and there is good reason to think it will), and Democrats continue to court moderate pro-business Republicans alienated by Mr. Trump while giving up on nostalgia-minded white working-class voters ( also likely ), this may make some states and congressional districts more competitive. Changing demographics, especially in places with rising immigrant populations, may also change the dynamics of competition. There are also some signs that divisions within the parties are coming to undermine longstanding party unity, creating potential for new crosscutting alliances in ways that are likely to reduce polarization .

    But we have a long way to go. These nascent trends could use a boost. Perhaps we need to rethink our electoral model of winner-take-all elections, and particularly of single-member House districts - a model that reinforces, rather than cuts against, this growing geographic polarization, and one that makes it harder for parties to reflect their internal diversity.

    The single-member, winner-take-all elections we use are a relative rarity among advanced democracies. They are not mandated by the Constitution, which lets states decide how to elect their representatives. In fact, many states originally used multimember districts . Returning to this approach would make it far easier to draw competitive districts that mix urban and rural areas. It would make it easier for different wings in both parties to send members to Congress, creating more diversity within the parties. It might also allow some smaller, regional parties to emerge, since multimember allow candidates to win with far less than majority support. These developments would increase the possibilities for deal-making in Congress. The FairVote proposal of multimember districts with ranked choice voting seems especially promising on this front.

    But the first step in electoral reform is recognizing that this country has a problem. For decades, we had reasonably robust electoral competition, so there was little obvious reason to worry about our electoral system. But that era is over.

    Nick Metrowsky

    Well, let's see, both parties have been playing the social issue, divide and conquer game for decades. Throw in Citizens United, which has...

    ttrumbo

    We're the most economically divided industrial country; so that's who we are. We've let the favored few gain so much wealth and power that...

    BirdL

    The related implications for one-party states, especially deep red ones, is that policy making is way too "easy," with little deliberation...

    [Sep 25, 2016] The Divided States of America

    Like the USSR the USA has one party system. This guy does not understand that both part are wings of single Neoliberal Party of the USA. Differences are rather superficial. Democrats are better in fooling minorities and low income voters.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Perhaps we need to rethink our electoral model of winner-take-all elections, and particularly of single-member House districts - a model that reinforces, rather than cuts against, this growing geographic polarization, and one that makes it harder for parties to reflect their internal diversity. ..."
    "... Well, let's see, both parties have been playing the social issue, divide and conquer game for decades. Throw in Citizens United, which has... ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    ...Most large cities, college towns, the Northeast and the West Coast are deep-blue Democratic. Ruby-red Republican strongholds take up most of the South, the Great Plains, the Mountain States and the suburban and rural areas in between. Rather than compete directly against each other, both parties increasingly occupy their separate territories, with diminishing overlap and disappearing common accountability. They hear from very different constituents, with very different priorities.

    ... The House, the supposed "people's chamber," is a sea of noncompetition. Out of 435 seats up for election this year, just 25 are considered tossups by The Cook Political Report . In 2014, 82 percent of House races were decided by at least 15 percentage points, including 17 percent that were not contested by one of the two major parties.

    The Senate is only slightly better. A mere six seats out of 34 up for election are considered genuine tossups by Cook's assessment (Florida, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Pennsylvania), while five are in the "lean" category.

    The presidential candidates are also ignoring most of the country, instead focusing on the handful of swing states that always seem to take on outsize importance. In the 2012 presidential election , only four states were decided by five or fewer percentage points, and the median state-level margin of victory was a whopping 16.9 percent (in other words, not even close). Compare that with the 1976 presidential election , when 20 states were decided by five or fewer percentage points (and 31 were decided by eight percentage points or fewer), and the median state-level margin of victory was 5.9 percent.

    ...

    While gerrymandering may explain some of the noncompetitiveness of House races, it can't explain the Senate or the Electoral College. No amount of nonpartisan redistricting can overcome the fundamental disconnect between place-based, winner-take-all elections and polarized, geographically separated parties.

    Competition is even rarer these days in state legislatures, where 43 percent of candidates did not face a major party opponent in 2014, and fewer than one in 20 races was decided by five percentage points or less. That made 2014 one of the most uncompetitive state-election years in decades.

    These patterns are likely to continue: The current partisan geography is a natural political alignment. Around the world , urban areas tend to be left-leaning and cosmopolitan; rural and suburban areas tend to be conservative and populist.

    ... ... ...

    As the parties became more homogeneous, rank-and-file members began to cede more authority to their leaders to enforce party discipline within Congress, especially in the House. Particularly after the watershed election of 1994, when many longtime conservative Democratic seats turned into relatively safe Republican seats, a new generation of conservative lawmakers and a newly assertive party leadership exerted a hard-right pull on the Republican Party. That election also bled the Democratic Party of many of its conservatives, shifting its caucus to the left. The election of 2010 was the culmination of the decades-long undoing of the New Deal coalition, sweeping away the few remaining Southern conservative Democrats.

    Moreover, as more of the country became one-party territory, the opposing party in these places grasped the improbability of winning and so had little incentive to invest in mobilization and party building. This lack of investment further depleted a potential bench of future candidates and made future electoral competitions less and less likely.

    These trends have been especially bad news for congressional Democrats, whose supporters are both more densely concentrated into urban areas (giving them fewer House seats) and less likely to vote in nonpresidential years (when most elections for governor are held, robbing the party of prominent state leaders). Since Republicans hold more relatively safe House seats, Democrats might benefit from occasional wave elections when the Republican brand has been significantly weakened (e.g., 2006 and 2008). But given the underlying dynamics, such elections are far more likely to be aberrations than long-lasting realignments.

    An optimistic view of a future devoid of much electoral competition is that it saves members of Congress from having to constantly worry about re-election, which critics have argued pushes members toward short-term, parochial lawmaking. Perhaps all these safe seats can finally free up members to think beyond the next electoral cycle, and become genuine statesmen again..

    ... ... ...

    By contrast, Congress was probably at its most fluid and productive during the periods of highest two-party competition, from the 1960s through the 1980s. This was partly because competition kept turnover steady enough that it brought in a relatively even flow of new members with new ideas. It also encouraged members to cut deals to bring home earmarks that would help them get elected.

    Members don't do these things anymore because they don't have to. Whatever bipartisan bonhomie that once existed in Washington was a consequence of these underlying electoral conditions. Trying to re-establish that good will without fixing the underlying causes is like building a bridge across a river without foundations to ground the towers.Certainly, there are some signs that we may have already hit the nadir of electoral non-competition. In presidential polling , for example, blue states are looking a little less blue this year than in past years, and red states are looking a little less red. Split-ticket voting will likely be up this year as well. If the Republican Party truly becomes the party of Donald J. Trump (and there is good reason to think it will), and Democrats continue to court moderate pro-business Republicans alienated by Mr. Trump while giving up on nostalgia-minded white working-class voters ( also likely ), this may make some states and congressional districts more competitive. Changing demographics, especially in places with rising immigrant populations, may also change the dynamics of competition. There are also some signs that divisions within the parties are coming to undermine longstanding party unity, creating potential for new crosscutting alliances in ways that are likely to reduce polarization .

    But we have a long way to go. These nascent trends could use a boost. Perhaps we need to rethink our electoral model of winner-take-all elections, and particularly of single-member House districts - a model that reinforces, rather than cuts against, this growing geographic polarization, and one that makes it harder for parties to reflect their internal diversity.

    The single-member, winner-take-all elections we use are a relative rarity among advanced democracies. They are not mandated by the Constitution, which lets states decide how to elect their representatives. In fact, many states originally used multimember districts . Returning to this approach would make it far easier to draw competitive districts that mix urban and rural areas. It would make it easier for different wings in both parties to send members to Congress, creating more diversity within the parties. It might also allow some smaller, regional parties to emerge, since multimember allow candidates to win with far less than majority support. These developments would increase the possibilities for deal-making in Congress. The FairVote proposal of multimember districts with ranked choice voting seems especially promising on this front.

    But the first step in electoral reform is recognizing that this country has a problem. For decades, we had reasonably robust electoral competition, so there was little obvious reason to worry about our electoral system. But that era is over.

    Nick Metrowsky

    Well, let's see, both parties have been playing the social issue, divide and conquer game for decades. Throw in Citizens United, which has...

    ttrumbo

    We're the most economically divided industrial country; so that's who we are. We've let the favored few gain so much wealth and power that...

    BirdL

    The related implications for one-party states, especially deep red ones, is that policy making is way too "easy," with little deliberation...

    [Sep 24, 2016] Hillary Emailgate How One Twitter User Proved The Intent That The FBI Missed After Months Investigating

    Sep 24, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Zero Hedge

    Earlier this week, a twitter user named " Katica " seemingly proved the "intent" of the Hillary campaign to destroy and/or tamper with federal records by revealing the Reddit thread of Paul Combetta (aka the "Oh Shit" guy; aka "stonetear"). But what's most crazy about this story is that "Katica" was able to discover the greatest "bombshell" of the entire Hillary email scandal with just a couple of internet searches while the FBI, with unlimited access to government records, spent months "investigating" this case and missed it all . The only question now is whether the FBI "missed" this evidence because of gross incompetence or because of other motivating factors ?

    Now, courtesy of an opinion piece posted on The Daily Caller , we know exactly how "Katica" pieced her "bombshell" discovery together... the folks at the FBI may want to take some notes.

    Per the twitter discussion below with @RepStevenSmith , "Katica" discovered Combetta's Reddit thread on September 16th. But while she suspected that Paul Combetta and the Reddit user known as "stonetear" were, in fact, the same person, she had to prove it...

    [Sep 24, 2016] 9-11 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover-Up Wide Open

    Impressive interview
    Notable quotes:
    "... That guy knows what he's talking about. It's about time someone came forward with what may be true according to what he saw and knows. ..."
    YouTube

    Infowars reporter Lee Ann McAdoo talks to Rudy Dent, 32 year veteran of NYC fire department and the NYPD, about his incredible first hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7.

    Jeanne O'Mara 13 hours ago

    This retired fireman feels that it was a a controlled demolition. He has never heard of a high rise being brought down by a fire. There were other bldgs that were hit by debris from the burning towers. He was also suspicious that all the evidence from WTC 7 was taken away and sent to china.

    The crime scene should have protected but wasn't. He believe as many now do that t was a "false Flag" operation to get people all riled up so they could get into react. He saw molten LAVA like pockets of steel which is like what you see when a volcano explodes. It's called pyroclastic flow. Thermite, a very special explosive was found and it can only be made a very specialized labs like Los Alamos.

    The bush family has a very creepy history. Prescott Bush had holdings in a bank that funded the Nazis (Union Bank). It was seized by the CONGRESS. The Harrimans were also involved w this bank.

    It's also clear that Bush Sr had a role in JFK's assassination. JFK had asked A. Harriman to negotiate w Vietnam and Harriman cross out that part. This was treason.

    lora savage 1 week ago

    That guy knows what he's talking about. It's about time someone came forward with what may be true according to what he saw and knows.

    [Sep 24, 2016] 9 11 John Kerry admits that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition!

    www.youtube.com
    al murphy 1 year ago
    9/11 is a cover-up and World Trade Center 7 collapse is the smoking gun. Why is that so?? WTC-7 fully collapsed in a manner that resembles a controlled demolition. For 2.25 seconds it collapsed at freefall and National Institute of Standards and Technology now admits this. In order for it to freefall for 2.25 seconds you need a uniform gap of approx. 80ft free of any physical impediments (equivalent of blowing out 7 floors almost instantaneously).

    Fire is not magic and cannot do that and only can be precisely done through human intervention. It takes the prepositioning of demolition components that are finely timed throughout the building to accomplish this. WTC-7 had GOV agencies as part of its tenant (US Secret Service, CIA, IRS, DOD...) With tenants like that it is impossible for an outsider to get access to the building to preposition demolition components. Whoever did had to have their consent!

    [Sep 24, 2016] Obama, Our Peace President Turns Out to Be Rather War-Happy

    Notable quotes:
    "... That Makes Me Mad!, ..."
    "... You must be kidding! ..."
    "... You must be kidding! ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... You must be kidding! ..."
    "... You must be kidding! ..."
    "... You must be kidding! ..."
    "... Thanks for writing this article; it corroborates everything I've been saying about Obama's lust for war and destabilization. You could have mentioned the Pentagon currently has JSOC kill teams in 147 countries, per Noam Chomsky. You also could have mentioned the US is the most feared force on the global stage, feared, that is, by actual citizens, not so much by their leaders. ..."
    "... Years ago Glen Ford of "Black Agenda Report" correctly referred to this shameless sellout as "the more effective evil". The implication was that the perception created by his propagandists that Obama is a committed Democrat who is just trying to do his best against a obstructionist Congress and right-wing media is false. ..."
    "... Barry the Liar is an enthusiastic member of the MIC, Wall Street, and the oligarchs. He has actually expanded the powers of the President and the National Security State that we live in and even claims the right to kill an American citizen without trial! When George Carlin said - "I don't believe anything my government tells me" he could have been talking about this shill for the TPB. ..."
    "... Yes, why isn't anyone in the mass media picking up on this obvious hypocrisy? For the same reasons it never picks up on anything else of importance - it's controlled. ..."
    "... Obama has been one of the most hypocritical presidents ever elected. ..."
    "... Obama got his start in politics with money from the family that owns Grumman, and he's been dancing to their tune ever since. ..."
    "... Obama sold out on the left. In reality, he was paid from day one to do exactly that. He was literally the ultimate snake oil salesman. Campaign on a platform of change and govern like Bush won 2 more terms. ..."
    "... If Obama is the best the Democrats can come up with, then it is high time the left en masse left the Democratic Party. It's one big reason why I cannot support Clinton, who will be even more pro-war. It's a vote for more of the same. ..."
    "... And, Hillary Clump was the biggest war monger in his misadministration. As for the nukes, I recently drove by a minuteman nuclear missile silo in Wyoming, you can see the damn thing right there by the road. ..."
    Sep 23, 2016 | www.alternet.org/TomDispatch

    Recently, sorting through a pile of old children's books, I came across a volume, That Makes Me Mad!, which brought back memories. Written by Steve Kroll, a long-dead friend, it focused on the eternally frustrating everyday adventures of Nina, a little girl whose life regularly meets commonplace roadblocks, at which point she always says... well, you can guess from the title! Vivid parental memories of another age instantly flooded back-of my daughter (now reading such books to her own son) sitting beside me at age five and hitting that repeated line with such mind-blowing, ear-crushing gusto that you knew it spoke to the everyday frustrations of her life, to what made her mad.

    Three decades later, in an almost unimaginably different America, on picking up that book I suddenly realized that, whenever I follow the news online, on TV, or-and forgive me for this but I'm 72 and still trapped in another era-on paper, I have a similarly Nina-esque urge. Only the line I've come up with for it is (with a tip of the hat to Steve Kroll) " You must be kidding! "

    Here are a few recent examples from the world of American-style war and peace. Consider these as random illustrations, given that, in the age of Trump, just about everything that happens is out-of-this-world absurd and would serve perfectly well. If you're in the mood, feel free to shout out that line with me as we go.

    Nuking the Planet: I'm sure you remember Barack Obama, the guy who entered the Oval Office pledging to work toward "a nuclear-free world." You know, the president who traveled to Prague in 2009 to say stirringly : "So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons... To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same." That same year, he was awarded the Nobel Prize largely for what he might still do, particularly in the nuclear realm. Of course, that was all so 2009!

    Almost two terms in the Oval Office later, our peace president, the only one who has ever called for nuclear "abolition"-and whose administration has retired fewer weapons in our nuclear arsenal than any other in the post-Cold War era-is now presiding over the early stages of a trillion-dollar modernization of that very arsenal. (And that trillion-dollar price tag comes, of course, before the inevitable cost overruns even begin.) It includes full-scale work on the creation of a "precision-guided" nuclear weapon with a "dial-back" lower yield option. Such a weapon would potentially bring nukes to the battlefield in a first-use way, something the U.S. is proudly pioneering .

    And that brings me to the September 6th front-page story in the New York Times that caught my eye. Think of it as the icing on the Obama era nuclear cake. Its headline : "Obama Unlikely to Vow No First Use of Nuclear Weapons." Admittedly, if made, such a vow could be reversed by any future president. Still, reportedly for fear that a pledge not to initiate a nuclear war would "undermine allies and embolden Russia and China... while Russia is running practice bombing runs over Europe and China is expanding its reach in the South China Sea," the president has backed down on issuing such a vow. In translation: the only country that has ever used such weaponry will remain on the record as ready and willing to do so again without nuclear provocation, an act that, it is now believed in Washington, would create a calmer planet.

    You must be kidding!

    Plain Old Bombing: Recall that in October 2001, when the Bush administration launched its invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. was bombing no other largely Islamic country. In fact, it was bombing no other country at all. Afghanistan was quickly "liberated," the Taliban crushed, al-Qaeda put to flight, and that was that , or so it then seemed.

    On September 8th, almost 15 years later, the Washington Post reported that, over a single weekend and in a "flurry" of activity, the U.S. had dropped bombs on, or fired missiles at, six largely Islamic countries: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. (And it might have been seven if the CIA hadn't grown a little rusty when it comes to the drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal borderlands that it's launched repeatedly throughout these years.) In the same spirit, the president who swore he would end the U.S. war in Iraq and, by the time he left office, do the same in Afghanistan, is now overseeing American bombing campaigns in Iraq and Syria which are loosing close to 25,000 weapons a year on those countries. Only recently, in order to facilitate the further prosecution of the longest war in our history, the president who announced that his country had ended its "combat mission" in Afghanistan in 2014, has once again deployed the U.S. military in a combat role and has done the same with the U.S. Air Force . For that, B-52s (of Vietnam infamy) were returned to action there, as well as in Iraq and Syria , after a decade of retirement. In the Pentagon, military figures are now talking about " generational " war in Afghanistan-well into the 2020s.

    Meanwhile, President Obama has personally helped pioneer a new form of warfare that will not long remain a largely American possession. It involves missile-armed drones, high-tech weapons that promise a world of no-casualty-conflict (for the American military and the CIA), and adds up to a permanent global killing machine for taking out terror leaders, "lieutenants," and "militants." Well beyond official American war zones, U.S. drones regularly cross borders, infringing on national sovereignty throughout the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa, to assassinate anyone the president and his colleagues decide needs to die, American citizen or otherwise (plus, of course, anyone who happens to be in the vicinity ). With its White House "kill list" and its "terror Tuesday" meetings, the drone program, promising "surgical" hunting-and-killing action, has blurred the line between war and peace, while being normalized in these years. A president is now not just commander-in-chief but assassin-in-chief , a role that no imaginable future president is likely to reject. Assassination, previously an illegal act, has become the heart and soul of Washington's way of life and of a way of war that only seems to spread conflict further.

    You must be kidding!

    The Well-Oiled Machinery of Privatized War: And speaking of drones, as the New York Times reported on September 5th, the U.S. drone program does have one problem: a lack of pilots. It has ramped up quickly in these years and, in the process, the pressures on its pilots and other personnel have only grown, including post-traumatic stress over killing civilians thousands of miles away via computer screen. As a result, the Air Force has been losing those pilots fast. Fortunately, a solution is on the horizon. That service has begun filling its pilot gap by going the route of the rest of the military in these years-turning to private contractors for help. Such pilots and other personnel are, however, paid higher salaries and cost more money. The contractors, in turn, have been hiring the only available personnel around, the ones trained by... yep, you guessed it, the Air Force. The result may be an even greater drain on Air Force drone pilots eager for increased pay for grim work and... well, I think you can see just how the well-oiled machinery of privatized war is likely to work here and who's going to pay for it.

    You must be kidding!

    Selling Arms As If There Were No Tomorrow: In a recent report for the Center for International Policy, arms expert William Hartung offered a stunning figure on U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia. "Since taking office in January 2009," he wrote , "the Obama administration has offered over $115 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia in 42 separate deals, more than any U.S. administration in the history of the U.S.-Saudi relationship. The majority of this equipment is still in the pipeline, and could tie the United States to the Saudi military for years to come." Think about that for a moment: $115 billion for everything from small arms to tanks, combat aircraft, cluster bombs , and air-to-ground missiles (weaponry now being used to slaughter civilians in neighboring Yemen).

    Of course, how else can the U.S. keep its near monopoly on the global arms trade and ensure that two sets of products-Hollywood movies and U.S. weaponry-will dominate the world's business in things that go boom in the night? It's a record to be proud of, especially since putting every advanced weapon imaginable in the hands of the Saudis will obviously help bring peace to a roiled region of the planet. (And if you arm the Saudis, you better do no less for the Israelis, hence the mind-boggling $38 billion in military aid the Obama administration recently signed on to for the next decade, the most Washington has ever offered any country, ensuring that arms will be flying into the Middle East, literally and figuratively, for years to come.)

    Blessed indeed are the peacemakers-and of course you know that by "peacemaker" I mean the classic revolver that "won the West."

    Put another way...

    You must be kidding!

    .... .... ....

    Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture . He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com . His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World .
    Selected commnets (117 COMMENTS)
    Papachuck111 2 hours ago
    I've spelled his name "Obomba" after his second year in office. Bush had "Shock and Awe"... Obomba has "Stealth and Wealth"... The American economy has been a WAR ECONOMY for a long time. But hey, we're freeeeeeeeee… freedom isn't free, and all that other bullshit.
    RadioUranus 2 hours ago
    It's been all downhill since "Brer Rabbit" Bush got into it with the Middle East "tar baby."
    Palimpsestuous 2 hours ago
    Aw shucks, Tom, you been reading my posts? Thanks for writing this article; it corroborates everything I've been saying about Obama's lust for war and destabilization. You could have mentioned the Pentagon currently has JSOC kill teams in 147 countries, per Noam Chomsky. You also could have mentioned the US is the most feared force on the global stage, feared, that is, by actual citizens, not so much by their leaders.

    President Obama's 58% approval tells me the American public are largely bloodthirsty savages led by a psychopath in pursuit of global tyranny. Either that, or 58% of Americans would rather play Goldilocks and the Three Bears with their political attention than accept responsibility for their part in destroying human civilization.

    "Thanks. I'll take the tall, smiling psychopath, second from the right. He looks presidential."

    The end of our democracy coincides with the end of our being an informed public. Who could have ever anticipated such a coincidence, but everyone with a passing awareness of history.

    southvalley Palimpsestuous an hour ago
    Nah, the American people have really no idea what's going on as we try to survive this BS. Most still think we actually have a Constitution. Remember, we wanted an "outsider" in '08 too a new face and he turned out to be silly putty in they're hands. Oh, I just heard Jennifer Flowers is coming to the debates to support Trump. Wonder how much they paid that POS liar
    Bill 2 hours ago
    No one who has the common sense to say he'll work for a nuclear weapons-free world changes his mind. He either never meant what he said, or he's been compromised by those who control all things political and otherwise in this country. I'm betting on the latter.
    Palimpsestuous Bill 2 hours ago
    I'll take that bet, even if there's no way to verify who wins. I think Obama's been a duplicitous scumbag from the get go. He's demonstrated a consistently strong dedication to fucking the public while protecting the professional class of mobsters in suits.

    And I voted for this asshole, twice. Options, options. Are there any options?

    AC3 3 hours ago
    These types of articles are why I used to value AlterNet as a source of information. Thank you - it was informative and had a human touch. Your overt trying to manipulate and sway an election with bias overload is tiresome. The HRC/3rd party candidate blackout and 24/7 turbo train of anti-Trump is insulting our intelligence and not effective. You're preaching to the choir, we get it, Trump is psycho, but so is Clinton in her own awful & well established way - just like Obama was, and Bush before that, and Clinton before him, and Bush before... If you want to be 'Alter'native, tell the truth about ALL the candidates and report on the machinations behind the Plutocracy + how we can create an alternative is helpful, enough with the Huffpo-Salon DNC propaganda headquarters.

    kyushuphil AC3 2 hours ago

    America pushes war on the world through its materialism hegemon.

    It's a long-running, vicious war. Tens of millions alone forced from their traditional cultures in Asia, Africa, and Latin America -- simply by a heavily-subsidized U.S. Industrial Ag which underprices commodity crops and kills those local cultures.

    Then the big finance boys with their shopping malls, nukes, franchise fast food, and millions upon millions of cars choking the land, poisoning the skies.
    U.S. corporate academe could provide alternatives to the mindless materialism. Could keep the humanities central enough in all departments to keep some wider consciences among Americans who for years have been blissfully blind and narcissistic about its war on the world.

    The tenured classes will have none of it. They abhor the humanities. They want no perspectives on their specializations.

    And so liberals, ever blind to their corporate academe, pop up occasionally "shocked, shocked" at what the U.S. pushes on the world. But the complicity goes on. The blindness goes on.

    Don't you think there's something funny about this, as Kate asked her boy Cal in "East of Eden" -- funny how our dear, smug, tenured, dehumanized purists live so totally in their "purity"?

    nuanced 3 hours ago
    If only Obama had Trump's magic wand for getting things done.
    brucebennett 3 hours ago
    Years ago Glen Ford of "Black Agenda Report" correctly referred to this shameless sellout as "the more effective evil". The implication was that the perception created by his propagandists that Obama is a committed Democrat who is just trying to do his best against a obstructionist Congress and right-wing media is false.

    We have seen repeatedly that the truth is quite different. Barry the Liar is an enthusiastic member of the MIC, Wall Street, and the oligarchs. He has actually expanded the powers of the President and the National Security State that we live in and even claims the right to kill an American citizen without trial! When George Carlin said - "I don't believe anything my government tells me" he could have been talking about this shill for the TPB.

    When Mr. Nobel Peace Prize creates even more war and also tells you that President Hillary Clinton would be "continuity you can believe in" I am having none of it. For at least 30 years this Republican Lite party have devolved into the sorry state they are now. I will not assist them to go even further and wreck what is left of the American Dream.
    Stein 2016!

    Bill denton310 2 hours ago
    Yes, why isn't anyone in the mass media picking up on this obvious hypocrisy? For the same reasons it never picks up on anything else of importance - it's controlled.

    Now explain why anyone should pay attention to any more articles about what Trump or Clinton just came out with. It just doesn't matter any more.

    For_Alternet 4 hours ago
    Obama has been one of the most hypocritical presidents ever elected.
    tio che 200YearOldJuniper 3 hours ago
    Murder is murder, obomber is as guilty as bush/cheney and their lackeys, rice and killary, of terrorist crimes against humanity!
    H. M. 4 hours ago
    Just think, this is the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama; now, just imagine the neoliberal neocon Hillary at the helm of the war machine!

    I'm afraid it will be check-mate for Humanity as we know it!

    MYR 5 hours ago
    The so-called "peace President" should return his Nobel Prize award immediately, so as not to slander the good intentions of Alfred Nobel.
    Promoting wars, supporting war hawks, deploying drones to kill people in sovereign states, selling weapons to tyrannical governments are destructive ideas that Alfred Nobel had sought to counteract.

    Sid Samsara 5 hours ago

    Oh no, this isn't true. Obama has been playing 11th dimensional chess as policy for the last eight years and let me tell you, folks inhabiting the11th dimension are pretty dam happy with their universal health care, peaceful foreign policy and prosperous for all economy.
    DHFabian 6 hours ago
    I've personally drifted between "Seriously?" and knowing that there's really not much left to say. Deep into the longest, most expensive war in US history, we don't exactly see massive anti-war protests, people filling the mall in DC to call for peace, churches organizing prayer rallies in the name of the Prince of Peace. Walter Cronkite is gone, and the horrors of war doesn't come into our living rooms each evening. The war is distant, sterile, tidy.

    Which decisions are made by Congress, which are made by the president, and in the end, does it matter? America does war. We can no longer afford to do much else, and more importantly, there appears to be little will to change course. Americans can look at the federal budget, see that the lion's share goes into maintaining war, then demand that Congress cut food stamps. (Indeed, in 2015, Congress cut food stamps to the elderly poor and the disabled from $115 per month to $10.)

    Budgets stand as a statement about American priorities. There is an endless strream of money for war, but none for the survival of our poor. The progressive discussion of the last eight years can be summed up as an ongoing pep rally for the middle class, with an occasional "BLM!" thrown in for good measure. A revolution to stay the course.

    Redacted 8 hours ago
    Obama got his start in politics with money from the family that owns Grumman, and he's been dancing to their tune ever since.

    Clump, OTOH, takes money from every single MIC source, neocon source, billionaire nutty Israeli warmonger, Saudi warmonger, Central American dictator, even down to lowly death squad commendates, etc etc -and she's extremely well connected to all of them by now I imagine.

    This is a person who wants both direct involvement in killing, has already done so from her phone, and enjoys the power of being a merchant of death, I predict she will be the among the most war like and worst presidents ever selected- if not the worst one ever.

    tio che Redacted 5 hours ago
    Dark days ahead for imperialist amerika; and sadly for the rest of the World; as the empire's death dealing is global!
    Christie 8 hours ago
    If you think Obama was war happy, you do not want to see war hawk Hillary in action as President.

    The debate should be about issues-Hillary would apparently rather talk about sexism that her war hawk record. Trump wants to emphasis tending to America's needs and says we should stop empire building.

    "Lies (in which Clinton was deeply complicit) led to the U.S.-led destruction of Iraq and Libya. Lies underlie U.S. policy on Syria. Some of the biggest liars in past efforts to hoodwink the people into supporting more war (Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz) are backing Hillary, whose Washington Post Pinocchio count is "sky-high," for president.

    The US Election: an Exercise in Mendacity (untruthfulness) http://www.counterpunch.org/20...
    *****************
    The Clintons do not want anyone to even mention their corrupt involvement in Haiti:

    "The Clinton exploitation of Haiti will eventually go up in flames, and when the smoke settles an emotional and fiscal disaster of enormous proportions will finally be visible to the world. It will be difficult to sift through the ashes to find truth, but the truth is there. Follow the money, follow the pandering, follow the emails, and follow the favors traded for gold.

    "The story ends in more pain, suffering, and abuse for the Haitian people as women are sexually harassed and verbally abused by Korean managers in the sweatshops of Caracol, while a former Gap Inc. executive is at the helm of USAID garment industry agreements with Haiti. If the Clinton connections to Wall Street leave Americans yawning, the systematic exploitation of Haitian workers with a wink and a nod from the Clinton Foundation should at the very least create outrage. But then again, this is Haiti, and Haitian lives do not seem to matter.

    Recently Leaked Documents Confirm Clinton Haitian Gold Scheme | OpEdNews
    http://www.opednews.com/articl...

    NoldorElf 8 hours ago
    Obama sold out on the left. In reality, he was paid from day one to do exactly that. He was literally the ultimate snake oil salesman. Campaign on a platform of change and govern like Bush won 2 more terms.

    The wars went on, the bankers got bailed out and didn't go jail, inequality rose, along with a total failure to address any of the real problems facing society.

    If Obama is the best the Democrats can come up with, then it is high time the left en masse left the Democratic Party. It's one big reason why I cannot support Clinton, who will be even more pro-war. It's a vote for more of the same.

    DHFabian NoldorElf 5 hours ago
    What left? Seriously. We've only heard from liberals who Stand in Solidarity to preserve the advantages of the middle class. They so strongly believe in the success of our corporate state that they think everyone is able to work, and there are jobs for all. If we had a left, they would have been shining a spotlight on our poverty crisis as the proof that our deregulated capitalism is a dismal failure.

    The "inequality" discussion has been particularly interesting. Pay attention to what is said. Today's liberal media have narrowed the inequality discussion to the gap between workers and the rich, disappearing all those who are far worse off.

    kyushuphil DHFabian 2 hours ago
    True, so onerously true what you say, DH.

    Does it happen by accident, when our tenured classes have stripped away the humanities from all, guaranteeing what you term narrow discussion?

    Redacted 8 hours ago
    And, Hillary Clump was the biggest war monger in his misadministration. As for the nukes, I recently drove by a minuteman nuclear missile silo in Wyoming, you can see the damn thing right there by the road.

    Very sad that instead of reducing these as he promised to, this idiot modernized them and added more.

    Lord Dude Redacted 8 hours ago
    Clinton and Kerry voted to invade Iraq and Obama rewards them with the Sec State jobs.
    DHFabian Lord Dude 5 hours ago
    And the media marketed to liberals began going all out in 2015, before she launched her campaign, to try to sell Clinton as a "bold progressive." This, with her decades-long record of support for the right wing agenda.

    Oh well, don't worry about it. As Big Bill so carefully explained, all that any American needs to keep in mind is, "Get up every morning, work hard, and play by all the rules." Don't look around, don't ask questions, don't think.

    Redacted Lord Dude 8 hours ago
    And now she will be rewarded by the MIC and neocons with the ultimate prize - the white house.
    Lord Dude Redacted 8 hours ago
    She lacked the courage to filibuster the Iraq Resolution and tell the truth to the American people that they were being lied into a needless war that would waste trillions of their money. And now she's being rewarded. SMH.

    Redacted Lord Dude 7 hours ago

    She had no wish to filibuster this anymore than the Trojan horse Bernie Sanders wanted to filibuster her drone attacks later on.
    Lord Dude 8 hours ago
    He will be the first president to have been at war for two complete terms.

    And he went into Syria and Libya without permission of Congress. Not even W did that.

    taosword 8 hours ago
    Many say that Obama's hands are tied in all these matters, and that he cannot get anything past the Congress. I am not sure about that. I would like to see more of a public fighter in him to show us all that he is consistently trying to get us out of the Mideast and not modernize nuclear weapons and not be willing to use them first, and stop this insane, immoral, illegal CIA drone assassination program. Show me strong consistent public statements to this effect for the last 7 years and I may believe it. Otherwise he is like president Johnson who while doing good civil rights things at home was trying to get me killed in Vietnam.
    avelna 9 hours ago
    Or, to put it more succinctly...We're f**cked. The whole world.
    southvalley 9 hours ago
    Classic "We must destroy the world in order to save it"
    nineteen50 9 hours ago
    Vote Hillary for more of the same only "muscled up"
    Hometalk222 10 hours ago
    How did an article about Obama and nuclear weapons , turn into a hit piece on D Trump??? Oh yeah, this is Alternet.
    smkngman3 10 hours ago
    Obama learned from the Clintons on how to get those "Foundation" checks rolling in.
    David Shaw Jr 10 hours ago
    His "peace prize" should be repossessed.

    [Sep 24, 2016] Vanity Fair

    Sep 22, 2016 | www.vanityfair.com
    (Re Silc). "Interestingly, the biggest drag on Trump among this group was his verbal treatment of women."

    "Let's start by giv­ing Don­ald Trump every state that Rom­ney won in 2012, even North Car­o­lina where, as of Thursday morn­ing, Clin­ton had a nar­row lead in the RCP av­er­age of polls in that state. That would give Trump 245 elect­or­al votes to Clin­ton's 293, with 270 needed to win. Now let's give Trump every state where Clin­ton's RCP av­er­age lead was less than 3 points, thus put­ting Iowa, Nevada, Flor­ida, and Ohio in Trump's column. Clin­ton would then lead 273-265 and still be in the win­ner's circle. Now let's as­sume that Trump wins Maine's second con­gres­sion­al dis­trict, which would nar­row her lead to 272 to 266. To be clear, I do not think that Trump will sweep North Car­o­lina, Iowa, Nevada, Flor­ida, and Ohio. For that mat­ter, he is strug­gling to keep his lead in places like Ari­zona and Geor­gia. Even giv­ing Trump every state that is close, he still comes up short. To get over the top he would need to win states where today he's not run­ning par­tic­u­larly close. These in­clude New Hamp­shire, where the RCP av­er­age gives Clin­ton a 5-point edge, Pennsylvania a 6.2-point lead, Michigan a 5.6-point lead, and Vir­gin­ia a 3.7-point lead" [ Cook Political Report ] [dusts hands]. "The key thing to think about in the com­ing weeks is who the elec­tion is really about. For most of the past three months, it was a ref­er­en­dum on Trump, and he was los­ing. The last couple of weeks, the race has been about Clin­ton and she has been los­ing ground as a res­ult." The political class cannot concieve of the idea that the election might be a referendum on them . And that a narrow win will not be enough to allow them to retain the mandate of heaven.

    "The larger explanation for the Trump phenomenon is even more unsettling for Washington's political class, especially the media. They have lost their power" [ Politico ]. No, they haven't. But they are frantic to retain it. "Only a decade or two ago, the media world was confined to a group of people in D.C. and New York-a group that largely knew each other, mingled in the same places, vacationed in the same locales. The most influential members of the group routinely defined what constituted a gaffe, others echoed that view, and it became the conventional wisdom for the rest of America. In the age of the Internet, with bloggers spread out across the nation, and multiple platforms across the political spectrum, that's no longer possible. The growing divergence between these 'insiders' and the new 'outsiders' has played to Trump's benefit, every single time he made what was once conceived as a 'game-changing' error." Hmm. I remember 2003-2006 very well, when bloggers were going to do just this. That was going to happen until it didn't. In other words, I don't think it's bloggers and platforms that are the drivers; aspirational 10%-ers, as it were. It's a solid chunk of the 90% being mightily ticked off (though ticked off in ways appropriate to their various conditions). And that's not going to change.

    "Thus Clinton's peculiar predicament. She has moved further left than any modern Democratic nominee, and absorbed the newer left's Manichaean view of the culture war" [Ross Douthat, The New York Times ]. And "culture war" completely explains why all those bright young people were chanting the talking points of an elderly white male socialist delivering hour-long speeches on policy to ginormous rallies. If you want to see an utterly classic conflation of "liberal" and "left," read this. Douthat really is an idiot.

    "View from the barber's chair: In Florida even blacks and Hispanics may be turning against Hillary Clinton" [ Independent ]. This is good, although using the word "safari" for encounters with Florida voters might not be an ideal choice of words.

    UPDATE "There are three consistent features to all of conservative talk radio: Anger, Trump, and ads targeting the financially desperate" [ Chris Arnade ]. "The ads are a constant. Ads protecting against coming financial crisis (Surprise! It is Gold.) or ads that start, 'Having trouble with the IRS?' The obvious lessons being 1) Lots of conservative talk radio listeners are in financial distress. 2) They are willing to turn to scams."

    UPDATE "[Squillionare Tom Steyer is] chipping in an additional $15 million to For Our Future, a joint effort among four labor unions and a super PAC he founded called Next Gen Climate. The money won't go to TV ads but to a door-to-door campaign that aims to knock on 2 million doors in seven swing states, encouraging "sporadic" voters to get to the polls" [ USA Today ]. Once again, if the Democrats didn't suck at basic party functions, they wouldn't have to suck up to squillionaires like this.

    UPDATE "No matter who wins in November, America is going to face a divide unseen in decades. If Donald Trump wins, he will confront a resident media more hateful than that which confronted Richard Nixon in 1968" [Patrick Buchanan, The American Conservative ]. "If Hillary Clinton wins, she will come to office distrusted and disbelieved by most of her countrymen, half of whom she has maligned either as "deplorables" or pitiful souls in need of empathy." A country Buchanan worked so tirelessly to unify! Still, the old reprobate has this right. If Clinton wins (likely modulo events, dear boy, events) and the Republicans retain the House and the Senate, they'll impeach her over some damned thing in the emails. And they'll be right.

    UPDATE "Trump Boasts About Using 'Other People's Money' In Business" [ Talking Points Memo ]. History's worst monster!

    UPDATE "A fuzzy screenshot of an email instructing people on how to disrupt internet groups is doing the rounds today, and it's worth having a really good look at. It's unclear where this particular handbook came from, and what particular groups they intend to target, but anyone who has been in Bernie, Green, or Libertarian groups will soon recognize these same tactics and patterns" [ Inquisitr ].

    [Sep 22, 2016] The Hidden Smoking Gun the Combetta Cover-Up Clinton Email Investigation Timeline

    This is a really outstanding article.
    Notable quotes:
    "... When Samuelson described the sorting process in her FBI interview , she said that her first step was to find all the emails to or from Clinton and the people she regularly worked with in the State Department, and put all of those emails in the "work-related" category. ..."
    "... But from the Abedin emails released so far, about 200 are previously unreleased emails between her and Clinton . Anyone who looks at these can see that the vast majority, if not all, of them are work-related. ..."
    "... The Abedin emails released so far are only a small percentage of all her emails that are going to be released on a monthly basis well into 2017 . It is likely that Clinton's supposed 31,000 "personal" emails contain thousands of work-related emails to and from Abedin alone. Consider that only about 15% of the 30,000 Clinton emails released so far were between her and Abedin. ..."
    "... It is further worth noting that these emails were not handed over with the rest of Clinton's 30,000 work-related emails, despite clearly being work-related, but were somehow uncovered by the State Department inspector general 's office. Those very emails are good examples of the kind of material Clinton may have tried to keep secret by controlling the sorting process. ..."
    "... How many more headlines like that would there be if all 31,000 deleted emails became public before the November 2016 presidential election? It's easy to imagine a political motive for Clinton wanting to keep some work-related emails secret. ..."
    "... on or around December 2014 or January 2015 , Mills and Samuelson requested that [Platte River Networks (PRN) employee Paul Combetta] remove from their laptops all of the emails from the July and September 2014 exports. [Combetta] used a program called BleachBit to delete the email-related files so they could not be recovered." ..."
    "... With the emails of Mills and Samuelson wiped clean, and the old version of the server wiped clean, that left just two known copies of the emails: one on the new server, and one on the back-up Datto SIRIS device connected to the new server. ..."
    "... Mills was interviewed by the FBI in April 2016 . She claimed that in December 2014 , Clinton decided she no longer needed access to any of her emails older than 60 days . Note that this came not long after the State Department formally asked Clinton for all of her work-related emails, on October 28, 2014 . Mills told the FBI that she instructed Combetta to modify the email retention policy on Clinton's clintonemail.com email account to reflect this change. Emails older than 60 days would then be overwritten several times, wiping them just as effectively as BleachBit. ..."
    "... So although the retention policy change sounds like a mere technicality, in fact, Clinton passed the message through Mills that she wanted all her emails from when she was secretary of state to be permanently wiped. ..."
    "... Think about Clinton wanting to delete all her old "personal" emails. As a politician with a wide network of contributors and supporters, the information in them could be highly valuable for her. For instance, if a major donor contacted her, she probably would want to review their past correspondence before responding. She'd preserved these emails for nearly two years, but just when investigators started to demand to see them, she decided she didn't want ANY of them, and all traces of them should be permanently wiped. And yet we're supposed to believe the timing is just a coincidence? ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... According to what Combetta later told the FBI, at some point between these two calls, he had an "Oh shit!" moment and remembered that he'd forgotten to make the requested retention policy change back in December . So, even though he told the FBI that he was aware of the emails from Mills mentioning the Congressional request to preserve all of Clinton's emails, he took action. ..."
    "... the Datto backups of the server were also manually deleted during this timeframe ." ..."
    "... Already, Combetta's behavior is damning. He didn't just change the data retention policy, as Mills had asked him to do, causing them to be permanently deleted 60 days later. He immediately deleted all of Clinton's emails and then wiped them for good measure, and almost certainly deleted them from the Datto back-up device too. ..."
    "... To make matters worse for Combetta, on March 20, 2015 , the House Benghazi Committee sent a letter to Clinton's lawyer Kendall , asking Clinton to turn her server over to a neutral third party so it could be examined to see if any work-related emails were still on it. This was reported in the New York Times ..."
    "... However, despite all these clear signs that the emails should be preserved, not only did Combetta confess in an FBI interview that "at the time he made the deletions in March 2015 , he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's email data on the [server]," he said that " he did not receive guidance from other PRN personnel, PRN's legal counsel or others regarding the meaning of the preservation request." So he confessed to obstruction of justice and other possible crimes, all to the apparent benefit of Clinton instead of himself! ..."
    "... The FBI interviewed PRN's staff in September 2015. This almost certainly included Combetta and Bill Thornton, because they were the only two PRN employees actively managing Clinton's server. ..."
    "... The fact that the FBI falsely claimed Combetta was only interviewed twice grows in importance given a recent New York Times ..."
    "... Then, in May 2016 , he completely changed his story. He said that in fact he did make the deletions in late March 2015 after all, plus he'd wiped her emails with BleachBit, as described earlier. He also confessed to being aware of the Mills email with the preservation request. ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... For the FBI to give Combetta an immunity deal and then still not learn if he had been told to delete the emails by anyone working for Clinton due to a completely legally indefensible "attorney-client privilege" excuse is beyond belief. It would make sense, however, if the FBI was actually trying to protect Clinton from prosecution instead of trying to find evidence to prosecute her. ..."
    "... In one Reddit post , he asked other server managers: "I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a .pst file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out. Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?" ..."
    "... Recall how Clinton allegedly claimed she didn't want to keep any of her deleted emails. It looks like that wasn't true after all. It sounds exactly as if Mills or someone else working for Clinton told him to make it look like all the "personal" emails were permanently deleted due to the 60 day policy change, while actually keeping copies of emails they still wanted. ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... First off, it's interesting that he said he did "a bunch" of "email filters and cleanup," because what has been reported by the FBI is that he only made a copy of all of Clinton's email and sent them off to be sorted in late July 2014 . That fits with his July 2014 Reddit post where he was trying to modify somebody's email address. ..."
    "... For now, let us turn back to events in the fall of 2015 . In mid-August 2015 , Senator Ron Johnson (R) asked for and got a staff-level briefing from PRN about the management of Clinton's server, as part of Republican Congressional oversight of the FBI's investigation. It seems very likely that Combetta was a part of that briefing, or at least his knowledge heavily informed the briefing, because again only two PRN employees actively managed her server, and he was one of them. ..."
    "... The dishonesty or ignorance of PRN in this time period can be clearly seen due to a September 12, 2015 Washington Post ..."
    "... Datto expressed a willingness to cooperate. But because Datto had been subcontracted by PRN to help manage Clinton's server, they needed PRN's permission to share any information relating to that account. When PRN was first asked in early October 2015 , they gave permission. But about a week later, they changed their mind , forcing Datto to stay quiet. ..."
    "... But more importantly, consider what was mentioned in an NBC News ..."
    "... In an August 18, 2015 email, Combetta expressed concern that CESC, the Clinton family company, had directed PRN to reduce the length of time backups, and PRN wanted proof of this so they wouldn't be blamed. But he said in the email, "this was all phone comms [communications]." ..."
    "... On September 2, 2016 , the FBI's final report of their Clinton email investigation was released (along with a summary of Clinton's FBI interview). This report revealed the late March 2015 deletions for the first time. Combetta's name was redacted, but his role, as well as his immunity deal, was revealed in the New York Times ..."
    "... Chaffetz also wants an explanation from PRN how Combetta could refuse to talk to the FBI about the conference calls if the only lawyers involved in the call were Clinton's. ..."
    "... PRN employees Combetta and Thornton were also given subpoenas on September 8 , ordering them to testify at a Congressional hearing on September 13, 2016 . Both of them showed up with their lawyers, but both of them pled the Fifth , leaving many questions unanswered. ..."
    "... In a Senate speech on September 12, 2016 , Senator Charles Grassley (R) accused the FBI of manipulating which information about the Clinton email investigation becomes public . He said that although the FBI has taken the unusual step of releasing the FBI's final report, "its summary is misleading or inaccurate in some key details and leaves out other important facts altogether." He pointed in particular to Combetta's deletions, saying: "[T]here is key information related to that issue that is still being kept secret, even though it is unclassified. If I honor the FBI's 'instruction' not to disclose the unclassified information it provided to Congress, I cannot explain why." ..."
    "... Regarding the FBI's failure to inform Congressional oversight committees of Combetta's immunity deal, Representative Trey Gowdy (R) recently commented, "If there is a reason to withhold the immunity agreement from Congress-and by extension, the people we represent-I cannot think of what it would be." ..."
    "... The behavior of the FBI is even stranger. Comey was a registered Republican most of his life, and it is well known that most FBI agents are politically conservative. Be that as it may, if Comey made a decision beforehand based on some political calculation to avoid indicting Clinton no matter what the actual evidence was, that the FBI's peculiar behavior specifically relating to the Combetta deletions make much more sense. It would be an unprecedented and bold move to recommend indicting someone with Hillary Clinton's power right in the middle of her presidential election campaign. ..."
    "... In this scenario, the FBI having Combetta take the fall for the deletions while making a secret immunity deal with him is a particularly clever move to prevent anyone from being indicted. Note that Combetta's confession about making the deletions came in his May 2016 FBI interview, which came after Mills' April 2016 interview in which she claimed she'd never heard of any deletions. Thus, the only way to have Combetta take the fall for the deletions without Mills getting caught clearly lying to the FBI is by dodging the issue of what was said in the March 31, 2015 conference with a nonsensical claim of "attorney-client privilege." ..."
    "... I believe that criminal behavior needs to be properly investigated and prosecuted, regardless of political persuasion and regardless of the election calendar. Combetta clearly committed a crime and he even confessed to do so, given what he admitted in his last FBI interview. If he got a limited immunity deal instead of blanket immunity, which is highly likely, it still would be possible to indict and convict him based on evidence outside of his interviews. That would help explain why he recently pled the Fifth, because he's still in legal danger. ..."
    "... But more importantly, who else is guilty with him? Logic and the available evidence strongly suggest that Clinton's lawyer Cheryl Mills at least knew about the deletions at the time they happened. Combetta has already confessed to criminal behavior-and yet somehow hasn't even been fired by PRN. If he didn't at least tell Mills and the others in the conference call about the deletions, there would be no logical reason to assert attorney-client privilege in the first place. Only the nonsensical assertion of this privilege is preventing the evidence coming out that should lead to Mills being charged with lying to the FBI at a minimum. And if Mills knew, can anyone seriously believe that Clinton didn't know too? ..."
    Sep 22, 2016 | www.thompsontimeline.com
    To understand the 2015 deletions , we have to start further back in time, in June 2013 . Clinton had ended her four-year tenure as secretary of state earlier in 2013 , and she hired the Platte River Networks (PRN) computer company to manage her private email server. This was a puzzling hire, to say the least, because PRN was based in Denver, Colorado, far from Clinton's homes in New York and Washington, DC, and the company was so small that their office was actually an apartment in an ordinary apartment building with no security alarm system. The company wasn't cleared to handle classified information, nobody in it had a security clearance, and it hadn't even handled an important out of state contract before.

    PRN assigned two employees to handle the Clinton account: Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton . In late June 2013 , these two employees moved Clinton's server from her house in Chappaqua, New York, to an Equinix data center in Secaucus, New Jersey. They removed all the data from the server, moved it to a new server, and then wiped the old server clean. Both the new and old server were kept running at the data center. At the same time, PRN subcontracted Datto, Inc. , to back up the data on the new server. A Datto SIRIS S2000 was bought and connected to the server , functioning like an external hard drive to make periodic back-ups.

    ... ... ...

    Clinton's emails get sorted

    Fast forward to the middle of 2014 . The House Benghazi Committee was formed to investigate the US government's actions surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya , and soon a handful of emails were discovered relating to this attack involving Clinton's [email protected] email address. At this point, nobody outside of Clinton's inner circle of associates knew she had exclusively used that private email account for all her email communications while she was secretary of state, or that she'd hosted it on her own private email server.

    The Benghazi Committee began pressing the State Department for more relevant emails from Clinton. The State Department in turn began privately pressing Clinton to turn over all her work-related emails.

    Cheryl Mills (left) David Kendall (center) and Heather Samuelson (Credit: public domain)

    Cheryl Mills (left) David Kendall (center) and Heather Samuelson (Credit: public domain)

    Instead of turning over all her emails, Clinton decided to have them sorted into work-related and personal, and then only turn over the work-related ones. She gave this task to three of her lawyers : Cheryl Mills (Clinton's former chief of staff), David Kendall (Clinton's longtime personal lawyer), and Heather Samuelson (a relatively inexperienced State Department staffer during Clinton's tenure). It seems Samuelson did most of the sorting , even though she had no experience for this task nor any security clearance .

    It was decided that over 30,000 emails were work-related, and those were turned over to the State Department on December 5, 2014 . These have all since been publicly released, though with redactions. Another over 31,000 emails were deemed personal , and Clinton kept those. They were later deleted in controversial circumstances that this essay explores in detail.

    It has become increasingly clear in recent months that this sorting process was highly flawed. Clinton has said any emails that were borderline cases were given to the State Department, just to be on the safe side. But in fact, the FBI later recovered about 17,500 of Clinton's "personal" emails . It is probable no government agency has yet gone through all of these to officially determine which ones were work-related and which ones were not, but FBI Director James Comey has said that " thousands " were work-related.

    We can get a glimpse of just how flawed the sorting process was because hundreds of emails from Huma Abedin have been released in recent months, as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit . Abedin was Clinton's deputy chief of staff and still is one of her closest aides.

    When Samuelson described the sorting process in her FBI interview , she said that her first step was to find all the emails to or from Clinton and the people she regularly worked with in the State Department, and put all of those emails in the "work-related" category.

    But from the Abedin emails released so far, about 200 are previously unreleased emails between her and Clinton . Anyone who looks at these can see that the vast majority, if not all, of them are work-related. Many involve Abedin's state.gov government address, not her clintonemail.com private address, so how on Earth did Samuelson's sorting process miss those? It has even come to light recently that a small number of emails mentioning "Benghazi" have been found in the 17,500 recovered by the FBI, but Samuelson told the FBI she had specifically searched for all emails using that word.

    A sample of an email between Clinton and Abedin using her state.gove address. (Credit: public domain)

    A sample of an email between Clinton and Abedin using her state.gov address. (Credit: public domain)

    The Abedin emails released so far are only a small percentage of all her emails that are going to be released on a monthly basis well into 2017 . It is likely that Clinton's supposed 31,000 "personal" emails contain thousands of work-related emails to and from Abedin alone. Consider that only about 15% of the 30,000 Clinton emails released so far were between her and Abedin. If the rest of her deleted emails follow the same pattern as the Abedin ones, it is highly likely that the majority, and maybe even the vast majority, of Clinton's deleted "personal" emails in fact are work-related.

    ... ... ...

    FBI Director Comey has said he trusts that Clinton had made a sincere sorting effort, but the sheer number of work-related emails that keep getting discovered suggests otherwise. Furthermore, logic and other evidence also suggest otherwise. For instance, in home video footage from a private fundraiser in 2000 , Clinton talked about how she had deliberately avoided using email so she wouldn't leave a paper trail: "As much as I've been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I? I don't even want Why would I ever want to do email? Can you imagine?"

    Practical considerations forced her to start using email a few years later. But what if her exclusive use of a private email address on her own private server was not done out of " convenience " as she claims, but so she could retain control of them, only turning over emails to FOIA requests and later government investigators that she wanted to?

    Note also that in a November 2010 email exchange between Clinton and Abedin, Abedin suggested that Clinton might want to use a State Department email account due because the department computer system kept flagging emails from her private email account as spam. Clinton replied that she was open to some kind of change, but " I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible ." It is further worth noting that these emails were not handed over with the rest of Clinton's 30,000 work-related emails, despite clearly being work-related, but were somehow uncovered by the State Department inspector general 's office. Those very emails are good examples of the kind of material Clinton may have tried to keep secret by controlling the sorting process.

    Consider that out of the relatively small number of deleted emails that have been made public due to the Abedin monthly releases, a handful of them have created headlines about possible conflicts of interest between Clinton's secretary of state job and the Clinton Foundation . How many more headlines like that would there be if all 31,000 deleted emails became public before the November 2016 presidential election? It's easy to imagine a political motive for Clinton wanting to keep some work-related emails secret.

    ... ... ...

    The deletions begin

    Heather Samuelson (Credit: Getty Images)

    Heather Samuelson (Credit: Getty Images)

    This essay will explore this possibility more later. But if it is the case that she wanted to keep those 31,000 "personal" emails out of the public eye, she had obstacles to overcome. In 2014 , PRN had managerial control of both Clinton's new and old server. Thus, in July 2014 and again in September 2014 , PRN employee Combetta had to send copies of all the emails to the laptop of Clinton lawyer Cheryl Mills, and another copy to the laptop of Clinton lawyer Heather Samuelson, to be used for the sorting process.

    With the sorting done, if Clinton didn't want the public to ever see her deleted emails, you would expect all these copies of those emails to be permanently deleted, and that's exactly what happened. According to a later FBI report, " on or around December 2014 or January 2015 , Mills and Samuelson requested that [Platte River Networks (PRN) employee Paul Combetta] remove from their laptops all of the emails from the July and September 2014 exports. [Combetta] used a program called BleachBit to delete the email-related files so they could not be recovered."

    The FBI report explained, "BleachBit is open source software that allows users to 'shred' files, clear Internet history, delete system and temporary files, and wipe free space on a hard drive. Free space is the area of the hard drive that can contain data that has been deleted. BleachBit's 'shred files' function claims to securely erase files by overwriting data to make the data unrecoverable." BleachBit advertises that it can "shred" files so they can never be recovered again.

    With the emails of Mills and Samuelson wiped clean, and the old version of the server wiped clean, that left just two known copies of the emails: one on the new server, and one on the back-up Datto SIRIS device connected to the new server.

    Mills was interviewed by the FBI in April 2016 . She claimed that in December 2014 , Clinton decided she no longer needed access to any of her emails older than 60 days . Note that this came not long after the State Department formally asked Clinton for all of her work-related emails, on October 28, 2014 . Mills told the FBI that she instructed Combetta to modify the email retention policy on Clinton's clintonemail.com email account to reflect this change. Emails older than 60 days would then be overwritten several times, wiping them just as effectively as BleachBit.

    Clinton essentially said the same thing as Mills when she was interviewed by the FBI . Clinton also was interviewed by the FBI. According to the FBI summary of the interview, she claimed that after her staff sent the 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department on December 5, 2014 , "she was asked what she wanted to do with her remaining [31,000] personal emails. Clinton instructed her staff she no longer needed the emails."

    So although the retention policy change sounds like a mere technicality, in fact, Clinton passed the message through Mills that she wanted all her emails from when she was secretary of state to be permanently wiped.

    Think about Clinton wanting to delete all her old "personal" emails. As a politician with a wide network of contributors and supporters, the information in them could be highly valuable for her. For instance, if a major donor contacted her, she probably would want to review their past correspondence before responding. She'd preserved these emails for nearly two years, but just when investigators started to demand to see them, she decided she didn't want ANY of them, and all traces of them should be permanently wiped. And yet we're supposed to believe the timing is just a coincidence?

    But there was a problem with deleting them. Combetta later claimed that he simply forgot to make this change.

    More than two months passed, which meant all of Clinton's deleted emails should have been permanently wiped already. Meanwhile, the House Benghazi Committee and others were making more requests to see her emails . In January 2015 , a reporter even filed a FOIA request in court for all of her emails .

    Then, on March 2, 2015 , the headline on the front page of the New York Times was a story revealing that while Clinton was secretary of state, she had exclusively used a private email address hosted on her private server, thus keeping all of her email communications secret. This became THE big story of the month, and the start of a high-profile controversy that continues until today.

    On December 2, 2014 , the House Benghazi Committee had asked Clinton for all Benghazi-related emails from her personal email address. But one day after the New York Times blockbuster story, the committee sent Clinton a letter asking her to preserve ALL her emails from that address.

    Then, a day after that, on March 4, 2015 , the committee issued two subpoenas to her . One subpoena ordered her to turn over all emails relating to the Benghazi attack. The committee had already received about 300 such emails from the State Department in February 2015 , but after the Times story, the committee worried that the department might not have some of her relevant emails. (That would later prove to be the case, given the small number of Benghazi emails eventually recovered by the FBI.) The second subpoena ordered her to turn over documents it requested in November 2014 but still has not received from the State Department, relating to communications between Clinton and ten senior department officials.

    Cheryl Mills (Credit: Twitter)

    Cheryl Mills (Credit: Twitter)

    If Clinton had already deleted her emails to keep them from future investigators, these requests shouldn't have been a problem. On March 9, 2015 , Mills sent an email to PRN employees , including Combetta, to make sure they were aware of the committee's request that all of Clinton's emails be preserved. One can see this as a CYA ("cover your ass") move, since Mills would have believed all copies of Clinton's "personal" emails had been permanently deleted and wiped by this time. The Times story and the requests for copies of Clinton's emails that followed had seemingly come too late.

    But that wasn't actually the case, since Combetta had forgotten to make the deletions!


    Combetta deletes everything that is left

    Sitting behind Combetta is co-founder of Platte River Brent Allshouse (left) and PRN attorney, Ken Eichner. (Credit: CSpan)

    Sitting behind Combetta is co-founder of Platte River Brent Allshouse (left) and PRN attorney, Ken Eichner. (Credit: CSpan)

    According to a later Combetta FBI interview, he claimed that on March 25, 2015, there was a conference call between PRN employees , including himself, and some members of Bill Clinton's staff. (Hillary Clinton's private server hosted the emails of Bill Clinton's staff too, and one unnamed staffer hired PRN back in 2013 .) There was another conference call between PRN and Clinton staffers on March 31, 2015 , with at least Combetta, Mills, and Clinton lawyer David Kendall taking part in that later call.

    According to what Combetta later told the FBI, at some point between these two calls, he had an "Oh shit!" moment and remembered that he'd forgotten to make the requested retention policy change back in December . So, even though he told the FBI that he was aware of the emails from Mills mentioning the Congressional request to preserve all of Clinton's emails, he took action. Instead of simply making the retention policy change, which would have preserved the emails for another two months, he immediately deleted all of Clinton's emails from her server. Then he used BleachBit to permanently wipe them.

    The Datto SIRIS S2000 was used for back-up services. (Credit: Datto, Inc.)

    The Datto SIRIS S2000 was used for back-up services. (Credit: Datto, Inc.)

    However, recall that there was a Datto SIRIS back-up device connected to the server and periodically making copies of all the data on the server. Apparently, Combetta didn't mention this to the FBI, but the FBI found "evidence of these [server] deletions and determined the Datto backups of the server were also manually deleted during this timeframe ." The Datto device sent a records log back to the Datto company whenever any changes were made, and according to a letter from Datto to the FBI that later became public, the deletions on the device were made around noon on March 31, 2015 , the same date as the second conference call. (Although the server and Datto device were in New Jersey and Combetta was working remotely from Rhode Island, he could make changes remotely, as he or other PRN employees did on other occasions.)

    A recent Congressional committee letter mentioned that the other deletions were also made on or around March 31, 2015 . So it's probable they were all done at the same time by the same person: Combetta.

    Already, Combetta's behavior is damning. He didn't just change the data retention policy, as Mills had asked him to do, causing them to be permanently deleted 60 days later. He immediately deleted all of Clinton's emails and then wiped them for good measure, and almost certainly deleted them from the Datto back-up device too.

    The FBI's Clinton email investigation didn't formally begin until July 10, 2015 -more than two months after Combetta took those actions. However, State Department inspector general Steve Linick began investigating Clinton's email usage in April 2015 , and he could have given her an order to preserve all her documents-we don't know. Furthermore, CNN has reported that the FBI investigation actually began informally in late May 2015 , which is less than two months after the deletions. So Combetta could have prevented the State Department and/or the FBI from easily recovering all the emails in time.

    To make matters worse for Combetta, on March 20, 2015 , the House Benghazi Committee sent a letter to Clinton's lawyer Kendall , asking Clinton to turn her server over to a neutral third party so it could be examined to see if any work-related emails were still on it. This was reported in the New York Times and other media outlets.

    Then, on March 27, 2015 , Kendall replied to the committee in a letter that also was reported on by the Times and others that same day. Kendall wrote, "There is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server To avoid prolonging a discussion that would be academic, I have confirmed with the secretary's IT [information technology] support that no emails for the time period January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server."

    David Kendall (Credit: Above the Law)

    David Kendall (Credit: Above the Law)

    When Kendall mentioned Clinton's IT support, that had to have been a reference to PRN. So what actually happened? Did Kendall or someone else working for Clinton ask Combetta and/or other PRN employees if there were any emails still on the server in the March 25, 2015 conference call, just two days before he sent his letter? Did Combetta lie in that call and say they were already deleted and then rush to delete them afterwards to cover up his mistake? Or did someone working for Clinton tell or hint that he should delete them now if they hadn't been deleted already? We don't know, because the FBI has revealed nothing about what was said in that conference call or the one that took place a week later.

    However, despite all these clear signs that the emails should be preserved, not only did Combetta confess in an FBI interview that "at the time he made the deletions in March 2015 , he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's email data on the [server]," he said that " he did not receive guidance from other PRN personnel, PRN's legal counsel or others regarding the meaning of the preservation request." So he confessed to obstruction of justice and other possible crimes, all to the apparent benefit of Clinton instead of himself!


    Investigations and cover-ups

    This is perplexing enough already, but it gets stranger still, if we continue to follow the behavior of Combetta and PRN as a whole.

    An inside look at the Equinix facility in Secaucus, NJ. (Credit: Chang W. Lee / New York Time)

    An inside look at the Equinix facility in Secaucus, NJ. (Credit: Chang W. Lee / New York Time)

    By August 2015 , the FBI's Clinton investigation was in full swing, and they began interviewing witnesses and confiscating equipment for analysis. Because the FBI never empanelled a grand jury, it didn't have subpoena power, so it had to ask Clinton for permission to seize her server. She gave that permission on August 11, 2015 , and the server was picked up from the data center in New Jersey the next day . But remember that there actually were two servers there, an old one and a new one. All the data had been wiped from the old one and moved to the new one, so the new one was the more important one to analyze. But the FBI only picked up the old one.

    According to the FBI's final report, "At the time of the FBI's acquisition of the [server], Williams & Connolly [the law firm of Clinton's personal lawyer David Kendall] did not advise the US government of the existence of the additional equipment associated with the [old server], or that Clinton's clintonemail.com emails had been migrated to the successor [server] remaining at [the] Equinix [data center]. The FBI's subsequent investigation identified this additional equipment and revealed the email migration." As a result, the FBI finally picked up the new server on October 3, 2015 .

    It was bad enough that Clinton's lawyer wasn't forthcoming about this, especially since Clinton and her staff had switched to using new email accounts located on a different server with a different domain name in late 2014 , so the servers in question weren't urgently needed anymore. But who else could have told the FBI about the data getting transferred to the new server? PRN.

    A snippet from the invoice published by Complete Colorado on October 19, 2015. (Credit: Todd Shepherd / Complete Colorado) (Used with express permission from CompleteColorado.com. Do not duplicate or republish.)

    The FBI interviewed PRN's staff in September 2015. This almost certainly included Combetta and Bill Thornton, because they were the only two PRN employees actively managing Clinton's server.

    It's particularly important to know if Combetta was interviewed at this time. The FBI's final report clearly stated that he was interviewed twice, in February 2016 and May 2016 , and repeatedly referred to what was said in his "first interview" and "second interview." However, we luckily know that he was interviewed in September 2015 as well, because of a PRN invoice billed to Clinton Executive Service Corp. (CESC), a Clinton family company, that was made public later in 2015 . The invoice made clear that Combetta, who was working remotely from Rhode Island, flew to Colorado on September 14, 2015, and then "federal interviews" took place on September 15 . Combetta's rental car, hotel, and return airfare costs were itemized as well. As this essay later makes clear, PRN was refusing to cooperate with anyone else in the US government but the FBI by this time, so "federal interviews" can only mean the FBI.

    Bryan Pagliano (Credit: public domain)

    Bryan Pagliano (Credit: public domain)

    The fact that the FBI falsely claimed Combetta was only interviewed twice grows in importance given a recent New York Times report that the Justice Department gave Combetta some form of legal immunity .

    One other person in the investigation, Bryan Pagliano, was given immunity as well. But his immunity deal was leaked to the media and had been widely reported on since March 2016 . By contrast, Combetta's immunity wasn't even mentioned in the FBI's final report, and members of Congress were upset to first read about it in the Times , because they had never been told about it either.

    The mystery of this situation deepens when one looks at the FBI report regarding what Combetta said in his February 2016 and May 2016 interviews. In February 2016 , he claimed that he remembered in late March 2015 that he forgot to make the change to the email retention policy on Clinton's server, but that was it. He claimed he never did make any deletions. He also claimed that he was unaware of the March 9, 2015 email from Mills warning of the Congressional request to preserve all of Clinton's emails.

    Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

    Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

    Then, in May 2016 , he completely changed his story. He said that in fact he did make the deletions in late March 2015 after all, plus he'd wiped her emails with BleachBit, as described earlier. He also confessed to being aware of the Mills email with the preservation request.

    It still hasn't been reported when Combetta's immunity deal was made. However, it seems probable that this took place between his February 2016 and May 2016 interviews, causing the drastic change in his account. Yet, it looks that he still hasn't been fully honest or forthcoming. Note that he didn't confess to the deletion of data on the Datto back-up device, even though it took place at the same time as the other deletions. The FBI learned that on their own by analyzing the device.


    Attorney-client privilege?!

    More crucially, we know that Combetta has not revealed what took place in the second conference call between PRN and Clinton employees. Here is all the FBI's final report has to say about that: "Investigation identified a PRN work ticket, which referenced a conference call among PRN, Kendall, and Mills on March 31, 2015. PRN's attorney advised [Combetta] not to comment on the conversation with Kendall, based upon the assertion of the attorney-client privilege ."

    Paul Combetta (left) Ken Eichner (right) (Credit: CSpan)

    Sitting behind Paul Combetta at the House Oversight Committee hearing on September 13, 2016, is Platte River Networks attorney Ken Eichner. (Credit: CSpan)

    This is extremely bizarre. What "attorney-client privilege"?! That would only apply for communications between Combetta and his lawyer or lawyers. It's clear that Combetta's lawyer isn't Mills or Kendall. The New York Times article about the immunity deal made a passing reference to his lawyer, and, when Combetta showed up for a Congressional hearing on September 12 , he was accompanied by a lawyer who photographs from the hearing make clear is Ken Eichner, who has been the legal counsel for PRN as a whole regarding Clinton's server.

    Even if Combetta's lawyer Eichner was participating in the call, there is no way that should protect Combetta from having to tell what he said to Clinton employees like Mills or Kendall. If that's how the law works, criminals could simply always travel with a lawyer and then claim anything they do or say with the lawyer present is inadmissible as evidence due to attorney-client privilege. It's absurd.

    For the FBI to give Combetta an immunity deal and then still not learn if he had been told to delete the emails by anyone working for Clinton due to a completely legally indefensible "attorney-client privilege" excuse is beyond belief. It would make sense, however, if the FBI was actually trying to protect Clinton from prosecution instead of trying to find evidence to prosecute her.


    Combetta's Reddit posts

    A side-by-side shot of Combetta at the House Oversight Committee hearing (left) and a captured shot of Combetta as Stonetear (right). (Credit: CSpan and public domain)

    A photo comparison of Combetta at the House Oversight Committee hearing (left) and a captured shot of Combetta as stonetear (right). (Credit: CSpan and public domain)

    Furthermore, how much can Combetta be trusted, even in an FBI interview? It has recently come to light that he made Reddit posts under the username "stonetear." There can be no doubt this was him, because the details match perfectly, including him signing a post "Paul," having another social media account for a Paul Combetta with the username "stonetear," having a combetta.com website mentioning his "stonetear" alias, and even posting a photo of "stonetear" that matches other known photos of Combetta.

    In one Reddit post , he asked other server managers: "I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a .pst file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out. Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?"

    The date of the post- July 24, 2014 -is very significant, because that was just one day after Combetta sent CESE (the Clinton family company) DVDs containing some of Clinton's emails , so Clinton's lawyers could start the sorting process. Also on July 23, 2014 , an unnamed PRN employee sent Samuelson and Mills the same emails electronically directly to their laptops.

    A response captured in the Reddit chat warning Combetta that what he wants to do is illegal. (Credit: Reddit)

    A response captured in the Reddit chat warning stonetear aka Combetta that what he wants to do could result in major legal issues. (Credit: Reddit)

    Popular software made by companies like Microsoft have tried to make it impossible for people to change email records, so people facing legal trouble can't tamper with emails after they've been sent. Thus, when Combetta posed his problem at Reddit, other Reddit users told him that what he wanted to do "could result in major legal issues." But that didn't deter him, and he kept asking for various ways to get it accomplished anyway.

    It isn't clear why Clinton would have wanted her email address removed from all her emails, since her exact address had already been exposed in the media back in March 2013 by the hacker known as Guccifer. One Gawker reporter even used it to email Clinton on March 20, 2013 : "[W] ere your emails to and from the [email protected] account archived according to the provisions of the President Records Act and Freedom of Information Act?" (Clinton never replied, maybe because it's clear in hindsight that an honest answer would have been "no.") But the fact that Combetta was willing to at least try to do this raises questions, especially his seeming willingness to do something illegal for his "VIP" customer Hillary Clinton.

    Combetta made another important Reddit post a few months later:

    "Hello- I have a client who wants to push out a 60 day email retention policy for certain users. However, they also want these users to have a 'Save Folder' in their Exchange folder list where the users can drop items that they want to hang onto longer than the 60 day window. All email in any other folder in the mailbox should purge anything older than 60 days (should not apply to calendar or contact items of course). How would I go about this? Some combination of retention and managed folder policy?"

    Another sample captured of Combetta as 'stonetear' asking Reddit users for help. (Credit: Reddit)

    Another question was captured of 'stonetear' aka Combetta asking Reddit users for technical help. (Credit: Reddit)

    Again, the timing is telling, because this post was made on December 10, 2014 . Recall that December 2014 (or January 2015 ) was when he deleted and then wiped Clinton's emails from the laptops of Mills and Samuelson. December also was the month that Mills asked him to change the retention policy on Clinton's server to 60 days , which is precisely the issue he was asking about in his Reddit post.

    A captured shot of Combetta's 'stonetear' GMail account with picture included. (Credit: public domain)

    A captured shot of Combetta's 'stonetear' Gmail account with picture included. (Credit: public domain)

    Recall how Clinton allegedly claimed she didn't want to keep any of her deleted emails. It looks like that wasn't true after all. It sounds exactly as if Mills or someone else working for Clinton told him to make it look like all the "personal" emails were permanently deleted due to the 60 day policy change, while actually keeping copies of emails they still wanted.

    Looking at Combetta's two Reddit posts detailed above, there are only two possibilities. One is that Combetta failed to disclose crucial information to the FBI, despite his immunity deal. The second is that he did, but the FBI didn't mention it in its final report. Either way, it's already clear that the FBI has failed to present the full story of Combetta's actions to the public. And how much of what Combetta has said can be trusted, even in his most recent and supposedly most forthcoming FBI interview?

    David DeCamillis (Credit: Twitter)

    David DeCamillis (Credit: Twitter)

    Remarkably, there is a hint that Combetta was being dishonest even before his late March 2015 deletions. On March 3, 2015 , one day after the front-page New York Times story revealing Clinton's use of a private server, PRN's vice president of sales David DeCamillis sent an email to some or all of the other PRN employees. The email has only been paraphrased in news reports so far, but he was already wondering what Clinton emails the company might be asked to turn over .

    Combetta replied to the email , "I've done quite a bit already in the last few months related to this. Her [Clinton's] team had me do a bunch of exports and email filters and cleanup to provide a .pst [personal storage file] of all of HRC's [Hillary Rodham Clinton's] emails to/from any .gov addresses. I billed probably close to 10 hours in on-call tickets with CESC related to it :)."

    First off, it's interesting that he said he did "a bunch" of "email filters and cleanup," because what has been reported by the FBI is that he only made a copy of all of Clinton's email and sent them off to be sorted in late July 2014 . That fits with his July 2014 Reddit post where he was trying to modify somebody's email address.

    But also, assuming that there aren't important parts to his email that haven't been mentioned by the media, consider what he didn't say. The topic was possibly turning over Clinton's emails, and yet by this time Combetta had already deleted and wiped all of Clinton's emails from the laptops of two Clinton lawyers and been asked to change the email retention policy on Clinton's server so that all her emails would be permanently deleted there too, and yet he didn't bother to mention this to anyone else at PRN. Why?

    We can only speculate based on the limited amount of information made public so far. But it seems as if Combetta was covering up for Clinton and/or the people working for her even BEFORE he made his late March 2015 deletions!


    Who knows about the deletions, and how?

    Senator Ron Johnson (Credit: John Shinkle / Politico)

    Senator Ron Johnson (Credit: John Shinkle / Politico)

    For now, let us turn back to events in the fall of 2015 . In mid-August 2015 , Senator Ron Johnson (R) asked for and got a staff-level briefing from PRN about the management of Clinton's server, as part of Republican Congressional oversight of the FBI's investigation. It seems very likely that Combetta was a part of that briefing, or at least his knowledge heavily informed the briefing, because again only two PRN employees actively managed her server, and he was one of them.

    Regardless of whether he was there or not, it is clear that PRN was not honest in the briefing. Almost nothing is publicly known about the briefing except that it took place. However, from questions Johnson asked PRN in later letters, one can see that he knew nothing about the March 2015 deletions by Combetta. In fact, just like the FBI, there is no indication he knew anything about the transfer of the data from the old server to the new in that time period, which would be a basic fact in any such briefing.

    Andy Boian (Credit: public domain)

    The dishonesty or ignorance of PRN in this time period can be clearly seen due to a September 12, 2015 Washington Post article. In it, PRN spokesperson Andy Boian said, " Platte River has no knowledge of the server being wiped ." He added, "All the information we have is that the server wasn't wiped." We now know that not only was this untrue, but a PRN employee did the wiping!

    This leads to two possibilities. One is that Combetta lied to his PRN bosses, so in September 2015 nobody else in PRN knew about the deletions he'd made. The other is that additional people at PRN knew, but they joined in a cover-up.

    At this point, it's impossible to know which of these is true, but one of them must be. PRN employees created work tickets and other documentary evidence of the work they made, so one would think the company leadership would have quickly learned about the deletions if they did any examination of their managerial actions to prepare for investigative briefings and interviews.

    But either way, PRN as a whole began acting as if there was something to hide. Although the company agreed to the briefing of Congressional staffers in mid-August 2015 , when Senator Johnson wanted to follow this up with interviews of individual PRN employees in early September, PRN said no . When Congressional committees began asking PRN for documents, they also said no, and kept saying no. Recently, as we shall see later, they've even defied a Congressional subpoena for documents.

    Austin McChord, founder and CEO of Datto, Inc. (Credit: Erik Traufmann / Hearst Connecticut Media)

    Austin McChord, founder and CEO of Datto, Inc. (Credit: Erik Traufmann / Hearst Connecticut Media)

    At the same time Congressional committees began asking PRN for documents and interviews, they made those requests to Datto as well.

    Datto expressed a willingness to cooperate. But because Datto had been subcontracted by PRN to help manage Clinton's server, they needed PRN's permission to share any information relating to that account. When PRN was first asked in early October 2015 , they gave permission. But about a week later, they changed their mind , forcing Datto to stay quiet.

    To make matters worse, in early November 2015 , PRN spokesperson Andy Boian gave a completely bogus public excuse about this, saying that PRN and Datto had mutually agreed it was more convenient for investigators to deal with just one company. Datto immediately complained in a letter sent to PRN and Senator Johnson that no such discussion or agreement between PRN and Datto had ever taken place.

    What is PRN hiding?


    The Datto cloud mystery

    There is another strange twist to Datto's involvement. Back in June 2013 when Datto was first subcontracted to help with backing up the server data, the Clinton family company CESC made explicit that they didn't want any of the data to be stored remotely . But due to some snafu or miscommunication, it turns out that in addition to local back-ups being stored on the Datto device connected to the server, Datto had been making periodic copies of the server data the whole time in the "cloud!" That means back-up copies of the data were being transferred over the Internet and stored remotely, probably on other servers controlled by Datto.

    Co-founders of PRN are Brent Allshouse (left) and Treve Suazo (right) (Credit: PRN)

    Co-founders of PRN are Brent Allshouse (left) and Treve Suazo (right) (Credit: PRN)

    PRN only discovered this in early August 2015 , around the time the roles of PRN and Datto had with the server began to be made public. PRN contacted Datto, told them to stop doing this, put all the data on a thumb drive, send it to them, and then permanently wipe their remote copies of the server data.

    It is unclear what happened after that. The FBI's final report mentions a Datto back-up made on June 29, 2013 , just after all the data had been moved from the old server to the new sever with the back-up, had been useful to investigators and allowed them to find some Clinton emails dating all the way back to the first two months of her secretary of state tenure. However, it isn't clear if this is due to the local Datto SIRIS device or the accidental Datto cloud back-up. Congressional committee letters show that they don't know either and have been trying to find out.

    Adding to the mystery, one would think that if Datto was making periodic back-ups either or both ways, the FBI would have been able to recover all of Clinton's over 31,000 deleted emails and not just 17,000 of them. Consider that when PRN employees sent Clinton's lawyers all of Clinton's emails to be sorted in July and September 2014 , they simply copied what was on the server at the time, which presumably was the same amount of emails from years earlier than had been there in June 2013 , and thus backed up by Datto many times.

    It's likely there are more twists to the cloud back-up story that have yet to be revealed.


    What did Clinton and her aides know about the deletions?

    Meanwhile, let's consider what Clinton and her aides may have known and when they knew it. When Mills was interviewed by the FBI in April 2016 , according to the FBI, "Mills stated she was unaware that [Combetta] had conducted these deletions and modifications in March 2015 ." Then, when Clinton was interviewed by the FBI in July 2016 , "Clinton stated she was unaware of the March 2015 email deletions by PRN."

    This is pretty hard to believe. Mills was and still is one of Clinton's lawyers, and even attended Clinton's FBI interview. So why wouldn't she have mentioned the deletions to Clinton between April and July 2016 , after she learned about them from the FBI's questions to her? One would think Clinton would have been extremely curious to know anything about the FBI's possible recovery of her deleted emails.

    Clinton making a joking wipe gesture while speaking at a town hall on August 18, 2015, in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Credit: John Locher / The Associated Press)

    Clinton making a joking wipe gesture while speaking at a town hall on August 18, 2015, in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Credit: John Locher / The Associated Press)

    But more importantly, consider what was mentioned in an NBC News report on August 19, 2015 . Clinton's campaign acknowledged "that there was an attempt to wipe [Clinton's] server before it was turned over last week to the FBI. But two sources with direct knowledge of the investigation told NBC News that the [FBI] may be able to recover at least some data."

    Is it plausible that people within Clinton's campaign knew this, and yet neither Mills nor Clinton did? How could that be? Note that just one day before the NBC News report, Clinton had been directly asked if her server had been wiped. She dodged the question by making the joke , " What-like with a cloth, or something?" Then she said she didn't "know how it works digitally at all." Despite the controversy at the time about the cloth joke, her spokesperson claimed one month later, "I don't know what 'wiped' means."

    It's highly likely the issue had to have been discussed with Clinton at the time, but there was a conscious effort not to have her admit to knowing anything, due to the on-going FBI investigation.

    But more crucially, how could anyone at all working for Clinton know about the deletions as far back as August 2015 ? Recall that this was within days of PRN giving a briefing to Congressional staffers and not telling them, and several weeks prior to a PRN public comment that there was no evidence the server had been wiped.

    Moreover, we have no evidence that the FBI knew about the deletions yet. Datto conducted an analysis of its device that had been attached to Clinton's new server, and in an October 23, 2015 email, told the FBI for the first time that deletions had taken place on that device on March 31, 2015 . Keep in mind that even in his February 2016 FBI interview, Combetta claimed that no deletions had taken place in that time frame. Does it make sense that he would have said that if he had reason to believe that PRN had been talking to Clinton's staff about it in the months before? (None of the interviews in the FBI"s investigations were done under oath, but lying to the FBI is a felony with a maximum five-year prison sentence.)

    A sample of the letter sent to the FBI by Datto attorney, Steven Cash on October 23, 2015. (Credit: House Science Committee)

    A sample of the email sent to the FBI by Datto attorney, Steven Cash on October 23, 2015. (Credit: House Science Committee)

    So, again, how could Clinton's campaign know about the wiping in August 2015 ? The logical answer is that it had been discussed in the conference call on March 31, 2015 , that took place within hours of the deletions.

    Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

    Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)

    Perhaps Mills, Kendall, or someone else working for Clinton told Combetta to make the deletions, possibly during the first conference call on March 25, 2015 . If that is the case, there should be obstruction of justice charges brought against anyone involved. Or maybe Combetta did that on his own to cover his earlier mistake and then mentioned what he'd done in the second conference call. If either scenario is true, Mills should be charged with lying to the FBI for claiming in her FBI interview that she knew nothing about any of this. Clinton might be charged for the same if it could be proved what she knew and when.


    "Shady shit" and "Hillary's cover-up operation"

    But there's still more to this strange story. Somehow by October 5, 2015 , Senator Johnson got hold of a curious email exchange between Combetta and Thornton , and he mentioned it in a letter to PRN that got leaked to the public the next day. (Recall that Bill Thornton is the other PRN employee who actively managed Clinton's server.)

    Just as the email retention policy on the Clinton server was changed on the orders of people working for Clinton, so was the retention policy on the Datto device connected to the server, in the same time period.

    In an August 18, 2015 email, Combetta expressed concern that CESC, the Clinton family company, had directed PRN to reduce the length of time backups, and PRN wanted proof of this so they wouldn't be blamed. But he said in the email, "this was all phone comms [communications]."

    Paul Combetta (left) Bill Thornton (right) (Credit: AP)

    Paul Combetta (left) Bill Thornton (right) (Credit: The Associated Press)

    The next day , there was another email, this one written by Thornton to Combetta and possibly others in PRN . The email has the subject heading "CESC Datto." Thornton wrote: "Any chance you found an old email with their directive to cut the backup back in Oct-Feb. I know they had you cut it once in Oct-Nov, then again to 30 days in Feb-ish." (Presumably this refers to October 2014 through February 2015 .)

    Thornton continued: "If we had that email, then we're golden. [ ] Wondering how we can sneak an email in now after the fact asking them when they told us to cut the backups and have them confirm it for our records. Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shady shit. I just think if we have it in writing that they [CESC] told us to cut the backups, and we can go public with our statement saying we have had backups since day one, then we were told to trim to 30 days, it would make us look a WHOLE LOT better."

    Combetta replied: "I'll look again, but I'm almost positive we don't have anything about the 60 day cut. [ ] It's up to lawyer crap now, so just sit back and enjoy the silly headlines."

    As an aside, it's curious that Combetta made some unsolicited additional comments in that same email that was supportive of Clinton's position in the email controversy: "It wasn't the law to be required to use government email servers at the State Department, believe it or not. Colin Powell used an AOL address for communicating with his staff, believe it or not."

    If we take this email exchange at face value, then it appears that Clinton employees requested an email retention policy change that would result in more deletion of data on the Datto back-up device in the October to November 2014 time range. Keep in mind that the State Department formally asked Clinton for all of her work-related emails , on October 28, 2014 , after informally asking starting in July 2014 . Then, around February 2015 , Clinton employees asked for another change that would have resulted in more deletions. Plus, they did this on the phone, leaving no paper trail. Is it any wonder that Thornton wrote, "Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shady shit?"

    Details are lacking, but roughly around this time period, one unnamed PRN employee made a joke that they were "Hillary's cover-up operation ." That may have been much more accurate than they realized.


    The FBI speaks up, only raising more questions

    News about PRN went quiet for the first half of 2016 . Congressional committees kept asking PRN and Datto for more information (including another request for interviews in January 2016 ), and PRN kept saying no as well as not giving Datto permission to respond.

    James Comey (Credit: Fox News)

    James Comey (Credit: Fox News)

    Then, on July 5, 2016 , FBI Director James Comey gave a surprise public speech in which he announced he wouldn't recommend any criminal charges against Clinton or anyone else in the investigation. In the course of his speech, he said it was "likely" that some emails may have disappeared forever because Clinton's lawyers "deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery." But he said that after interviews and technical examination, "we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort."

    Trey Gowdy (Credit: Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images)

    Trey Gowdy (Credit: Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images)

    Two days later, on July 7, 2016 , Comey had to explain his decision in front of a Congressional committee. During that hearing, he was asked by Representative Trey Gowdy (R), "Secretary Clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?"

    Comey replied: "That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work-related emails in-on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or whether when the server was changed out, something happened to them. There's no doubt that the work-related emails were removed electronically from the email system."

    Consider that response. By the time Comey made those comments, the FBI's final report had already been finished, the report that detailed Combetta's confession of deliberately deleting and then wiping all of Clinton's emails from her server. Comey was explicitly asked if "anyone" had made such deletions, and yet he said he wasn't sure. Comey should be investigated for lying to Congress! Had he revealed even the rough outlines of Combetta's late March 2015 deletions in his July 5, 2016 public speech or his Congressional testimony two days later , it would have significantly changed the public perception of the results of the FBI investigation. That also would have allowed Congressional committees to start focusing on this two months earlier than they did, enabling them to uncover more in the limited time before the November presidential election.

    The SECNAP Logo (Credit: SECNAP)

    Despite the fact that the Combetta deletions were still unknown, Congressional committees began putting increasing pressure on PRN anyway. On July 12, 2016 , two committees jointly wrote a letter to PRN , threatening subpoenas if they still refused to cooperate. The letter listed seven PRN employees they wanted to interview, including Combetta and Thornton. Similar letters went out to Datto and SECNAP. (SECNAP was subcontracted by PRN to carry out threat monitoring of the network connected to Clinton's server.)

    On August 22, 2016 , after all three companies still refused to cooperate, Representative Lamar Smith (R), chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, issued subpoenas for PRN, Datto, and SECNAP .

    On September 2, 2016 , the FBI's final report of their Clinton email investigation was released (along with a summary of Clinton's FBI interview). This report revealed the late March 2015 deletions for the first time. Combetta's name was redacted, but his role, as well as his immunity deal, was revealed in the New York Times article published a few days later.


    Congressional investigators fight back

    160918ChanningPhillipspublic

    Channing Phillips (Credit: public domain)

    Since the report has been released, Congressional Republicans have stepped up their efforts to get answers about the Combetta mystery, using the powers of the committees they control. On September 6, 2016 , Representative Jason Chaffetz (R), chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote a letter to Channing Phillips , the US attorney for the District of Columbia. He asked the Justice Department to "investigate and determine whether Secretary Clinton or her employees and contractors violated statutes that prohibit destruction of records, obstruction of congressional inquiries, and concealment or cover up of evidence material to a congressional investigation." Clearly, this relates to the Combetta deletions.

    House Oversight Committee Chair Representative Jason Chaffetz. (Credit: Cliff Owen / The Associated Press)

    Representative Jason Chaffetz. (Credit: Cliff Owen / The Associated Press)

    On the same day , Chaffetz sent a letter to PRN warning that Combetta could face federal charges for deleting and wiping Clinton's emails in late March 2015 , due to the Congressional request to preserve them earlier in the month that he admitted he was aware of. Chaffetz also wants an explanation from PRN how Combetta could refuse to talk to the FBI about the conference calls if the only lawyers involved in the call were Clinton's.

    Chaffetz serves the FBI a subpoena during a House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee hearing on September 9, 2016. (Credit: ABC News)

    Chaffetz serves the FBI a subpoena during a House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee hearing on September 9, 2016. (Credit: ABC News)

    On September 9 , Chaffetz served the FBI a subpoena for all the unredacted interviews from the FBI's Clinton investigation, especially those of Combetta and the other PRN employees. This came after an FBI official testifying at a hearing remarkably suggested that Chaffetz should file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to get the documents, just like any private citizen can.

    On September 8, 2016 , Congressional committees served the subpoenas they'd threatened in August. PRN, Datto, and SECNAP were given until the end of September 12 to finally turn over the documents the committees had been requesting for year. Datto complied and turned over the documents in time. However, PRN and SECNAP did not.

    Representative Lamar Smith (Credit: public domain)

    Representative Lamar Smith (Credit: public domain)

    The next day, September 13 , Representative Lamar Smith (R) said , "just this morning SECNAP's [legal] counsel confirmed to my staff that the Clinton's private LLC [Clinton Executive Service Corp.] is actively engaged in directing their obstructionist responses to Congressional subpoenas."

    PRN employees Combetta and Thornton were also given subpoenas on September 8 , ordering them to testify at a Congressional hearing on September 13, 2016 . Both of them showed up with their lawyers, but both of them pled the Fifth , leaving many questions unanswered.


    An FBI cover-up?

    In a Senate speech on September 12, 2016 , Senator Charles Grassley (R) accused the FBI of manipulating which information about the Clinton email investigation becomes public . He said that although the FBI has taken the unusual step of releasing the FBI's final report, "its summary is misleading or inaccurate in some key details and leaves out other important facts altogether." He pointed in particular to Combetta's deletions, saying: "[T]here is key information related to that issue that is still being kept secret, even though it is unclassified. If I honor the FBI's 'instruction' not to disclose the unclassified information it provided to Congress, I cannot explain why."

    Senator Charles Grassley takes to the Senate floor on September 12, 2016. (Credit: CSpan))

    Senator Charles Grassley takes to the Senate floor on September 12, 2016. (Credit: CSpan)

    He also said there are dozens of completely unclassified witness reports, but even some of his Congressional staffers can't see them "because the FBI improperly bundled [them] with a small amount of classified information, and told the Senate to treat it all as if it were classified." The normal procedure is for documents to have the classified portions marked. Then the unclassified portions can be released. But in defiance of regulations and a clear executive order on how such material should be handled, "the FBI has 'instructed' the Senate office that handles classified information not to separate the unclassified information." As a result, Grassley claims: "Inaccuracies are spreading because of the FBI's selective release. For example, the FBI's recently released summary memo may be contradicted by other unclassified interview summaries that are being kept locked away from the public."

    He said he has been fighting the FBI on this, but without success so far, as the FBI isn't even replying to his letters.

    Thus, it seems that Comey failing to mention anything about the Combetta deletions in the July 7, 2016 Congressional hearing, even when directly asked about it, was no accident. Having the FBI report claim that Combetta was only interviewed twice when there is clear evidence of three interviews also fits a pattern of concealment related to the deletions.

    James Comey testifies to the House Benghazi Committee on July 7, 2016. (Credit: Jack Gruber / USA Today)

    James Comey testifies to the House Benghazi Committee on July 7, 2016. (Credit: Jack Gruber / USA Today)

    Regarding the FBI's failure to inform Congressional oversight committees of Combetta's immunity deal, Representative Trey Gowdy (R) recently commented, "If there is a reason to withhold the immunity agreement from Congress-and by extension, the people we represent-I cannot think of what it would be."

    Gowdy, who is a former federal prosecutor, also said on September 9 that there are two types of immunity Combetta could have received : use and transactional. "If the FBI and the Department of Justice gave this witness transactional immunity, it is tantamount to giving the triggerman immunity in a robbery case." He added that he is "stunned" because "It looks like they gave immunity to the very person you would most want to prosecute."

    This is as much as we know so far, but surely the story won't stop there. PRN has been served a new subpoena. It is likely the requested documents will be seized from them soon if they continue to resist.


    Taking the fall and running out the clock

    But why does PRN resist so much? Computer companies often resist sharing information with the government so their reputation with their clients won't be harmed. But defying a subpoena when there clearly are legitimate questions to be answered goes way beyond what companies normally do and threatens PRN's reputation in a different way. Could it be that PRN-an inexplicable choice to manage Clinton's server-was chosen precisely because whatever Clinton aide hired them had reason to believe they would be loyal if a problem like this arose?

    David DeCamillis (Credit: public domain)

    David DeCamillis (Credit: public domain)

    There is some anecdotal evidence to support this. It has been reported that PRN has ties to prominent Democrats . For instance, the company's vice president of sales David DeCamillis is said to be a prominent supporter of Democratic politicians, and once offered to let Senator Joe Biden (D) stay in his house in 2008 , not long before Biden became Obama's vice president. The company also has done work for John Hickenlooper, the Democratic governor of Colorado. And recall the email in which Combetta brought up points to defend Clinton in her email controversy, even though the email exchange was on a different topic.

    The behavior of the FBI is even stranger. Comey was a registered Republican most of his life, and it is well known that most FBI agents are politically conservative. Be that as it may, if Comey made a decision beforehand based on some political calculation to avoid indicting Clinton no matter what the actual evidence was, that the FBI's peculiar behavior specifically relating to the Combetta deletions make much more sense. It would be an unprecedented and bold move to recommend indicting someone with Hillary Clinton's power right in the middle of her presidential election campaign.

    It's naive to think that political factors don't play a role, on both sides. Consider that virtually every Democratic politician has been supportive of Clinton in her email controversy, or at least silent about it, while virtually every Republican has been critical of her about it or silent. Comey was appointed by Obama, and if the odds makers are right and Clinton wins in November , Comey will continue to be the FBI director under President Clinton. (Comey was appointed to a ten-year term, but Congress needs to vote to reappoint him after the election.) How could that not affect his thinking?

    Comey could be trying to run out the clock, first delaying the revelations of the Combetta's deletions as much as possible, then releasing only selected facts to diminish the attention on the story.

    In this scenario, the FBI having Combetta take the fall for the deletions while making a secret immunity deal with him is a particularly clever move to prevent anyone from being indicted. Note that Combetta's confession about making the deletions came in his May 2016 FBI interview, which came after Mills' April 2016 interview in which she claimed she'd never heard of any deletions. Thus, the only way to have Combetta take the fall for the deletions without Mills getting caught clearly lying to the FBI is by dodging the issue of what was said in the March 31, 2015 conference with a nonsensical claim of "attorney-client privilege."

    Unfortunately, if that is Comey's plan, it looks like it's working. Since the FBI's final report came out on September 2, 2016 , the mainstream media has largely failed to grasp the significance of Combetta and his deletions, focusing on far less important matters instead, such as the destruction of a couple of Clinton's BlackBerry devices with hammers-which actually was better than not destroying them and possibly letting them fall into the wrong hands.

    The House Benghazi Committee in session in 2015. (Credit: C-SPAN3)

    The House Benghazi Committee in session in 2015. (Credit: C-SPAN3)

    What happens next appears to largely be in the hands of Congressional Republicans, who no doubt will keep pushing to find out more, if only to politically hurt Clinton before the election. But it's also in the hands of you, the members of the general public. If enough people pay attention, then it will be impossible to sweep this controversy under the rug.

    I believe that criminal behavior needs to be properly investigated and prosecuted, regardless of political persuasion and regardless of the election calendar. Combetta clearly committed a crime and he even confessed to do so, given what he admitted in his last FBI interview. If he got a limited immunity deal instead of blanket immunity, which is highly likely, it still would be possible to indict and convict him based on evidence outside of his interviews. That would help explain why he recently pled the Fifth, because he's still in legal danger.

    Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton plead the Fifth on September 13, 2016. (Credit: CSpan)

    Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton plead the Fifth on September 13, 2016. (Credit: CSpan)

    But more importantly, who else is guilty with him? Logic and the available evidence strongly suggest that Clinton's lawyer Cheryl Mills at least knew about the deletions at the time they happened. Combetta has already confessed to criminal behavior-and yet somehow hasn't even been fired by PRN. If he didn't at least tell Mills and the others in the conference call about the deletions, there would be no logical reason to assert attorney-client privilege in the first place. Only the nonsensical assertion of this privilege is preventing the evidence coming out that should lead to Mills being charged with lying to the FBI at a minimum. And if Mills knew, can anyone seriously believe that Clinton didn't know too?

    As the saying goes, "it's not the crime, it's the cover up." This is an important story, and not just election season mudslinging. The public needs to know what really happened.

    Note to Readers!

    If you found this essay informative, check out the Clinton email investigation timeline , as well as the Clinton Foundation timeline , written and updated daily by the same author. Stay up to date with the newest timeline entries by checking out our Recently Added Entries page , and join our Facebook group for intelligent discussions about the latest breaking news throughout the day.

    [Sep 22, 2016] Tilt in polls to Trump

    www.businessinsider.com

    A recent Detroit Free Press/WXYZ-TV poll of the state, however, found Clinton's lead shrinking from 11 points to just 3 - within the poll's margin of error.

    Michigan wasn't the only state that swung toward the Republican nominee:

    • In Ohio, Trump has a clear advantage at this point in the race. Polls there showed him up 3, 4, and 5 points this week.
    • Iowa, which has voted Democratic in six of the past seven elections, also looks firmly in the Trump camp right now. A Monmouth University survey of the state found him up 8.
    • Florida is as much of a toss-up state as they come, with a bit of a Trump bend in the past week. Two polls there gave the real-estate mogul a 4-point lead, while another showed Clinton up 2 points.
    • Colorado and Virginia, two Democratic-leaning states that leaned more and more toward Clinton in recent weeks, both saw significant recent swings toward Trump. In the former, an Emerson College survey put Trump up 4 in the state. In the latter, Trump trailed by just 3 in a University of Mary Washington poll, though a Public Policy Polling survey found Clinton up a comfortable 8 points.
    • In Nevada, a Monmouth survey found Trump up 2, a 6-point swing from August. Clinton leads by less than a point in the state's polling average.

    Reuters' projections now see Election Day coming down to a photo finish, showing a 60% chance of a Clinton win by 18 electoral votes. Nate Silver's forecast at FiveThirtyEight also gives Clinton 60% odds as of Saturday.

    [Sep 18, 2016] We Have to Deal With Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo? ..."
    "... Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years? ..."
    "... Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads? ..."
    "... Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets. ..."
    "... Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation ..."
    "... Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all. ..."
    "... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
    "... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
    "... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
    "... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
    "... Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused. ..."
    "... There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with. ..."
    "... Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. ..."
    "... As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now. ..."
    "... If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family. ..."
    "... Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice. ..."
    "... What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    ...Arriving on Capitol Hill to repair ties between Trump and party elites, Gov. Mike Pence was taken straight to the woodshed.

    • John McCain told Pence that Putin was a "thug and a butcher," and Trump's embrace of him intolerable.
    • Said Lindsey Graham: "Vladimir Putin is a thug, a dictator … who has his opposition killed in the streets," and Trump's views bring to mind Munich.
    • Putin is an "authoritarian thug," added "Little Marco" Rubio.

    What causes the Republican Party to lose it whenever the name of Vladimir Putin is raised?

    Putin is no Stalin, whom FDR and Harry Truman called "Good old Joe" and "Uncle Joe." Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, he never drowned a Hungarian Revolution in blood. He did crush the Chechen secession. But what did he do there that General Sherman did not do to Atlanta when Georgia seceded from Mr. Lincoln's Union?

    Putin supported the U.S. in Afghanistan, backed our nuclear deal with Iran, and signed on to John Kerry's plan have us ensure a cease fire in Syria and go hunting together for ISIS and al-Qaida terrorists.

    Still, Putin committed "aggression" in Ukraine, we are told. But was that really aggression, or reflexive strategic reaction? We helped dump over a pro-Putin democratically elected regime in Kiev, and Putin acted to secure his Black Sea naval base by re-annexing Crimea, a peninsula that has belonged to Russia from Catherine the Great to Khrushchev. Great powers do such things.

    When the Castros pulled Cuba out of America's orbit, we decided to keep Guantanamo, and dismiss Havana's protests?

    Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo?

    ... ... ...

    Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years?

    ... ... ...

    Is Putin's Russia more repressive than Xi Jinping's China? Yet, Republicans rarely use "thug" when speaking about Xi. During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it.

    Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads?

    ... ... ...

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority

    Tiktaalik , says: September 16, 2016 at 2:41 am

  • >>During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea
  • buttressed could be even more pertinent)
  • Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets.
  • bacon , says: September 16, 2016 at 5:29 am

    Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation whenever US forces are not actively engaged in combat somewhere. They are loud voices, yes, but irrational voices, too.

    Skeptic , says: September 16, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all.

    John Blade Wiederspan , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:18 am

    "Just" states the starvation of the Ukraine is a western lie. The Harvest of Sorrow by Robert Conquest refutes this dangerous falsehood. Perhaps "Just" believes The Great Leap Forward did not lead to starvation of tens of millions in China. After all, this could be another "western lie". So to could be the Armenian genocide in Turkey or slaughter of Communists in Indonesia.

    SteveM , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:23 am

    As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".

    I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.

    The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.

    And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person in the room".

    P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage.

    blimbax , says: September 16, 2016 at 11:29 am

    John asks, "We also have to deal with our current allies. Whom would Mr. Buchanan like to favor?"

    Well, we could redouble our commitment to our democracy and peace loving friends in Saudi Arabia, we could deepen our ties to those gentle folk in Egypt, and maybe for a change give some meaningful support to Israel. Oh, and our defensive alliances will be becoming so much stronger with Montenegro as a member, we will need to pour more resources into that country.

    Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused.

    There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with.

    Joe the Plutocrat , says: September 16, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    "During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it (funny, you failed to mention Laos, South Vietnam, Nicaragua, Noriega/Panama, and everyone's favorite 9/11 co-conspirator and WMD developer, Saddam Hussein). either way how did these "alliances" work out for the US? really doesn't matter, does it? it is early 21st century, not mid 20th century. there is a school of thought in the worlds of counter-terrorism/intelligence operations, which suggests if you want to be successful, you have to partner with some pretty nasty folks. Trump is being "handled" by an experienced, ruthless (that's a compliment), and focused "operator". unless, of course, Trump is actually the superior operator, in which case, this would be the greatest black op of all time.

    Clint , says: September 16, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    "From Russia With Money - Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism,"

    "Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors" or sponsored speeches by former President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.

    http://nypost.com/2016/07/31/report-raises-questions-about-clinton-cash-from-russians-during-reset/

    WakeUp , says: September 16, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. Once you understand that then the (evil)actions of the Western elite make sense. Anyone who stands in the way of those things is an "enemy". This is how they determine an "enemy".

    As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now.

    If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family.

    Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice.

    What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us.

    [Sep 18, 2016] Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesnt play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the smartest person in the room

    Notable quotes:
    "... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
    "... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
    "... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
    "... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    SteveM , says: September 16, 2016 at 10:23 am

    As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".

    I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.

    The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.

    And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person in the room".

    P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage.

    [Sep 18, 2016] Is It "Brexit In America" This Election Cycle?

    Notable quotes:
    "... on the day of the vote ..."
    "... Brexit went on to win 52% to 48% . That is a swing of +14% to -4% on the day of the vote! The polls were off by 18% against the Elites/Globalist who inhabit the European Political Industrial Complex (or PIC) ..."
    "... [Note: Political Industrial Complex (PIC) = all the career politicians, all the career bureaucrats, the sea of career political consultants and career staff, the political donor class and their career lobbyists, and of course the pliant career political news media. The EU is the epitome of the Political Industrial Complex – the apex of bad ideas hoisted upon the masses without thought or responsibility. The "elite" denizens of the PIC live apart from the rest of humanity] ..."
    "... Check back for updates if we detect a hint of Brexit tonight ..."
    Sep 18, 2016 | strata-sphere.com

    Given the uniqueness of this election cycle with candidate Trump and the populist wave building in many countries of "the west", it is hard to put much trust in the polls. This lesson was learned during the Brexit vote in the UK when polls showed the "stay" campaign comfortably ahead on the day of the vote :

    The paper ballots were still being counted by hand. Only the British overseas territory of Gibraltar had reported final results. Yet the assumption of a Remain victory filled the room-and depressed my hosts. One important journalist had received a detailed briefing earlier that evening of the results of the government's exit polling: 57 percent for Remain .

    Emphasis mine. Brexit went on to win 52% to 48% . That is a swing of +14% to -4% on the day of the vote! The polls were off by 18% against the Elites/Globalist who inhabit the European Political Industrial Complex (or PIC) . I commented on why the polls were likely to be so far off :

    … why would any anti-big-government voter participate in a poll from the PIC? They won't. So the polls become more and more over sampled by the PIC defenders: an ever shrinking fraction of the voting population.

    [Note: Political Industrial Complex (PIC) = all the career politicians, all the career bureaucrats, the sea of career political consultants and career staff, the political donor class and their career lobbyists, and of course the pliant career political news media. The EU is the epitome of the Political Industrial Complex – the apex of bad ideas hoisted upon the masses without thought or responsibility. The "elite" denizens of the PIC live apart from the rest of humanity]

    Today we are going to get a clear indication of how deep the ant-elite wave is in America. Paul Ryan, GOP Speaker of the House, is fighting off a primary challenger who has built his "Hail Mary" campaign on the populist movement. How he performs against Ryan is going to be a clear and unambiguous measure of the anti-government movement.

    I seriously doubt Ryan will lose. But I also seriously doubt he will win by 60%. The closer Ryan gets to 60%, the less likely we have "Brexit In America" and the more likely it is Hillary can pull this election out. But if Ryan is down near 20% (or worse), then it is more likely Trump will ride a populist wave to victory in November.

    This will be a very enlightening evening as the primary results come in.

    BTW, turnout seems to be low today, which is probably really bad for Ryan. We know the populist voters have energy (see Trumps record breaking vote totals in his primaries). So ambivalence will probably be on the Ryan side. The lower the turnout, the more likely it is Ryan's tepid supporters who just failed to be worried about him losing. Paul Nehlen's supporters – who were all about sending a message to DC – will win the day on the urge to purge DC.

    Check back for updates if we detect a hint of Brexit tonight

    [Sep 18, 2016] War criminals exposed Socialist Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... Though while bereaved families are forced to crowd fund to bring Blair to court, any legal defence mounted by the multimillionaire will come from the public purse. They have raised over Ł160,000 to date so the story is not yet over. ..."
    "... Yet Blair has no shame and remains belligerent. On the day the Chilcot Inquiry report was published he declared he would do the same again. Later that day veteran anti-war campaigner and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called a press conference to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. Such a move is central to why Corbyn has won such an enthusiastic mass following after first standing for and winning the Labour leadership in the summer of 2015. ..."
    "... The seeds of the deep bitterness about mainstream politicians and the establishment were sown in 2003. When Britain joined the US assault on Iraq despite the opposition of the majority of the population it politicised millions. The 2 million strong demonstration organised by the Stop the War Coalition in February 2003 was Britain's biggest ever. But Chilcot proved that Blair had already promised US president George W Bush that Britain would be with him "whatever". ..."
    "... The warmongers' contempt for the electorate, let alone the people of Iraq and region, is staggering. ..."
    socialistreview.org.uk

    The Chilcot report went further than many expected in condemning Tony Blair's role in the invasion of Iraq. As Judith Orr says, it also reinforced the need to be vigilant against all warmongers.

    It took 12 days for the Chilcot report on the Iraq war to be read aloud non-stop at the Edinburgh Festival event last month. The 2.6 million words of the report were not the whitewash some had feared. In fact they were a confirmation of what so many of those who protested against the war at the time said.

    There were no lawyers on the Chilcot panel; this inquiry was never going to call for charges against chief British warmonger Tony Blair. But families of soldiers killed in the war are using the evidence brought forward in the report to pursue a legal case against him. Because, although he didn't take a line on the legality of the war, Chilcot criticised the process Blair drove through to declare that invasion was legal: "We have, however, concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory."

    As human rights lawyer Philippe Sands pointed out, "'Far from satisfactory' is a career-ending phrase in mandarin-speak, a large boot put in with considerable force."

    Though while bereaved families are forced to crowd fund to bring Blair to court, any legal defence mounted by the multimillionaire will come from the public purse. They have raised over Ł160,000 to date so the story is not yet over.

    Yet Blair has no shame and remains belligerent. On the day the Chilcot Inquiry report was published he declared he would do the same again. Later that day veteran anti-war campaigner and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called a press conference to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. Such a move is central to why Corbyn has won such an enthusiastic mass following after first standing for and winning the Labour leadership in the summer of 2015.

    The seeds of the deep bitterness about mainstream politicians and the establishment were sown in 2003. When Britain joined the US assault on Iraq despite the opposition of the majority of the population it politicised millions. The 2 million strong demonstration organised by the Stop the War Coalition in February 2003 was Britain's biggest ever. But Chilcot proved that Blair had already promised US president George W Bush that Britain would be with him "whatever".

    The warmongers' contempt for the electorate, let alone the people of Iraq and region, is staggering.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 18, 2016] Long-Secret Stingray Manuals Detail How Police Can Spy on Phones

    Sep 18, 2016 | theintercept.com

    Richard Tynan, a technologist with Privacy International, told The Intercept that the " manuals released today offer the most up-to-date view on the operation of" Stingrays and similar cellular surveillance devices, with powerful capabilities that threaten civil liberties, communications infrastructure, and potentially national security. He noted that the documents show the "Stingray II" device can impersonate four cellular communications towers at once, monitoring up to four cellular provider networks simultaneously, and with an add-on can operate on so-called 2G, 3G, and 4G networks simultaneously.

    [Sep 18, 2016] What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?

    Notable quotes:
    "... What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless. ..."
    "... As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose. ..."
    "... Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense). ..."
    "... Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions. ..."
    "... The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits. ..."
    "... If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation. ..."
    "... Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest. ..."
    "... With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade? ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Chauncey Gardiner

    What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless.

    As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose.

    diptherio

    Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense).

    Norb

    Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions.

    What folly. All this complexity and strident study of minutia to bring about what end? Human history on this planet has been about how societies form, develop, then recede form prominence. This flow being determined by how well the society provided for its members or could support their worldview. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

    The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits.

    Only by thinking, and communicating in the broader terms of political economy can we hope to understand our current conditions. Until then, change will be difficult to enact. Hard landings for all indeed.

    flora

    If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation.

    LA Mike September 17, 2016 at 8:15 pm

    While in traffic, I was thinking about that today. For some time now, I've viewed the traffic intersection as being a good example of the social contract. We all agree on its benefits. But today, I thought about it in terms of the Friedman Neoliberals.

    Why should they have to stop at red lights. Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest.

    sd

    Something I have wondered for some time, how does tourism fit into trade? With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade?

    I Have Strange Dreams

    Other things to consider:
    – negative effects of immigration (skilled workers leave developing countries where they are most needed)
    – environmental pollution
    – destruction of cultures/habitats
    – importation of western diet leading to decreased health
    – spread of disease (black death, hiv, ebola, bird flu)
    – resource wars
    – drugs
    – happiness
    How are these "externalities" calculated?

    [Sep 18, 2016] Some animals are more equal than others.

    Sep 18, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    hedgeless_horseman BuddyEffed Sep 17, 2016 10:58 AM

    Kirby declined to answer whether Israel should face the same treatment
    as Iran and North Korea – both of which have been sanctioned for alleged
    or actual violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Some animals are more equal than others.

    ROZETKA - Результаты поиска телефон mini-SIM Поиск

    [Sep 18, 2016] Neoliberalism has grown decadent and corrupt. It is a secular religion: a massive systemic force that some can manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Something along the lines of Sweden, or maybe Germany: the means of production is left in private hands and the owning class is welcome to get rich (there are the equivalent of billionaires in both countries) but there are strict limits as to how much they can screw their workers, cheat their customers or damage the environment. ..."
    "... Also, basic social welfare matters (healthcare, child care etc.) are publicly provided, or at least publicly backstopped. The model may not be perfect but it appears to work quite well all in all. ..."
    "... Sweden has no taxes on inheritance or residential property, and its 22 percent corporate income tax rate is far lower than America's 35 percent." ..."
    "... I do not think that drag queens reading stories, Lionel Shriver's speech and backlash, or the latest Clinton scandal mean civilizational death. They are outliers, but serve to remind the vast majority of the country that there is plenty of room in America for eccentrics of every description to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ..."
    "... HRC is not really unthinkable. She is just not preferable. A vote for HRC is an acquiescence to the status quo of corrupt, big money politics. Voting for the status quo is unthinkable only if you think the apocalypse is around the next bend. Let's be serious. ..."
    "... "we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable" ..."
    "... I would argue that the "system" is capitalism grown decadent and corrupt. It is a secular religion that we've given ourselves over to and is exactly as he describes: a massive systemic force that some can manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy. ..."
    "... The reaction and fall out from the financial crisis amounted to everyone shrugging and declaring innocence and ignorance. They seemed to say, how could anyone see such a thing coming or do anything about it? How could anyone control such a huge system? ..."
    "... I'm always struck by these posts detailing how everything is coming apart in America. I look around and frankly, life looks pretty good. Maybe it's because I'm a minority female, who grew up poor and now has a solidly middle class life. My mother, God rest her soul, was smarter and worked harder than I ever will but did not have one-quarter of the opportunities (education, housing) I've had. My sons have travelled the globe, and have decent jobs and good friends. I am grateful. ..."
    "... I wouldn't say that [neo] Liberalism is "spent" as a force, rather that its credibility is. As a cultural force (covering both politics and the economy, among other things), its strength is and remains vast. It is Leviathan. For all intents and purposes, it defines the culture, and thus dictates the imperatives and methods, of our governing and economic elites. ..."
    "... Bush proved that electing an imbecile to the Presidency has real consequences for our standing in the world. ..."
    "... Trump starts speaking without knowing how his sentence will end, and then he will go to down fighting to defend whatever it was he said even though he never really meant it in the first place. That mix of arrogance and stupidity is more dangerous than Bush. ..."
    "... Totally unconvincing. It couldn't be more obvious that Hillary stands for rule by globalists whereas Trump intends to return control of the federal government to We the People. ..."
    "... Which candidate is traveling to Louisiana? Flint? Detroit? Mexico (on behalf of America)? Which candidate calls tens of millions of Americans irredeemable and thus it would be justified in exterminating them? ..."
    "... What makes Mr. Cosimano so sure that what America is passing into is anything like a "civilization" at all? We could simple pass into barbarism. Can anyone name the leaders who hope to build any kind of civilization at all? ..."
    "... For 70+ years, other than while working on a university degree in history, I never gave a thought to civilizational collapse, so I would have been a poor choice to ask for a definition of the term. But after a few years of reading TAC I think I have a handle on it. It's a situation in which someone or some group sees broad social change they don't like. So probably civilizational collapse is constant and ongoing. ..."
    "... I would only point out that there is no clear path to economic safety for working Americans, whether they are white are black. Training and hard work will only take you so far in our demand-constrained economy. Whether black optimism or white pessimism turns out to be empirically justified is far from certain. We are constructing the future as we speak, and our actions will determine the answer to this question. ..."
    "... As the WikiLeaks dox show, it wasn't "barrel bombs" or "chemical warfare against his own people" that made the elites hungry to overthrow the government there, it was the 2009 decision by Syria not to allow an oil pipeline through from Qatar to Turkey, whereupon the CIA was directed to start funding jihadists and regime change. ..."
    "... I'd note that Popes going back to Leo XIII have written on the destructive effects of capitalism or rather the unmitigated pursuit of wealth. Both Benedict and Francis have eloquently expressed the need for a spiritual conversion to solve the world's problems. A conversion which recognizes our solidarity with one another as well as our obligation to the health of Creation. I rather doubt we will find the impetus for this conversion among our politicians. ..."
    "... The problem is not civilization-level, Mr. Dreher. The problem is species -level. Humanity as a whole is discovering that it cannot handle too high a level of technology without losing its ability to get feedback from its environment. Without that feedback, its elite classes drift off into literal insanity. The rest of the society soon follows. ..."
    "... James Parker in The Atlantic comes to a similar conclusion from a very different starting place ..."
    "... "For Trump to be revealed as a salvational figure, the conditions around him must be dire. Trump_vs_deep_state-like fascism, like a certain kind of smash-it-up punk rock-begins in apprehensions of apocalypse." ..."
    "... Classical [neo]liberalism presents itself not as a tentative theory of how society might be organized but as a theory of nature. It claims to lay out the forces of nature and to make these a model for social order. Thus free-market fundamentalism, letting the market function "as nature intended". It's an absurd position when applied dogmatically, and no more "natural" than other economic arrangements humans might come up with. ..."
    "... Further, as I suggest, our two camps "left" and "right" are no longer distinctly left and right in any traditional sense. The market forces and self-marketing that lead to the fetishization of identity by the left are the same market forces championed by the capitalist right. In America today, both left and right are merely different bourgeois cults of Self. ..."
    "... "Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors) has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives." ..."
    Sep 17, 2016 | john-uebersax.com

    Andrew E. says: September 16, 2016 at 11:19 am

    Will she be inviting them in from parallel universes? Because we do not have 40 million illegals. The number is closer to eleven million.

    Wrong, see Adios America

    JonF says: September 16, 2016 at 1:27 pm
    Re: we have yet to hear a cogent description of what "bridled" capitalism is/looks like

    Something along the lines of Sweden, or maybe Germany: the means of production is left in private hands and the owning class is welcome to get rich (there are the equivalent of billionaires in both countries) but there are strict limits as to how much they can screw their workers, cheat their customers or damage the environment.

    Also, basic social welfare matters (healthcare, child care etc.) are publicly provided, or at least publicly backstopped. The model may not be perfect but it appears to work quite well all in all.

    CatherineNY says: September 16, 2016 at 6:28 pm
    Re: Sweden as an example of "bridled capitalism," here is an article about how many billionaires Sweden has (short answer: lots) http://www.slate.com/articles/business/billion_to_one/2013/10/sweden_s_billionaires_they_have_more_per_capita_than_the_united_states.html "The Swedish tax code was substantially reformed in 1990 to be friendlier toward capital accumulation, with a flat rate on investment income. Sweden has no taxes on inheritance or residential property, and its 22 percent corporate income tax rate is far lower than America's 35 percent."

    I think a lot of American capitalists would welcome those bridles. As for Hanby's critique of the liberal order that (thankfully) prevails in the West, it is only because of that liberal order that we are freely discussing these matters here, that we can talk about a Benedict Option in which we can create an economy within the economy, because in the non-liberal orders that prevailed through most of history, and that still prevail in a lot of places, we'd be under threat from the state for free discussion, and we would have little or no choice of education or jobs, because we'd be serfs or slaves or forced by government to go into a certain line of work (like my husband's Mandarin teacher, a scientist who was forced into the countryside during the Cultural Revolution and then told that she had to become a language teacher.)

    I'd be interested to know what kind of system Hanby would like to see replace our liberal order. Presumably one where he would be in charge.

    Harvey says: September 15, 2016 at 3:36 pm
    [neo]Liberalism is exhausted? What does that even mean, except as a high-brow insult?

    If there is one statistic that disproves this claim, it's that religious attendance is plummeting and the number of people who are "nones" are rising rapidly.

    What's exhausted is religion as a necessary component of social life. Since that is indisputably true, I guess the only thing that is left is for the remaining stalwarts resisting the tide to project this idea of exhaustion onto the other side.

    [NFR: You don't understand his point. He's not talking about liberalism as the philosophy of the Democratic Party. He's talking about liberalism as the political culture and system of the West. - RD]

    Clint says: September 15, 2016 at 3:38 pm
    "There is nothing like a good shock of pain for dissolving certain kinds of magic."

    Could be that Trump is God's Hot Foot Angel With The Dirty Face waking Americans up to the increasingly Godless Agenda of The Washington Establishment and The Corporate Media.

    Elijah says: September 15, 2016 at 4:01 pm
    Talk about cynical. There's a lot to take exception to here, but let's start with this:

    "In other words, the fact that we are in civilizational crisis is becoming unavoidably apparent, though there is obviously little agreement as to what this crisis consists in or what its causes are and little interest from the omnipresent media beyond how perceptions of crisis affect voter behavior."

    Possibly because he's one of the relatively few people who think we're in such a crisis. A lot of us – Republican and Democrat – still believe ideas and ideals are important and we support them (and their torchbearers, however flawed) with all the vigor we can muster.

    I do not think that drag queens reading stories, Lionel Shriver's speech and backlash, or the latest Clinton scandal mean civilizational death. They are outliers, but serve to remind the vast majority of the country that there is plenty of room in America for eccentrics of every description to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I will admit to thinking this kind of thing much more important on college campuses, where it can affect the quality of an education.

    "We would not see it as a crisis of soul, but a crisis of management…"

    Probably true: I'm not so sure that our founding principles really envision our civilization as having a soul rather than virtues. And the idea of a national government mucking around with the souls of the people gives me the heebie-jeebies much as Putin's alliance with the Orthodox church does you. And if there's anything we can take from the current election, I think it's that Americans have had enough sociologists, economists, lawyers, and other "experts" tell them what to do to last a lifetime. It's part and parcel of the distrust you just posted about.

    And I'm not at all sure that Americans are generally despairing, though it's pretty clear they think our country is on the wrong track. Hillary ought to be running away with this thing – why isn't she? Because she's seen as more of the same. Sanders offered the hope of something new, something transformative: the same thing people see in Trump. Their hope MAY be misplaced but time will tell. This election cycle ought to make people a little less confident in their predictions.

    "Hope is hard, I admit. But my response is that it is not the pessimist about liberalism who lacks hope, but the optimist who cannot see beyond its horizons."

    Hope is hard if you're investing in our institutions to carry us through. They aren't designed to. Our hope is in Christ, Our Redeemer, and that His will "be done on earth as it is in Heaven." And I will gladly admit to not being able to see beyond liberalism's horizons – again, the predictions of experts and philosophers haven't held up too well over time.

    I can say that blithely because my hope is not in liberalism, ultimately. Do I think some semblance of liberalism can and will survive? Yes, but the cultural struggles we are going through are part and parcel of the system. Do I like that? No.

    And as much as we need to reinforce communities (through the BenOp) we also need to recognize that our job isn't always to understand and prepare. As Christians, it is to obey. It means we repent, fast, and pray. It means we take the Great Commission seriously even when it's uncomfortable.

    I'm sorry to rip your friend here, I just don't find his piece compelling at all.

    allaround says: September 15, 2016 at 4:13 pm
    HRC is not really unthinkable. She is just not preferable. A vote for HRC is an acquiescence to the status quo of corrupt, big money politics. Voting for the status quo is unthinkable only if you think the apocalypse is around the next bend. Let's be serious.

    Voting for Trump is unthinkable because he is totally clueless about seemingly he talks about. His arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance. Gary Johnson was excoriated because he did not know what Aleppo is. I bet a paycheck Trump couldn't point to Syria on a map. Trump get's no serious criticism for insistence that we steal Iraq's oil, his confusion about why Iran wasn't buying our airplanes, his assertion that Iran is North Koreas largest trading partner, that South Korea and Japan ought to have nukes, his threats to extort our NATO allies. There are dozens of gems like these, but you get the picture. One only needs to read transcripts from his interviews to understand the limits of his intellect. Voting for such a profound ignoramus is truly unthinkable.

    Gary says: September 15, 2016 at 4:40 pm
    Not (at least directly) related, but Rod thought this might give you some hope today (albeit it's from the <a href=" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3790614/They-don-t-like-drugs-gay-marriage-HATE-tattoos-Generation-Z-conservative-WW2.html"Daily Mail but I found it interesting):

    Teenagers born after 2000 – the so-called 'Generation Z' – are the most socially conservative generation since the Second World War, a new study has found.

    The youngsters surveyed had more conservative views on gay marriage, transgender rights and drugs than Baby Boomers, Generation X or Millennials.

    The questioned were more prudent than Millennials, Generation X and Baby Boomers but not quite as cash-savvy as those born in 1945 or before.

    Only 14 and 15-year-olds were surveyed, by brand consultancy The Gild, as they were classed as being able to form credible opinions by that age.

    When asked to comment on same-sex marriage, transgender rights and cannabis legislation, 59 per cent of Generation X teenagers said they had conservative views.

    Around 85 per cent of Millennials and those in Generation X had a 'quite' or 'very liberal' stance overall.

    When asked for their specific view on each topic only the Silent Generation was more conservative that Generation Z.

    One in seven – 14% – of the 14 and 15-year-olds took a 'quite conservative' approach, while only two per cent of Millennials and one per cent of Generation X.

    The Silent Generation had a 'quite conservative' rating of 34 per cent.

    I think this was done in Britain but as we know, social trends in the rest of the West tend to spill over into the States.

    Are we looking at another Alex P. Keaton generation? Kids likely to rebel against the liberalism of their parents?

    Adamant says: September 15, 2016 at 4:43 pm
    I can never quite understand the tension between these two concepts: enlightenment liberalism as a spent force, enervated, listless, barely able to stir itself even in its own defense, and simultaneously weaponized SJWism, modern day Jacobins, an army of clenched-jawed fanatics who will stop at nothing to destroy its enemies.

    It seems that one of these perspectives must be less true than the other.

    [NFR: SJWs are a betrayal of classical liberalism. - RD]

    The Other Sands says: September 15, 2016 at 4:53 pm
    I realize that I only comment here when something sets me off, and not when I agree with you (which is after all why I keep reading you).

    So here I am agreeing with this post.

    "we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable"

    I would argue that the "system" is capitalism grown decadent and corrupt. It is a secular religion that we've given ourselves over to and is exactly as he describes: a massive systemic force that some can manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy.

    The reaction and fall out from the financial crisis amounted to everyone shrugging and declaring innocence and ignorance. They seemed to say, how could anyone see such a thing coming or do anything about it? How could anyone control such a huge system?

    As your friend says, even if we want to exert more control over this system (which we can with the will), this would end up being a technocratic project, not a spiritual one. Sad because a spiritual argument against the excesses of capitalism might actually gain more traction at this point, than tired liberal arguments.

    xrdsmom says: September 15, 2016 at 5:15 pm
    I'm always struck by these posts detailing how everything is coming apart in America. I look around and frankly, life looks pretty good. Maybe it's because I'm a minority female, who grew up poor and now has a solidly middle class life. My mother, God rest her soul, was smarter and worked harder than I ever will but did not have one-quarter of the opportunities (education, housing) I've had. My sons have travelled the globe, and have decent jobs and good friends. I am grateful.

    My friends and I went out the other night in Austin, and there were families, very diverse, walking in the outdoor mall, standing in line to buy $5 scoops of ice cream for their children. Not hipsters, or God forbid the elite, just regular middle class folk enjoying an evening out. The truth is, life has improved immeasurably for many Americans. Do we have serious problems? Of course, but can we have just a wee bit of perspective?

    Will Harrington says: September 15, 2016 at 5:24 pm
    The Other Sands

    You may be right about the problem, but not its nature. Capitalism is not an impersonal force that can't be controlled, it's what people do economically if they are left alone to do it. The problem comes when people are not, simply put, virtuous. When people seek a return on investment that is not simply reasonable, but rather the most they can possibly get. We have had a capitalist system for long enough that some people who are both good at manipulating it and, often, unethical enough to not care what impact their choices have on others, have accumulated vast amounts of wealth while others, over generations, have made choices that have not been profitable, have lost wealth.

    There used to be mechanisms for preventing these trends to continue to their logical conclusion, as they are here. Judea had Jubilee. The Byzantine Empire had an Emperor whose interests were served by a prosperous landed middle class to populate the Thematic armies and who would occasionally step in and return the land his part time soldiers had lost through bad loans from aristocrats. We have no such mechanism for a farmer to regain land lost due to foreclosure.

    We should not redistribute wealth in such a way that a person has no incentive to work, but we should never allow a person's means of earning a livelihood to be taken from them.

    C. L. H. Daniels says: September 15, 2016 at 5:30 pm
    I wouldn't say that [neo] Liberalism is "spent" as a force, rather that its credibility is. As a cultural force (covering both politics and the economy, among other things), its strength is and remains vast. It is Leviathan. For all intents and purposes, it defines the culture, and thus dictates the imperatives and methods, of our governing and economic elites. The crisis of Western political legitimacy that is manifest in the nomination of Trump, Brexit and numerous other movements and incidents is a sign that the legitimacy of this order has been undermined and is dissolving within the societies it effectively governs; in some unspoken sense, the unwashed masses of the West (those not part of the so-called "New Class") have come to understand that they have been betrayed by the Liberal order, that it has not lived up to its promises, even that it is becoming or has become a force destructive of their communities and their ability to thrive as human beings.

    The ever-increasing autonomy promised by the Liberal order has turned out to be a poisoned chalice for many. As it has dissolved the bonds of families and communities, it has atomized people into individuals without traditional social supports in an increasingly cutthroat and uncaring world. People cannot help but understand that they have lost something or are missing something, even if they are not able to articulate or identify that loss. It is a sickness of the soul, in the sense that the ailment is somewhere close to the heart of what it means to be human. We are what we are, and the Liberal order is pushing us into opposition to our own natures, as if we can choose to be something other than what we are.

    Anne says: September 15, 2016 at 5:32 pm
    This idea that Democrats hate Hillary in the same way Republicans despise Trump is way off base in my opinion. This attempt at equivalency, like so many others, is false. I voted for Sanders because I liked him better, but I am not holding my nose to vote for Hillary Clinton. There are several things I actually admire about her, including her attention to detail and tenacity. I'll always remember how she sat before Congress as First Lady, no paper or crib sheet in sight, and presented her detailed and compelling case for national health care . I thought that was awesome then, and still do.

    Still, as I've noted many times, I never liked the Clintons that much, mainly because I hated a lot of what Bill Clinton stood for and what he did. Aside from his embarrassing sexual escapades, most of that pertained to positions that seemed more Republican than Democratic (on welfare mothers, mental patients, deregulation of the broadcast industry, etc.) I also didn't like their position on abortion nor the way their people treated Gov. Casey at the party convention, nor the dialing back on Jimmy Carter's uncompromising stand for human rights in the third world. Some of Hillary's hawkish positions are still a concern, but what she stands for in general is far and away more humane and within my understanding of what's good for the country and the world at large than anything Republicans represent. Their ideas hurt people on too many fronts to justify voting for them just because I may agree with them on principle when it comes to matters such abortion. Trump just adds insult to injury in every regard.

    Adamant says: September 15, 2016 at 6:22 pm
    xrdsmom says:
    September 15, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    Very well said. What accounts for the relative optimism of minorities vs. whites?
    State of the economy, personal situation, optimism that your kids future will be better than yours, etc. In all of these surveys, it is the pessimism of whites, untethered from empirical reality, that stands out as the outlier.

    Oakinhou says: September 15, 2016 at 6:22 pm
    The Other Sands:

    "Sad because a spiritual argument against the excesses of capitalism might actually gain more traction at this point, than tired liberal arguments."

    It would gain more traction, and it would be better focused at what is much larger cause of the current social, economic, and family problems of the working classes.

    But the argument won't be made, because the majority of those that believe in a societal crisis have pinned the origin of this crisis on feminism, the sexual revolution, and SJW, and have bought in full the bootstraps language of the radical capitalism. Even the majority crunchy cons, that would be sympathetic to the arguments against capitalism, would rather try to solve the ills of the world via cultural instead of economic ways.

    Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors) has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives

    [NFR: Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict said the same thing. - RD]

    allaround says: September 15, 2016 at 6:38 pm
    @redfish

    Bush proved that electing an imbecile to the Presidency has real consequences for our standing in the world. Trump is just as stupid, but he is far more dangerous. At least Bush wasn't a egomaniac. Trump starts speaking without knowing how his sentence will end, and then he will go to down fighting to defend whatever it was he said even though he never really meant it in the first place. That mix of arrogance and stupidity is more dangerous than Bush.

    Charles Cosimano says: September 15, 2016 at 6:46 pm
    "In fact, I doubt we any longer possess enough of a 'civilization' to understand what a 'civilizational crisis' would really mean."

    I think someone has no idea what "civilization" means. None of his definitions apply.

    What we are seeing is the radical change in Western Civilization from the old Graeco-Roman/Christian model to a yet undefined American model. (Which is why Islam in Europe is not very important. Europe is no longer very important.) No one guards the "glory that was Greece" any more. We've moved out of that. The debate will be when did the transition occur. Did it begin in the 19th Century with the Age of Invention? Did it occur in the flash of gunpowder that was WW1? Was it the blasting to rubble of Monte Cassino when the weapons of the new blew the symbol of the old to ruin? Was it the moment men stood upon the Moon and nothing the bronze age pilers of rocks had to say was of any value any more?

    The key to understanding the change is that the old values are dead and we are in the process of creating new ones. No one knows where that is going to go. It is all too new.

    Hanby is wrong. We have a civilization, but it is leaving his in the dust.

    Andrew E. says: September 15, 2016 at 6:53 pm
    Totally unconvincing. It couldn't be more obvious that Hillary stands for rule by globalists whereas Trump intends to return control of the federal government to We the People.

    Which candidate is traveling to Louisiana? Flint? Detroit? Mexico (on behalf of America)? Which candidate calls tens of millions of Americans irredeemable and thus it would be justified in exterminating them?

    Seriously, only one of these two appears interested in leading the nation.

    Jon Swerens says: September 15, 2016 at 6:56 pm
    Harvey said:

    "What's exhausted is religion as a necessary component of social life."

    This is so hilariously untrue, but also very sad that the secular Left cannot see its own idols or even read its own headlines.

    What does he think is happening in the United States besides the rise of a revolutionary moral order, ruled by fickle tastemakers who believe that their own emotions and thoughts have creative power? How else would history have a "side"? How else could "gender" be entirely unmoored from sex and any other scientific fact? Progressivism even has "climate change" as its chosen apocalypse which will visit destruction if not enough fealty is granted to an ever-more-omnipotent and omniscient central government? Does he not see how over and over again, this week's progressive leaders attacks last week's? Amy Schumer, anyone?

    Once a culture abolishes the One True God, as ours has, then that culture begins to find other sources for the attributes of God and for the definitions of virtues and vices.

    Jon Swerens says: September 15, 2016 at 6:59 pm
    What makes Mr. Cosimano so sure that what America is passing into is anything like a "civilization" at all? We could simple pass into barbarism. Can anyone name the leaders who hope to build any kind of civilization at all?
    Andrew E. says: September 15, 2016 at 7:03 pm
    Never forget that there is a real and clear choice before us.

    Clinton will deliver amnesty to 40 million illegals. Continue the 1 million legal immigrants per yer all from the Third World. She will radically upsize the Muslim refugee influx to hundreds of thousands per year. All terrible things.

    Trump will do the opposite. This will make a massive difference to the future of the country - Trump, good…Clinton, bad - and is what this election is about.

    bacon says: September 15, 2016 at 7:08 pm
    For 70+ years, other than while working on a university degree in history, I never gave a thought to civilizational collapse, so I would have been a poor choice to ask for a definition of the term. But after a few years of reading TAC I think I have a handle on it. It's a situation in which someone or some group sees broad social change they don't like. So probably civilizational collapse is constant and ongoing.

    As for me, I'm outside somewhere every day and so far not even a tiny piece of the sky has fallen on me.

    Richard McGee says: September 15, 2016 at 7:19 pm
    @xrdsmom
    Empirical reality depends on where you stand. Younote that your prospects have improved relative to your mom's. For the working class whites working at low paying jobs, they have declined. Is their anger simply a response to loss of white privilege? In the sense that this privilege consisted of access to well-paying jobs out of high school, the answer is yes.

    I would only point out that there is no clear path to economic safety for working Americans, whether they are white are black. Training and hard work will only take you so far in our demand-constrained economy. Whether black optimism or white pessimism turns out to be empirically justified is far from certain. We are constructing the future as we speak, and our actions will determine the answer to this question.

    Fran Macadam says: September 15, 2016 at 7:55 pm
    It's true a lot of people couldn't point to Syria; because that's how important it is to most people. So why are we now involved in a full scale war there, when the American people clearly stated they didn't want another war?

    As the WikiLeaks dox show, it wasn't "barrel bombs" or "chemical warfare against his own people" that made the elites hungry to overthrow the government there, it was the 2009 decision by Syria not to allow an oil pipeline through from Qatar to Turkey, whereupon the CIA was directed to start funding jihadists and regime change.

    Alan says: September 15, 2016 at 7:57 pm
    @ xrdsmom…..nice try….but I'm not buying it. You said Austin, and then tried to say these aren't elites. LOL.

    Drive through the back counties of Kentucky and then report back to me that everything is fine.

    cecelia says: September 15, 2016 at 8:23 pm
    Hillary is not as corrupt as some think nor is Trump likely to be able to enact much of his agenda(most of which he has no commitment to – it is all a performance). So I do not see either as end times candidates.

    However – a civilization must assure certain things – order, cohesion, safety from invasion and occupation. It also must assure that the resources we secure from the earth are available – good soil, clean water, sustainable management of energy sources etc. This is where our civilization is failing – if you doubt this – spend a moment looking up soil erosion on Google. Or dead zones Mississippi and Nile deltas. Depletion of fish stocks. Loss of arable land and potable water all over the planet. Is this calamitous failure a function of liberalism or capitalism run amok? Perhaps the two go hand in hand?

    I'd note that Popes going back to Leo XIII have written on the destructive effects of capitalism or rather the unmitigated pursuit of wealth. Both Benedict and Francis have eloquently expressed the need for a spiritual conversion to solve the world's problems. A conversion which recognizes our solidarity with one another as well as our obligation to the health of Creation. I rather doubt we will find the impetus for this conversion among our politicians.

    But there are certainly all over the earth groups of people who have experienced this conversion and are seeking to build civilizations which are just and sustainable. Rod has written about some – his friends in Italy as an example.

    Hope is God's glory revealed in ourselves.

    Lord Karth says: September 15, 2016 at 10:55 pm
    The problem is not civilization-level, Mr. Dreher. The problem is species -level. Humanity as a whole is discovering that it cannot handle too high a level of technology without losing its ability to get feedback from its environment. Without that feedback, its elite classes drift off into literal insanity. The rest of the society soon follows.

    The trick is going to be recovering our connection with the Realities of existence without bringing technological civilization down or re-engineering Humanity into something we would not recognize.

    Color me less than optimistic about our prospects.

    Your servant,

    Lord Karth

    Kit Stolz says: September 16, 2016 at 3:30 am
    The Catholic philosopher writes:

    "I really think there is a pervasive, but unarticulated sense that liberalism is exhausted, that we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable. The reasons for this anxiety are manifold and cannot be reduced to politics or economics…"

    Agree! For once. For reasons more civil than spiritual, but never mind. James Parker in The Atlantic comes to a similar conclusion from a very different starting place (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/donald-trump-sex-pistol/497528/)

    "For Trump to be revealed as a salvational figure, the conditions around him must be dire. Trump_vs_deep_state-like fascism, like a certain kind of smash-it-up punk rock-begins in apprehensions of apocalypse."

    Eric Mader says: September 16, 2016 at 3:55 am
    Hanky's diagnosis is brilliant. Yes, thanks for posting, Rod.

    One of our fundamental problems, along with the conceptual horizons imposed by liberalism, is the obsolete language of "left" and "right" that we continue to apply when weighing our options. This too is part of why we can't construct a politics of hope, and in my reading it explains the decline of the left into identity politics (our Democratic Party is not any more "the left" in any meaningful way) and of the right into "movement conservatism" or Trumpian nationalism.

    Classical [neo]liberalism presents itself not as a tentative theory of how society might be organized but as a theory of nature. It claims to lay out the forces of nature and to make these a model for social order. Thus free-market fundamentalism, letting the market function "as nature intended". It's an absurd position when applied dogmatically, and no more "natural" than other economic arrangements humans might come up with.

    The only truly rock solid aspect of classical liberalism in my mind is its theory of individual dignity, the permanent and nonnegotiable value of each individual in essence and before the law. The left has taken this and run with it and turned it into a divination of individual desire and self-definition, which is something different. The capitalist right has taken it and turned it into a theory of individual responsibility for one's economic fate, which is helpful in ways, but not decisive or even fully explanatory as to why people end up where they are. And a lot of people are not in a good place thanks to the free trade enthusiasts who believe what they're up to somehow reflects the eternal forces of nature.

    Further, as I suggest, our two camps "left" and "right" are no longer distinctly left and right in any traditional sense. The market forces and self-marketing that lead to the fetishization of identity by the left are the same market forces championed by the capitalist right. In America today, both left and right are merely different bourgeois cults of Self.

    It should be no surprise that the inalienable dignity of the individual, that rock solid core of liberal thinking, grew directly from the Christian soil of Paul's assertion of the equality of all–men, women, Greek, Jew, freed, slave–in Christ. (Galatians 3:28) The world's current thinking on "human rights" is merely a universalized version of Paul's thought, hatched in a Christian Europe by philosophes who didn't recognize just how Christian they were.

    After all the utopian dusts settle, whether the dust of Adam Smith or the dust of PC Non-Discrimination, we must see that the one thing holding us together is this recognition that the political order must respect human rights. The core issue at present is thus that we legislate in ways that reflect a realistic understanding of these rights. As for "movement conservatism" or PC progressivism, they each represent pipe dreams that don't address the economic or legal challenges in coherent ways, and they each sacrifice true rights at one altar or another.

    The obsolete language of "left" and "right" keeps us unwilling to grapple with the real economic and legal challenges, if only because we're too busy cheerleading either one version of the capitalist cult or the other.

    I'm looking forward to The Benedict Option mainly as providing some answers as to how the remnant of faithful Christians in this mayhem might both hold their faith intact while perhaps simultaneously developing less utopian modes of thinking about community. The neoliberal order may very well be shaping up to be for us something like the pagan Roman Empire was to the early church. We finally have to face that, politically speaking, we are in the world but not of it.

    JonF says: September 16, 2016 at 6:09 am
    Re: Clinton will deliver amnesty to 40 million illegals.

    Will she be inviting them in from parallel universes? Because we do not have 40 million illegals. The number is closer to eleven million.

    Also the president can't do this on his/her own. Congress has to act. The House will remain GOP. The Senate may too, or will flip back to GOP after 2018. As I mentioned Clinton's hands will be tied as much as Obama's have been since 2010. That includes Supreme Court appointments. Only the most boring of moderates will get through– sure, they won't overturn Roe or Oberfell, but they won't rubber stamp much new either.

    Elijah says: September 16, 2016 at 7:38 am
    "Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors) has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives."

    [NFR: Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict said the same thing. - RD]"

    It doesn't sit well for two reasons: (a) we have yet to hear a cogent description of what "bridled" capitalism is/looks like and (b) capitalism has its faults, but it has raised far more boats than it has swamped.

    Until we hear an admission of (b) and an explanation of (a), their statements will continue to fall on deaf ears. Particularly from Pope Francis, whose grip on economic ideas seems tenuous at best.

    [Sep 17, 2016] Unlocking the Election The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... If that record is perceived as unacceptable, then again it doesn't much matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent or incumbent party loses. ..."
    "... The Clinton email thing does not begin to rise to the level of Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky affair, except perhaps in the fever swamps of Fox News. ..."
    "... My guess is that ultimately the two third parties fielding candidates this election will not trigger this key; they are what Lichtman calls "perennial third parties" and not really insurgencies led by well-known political figures, which is when the third party key is generally triggered. ..."
    "... Having said all that, I congratulate the author for recognizing and engaging with Lichtman's work. It's a very substantial theory with a great track record that, for reasons I don't fully understand, is generally overlooked by journalists who write about such things. ..."
    "... Right now, polling composite scores put Hillary Clinton at +5 or more over Trump in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Add in the safely blue states and her floor is 272 electoral votes, even assuming she underperforms relative to her polling by 5 points across the board. Hillary wins even on a bad night. ..."
    "... We elected Obama in large part to repudiate Bush, who was a total disaster. Now, if your hypothesis holds, we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute. In 4 or 8 years, which loser will the Democrats trot out to repudiate Trump, who is virtually guaranteed to be a total disaster? Most sane Americans just want this roller coaster to be over. ..."
    "... Trump has the momentum right now, as Hillary Clinton stumbles. ..."
    "... The overall national numbers show a slight and late recovery from recession. However, the average and median numbers conceal a split, in which a majority of voters did not participate in the recovery, especially in key swing states. ..."
    "... Trump is actively drawing support from this sense of failure to recover, so it is not just theoretical. I'd score the recovery against the incumbent too, because key voting segments would. ..."
    "... We are seeing a good example of the preference cascade. For well over a year Clinton has been capped at 45%, usually in the low 40's. As it becomes more respectable to vote for Trump, the more people are willing to move from the undecided/third party column to the Trump column. ..."
    "... If I recall correctly, Lichtman also scores both the foreign policy/military success and failure keys differently. ISIS is a foreign policy failure, but not on the public perception of Pearl Harbor, the fall of Vietnam, or the Iran hostage crisis. And the Iran deal is a foreign policy success, but not on the level of, say, winning WWII. ..."
    "... Polls, by themselves, don't predict much, and certainly not long-term – although I agree that Clinton remains the likely winner this year. ..."
    "... Obama (I did not vote for him in '08 or '12) has succeeded and some areas, and failed in others – such is the nature of the job. ..."
    "... As a student of history, I suspect his presidency will be graded somewhere between B- and C+; slightly above average. Whereas, by your assessment, his predecessor was "can't miss" disasters (D- leaning toward F). ..."
    "... we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute ..."
    "... At the end of the day, though, Lichtman's model, like most models of voting behavior, is not intended so much as a predictive system as an attempt to explain how voters make decisions. The Lichtman theory does a remarkable job of modeling such decision-making, and demonstrates clearly his hypothesis that presidential elections are mostly referenda on the performance of the incumbent party. That doesn't mean it will always be so, but he makes a compelling case that it's been that way since the Civil War. ..."
    "... Obama's economy isn't gonna help Hillary Clinton. Government data show that the economy only grew by 1.2 percent in the second quarter. First quarter growth was also revised down from 1.1 percent to 0.8 percent. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton addressed the sluggish economy in her speech last night, admitting that Americans "feel like the economy just isn't working." Although she cited economic growth under president Obama, she insisted that "none of us can be satisfied with the status quo." ..."
    Sep 17, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    In 1976, Washington insider Averell Harriman famously said of Georgia peanut farmer Jimmy Carter, the one-term governor and presidential aspirant, "He can't be nominated, I don't know him and I don't know anyone who does.'' Within months Jimmy Carter was president. Harriman's predictive folly serves as an allegory of democratic politics. The unthinkable can happen, and when it does it becomes not only thinkable but natural, even commonplace. The many compelling elements of Carter's unusual presidential quest remained shrouded from Harriman's vision because they didn't track with his particular experiences and political perceptions. Call it the Harriman syndrome.

    The Harriman syndrome has been on full display during the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump. He couldn't possibly get the Republican nomination. Too boorish. A political neophyte. No organization. No intellectual depth. A divisive character out of sync with Republicans' true sensibilities. Then he got the nomination, and now those same perceptions are being trotted out to bolster the view that he can't possibly become president. Besides, goes the conventional wisdom, demographic trends are impinging upon the Electoral College in ways that pretty much preclude any Republican from winning the presidency in our time.

    But Trump actually can win, despite his gaffe-prone ways and his poor standing in the polls as the general-election campaign gets under way. I say this based upon my thesis, explored in my latest book ( Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians ), that presidential elections are largely referendums on the incumbent or incumbent party. If the incumbent's record is adjudged by the electorate to be exemplary, it doesn't matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent wins. If that record is perceived as unacceptable, then again it doesn't much matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent or incumbent party loses.

    ... ... ...

    Robert W. Merry is author of books on American history and foreign policy, including Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians .

  • Robert Levine , says: September 15, 2016 at 1:44 am
    Worth noting is that Lichtman himself scores the keys differently than does the author of this post. As the inventor of the system, his analysis deserves considerable weight. In particular, he scores the nomination contest key, the scandal key, and the challenger charisma key as all favorable to Democrats.

    I'm not sure I agree with him about the nomination contest key, but I think that, by the criteria he used in analyzing past elections, he's right about the other two. The Clinton email thing does not begin to rise to the level of Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky affair, except perhaps in the fever swamps of Fox News. As far as charisma, Lichtman identified four 20th-century candidates as charismatic: the two Roosevelts, Kennedy, and Reagan. Trump is not in that league.

    The third-party key is, as the author states, not really possible to call at this point. My guess is that ultimately the two third parties fielding candidates this election will not trigger this key; they are what Lichtman calls "perennial third parties" and not really insurgencies led by well-known political figures, which is when the third party key is generally triggered.

    One other point is worth mentioning. Lichtman's first key, the incumbent mandate key, changed during the development of his theory. It was originally based on whether the incumbent party had received an absolute majority of the popular vote in the previous election (which, in this case, would have favored the Democrats). But, because that led to the system predicting an incorrect outcome in one particular election (I don't remember which one), he changed it to the current comparison of seats won in the previous two mid-terms. I think there's a case to be made that the advanced state of the gerrymandering art may have rendered this key useless; it is now entirely possible for a party to gain seats from one mid-term to the next while actually doing less well in the popular vote. In fact, that's exactly what happened from 2010 to 2014; the percentage of the vote that Republican house members received was lower in 2014 than it was in 2010, even though they gained more seats in 2014. In any case, I don't think that it really favors Trump in the way the author of the OP thinks it does.

    Having said all that, I congratulate the author for recognizing and engaging with Lichtman's work. It's a very substantial theory with a great track record that, for reasons I don't fully understand, is generally overlooked by journalists who write about such things.

    Douglas K. , says: September 15, 2016 at 3:44 am
    I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's the sort of thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort of works because the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.

    What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging the results of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.

    Right now, polling composite scores put Hillary Clinton at +5 or more over Trump in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Add in the safely blue states and her floor is 272 electoral votes, even assuming she underperforms relative to her polling by 5 points across the board. Hillary wins even on a bad night.

    Of course Trump might close some of that gap in the next seven weeks. We'll see.

    Tim , says: September 15, 2016 at 7:31 am
    "If the incumbent's record is adjudged by the electorate to be exemplary, it doesn't matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent wins. If that record is perceived as unacceptable, then again it doesn't much matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent or incumbent party loses."

    That is a compelling hypothesis which I find very plausible. As our two parties drift farther apart and become incapable of giving us any representatives whom we find exemplary, what happens to us? We elected Obama in large part to repudiate Bush, who was a total disaster. Now, if your hypothesis holds, we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute. In 4 or 8 years, which loser will the Democrats trot out to repudiate Trump, who is virtually guaranteed to be a total disaster? Most sane Americans just want this roller coaster to be over.

    Clint , says: September 15, 2016 at 11:29 am
    Trump has the momentum right now, as Hillary Clinton stumbles. Poll: Clinton, Trump tied in four-way race

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/296078-poll-clinton-leads-trump-by-5-nationwide

    Jim the First , says: September 15, 2016 at 11:37 am
    I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's the sort of thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort of works because the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.

    This, in spades. Plus, many of these keys are so subjective (at least prospectively) as to render them meaningless for anything but fun predictive parlor games.

    What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging the results of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.

    Yes and no. Gallup thought this, too, when it predicted Dewey would defeat Truman. Nate Silver was absolutely positive that Trump could never ever ever win the Republican nomination, until he did.

    My analysis is that under the old, pre-Big Data-driven elections (i.e. micro-targeting your likely voters, registering them if they are unregistered, and stopping at nothing (probably not even the election laws) in getting them to the polls), Trump would win rather handily, but under the new Big Data-driven campaigns that the initial Obama campaign was the first to master, Clinton is a huge favorite, baggage and all. Organization and ground game trumps a lot – not everything, but a lot.

    Mark Thomason , says: September 15, 2016 at 1:15 pm
    The overall national numbers show a slight and late recovery from recession. However, the average and median numbers conceal a split, in which a majority of voters did not participate in the recovery, especially in key swing states.

    Trump is actively drawing support from this sense of failure to recover, so it is not just theoretical. I'd score the recovery against the incumbent too, because key voting segments would.

    The Zman , says: September 15, 2016 at 1:35 pm
    Averaging polls is the sort of thing people not good at math like to say, believing it makes them sound good at math.

    We are seeing a good example of the preference cascade. For well over a year Clinton has been capped at 45%, usually in the low 40's. As it becomes more respectable to vote for Trump, the more people are willing to move from the undecided/third party column to the Trump column.

    Robert Levine , says: September 15, 2016 at 2:00 pm
    If I recall correctly, Lichtman also scores both the foreign policy/military success and failure keys differently. ISIS is a foreign policy failure, but not on the public perception of Pearl Harbor, the fall of Vietnam, or the Iran hostage crisis. And the Iran deal is a foreign policy success, but not on the level of, say, winning WWII.

    I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's the sort of thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort of works because the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.

    What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging the results of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.

    Lichtman has been able to predict successfully the popular-vote winner for the last 7 or 8 elections, in many cases many months in advance – which, by standards of electoral prediction models, is pretty remarkable. Polls, by themselves, don't predict much, and certainly not long-term – although I agree that Clinton remains the likely winner this year.

    Joe the Plutocrat , says: September 15, 2016 at 2:08 pm
    @Tim, How has/is Obama "becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute."? The consensus might be on the Foreign Policy side of the equation, but truthfully, he's spent 8 years cleaning up the mess handed him by the "total disaster" who preceded him. If you want the rollercoaster to be over, get off the rollercoaster. That is to say, most of the excitement offered by the rollercoaster lies in its design (partisan/tribal/echo chamber nonsense).

    See: Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, emails, Parkinson's, etc., etc. be legitimate concerns for a John Q. Public, the hyperbolic birther indignation does a disservice to critical thinking, rational Americans. Make no mistake, the GOP candidate has literally made a career (TV/Pro Wrestling) trading in this currency, but in the end, such hyperbole is a distraction. Obama (I did not vote for him in '08 or '12) has succeeded and some areas, and failed in others – such is the nature of the job.

    As a student of history, I suspect his presidency will be graded somewhere between B- and C+; slightly above average. Whereas, by your assessment, his predecessor was "can't miss" disasters (D- leaning toward F).

    JonF , says: September 15, 2016 at 2:14 pm
    Re: we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute

    Huh? Have you seen any of the more recent news on the economy? Or for that matter Obama's soaring approval ratings?

    Clint , says: September 15, 2016 at 3:14 pm
    Have you seen any of the more recent news on the economy?

    The Harvard Business School Report released today. Report: Government inaction is hampering economic growth: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-government-inaction-is-hampering-economic-growth/

    Derek , says: September 15, 2016 at 4:52 pm
    I also fail to see how President Obama, a veritable reincarnation of Bill Clinton, but without the scandals, is "becoming more of a disaster each passing minute." We have less (visible) war, we have more jobs, and we have better pay. Yes, the small segment of the population that was paying peanuts for narrowly-defined healthcare 'plans' is paying more now for healthcare than they were 6 years ago, but a large segment now has healthcare that previously did not. This will take decades to unfold but the savings will be immense over the long run. Our international prestige is as high or higher than it was at its peak in 2002 (before Bush started the stupider of his two wars).

    It's barely an exaggeration to say that, outside of the echo chamber, none of partisan concerns of the right wing are shared by the electorate at large. The plight of the underclass (of any color) is not being addressed regardless of which candidate you choose in this election. Immigration is a red herring issue, designed to hide the fact that your boss hasn't given you a raise in 20 years.

    Archon , says: September 15, 2016 at 7:45 pm
    I'm sure it makes Obama haters and Republican partisans feel good to think that Obama's Presidency is the cause for Hillary Clinton's loss (if she does indeed lose). Economic indicators along with Presidential approval ratings however suggest that if Hillary does lose it will be in spite of the electorates feelings on Obama not because of it.
    Robert Levine , says: September 15, 2016 at 11:53 pm
    many of these keys are so subjective (at least prospectively) as to render them meaningless for anything but fun predictive parlor games.

    That is the usual objection to Lichtman's theory. But his work gives pretty clear examples of what he considers the kind of events that drive his predictors. For example, "foreign policy/military success" looks like winning WWII and not like the Iran nuclear deal; "foreign policy/military failure" looks like Pearl Harbor and not ISIS' (temporary) success in gaining territory. "Scandal" looks like Watergate, and not like Clinton's email (or, interestingly, Iran/Contra, if memory serves). "Social unrest" looks like the summer of 1968, and not like the shootings in Orlando, Dallas, and San Bernadino.

    In short, events that drive his predictors are things that are the main (or even sole) subject of national conversation for weeks. Deciding what events are such drivers is not completely objective, perhaps, but it's also not hard to figure out what the author of the system would consider a given event. A system like his only works if one scores things as honestly as possible, and not as one might wish them to be. Then it can work very well.

    At the end of the day, though, Lichtman's model, like most models of voting behavior, is not intended so much as a predictive system as an attempt to explain how voters make decisions. The Lichtman theory does a remarkable job of modeling such decision-making, and demonstrates clearly his hypothesis that presidential elections are mostly referenda on the performance of the incumbent party. That doesn't mean it will always be so, but he makes a compelling case that it's been that way since the Civil War.

    John Blade Wiederspan , says: September 16, 2016 at 12:18 am
    With the chance that Donald will be President, and his followers rejecting outright the Washington establishment and corporate media as enemies; if he does come to power, who are We, the People, supposed to respect and trust? How can you be loyal to, and obey the laws of, a country governed by "Washington insiders"? How can you trust the liberal, coastal, educated, elite media reporting government malfeasance? In who or what should we place our trust? Dark days ahead, dark days.
    Mac61 , says: September 16, 2016 at 9:50 am
    The hope must be in a reinvigorated Republican Party in 2018 and 2020. As Trump again raises his birther conspiracy, the strongman will give voters plenty of reasons to reject his incoherent campaign. Total waste, when 2016 should have firmly been in Republican hands. I understand why he demolished the Republican field and realigned the issues that galvanize Republican voters, but in the end his pathological narcissism will be his downfall. If he wins, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party. They will control government from 2018 to the end of our lives.
    Clint , says: September 16, 2016 at 3:33 pm
    Obama's economy isn't gonna help Hillary Clinton. Government data show that the economy only grew by 1.2 percent in the second quarter. First quarter growth was also revised down from 1.1 percent to 0.8 percent.

    Hillary Clinton addressed the sluggish economy in her speech last night, admitting that Americans "feel like the economy just isn't working." Although she cited economic growth under president Obama, she insisted that "none of us can be satisfied with the status quo."

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/29/sluggish-u-s-economy-grows-1-2-percent-second-quarter/

  • [Sep 17, 2016] How the Obsession With American Leadership Warps Foreign Policy Analysis The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched thin, but our size buffers the stumbles. ..."
    "... Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we simply don't know. ..."
    "... It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism". The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to save the world, again and again. ..."
    "... Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism. Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just and pure and right. ..."
    "... It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate us to their ends. ..."
    Sep 17, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Ben Denison criticizes a familiar flaw in foreign policy commentary:

    When a surprising event occurs that threatens U.S. interests, many are quick to blame Washington's lack of leadership and deride the administration for failing to anticipate and prevent the crisis. Recent examples from the continuing conflict in Syria, Russia's intervention in Ukraine, Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, and even the attempted coup in Turkey, all illustrate how this is a regular impulse for the foreign policy punditry class. This impulse, while comforting to some, fails to consider the interests and agency of the other countries involved in the crisis. Instead of turning to detailed analysis and tracing the international context of a crisis, often we are bombarded with an abundance of concerns about a lack of American leadership.

    The inability or unwillingness to acknowledge and take into account the agency and interests of other political actors around the world is one of the more serious flaws in the way many Americans think and talk about these issues. This not only fails to consider how other actors are likely to respond to a proposed U.S. action, but it credits the U.S. with far more control over other parts of the world and much more competence in handling any given issue than any government has ever possessed or ever will. Because the U.S. is the preeminent major power in the world, there is a tendency to treat any undesirable event as something that our government has "allowed" to happen through carelessness, misplaced priorities, or some other mistake. Many foreign policy pundits recoil from the idea that there are events beyond our government's ability to "shape" or that there are actors that cannot be compelled to behave as we wish (provided we simply have enough "resolve"), because it means that there are many problems around the world that the U.S. cannot and shouldn't attempt to fix.

    When a protest movement takes to the streets in another country and is then brutally suppressed, many people, especially hawkish pundits, decry our government's "failure" to "support" the movement, as if it were the lack of U.S. support and not internal political factors that produced the outcome. When the overthrow of a foreign government by a protest movement leads to an intervention by a neighboring major power, the U.S. is again faulted for "failing" to stop the intervention, as if it could have done so short of risking great power conflict. Even more absurdly, the same intervention is sometimes blamed on a U.S. decision not to attack a third country in another part of the world unrelated to the crisis in question. In order to claim all these things, one not only has to fail to take account of the interests and agency of other states, but one also has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us and every action others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government does (or doesn't do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion about how people all around the world behave. At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness on the part of many of the same people to overlook the consequences of things that the U.S. has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own government's agency when it suits them.

    EliteCommInc. , says: September 16, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    "At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness on the part of many of the same people to overlook the consequences of things that the U.S. has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own government's agency when it suits them."

    It is the failure of the after party assessment. Regardless of success or failure (however defined) the tend not to have an after action report by the political class is why there's little movement in this area.

    Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched thin, but our size buffers the stumbles.

    Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we simply don't know.

    bt , says: September 16, 2016 at 6:16 pm
    It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism". The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to save the world, again and again.

    Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism. Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just and pure and right.

    It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate us to their ends.

    let johnny come marching home , says: September 16, 2016 at 7:54 pm
    "one also has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us and every action others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government does (or doesn't do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion about how people all around the world behave."

    It also overlooks the quality of those we send to do the meddling and intervening.

    We don't have enough intelligent, educated, competent people.

    The imperial Brits had their own problems, Lord knows, But the general level of British competence, intelligence, and education in the Raj and other colonies was far higher than that of our own congeries of corrupt, half-educated hacks and incompetents.

    [Sep 16, 2016] Whats The FBI Hiding That Triggered A Congressional Subpoena by Andrew Napolitano

    Notable quotes:
    "... Because many members of Congress do not believe that the FBI acted free of political interference, they demanded to see the full FBI files in the case, not just the selected portions of the files that the FBI had released. In the case of the House, the FBI declined to surrender its files, and the agent it sent to testify about them declined to reveal their contents. This led to a dramatic service of a subpoena by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on that FBI agent while he was testifying - all captured on live nationally broadcast television. ..."
    "... According to Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI violated federal law by commingling classified and unclassified materials in the safe room, thereby making it unlawful for senators to discuss publicly the unclassified material. ..."
    "... Imposing such a burden of silence on U.S. senators about unclassified materials is unlawful and unconstitutional. What does the FBI have to hide? Whence comes the authority of the FBI to bar senators from commenting on unclassified materials? ..."
    "... What is going on here? The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton has not served the rule of law. The rule of law - a pillar of American constitutional freedom since the end of the Civil War - mandates that the laws are to be enforced equally. No one is beneath their protection, and no one is above ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge (reprinted from LewRockwell.com )

    It is hard to believe that the FBI was free to do its work, and it is probably true that the FBI was restrained by the White House early on. There were numerous aberrations in the investigation. There was no grand jury; no subpoenas were issued; no search warrants were served. Two people claimed to have received immunity, yet the statutory prerequisite for immunity - giving testimony before a grand or trial jury - was never present.

    Because many members of Congress do not believe that the FBI acted free of political interference, they demanded to see the full FBI files in the case, not just the selected portions of the files that the FBI had released. In the case of the House, the FBI declined to surrender its files, and the agent it sent to testify about them declined to reveal their contents. This led to a dramatic service of a subpoena by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on that FBI agent while he was testifying - all captured on live nationally broadcast television.

    Now the FBI, which usually serves subpoenas and executes search warrants, is left with the alternative of complying with this unwanted subpoena by producing its entire file or arguing to a federal judge why it should not be compelled to do so.

    On the Senate side, matters are even more out of hand. There, in response to a request from the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI sent both classified and unclassified materials to the Senate safe room. The Senate safe room is a secure location that is available only to senators and their senior staff, all of whom must surrender their mobile devices and writing materials and swear in writing not to reveal whatever they see while in the room before they are permitted to enter.

    According to Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI violated federal law by commingling classified and unclassified materials in the safe room, thereby making it unlawful for senators to discuss publicly the unclassified material.

    Imposing such a burden of silence on U.S. senators about unclassified materials is unlawful and unconstitutional. What does the FBI have to hide? Whence comes the authority of the FBI to bar senators from commenting on unclassified materials?

    Who cares about this? Everyone who believes that the government works for us should care because we have a right to know what the government - here the FBI - has done in our names. Sen. Grassley has opined that if he could reveal what he has seen in the FBI unclassified records, it would be of profound interest to American voters.

    What is going on here? The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton has not served the rule of law. The rule of law - a pillar of American constitutional freedom since the end of the Civil War - mandates that the laws are to be enforced equally. No one is beneath their protection, and no one is above

    Short Squeeze •Sep 16, 2016 12:12 PM

    My theory is that when Comey stated "no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute", he already knew of her health issues. Would a prosecutor go after someone with 6 months to live?

    saloonsf •Sep 16, 2016 12:03 PM

    That's not FBI's responsibilities-exposing the elites cupabilities. The FBI primary objective is to protect the elites and the system that benefit them.

    Atomizer •Sep 16, 2016 12:10 PM

    The wagons are circling around the Clinton Foundation. Chelsea's husband is going to get nicked.

    withglee •Sep 16, 2016 12:25 PM

    Sen. Grassley has opined that if he could reveal what he has seen in the FBI unclassified records, it would be of profound interest to American voters.

    So what's keeping Grassley from asking that those unclassified documents be taken from the room and laid on his desk. He is not allowed to talk about what he saw in the room. But for sure he is allowed to talk about unclassified documents laid upon his desk ... even if they were once in the room. If that wasn't the case, the government would just run every document through the room ... to give it official immunity from inspection and exposure.

    [Sep 16, 2016] Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times. From your link, an individual email account on the server was breached

    Notable quotes:
    "... The State Deptartment had been using Blackberries since 2006, and diplomats overseas had been using them for just as long. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton didn't need to use a fancy NSA-approved smartphone to access classified data. Whenever she went overseas, she had a team of IT specialists who was able to provide her with ClassNet access, and they're able to do so without any technical support from a US Embassy. ..."
    "... The Exchange and BES software were likely purchased by Hillary '08, and properly licensed for that usage. But as far as after that.... ..."
    "... In a country where a standing governer running as VP could be found explicitly and intentionally using Yahoo email for the express purpose of avoiding FOIA on relevant government business, and there be no investigation whatsoever well. Let's just say there's an exceedingly strong whiff of double standards in the air. ..."
    "... Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times. From your link, an individual email account on the server was breached. ..."
    "... This happens all the time, for varying reasons, mostly due to a phishing compromise of the account, and occasionally due to password re-use and related vectors of compromise. While it's bad for the individual account's contents, it's absolutely irrelevant beyond that. ..."
    "... If that's the worst they can find then personally I'm actually impressed. I was expecting that the server(s) had been root/fully compromised at least once, given how they get perennially described. If that turns out to not be the case, then they've actually been run better and more securely than the State Department's [at least non-classified] servers, from all reports. ..."
    "... A 'breach' of an account is not a breach of the server. The account being access via TOR implies the user credentials were acquired through some means. Was this 'breached' account a classified account? ..."
    "... "multiple times" is 3 times in this case, and it wasn't the server that was breached, it was 1 person's email. ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | arstechnica.com
    Ars Scholae -> Palatinae reply Sep 3, 2016 10:22 AM

    Hillary Clinton didn't need to use her own Blackberry. The State Deptartment had been using Blackberries since 2006, and diplomats overseas had been using them for just as long.

    Hillary Clinton didn't need to use a fancy NSA-approved smartphone to access classified data. Whenever she went overseas, she had a team of IT specialists who was able to provide her with ClassNet access, and they're able to do so without any technical support from a US Embassy.

    corsairmarks Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 2, 2016 4:27 PM

    Quote: First, the Clintons had requested, according to a PRN employee interviewed by the FBI, that the contents of the server be encrypted so that only mail recipients could read the content. This was not done, largely so that PRN technicians could "troubleshoot problems occurring within user accounts," the FBI memo reports.

    Also, while the Clintons had requested only local backups, the Datto appliance initially also used Datto's secure cloud backup service until August of 2015. \

    Sounds like some of the problem was the contractor not following the procedures established by the client.

    Rommel102 Ars Praefectus et Subscriptor reply Sep 2, 2016 4:27 PM

    Popular Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

    Sean Gallagher IT Editor reply Sep 2, 2016 4:39 PM

    vcsjones wrote: I wonder what the odds are that all of the OS / Exchange / BES CALs were actually licensed correctly.

    The Exchange and BES software were likely purchased by Hillary '08, and properly licensed for that usage. But as far as after that....

    diaphanein Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 2, 2016 4:51 PM Uxorious wrote:

    Just to clarify, the move to a hosted solution - with requested encryption - was initiated after Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State (January 21, 2009 – February 1, 2013) was completed in February, 2013, and FOIA requests were no longer applicable as she was no longer a government employee.

    I think that would depend on the scope of the migration. Did they migrate all of the history over to the hosted solution? i.e. Did they migrate the OS, Exchange and BES servers into PRN's datacenter? Or, did they start from scratch with a clean slate, fresh install and no data migration. If it's the former and not the latter, I'd be pretty damned certain it'd still be subject to FOIA requests.

    • Sep 2, 2016 4:57 PM Popular

      In a country where a standing governer running as VP could be found explicitly and intentionally using Yahoo email for the express purpose of avoiding FOIA on relevant government business, and there be no investigation whatsoever well. Let's just say there's an exceedingly strong whiff of double standards in the air.

      I'm not fond of this private server crap. I think it's bullshit and it never should have been allowed in the first place. She should have simply been told that it's not permissible, whatsoever. But I also think the classified email issues are red herrings in the context of the use of private servers, as they would have been just as much an issue on State Department non classified servers.

      And I think that it's been made abundantly clear that the tools to do business over email and modern mobile computing were extremely lacking, outside of a solution like this, and what tools were available were purposefully withheld over what sounds like ridiculous political fighting under the guise of bureaucracy.

      None of this means what she did was ok, but it's also hard to not look askance at the relentless witchhunting when it's placed in that broader context.

      Personally I've reached a point where I'm done caring on the topic. There doesn't seem to be any kind of smoking gun, just a lot of hemming and hawing. Normally I would care about this, but honestly I'm a bit inured at this point. Where is the show of her using these specifically to avoid FOIA on work material actually relevant to FOIA?

      That's really the only true relevant question when it comes to moving to private servers. Classified material isn't supposed to be on unclassified government servers either, so the attempt to focus on that (mostly with retroactive or improperly labeled material and a few other issues) really seems awkward when we're supposed to care about the private servers as if they're damning.

    Rommel102 wrote:

    Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times. From your link, an individual email account on the server was breached.

    This happens all the time, for varying reasons, mostly due to a phishing compromise of the account, and occasionally due to password re-use and related vectors of compromise. While it's bad for the individual account's contents, it's absolutely irrelevant beyond that.

    If that's the worst they can find then personally I'm actually impressed. I was expecting that the server(s) had been root/fully compromised at least once, given how they get perennially described. If that turns out to not be the case, then they've actually been run better and more securely than the State Department's [at least non-classified] servers, from all reports.

    Look, getting all up in arms over crap like that link is why people like me are no longer convinced there's anything here worth paying attention to. I'm actually willing to listen if there's some kind of smoking gun, but that's some petty bullshit right there.

    taswyn Ars Tribunus Militum reply Sep 2, 2016 5:03 PM

    Popular ziegler wrote: Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

    Not sure why you are being down voted on newly revealed information that seems to confirm that one of the servers email accounts was breached.

    If you're down voting him, perhaps an explanation as to why?

    Do you say that "google's servers got breached" every time an individual email account on them is compromised?

    What he said is factually incorrect. The server was not breached. An individual email account was accessed. They're not the same thing. Not even an OS user level account. An email account.

    omniron Ars Praefectus reply Sep 2, 2016 5:13 PM Popular

    Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

    "multiple times" is 3 times in this case, and it wasn't the server that was breached, it was 1 person's email.

    Even if this person was clinton herself, we already know there was not much damaging information stored on this server. And considering this seems more like someone used a weak password or was phished, this is a vulnerability no matter what email provider you're using.

    aexcorp Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Sep 2, 2016 5:18 PM

    Danrarbc wrote: Rommel102 wrote: Danrarbc wrote: ziegler wrote: Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

    Not sure why you are being down voted on newly revealed information that seems to confirm that one of the servers email accounts was breached.

    If you're down voting him, perhaps an explanation as to why?
    Probably because we know DOJ email servers have also been breached. He's implying that her servers were less secure and somehow put information in harms way. History seems to show us that it wasn't at any more risk.

    I didn't imply that at all. Here we have fairly solid evidence that a breach of Hillary's server happened. That seems to contradict the FBI's stance, Comey's statement and testimony, and is a first as far as I know.

    And in comparison, the DOJs non-classified email systems were hacked. There is no evidence that the classified system ever was.

    A 'breach' of an account is not a breach of the server. The account being access via TOR implies the user credentials were acquired through some means. Was this 'breached' account a classified account?

    I could be wrong, but I think that all classified emails from DoD and State have to go through SIPRNet.

    If this was strictly respected, then Clinton's server should contain no classified information. In real-life, we saw that a few classified things went through her personal email system, so it wasn't fully respected, or some of the info was not yet classified.

    Sean Gallagher IT Editor reply Sep 2, 2016 5:21 PM

    Story Author Popular omniron wrote: Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.

    "multiple times" is 3 times in this case, and it wasn't the server that was breached, it was 1 person's email.

    Even if this person was clinton herself, we already know there was not much damaging information stored on this server. And considering this seems more like someone used a weak password or was phished, this is a vulnerability no matter what email provider you're using.

    We're going to get into this in a story I'm currently writing (probably for next week, so it's not a Friday newsdumpster move). But it's worth noting THE ENTIRETY OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S UNCLAS EMAIL SYSTEM WAS PWNED FOR OVER A YEAR. I'm sorry, did I type that in all-caps? Also, between Chelsea Manning/ Wikileaks and the repeated hacks of State, the White House, etc between 2009 and 2014, it is highly likely that everything short of the TS/SAP stuff (and even some of that) that Clinton touched was already breached.

    This does not excuse Clinton and her staff's-I'm looking at you, Jake Sullivan-for the extreme error of passing Top Secret/ Special Access Program classified data back and forth over Blackberries and a non-governmental e-mail system. I would expect that Sullivan, at a minimum, will have his clearance revoked and he will not be getting a job as a national security adviser if Clinton wins the election. Or at least, I think that's a reasonable expectation.

    • LordDaMan Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius reply Sep 2, 2016 7:24 PM arcite wrote: She wanted to use her Blackberry, and she wanted all her accounts in one easy to access place. The solution was sloppy, but there was no ill-intent.

      Except she used multiple devices. She also ignored the repeated comments towards her to not to have a private server. The server was deliberately wiped violating the various laws about data retention. She used an alias to send e-mails to her daughter. She, despite being first lady. many years in congress, and sec. of state somehow didn't understand what classified material is or how even without marking some info is "born" classified. She lied multiple times under oath about all of this.

      How much more ill intent could she possibly have?

    • BMcComas Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 2, 2016 8:10 PM vcsjones wrote: I wonder what the odds are that all of the OS / Exchange / BES CALs were actually licensed correctly.

      In an enterprise environment? 50/50. For some "side work" from an IT guy in the government? Id almost guarantee either CALs were missing, or the entire thing was running on images Pagliano "got" from his day job. Doubly so when the client is buying used servers and networking gear.

      Ok so that will be $2,900 for hardware, and it looks like it will be right around 9,000 for software licenses.

      Pfff, here is 3,000, just make it work and keep the change for yourself

    • tripodal Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply Sep 2, 2016 9:53 PM taswyn wrote: ziegler wrote: Danrarbc wrote: ziegler wrote: Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.


      Not sure why you are being down voted on newly revealed information that seems to confirm that one of the servers email accounts was breached.

      If you're down voting him, perhaps an explanation as to why?
      Probably because we know DOJ email servers have also been breached. He's implying that her servers were less secure and somehow put information in harms way. History seems to show us that it wasn't at any more risk.

      Yeah, but the FBI is saying there was no evidence that the server was hacked.
      And then we find out that one of the email accounts was accessed over the TOR network and the user of the email account had never heard of TOR much less used it to access email.

      That seems like yet another skewing of the finding to put them in the best possible light. (EDIT: not saying she was or was not, but I would say that there was indicators that it was possibly compromised)

      DOJ, OPM, Pentagon, doesnt have any relevance on if she was irresponsible for having this whole set up. That same article states they werent even able to confirm if TLS was ever enabled. And Why? Because Clinton/IT took steps to make sure it couldnt be found out before turning over the equipment.

      You know, this level of twisting is why you and Rommel are not credible on the topic. You just come off sounding like a conspiracy nut when you can go from the article linked to "her servers got hacked."

      Let's be clear: if there had been a full breach, there would have been no need to be accessing an individual account over Exchange via TOR. You could just grab the whole thing directly, instead. This is, if anything, evidence of a lack of a full breach, at least by whatever actor was accessing the particular account in question.

      But, you know, why don't you two just keep shooting yourselves in the kneecaps over this. It's not like your hyperbolic approach to this is hurting your credibility at all. We can either assume you're both excessively biased or incompetent on the topic from how you're running with that story.

      Not that I'm calling you technically incompetent, mind. Unless you actually believe there's not a distinction between an email account being individually compromised and a "server being hacked." I expect you're just intentionally twisting what you're saying. But hey, maybe you don't actually know better?

      The way you two are trying to play this is why you have so many people turning away in disgust-not at Hillary, but at the ongoing digging for gold and related hyperbole and even outright lies in what is more and more clearly a dustbowl, with the only apparent motivation being a smear campaign rather than anything to do with actual justice or a real care about security.

      A perfectly valid reason for accessing Exchange via Tor is exactly to prevent the intrusion from being detected. Create yourself a valid account, access it as any other normal user would and your hack will look like normal user traffic.

      'grabbing the whole thing directly' has only a fleeting value; taking exchange offline to copy the mailboxes as you describe will certainly alert someone to your presence and encourage them to mediate the intrusion.

      Now, lets pretend you are Russia, and you have persistent access to her and other email systems.
      .
      Now when you need to claim some new land in Georgia or Ukraine.. we get reliable information about what the world police will actually do about it. Not merely what they say they will do.

    • BloodNinja Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply
    • Sep 2, 2016 10:11 PM Popular Rommel102 wrote: if one random person was able to get into the server via TOR, that implies that the server was known to the hacking community.


      You're making it sound much more dramatic than reality.

      The one random person didn't "get into the server" in any meaningful way. They accessed an email account.

      As for the server being "known to the hacking community", DNS records are public, so in reality the server was "known" to the entire world. As are billions of others.

      For practical purposes, every device on the internet is "known" to everybody. Either DNS records point to it, or you can just scan IP address ranges to find it.

    • RAH Seniorius Lurkius reply Sep 2, 2016 10:18 PM New Poster Popular A missing piece of this whole conversation is what IT would be in place for the Secretary of State instead of personal email servers. Government servers that have been known to be all too easily hacked? And, just which department has the responsibility for government security? As with all bureaucracies, the responsibility is spread among many departments, including the FBI.

      It is NSA's responsibility to provide communications for the heads of departments, including the Secretary of State. Clinton supposedly asked for a secure Blackberry like Obama's, but the NSA refused, siting cost. The NSA seems to think the Secretary of State only needs the security found within the SCIF in the State Department offices, and not portable security. Really? No one travels more than the Secretary of State.

      John Kerry's mobile systems (now that they finally have them) were updated just weeks ago, and if you look at what he now has, you will find that those systems are five years behind the times.

      I am much more concerned about IT security within all departments of the federal government than I am what Clinton did or did not do.

    • ArchieG Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 2, 2016 11:32 PM The question isn't whether State's email system was compromised. It was.

      The question is whether there was any intention to skirt the legal requirements for security and confidentiality. I don't believe Hillary had the technical savvy to even begin to think about that.

      Also, despite Comey's caustic remarks to Congress about recklessness, etc., let's remember that he's not exactly credible, either, when it comes to technology. I mean, he's the same guy who thinks the government should have a backdoor into what would otherwise be secure private systems.

    • Red Foreman Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply Sep 3, 2016 12:32 AM RAH wrote: ...It is NSA's responsibility to provide communications for the heads of departments, including the Secretary of State. Clinton supposedly asked for a secure Blackberry like Obama's, but the NSA refused, siting cost. The NSA seems to think the Secretary of State only needs the security found within the SCIF in the State Department offices, and not portable security. Really? No one travels more than the Secretary of State...
      BREAKING NEWS: NSA Rejected Hillary Clinton's request for a Blackberry

      That's the headline I keep reading. And it looks like you've read it too. What they don't tell us is that instead they wanted her to use a General Dynamics Sectéra Edge. Which while NSA approved for mobile SCIF classified communication, it wasn't cool enough for Hillary.

      She simply had to have her Crackberry.

      This is the phone NSA suggested Clinton use: A $4,750 Windows CE PDA
      SME PED devices were only NSA-approved mobile phones for classified communications.
      http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... ws-ce-pda/ 1

      Image

      Also if you can bear to read Brietbart it explains a lot...

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -ce-phone/

      Last edited by Red Foreman on Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:44 pm

    • Renzatic Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply Sep 3, 2016 1:49 AM pl595 wrote: It's your position you or I wouldn't be facing charges for this?

      It's a breach of protocol. She mishandled classified information she otherwise had clearance to see. It's about equivalent to discussing state secrets over an unsecured phone line in a seedy motel, or leaving top secret information lying out on your kitchen table while you have your friends over for a BBQ. It was incredibly stupid of her, and she's lucky there's only theoretical evidence of a possibility of a leak, but it's not criminal.

      I agree with Comey's conclusion on the matter. It's something any "regular" person would've been fired over, probably blackballed from any sensitive government position for life, though it's nothing anyone would go to jail over.

      Last edited by Renzatic on Sat Sep 03, 2016 12:01 am

    • symphony3 Ars Centurion reply Sep 3, 2016 3:18 AM RAH wrote: A missing piece of this whole conversation is what IT would be in place for the Secretary of State instead of personal email servers. Government servers that have been known to be all too easily hacked? And, just which department has the responsibility for government security? As with all bureaucracies, the responsibility is spread among many departments, including the FBI.

      It is NSA's responsibility to provide communications for the heads of departments, including the Secretary of State. Clinton supposedly asked for a secure Blackberry like Obama's, but the NSA refused, siting cost. The NSA seems to think the Secretary of State only needs the security found within the SCIF in the State Department offices, and not portable security. Really? No one travels more than the Secretary of State.

      John Kerry's mobile systems (now that they finally have them) were updated just weeks ago, and if you look at what he now has, you will find that those systems are five years behind the times.

      I am much more concerned about IT security within all departments of the federal government than I am what Clinton did or did not do.

      I'm concerned about IT security, which makes me very concerned about finally funding IT so it can succeed. Every government organization I've worked with, even with top level universities, fund their landscaping better than their IT. And that means the buck stops with whatever boss determines funding.

      Please don't tell me this is about the taxpayer deciding funding for IT, because we know that Social Security was better prepared for Y2K than almost any other government department. If the unknown director of Social Security could wrangle a decent IT budget (past tense on that), then it can still be done by much bigger names & departments. (Not singling out one department, too many hacks to choose from)

    • dubyadeeem Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 3, 2016 3:52 AM llama-lime wrote: taswyn wrote: ...

      None of this means what she did was ok, but it's also hard to not look askance at the relentless witchhunting when it's placed in that broader context.

      ...

      My personal evolution on this issue has gone from "having a privately controlled email server sounds really really bad, and was probably done to avoid monitoring! I'm really upset about this!" to "wow, these allegations sound extremely serious!" to "oh, those allegations were not really true at all" to "yikes, this again? how much more whining and knashing of the the teeth am I going to have to put up with?" If this had been any other politican, like, literally any other politician would we have heard more than a week or two about it? Would we have the FBI releasing their investigation documents to the public? Would all of Clinton's emails been open to the public like this? The amount of transparency, the lack of smoking guns, and the irrationally emotional anger have made me completely turn around on this issue.

      The reason it keeps coming back is that each new revelation seems to reveal more lies and more proof of lies by Hillary Clinton. You suggest if it was any other politician it would be instantly forgotten. Not exactly. Not if they stood a very good chance of being the next president of the United States. And certainly not if they had the same background of corruption, lying, and disastrous job performance as Clinton does (getting Americans killed in Benghazi and then lying to their families about it, her lies about being under sniper attack on the tarmac in the Balkans years ago, etc etc). Nixon was forced to resign for far less dishonesty than this woman has been caught in. So yes, it is a big deal, and it should be. Not only did she take the classified workflow outside of the secure state department infrastructure, she did it to avoid accountability and just exactly the kind of scandal that would ensue if it was ever found out, which it obviously was. She put national security at risk for her own political gain, and then lied about it repeatedly on many occasions and in all kinds of settings. Not only did she commit crimes and SHOULD have been charged by DOJ (her hubby's little illicit chit-chat w/ Lynch on the Phoenix tarmac notwithstanding), but she demonstrated by all she has done she doesn't have the one thing a real president needs: good judgement. Plenty of other things as well, honesty, etc, should also be requirements, but generally aren't, lately. But having better judgement than a 2 year old is crucial, and she's proven she hasn't got that.

      A recap ( Comey's testimony) of just some of the lies told by Clinton, to both the public, Congress, and the FBI, about her emails, server, etc :

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ 1

    • ArchieG Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 3, 2016 6:37 AM Quote: The reason it keeps coming back is that each new revelation seems to reveal more lies and more proof of lies by Hillary Clinton. You suggest if it was any other politician it would be instantly forgotten. Not exactly. Not if they stood a very good chance of being the next president of the United States. And certainly not if they had the same background of corruption, lying, and disastrous job performance as Clinton does (getting Americans killed in Benghazi and then lying to their families about it, her lies about being under sniper attack on the tarmac in the Balkans years ago, etc etc). Nixon was forced to resign for far less dishonesty than this woman has been caught in. So yes, it is a big deal, and it should be. Not only did she take the classified workflow outside of the secure state department infrastructure, she did it to avoid accountability and just exactly the kind of scandal that would ensue if it was ever found out, which it obviously was. She put national security at risk for her own political gain, and then lied about it repeatedly on many occasions and in all kinds of settings. Not only did she commit crimes and SHOULD have been charged by DOJ (her hubby's little illicit chit-chat w/ Lynch on the Phoenix tarmac notwithstanding), but she demonstrated by all she has done she doesn't have the one thing a real president needs: good judgement. Plenty of other things as well, honesty, etc, should also be requirements, but generally aren't, lately. But having better judgement than a 2 year old is crucial, and she's proven she hasn't got that.

      Could you at least break your thoughts into paragraphs? Also, back up your whining with actual facts. Yeah, that would be nice.

    • bthylafh Ars Praefectus reply Sep 3, 2016 8:54 AM mat735 wrote: Wow. Not only is this article misleading and poorly composed, it is factually incorrect (pic being one example). At the time this happened was it uncommon for a company to manage their own email servers/hardware? What were BlackBerry recommendations on hosting? Who actually ordered the hardware? Who is PRN and what other clients do they represent?

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

    • adamsc Ars Scholae Palatinae et Subscriptor reply Sep 3, 2016 9:52 AM RAH wrote: I am much more concerned about IT security within all departments of the federal government than I am what Clinton did or did not do.

      This is the point anyone who cares about the country should be making, and I really wish Hillary had raised it early on. Federal IT is bad not because of the usual right-wing tropes about government workers but because there are too many barriers enshrined in federal law and policy. Things like procurement, hiring, and even the simple ability to deploy an application have slow, expensive processes full of counter-productive incentives. The pay-scale for federal staff tops out well below the private sector, there's been a couple decades of Congress trying to encourage outsourcing (I'm sure it's just a coincidence that large contracting companies can make campaign donations), and a lot of senior management and policy have tried to treat IT as a purchase rather than a skill to be developed, all of which means that the federal workforce is aging and the best people are routinely asking themselves whether they believe in their agency's mission enough to keep turning down a hefty pay raise. GitHub's Ben Balter, a former Presidential Innovation Fellow, has written a lot about this – see What's next for federal IT policy, IMHO , Three things you learn going from the most bureaucratic organization in the world to the least , Want to innovate government? Focus on culture , etc.

      This has already been a big deal during the Obama administration and I think it's going to become critical for the next president as both our dependencies on IT continue to increase – remember that due to decades of budget cuts, many agencies are still relatively early in the migration to fully electronic processes – and the demands increase, both for general worker productivity and especially for across-the-board security improvements as the sophistication of attacks has gone up. Security is one of the hardest parts of IT because it's not a commodity which you can purchase, requires broader skills and constant adjustment, and the field is full of hucksters peddling purchases or bureaucratic process as easy solutions. The low federal pay-scale is especially bad since there's so much private sector demand, which means that it's hard to keep skilled practitioners on staff and that reduces the pool of qualified people getting hired into management.

      This is the kind of thing people should be asking the candidates to talk about but due to the prolonged bad-faith attempts to trump up scandals from things like these emails it's really hard to see any sort of honest policy discussion breaking out. Every citizen should care about changing that dynamic since in addition to the areas where the failures are themselves major crises everywhere else they're behind the scenes making projects more expensive and less successful across the board.

    • Sep 3, 2016 11:01 AM roman wrote: mat735 wrote: Wow. Not only is this article misleading and poorly composed, it is factually incorrect (pic being one example). At the time this happened was it uncommon for a company to manage their own email servers/hardware? What were BlackBerry recommendations on hosting? Who actually ordered the hardware? Who is PRN and what other clients do they represent?

      During the "growing" age of the Internet but before cloud computing (I'd say early 1990's to mid 2000's) it was very easy/common to run your own servers. All you needed was a constant internet connection and a static IP addr.

      This was especially common among non-IT centric businesses in my experience – doctors, lawyers, non-profits, etc. would pay a consultant to set something up and give their front-office staff instructions about changing backup tapes, etc. but they didn't want to have to deal with the complexity and expense of a real data center operation, hiring staff, etc. You probably wanted a business cable/DSL connection anyway, buy a copy of Windows Small business Server or OS X Server depending on your tastes and you have everything "done" for a fixed up-front cost. A lot of consultants made good livings doing the same setup for a bunch of clients which weren't quite big enough to have IT staffing or balked at paying someone above desktop-support level.

      The biggest things which killed that market were security and disaster recovery, as maintaining an email server became a full-time job and stories about someone losing everything in a hack / fire / flood / etc. became fairly common, coupled with the availability of high-quality services ( Google Apps for Your Domain launched in 2006 ) at prices which were much less than you could match for things like spam filtering, user interface quality, and performance at a scale of less than hundreds of users. Things like PCI or HIPAA accelerated that process by telling entire fields it was no longer a good area to skimp.

      By now it's assumed most small operations will use a cloud provider but it took years to establish that the service quality and pricing would stick. By the time Hillary took office, however, that was still in transition. It doesn't surprise me at all that someone – especially someone mid-career or older – would go back to what was familiar when their boss asked them to get something done in a hurry. It's the same process you can find all over the business world where someone has a "mission critical" Access database, Excel file, PHP app on a shared host, etc. because they were told to get it done ASAP and didn't have time to learn something new, especially if this wasn't a core part of their job. It'll just be a temporary fix until we do things the right way

    • gbjbaanb Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Sep 3, 2016 2:11 PM Well it does get a little more interesting every day. Today the news is of a missing laptop and thumbdrive containing an archive of emails that were not handed over to the FBI (apparently they were forgotten).

      the Guardian (hardly anti-Clinton) has more on the story

      Quote: In early 2014, Hanley located the laptop at her home and tried to transfer the email archive to an IT company, apparently without success. It appears the emails were then transferred to an unnamed person's personal Gmail account and there were problems around Apple software not being compatible with that of Microsoft.

      "Neither Hanley nor [redacted] could identify the current whereabouts of the archive laptop or thumb drive containing the archive, and the FBI does not have either item in its possession."

      One thing, regardless of the political affiliation of the commenters and voters here, this is all sloppy IT work that should never be allowed to go unchallenged. If you're going to do this kind of thing, at least get someone who knows what they're doing to do it properly. As an IT professional, this kind of lackadaisical attitude to IT administration offends me.

    • z0phi3l Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Sep 3, 2016 3:46 PM omniron wrote: truthyboy15 wrote: PatrickBateman wrote: I read this article to say that Powell did the same thing decades ago and the only difference between now and then is that he didn't talk about.


      That doesn't make it OK and he should be under investigation as well.

      haven't you heard the law doesn't apply to republicans.


      They were no laws broken by clinton than we can tell, it's just a weird thing. Powell clearly used private email to skirt records requests (and IIRC the Bush admin lost millions of emails). But Clinton seemed aware information is public record no matter how it's sent.

      And if we compare the number of times this server was breached to government breaches, i don't know if this makes the idea of using your own server look like a bad idea. most intrusions are via social engineering, and there's probably a lot more weak points in the staff of gov email than this private one.

      What i find strange is that Clinton was secretary of state, and was probably handling classified information constantly. How is it after the FBI has reviewed 45,000 of the 60,0000 emails there are so few classified emails being sent around (only 1 was sent BY clinton). Does the government just not send classified information through email at all? I'm more interested, from a technological perspective, in how this is handled.

      She violated quite a few laws the press is willfully ignoring
      As someone who has gone through the hassle of trying to get a Security Clearance AND clearance to work on classified networks we were clearly told of the laws and penalties to be incurred for misuse of the resources

      Hillary went above and beyond to try and keep knowingly and marked classified documents out of the "secure" White House network, there is the violations of the laws. You notice how they handled the acquisition of the hardware? She and her minions KNEW what they were doing and purposely used Bills staff to hide it and keep the supplier in the dark to keep their illegal behavior as secret as possible

      But no, she didn't do anything wrong and definitely didn't violate a dozen or so laws, nope, just another "right wing conspiracy" she swears is always going on

    • peterp77 Smack-Fu Master, in training reply Sep 3, 2016 6:00 PM You've been brainwashed. She did nothing illegal. She violated policy.

      And it's the Democratic party, not the Democrat party.

      And she's not the Commander-in-Chief so I don't even know how you got the notion that she's responsible for American citizens getting killed. If we put government officials in jail according to how many people died under their watch, George W Bush would be in prison for hundreds and hundreds of years for all the dead in the 911 attack, the thousands of military service personnel that died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the millions of innocent civilian lives that were lost because of his stupidity, not to mention all the lies that were told to justify the war in the first place.

      Take your partisan bullshit somewhere else.

      Lol....she violated the espionage act! And she had every intent in doing so. If that's not illegal then I don't know what is.

      And yes, she may well be responsible for getting Americans killed. If her server was hacked then no doubt she put American lives at risk.

      Clearly, Crooked Hillary was more concerned about protecting her own secrets and the Clinton Foundation's secrets more than she was about protecting America's secrets.

      She's not fit for any government job, let alone president.

    • JaxMac Smack-Fu Master, in training et Subscriptor reply Sep 3, 2016 7:45 PM New Poster The Power Mac G4 was sold prior to the release of OS X. Thus it's operating system was the Classical Mac OS. The Classical Mac OS had no command line, thus it was practically unhackable remotely. I believe that this was also true of the Power Mac G5.

      If the Clinton email had been maintained on either of these two Macs there would be no questions about infiltration by anyone.

    • Andrew Norton Ars Scholae Palatinae reply Sep 3, 2016 11:42 PM davecadron wrote: Did everyone miss the part where hillary decided to wipe the server after foia requests were made and after records were subpoenaed by Congress?

      Obstruction of justice is a felony.
      Everything you say may be true.
      However the first paragraph has absolutely zero relevance to the last (separate) line.

      The stuff up top might get you 'contempt of congress', or violation of a court order that doesn't actually exist.

      Obstruction of justice is a whole 'nother matter and has nothing to do with FOIA's or congressional subpoenas.

    • Red Foreman Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply Sep 4, 2016 10:19 AM Andrew Norton wrote: davecadron wrote: Did everyone miss the part where hillary decided to wipe the server after foia requests were made and after records were subpoenaed by Congress?

      Obstruction of justice is a felony.
      Everything you say may be true.
      However the first paragraph has absolutely zero relevance to the last (separate) line.

      The stuff up top might get you 'contempt of congress', or violation of a court order that doesn't actually exist.

      Obstruction of justice is a whole 'nother matter and has nothing to do with FOIA's or congressional subpoenas.
      As always seems to be the case the coverup is worse then the crime, certainly so with the Clintons given their history. If any the obstruction of justice hasn't been their attempting to conceal their public records from being properly archived, as required by law and thus being open to being disclosed under FOIA.

      Rather it's their efforts after the fact. And that would be potentially lying under oath to investigators and or destruction of/concealing of evidence, in an attempt to explain away the email scandal, and of course try to publicly cast it in the light of just another illegitimate "vast right-wing conspiracy" to get them. Because that's what the Clintons always do when they're backed into a corner.

    • Red Foreman Wise, Aged Ars Veteran reply Sep 4, 2016 10:07 PM Renzatic wrote: Red Foreman wrote: The Clinton email saga with it's oh-so-typical Clinton-esque coverup that's far worse then the original fuck-up isn't a non-story. And it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

      I've said this elsewhere, but I feel it bears repeating here.

      For roughly 30 years now, Hillary Clinton has been dogged by a party made up primarily of lawyers, judges, DAs, and others in the legal profession, with millions of dollars and all the institutions of government at their fingertips.

      In all this time, with all this knowledge, power and influence at their disposal, what have they discovered? That the Clintons tend to bend the rules if it benefits them, and like to scratch the backs of people who can and will scratch theirs. For all their efforts, they haven't discovered evidence of anything truly heinous or illegal. Rather, they've merely uncovered the fact they're a little seedy.

      ...so how are they any different than any other politician in Washington?
      How is it any different? This one it running for President of the United States at the moment. As such scrutinizing her dealings is fair game. After all, as you said the Clintons are a little seedy, tend to bend the rules if it benefits themselves, and like to scratch the backs of people who can and will scratch theirs.

      Speaking of which...

      Bill, Hillary, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and the emails
      Corruption in plain sight

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... nd-emails/

      "So, let's review what took place:

      Tuesday, June 28: Former President Bill Clinton suddenly appears to Attorney General Loretta Lynch in the cabin of her airplane parked on the tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. Secret Service agents deny access to news photos and videos of the visit. They visit for 30 minutes.

      Thursday, June 29: Lynch denies that any discussion with Bill Clinton of the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's email scandal took place, and states that she expects to accept the recommendation of the FBI as to further actions in the Clinton case. She does not, however, recuse herself or appoint a Special Prosecutor. The FBI also announces that the Clinton interview will take place on this coming Saturday, during the holiday weekend.

      Friday, June 30: Hillary Clinton campaign leaks that Loretta Lynch may be retained in her present job under a Hillary Clinton administration.

      Saturday, July 1: Hillary Clinton's long-delayed interview with the FBI takes place. It lasts 3 1/2 hours. Clinton not under oath. FBI Director Comey does not attend, will not reveal who was in attendance.

      Tuesday, July 5: FBI Director Comey conducts a press conference without questions. Details a long list of Clinton's violations, but concludes that he met with prosecutors and decided not to make a criminal referral for either convening a Grand Jury or an indictment because she didn't mean to do anything bad. He cited "reasonable prosecutors" (presumably the ones he consulted) who would not want to prosecute the case.

      Tuesday, July 5: While Comey was making his announcement, President Barack Obama, in a previously scheduled appearance, was campaigning in North Carolina with Hillary Clinton.

      Wednesday, July 6: Attorney General Lynch announces that she accepts the recommendation of Comey and will not review the evidence herself.

      What really happened appears to be that Bill Clinton successfully conveyed to Loretta Lynch that she would keep her job if Hillary is elected. Lynch then successfully conveyed to Comey that she expected a clean referral from the FBI. Finally, Comey undertook a nearly unprecedented step by publicly announcing all the reasons for a criminal referral, then refusing to follow his own logic. In the meantime, Obama, boss of Lynch and Comey, obviously knew well in advance what the outcome of this charade would be and scheduled accordingly."

    [Sep 16, 2016] This election is a contest between two forms of evil with Hillary representing almost perfect form of political corruption, as evidenced by the fact that neither she, nor her surrogates, nor even her flacks in the press really pretend to believe in what she is selling

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Trump must hold all 24 states carried by Mitt Romney in 2012 and add Ohio and Florida to the tally. A loss in Florida, Ohio or in increasingly competitive North Carolina – which Romney carried by just 2.2 percentage points over President Barack Obama – would hand Clinton the presidency"" [ US News ]. ..."
    "... Voters in mid-September do not swing between Clinton and Trump (my colleagues and I have dubbed that The Mythical Swing Voter), but between undecided and/or third-party support and Clinton or Trump ..."
    "... The Republican establishment doesn't trust Trump. But they need him, and are in the process of supplying the efficient field organization ..."
    "... Hillary represents despair in the form of cynicism and resignation, as evidenced by the fact that neither she, nor her surrogates, nor even her flacks in the press really pretend to believe in what she is selling. ..."
    "... Trump represents despair in the form of anger and desperation, the willingness to embrace a strongman and a charlatan in the (false) hopes of regaining some kind of control over 'the system', whatever it is (which is a fascinating question, by the way.) ..."
    "... He's the one who convinced these folks that Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street. ..."
    "... He's the one who convinced them she was a tool of wealthy elites. ..."
    "... He's the one who convinced them she was a corporate shill. She supported the TPP! ..."
    "... most of it can be laid at the feet of Bernie Sanders. He convinced young voters that Hillary Clinton was a shifty, corrupt, lying shill who cared nothing for real progressive values-despite a literal lifetime of fighting for them. Sadly, that stuck. ..."
    "... To date, we hear Bernie did it, Colin did it, Bush did it, Trump (or his baby-sized foundation) did it, Goldman Sachs offered it, or pneumonia caused it. ..."
    "... re: The Despair Election " Both are absolutely awful, indeed unthinkable, albeit in different ways, and yet this is what liberal neoliberal order has come to." There, fixed it. ..."
    "... Pennsylvania is often cited as a model of the country as a whole with Philidelphia, on one end, Pittsburgh on the other, and the south in between. In reality it is a good model in some ways but not that way. ..."
    "... The Philidelphia area has the new shipping facilities and is poised to gain logistics jobs especially under any new trade deal with Europe. ..."
    "... Pittsburgh has rusting steel factories, decaying infrastructure, industrial pollution that is scary, and is now serving as a testbed for driverless uber. ..."
    "... And Central Pennsylvania has farming families that are unsure what will happen. Rural towns that have been transformed, and in some cases irretrievably polluted, by fracking. And factories that may or may not stay in business. ..."
    "... Some percentage (say 1 or so) of those people have won in the new economy. Others such as the educated in Pittsburgh may be poised to take advantage of high speed rail to build a new tech hub, or they may be too late. And many others are simply shut out of real power or decisionmaking. ..."
    "... I expect that Clinton will carry the cities and Trump will carry the rural areas. The deciding vote will lie in the suburbs which have swung both ways. ..."
    "... She is an abominable candidate, a wooden speaker, a cynical triangulator, and-to put it kindly-ethically challenged." ..."
    "... Is anyone asking Kevin Drum, why blame Bernie Sanders when the Democratic Party tied one of their hands behind their back by overwhelming supporting the candidate that almost half of America already hated? ..."
    "... When every poll showed that Clinton had barely fifty percent of America that didn't dislike her at the start, ..."
    "... Still the party elite, for reasons that had nothing to do with what was best for the country decided to game the system and nominate Clinton despite her flaws, her well noted campaign problems (as in she is terrible at it) ..."
    "... Clearly the only people to blame if Clinton loses, are the people who insisted that she was the only candidate from the beginning – the Clintons, their donors, the Democratic Party which they have corrupted so completely. ..."
    "... 'Hillary Clinton was a shifty, corrupt, lying shill who cared nothing for real progressive values…' ..."
    Sep 16, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    The Voters

    "Trump must hold all 24 states carried by Mitt Romney in 2012 and add Ohio and Florida to the tally. A loss in Florida, Ohio or in increasingly competitive North Carolina – which Romney carried by just 2.2 percentage points over President Barack Obama – would hand Clinton the presidency"" [ US News ].

    UPDATE "Why the Whole Trump-Clinton Election Could Probably Just Be Held in Pennsylvania" [ New York Times ]. This is a very interesting article, well worth a read. It caught my eye because Pennsylvania is also part of the shipping story, with new warehousing and infrastructure. So I'd be interested in what our Pennsylvania readers think. Another tidbit: "Voters in mid-September do not swing between Clinton and Trump (my colleagues and I have dubbed that The Mythical Swing Voter), but between undecided and/or third-party support and Clinton or Trump. So the larger that pool, the larger the potential swing." And one more: "Voting is a major cost for many Americans with hourly wage jobs." So I could have filed this under Class Warfare.

    "The Republican establishment doesn't trust Trump. But they need him, and are in the process of supplying the efficient field organization he's never shown any interest in building" [ Bloomberg ]. "

    ... ... ...

    UPDATE "Clinton and Trump's demographic tug of war" (handy charts) [ WaPo ]. I knew before I looked at this they wouldn't slice by income.

    UPDATE "The Despair Election" [ The American Conservative ]. Quoting Michael Hanby, a Catholic philosopher: "hat we have in this election is fundamentally a contest between two forms of despair: Hillary represents despair in the form of cynicism and resignation, as evidenced by the fact that neither she, nor her surrogates, nor even her flacks in the press really pretend to believe in what she is selling. There is obvious cynicism within Trump_vs_deep_state as well; his supporters, on those rare occasions when he makes sense, seem to know that he is lying to them. But Trump represents despair in the form of anger and desperation, the willingness to embrace a strongman and a charlatan in the (false) hopes of regaining some kind of control over 'the system', whatever it is (which is a fascinating question, by the way.) Both are absolutely awful, indeed unthinkable, albeit in different ways, and yet this is what liberal order has come to."

    UPDATE "A Reuters survey found local governments in nearly a dozen, mostly Republican-dominated counties in Georgia have adopted plans to reduce the number of voting stations, citing cost savings and efficiency" [ Reuters ]. Don't they always.

    * * *

    A Scott Adams roundup. Chronologically: "It turns out that Trump's base personality is 'winning.' Everything else he does is designed to get that result. He needed to be loud and outrageous in the primaries, so he was. He needs to be presidential in this phase of the election cycle, so he is" [ Scott Adams ].

    "Sometimes you need a 'fake because' to rationalize whatever you are doing. … When Clinton collapsed at the 9-11 site, that was enough to end her chances of winning. But adding the 'fake because' to her 'deplorable' comment will super-charge whatever was going to happen anyway" [ Scott Adams ].

    "Checking My Predictions About Clinton's Health" [ Scott Adams ].

    "The Race for President is (Probably) Over" [ Scott Adams ]. "If humans were rational creatures, the time and place of Clinton's 'overheating' wouldn't matter at all. But when it comes to American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel unsafe. And safety is our first priority."

    * * *

    As soon as the race tightened, there was a rash of stories about Millenials [ugh] not voting for Clinton. And now various Democrat apparatchiks have started to browbeat them, apparently believing that's the best strategy. Here's one such: "Blame Millennials for President Trump" [ Daily Beast ]. I'm sure you've seen others.

    UPDATE Other Democrat operatives are preparing the way to pin the blame on anybody but the Democrat establishment and the candidate it chose. Here, Kevin Drum squanders the good will on his balance sheet from his story on lead and crime: "Don't Hate Millennials. Save It For Bernie Sanders" [Kevin Drum, Mother Jones ].

    I reserve most of my frustration for Bernie Sanders. He's the one who convinced these folks that Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street. She gave a speech to Goldman Sachs! He's the one who convinced them she was a tool of wealthy elites. She's raising money from rich people! He's the one who convinced them she was a corporate shill. She supported the TPP! He's the one who, when he finally endorsed her, did it so grudgingly that he sounded like a guy being held hostage. He's the one who did next to nothing to get his supporters to stop booing her from the convention floor. He's the one who promised he'd campaign his heart out to defeat Donald Trump, but has done hardly anything since-despite finding plenty of time to campaign against Debbie Wasserman Schultz and set up an anti-TPP movement.

    There's a reason that very young millennials are strongly anti-Clinton even though the same age group supported Obama energetically during his elections-and it's not because their policy views are very different. A small part of it is probably just that Clinton is 68 years old (though Sanders was older). Part of it is probably that she isn't the inspirational speaker Obama was. But most of it can be laid at the feet of Bernie Sanders. He convinced young voters that Hillary Clinton was a shifty, corrupt, lying shill who cared nothing for real progressive values-despite a literal lifetime of fighting for them. Sadly, that stuck.

    In other words, these young (i.e., silly, unlike wise old farts like Drum) didn't "do their own research." And so apparently the demonic Sanders found it very easy to deceive them. Sad! Oh, and it's also interesting to see liberal Drum explicitly legitimizing hate. Again, this election has been wonderfully clarifying.

    Vatch , September 16, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    "Don't Hate Millennials. Save It For Bernie Sanders" [Kevin Drum, Mother Jones].

    Shouldn't we blame Hillary Clinton for people's perception that she is in the pocket of Wall Street, that she is tool of wealthy elites, that she is a corporate shill, and that she supports the TPP? Because she is in the pocket of Wall Street, she is tool of wealthy elites, she is a corporate shill, and she does support the TPP (few people really believe her recent claims to oppose it).

    curlydan , September 16, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    Wow. Read that for a ride on the blame train. When are HRC and her buddies going to start offering something instead of pointing the finger at others?

    To date, we hear Bernie did it, Colin did it, Bush did it, Trump (or his baby-sized foundation) did it, Goldman Sachs offered it, or pneumonia caused it.

    flora , September 16, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    re: The Despair Election " Both are absolutely awful, indeed unthinkable, albeit in different ways, and yet this is what liberal neoliberal order has come to." There, fixed it.

    Jason Boxman , September 16, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    Indeed, the Democrat freakout about millennials is hilarious. They're trotting out Al Gore and the discredited notion that votes for Nader spoiled the election, rather than, say, a defective candidate.

    L , September 16, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    UPDATE "Why the Whole Trump-Clinton Election Could Probably Just Be Held in Pennsylvania" [New York Times]. This is a very interesting article, well worth a read. It caught my eye because Pennsylvania is also part of the shipping story, with new warehousing and infrastructure. So I'd be interested in what our Pennsylvania readers think.

    I strongly suspect that will depend upon which Pennsylvania voter you ask. Pennsylvania is often cited as a model of the country as a whole with Philidelphia, on one end, Pittsburgh on the other, and the south in between. In reality it is a good model in some ways but not that way.

    The Philidelphia area has the new shipping facilities and is poised to gain logistics jobs especially under any new trade deal with Europe.

    Pittsburgh has rusting steel factories, decaying infrastructure, industrial pollution that is scary, and is now serving as a testbed for driverless uber.

    And Central Pennsylvania has farming families that are unsure what will happen. Rural towns that have been transformed, and in some cases irretrievably polluted, by fracking. And factories that may or may not stay in business.

    Some percentage (say 1 or so) of those people have won in the new economy. Others such as the educated in Pittsburgh may be poised to take advantage of high speed rail to build a new tech hub, or they may be too late. And many others are simply shut out of real power or decisionmaking.

    I expect that Clinton will carry the cities and Trump will carry the rural areas. The deciding vote will lie in the suburbs which have swung both ways.

    Massinissa , September 16, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    That article about Millenials is a real laugh.

    At the beginning, the author says about Clinton, "She is an abominable candidate, a wooden speaker, a cynical triangulator, and-to put it kindly-ethically challenged."

    Then, he spends the rest of the article asking why Millenials don't want to vote for her.

    I have no words.

    And the best part is the last line: "If Trump wins, we'll get what we deserve"

    *facepalm*

    Pat , September 16, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Is anyone asking Kevin Drum, why blame Bernie Sanders when the Democratic Party tied one of their hands behind their back by overwhelming supporting the candidate that almost half of America already hated?

    When every poll showed that Clinton had barely fifty percent of America that didn't dislike her at the start, when all the polls after Trump had pretty much cinched the nomination made it clear that Sanders was the stronger candidate, the only logical choice if you wanted a Democratic President was to nominate Sanders. Still the party elite, for reasons that had nothing to do with what was best for the country decided to game the system and nominate Clinton despite her flaws, her well noted campaign problems (as in she is terrible at it), and the fact that no matter how many times she reintroduces herself a huge percentage of people do not like her and largely do not trust her (and didn't before Sanders even entered the race) and pretend she could wipe the floor with Trump.

    Clearly the only people to blame if Clinton loses, are the people who insisted that she was the only candidate from the beginning – the Clintons, their donors, the Democratic Party which they have corrupted so completely. This coupled with media idiots like Drum who either are paid to be oblivious and chose that life OR are so divorced from the reality of life for the majority of Americans they cannot comprehend why anyone could despise the status quo they would be willing to roll the dice with the unknown quantity.

    I might have tried taking it on, but there will be no convincing him (or the readers stupid enough to blame Sanders or the millenials). He cannot blame the candidate herself and her machine, because that would admit that the Empress not only has no clothes, is a physical wreck, and has more strings attached than a marionette is a fast route to oblivion in a dying industry even if he has already realized it.

    ira , September 16, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    'Hillary Clinton was a shifty, corrupt, lying shill who cared nothing for real progressive values…'

    I'd say he nailed it.

    [Sep 16, 2016] Edward Snowdens New Revelations Are Truly Chilling

    Notable quotes:
    "... Submitted by Sophie McAdam via TrueActivist.com, ..."
    "... He disclosed that government spies can legally hack into any citizen's phone to listen in to what's happening in the room, view files, messages and photos, pinpoint exactly where a person is (to a much more sophisticated level than a normal GPS system), and monitor a person's every move and every conversation, even when the phone is turned off. ..."
    "... "Nosey Smurf": lets spies turn the microphone on and listen in on users, even if the phone itself is turned off ..."
    "... Snowden says: "They want to own your phone instead of you." It sounds very much like he means we are being purposefully encouraged to buy our own tracking devices. That kinda saved the government some money, didn't it? ..."
    "... It's one more reason to conclude that smartphones suck. And as much as we convince ourselves how cool they are, it's hard to deny their invention has resulted in a tendency for humans to behave like zombies , encouraged child labor, made us more lonely than ever, turned some of us into narcissistic selfie – addicts , and prevented us from communicating with those who really matter (the ones in the same room at the same time). Now, Snowden has given us yet another reason to believe that smartphones might be the dumbest thing we could have ever inflicted on ourselves. ..."
    Oct 08, 2015 | Zero Hedge reprinted from TrueActivist.com

    Submitted by Sophie McAdam via TrueActivist.com,

    In an interview with the BBC's 'Panorama' which aired in Britain last week, Edward Snowden spoke in detail about the spying capabilities of the UK intelligence agency GCHQ. He disclosed that government spies can legally hack into any citizen's phone to listen in to what's happening in the room, view files, messages and photos, pinpoint exactly where a person is (to a much more sophisticated level than a normal GPS system), and monitor a person's every move and every conversation, even when the phone is turned off. These technologies are named after Smurfs, those little blue cartoon characters who had a recent Hollywood makeover. But despite the cute name, these technologies are very disturbing; each one is built to spy on you in a different way:

    • "Dreamy Smurf": lets the phone be powered on and off
    • "Nosey Smurf": lets spies turn the microphone on and listen in on users, even if the phone itself is turned off
    • "Tracker Smurf":a geo-location tool which allows [GCHQ] to follow you with a greater precision than you would get from the typical triangulation of cellphone towers.
    • "Paranoid Smurf": hides the fact that it has taken control of the phone. The tool will stop people from recognizing that the phone has been tampered with if it is taken in for a service, for instance.

    Snowden says: "They want to own your phone instead of you." It sounds very much like he means we are being purposefully encouraged to buy our own tracking devices. That kinda saved the government some money, didn't it?

    His revelations should worry anyone who cares about human rights, especially in an era where the threat of terrorism is used to justify all sorts of governmental crimes against civil liberties. We have willingly given up our freedoms in the name of security; as a result we have neither. We seem to have forgotten that to live as a free person is a basic human right: we are essentially free beings. We are born naked and without certification; we do not belong to any government nor monarchy nor individual, we don't even belong to any nation or culture or religion- these are all social constructs. We belong only to the universe that created us, or whatever your equivalent belief. It is therefore a natural human right not to be not be under secret surveillance by your own government, those corruptible liars who are supposedly elected by and therefore accountable to the people.

    The danger for law-abiding citizens who say they have nothing to fear because they are not terrorists, beware: many peaceful British protesters have been arrested under the Prevention Of Terrorism Act since its introduction in 2005. Edward Snowden's disclosure confirms just how far the attack on civil liberties has gone since 9/11 and the London bombings. Both events have allowed governments the legal right to essentially wage war on their own people, through the Patriot Act in the USA and the Prevention Of Terrorism Act in the UK. In Britain, as in the USA, terrorism and activism seem to have morphed into one entity, while nobody really knows who the real terrorists are any more. A sad but absolutely realistic fact of life in 2015: if you went to a peaceful protest at weekend and got detained, you're probably getting hacked right now.

    It's one more reason to conclude that smartphones suck. And as much as we convince ourselves how cool they are, it's hard to deny their invention has resulted in a tendency for humans to behave like zombies, encouraged child labor, made us more lonely than ever, turned some of us into narcissistic selfieaddicts, and prevented us from communicating with those who really matter (the ones in the same room at the same time). Now, Snowden has given us yet another reason to believe that smartphones might be the dumbest thing we could have ever inflicted on ourselves.

    [Sep 16, 2016] More Passwords, Please: 98 Million Leaked From 2012 Breach Of 'Russia's Yahoo'

    Sep 16, 2016 | it.slashdot.org
    (arstechnica.com) 23 Posted by manishs on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @02:00PM from the security-woes dept. Sean Gallagher, writing for ArsTechnica: Another major site breach from four years ago has resurfaced. Today, LeakedSource revealed that it had received a copy of a February 2012 dump of the user database of Rambler.ru , a Russian search, news, and e-mail portal site that closely mirrors the functionality of Yahoo. The dump included usernames, passwords, and ICQ instant messaging accounts for over 98 million users. And while previous breaches uncovered by LeakedSource this year had at least some encryption of passwords, the Rambler.ru database stored user passwords in plain text -- meaning that whoever breached the database instantly had access to the e-mail accounts of all of Rambler.ru's users. The breach is the latest in a series of "mega-breaches" that LeakedSource says it is processing for release. Rambler isn't the only Russian site that has been caught storing unencrpyted passwords by hackers. In June, a hacker offered for sale the entire user database of the Russian-language social networking site VK.com (formerly VKontakte) from a breach that took place in late 2012 or early 2013; that database also included unencrypted user passwords, as ZDNet's Zach Whittaker reported.

    [Sep 16, 2016] Unredacted User Manuals Of Stingray Device Show How Accessible Surveillance Is

    Sep 16, 2016 | yro.slashdot.org
    (theintercept.com) 94 Posted by manishs on Monday September 12, 2016 @04:00PM from the truth-is-out-there dept. The Intercept has today published 200-page documents revealing details about Harris Corp's Stingray surveillance device , which has been one of the closely guarded secrets in law enforcement for more than 15 years. The firm, in collaboration with police clients across the U.S. have "fought" to keep information about the mobile phone-monitoring boxes from the public against which they are used. The publication reports that the surveillance equipment carries a price tag in the "low six figures." From the report: The San Bernardino Sheriff's Department alone has snooped via Stingray, sans warrant, over 300 times. Richard Tynan, a technologist with Privacy International, told The Intercept that the "manuals released today offer the most up-to-date view on the operation of " Stingrays and similar cellular surveillance devices, with powerful capabilities that threaten civil liberties, communications infrastructure, and potentially national security. He noted that the documents show the "Stingray II" device can impersonate four cellular communications towers at once, monitoring up to four cellular provider networks simultaneously, and with an add-on can operate on so-called 2G, 3G, and 4G networks simultaneously.

    [Sep 15, 2016] Washington Center for Equitable Growth

    Sep 15, 2016 | equitablegrowth.org
    ]. "The researchers use data collected from a national sample of hourly retail workers at eight brick-and-morter companies, all of which are among the largest 15 retail employers in the United States." Readers will remember our recent post on sleep here .

    [Sep 15, 2016] On Views Of The War On Syria by Debs is Dead>

    A pretty devious scheme -- creating difficulty for the government neoliberal wanted to depose by pushing neoliberal reforms via IMF and such. They channeling the discontent into uprising against the legitimate government. Similar process happened with Yanukovich in Ukraine.
    Notable quotes:
    "... the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians ..."
    "... it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt. ..."
    "... President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison. ..."
    "... Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. ..."
    "... No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached. ..."
    "... According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends. ..."
    "... A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting. ..."
    "... Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist. ..."
    "... On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. ..."
    "... This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed. ..."
    "... you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms. ..."
    "... The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers))) ..."
    "... This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country. ..."
    "... Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things. ..."
    "... no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth. ..."
    "... when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights. ..."
    "... This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s. ..."
    "... I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war. ..."
    "... As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. ..."
    "... If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering. ..."
    "... As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition. ..."
    "... Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution. ..."
    "... Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated ..."
    "... the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon. ..."
    "... Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" . ..."
    "... The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish. ..."
    "... "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree. ..."
    "... It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had. ..."
    "... It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria. ..."
    "... The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem. ..."
    "... All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here. ..."
    "... t in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries. ..."
    "... Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place. ..."
    "... Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government. ..."
    "... There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago. ..."
    "... And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live. ..."
    "... Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire! ..."
    "... I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it. ..."
    "... American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things. ..."
    "... The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative. ..."
    "... The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news. ..."
    "... The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein. ..."
    "... I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know. ..."
    "... Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well. ..."
    "... I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. ..."
    "... Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. ..."
    "... "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. ..."
    "... I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all. ..."
    "... He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well. ..."
    "... Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact. ..."
    "... if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly. ..."
    "... If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help. ..."
    "... OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097 ..."
    "... And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari ..."
    "... of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof). ..."
    "... i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is. ..."
    "... also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary. ..."
    "... Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors. ..."
    "... The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful). ..."
    "... Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. ..."
    "... There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control. ..."
    "... As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc. ..."
    "... So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter. ..."
    "... Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. ..."
    "... Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians. ..."
    "... I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government. ..."
    "... There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true. ..."
    "... So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.) ..."
    Sep 15, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    lifted from a comment

    It is sad to see so many are so locked into their particular views that they see any offering of an alternative as 'neoliberal' or laughable or - if it weren't so serious - Zionist.

    1/ I do not see the Syrian civil war as racist or race based, I do believe however that the rejection of all Islamic fundamentalism as being entirely comprised of 'headchoppers' is racist down to its core. It is that same old same old whitefella bullshit which refuses to consider other points of view on their own terms but considers everything through the lens of 'western' culture which it then declares wanting and discards.

    2/ Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians. I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue - mostly because he is seen to be standing up to American imperialism. That is a virtuous position but it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt.

    3/ President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison.

    4/ These Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

    5/ My Syrians friends are an interesting bunch drawn from a range of people currently living inside and outside of Syria. Some longer term readers might recall that I'm not American, don't live in America and nowadays don't visit much at all. The first of the 'refugee' Syrians I got to know, although refugee is a misnomer since my friend came here on a migrant's visa because his skills are in demand, is the grandchild of Palestinian refugees - so maybe he is a refugee but not in the usual sense. Without going into too many specifics as this is his story not mine, he was born and lived in a refugee camp which was essentially just another Damascus suburb. As he puts it, although a Palestinian at heart, he was born in Syria and when he thinks of home it is/was Damascus. All sides in the conflict claimed to support Palestinian liberation, yet he and his family were starved out of their homes by both Syrian government militias and the FSA.

    When he left he was initially a stateless person because even though he was born in Syria he wasn't entitled to Syrian citizenship. He bears no particular grudge against the government there but he told me once he does wish they were a lot smarter.

    On the other hand he also understands why the people fighting the government are doing so. I'm not talking about the leadership of course (see above - pols are pols) but the Syrians who just couldn't take the fading future and the petty oppression by assholes any longer.

    6/ No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached.

    I really despair at the mindset which reduces everything to a binary division - if group A are the people I support they must all be wonderful humans and group B those who are fighting Group A are all evil assholes.

    If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause) then everyone in Group B must be pro-Zionist even though I don't know what they say about it (the leadership of the various resistance groups are ME politicians and therefore most claim to also support Palestinian independence). Yes assholes in the opposition have done sleazy deals with Israel over Golan but the Ba'ath administration has done similar opportunist sell outs over the 40 years when the situation demanded it.

    I fucking hate that as much as anyone else who despises the ersatz state of Israel, but the reality is that just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only leader I'm aware of who didn't. Why do they? That is what all pols and diplomats do not just Arab ones. According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends.

    As yet no alternative to that model has succeeded since any attempt to do so has been rejected with great violence. The use of hostages offered by each party to guarantee a treaty was once an honorable solution, the hostages were well treated and the security they afforded reduced conflict - if Oblamblam had to put up one of his daughters to guarantee a deal does anyone think he would break it as easily as he currently does? Yet the very notion of hostages is considered 'terrorism' in the west. But I digress.

    The only points I wanted to make was the same as those I have already made:

    • A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting.
    • Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
    • On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or foreign mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
    • Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are too stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.

    If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?

    Posted by b on September 12, 2016 at 03:33 AM | Permalink

    papa | Sep 12, 2016 3:51:57 AM | 1
    Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are too stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.

    why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling, i see exactly the same.

    This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.

    lemur | Sep 12, 2016 4:30:41 AM | 2
    you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms.

    The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers)))

    ash123 | Sep 12, 2016 5:43:53 AM | 3
    If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
    This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country.

    Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things.

    john | Sep 12, 2016 5:47:26 AM | 4

    Debsisdead says:

    If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago

    no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth.

    If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause)...

    when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights.

    so thanks, b, for headlining this obfuscatory drivel. thus, for posterity.

    Felicity | Sep 12, 2016 6:04:27 AM | 5
    This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s.

    Here again is the reality of where this all started, article from 2012 (below.). And never forget Wesley Clark's Pentagon informant after 9/11 of attacking "seven countries in five years." Those in chaos through US attacks or attempted "liberation" were on the list, a few more to go and they are a bit behind schedule. All responsible for this Armageddon should be answering for their actions in shackles and yellow jump suits in The Hague.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596

    Formerly T-Bear | Sep 12, 2016 6:23:51 AM | 6
    |~b~ Thank you for putting Debsisdead's comment @ 135 prior post into readable form. Failing eyesight made the original in its extended format difficult to read.

    Reference Debsisdead comment:

    Your definition of neoliberal would be nice to have. Usually it is used as ephemerally as a mirage, to appear in uncountable numbers of meaning.

    Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity? Neoliberal seems best used as the reactionary faux historic liberalism as applied to economic agendas (neocon is the political twin for neoliberal, libertarian had been previously been co-opted).

    Instead of F•UK•US•i, maybe a F•UK•UZoP would suffice (France•United Kingdom•United Zionist occupied Palestine) given the spheres of influence involved.

    Agree with your observations about the limited mentality of dualism; manichaeism is a crutch for disabled minds unaware and blind to subtle distinctions that comprise spectrums.

    Though not paying close attention to Syrian history, it was Hafez al-Assad who became master of the Syrian Ba'athist coup d'état and politically stabilised Syria under Ba'athist hegemony. In the midst of the 'Arab-spring' zeitgeist, an incident involving a child with security forces led to a genuine public outcry being suppressed by state security forces. This incident, quickly settled became cause célčbre for a subsequent revolt, initially by SAA dissidents but soon thereafter by external interests having the motive of regime overthrow of Syrian Ba'athists and their leadership. Other narratives generally make little sense though may contain some factors involved; the waters have been sufficiently muddied as to obscure many original factors - possibly Bashar al-Assad's awareness of his security forces involvement in US rendition and torture as to compromise his immediately assuming command of his security forces in the original public protest over the child. Those things are now well concealed under the fogs of conflict and are future historians to sort.

    I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war.

    The opinions expressed are my own.

    falcemartello | Sep 12, 2016 6:41:48 AM | 7
    Classic western sheeple disconnect. As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. This total disconnect with global realities is a massive problem in the west cause the 86000 elite /oligarchs r pushing for a war with both the bears/ Russian and Chinese along with Iran. These countries have blatantly stated they will not be extorted by fascism. All western countries r all living a Corporate state. Just look all around every facet of our society is financialised. Health ,education , public services.
    Wake up cause if we dont we will be extinct Nuclear winter
    Mikael | Sep 12, 2016 6:41:56 AM | 8
    I am of syrian origin, born in Beirut Lebanon. My family lived a happy life there, but shortly after I was born, Israel invaded Lebanon, and my family fled and emigrated to Europe, I was 1 year old. I call major bullshit on your piece.
    Demeter | Sep 12, 2016 8:00:26 AM | 9
    If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering.

    What do you think would have happened had Assad not pretended he would go along? Syria would have been bombed to pieces right then. Why did Assad change his mind later and refused to cooperate with Qatar, Saudi and US? Because the balance of power was about to change. Iran and Russia were rising powers (mainly in the military field).

    I could say so much more. I stopped reading your post when you mentioned that your Palestinian friend ( I know the neighbourhood in Damascus, it is called Yarmouk and it is indeed a very nice suburb) does not have Syrian citizenship. Do you know why Palaestinians don't get Syrian citizenship? Because they are supposed to return to their homeland Palestine.

    And they can only do that as Palestinians and not as Syrians. That is why.

    And that so many (not all!) Palestinians chose to backstab the country that has hosted them and fed them and gave them a life for so many years, and fought side by side with islamist terrorists and so called Free Syrian Army traitors is a human error, is based on false promises, is lack of character and honour and understanding of the broader context and interests. How will some of these fools and misguided young men feel when they realise that they have played right into the hand of their biggest enemy, the Zionists.

    I would like to remind some of you who might have forgotten that famous incident described by Robert Fisk years ago, when a Syrian Officer told him upon the capture of some of these "freedom fighters' on Syrian soil, one of them said: "I did not know that Palestine was so beautiful", not realising that he was not fighting in Palestine but in Syria.

    And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.

    Here is racism for you debsisdead.

    AtaBrit | Sep 12, 2016 8:00:59 AM | 10
    Though reluctant to get involved in what seems to be for some a personal spat, I would like to point out one fundemental point that renders the above published and counter arguments difficult to comprehend which is that they lack a time frame.
    The 'Syrian opposition' or what ever you wish to call it is not now what it was 6 years ago. Thus, for me, at least, it is not possible to discuss the make up of the opposition unless there are some time frames applied.

    An example is a Syrian who was an officer in the FSA but fled to Canada last year. He fled the Syrian conflict over 3 years ago to Turkey -which is how I know him - where he did not continue ties with any group. He simply put his head down and worked slavishly living at his place of work most of the time to escape to Canada - he feared remaining in Istanbul. He claimed that he and others had all been taken in by promises and that the conflict had been usurped by extremists. He was not a headchopper, he was not the beheader of 12 year old children. He was and is a devout Muslim. He was a citizen of Aleppo city. I know him and of him through other local Syrians in Istanbul and believe his testimony. I mention him only to highlight that the conflict is not what it was, not what some intended it to be ... Nor is it what some paint it to be. There are many who fight whomever attacks their community be they pro / anti Government. - Arabs especially have extended village communities/ tribes and pragmatically they 'agree' to be occupied as long as they are allowed to continue their lives in peace. If conflict breaks out they fight whomever is necessary.

    DebIsDead makes some very excellent points in his/her comments. They deserve appraisal and respectful response. It is also clear thar he/she is writing defensively in some parts and those detract from what is actually being said.

    Cresty | Sep 12, 2016 8:41:04 AM | 12
    The piece suffers from several errors. As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition.

    You can't change the fact that it took less than 2 years for the opposition to be dominated by both foreign and domestic takfiris who wanted to impose saudi style culture on an open relatively prosperous cosmopolitan country. They've succeeded in smashing it to pieces. Snuff your balanced account and your bold anti racism

    Northern Observer | Sep 12, 2016 8:52:18 AM | 14
    Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution.
    Felicity | Sep 12, 2016 9:22:01 AM | 15
    Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated
    Jackrabbit | Sep 12, 2016 10:06:55 AM | 17
    Debsisdead sets up a strawman - racism against Islamic fundamentalists and validity of opposition against Assad - and uses this to sidestep that the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon.

    Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" .

    ruralito | Sep 12, 2016 10:10:18 AM | 18
    "If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?" Passive-aggressive much?

    The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish.

    TG | Sep 12, 2016 10:22:59 AM | 20
    "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree.

    It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had.

    No the issue was not 'climate change'. The aquifers in Syria had been falling for years, even when rainfall was above normal. Don't blame the weather.

    "The more the merrier" - tell me exactly how people having more children than they can support creates wealth? It doesn't and it never has.

    Whenever governments treat their people as if they were cattle, demanding that they breed the 'correct' number of children rather than making the decision based on their own desires and judgement of how many they can support, the result is always bad.

    Assad treated the people of Syria as if they were cattle. Surely this deserves mention?

    Diana | Sep 12, 2016 10:23:43 AM | 21
    Cultural "left" bullshit at its best. Cultural "leftists" don't need to know any hostory or have any understanding of a political issue: it's sufficient to pull out a few details from the NATO press and apply their grad school "oppression" analysis.
    juliania | Sep 12, 2016 10:26:32 AM | 22
    Thanks to b for posting the comment of Debs is Dead. The point I would take issue with is where he states "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ."

    I don't believe this is a correct realization. I think the many to whom he refers know very well that any person in leadership of a country can be found to have flaws, major and minor, and even to have more of such than the average mortal. The crucial counterpoint, however, which used to be raised fairly often, is that it is the acceptance of the majority of the people governed by such leaders that ought to be the international norm for diplomatic relations.

    I respect the knowledge DiD has gained from his Syrian friends and contacts. But I also remember a man called Chilabi and am very leery of destabilization attempts this country has been engaged in lo these many generations, using such displaced persons as surrogates. And rather than properly mourn the 9/11 victims and brave firemen and rescuers of that terrible day, I find myself mourning the larger tragedy of unnecessary wars launched as a consequence of our collective horror at that critical moment in our history.

    Can we please stop doing this?

    Wizzy | Sep 12, 2016 10:35:49 AM | 23
    After making sound point about black-and-white worldview being unrealistic, the guy goes full retard. Position towards Palestinians as the one and only criteria to judge ME developments... C'mon, it's not even funny.

    And while started from a "My Syrian friends" then he goes on reasoning on behalf of one single ex-Palestinian ex-Syrian guy...
    Looks like self-revelation of a kind. Some guy, sitting in Israel, or whatever, waging informational warfare for the Mossad/CIA/NGO who pays his rent.

    ruralito | Sep 12, 2016 10:38:01 AM | 24
    "The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids."

    Cite?

    fairleft | Sep 12, 2016 10:58:51 AM | 25
    DiD: "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ." The big reveal is that DiD can't name a single contributor here who has written that Assad is "some sort of model of virtue."

    It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria.

    The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem.

    Krollchem | Sep 12, 2016 11:35:06 AM | 28
    @ rg the lg 33

    Thanks for addressing the problem of angry comments by some posters who just want to throw verbal grenades is unacceptable. I hope this site continues to be a great source for sharing information and ideas.

    paul | Sep 12, 2016 11:40:49 AM | 29
    Why in God's name was this pointless comment by Debs is Dead promoted this way?!!! The only point being made, that I can see, is that the war in Syria does have some legitimate issues at its root. WELL OF COURSE IT DOES. The Hegemon rarely to never makes up civil unrest in countries it wants to overthrow out of whole cloth. They take some dispute that is already there and ramp it up; this process escalates until it turns into some form of a proxy war or coup. In other words, the domestic political process is DISTORTED until it is no longer remotely recognizable as a domestic process.

    So sure, if the US and its allies had not stoked political factionism in Syria into a global proxy war, we could discuss the fine details of the Syrian domestic process very usefully. At this point, though, IT IS IRRELEVANT.

    I do agree on one point: Assad joins the horrendous list of overlords who thought they could make a deal with the Hegemon on their own terms. Assad will pay for that mistake with his life very soon I would guess and I think that Putin will too, though that might take a little longer. If they had chosen to stand on principle as Chavez did, maybe they would be dead as Chavez is (possibly done in, who knows), but they'd be remembered with honor as Chavez is.

    MadMax2 | Sep 12, 2016 12:16:07 PM | 33
    It is a shame no one stood up for Libya, for a surviving Gaddafi would have emerged considerably stronger - as Assad eventually will.

    Whatever genuine opposition there was has long been hijacked by opportunistic takfiris, wahabbists and there various paymasters. And so as ruralito says @25: "The fight IS "binary...". The fight is indeed binary, the enemy is plural. Assad versus the many appearances of both the first and fourth kind.

    Appearances to the mind are of four kinds.
    Things either are what they appear to be;
    or they neither are, nor appear to be;
    or they are, and do not appear to be;
    or they are not, and yet appear to be.
    Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task.

    ~Epictetus

    Where there is obfuscation lay the enemy, hence Russia's long game of identification.

    FecklessLeft | Sep 12, 2016 12:54:18 PM | 36
    Does anyone remember the essay posted on this site a while back titled "The Feckless Left?" I don't believe B posted it, but if memory serves it's posted front and centre on the navigation bar beside this piece?

    It really hammers those people like Tariq Ali, who while surely having legitimate grievances against the Assad govt, opened the door for legitimation of foreign sponsored war. They thought that funneling millions of dollars worth of training, weapons and mercs would open the door for another secular govt, but this time much 'better.' Surely.

    No one thinks Assad is great. I really have trouble understanding where that notion comes from. It's just that the alternative is surely much worse. Lots of people didn't like Ghaddafi but jesus, I'm sure most Libyans would wish they could turn back the clock (at the risk of putting words in their mouths). It's not binary, no one sees this as good vs evil, its just that its become so painfully obvious at this point that if the opposition wins Syria will be so fucked in every which way. Those with real, tangible grievances are never going to have their voices heard. It will become the next Libya, except the US and it's clients will actually have a say in what's left of the political body in the country if you could even label it that at that point (which is quite frightenening in my eyes. Libya is already a shit show and they don't have much of a foothold there besides airstrikes and that little coastal base for the GNA to have their photo ops).

    I find it ironic that when criticisms are levelled at Assad from the left they usually point out things that had he done more of, and worse of, he probably would be free of this situation and still firmly in power. If he had bowed down to Qatar and the KSA/USA I wonder if the 'armed opposition' would still have their problems with him? That's the ultimate irony to me. If he had accepted the pipelines, the privatization regimes, etc. would they still be hollering his name? It's very sad that even with the balancing act he did his country has been destroyed. Even if the SAA is able to come out on top at this point, the country is wholly destroyed. What's even the point of a having a 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate' opposition when they're essentially fighting over scraps now. I'd be surprised if they could rebuild the country in 120 years. Libya in my eyes will never be what it once was. It'll never have the same standards of living after being hit with a sledgehammer.

    I don't mean to be ironic or pessimistic, its just a sad state of affairs all around and everyday it seems more and more unlikely that any halfway decent solution for the POPULATION OF SYRIA, not Assad, will come out of this.. It's like, I'm no nationalist, but in many countries I kind of would rather that than the alternative. Ghaddafi wasn't great but his people could've been a lot worse of - and ARE a lot worse of now. I'm no Assad fan, but my god look what the alternative is here. If it wasnt 95% foreign sponsored maybe id see your point.

    Read the essay posted on the left there. "Syria, the Feckless Left" IIRC. I thought that summed up my thoughts well enough.

    And guys, even if you agree with me please refrain from the name calling. It makes those of you with a legitimate rebuttal seem silly and wrong. I've always thought MoA was so refreshing because it was (somewhat) free of that. At least B is generating discussion. I kind of appreciate that. It's nice to hear ither views, even if they are a little unrealistic and pro violent and anti democratic.

    FecklessLeft | Sep 12, 2016 1:01:58 PM | 37
    QUICK DOUBLE POST

    An example of an armed opposition with legitimate grievances that is far from perfect but still very sympathetic (in my eyes) is hizbollah. They have real problems to deal with. While they recieve foreign sponsorship they aren't a foreign group the way the Syrian opposition is. And they will be all but destroyed when their supply lines from Syria are cut off. I wonder how that fits in with OPs post.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 12, 2016 1:02:25 PM | 38
    What makes Debs is Dead's turgid comment so irrational is that it endorses Regime Change in Syria as an ongoing, but necessary and inevitable, "good". But in doing so it tip-toes around the fact that it doesn't matter how Evil an elected President is, or is not, it's up to the the people who elected him to decide when they've had enough. It most certainly is NOT Neoconned AmeriKKKa's concern.

    Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single individual.

    It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.

    ruralito | Sep 12, 2016 1:07:59 PM | 39
    @Shh, since you're so conveniently ensconced above the fray, perhaps you can see something we "nattering fuck wits" can't. Do tell.
    Stillnottheonly1 | Sep 12, 2016 1:47:35 PM | 40
    Whatever happened to the age old expression that one has to walk in someone else's shoes to understand their walk in life?

    In an all too obvious fashion, another arm chair expert is blessing the world with his/her drivel.

    To make it as concise as possible:

    What would you have done in Assad's position? The U.S. is trying to annex Syria since 1948 and never gave up on the plan to convert it to what the neo-fascists turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and the Republic of Yugoslavia - whereas Yemen is still in the making, together with Ukraine, Turkey and Africa as a whole.

    In the light of U.S. 'foreign policy', the piece reeks of the stench of obfuscation.

    MadMax2 | Sep 12, 2016 2:02:43 PM | 41
    @47 Hoarsewhisperer

    Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single individual.

    We shouldn't be surprised. Even a basic pragmatic approach to this conflict has been lost by many in the one sided, over the top shower of faeces that is the western MSM.

    It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.

    All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here.

    Copeland | Sep 12, 2016 3:26:34 PM | 43
    It is impossible for any one of us to possess the whole picture, which is why we pool our experience, and benefit from these discussions. The thing I see at the root of the Syrian war is the process of ethnic cleansing. In many cases that involve murderous prejudice, it erupts as civil war; but in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries.

    Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place.

    The objectives of the perpetrators have nothing to do with the convictions of the fundamentalists who do the dirty work; and the sectarian and mercenary troops are merely the tools of those who are creating hell on earth.

    I agree with what papa wrote at the top of this thread:

    why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,[?] i see exactly the same. This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
    Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government.

    Debsisdead has always brought much food for thought to this watering hole. I have always respected him, and I think he has a fine mind. Nonetheless, despite the valuable contribution of this piece as a beginning place, in which we might reevaluate some of our presumptions, I maintain there are a few errors which stand out, and ought to be discussed.

    I call into question these two points:

    (1) Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
    Up thread @14, we were reminded of Robert Fisk's report about misdirected, misinformed "freedom fighters" naively wandering around in Syria, while thinking that they were fighting in Palestine. In this ruin of Syria, where the well-intentioned are captured, or co-opted into evil acts against the civilian population, --is it really incumbent upon us, --from where we sit, to agonize over the motives of those who are committing the actual atrocities against the defenseless? What is the point?
    (2) On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or foreign mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.

    There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago.

    Copeland | Sep 12, 2016 4:01:33 PM | 46
    I very much agree with what Demeter wrote @ 14:
    And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.
    Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire!
    Kuma | Sep 12, 2016 4:05:35 PM | 47
    @9
    I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it.

    "Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity?"

    American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things.

    Laguerre | Sep 12, 2016 4:11:58 PM | 48
    I usually enjoy DiD's rants (rant in the nice sense), but in this case he is wrong. His remarks are out of date.

    No doubt he has Syrian friends in NZ, including the Syro-Palestinian he mentions. They will have been living their past vision of Syria for some time. Yes, back in 2011, there was a big vision of a future democratic Syria among the intellectuals. However those who fight for the rebellion are not middle class (who left) but rural Islamist Sunnis, who have a primitive al-Qa'ida style view.

    The Syrian civil war is quite like the Spanish civil war. It started with noble republicans, including foreigners like Orwell, fighting against nasty Franco, but finished with Stalin's communists fighting against Nazi-supported fascists.

    The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative.

    john | Sep 12, 2016 4:18:12 PM | 50
    james says:

    must be a '''slow''' news day...

    yeah, did you read that the American Imperium bombed 6 Muslim countries last Saturday?

    Laguerre | Sep 12, 2016 4:51:42 PM | 51
    Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians.
    The Ba'thist regime is a mafia of the family, not a dictatorship of Bashshar. Evidently their own interest plays a premier role, but otherwise why not in favour of the Syrian people? There's lot of evidence in favour of Syrian peace.
    fast freddy | Sep 12, 2016 4:53:30 PM | 52
    The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news.

    The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein.

    Islam and its backward dictates, and Christianity with its backward dictates and Manifest Destiny are problematic.

    Curtis | Sep 12, 2016 7:22:18 PM | 55
    I may be white and I may be a fella but don't believe I'm in the fold as described. Fundamentalists of any sort are free to believe as they will but when they force it on others via gun, govt, societal pressures, violence there's trouble. I've seen comparisons to the extremes from Christianity's past with the excuse of Islam as being in its early years. No excuses. Fundies out. But we don't see that in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Facts on the ground rule. Iran had a bit more moderation but only under the tyrant Shah. A majority may have voted for the Islamic Republic and all that entails but what of the minority?
    BTW, where are the stories (links) that show Bashar has embraced neoliberalism? In the end, DiD reduced to pointing to two evils (with multi-facets) and it looks like Assad is the lesser. But who can come up with a solution for a country so divided and so infiltrated by outsiders? And here in the US, look at the choice of future leaders that so many do not want. Where is the one who will lead the US out of its BS? And who will vote for him/her?
    Jen | Sep 12, 2016 7:39:57 PM | 57
    Thanks to B for republishing the comment from Debsisdead. The comment raises some issues about how people generally see the war in Syria, if they know of it, as some sort of real-life video game substitute for bashing one side or another.

    I am not sure though that Debsisdead realises the full import of what s/he has said and that much criticism s/he makes about comments in MoA comments forums could apply equally to what s/he says and has said in the past.

    I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know.

    Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well.

    But one thing that Debsisdead has overlooked is the fact that Bashar al Assad is popular among the Syrian public, who returned him as President in multi-candidate direct elections held in June 2014 with at least 88% of the vote (with a turnout of 73%, better than some Western countries) and who confirmed his popularity in parliamentary elections held in April 2016 with his Ba'ath Party-led coalition winning roughly two-thirds of seats.

    The fact that Syrians themselves hold Assad in such high regard must say something about his leadership that has endeared him to them. If as Debsisdead suggests, Assad practises self-interested "realpolitik" like so many other Middle Eastern politicians, even to the extent of offering reconciliation to jihadis who lay down their weapons and surrender, how has he managed to survive and how did Syria manage to hold off the jihadis and US-Turkish intervention and supply before requesting Russian help?

    fairleft | Sep 12, 2016 8:03:18 PM | 59
    Copeland @58: I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. Admittedly it's tough to 'name' the problem. I'm sure I speak for most here that the problem isn't fundamentalism but 'warring imperialist fundamentalist and misogynist Sunni Islam' that is the problem.

    It'd be nice to have a brief and accurate way of saying what this is: 'Saudi Arabia violently exporting its worst form of Islam'.

    Copeland | Sep 12, 2016 8:28:41 PM | 60
    fairleft, @75

    When people refer to Christian fundamentalism they use the broad term as well. Nothing is otherwise wrong with denominational belief, if past a certain point it is not fundamentalist. You say the problem is not fundamentalism, but something else. Indeed, the problem is fundamentalism.

    Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. There are even atheist fundamentalists. "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. We are awash in fundamentalism, consumerist fundamentalism, capitalist fundamentalism. If we are unlucky and don't succeed in changing the path we are on; then we will understand too late the inscription that appeared in the Temple of Apollo: "Nothing too much".

    Kalen | Sep 12, 2016 8:31:13 PM | 61
    They say that the first casualty of war is truth and from what I read in comments such a mental state prevails among readers, they see Assad, quite reasonably, as the only one who can end this horrible war and the only one who is really interested in doing so while US and even seemingly Russia seems to treat this conflict as a instrument of global geopolitical struggle instigated by US imperial delusions.

    But of course one cannot escape conclusion that although provoked by the CIA operation Bashir Assad failed years befor 2011 exactly because, living in London, did not see neoliberalism as an existential threat ad his father did but a system that has its benefits and can be dealt with, so for a short while Saddam, Gaddafi and Mubarak thought while they were pampered by western elites.

    Now Assad is the only choice I'd Syrians want to keep what would resemble unified Syrian state since nobody else seems to care.

    Another interesting element that was touched upon is attitude to Israel and its US perceived role, but for that one needs deeper background starting from before 1948.
    https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/history-revisited/

    Quadriad | Sep 12, 2016 8:42:29 PM | 62
    I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all.

    He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well.

    Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact.

    Which is precisely why he "must go" prior to any such elections. He would be invincible.

    redrooster | Sep 12, 2016 9:01:21 PM | 63
    Dear Debs is Dead,

    you wrote:

    "This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago."

    Question to you:

    if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly.

    If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help.

    Quadriad | Sep 12, 2016 10:00:23 PM | 65
    #46 FecklessLeft

    And that, my friend, may be the biggest oft ignored cui bono of the entire Syrian war.

    If Assad goes:

    1. Syria falls apart. Western Golan has no more debtor nation to be returned to as far as the UN go. It immediately becomes fee simple property of the occupying entity, for as long as the occupier shall exist (and, with Western Golan included, that might be a bit longer perchance...).
    2. Hizbullah loses both its best supply line and all the strategic depth it might have as well as the only ally anywhere close enough to help. It becomes a military non-entity. Who benefits?

    I think this cui bono (and a double one at that!) is a $100 difficulty level question, although it feels like a $64k one.

    Bill Hicks | Sep 12, 2016 10:31:21 PM | 66
    Best opinion post I've yet read on this site. "Binary division," also very much affects the U.S. election. If you hate Hillary, you must just LOVE Trump, even though many of the best reasons to hate her--her arrogance, her incompetence, her phoniness, her lies, her and Bill's relentless acquisition of great wealth, etc.--are also reasons to hate Trump. Assad is a bastard, Putin is a bastard, Saddam was a bastard--but so are Obama, Netanyahu, Hollande, etc. Is it REALLY that hard to figure out?
    james | Sep 12, 2016 11:09:45 PM | 67
    @ 62 john... we'll have to wait for debs to explain how all that (in your link) adds up, so long as no one calls him any name/s.... i'd like to say 'the anticipation of debs commenting again is killing me', but regardless, killing innocent people in faraway lands thanks usa foreign policy is ongoing..
    Jen | Sep 13, 2016 1:17:04 AM | 71
    OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels".
    http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097

    And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari

    the pair | Sep 13, 2016 2:12:09 AM | 72
    not even sure where to begin...this article is barely worthy of a random facebook post and contains a roughly even mix of straw men and stuff most people already know and don't need dictated to them by random internet folks.

    of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof).

    i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is.

    and then there's "just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only leader I'm aware of who didn't". that might be a surprise to nasrallah and a fair share of iran's power base. i'd also say "expedience" is an odd way to describe the simple choice of avoiding israeli/saudi/US aggression in the short term since the alternative would be what we're seeing in syria and libya as we speak. again, not an endorsment of their relative cowardice. just saying i understand the urge to avoid salfist proxy wars.

    [also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary.]

    as for "calling all islamic fundamentalism" "headchopping" being "racist", be sure not to smoke around all those straw men. never mind the inanity of pretending that all islamic "fundamentalism" is the same. never mind conflating religion with ethnicity. outside of typical western sites that lean to the right and are open about it few people would say anything like that. maybe you meant to post this on glenn beck's site?

    whatever. hopefully there won't be more guest posts in the future.

    bigmango | Sep 13, 2016 2:20:54 AM | 73
    I read this site regularly and give thanks to the numerous intelligent posters who share their knowledge of the middle east and Syria in particular. Still, I do try to read alternative views to understand opposition perspectives no matter how biased or damaging these might they appear to the readers of this blog. So in the wake of recent agreements, I try find out what the mainstream media is saying about the Ahrar al-Sham refusal to recognize the US/Russia sponsored peace plan....and type that into google.......and crickets. All that comes up is a single Al-Masdar report.

    Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors.

    Harry | Sep 13, 2016 2:28:44 AM | 74
    The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful).

    The other ironic point, Debs is guilty of many things he blames other for, hence comments about his hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.

    FecklessLeft | Sep 13, 2016 3:11:57 AM | 77
    The essay I refered to earlier at 45/46 from this site I'll post below. I think it has a lot of bearing on what DiD is implying here. It's DEFINITELY worth a read and is probably the reason why I started appreciating this site in the first place.

    Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. But now that we understand the makeup and texture of these groups much more and to continue support, even just in the most minor of ways, is really disheartening.

    There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control.

    WORTH A READ. ONE OF THE BEST THINGS EVER POSTED ON MoA.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/05/syria-the-feckless-left-.html

    Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
    The problem with this post is simple: all this might have been true back when the insurgency STARTED. TODAY it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

    As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc.

    So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter.

    I don't know and have never read ANYONE who is a serious commenter on this issue - and by that I mean NOT the trolls that infest every comment thread on every blog - who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter. What matters is that Syria is not destroyed, so that Hizballah is not destroyed, so that Iran is not destroyed, so that Israel rules a fragmented Middle East and eventually destroys the Palestinians and that the US gets all the oil for free. This is what Russia is trying to defend, not Assad.

    And if this leaves a certain percentage of Syrian citizens screwed over by Assad, well, they should have figured that out as much as Assad should have figured out that he never should have tried to get along with the US.

    Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.

    somebody | Sep 13, 2016 5:07:06 AM | 80
    Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79

    In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc.

    This obviously is not the case. A recent take of the BBC with some real information on the realities of the war .

    "We had to be fighters," he said, "because we didn't find any other job. If you want to stay inside you need to be a part of the FSA [Free Syrian Army, the group that has closest relations with the West]. Everything is very expensive. They pay us $100 a month but it is not enough.

    "All this war is a lie. We had good lives before the revolution. Anyway this is not a revolution. They lied to us in the name of religion.

    "I don't want to go on fighting but I need to find a job, a house. Everything I have is here in Muadhamiya."

    Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 13, 2016 5:18:29 AM | 81
    ...
    .. who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter.
    ...
    Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
    Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79

    Well, according to RSH, who specialises in being wrong...

    Assad does matter because he is the ELECTED leader chosen by the People of Syria in MORE THAN ONE election.
    Did you forget?
    Did you not know?
    Or doesn't any of that "democracy" stuff matter either?

    AtaBrit | Sep 13, 2016 5:24:44 AM | 82
    @TG | 20

    "It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger ..."
    And yet you fail to mention the Muslim Brotherhood or the Turkish water wars ...

    okie farmer | Sep 13, 2016 6:34:41 AM | 84
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-syria-idUSKCN11J0EY

    Israel said its aircraft attacked a Syrian army position on Tuesday after a stray mortar bomb struck the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, and it denied a Syrian statement that a warplane and drone were shot down.

    The air strike was a now-routine Israeli response to the occasional spillover from fighting in a five-year-old civil war, and across Syria a ceasefire was holding at the start of its second day.

    Syria's army command said in a statement that Israeli warplanes had attacked an army position at 1 a.m. on Tuesday (2200 GMT, Monday) in the countryside of Quneitra province.

    The Israeli military said its aircraft attacked targets in Syria hours after the mortar bomb from fighting among factions in Syria struck the Golan Heights. Israel captured the plateau from Syria in a 1967 war.

    The Syrian army said it had shot down an Israeli warplane and a drone after the Israeli attack.

    Denying any of its aircraft had been lost, the Israeli military said in a statement: "Overnight two surface-to-air missiles were launched from Syria after the mission to target Syrian artillery positions. At no point was the safety of (Israeli) aircraft compromised."

    The seven-day truce in Syria, brokered by Russia and the United States, is their second attempt this year by to halt the bloodshed.

    fairleft | Sep 13, 2016 9:33:38 AM | 89
    Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. T

    here are of course many fundamentalists (the Amish and some Mennonites are examples from Christianity) that are not evangelical, or put severe (no violence, no manipulation, no kidnapping, stop pushing if the person says 'no') limits on their evangelism.

    Only the Saudis, or pushers of their version of Islam, seem to put no limits at all on their sect's crusade.

    brian | Sep 13, 2016 9:55:45 AM | 90
    president Assad is a 'decent ruler' and thats the view of most syrians
    papillonweb | Sep 13, 2016 10:01:56 AM | 92
    Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians.

    There are plenty of people in the United States right now who are just as oppressed - I would wager more so - than anyone in Syria. Immigrants from the south are treated horribly here. There are still black enclaves in large cities where young men are shot by the police on a daily basis for suspicious behavior and minor driving infractions. And then there are the disenfranchised white folks in the Teaparty who belong to the NRA and insist on 'open carry' of their weapons on the street and train in the back woods for a coming war. Tell me what would happen if there were a guarantor these people found believable who promised them that if they took up arms against the government (and anyone else in the country they felt threatened by) they would be guaranteed to win and become the government of a 'New America'. What if that foreign guarantor were to pay them and improve their armaments while providing political cover.

    I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government.

    TheRealDonald | Sep 13, 2016 10:08:27 AM | 93
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/un-condemns-assad-syria-abuse_us_57d7c49ce4b0fbd4b7bb50d8?section=&

    Now look what you've done, Debs.

    On to Sebastopol for the One Party!

    fairleft | Sep 13, 2016 10:25:10 AM | 94
    OT, but that was an interesting Sunni Islam conference in Grozny , because it excluded and then 'excommunicated' Salafism and Wahabbism. Amazing!

    "All of the petrodollars Saudi Arabia spends to advance this claim of leadership and the monopolistic use of Islam's greatest holy sites to manufacture a claim of entitlement to Muslim leadership were shattered by this collective revolt from leading Sunni Muslim scholars and institutions who refused to allow extremism, takfir, and terror ideology to be legitimized in their name by a fringe they decided that it is even not part of their community. This is the beginning of a new era of Muslim awakening the Wahhabis spared no efforts and no precious resources to ensure it will never arrive."

    okie farmer | Sep 13, 2016 11:04:04 AM | 96
    Josh Landis Syria Comment
    There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true.
    Noirette | Sep 13, 2016 12:25:52 PM | 99
    Assad (=> group in power), whose stated aim was to pass from a 'socialist' to a 'market' economy. Notes.
    • *decreased public sector employment.* -- was about 30%, went far lower (1) - was a staple: one 'smart' graduate in the family guaranteed a good Gvmt job, could support many.
    • *cut subsidies* (energy, water, housing, food, etc.) drought (2005>) plus these moves threw millions into cities with no jobs.. pre-drought about 20% agri empl. cuts to agri subsidies created the most disruption.
    • …imho was spurred by the sharply declining oil revenues (peak oil..) which accounted for ?, 15% GDP in 2002 for ex to a few slim points edging to nil in 2012, consequences:

    > a. unemployment rose 'n rose (to 35-40% youth? xyz overall?), and social stability was affected by family/extended f/ district etc. organisation being smashed. education health care in poor regions suffered (2)

    > b. small biz of various types went under becos loss of subs, competition from outsiders (free market policy), lack of bank loans it is said by some but idk, and loss of clients as these became impoverished. Syria does not have a national (afaik) unemployment scheme. Assad to his credit set up a cash-transfer thingie to poor families, but that is not a subsitute for 'growing employment..'

    *opened up the country's banking system* (can't treat the details..)

    So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.)

    1. all nos off the top of my head.

    2. Acceptance of a massive refugee pop. (Pals in the past, Kurds, but numerically important now, Iraqis) plus the high birth rate

    2011> 10 year plan syria in arabic (which i can't read) but look at images and 'supporters' etc.

    http://www.planning.gov.sy/index.php?page=show&ex=2&dir=docs&lang=2&ser=2&cat=172&

    [Sep 14, 2016] Noam Chomsky WikiLeaks Cables Reveal Profound Hatred for Democracy on the Part of Our Political Leadership, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Amy Goodman

    Notable quotes:
    "... Perhaps the most dramatic revelation, or mention, is the bitter hatred of democracy that is revealed both by the U.S. Government -- Hillary Clinton, others -- and also by the diplomatic service. ..."
    "... How representative this is of what they say, we don't know, because we do not know what the filtering is. But that's a minor point. But the major point is that the population is irrelevant. ..."
    "... The Tea Party movement itself is, maybe 15% or 20% of the electorate. It's relatively affluent, white, nativist, you know, it has rather traditional nativist streaks to it. But what is much more important, I think, is the outrage. Over half the population says they more or less supported it, or support its message. What people are thinking is extremely interesting. I mean, overwhelmingly polls reveal that people are extremely bitter, angry, hostile, opposed to everything. ..."
    "... The primary cause undoubtedly is the economic disaster. It's not just the financial catastrophe, it's an economic disaster. I mean, in the manufacturing industry, for example, unemployment levels are at the level of the Great Depression. And unlike the Great Depression, those jobs are not coming back. U.S. owners and managers have long ago made the decision that they can make more profit with complicated financial deals than by production. So finance -- this goes back to the 1970s, mainly Reagan escalated it, and onward -- Clinton, too. The economy has been financialized. ..."
    "... Financial institutions have grown enormously in their share of corporate profits. It may be something like a third, or something like that today. At the same time, correspondingly, production has been exported. So you buy some electronic device from China. China is an assembly plant for a Northeast Asian production center. The parts and components come from the more advanced countries and from the United States, and the technology . So yes, that's a cheap place to assemble things and sell them back here. Rather similar in Mexico, now Vietnam, and so on. That is the way to make profits. ..."
    "... The antagonism to everyone is extremely high -- actually antagonism -- the population doesn't like Democrats, but they hate Republicans even more. They're against big business. They're against government. They're against Congress. ..."
    www.chomsky.info
    AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Noam Chomsky, world-renowned dissident, author of more than 100 books, speaking to us from Boston. Noam, you wrote a piece after the midterm elections called Outrage Misguided. I want to read for you now what Sarah Palin tweeted Đ the former Alaskan governor, of course, and Republication vice presidential nominee. This is what she tweeted about WikiLeaks. Rather, she put it on Facebook. She said, "First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop WikiLeaks' director Julian Assange from distributing this highly-sensitive classified material, especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a journalist any more than the editor of the Al Qaeda's new English-language magazine ŇInspire,Ó is a journalist. He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders? Noam Chomsky, your response?

    NOAM CHOMSKY: That's pretty much what I would expect Sarah Palin to say. I don't know how much she understands, but I think we should pay attention to what we learn from the leaks. What we learned, for example, is kinds of things I've said. Perhaps the most dramatic revelation, or mention, is the bitter hatred of democracy that is revealed both by the U.S. Government -- Hillary Clinton, others -- and also by the diplomatic service.

    To tell the world well, they're talking to each other -- to pretend to each other that the Arab world regards Iran as the major threat and wants the U.S. to bomb Iran, is extremely revealing, when they know that approximately 80% of Arab opinion regards the U.S. and Israel as the major threat, 10% regard Iran as the major threat, and a majority, 57%, think the region would be better off with Iranian nuclear weapons as a kind of deterrent. That is does not even enter. All that enters is what they claim has been said by Arab dictators -- brutal Arab dictators. That is what counts.

    How representative this is of what they say, we don't know, because we do not know what the filtering is. But that's a minor point. But the major point is that the population is irrelevant. All that matters is the opinions of the dictators that we support. If they were to back us, that is the Arab world. That is a very revealing picture of the mentality of U.S. political leadership and, presumably, the lead opinion, judging by the commentary that's appeared here, that's the way it has been presented in the press as well. It does not matter with the Arabs believe.

    AMY GOODMAN: Your piece, Outrage Misguided. Back to the midterm elections and what we're going to see now. Can you talk about the tea party movement?

    NOAM CHOMSKY: The Tea Party movement itself is, maybe 15% or 20% of the electorate. It's relatively affluent, white, nativist, you know, it has rather traditional nativist streaks to it. But what is much more important, I think, is the outrage. Over half the population says they more or less supported it, or support its message. What people are thinking is extremely interesting. I mean, overwhelmingly polls reveal that people are extremely bitter, angry, hostile, opposed to everything.

    The primary cause undoubtedly is the economic disaster. It's not just the financial catastrophe, it's an economic disaster. I mean, in the manufacturing industry, for example, unemployment levels are at the level of the Great Depression. And unlike the Great Depression, those jobs are not coming back. U.S. owners and managers have long ago made the decision that they can make more profit with complicated financial deals than by production. So finance -- this goes back to the 1970s, mainly Reagan escalated it, and onward -- Clinton, too. The economy has been financialized.

    Financial institutions have grown enormously in their share of corporate profits. It may be something like a third, or something like that today. At the same time, correspondingly, production has been exported. So you buy some electronic device from China. China is an assembly plant for a Northeast Asian production center. The parts and components come from the more advanced countries and from the United States, and the technology . So yes, that's a cheap place to assemble things and sell them back here. Rather similar in Mexico, now Vietnam, and so on. That is the way to make profits.

    It destroys the society here, but that's not the concern of the ownership class and the managerial class. Their concern is profit. That is what drives the economy. The rest of it is a fallout. People are extremely bitter about it, but don't seem to understand it. So the same people who are a majority, who say that Wall Street is to blame for the current crisis, are voting Republican. Both parties are deep in the pockets of Wall Street, but the Republicans much more so than the Democrats.

    The same is true on issue after issue. The antagonism to everyone is extremely high -- actually antagonism -- the population doesn't like Democrats, but they hate Republicans even more. They're against big business. They're against government. They're against Congress. They're against science

    [Sep 14, 2016] The story of Chile s popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today s must-read, and provides unsettling similarities to current events

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad. ..."
    "... The curse is mostly the result of having powerful and rapacious neighbors with no compunction but to use whatever means necessary to install a 'friendly' government willing to repress its own people in order to allow the theft of their 'resources'. ..."
    "... As for Chile's governing elite, they wore the comfortable version of the "copper collar', the one made of money as opposed to chains, and so paid-off, lived in wealth and comfort so long as they kept their countrymen from doing anything that Anaconda copper didn't like. ..."
    "... Superb stuff, especially "monopolistic control of commodity markets", supply and demand pressures on wheat and oil and copper have mostly faded to insignificance with hyper-leveraged commodities markets and supine (complicit) regulators. ..."
    "... See: oil going to $140 not so many years ago despite building supply and weak demand. Goldman famously decided commodities were an "asset class" in 2003 and completely f*cked up these critical price signals for the world economy. ..."
    "... Oh, right, our precious middlemen call it "sequestration" and "arbitrage". There's a million pounds of aluminum in the Mexican desert that calls bullshit on your claim. Any more self-absorbed theology you would like to discuss this fine Monday? ..."
    "... The terrible legacy of the Pinochet years were also done by the "Chicago boys" who were hired to run the government. In their hate of the people and the embrace of neoliberal capitalism, they did something much worse: they changed the Constitution of the country so that undoing all their hateful legislation would be near impossible to override. When you hear of Student Protests in Chile – they are still fighting to undo the terrible legacy. ..."
    "... What was Allende's Socialist party's policies, were they Nordic-style Social Democracy? I still am not sure if there is a meaningful ideological difference between Nordic Social Democracy, & Latin American "Socialism of the 21st Century" in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia. ..."
    "... Perhaps the Nordics have a special secret deal with Murica & the US Imperial MIC: go along with the US Imperial foreign policy, & don't loudly promote your Social Democratic system, to anyone but especially not to nonwhite nations; & in turn we won't falsely slander you as Commie Dictators as we do any other nation attempting Social Democracy. ..."
    Sep 14, 2016 | September 12, 2016 at 8:58 am
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    The story of Chile's popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today's must-read, and provides unsettling similarities to current events, most strikingly in my estimation, recently in Venezuela.

    The Popular Unity government enjoyed promising successes during its first year in power. Domestic production spiked in 1971, leading to a GDP growth rate of almost 9 percent. Unemployment fell from 7 percent to below 3 percent, and wages increased dramatically, particularly for the lowest earners. Allende's land reform program - along with intensified popular attacks on large, unproductive landholdings - led to near record harvests and a new abundance of food for the poor.

    Of course no good deed goes unpunished by oligarchs.

    On the other hand, Chilean elites also pursued a more top-down strategy in their effort to bring the economy to its knees. Objecting to government-mandated price controls and export restrictions, powerful business interests took to hoarding consumer essentials, secretly warehousing enormous quantities of basic goods only to let them spoil as avoidable food shortages rocked the nation.

    And of course there's the USA's never-ending efforts to spread peace and democracy.

    Meanwhile, in Washington, President Nixon was making good on his promise to "make Chile's economy scream." He called for an end to all US assistance to the Allende government, and instructed US officials to use their "predominant position in international financial institutions to dry up the flow" of international credit to Chile.

    And finally a sobering reminder, that in the end, if they can't beat you at the polls, they are not above putting and end to you altogether.

    Deeply committed to maintaining the legality of the revolutionary process, the UP government sought to slow the pace of radical democratic reforms at the grassroots in a misguided effort to avoid a putsch, or the outbreak of open civil war. In the end, this error proved fatal - an armed popular base, exercising direct control over its communities and workplaces, could have been an invaluable line of defense for the Allende administration, as well as for its broader goal of total societal transformation.

    Because, with friends like these ;

    When Henry Kissinger began secretly taping all of his phone conversations in 1969, little did he know that he was giving history the gift that keeps on giving. Now, on the 35th anniversary of the September 11, 1973, CIA-backed military coup in Chile, phone transcripts that Kissinger made of his talks with President Nixon and the CIA chief among other top government officials reveal in the most candid of language the imperial mindset of the Nixon administration as it began plotting to overthrow President Salvador Allende, the world's first democratically elected Socialist. "We will not let Chile go down the drain," Kissinger told CIA director Richard Helms in a phone call following Allende's narrow election on September 4, 1970, according to a recently declassified transcript. "I am with you," Helms responded.

    9/11 means different things to different people.

    RabidGandhi , September 12, 2016 at 9:26 am

    The comparison with Venezuela is hugely important, especially with regard to the suppliers boycot, where the Venezuelan opposition seem to be directly copying the Chilean playbook. Even so, there is another aspect that should be of greater concern. Chile stands out for its reliance on mining, especially copper. By failing in his bid to diversify the Chilean economy, Allende left his country vulnerable to the fluctuations of the global economy and the whims of first world importers.

    If memory serves, in 1973 mining represented around ~25% of the Chilean economy. Venezuela, by contrast, now has 45% of its GDP tied up in oil exports. The only fact that should be surprising, then, is that the Bolivarian governments have lasted as long as they have; perhaps a testament to the sweeping social improvements that have won them a mass-supported bulwark against constant right wing assaults. Even so, with the economy undiversified, that bulwark will only hold out for so long.

    Jim Haygood , September 12, 2016 at 11:50 am

    This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad.

    For one, the ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price reduces the incentive to diversify one's economy. In an extreme case like Saudi Arabia, even the workers hired to produce the oil are mostly foreign, leaving domestic workers unskilled and idle.

    Second, contrary to the belief early in the industrial revolution that commodity prices would be driven up by scarcity, in fact technological improvement has more than counterbalanced scarcity to keep commodity prices flat to down in real terms.

    Finally, as every commodity trader knows, the stylized secular chart pattern of any commodity is a sharp spike owing to a shortage, followed by a long (as in decades) bowl produced by excessive capacity brought online in the wake of the shortage.

    Governments, not adept at realizing that commodity price spikes are not sustainable, accumulate fixed costs during the boom years and then get crunched in the subsequent price crash.

    Alejandro , September 12, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    Is this suppose to explain what happened in Chile in 1973? Catallactics, ushered in AND imposed via a brutal military dictatorship, yet fail to recognize the contradiction in the so-called "effects of violent intervention with the market"

    Watt4Bob , September 12, 2016 at 4:21 pm

    This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad.

    The curse is mostly the result of having powerful and rapacious neighbors with no compunction but to use whatever means necessary to install a 'friendly' government willing to repress its own people in order to allow the theft of their 'resources'.

    For one, the ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price reduces the incentive to diversify one's economy.

    It was not the people of Chile, who profited by the "ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price" and so cannot be blamed for the inability to diversify their economy.

    As for Chile's governing elite, they wore the comfortable version of the "copper collar', the one made of money as opposed to chains, and so paid-off, lived in wealth and comfort so long as they kept their countrymen from doing anything that Anaconda copper didn't like.

    In an extreme case like Saudi Arabia, even the workers hired to produce the oil are mostly foreign, leaving domestic workers unskilled and idle.

    The extreme case of Saudi Arabia is a direct result of the hegemonic tactics just described, install a government 'friendly' to American 'interests' in this case the House of Saud, and make them so fabulously wealthy that there is no questioning their loyalty, until it becomes questionable

    Second, contrary to the belief early in the industrial revolution that commodity prices would be driven up by scarcity, in fact technological improvement has more than counterbalanced scarcity to keep commodity prices flat to down in real terms.

    Finally, as every commodity trader knows, the stylized secular chart pattern of any commodity is a sharp spike owing to a shortage, followed by a long (as in decades) bowl produced by excessive capacity brought online in the wake of the shortage.

    Until finally, after the inevitable effect of monopolistic control of commodity 'markets' and the corrupting influence of corporate power destroy the working man's earning potential, and by extension his purchasing power, and so extinguishes 'demand'.

    Governments, not adept at realizing that commodity price spikes are not sustainable, accumulate fixed costs during the boom years and then get crunched in the subsequent price crash.

    It was not the Chilean government who concerned themselves with sustainability, as they were paid not to, and the corporations who made all the money didn't give a damn either.

    It should be easy to understand the logic, and necessity of voting out the ruling elite who were very good at lining their own pockets, but not so good at planning for their people's well-being.
    The Chilean people grew tired of rule by greedy people bought-off by American corporations, and elected a socialist government in an effort to remedy the situation.

    For their troubles, they were treated to a violent coup with thousands killed, tortured and disappeared.

    And finally, it appears that you think this is all the 'natural' operation of 'markets'?

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , September 12, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    Superb stuff, especially "monopolistic control of commodity markets", supply and demand pressures on wheat and oil and copper have mostly faded to insignificance with hyper-leveraged commodities markets and supine (complicit) regulators.

    See: oil going to $140 not so many years ago despite building supply and weak demand. Goldman famously decided commodities were an "asset class" in 2003 and completely f*cked up these critical price signals for the world economy.

    Katniss Everdeen , September 12, 2016 at 9:27 am

    " . an armed popular base, exercising direct control over its communities and workplaces, could have been an invaluable line of defense for the Allende administration, as well as for its broader goal of total societal transformation."

    "Those who do not learn history" are condemned to being exploited and controlled by those who do.

    Jim Haygood , September 12, 2016 at 11:40 am

    'Objecting to government-mandated price controls and export restrictions, powerful business interests took to hoarding consumer essentials.'

    Businesses don't exist for the purpose of "hoarding." But if mandated prices are set below cost, of course goods will not be sold at a loss. Blaming the victims instead of the price controllers is like blaming a murder victim for "getting in the way of my bullet."

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 12, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Goods perhaps, but not labor. If mandated prices (for labor) are set below cost, serfs will still sell their labor. For example, any soldier who never came back from Iraq obviously under-priced his labor.

    hunkerdown , September 12, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Businesses don't exist for the purpose of "hoarding."

    Oh, right, our precious middlemen call it "sequestration" and "arbitrage". There's a million pounds of aluminum in the Mexican desert that calls bullshit on your claim. Any more self-absorbed theology you would like to discuss this fine Monday?

    afisher , September 12, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    The terrible legacy of the Pinochet years were also done by the "Chicago boys" who were hired to run the government. In their hate of the people and the embrace of neoliberal capitalism, they did something much worse: they changed the Constitution of the country so that undoing all their hateful legislation would be near impossible to override. When you hear of Student Protests in Chile – they are still fighting to undo the terrible legacy.

    Sidenote: US has one of the Chicago Boys, entrenched at the Cato Institute.

    pretzelattack , September 12, 2016 at 1:03 pm

    yeah the chicago austerity mongers, and kissinger. guess who takes advice from kissinger, and pushes neoliberal economic policies. the democrats used to be opposed to that sort of thing, at least in public.

    ProNewerDeal , September 12, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    What was Allende's Socialist party's policies, were they Nordic-style Social Democracy? I still am not sure if there is a meaningful ideological difference between Nordic Social Democracy, & Latin American "Socialism of the 21st Century" in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia.

    Norway & Venezuela both have a state-owned oil company, the profits of which are actually used to help their citizens, specifically in education & health funding. Yet the likes of 0bama/Bush43 praise Norway & slam Venezuela.

    Allende was even a full White Guy TM like the Nordics, albeit not blond-hair blue eyes like some Nordics. I suspected this was perhaps an important reason the likes of 0bama/Bush43 praises the Nordic nations while labeling the part-Native American &/or Black Venezuelan/Ecuador/Bolivian Presidents as being "Commie" "Dictators".

    Perhaps the Nordics have a special secret deal with Murica & the US Imperial MIC: go along with the US Imperial foreign policy, & don't loudly promote your Social Democratic system, to anyone but especially not to nonwhite nations; & in turn we won't falsely slander you as Commie Dictators as we do any other nation attempting Social Democracy.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Gaius Publius The Clinton Campaign Notices the Sanders Campaign, or How to Read the Media

    The article is from July 2015. It is interesting to compare views expressed a year ago with the current situation. Who would predict the her health bacome No.1 issue in September 2016?
    Now we start to see dirty MSM games and tricks with election polls. It is well known that the key idea of polls is to influence electorate. Desirable result that conditions those who did not yet decided to vote "for the winner" can be achieved in a very subtle way. For example if electorate of one candidate is younger, you can run poll using landline phones. Gaius Publius provide a good analysis of now MSM sell establishment candidate to lemmings in his July 10, 2015 post in Naked capitalism blog (The Clinton Campaign Notices the Sanders Campaign, or How to Read the Media)
    .
    "...I don't think the Clinton herders care who actually votes, only who funds."
    .
    "...HRC is the biggest threat to the Democrats winning the White House. She is so far to the right on almost every issue, she is the most unelectable of them all. I basically view her campaign as a front for Jeb!"
    .
    "...I will take at face value the statement that Sanders' personal views are a threat to the capitalists who control both major parties. But his strategy is not. In spite of his best intentions, he will end up being the sheepdog that makes sure the progressive movement stays in the Democratic Party (for the term "sheepdog" and supporting analysis see http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary)."
    Notable quotes:
    "... A second example involves Wall Street banks, in particular, a policy of breaking them up, reinstating Glass-Steagall, and prosecuting Wall Street fraud. Can you imagine any announced candidate doing any of these things, save Bernie Sanders? ..."
    "... If a 25 year old woman in 2008 didn't vote for Hillary, what has Hillary done to change her mind or attract the 17 year old from 2008? ..."
    "... I don't think the Clinton herders care who actually votes, only who funds. ..."
    "... If Hillary feels she can control primary voters through local Democratic party machines, that might explain her standpoint. ..."
    "... Now organized money has too much economic power ..."
    "... HRC is the biggest threat to the Democrats winning the White House. She is so far to the right on almost every issue, she is the most unelectable of them all. I basically view her campaign as a front for Jeb! ..."
    "... I will take at face value the statement that Sanders' personal views are a threat to the capitalists who control both major parties. But his strategy is not. In spite of his best intentions, he will end up being the sheepdog that makes sure the progressive movement stays in the Democratic Party (for the term "sheepdog" and supporting analysis see http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary). ..."
    "... They also need enduring organizations, which are called political parties. ..."
    Jul 10, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com

    ... ... ...

    Taking Apart the Insider Game

    The most important thing to consider when thinking about the Sanders campaign is this. Everyone else who's running, on both sides, is an insider playing within - and supporting - the "insider game," the one that keeps insiders wealthy and outsiders struggling, the one where the wealthy and their retainers operate government for their benefit only. What sets Sanders apart is his determination to dismantle that game, to take it apart and send its players home (back to the private sector) or to jail.

    Two examples should make this clear. One is Fast Track and the "trade" agreements being forced upon us. The pressure to pass these agreements is coming equally from mainstream Democrats like Barack Obama, a "liberal," and from mainstream Republicans, supposed "conservatives." They may differ on "rights" policy, like abortion rights, but not on money matters. Trade agreements are wealth-serving policies promoted by people in both parties who serve wealth, which means most of them. People like Sanders, Warren and others, by contrast, would neuter these agreement as job-killing profit protection schemes and turn them into something else.

    A second example involves Wall Street banks, in particular, a policy of breaking them up, reinstating Glass-Steagall, and prosecuting Wall Street fraud. Can you imagine any announced candidate doing any of these things, save Bernie Sanders?

    In both of these cases, Sanders would aggressively challenge the insider profit-protection racket, not just give lip service to challenging it. Which tells you why he is so popular. Many of us in the bleachers have noticed the insider game - after all, it's been happening in front of us for decades- and most of us are done with it. Ask any Tea Party Republican voter, for example, what she thinks of the bank bailout of 2008-09. She'll tell you she hated it, whether she explains it in our terms or not.

    And that's why Sanders, like Warren before him, draws such enthusiastic crowds. The pendulum has swung so far in the direction of wealth that the nation may well change permanently, and people know it. People are ready, just as they were in 2008, prior to eight years of betrayal. People have been discouraged about the chance for change lately, but they're ready for the real thing if they see it.

    The Clinton Campaign Notices Sanders

    There's been an attempt to downplay the Sanders candidacy since the beginning, to sink his campaign beneath a wave of silence. That ended a bit ago, and the press has begun to take notice, if snippily. Now the Clinton campaign is noticing, if the New York Times is to be believed. I found the following fascinating, for a number of reasons.

    The piece first along with some news, then a little exegesis (my emphasis):

    Hillary Clinton's Team Is Wary as Bernie Sanders Finds Footing in Iowa

    The ample crowds and unexpectedly strong showing by Senator Bernie Sanders are setting off worry among advisers and allies of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who believe the Vermont senator could overtake her in Iowa polls by the fall and even defeat her in the nation's first nominating contest there.

    The enthusiasm that Mr. Sanders has generated - including a rally attended by 2,500 people in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on Friday - has called into question Mrs. Clinton's early strategy of focusing on a listening tour of small group gatherings and wooing big donors in private settings. In May, Mrs. Clinton led with 60 percent support to Mr. Sanders' 15 percent in a Quinnipiac poll. Last week the same poll showed Mrs. Clinton at 52 percent to Mr. Sanders's 33 percent.

    "We are worried about him, sure. He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don't think that will diminish," Jennifer Palmieri, the Clinton campaign's communications director, said Monday in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

    Some of Mrs. Clinton's advisers acknowledged that they were surprised by Mr. Sanders' momentum and said there were enough liberal voters in Iowa, including many who supported Barack Obama or John Edwards in 2008, to create problems for her there.

    "I think we underestimated that Sanders would quickly attract so many Democrats in Iowa who weren't likely to support Hillary," said one Clinton adviser, who like several others spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly share views about the race. "It's too early to change strategy because no one knows if Sanders will be able to hold on to these voters in the months ahead. We're working hard to win them over, but yeah, it's a real competition there."

    I don't want to quote the whole thing (well, I do, but I can't). So I encourage you to read it. There's much there worth noticing.

    What to Look at When the Times Reports on Clinton

    Now, some exegesis, meta-reading of the media, especially corporate media like the Times. My three main points are bulleted below.

    • First, when you expose yourself to any of the "liberal" U.S. outlets (as opposed to, say, The Guardian) be aware that because they are owned by establishment corporations they're already pro-Clinton. Subtly, not blatantly, but certainly.

      That sounds like prejudice, so let me explain. For one thing, neither the outlets nor their owning corporation can afford not to prepare their seat at the Clinton White House table. It's just a fact. Media want access and corporations want government to smile on their profit schemes. At this point, currying favor with Sanders is on no one's mind, and the Clintons are known to "have long memories they punish their enemies and help their friends" (quoted here). The incentives are all aligned.

      But also, mainstream insider corporations are completely aligned with the insider game for the obvious reason - they're part of it. No one inside the game wants to see it damaged. Hayes and Maddow, as people, may or may not prefer Sanders over Clinton, but MSNBC has a clear favorite and if you listen carefully and consistently, it shows. Their owners, and all of the other big media owners, can't afford (literally afford, as in, there's major money at stake) to play this one straight. You may find some unskewed reporting, but not a lot of it.

      In the present instance, for example, I read the story above (click through for all of it) as being pro-Clinton, and in fact, most stories like these will be painted that way, with a light brush or a heavy one, for some time to come. If you don't spot this bias where present, you're not reading the story as written.

      In the same way that every New York Times story I read in the last two months, literally every one, used the inaccurate and propagandistic phrase "pro-trade Democrats" to describe Ron Wyden, Earl Blumenauer and the small handful of other Dems who defied their voters to support the White House and the wealthy - in that same way you'll have a hard time finding mainstream Sanders or Clinton coverage that doesn't in some way sell Clinton. If that's not a fact, I'll be eager to be proven wrong.

    • Second, be aware that much so-called reporting is the result of "placement," a term from advertising. Ad placement is when you buy space in a publication or media program into which you can put your message. Campaigns, among other entities, frequently do the same with reporters. The reporter offers space, a container, into which the campaign can put its message. (The reward is usually "access.")

      It's certainly true that many reporters and writers openly advocate; I'm often one of them and I'm not alone. But no one suspects open advocates of trickery. It's much more subtle, and dangerous for readers, when the advocacy is hidden, as it is in supposed "straight news" articles.

      In cases like these - certainly not all cases of reporting, but far too many - the reporter doesn't "get" the news. The news "gets" the reporter. A campaign's messenger comes to the reporter, offers the message, and the reporter builds a genuine and frequently interesting news story around it, including research from other sources, but always starting with the seed provided by the campaign or public official.

      In the present instance, the article above, you should therefore ask:

      • Is it really true that the Clinton campaign just now discovered Sanders' popularity and that he may be a threat?
      • Or could the following be true? That the Clinton campaign always knew a Warren-like opponent could gain ground but were publicly ignoring it; now, however, it's time to appear to be noticing, so they approached a reporter with their take on the Sanders surge.

      In other words, is the bolded part of the first sentence of the article its seed? Who approached whom? That first sentence again:

      The ample crowds and unexpectedly strong showing by Senator Bernie Sanders are setting off worry among advisers and allies of Hillary Rodham Clinton

      I don't have an answer to the bulleted questions above. Either could be correct. I'm a little suspicious though. First, by the obvious but subtle bias in the story - similar to the constant bias in all of the Times Fast Track reporting. Second, by the plurals above: "among advisers and allies of Hillary Rodham Clinton." This isn't one person speaking, but a coordinated effort by staffers and surrogates ("allies") to say a coordinated single thing to the Times reporters.

    • Third, I'm made suspicious by this, a little further down:

      "I think we underestimated that Sanders would quickly attract so many Democrats in Iowa who weren't likely to support Hillary," said one Clinton adviser, who like several others spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly share views about the race. "It's too early to change strategy because no one knows if Sanders will be able to hold on to these voters in the months ahead. We're working hard to win them over, but yeah, it's a real competition there."

      There's obvious messaging, especially in the last part of the paragraph. But look at the bolded part. Of those in the campaign, the only ones quoted in the article by name are Clinton herself and Jennifer Palmieri, who spoke, not to the reporters, but to "Morning Joe." Everyone else is off the record, speaking to these reporters "on the condition of anonymity to candidly share views about the race."

      "Candidly" implies leaking, not messaging or spin, and here's where the deception seems more clear. Have these reporters really found a minor army of leakers? If these are truly leakers, expect them to be fired soon.

      So, scenario one: Sanders is surging, the Clinton campaign is caught by surprise, and two Times reporters find a bunch of anonymous campaign leakers who say (paraphrasing), "Sure, Sanders caught us by surprise. We're aiming for one type of Democrat and he's getting the other type. It's too early to change strategy - the man could trip and fall - but yes, there's now competition."

      (Did you notice that part about two kinds of Democrat? The actual quote says: "We underestimated that Sanders would quickly attract so many Democrats in Iowa who weren't likely to support Hillary." I think the campaign knows exactly what kind of Democrat they were ignoring, and if you think about it carefully, you will too.)

      Or, scenario two: The Clinton campaign is ignoring the Warren wing, giving them nothing but platitudes and (as in the case of Fast Track) avoidance. Now the "Sanders surge" is in the news and the campaign has to respond. They get their message together - "Yes, we're surprised, and we have to admit that out loud. But it's early days, and if we keep getting reporters to say 'socialist' and 'anathema,' we won't have to counter his specifics with our specifics. So let's round up some reporters and get 'Morning Joe' on the phone."

      Did the reference to "socialist" and "anathema" surprise you? Read on.

    • Finally, because of the two points above, you'll find that in many cases the story supports the campaign, while justifying itself as "reporting." Both bolded pieces are important.

      Let's look at each element above. First, "the story supports the campaign":

      Those who see Mrs. Clinton as being at risk in Iowa say she is still far better positioned to win the nomination than Mr. Sanders, who lags by double digits in Iowa polling. He also has far less money than she does, and his socialist leanings are anathema to many Americans.

      In the first sentence the campaign is being subtly and indirectly quoted. But the bolded phrases above are pretty strong language in a sentence that isn't necessarily an indirect quote, and echoes open Clinton surrogates like Claire McCaskill. Even "leanings" lends an unsavory color, since it echoes the phrase "communist leanings."

      (The alternative to the last sentence above, by the way, and much more honestly sourced, would be something like this: "The anonymous campaign adviser also said, 'Frankly, we think if we just keep saying 'socialist' whenever we can, we won't have to change our strategy of being vague on the economic issues. At least we're sticking with that for now.'" I would buy that as excellent honest reporting.)

      Second, "justifying itself as reporting": Once you present the core message as provided by the messengers, the reporter can then call around for other, non-Clinton-sourced comment. Thus the quotes, much further down from Joe Trippi, Carter Eskew and the Sanders campaign.

      Add in a little of the reporters' own analysis, much of it good:

      "The enthusiasm that Mr. Sanders has generated - including a rally attended by 2,500 people in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on Friday - has called into question Mrs. Clinton's early strategy of focusing on a listening tour of small group gatherings and wooing big donors in private settings."

      and you have the makings of a news story friendly to Clinton built around a news hook and potentially "placed" elements. The hook, the "placed" elements (if they were placed), and some original analysis go at the top, and the rest of the story is built to follow that.

    Bottom Line

    If you like this exercise in reading behind the media, please read the article again with the above thoughts in mind. Is this original reporting (i.e., reporters starting a conversation), or did the campaign make the first approach? Does the article carry Clinton water, subtly support the campaign? Are any opposing viewpoints featured at the top, or are they buried below the point where most people stop reading?

    This Times story may be a completely honest exercise in independent journalism. There certainly is a Sanders phenomenon, and it's detailed honestly and factually, so there's value in reading it. But there's an obvious bias toward Clinton messaging in the reporters' own prose, so I'm suspicious, and you should be as well.

    I'll also say that most stories about campaigns operate this way, as do many other news stories involving public figures. What will make reporting the Sanders campaign different is what I wrote above - Sanders wants to take apart the insider game. What major media outlet will help Sanders do that, will shut the door to corporate favors, media access and other prizes from a future Clinton administration, in order to be even-handed?

    My guess is few or none.

    Reader note: Gaius asked for me to allow comments on this post, so please have at it!

    AJ, July 10, 2015 at 8:14 am

    I was that Sanders rally in Council Bluffs. I follow politics especially on the left very closely so I didn't really come home with any thing new (besides some extra Bernie stickers). However, the crowd was huge and engaged. It almost had the feel of a big tent revival.

    One issue that I've been thinking about lately that I haven't seen publicly addressed (except for in the comments on the 538 article Lambert posted yesterday) is how reliable do we think sine of these polling numbers are? Given that Sanders support definitely skews younger, would these people even be captured in telephone polls? I tend to think this is why the Greek vote was as big of a surprise as it was. I think there is a large going progressive part of the population (both on the US and abroad) that doesn't get picked up in the polling. If true, Sanders could be a lot closer to Clinton than these numbers suggest.


    NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 9:06 am

    Pollsters know this, but there are three kinds: the national subscription polls who just want to be relevant, paid polls, and the local reputation polls. Because of the distance to the election, there won't be good responses, and cell phone users have grown reliant on texting and are less likely to respond. The pollsters know this. Needless to say, the Quinnipiac poll should be disconcerting for the Clinton camp and the Democrats who thought Hillary would shower them with cash and appearances. That result means they see enough to make this claim even though they aren't quite on the ground the way a Roanoke College poll is in Virginia. The local reputation poll has a sense of the electorate because they've polled every local election while CNN was trying to interview Nessie.

    There is dissatisfaction within Team Blue that Hillary Clinton can't bridge. There is a myth about Bill's magical campaign touch Democrats have internalized despite a lack of evidence, and I think Team Blue elites feel Obama failed them and want to bring Hillary in as a savior. Obviously, they weren't around in '94.


    pat b, July 10, 2015 at 8:15 pm

    Bill and Al ran a magical campaign in 92, but that was a long time ago, and they spent two decades
    triangulating against the Base. Bill signed NAFTA and HRC spent 23 years defending it.

    In 92 the clinton's were selling the dream of the 90's. Now, they are selling Windows 98.

    Nick, July 10, 2015 at 10:26 am

    Too bad young people have a horrible track record actually voting. Clinton knows the game well enough.

    NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 11:11 am

    Hillary is 8 years older, so are her core nostalgia supporters. Without a message for the now under 45 crowd, Hillary has lost 8 years worth of supporters to relative infirmity or death.

    She didn't rally the crowds for Grimes, Landrieu, or Hagan. Shaheen was the incumbent she saved, but she was running against an unremarkable Massachusetts carpet bagger. I'm not certain the Democrats have ever left the Spring of '94.

    vidimi, July 10, 2015 at 11:33 am

    don't underestimate the number of young, white females voting clinton. it will be somewhere near all of them.

    mn, July 10, 2015 at 11:43 am

    What about college debt and the fact that there are no jobs. Gender seems to be a selling point, like race the last time. Not all younger females will be that stupid again.

    NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    Actually, Obama won younger females. Credit where credit is due. Gender may have affected older voters who come from an obviously more repressive era, but I suspect brand loyalty and legitimacy (it's her turn messaging), racism, and nostalgia played a hand in Clinton's 2008 support more than gender. If a 25 year old woman in 2008 didn't vote for Hillary, what has Hillary done to change her mind or attract the 17 year old from 2008? In many ways, Hillary has to replace 8 years of death to her base.

    mn, July 10, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    At that time people were saying to vote for Hillary because she would prop up destroyed 401ks (to me the mindless young voter). I fell for the hope and change b.s., I won't do that again. Long time Bernie fan.

    As for my friends they are voting for Hillary because they don't think Bernie can win, others that hate her are sitting out. Yes, many females really do not like her. Love Ann Richards! RIP.

    pat b, July 10, 2015 at 8:34 pm

    The Silent Generation anchored Reagan and was much more conservative and risk averse then the Boomers of which Hillary is one. However, the issue isn't Hillary vs the GOP's aging angry silent generation types, it's more Hillary's aging Boomer female base vs the millenials who think the Boomers shafted them. It was the Boomers who benefited from cheap college tuition then voted in Reagan to cut taxes and dump these costs onto Gen X, GenY and the Millenials.

    Paul Tioxon, July 10, 2015 at 11:14 pm

    My point is that of the passing of an era. And not only in terms of voters,the army of the silent majority which saw the blue collar conservatives, the hard hats, the cops, leave the democrats en mass and the democrats having little to replace them. The defection of the dixiecrats from the dems to the republicans, as witnessed in the complete turnover of Texas to the republicans amalgamated what was a coalition into a choke hold from 1968 until 2008, with only 12 years dems in the WH only 2 dem presidents over 40 years. And of course, Clinton may as well have been George Bush for all that it mattered for domestic policies.

    So Hillary and the dems do not have the army of voters against them that they used to have plus what ever momentarily disaffected Millenials seeking payback or another group to reinforce numbers making the republicans a majority party. They are not.
    The point is that as your opposition declines in numbers as far as the ballot box goes, and your likely supporters increase, the odds favor your party as a majority.

    http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

    Millenials, according to Pew Polls, the 18-33 year olds, are 51% democrat/ leaning democrat vs 35% republican/leaning republican. Even though independent is now the largest of the 3 categories, leaning is the place to go when there is no alternative choice, apparently.

    I am not sure the younger group is following the republican strategist wedge issue that the old people are stealing from the young with college debt, social security, Medicare being blamed for the diminished prosperity of the young. Trying to turn their grandparents who are retired after a lifetime of hard work into the new welfare queens is not getting the traction you would think. Apparently holding onto ritual Thanksgiving Day dinners and baking cookies around the holidays is more of a social bond than fabricated grievances by political consultants can even rend asunder. And of course, blood is thicker than water. Don't expect granny and pop pop to pushed off on an iceberg anytime soon because of college debt.

    Praedor, July 10, 2015 at 11:07 am

    What I see in this is the potential for a low turnout election. POTENTIAL. Those enthusiastic young voters, or the previously disgusted sideline sitters who have come out anew for Sanders (or previously for Warren) are NOT likely to shrug their shoulders and vote for Hillary if she ends up pulling in the pre-anointed crown. It's hard to get all fired up and enthusiastic about candidate A only to be stuck with candidate B who you weren't interested in before. This has the potential to really change things or gut the process of any participants except the true believer core of the Democrats.

    Uahsenaa, July 10, 2015 at 8:51 am

    I found this sentence to be rather curious: "Mrs. Clinton's advisers, meanwhile, have deep experience pulling off upsets and comeback political victories, and Mrs. Clinton often performs best when she is under pressure from rivals." The first part is unsubstantiated vaguery, but the second part is demonstrably untrue. Or, if not "untrue," then it implies that Sec. Clinton's "best" is still "loses." Also there's the earlier bit about Sanders being "untested" nationally, yet, when you parse that, you realize Ms. Clinton's "testedness" amounts to "lost to an insurgent candidate who had been in national politics for all of a few minutes."

    Since I'm still somewhat skeptical of what a Sanders candidacy means, I am quite happy to see how, along with Bernie, others in various facets of government seem to be emboldened to fight back. TPA may have been a loss in the short term, but the administration was clearly taken aback by having to fight resistance at all. My hope is the Sanders campaign, at a bare minimum, will demonstrate how popular fighting back really is and stiffen the spines of those in government who want to do something but fear genuine reprisal.

    NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 9:12 am

    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-11-02/news/mn-57804_1_democratic-senate

    Did you see the date? This article could be about 2014. There is a dangerous myth about the Clinton touch.

    Uahsenaa, July 10, 2015 at 9:53 am

    It's been surprising to me how willing Sec. Clinton has been to alienate core constituencies of the Democratic party. When O'Malley and Sanders came to Iowa City, they both reached out to local unions for support/attendance/whatever, but when Clinton came here on Tuesday, I found out about it when I showed up with my daughter for reading time at the library.

    I hear again and again about the Clintons' political savvy, yet in practice I just don't see it.

    They may be ruthless, but ruthless only gets you so far. She cannot take Democratic stalwarts for granted this election cycle, especially when the AFL-CIO went into open war with the administration over TPA.

    Who does she think shows up for the polls in primary elections?

    redleg, July 10, 2015 at 10:16 am

    Hubris. I don't think the Clinton herders care who actually votes, only who funds.

    DolleyMadison, July 10, 2015 at 11:22 am

    EXACTLY.

    flora, July 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    Bill and Hill's speaking fees give a whole new meaning to "the Clinton touch."

    TheCatSaid, July 10, 2015 at 2:09 pm

    "Who does she think shows up for the polls in primary elections?"

    This seems like the key question.

    It's one thing to motivate people to vote for a presidential election, but motivating people to turnout for a primary might be different entirely. For example, do as many young voters and minority voters turn out for a primary? If not, what would it take to change this?

    If Hillary feels she can control primary voters through local Democratic party machines, that might explain her standpoint.

    Lambert Strether, July 10, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    I wonder how effective the local Democratic party machines are, or whether Obama's reverse Midas touch destroyed them. (Certainly my own local machine is ineffectual, and the state party is corrupt (landfills)).

    I wonder if there's a comparison to be made between ObamaCare signups and GOTV (I mean a literal one, in that the same apparatchiks would get walking around money for both, and the data might even be/have been dual-purposed). My first impulse is to say, if so, "Good luck, and let me know how that works out!" but I don't know how directly the metrics translate.

    Jeremy Grimm, July 10, 2015 at 9:22 pm

    For the last few years I have been a lowly member of the local Democratic Party machine, a volunteer co-precinct leader (though hardly similar to what a precinct leader used to be). The local party leadership and membership is old, late boomer, steadfast and immobile. Republican party opposition in this area is virtually non-existent so I have no idea how effective our local organization is as opposed to how skewed the demographics of my area. With little or no efforts, we consistently turn out a substantial Democratic vote. I believe the corruption of politics in my state, New Jersey, is justly famous. I have no idea what corruption might exist in my local township, though I am starting to wonder. As for President Obama's reverse Midas touch I live near the headquarters of several big pharmaceutical corporations. I am sure they have wide-open purses for both parties.

    As of late last year, our organization has had few meetings and poor attendance at the one meeting I showed up for. I learned at that meeting, about a month ago, that several of the other precinct leads have resigned, though I don't know why. I am moving away and will also resign as of the end of this month.

    I suspect our local organization will come out strongly in favor of Hillary Clinton though provide little in the way of support. When I raised concern about the TPA and TPP at the last meeting I attended and urged the other members of this supposedly political organization to call or write to our Representative few of the members knew what I was talking about. The chair tried to rule my concern out of order though all other business was done and our Democratic Mayor, who is a member of the organization, suggested we should each hear views from both sides before deciding our individual stance on the TPA or TPP since there were arguments for both sides (even though the TPA was coming up for a vote in a few days). I should add a little context this meeting consisted of the eleven or so people who showed up. In my experience this close watch over all dissent from local, state or national party line typified our organization. All questions other than very specific procedural questions and discussions were NOT welcome.

    I can only speak of my own alienation from the Democratic Party, local, state and national. I voted for Obama with enthusiasm in 2008 but with disgust in 2012. I have been a Democrat since Adlai Stevenson II (though I was too young to vote for him). I will continue to register as a Democrat but I doubt many Democrats will receive my vote and certainly no Republicans. I have no plans to further participate in Party politics. I will vote for candidates I like but never again vote for the "lesser of two evils." I cannot gauge the extent to which my alienation typifies other Democrats since political discussions are generally considered impolite except among close friends.

    Pissed Younger baby boomer, July 11, 2015 at 2:59 am

    I am too disillusioned with the democratic party .where i live in Oregon ,my congressman is a blue dog dem. i called his a least five times to voice my opposition to TPP. A few months ago I signed up for phone town hall meeting .i never received an e-mail invitation .YES talking about suppressing dissent.i am considering switch to the greens or a socialist party. My fear i hope we do not become fascist country and three out of four congressmen vote for TPA and senator Wyden voted for it too.I also lost faith in the phony liberal media.

    NotTimothyGeithner, July 11, 2015 at 9:33 am

    The GOP organizes through churches and other outfits. Ted aren't as noticeable wherever one is, but the GOP isn't interested in turnout as much as making sure their people vote. They have minders who phish for potential voters. Why do women ever vote Republican? Because they have a club that demands it. Your area may be skewed but half of Dean's 50 state strategy was lifted from GOP election approaches.

    Uahsenaa, July 10, 2015 at 4:30 pm

    With the exception of Illinois, because Chicago, the state democratic parties in most midwestern states are in shambles, so the likelihood of the "machine" squeaking out a win is quite low. In the absence of that, what you have left are the institutions traditionally loyal to the D party who have been thrown under the bus so many times over the past 8 years, it's bewildering. I mentioned the AFL-CIO break with the administration over "trade," (scare quotes don't quite seem big enough) precisely because it seems to indicate a willingness to break from tradition, if an opportunity presents itself.

    Now, I have no idea what things are like in the South, and those states plus NY/IL/CA might be enough to push Hillary through to the nomination. However, if she continues the way she has so far, the apparatus in a large number of states is not going to be enough to buttress her against popular grumbling.

    John Zelnicker, July 10, 2015 at 8:45 pm

    In Alabama the Democratic Party apparatus is a total mess and completely ineffectual. The party "leaders" spend most of their time protecting their little fiefdoms and fighting efforts to expand and diversify the membership of the statewide committees and local affiliates. In fact, it has gotten so bad that some activists are trying to set up independent Party committees to recruit candidates for local and state elections and run GOTV efforts.

    C. dentata, July 10, 2015 at 10:49 am

    I think it may not be pro-Clinton as much as anti-Sanders bias. The corporate media are certainly happy to ridiculously hype any of the nonstories about Hillary that Trey Gowdy feeds them.

    anonymous123, July 10, 2015 at 11:07 am

    It was really nice to see someone deconstruct this article. When I read it the other day I had the same thoughts go through my head about the overt messaging going on.

    vidimi, July 10, 2015 at 11:29 am

    pro-trade reminds me of pro-russian rebels. seems very likely that the chamber of commerce or state department or somesuch approached all editors and ordered them to use these two terms for their respective designees. classic propaganda tactic.

    Vatch, July 10, 2015 at 12:14 pm

    I expect to vote for Sanders in the primary, and for an as yet unknown third party candidate in the election. Obama and Bill Clinton have taught me that main stream Democratic politicians only differ from Republican politicians on a few social issues; on everything else they are the same. I refuse to knowingly vote for a voluntary agent of the oligarchs, which is what Hillary Clinton is.


    flora , July 10, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    Yes. Both the GOP and the DLC Dems agree on all major economic issues. The electioneering so far has been personality oriented. Jeb!, The Donald, Hillary!, etc.

    Except for Sanders, who isn't running a personality campaign. He's talking about important economic issues in a way the others won't.

    In the late '70s conventional wisdom solidified around the idea that economic stagnation was due to organized labor having too much economic power (true or not, my point isn't to re-argue that case). The 'Reagan revolution' promised to re-balance and right the economy by reining in organized labor.

    Now organized money has too much economic power. It's harming the whole economy. Bernie is talking about reining in organized money. How do the other candidates deal with this without bursting their ideological bubble for the audience? The NYTimes article is a case in point.

    Cano Doncha Know, July 11, 2015 at 5:31 am

    HRC is the biggest threat to the Democrats winning the White House. She is so far to the right on almost every issue, she is the most unelectable of them all. I basically view her campaign as a front for Jeb!

    cm, July 10, 2015 at 12:38 pm
    Some laughable NY Times articles about their inability to write articles without relying on anonymous sources, despite their own (ignored) policies:

    http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/the-times-used-25-unnamed-sources-in-7-days-a-reuters-critic-says/?_r=0

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/the-public-editor-the-disconnect-on-anonymous-sources.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/opinion/22pubed.html

    Anarcissie, July 10, 2015 at 1:36 pm
    If Sanders wins a few primaries, I would expect a moderate-bot to be trundled in. The Webb, for instance, has already been turned on and is humming, ready to go. (The O'Malley seems to have already burned through its batteries.)
    NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 2:00 pm
    The Webb? No, no, no, no, no. As a Webb primary voter, I can assure you the man has 0 personality and isn't a big campaigner. If the young Hillary supporters in NYC found Hillary uninspiring, they might collapse into a blob and just stop after listening to Webb. I just assumed he is running because he likes Iowa.

    O'Malley has already attacked Sanders and doesn't pick up the Hillary experience narrative as well as having to roll out during the Baltimore protests.


    Bob Richard, July 10, 2015 at 5:55 pm

    Nothing GP is says about the Times article or reporting in general is wrong. But the MSM, including the Times reporter, is completely missing the real story of the Sanders campaign.

    I will take at face value the statement that Sanders' personal views are a threat to the capitalists who control both major parties. But his strategy is not. In spite of his best intentions, he will end up being the sheepdog that makes sure the progressive movement stays in the Democratic Party (for the term "sheepdog" and supporting analysis see http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary).

    Like Ralph Nader before him, Sanders has a completely wrong approach to political parties. Nader understood that he needed to work outside the major party framework but did not understand that social movements don't just need popular candidates. They also need enduring organizations, which are called political parties. For most of his career, Sanders has been able work both sides of this fence, helping to create a state-level organization (the Progressive Party) in Vermont but also running with Democratic Party endorsements. This spring was a moment of truth for him. He has (or until now had) the stature to create a new political party, perhaps from scratch or perhaps by joining and helping build the Green Party. He chose to turn his back on the left.

    The left needs a political party. Yes, I know, we have a two party system. But that is the problem. Believing that the two party system is an immutable law of nature is not part of any solution.

    RPY, July 10, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    Bernie I believe because of his message, is attracting people from both sides of the aisle. Everyday people who are tired of partisan politics and are just glad to hear someone willing to speak the truth of how screwed things are. From the corruption of wall street to the corruption of Washington, DC politics.

    Lambert Strether, July 10, 2015 at 7:50 pm

    Some of us on the left would rather deal with a straightforward reactionary who's honest about their intentions than backstabbing "Join the conversation" Democrats. I wonder if there's a similar dynamic on the right: They'd rather deal with an honest-to-gawd Socialist than McConnnell and Boehner (Exhibit A: TPP).

    RPY, July 10, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    Bernie I believe because of his message, is attracting people from both sides of the aisle. Everyday people who are tired of partisan politics and are just glad to hear someone willing to speak the truth of how screwed things are. From the corruption of wall street to the corruption of Washington, DC politics.

    Lambert Strether, July 10, 2015 at 7:50 pm

    Some of us on the left would rather deal with a straightforward reactionary who's honest about their intentions than backstabbing "Join the conversation" Democrats. I wonder if there's a similar dynamic on the right: They'd rather deal with an honest-to-gawd Socialist than McConnnell and Boehner (Exhibit A: TPP).

    oho, July 11, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    *** First, when you expose yourself to any of the "liberal" U.S. outlets (as opposed to, say, The Guardian) be aware that because they are owned by establishment corporations they're already pro-Clinton. ***

    While the Guardian is nominally independent, it ain't much better at being "liberal" that the NYT.

    Guardian editors like access to Westminster, their fellow Oxbridge alums and invites to cocktail parties in Kensington too.

    [Sep 14, 2016] the motives of which are transparently political and actually create disinformation around veritable realities

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's unclear how a jetliner is [more] powerful than an earthquake, and how, if such requirements failed to save the WTC towers, preparing for even more powerful earthquakes is going to prevent a recurrence of the same. ..."
    "... The heavy, black smoke emanating from the structures belies your premise. ..."
    Sep 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    JSM September 12, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    No offense is meant but fewer articles from Ms. Scofield, please, with transparent, dubious, questionable, or propagandistic angles. The article 'How building design changed after 9/11' has been written annually for fifteen years.

    "In fact, for years building codes from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Institute of Steel Construction and the American Concrete Institute have required structural supports to be designed with high enough ductility to withstand a major earthquake so rare its probability of happening is once every 2,000 years. "

    It's unclear how a jetliner is [more] powerful than an earthquake, and how, if such requirements failed to save the WTC towers, preparing for even more powerful earthquakes is going to prevent a recurrence of the same.

    This would also go for any articles entitled 'How the US Can Win the War in Syria' in which no objectives are articulated, non-evidential articles entitled 'U.S. Could Pay a High Price for Suing the Saudis,' any more New Yorker articles, the motives of which are transparently political and actually create disinformation around veritable realities, about 'Trump and the Truth', e.g. 'The Unemployment Rate Hoax,' etc. I'm sure posting links is largely a thankless job, but if I wanted to I could turn on CNN and 'learn' these very things.

    Jess , September 12, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    "In fact, for years building codes from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Institute of Steel Construction and the American Concrete Institute have required structural supports to be designed with high enough ductility to withstand a major earthquake so rare its probability of happening is once every 2,000 years."

    Hate to break it to you, but earthquake forces - seismic events - are considerably different than thermal events. Granted, fire often erupt as a result of severed gas and electric lines caused by an earthquake, but an earthquake is a brief, violent, hard shaking or rolling. A high-rise fire of sustained intensity sits in one place and does its work within a confined setting. In the case of the multiple floors damaged by the impact of the planes in 9-11, that confined setting bore a striking resemblance to a combination blast furnace and chimney. (People tend to forget that skyscrapers tend to create their own wind patterns, in this case well over 500 feet high. Just like air being pumped into a fire by a bellows.

    human -> Jess , September 12, 2016 at 8:47 pm

    The heavy, black smoke emanating from the structures belies your premise.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , September 12, 2016 at 10:17 pm

    The second order partial differentiation equation* governing structure responding during a dynamic event like an earthquakes shows that the force on the structure is related to its mass.

    The heavier a structure, the bigger force it is subjected to, going through the same quake.

    The force of an impacting plane is same regardless of the building size, all else being equal.

    *(mass x acceleration) + (damping coefficient x velocity) + (stiffness modulus x displacement) = zero.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Pro-War Dead-enders and Our Unending Wars

    Notable quotes:
    "... Liberal hawks will complain that the Iraq war was run incompetently (and it was), but they don't give up on the idea of preventive war or the belief that the U.S. is entitled to attack other states more or less at will in the name of "leadership." Neoconservatives will fault Obama for not doing more in Libya after the regime was overthrown, but it would never occur to them that toppling foreign governments by force is wrong or undesirable. There remains a broad consensus that the U.S. "leads" the world and in order to exercise that "leadership" it is free to destabilize and attack other states as it sees fit. The justifications change from country to country, but the assumptions behind them are always the same: we have the right to interfere in the affairs of other nations, our interference is benevolent and beneficial (and any bad results cannot be tied to our interference), and "failure" to interfere constitutes abdication of "leadership." ..."
    "... Everyone is familiar with Iraq war dead-enders, who continue to claim to this day that the war had been "won" by the end of Bush's second term and that it was only by withdrawing that the U.S. frittered away its "victory." The defense of the Libyan war is somewhat different, but at its core it shares the same ideological refusal to own up to failure. In Libya, the mistake was not in taking sides in a civil war in which the U.S. had nothing at stake, but in failing to commit to an open-ended mission to stabilize the country after the regime was overthrown. Libyan war supporters don't accept that their preferred policy backfired and harmed the country it was supposedly trying to help. That would not only require them to acknowledge that they got one of the more important foreign policy questions of the last decade badly wrong, but it would contradict one of their core assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. As far as they're concerned, Libya is still the "model" and "good" intervention that they claimed it was five years ago, and nothing that has happened in Libya can ever prove otherwise. ..."
    "... unfortunately pro-war dead-enders continue to have considerable influence in shaping our foreign policy debates on other issues. They bring the same bankrupt assumptions to debates over what the U.S. should be doing in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and elsewhere, and they apply the same faulty judgment that led them to think regime change and taking sides in foreign civil wars was smart. They still haven't learned anything from the failures of previous interventions (because they don't accept that they were failures), and so keep making many of the same mistakes of analysis and prescription that they made in the past. ..."
    Apr 07, 2016 | The American Conservative

    Andrew Bacevich has written an excellent article on the need to end our ongoing "war for the Greater Middle East." This part jumped out at me in connection with the debate over the Libyan war:

    A particular campaign that goes awry [bold mine-DL] like Somalia or Iraq or Libya may attract passing attention, but never the context in which that campaign was undertaken [bold mine-DL]. We can be certain that the election of 2016 will be no different.

    It is almost never mentioned now, so it is easy to forget that many Libyan war supporters initially argued for intervention in order to save the "Arab Spring." Their idea was that the U.S. and its allies could discourage other regimes from forcibly putting down protests by siding with the opposition in Libya, and that if the U.S. didn't do this it would "signal" dictators that they could crush protests with impunity. This never made sense at the time. Other regimes would have to believe that the U.S. would consistently side with their opponents, and there was never any chance of that happening. If it sent any message to them, the intervention in Libya sent other regimes a very different message: don't let yourself be internationally isolated like Gaddafi, and you won't suffer his fate. Another argument for the intervention was that it would change the way the U.S. was perceived in the region for the better. That didn't make sense, either, since Western intervention in Libya wasn't popular in most countries there, and even if it had been it wouldn't change the fact that the U.S. was pursuing many other policies hated by people throughout the region. It was on the foundation of shoddy arguments such as these that the case for war in Libya was built.

    Bacevich is right that many critics fault specific interventions for their failings without questioning the larger assumptions about the U.S. role in the region that led to those wars. Liberal hawks will complain that the Iraq war was run incompetently (and it was), but they don't give up on the idea of preventive war or the belief that the U.S. is entitled to attack other states more or less at will in the name of "leadership." Neoconservatives will fault Obama for not doing more in Libya after the regime was overthrown, but it would never occur to them that toppling foreign governments by force is wrong or undesirable. There remains a broad consensus that the U.S. "leads" the world and in order to exercise that "leadership" it is free to destabilize and attack other states as it sees fit. The justifications change from country to country, but the assumptions behind them are always the same: we have the right to interfere in the affairs of other nations, our interference is benevolent and beneficial (and any bad results cannot be tied to our interference), and "failure" to interfere constitutes abdication of "leadership."

    To make matters worse, every intervention always has a die-hard group of dead-enders that will defend the rightness and success of their war no matter what results it produces. They don't think the war they supported every really went "awry" except when it was ended "too soon." Everyone is familiar with Iraq war dead-enders, who continue to claim to this day that the war had been "won" by the end of Bush's second term and that it was only by withdrawing that the U.S. frittered away its "victory." The defense of the Libyan war is somewhat different, but at its core it shares the same ideological refusal to own up to failure. In Libya, the mistake was not in taking sides in a civil war in which the U.S. had nothing at stake, but in failing to commit to an open-ended mission to stabilize the country after the regime was overthrown. Libyan war supporters don't accept that their preferred policy backfired and harmed the country it was supposedly trying to help. That would not only require them to acknowledge that they got one of the more important foreign policy questions of the last decade badly wrong, but it would contradict one of their core assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. As far as they're concerned, Libya is still the "model" and "good" intervention that they claimed it was five years ago, and nothing that has happened in Libya can ever prove otherwise.

    That might not matter too much, but unfortunately pro-war dead-enders continue to have considerable influence in shaping our foreign policy debates on other issues. They bring the same bankrupt assumptions to debates over what the U.S. should be doing in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and elsewhere, and they apply the same faulty judgment that led them to think regime change and taking sides in foreign civil wars was smart. They still haven't learned anything from the failures of previous interventions (because they don't accept that they were failures), and so keep making many of the same mistakes of analysis and prescription that they made in the past.

    [Sep 14, 2016] US spending on Middle East wars, Homeland Security will reach $4.79 trillion in 2017

    [Brown University]
    watson.brown.edu

    Remember when Larry Lindsey was fired as Bush's economic advisor when he suggested
    that the costs could be as high as $200 billion?
    Good times, but at this point the Dems own it as much as the GOP.

    [Sep 14, 2016] The Myth of American Retreat by William Ruger

    Looks like this neocon Robert Lieber is completely detached from the reality. Cheap oil is coming to an end in this decade and with it the crisis hit neoliberal globalization and the US role as the capital of the global neoliberal empire. With far reaching consequences.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Unfortunately, primacy has largely failed to deliver what must be the first, second, and third priorities for any grand strategy: the satisfaction of national interests, foremost among them America's safety. Rather than peace and security, primacy has brought about questionable military interventions and wars of choice in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans (twice), Iraq (three times, depending on how you count), Libya, and Syria. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the deaths of almost 7,000 American troops, the wounding of tens of thousands more, and the filing of disability claims by nearly a million veterans. Rather than protecting the conditions of our prosperity, primacy has cost Americans dearly, with the annual defense budget now set to rise to around $600 billion and the Iraq War alone wasting trillions of dollars. As for our values, the U.S. approach has placed our nation in the uncomfortable position of defending illiberal regimes abroad, stained our reputation for the rule of law with Guantanamo and drone campaigns, and sacrificed the Constitutional authority of Congress. ..."
    "... The United States still enjoys the world's strongest military force, costing taxpayers around $600 billion a year. This sum represents nearly a third of all global spending and is equal to that of at least the next 10 countries combined. Its nearest competitor, China, spends far less, about $150 billion. ..."
    "... And during the Obama years, the United States surged forces in Afghanistan, fought a war against Libya that led to regime change, re-entered Iraq and engaged (even if tepidly) in Syria, supported Saudi Arabia's dubious fight in Yemen, continued to conduct drone strikes abroad, became unprofitably enmeshed diplomatically in Ukraine's troubles, and continued to exert its power and influence in Asia. And just recently the U.S. again bombed targets in Libya. Retreat, you say? ..."
    "... The degree of disarray in Libya and the consequences of it have flowed directly from the U.S.'s decision to go to war against Gaddafi and to pursue regime change. There is little need to note how disastrous the Iraq War was for the region and American interests-and how Iraq continues to be a source of trouble that the U.S. is ill-suited to resolve. ..."
    "... President Obama's grand strategy has remained firmly planted within the confines of the Washington consensus and does not represent a retreat. One could only imagine what Lieber would think of a policy that truly hewed more closely to the advice of our Founders. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Retreat and Its Consequences: American Foreign Policy and the Problem of World Order , Robert J. Lieber, Cambridge University Press, 152 pages

    The United States has been pursuing a grand strategy of primacy since at least the end of the Cold War. This hegemonic approach has sought, through active, deep engagement in the world, to preserve and extend the U.S.'s global dominance that followed the Soviet Union's collapse. In other words, it has aimed to turn the unipolar moment into a unipolar era. Maintaining this dominance has meant aggressive diplomacy and the frequent display, threat, and use of military power everywhere from the Balkans to the Baltics, from Libya to Pakistan, and from the Taiwan Straits to the Korean peninsula.

    Unfortunately, primacy has largely failed to deliver what must be the first, second, and third priorities for any grand strategy: the satisfaction of national interests, foremost among them America's safety. Rather than peace and security, primacy has brought about questionable military interventions and wars of choice in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans (twice), Iraq (three times, depending on how you count), Libya, and Syria. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the deaths of almost 7,000 American troops, the wounding of tens of thousands more, and the filing of disability claims by nearly a million veterans. Rather than protecting the conditions of our prosperity, primacy has cost Americans dearly, with the annual defense budget now set to rise to around $600 billion and the Iraq War alone wasting trillions of dollars. As for our values, the U.S. approach has placed our nation in the uncomfortable position of defending illiberal regimes abroad, stained our reputation for the rule of law with Guantanamo and drone campaigns, and sacrificed the Constitutional authority of Congress.

    Is it any wonder that more and more Americans question whether our foreign policy is working? Or that more and more Washington elites, though still a minority, are becoming dissatisfied with the status quo? Such challengers seek to reform the military budget and force structure to make them consistent with our real security needs. They also want to reduce ally free-riding and make sure that the full range of possible costs and consequences of our actions abroad get a more serious hearing so that we, in the immortal words of President Obama, "Don't do stupid shit."

    And yet Robert Lieber, in his slender new book Retreat and Its Consequences , thinks those who seek an alternative approach are dangerously misled. He sees any sign of realism and restraint-real, anticipated, or imagined-as a retreat with far-reaching negative implications. Lieber, a professor of government and international affairs at Georgetown University, instead makes the case for doubling down on primacy and against the U.S. playing a "reduced" role in the world. He does so mainly by attempting to show the negative consequences of the Obama administration's supposed retrenchment while arguing for the importance of aggressive American global leadership.

    Unfortunately for the primacist cause, Retreat and Its Consequences is not a satisfactory rejoinder to its challengers. Lieber is unconvincing in both his indictment of opposing views and his case for deep engagement. The book frequently reads like a rehashing of attacks we've heard high and low since Bush departed office, from scholars like Peter Feaver of Duke University to the Beltway neoconservatives to the fear-mongering talking heads on cable news. More importantly, it trots out a deeply flawed argument that the United States under Obama is actually in retreat and shedding its global leadership.

    ♦♦♦

    Retreat and Its Consequences is the last book of Lieber's informal trilogy on recent U.S. foreign policy. In the first book in the series, The American Era (2005), Lieber argued in favor of the United States continuing in the post-9/11 era to lead the world through a grand strategy of "preponderance" and "active engagement." He claimed that such an approach would dovetail with the realities of that changed world, to the benefit of U.S. security and the international order alike. The next book, Power and Willpower in the American Future (2012), challenged the declinist perspective and made the case for why the U.S. could still exert global leadership despite facing a number of different challenges.

    Lieber begins this third book, Retreat and Its Consequences , by claiming that America's long-standing active engagement in global affairs has been increasingly questioned at home and that the U.S. has recently been retrenching and pulling back from its traditional leadership role. He describes this retrenchment in theory and practice, then briefly (and in more detail later in the book) paints a picture of a world gone bad as a consequence of this alleged retreat. He hangs most of his indictment on President Obama's foreign-policy approach, which Lieber claims reflects "a clear preference for reducing U.S. power and presence abroad" as well as "a deep skepticism about the use of force" and "a de-emphasis on relationships with allies."

    The middle section of the book provides chapter-long discussions of U.S. foreign relations with Europe, the Middle East, and the BRICS countries. In the Europe chapter, Lieber argues that our critical relationship with our European allies is suffering. He claims that the "Atlantic partnership has weakened as the United States has downplayed its European commitments and Europeans themselves have become less capable and more inclined to hedge their bets." The latter is due to Europe's own internal woes, including economic problems, military weakness (as well as growing pacifism), demographic challenges, and problems with the EU. The other half of the problem he lays, as is typical in this book, at the Obama administration's doorstep due to its de-emphasis on Europe and its weak behavior towards Putin's Russia.

    As for the Middle East, Lieber claims that the region and U.S. national interests there are suffering due to Obama's flawed retrenchment and disengagement strategy. Indeed, Lieber argues that Obama's transformative moves, only lightly described, have "contributed to the making of a more dangerous and unstable Middle East." He also discusses U.S. interests and history in the region, the sources of Middle East instability, and the "unexpected consequences" of the Iraq War-the rise of ISIS and Iran.

    Lieber's main point regarding the BRICS is that these countries have not helped and will not be able to help sustain the current global order. Indeed, he thinks these states have their own different priorities and, to the extent they benefit from the current system, will try to free ride as much as possible. Lieber uses these cases as still more reasons why the U.S. cannot disengage from its global leadership role even as economic power continues to diffuse.

    In the penultimate chapter, Lieber returns to his allegation that the U.S. has been retreating from the world and our leadership role-and tries to show that it has had dangerous consequences. In the process, he discusses U.S. policies toward Russia, China, Iraq and Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, and Cuba. In all these cases, Lieber finds evidence of failure and worsening conditions due to Obama's retrenchment and his aversion to using American power. He also claims that the Obama administration has cut our military while failing to provide a focused articulation of what goals it needs to meet.

    Lieber ends by returning to the theme of Power and Willpower in the American Future , namely that the U.S., despite its challenges, still has the capacity to pursue an active hegemonic grand strategy. He takes issue with the declinists and argues yet again that the U.S. ought to lead the world; otherwise, it "is likely to become a more disorderly and dangerous place, with mounting threats not only to world order and economic prosperity, but to its own national interests and homeland security."

    ♦♦♦

    Lieber's book isn't without its lucid moments. First, he is on sound footing when he notes that the BRICS are not fully committed to the current American-led international order. Furthermore, he is also right about the need for our European allies to increase their own capabilities-though one wishes he had paused to consider how this is an unsurprising result of U.S. security guarantees that incentivize free-riding.

    Second, Lieber also helpfully challenges the declinist view prevalent in some circles. The United States certainly has its challenges, with staggering debt and deficits, not to mention a stifling regulatory regime. But the U.S. continues to enjoy many strengths and advantages, especially relative to the other near-great powers in the system. (And in international politics, it is relative power that matters most.) Yet while Lieber gets the condition of the patient right in this instance, the good doctor does not convincingly argue for the necessity of his preferred prescription. That the U.S. may not be in relative decline or in as much future trouble as some might claim does not imply that the U.S. should continue to follow primacy. Rather, one could argue that it is precisely because of some of our continued advantages that his grand strategy is not required. When discussing the BRICS, Lieber admits that China suffers from some grave problems that may prevent it from becoming a serious challenger to American dominance. This raises the question of why the United States must do-and risk-so much to ensure our security or that of our allies in Asia.

    Despite these positives, Retreat and Its Consequences and the overarching approach that has guided Lieber's policy views for so long suffer from a number of critical flaws. Most importantly, the argument of the book is simply based on a mistaken and endlessly repeated premise that the United States has significantly retreated from the world and that this has been a key source of so many problems in it. Basically, Lieber, as we've heard so often from others, is arguing that the administration has pursued restraint, the world has gone to hell, restraint is responsible for our woes-and thus we must return to primacy. Admittedly, Obama, especially in his second term, has exercised greater discretion in how he has managed our global engagement and leadership. And he may in his heart of hearts have some sympathy with those who have counseled greater realism. But neither make for a policy of retreat.

    Indeed, the United States under Obama has continued to pursue a variant of primacy despite what Lieber and others keep saying in their critiques. The United States is still committed to defending over 60 other countries and commanding the global commons. It still has a forward-deployed military living on a globe-girdling network of hundreds of military bases. In fact, it has recently sent more troops and equipment to Iraq, Eastern Europe, and even Australia. The United States still enjoys the world's strongest military force, costing taxpayers around $600 billion a year. This sum represents nearly a third of all global spending and is equal to that of at least the next 10 countries combined. Its nearest competitor, China, spends far less, about $150 billion.

    And during the Obama years, the United States surged forces in Afghanistan, fought a war against Libya that led to regime change, re-entered Iraq and engaged (even if tepidly) in Syria, supported Saudi Arabia's dubious fight in Yemen, continued to conduct drone strikes abroad, became unprofitably enmeshed diplomatically in Ukraine's troubles, and continued to exert its power and influence in Asia. And just recently the U.S. again bombed targets in Libya. Retreat, you say?

    Finally, Lieber's claim that disengagement and retrenchment is to blame for problems in the greater Middle East is rich given how the primacist approach he favors was to a great extent responsible for the problems in the first place. The degree of disarray in Libya and the consequences of it have flowed directly from the U.S.'s decision to go to war against Gaddafi and to pursue regime change. There is little need to note how disastrous the Iraq War was for the region and American interests-and how Iraq continues to be a source of trouble that the U.S. is ill-suited to resolve. It is especially noteworthy that the relative increase of Iranian influence Lieber bemoans was an entirely predictable result of that short-sighted campaign. And we haven't likely seen all of the poisonous fruit from what is happening in Yemen. In short, Lieber and his fellow primacists have advocated for policies in the Middle East-including the war in Iraq-that are a big part of the problem, not the solution.

    Our country needs challenges and alternatives to the status quo rather than boilerplate justifications of the policies that have failed to make us safer over the past 25 years. Regardless of what Lieber would have us believe, President Obama's grand strategy has remained firmly planted within the confines of the Washington consensus and does not represent a retreat. One could only imagine what Lieber would think of a policy that truly hewed more closely to the advice of our Founders.

    William Ruger is the vice president for research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute.

    [Sep 14, 2016] Obama's Futile Efforts at 'Reassuring' Bad Clients

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama has showered both Israel and Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons for years, and in practical terms he has been one of the most reliable supporters of both governments, but no matter how much he does for these clients neither they nor their supporters here in the U.S. are satisfied. However much Obama supports both clients, the recipient governments still believe that he is too hard on them, neglects them, and works against their interests. Since they know that Obama responds to each new complaint with another round of "reassurance," they have every incentive to complain and feign outrage about how they are treated in the knowledge that the more they whine the more they will gain. ..."
    "... Obama can try as much as he likes to demonstrate just how conventionally "pro-Israel" he is (and always has been), but there will never be any pleasing those detractors that are (absurdly) convinced that he is ideologically hostile to Israel. ..."
    Sep 13, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The U.S. is preparing to increase the amount of aid it provides to yet another wealthy client:

    President Barack Obama will unveil on Wednesday a massive new military aid package for Israel, one which - at a reported $38 billion over 10 years - would be the largest such deal in U.S. history.

    But is it enough to buy Obama the love of his fiercest pro-Israel critics?

    Not a chance.

    Obama has showered both Israel and Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons for years, and in practical terms he has been one of the most reliable supporters of both governments, but no matter how much he does for these clients neither they nor their supporters here in the U.S. are satisfied. However much Obama supports both clients, the recipient governments still believe that he is too hard on them, neglects them, and works against their interests. Since they know that Obama responds to each new complaint with another round of "reassurance," they have every incentive to complain and feign outrage about how they are treated in the knowledge that the more they whine the more they will gain.

    It is also a fact that many of Obama's "pro-Israel" critics have never accepted and will never accept that he is actually "pro-Israel" as they are, and so they dismiss anything he does as a trick, a bribe, or an insult. Obama can try as much as he likes to demonstrate just how conventionally "pro-Israel" he is (and always has been), but there will never be any pleasing those detractors that are (absurdly) convinced that he is ideologically hostile to Israel. The same goes for hawks that take it for granted that Obama supposedly neglects and abandons "allies" elsewhere in the region. There is nothing Obama can to make them believe that he doesn't do this, but that doesn't seem to stop him from frittering away more resources to placate governments that do little or nothing for the U.S.

    [Sep 13, 2016] Bill Black The Clintons Have Not Changed

    Notable quotes:
    "... She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. ..."
    "... "Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi. ..."
    "... Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies and beyond. ..."
    "... Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves" ..."
    "... History shows that what flows in Hillary's political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated blood. ..."
    "... Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because they are illegal. ..."
    "... Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her past points to her making it worse. ..."
    "... I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will vote for Clinton. ..."
    "... Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter. ..."
    Mar 04, 2016 | naked capitalism

    Secretary Hillary Clinton is asking Democratic voters to believe that she has experienced a "Road to Damascus" conversion from her roots as a leader of the "New Democrats" – the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary and Obama made sure that they did not even have to risk their "lap dog" developing a spine. No IG was their ideal world.

    ...The idea that the State Department IG, appointed by President Obama, is "partisan" in the sense of being "anti-Clinton" is facially bizarre in that Obama is a strong supporter of Hillary.

    EndOfTheWorld , March 4, 2016 at 4:03 am

    HRC is, and always has been, bad news. She shouldn't have even run for prez the first time. She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. I hope the indictment comes down very soon, so Bernie can just be presumed the Democratic nominee.

    Chris A , March 4, 2016 at 6:27 am

    From wsws.org:

    "Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi.

    Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies and beyond.

    Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves"

    From Bill Van Auken/Wsws.org

    RP , March 4, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    Honduras isn't exactly a feather in her cap either

    KYrocky , March 4, 2016 at 9:19 am

    The past is prologue. History shows that what flows in Hillary's political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated blood. I agreed with her when she spoke of a vast right wing conspiracy, as it was obvious to anyone paying attention, and I could understand the Clinton's defensive secrecy given the relentlessly personal assaults they were under. But I object to the epidemic of secrecy that has infested what should be the public sphere of our government.

    Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because they are illegal.

    Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her past points to her making it worse.

    MIchael C. , March 4, 2016 at 9:32 am

    The "unlikeability" factor of Hillary Clinton, and her husband Bill, grows ever deeper in the American public. She drips with a uncouth and meglomaniacal drive to be president. I am not sure she can win an election, even with many voters pulling the lever for her in fear of the greater evil. I am not sure she is the lesser evil, and I think others may feel the same way election time.

    Deloss Brown , March 4, 2016 at 10:45 am

    Mmmmmf it's hard not to think she's the lesser of two evils when she's running against a candidate who's openly deranged–and I can guarantee she will be running against such a one, even before the Republicans pick one to nominate. All of theirs are deranged. They had a "deep bench," and they were all deranged. If Hillary inspires a large number of voters–and I'm a Sanders fan, but apparently she does–maybe they'll all come out and vote a straight D ticket, which might help us in that Home for the Deranged which is our Congress. And I doubt that Hillary would nominate another Scalia, Alito or Thomas. She probably wouldn't know where to look, for one thing. Did I mention that I'm a Sanders fan?

    John , March 4, 2016 at 12:07 pm

    Trump probably left of Clinton in many ways. Probably less corrupt.

    jrs , March 4, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    care to list all of Trumps left wing positions? single payer – nope he's not for that anymore, read his actual healthcare proposals. a few social issues like abortion? oh maybe but he keeps changing positions there as well (truthfully I don't' see these issues as really being right or left at all, but in the American political system they usually are seen that way) opposition to trade deals? … ok maybe that.

    I'm not sure Kasich is deranged, but he is a warmonger for sure, then so is Hillary. Rubio might not be deranged but he's a neocon and a neophyte.

    AnEducatedFool , March 4, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will vote for Clinton. I attend a local community college (prepping for grad school) outside of Philadelphia in an area that Killary will easily carry thanks to a lot of older feminists that still use the feminist card to justify their vote.

    Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter.

    I do not know how she can win if she loses Ohio.

    perpetualWAR , March 4, 2016 at 11:03 am

    If the Democrats choose to give us Hillary, I will vote Republican.

    hreik , March 4, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    If the Democrats choose to give us Hillary, I'll write in Sanders.

    EndOfTheWorld , March 4, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    The Libertarians have their convention in July, and they might put up an interesting nominee. Could be Jesse Ventura or McAffee of net security and Belize escape fame. Ventura would be a good prez, in my opinion.

    AnEducatedFool , March 4, 2016 at 4:57 pm

    Excellent article. I hope Sanders will offer Bill Black a job in his administration. I've noticed that Black was often on panels held by Sanders.

    EndOfTheWorld , March 4, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    That's where Bernie can really do some good. He can't snap his fingers and have medicare for all, but he can put in SEC heads, SecTreasury, and economic advisers that make sense, like Bill Black, yes, who put some bankers in jail after the S&L debacle under Reagan. Iceland put 13 bankers in jail recently. Here in the cowardly US they just pay a fine amounting to a small percentage of what they stole. No problem for them at all. Just a cost of doing business.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Syria decision the latest blow to Obamas Middle East legacy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
    "... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
    "... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
    "... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
    "... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
    "... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
    "... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
    "... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
    "... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
    "... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
    "... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
    "... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
    "... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
    "... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
    "... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
    "... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
    "... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
    "... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
    "... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
    "... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
    "... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
    "... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
    "... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
    "... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
    "... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
    "... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
    "... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
    "... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
    "... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
    "... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
    "... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
    "... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
    "... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
    "... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
    "... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
    "... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
    "... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
    "... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
    "... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
    "... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
    Oct 30, 2015 | The Guardian

    willpodmore 1 Nov 2015 10:30

    NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call it peace.

    ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19

    "Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's for real.

    2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548

    30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened: Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.

    A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.

    https://www.rt.com/news/320194-russia-missiles-launch-training/

    30.10.2015 Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General Staff said Friday.

    In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps, and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate said.

    "In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said. "The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.

    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151030/1028992570/russian-airstrikes-syria-friday.html

    fairviewplz 1 Nov 2015 04:47

    Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.

    After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy!

    Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52

    Well said.

    I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.

    Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.

    Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28

    Pete Piper

    In brief;

    The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies.

    ... ... ...

    midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35

    When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.

    SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03

    We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.

    The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.

    This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged idiot John McCain pulling the strings.

    Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58

    The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed up by post disaster rationalisation....

    whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to show what a big John Wayne he is!!

    DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56

    There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a nation of lies.

    Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47

    Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?

    Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36

    No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

    WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18

    Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:

    1. 8 Trillion to our debt
    2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
    3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish and English...10 x over.
    4. War on Cops
    5. War with China
    6. Invasion from Central America

    I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!

    SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47

    Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.

    Forever Gone is all trust.

    His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.

    Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.

    HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45

    Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.

    With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex.

    Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled him.


    Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00

    Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.

    USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command- there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair... a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space... no doubt we shall see them here too.

    All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .

    Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !

    I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS . This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...

    My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows !) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge with no mercy .

    amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52

    Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me do it",

    Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.

    Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."

    Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?

    "What's your position on the Empire?"

    "Oh, what Empire, you ask?"

    "The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"

    lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41

    Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.

    The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.

    It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the only win they care about.

    What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have.

    Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26

    Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes?

    How stupid can a President get?

    Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.

    phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56

    That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time.

    nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35

    Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State

    And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?

    Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?

    phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33

    The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.

    amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31

    Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America --- as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?

    Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48

    Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate leader?

    Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41

    Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided Syria a la Germany after WW2.

    TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36

    "It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"

    Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.

    TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29

    The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".

    Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27

    The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.

    The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.

    Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15

    Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.

    I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.

    centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48

    The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.

    Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47

    @Verbum
    Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?

    Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.

    gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46

    ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...

    ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination, right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?

    Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.

    MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of Syria.

    gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19

    Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped out by Russia and the axis of resistance...

    Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08

    Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why? The countries being bombed surely know.

    Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50

    You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly.

    Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.

    Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.

    By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.

    oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36

    Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU

    http://www.infowars.com/this-is-our-future-germany-may-soon-have-8-million-muslims/

    CAPLAN -> Lunora 31 Oct 2015 03:33

    reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination ..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama

    obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill

    however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations

    iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in syria and iraq

    oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42

    But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.

    " For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."

    http://www.infowars.com/flashback-obama-says-no-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria-before-sending-troops/

    Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its allies Russia

    Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32

    Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29

    Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously at work ' stirring the pot.

    Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24

    Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been 90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.

    Map of Sweden fire incidents: http://bit.ly/1MiaMX9

    Map of Germany arson incidents: http://bit.ly/1LZzEUh

    betrynol 31 Oct 2015 01:56

    Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys being sent to Syria are possibly there as:

    • cannon fodder: to deter the Russians from bombing and Iranians from attacking on the ground the American friendly anti-Assad militant groups;
    • to collect and report more accurate intel from the front line (again about the Russian/Iranian troops deployment/movement).

    The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".

    The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.

    I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry, war).

    petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13

    The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?

    Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34

    But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice in their head is Cash Money.

    lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34

    It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally controlled for their agenda.

    This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.

    US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang, he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has investment in it?

    My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.

    And Obama is their puppet.

    Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30

    Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore.

    He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.

    Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07

    Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.

    Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.

    I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering the consistency of their thoughts and actions.

    Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...

    Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28

    There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.

    You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?

    MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense???

    2012 DIA Document (R050839Z) - Defense Intelligence Agency
    Public Affairs Office: 202-231-5554 or [email protected]
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/media-blacks-out-pentagon-report-exposing-u-s-role-in-isis-creation/206187/
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/

    DarrenPartridge 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed, Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan and Iraq... it goes on...

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58

    "It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going to turn the tide in any way."

    Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian airstrikes and Iranian man power.

    Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!

    Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57

    Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?

    templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51

    IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although there's not much difference in reality.

    IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing (Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major escalation? Yes.

    Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder people are saying Armageddon.

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50

    ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis, Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.

    VengefulRevenant 30 Oct 2015 21:44

    "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on [a] completely trumped up pretext. It's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, wilful choice by [President Obama] to invade another country. [The US] is in violation of the sovereignty of [Syria. The US] is in violation of its international obligations."

    Verbum -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:41

    How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok and American boots bad?

    The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations in the region.

    The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.

    I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states, beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.

    In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02

    Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes, the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)


    ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00

    Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.

    The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard

    Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge into insanity writ large.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55

    To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...

    There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...

    BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52

    China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
    Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.

    See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.

    Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.

    RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30

    Their Plan B is fucked !!

    But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country.

    Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country.

    The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West, do best.

    Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's.

    In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.

    weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25

    War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society, but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.

    ... ... ...

    Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21

    Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?

    This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.

    Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59

    Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.

    "Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states – the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic – agreed to respect one another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to the prevailing world order.[1]"

    foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41

    As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.

    If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.

    foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31

    Johnny Kent

    The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for 'annexing Crimea...

    Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.

    You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.

    However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings.

    WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11

    What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law?

    Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the UK drone strikes.

    [Sep 12, 2016] The Illusion Of Democracy

    Neo: I can't go back, can I?
    Morpheus: No. But if you could, would you really want to? ...We never free a mind once it's reached a certain age. It's dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go... As long as the Matrix exists, the human race will never be free.
    ~ The Matrix
    While this is a satire on an extreme polarization of electorate who now behave like sport fans rooting for "their" team, Neoliberalism is the Other side ideology and will not abolish it without a fight.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Let's face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology. I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago. If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side's policies for the past half-century back to the writings of this one person. ..."
    "... To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters. These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don't even know it. ..."
    "... It's ridiculous to talk about freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations. ..."
    "... Wasn't it Voltaire who said "If you want to understand infinity look at people's stupidity"? ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Distract, deny, democracy...

    Source: Jesse

    Which reminded us of this perennial note...

    The past several weeks have made one thing crystal-clear: Our country faces unmitigated disaster if the Other Side wins.

    No reasonably intelligent person can deny this. All you have to do is look at the way the Other Side has been running its campaign. Instead of focusing on the big issues that are important to the American People, it has fired a relentlessly negative barrage of distortions, misrepresentations, and flat-out lies.

    Just look at the Other Side's latest commercial, which take a perfectly reasonable statement by the candidate for My Side completely out of context to make it seem as if he is saying something nefarious. This just shows you how desperate the Other Side is and how willing it is to mislead the American People.

    The Other Side also has been hammering away at My Side to release certain documents that have nothing to do with anything, and making all sorts of outrageous accusations about what might be in them. Meanwhile, the Other Side has stonewalled perfectly reasonable requests to release its own documents that would expose some very embarrassing details if anybody ever found out what was in them. This just shows you what a bunch of hypocrites they are.

    Naturally, the media won't report any of this. Major newspapers and cable networks jump all over anything they think will make My Side look bad. Yet they completely ignore critically important and incredibly relevant information that would be devastating to the Other Side if it could ever be verified.

    I will admit the candidates for My Side do make occasional blunders. These usually happen at the end of exhausting 19-hour days and are perfectly understandable. Our leaders are only human, after all. Nevertheless, the Other Side inevitably makes a big fat deal out of these trivial gaffes, while completely ignoring its own candidates' incredibly thoughtless and stupid remarks – remarks that reveal the Other Side's true nature, which is genuinely frightening.

    My Side has produced a visionary program that will get the economy moving, put the American People back to work, strengthen national security, return fiscal integrity to Washington, and restore our standing in the international community. What does the Other Side have to offer? Nothing but the same old disproven, discredited policies that got us into our current mess in the first place.

    Don't take my word for it, though. I recently read about an analysis by an independent, nonpartisan organization that supports My Side. It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that everything I have been saying about the Other Side was true all along. Of course, the Other Side refuses to acknowledge any of this. It is too busy cranking out so-called studies by so-called experts who are actually nothing but partisan hacks. This just shows you that the Other Side lives in its own little echo chamber and refuses to listen to anyone who has not already drunk its Kool-Aid.

    Let's face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology. I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago. If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side's policies for the past half-century back to the writings of this one person.

    To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters. These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don't even know it.

    These people are really pathetic, too. The other day I saw a YouTube video in which My Side sent an investigator and a cameraman to a rally being held by the Other Side, where the investigator proceeded to ask some real zingers. It was hilarious! First off, the people at the rally wore T-shirts with all kinds of lame messages that they actually thought were really clever. Plus, many of the people who were interviewed were overweight, sweaty, flushed, and generally not very attractive. But what was really funny was how stupid they were. There is no way anyone could watch that video and not come away convinced the people on My Side are smarter, and that My Side is therefore right about everything.

    Besides, it's clear that the people on the Other Side are driven by mindless anger – unlike My Side, which is filled with passionate idealism and righteous indignation. That indignation, I hasten to add, is entirely justified. I have read several articles in publications that support My Side that expose what a truly dangerous group the Other Side is, and how thoroughly committed it is to imposing its radical, failed agenda on the rest of us.

    That is why I believe [2016] is, without a doubt, the defining election of our lifetime. The difference between My Side and the Other Side could not be greater. That is why it absolutely must win [in 2016].

    Waylon Bits

    Wake we up when we can vote on troop deployments, oil pipelines, assassinations, etc...

    NotApplicable

    Sad sad Americans just figured this out? You idiots should have been reading Chomsky, he just said it so well: "It's ridiculous to talk about freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations." -Chomsky

    Chomsky has been saying this for years. I guess you have been too busy "making money" to pay attention.

    The average American sheeple never fail to amuse me how stupid they really are. Wasn't it Voltaire who said "If you want to understand infinity look at people's stupidity"?

    [Sep 12, 2016] Syria decision the latest blow to Obamas Middle East legacy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
    "... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
    "... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
    "... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
    "... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
    "... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
    "... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
    "... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
    "... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
    "... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
    "... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
    "... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
    "... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
    "... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
    "... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
    "... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
    "... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
    "... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
    "... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
    "... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
    "... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
    "... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
    "... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
    "... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
    "... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
    "... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
    "... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
    "... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
    "... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
    "... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
    "... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
    "... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
    "... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
    "... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
    "... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
    "... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
    "... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
    "... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
    "... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
    "... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
    "... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
    Oct 30, 2015 | The Guardian

    willpodmore 1 Nov 2015 10:30

    NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call it peace.

    ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19

    "Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's for real.

    2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548

    30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened: Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.

    A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.

    https://www.rt.com/news/320194-russia-missiles-launch-training/

    30.10.2015 Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General Staff said Friday.

    In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps, and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate said.

    "In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said. "The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.

    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151030/1028992570/russian-airstrikes-syria-friday.html

    fairviewplz 1 Nov 2015 04:47

    Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.

    After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy!

    Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52

    Well said.

    I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.

    Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.

    Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28

    Pete Piper

    In brief;

    The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies.

    ... ... ...

    midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35

    When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.

    SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03

    We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.

    The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.

    This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged idiot John McCain pulling the strings.

    Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58

    The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed up by post disaster rationalisation....

    whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to show what a big John Wayne he is!!

    DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56

    There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a nation of lies.

    Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47

    Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?

    Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36

    No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

    WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18

    Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:

    1. 8 Trillion to our debt
    2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
    3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish and English...10 x over.
    4. War on Cops
    5. War with China
    6. Invasion from Central America

    I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!

    SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47

    Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.

    Forever Gone is all trust.

    His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.

    Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.

    HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45

    Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.

    With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex.

    Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled him.


    Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00

    Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.

    USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command- there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair... a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space... no doubt we shall see them here too.

    All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .

    Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !

    I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS . This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...

    My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows !) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge with no mercy .

    amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52

    Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me do it",

    Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.

    Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."

    Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?

    "What's your position on the Empire?"

    "Oh, what Empire, you ask?"

    "The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"

    lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41

    Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.

    The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.

    It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the only win they care about.

    What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have.

    Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26

    Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes?

    How stupid can a President get?

    Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.

    phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56

    That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time.

    nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35

    Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State

    And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?

    Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?

    phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33

    The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.

    amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31

    Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America --- as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?

    Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48

    Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate leader?

    Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41

    Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided Syria a la Germany after WW2.

    TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36

    "It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"

    Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.

    TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29

    The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".

    Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27

    The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.

    The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.

    Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15

    Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.

    I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.

    centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48

    The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.

    Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47

    @Verbum
    Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?

    Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.

    gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46

    ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...

    ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination, right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?

    Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.

    MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21

    Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of Syria.

    gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19

    Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped out by Russia and the axis of resistance...

    Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08

    Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why? The countries being bombed surely know.

    Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50

    You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly.

    Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.

    Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.

    By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.

    oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36

    Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU

    http://www.infowars.com/this-is-our-future-germany-may-soon-have-8-million-muslims/

    CAPLAN -> Lunora 31 Oct 2015 03:33

    reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination ..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama

    obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill

    however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations

    iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in syria and iraq

    oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42

    But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.

    " For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."

    http://www.infowars.com/flashback-obama-says-no-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria-before-sending-troops/

    Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its allies Russia

    Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32

    Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.

    HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29

    Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously at work ' stirring the pot.

    Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24

    Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been 90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.

    Map of Sweden fire incidents: http://bit.ly/1MiaMX9

    Map of Germany arson incidents: http://bit.ly/1LZzEUh

    betrynol 31 Oct 2015 01:56

    Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys being sent to Syria are possibly there as:

    • cannon fodder: to deter the Russians from bombing and Iranians from attacking on the ground the American friendly anti-Assad militant groups;
    • to collect and report more accurate intel from the front line (again about the Russian/Iranian troops deployment/movement).

    The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".

    The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.

    I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry, war).

    petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13

    The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?

    Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34

    But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice in their head is Cash Money.

    lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34

    It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally controlled for their agenda.

    This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.

    US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang, he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has investment in it?

    My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.

    And Obama is their puppet.

    Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30

    Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore.

    He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.

    Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07

    Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.

    Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.

    I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering the consistency of their thoughts and actions.

    Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...

    Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28

    There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.

    You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?

    MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense???

    2012 DIA Document (R050839Z) - Defense Intelligence Agency
    Public Affairs Office: 202-231-5554 or [email protected]
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/media-blacks-out-pentagon-report-exposing-u-s-role-in-isis-creation/206187/
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/

    DarrenPartridge 30 Oct 2015 22:03

    I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed, Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan and Iraq... it goes on...

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58

    "It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going to turn the tide in any way."

    Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian airstrikes and Iranian man power.

    Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!

    Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57

    Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?

    templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51

    IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although there's not much difference in reality.

    IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing (Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major escalation? Yes.

    Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder people are saying Armageddon.

    HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50

    ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis, Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.

    VengefulRevenant 30 Oct 2015 21:44

    "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on [a] completely trumped up pretext. It's an incredible act of aggression. It is really a stunning, wilful choice by [President Obama] to invade another country. [The US] is in violation of the sovereignty of [Syria. The US] is in violation of its international obligations."

    Verbum -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:41

    How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok and American boots bad?

    The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations in the region.

    The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.

    I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states, beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.

    In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02

    Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes, the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)


    ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00

    Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.

    The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard

    Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge into insanity writ large.

    ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55

    To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...

    There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...

    BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52

    China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
    Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.

    See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.

    Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.

    RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30

    Their Plan B is fucked !!

    But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country.

    Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country.

    The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West, do best.

    Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's.

    In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.

    weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25

    War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society, but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.

    ... ... ...

    Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21

    Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?

    This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.

    Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59

    Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.

    "Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia, signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states – the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic – agreed to respect one another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to the prevailing world order.[1]"

    foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41

    As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.

    If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.

    foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31

    Johnny Kent

    The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for 'annexing Crimea...

    Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.

    You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.

    However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings.

    WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11

    What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law?

    Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the UK drone strikes.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Southern blacks as a voting block

    Notable quotes:
    "... I said from the very beginning of Sanders campaign, that an old, lefty, New York Jew is going to have a really tough time connecting with older, black voters in the south. ..."
    "... I don't think most Americans realize just how conservative southern blacks really are, particularly the ones old enough to remember the bad old days of segregation and before. ..."
    "... the social climate in the south would reward and penalize behaviors by both whites and blacks in a manner very different from cultures found in the north and the west. ..."
    "... Radical personalities and those who are quick to embrace new ideas don't fare very well in those parts of the country. Slow, steady, quite and modest is your best bet for survival. ..."
    "... Almost like Clinton's "slow incremental change" campaign theme. ..."
    Sep 12, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jerry Denim , March 9, 2016 at 1:53 pm

    I really liked Charles Blow's insightful comment about two Black Americas and the great migration. I am white but I like to think that I know a little about Black America. I've travelled and lived all over the US now, but I grew up in the eighties in a small, racially divided southern town. I attended a public school that was 60% black and every black teacher of mine in elementary school was formerly employed by the "separate but equal" black school system prior to desegregation. I didn't realize how close I was to the bad ole' segregated south growing up, but it boggles my mind and certain things make more sense to me now looking back. I was raised by my working mother and two different black nannies. They were surrogate moms to me. I would play with their nieces, nephews and grand-children at their house sometimes and other times at my parents. I even attended church with them on a couple of different occasions. I left the south after graduating college but I didn't forget the lessons of my youth. I said from the very beginning of Sanders campaign, that an old, lefty, New York Jew is going to have a really tough time connecting with older, black voters in the south.

    I don't think most Americans realize just how conservative southern blacks really are, particularly the ones old enough to remember the bad old days of segregation and before. The cultural DNA of the diaspora blacks of the north and the blacks that stayed behind is very different. Besides the attitudes and personality types that may have been more likely to migrate north or west, it's important to remember that the social climate in the south would reward and penalize behaviors by both whites and blacks in a manner very different from cultures found in the north and the west.

    There are still plenty of strong pockets of racism today outside of the south, particularly in the northeast, appalachia, and the midwest but nowhere I've visited can compare to racism found in the deep southern states of the Gulf and Mississippi delta region.

    Radical personalities and those who are quick to embrace new ideas don't fare very well in those parts of the country. Slow, steady, quite and modest is your best bet for survival.

    Almost like Clinton's "slow incremental change" campaign theme. Clinton keeps running up the delegate score with the support of southern black grannies like the ones who raised me, but she is running out of deep south. Meanwhile Sanders is forging new coalitions and crushing the under-forty vote, so even if he can't win the DNC's rigged primary this year the future looks bright for leaders that want to pick up Sanders mantle in the near future.

    MojaveWolf , March 9, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    Besides the attitudes and personality types that may have been more likely to migrate north or west, it's important to remember that the social climate in the south would reward and penalize behaviors by both whites and blacks in a manner very different from cultures found in the north and the west.

    Very true & excellent point. I grew up in small town Alabama & permanently moved away in January 1990. It is a very pro-establishment place, where, at least back then, people who were willing to be noticeably different had to be very exceptional in some way or willing & able to fend for themselves, otherwise they would be ostracized or bullied. Birmingham & Tuscaloosa were better, at least in pockets, but outside of the university system you were still expected to behave in a very conservative manner. Going home to visit over the years & seeing giant billboards–in cities!–saying things like "Go to church or go to Hell" (that is an exact quote; I shall never forget it; horribly wrongheaded and asinine even from a fundamentalist Christian perspective) or "praise be the glory of the fetus, may those who harm it suffer eternal torment" (not an exact quote but pretty much an exact sentiment on a large # of signs) did not make me change my thoughts a whole hella lot, or–and this is kinda funny in light of my current politics–talking with a group of business owners in an airport who suddenly turned their backs on me & excluded me from conversation when they were trashing Hillary and I said "I like Hillary" & after a shocked silence one of them said "You need to listen to Rush Limbaugh son, learn some things" followed by "I've heard Rush. Not really a fan." That ended that conversation abruptly. Among other things.

    And I have (or rather had, kinda lost touch) friends from Alabama involved in state & national democratic politics, and whatever their private inclinations they were just as conservative as the Republicans (among whom I had an equal # of friends) on most things in public, and kept very quiet about issues where they were not with the growing conservative majority there (it should be noted that this is a HORRIBLE long term strategy, if you have actual principles in opposition to the spreading & solidifying right-wing belief system). I had nonetheless expected better from the South, and am still disappointed/horrified at the voting there, but this reminder does explain a lot. With a lot of help from the DNC & MSM, they were convinced Bernie would not win, and might even lose by an amount they would find embarrassing, & knowingly fighting a lost cause is (or was) generally derided back there, and no one wants to be an object of derision. Also, a lot of Southerners just don't like people from the Northeast. End stop. I for some reason thought that would have changed by now, and/or that Bernie was sufficiently atypical for this to be a non-factor anyway. But maybe not. Plus it may be people still consider Hillary a Southerner from her time in Arkansas, and she's getting the "one of us" vote.

    but she is running out of deep south.

    Indeed. Temperaments out west are very, very different. =)

    [Sep 12, 2016] Exit polling is more accurate. Polls using land lines are not

    Notable quotes:
    "... My own take away is that in order for the investment in electronic election fraud to pay off, polls must be discredited. ..."
    "... It used to be that exit polling was the best, most reliable defense against election fraud, and was used all over the globe to access the legitimacy of election results. ..."
    "... The decline in polling accuracy will lead to more audacious efforts, probably successful, to steal elections as the people are trained not to believe poll results. ..."
    "... Most pollsters now days are actually trying to influence as opposed to measure the mood of the electorate, this hasn't helped matters, and probably accounts for most of the negative sentiment held by the people as concerns pollsters. ..."
    "... Interesting point, Watt4Bob. The golden age of polling happened when most households had a landline. Before then, access was a problem. Now there are too many alternative communication channels, and each has its demographic bias (more old people on landlines, etc.). ..."
    "... The polls in MI were not exit polls. Exit polling is more accurate. The MI polls were phone calls to land lines, which left out millennials completely, as maybe 1% of them own a land line telephone. ..."
    Mar 09, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Watt4Bob, March 9, 2016 at 9:08 am

    My own take away is that in order for the investment in electronic election fraud to pay off, polls must be discredited.

    It used to be that exit polling was the best, most reliable defense against election fraud, and was used all over the globe to access the legitimacy of election results.

    So far the history of electronic manipulation has overlapped the history of effective polling, which means the manipulators have only felt safe changing votes when the margin is very close.

    The decline in polling accuracy will lead to more audacious efforts, probably successful, to steal elections as the people are trained not to believe poll results.

    Most pollsters now days are actually trying to influence as opposed to measure the mood of the electorate, this hasn't helped matters, and probably accounts for most of the negative sentiment held by the people as concerns pollsters.

    Looks like this could be the last election cycle where anyone pays attention to the polls, and that isn't good for us, it would be sad to think that the Republican technical team might be all that stands between our future and President Trump.

    How bizarre.

    Steve H. , March 9, 2016 at 9:18 am

    Interesting point, Watt4Bob. The golden age of polling happened when most households had a landline. Before then, access was a problem. Now there are too many alternative communication channels, and each has its demographic bias (more old people on landlines, etc.).

    However, all this can be offset in politics by focusing on exit polls. In this age of personal broadcasting, people may be more willing to be open about their opinions in public.

    Lord Koos , March 9, 2016 at 4:19 pm

    The polls in MI were not exit polls. Exit polling is more accurate. The MI polls were phone calls to land lines, which left out millennials completely, as maybe 1% of them own a land line telephone.

    [Sep 12, 2016] We should remember the prejudice of the DNC toward Sanders and criminal tricks they played to derail his candidacy

    Now in view of recent Hillary health problems actions of Wasserman Schultz need to be revisited. She somehow avoided criminal prosecution for interfering with the election process under Obama administration. That's clearly wrong. The court should investigate and determine the level of her guilt.
    Moor did his duty, moor can go. This is fully applicable to Wasserman Schultz. BTW it was king of "bait and switch" Obama who installed her in this position. And after that some try to say that Obama is not a neocon. Essentially leaks mean is that Sander's run was defeated by the Democratic Party's establishment dirty tricks and Hillary is not a legitimate candidate. It's Mission Accomplished, once again.
    "Clinton is a life-long Republican. She grew up in an all-white Republican suburb, she supported Goldwater, and she supported Wall Street banking, then became a DINO dildo to ride her husband's coattails to WH, until the NYC Mob traded her a NY Senator seat for her husband's perfidy. She never said one word about re-regulating the banks."
    How could this anti-Russian hysteria/bashing go on in a normal country -- the level of paranoia and disinformation about Russia and Putin is plain crazy even for proto-fascist regimes.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. ..."
    "... Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections. ..."
    "... Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go. ..."
    "... "I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper ..."
    "... But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me." ..."
    Jul 24, 2016 | cnn.com

    Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz will not have a major speaking role or preside over daily convention proceedings this week, a decision reached by party officials Saturday after emails surfaced raising questions about the committee's impartiality during the Democratic primary.
    The DNC Rules Committee on Saturday named Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, as permanent chair of the convention, according to a DNC source. She will gavel each session to order and will gavel each session closed.

    "She's been quarantined," another top Democrat said of Wasserman Schultz, following a meeting Saturday night. Wasserman Schultz faced intense pressure Sunday to resign her post as head of the Democratic National Committee, several party leaders told CNN, urging her to quell a growing controversy threatening to disrupt Hillary Clinton's nominating convention.

    Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. But party leaders are now urging the Florida congresswoman to vacate her position as head of the party entirely in the wake of leaked emails suggesting the DNC favored Clinton during the primary and tried to take down Bernie Sanders by questioning his religion. Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections.

    ... ... ...

    One email appears to show DNC staffers asking how they can reference Bernie Sanders' faith to weaken him in the eyes of Southern voters. Another seems to depict an attorney advising the committee on how to defend Hillary Clinton against an accusation by the Sanders campaign of not living up to a joint fundraising agreement.

    Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go.

    "I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper on "State of the Union," on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

    "I am not an atheist," he said. "But aside from all of that, it is an outrage and sad that you would have people in important positions in the DNC trying to undermine my campaign. It goes without saying, the function of the DNC is to represent all of the candidates -- to be fair and even-minded."

    He added: "But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me."

    ... ... ...

    Several Democratic sources told CNN that the leaked emails are a big source of contention and may incite tensions between the Clinton and Sanders camps heading into the Democratic convention's Rules Committee meeting this weekend.

    "It could threaten their agreement," one Democrat said, referring to the deal reached between Clinton and Sanders about the convention, delegates and the DNC. The party had agreed to include more progressive principles in its official platform, and as part of the agreement, Sanders dropped his fight to contest Wasserman Schultz as the head of the DNC.

    "It's gas meets flame," the Democrat said.

    Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman, had no comment Friday.

    The issue surfaced on Saturday at Clinton's first campaign event with Tim Kaine as her running mate, when a protester was escorted out of Florida International University in Miami. The protester shouted "DNC leaks" soon after Clinton thanked Wasserman Schultz for her leadership at the DNC.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Polls Are Closed, They Lied

    Notable quotes:
    "... To hear the mainstream news media retell the story of the contentious 2000 presidential election, one would think that it all boils down to Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court decision created huge controversy and poisons public life to this day. But this focus on the decision serves to obscure an act of great duplicity on the part of the media that dwarfs the impact of that case: namely, that if it hadn't been for actions they took on television on Election Night, November 7, 2000, there never would have been a Bush v. Gore or a Florida recount in the first place. ..."
    "... by 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Election Night, a cover-up had already begun. ..."
    theamericanconservative.us4.list-manage.com

    To hear the mainstream news media retell the story of the contentious 2000 presidential election, one would think that it all boils down to Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court decision created huge controversy and poisons public life to this day. But this focus on the decision serves to obscure an act of great duplicity on the part of the media that dwarfs the impact of that case: namely, that if it hadn't been for actions they took on television on Election Night, November 7, 2000, there never would have been a Bush v. Gore or a Florida recount in the first place.

    It is a story of voter suppression. As it turns out, most of what we think was important about that election-hanging chads, butterfly ballots, 36 days of legal jousting-is unimportant. And by 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Election Night, a cover-up had already begun.

    [Sep 12, 2016] About polls that predict Hillary victory

    Aug 28, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Friday, August 26, 2016 at 07:25 PM likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs... Friday, August 26, 2016 at 07:25 PM Fred,

    It's not over until it's over. The accuracy of those figures are probably pretty low as phones no loner represent a reliable medium for such opinion surveys. Times changed ;-).

    I will be surprised if rust belt and similar states not support Trump.

    You should understand that this is a referendum on neoliberal globalization, so Hillary is with all her crimes and warts is generally immaterial.

    All this smoke screen of Trump demonization, that MSM use to save Hillary might not work at all.

    The real question is: Does the anger of the US population at neoliberal globalization reached the boiling point or not.

    Please also think about what Assange might still have on Hillary and when he will release those emails.

    [Sep 12, 2016] Reducing the election to personalities is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism in which corporatations seized all of the political levers

    This short article contains several very deep observations. Highly recommended...
    Notable quotes:
    "... There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. ..."
    "... This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over. ..."
    "... First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form. ..."
    "... So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. ..."
    "... I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign. ..."
    "... Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children. ..."
    "... Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile ..."
    Aug 06, 2016 | www.democracynow.org

    CHRIS HEDGES : Well, reducing the election to personalities is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. It's a system where corporate power has seized all of the levers of control. There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. We've seen the executive branch misinterpret the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving itself the right to assassinate American citizens, including children. I speak of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son. We have bailed out the banks, pushed through programs of austerity. This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over.

    I just came back from Poland, which is a kind of case study of how neoliberal poison destroys a society and creates figures like Trump. Poland has gone, I think we can argue, into a neofascism.

    First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form.

    So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. We've got to break away from political personalities and understand and examine and critique the structures of power. And, in fact, the Democratic Party, especially beginning under Bill Clinton, has carried water for corporate entities as assiduously as the Republican Party. This is something that Ralph Nader understood long before the rest of us, and stepped out very courageously in 2000. And I think we will look back on that period and find Ralph to be an amazingly prophetic figure. Nobody understands corporate power better than Ralph. And I think now people have caught up with Ralph.

    And this is, of course, why I support Dr. Stein and the Green Party. We have to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government, was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now-about 4 percent. We've got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic change within a particular election cycle. We've got to be willing to step out into the political wilderness, perhaps, for a decade. But on the issues of climate change, on the issue of the destruction of civil liberties, including our right to privacy-and I speak as a former investigative journalist, which doesn't exist anymore because of wholesale government surveillance-we have no ability, except for hackers.

    I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign.

    The fact is, Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children.

    This debate over -- I don't like Trump, but Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile, maybe Ted Cruz.

    [Sep 12, 2016] The Illusion Of Democracy

    Neo: I can't go back, can I?
    Morpheus: No. But if you could, would you really want to? ...We never free a mind once it's reached a certain age. It's dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go... As long as the Matrix exists, the human race will never be free.
    ~ The Matrix
    While this is a satire on an extreme polarization of electorate who now behave like sport fans rooting for "their" team, Neoliberalism is the Other side ideology and will not abolish it without a fight.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Let's face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology. I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago. If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side's policies for the past half-century back to the writings of this one person. ..."
    "... To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters. These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don't even know it. ..."
    "... It's ridiculous to talk about freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations. ..."
    "... Wasn't it Voltaire who said "If you want to understand infinity look at people's stupidity"? ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Distract, deny, democracy...

    Source: Jesse

    Which reminded us of this perennial note...

    The past several weeks have made one thing crystal-clear: Our country faces unmitigated disaster if the Other Side wins.

    No reasonably intelligent person can deny this. All you have to do is look at the way the Other Side has been running its campaign. Instead of focusing on the big issues that are important to the American People, it has fired a relentlessly negative barrage of distortions, misrepresentations, and flat-out lies.

    Just look at the Other Side's latest commercial, which take a perfectly reasonable statement by the candidate for My Side completely out of context to make it seem as if he is saying something nefarious. This just shows you how desperate the Other Side is and how willing it is to mislead the American People.

    The Other Side also has been hammering away at My Side to release certain documents that have nothing to do with anything, and making all sorts of outrageous accusations about what might be in them. Meanwhile, the Other Side has stonewalled perfectly reasonable requests to release its own documents that would expose some very embarrassing details if anybody ever found out what was in them. This just shows you what a bunch of hypocrites they are.

    Naturally, the media won't report any of this. Major newspapers and cable networks jump all over anything they think will make My Side look bad. Yet they completely ignore critically important and incredibly relevant information that would be devastating to the Other Side if it could ever be verified.

    I will admit the candidates for My Side do make occasional blunders. These usually happen at the end of exhausting 19-hour days and are perfectly understandable. Our leaders are only human, after all. Nevertheless, the Other Side inevitably makes a big fat deal out of these trivial gaffes, while completely ignoring its own candidates' incredibly thoughtless and stupid remarks – remarks that reveal the Other Side's true nature, which is genuinely frightening.

    My Side has produced a visionary program that will get the economy moving, put the American People back to work, strengthen national security, return fiscal integrity to Washington, and restore our standing in the international community. What does the Other Side have to offer? Nothing but the same old disproven, discredited policies that got us into our current mess in the first place.

    Don't take my word for it, though. I recently read about an analysis by an independent, nonpartisan organization that supports My Side. It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that everything I have been saying about the Other Side was true all along. Of course, the Other Side refuses to acknowledge any of this. It is too busy cranking out so-called studies by so-called experts who are actually nothing but partisan hacks. This just shows you that the Other Side lives in its own little echo chamber and refuses to listen to anyone who has not already drunk its Kool-Aid.

    Let's face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology. I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago. If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side's policies for the past half-century back to the writings of this one person.

    To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters. These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don't even know it.

    These people are really pathetic, too. The other day I saw a YouTube video in which My Side sent an investigator and a cameraman to a rally being held by the Other Side, where the investigator proceeded to ask some real zingers. It was hilarious! First off, the people at the rally wore T-shirts with all kinds of lame messages that they actually thought were really clever. Plus, many of the people who were interviewed were overweight, sweaty, flushed, and generally not very attractive. But what was really funny was how stupid they were. There is no way anyone could watch that video and not come away convinced the people on My Side are smarter, and that My Side is therefore right about everything.

    Besides, it's clear that the people on the Other Side are driven by mindless anger – unlike My Side, which is filled with passionate idealism and righteous indignation. That indignation, I hasten to add, is entirely justified. I have read several articles in publications that support My Side that expose what a truly dangerous group the Other Side is, and how thoroughly committed it is to imposing its radical, failed agenda on the rest of us.

    That is why I believe [2016] is, without a doubt, the defining election of our lifetime. The difference between My Side and the Other Side could not be greater. That is why it absolutely must win [in 2016].

    Waylon Bits

    Wake we up when we can vote on troop deployments, oil pipelines, assassinations, etc...

    NotApplicable

    Sad sad Americans just figured this out? You idiots should have been reading Chomsky, he just said it so well: "It's ridiculous to talk about freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations." -Chomsky

    Chomsky has been saying this for years. I guess you have been too busy "making money" to pay attention.

    The average American sheeple never fail to amuse me how stupid they really are. Wasn't it Voltaire who said "If you want to understand infinity look at people's stupidity"?

    [Sep 12, 2016] We know exactly where corporations go when their iron grip on democracy loosens

    ...the dystopia of the Wachowski Brothers' Matrix trilogy is already here: the technological-industrial 'machine' is already running the world, a world where individual humans are but insignificant little cogs with barely any autonomy. No single human being - neither the most powerful politician, nor the most powerful businessman - has the power to rein in the system. They necessarily have to follow the inexorable logic of what has been unleashed.
    ~ G Sampath on John Zerzan
    Neo: I can't go back, can I?
    Morpheus: No. But if you could, would you really want to? ...We never free a mind once it's reached a certain age. It's dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go... As long as the Matrix exists, the human race will never be free.
    ~ The Matrix
    Notable quotes:
    "... And if they (Pentagon, DoD, etc…) resist new guidance, what is going to be done about it? ..."
    "... It seems to me like the major sovereignty-violating actions of the US Gov't happen with the approval of the executive branch. The military and intelligence services generally don't speak out or publicly act against the president's policies. They do leak a bunch of shit everywhere (the mysterious "high-ranking anonymous Obama official" who seems to pop up whenever the president's policies need to be opposed), but that you can live with. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    GlassHammer

    Are we assuming that the Pentagon, DoD, etc… are just going to accept new guidance from the top? (That sounds like wishful thinking to me.)

    And if they (Pentagon, DoD, etc…) resist new guidance, what is going to be done about it? Currently more Americans trust the military than any institution or politician. I highly doubt anyone could swing public opinion against the Deep State at this point in time.

    Daryl

    It seems to me like the major sovereignty-violating actions of the US Gov't happen with the approval of the executive branch. The military and intelligence services generally don't speak out or publicly act against the president's policies. They do leak a bunch of shit everywhere (the mysterious "high-ranking anonymous Obama official" who seems to pop up whenever the president's policies need to be opposed), but that you can live with.

    It is a real problem, one that makes me nervous. We know exactly where corporations go when their iron grip on democracy loosens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

    JTMcPhee

    Any Agent of Actual Change has to fear the "bowstring…"

    http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=fate_of_roman_emperors

    Vatch

    JKF? I didn't know that the historian John King Fairbank was assassinated.

    roadrider

    Then I guess you have solid evidence to account for the actions of Allen Dulles, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey, David Morales, E. Howard Hunt, Richard Helms, James Angleton and other CIA personnel and assets who had

    1. perhaps the strongest motives to murder Kennedy
    2. the means to carry out the crime, namely, their executive action (assassination) capability and blackmail the government into aiding their cover up and
    3. the opportunity to carry out such a plan given their complete lack of accountability to the rest of the government and their unmatched expertise in lying, deceit, secrecy, fraud.

    Because if you actually took the time to research or at least read about their actions in this matter instead of just spouting bald assertions that you decline to back up with any facts you would find their behavior nearly impossible to explain other than having at, the very least, guilty knowledge of the crime.

    [Sep 11, 2016] The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7

    Is this a plan of the elite to introduce national security state in action. Are they afraid of the collapse of neoliberal social order and try to take precautions?
    Notable quotes:
    "... These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness. ..."
    "... the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. ..."
    "... Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse. ..."
    "... A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." ..."
    "... Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories : ..."
    "... Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be? ..."
    "... Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was only $386,000,000. ..."
    "... Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way. ..."
    "... All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies, and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never clarified). ..."
    "... This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down. ..."
    "... http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully flawed NIST report ..."
    "... There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area. ..."
    "... The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what happened at WTC. ..."
    "... If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless. ..."
    "... Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt. It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob. ..."
    "... The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. ..."
    Sep 15, 2012 | WashingtonsBlog

    ... ... ...

    What Do the Experts Say?

    What does the evidence show about the Solomon Brothers Building in Manhattan?

    Numerous structural engineers – the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents – say that the official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates the law of physics":

    The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked into as part of the original investigation

    • Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural engineering experience:

      From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities

    • Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience, says:

    Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition

    • Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry:

      World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident

    • Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings:

      I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings [please ignore any reference in this essay to the Twin Towers. This essay focuses solely on Building 7]. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded

    • Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, writes:

      Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day [i.e. on September 11th]? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust

    • Graham John Inman points out:

      WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?

    • Paul W. Mason notes:

    In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation

    Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . .

    How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective.

    ***

    Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames-just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

    Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, "if" the structure in the vicinity started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse.

    For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse .

    We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

    The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?

    Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings [Again, please ignore any reference to the Twin Towers this essay focuses solely on WTC7]. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise

    The symmetrical "collapse" due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics

    It is virtually impossible for WTC building 7 to collapse as it did with the influence of sporadic fires. This collapse HAD to be planned

    • Travis McCoy, M.S. in structural engineering
    • James Milton Bruner, Major, U.S. Air Force, instructor and assistant professor in the Deptartment of Engineering Mechanics & Materials, USAF Academy, and a technical writer and editor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    • Christopher Michael Bradbury:

    It is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire. This is very suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living

    The above is just a sample. Many other structural engineers have questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous top experts in other relevant disciplines, including:

    • The top European expert on controlled building demolition, Danny Jowenko (part 1, part 2, part 3)
    • A demolition loader for the world's top demolition company (which is based in the United States), Tom Sullivan
    • The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that Building 7 collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world's leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere)
    • Harry G. Robinson, III – Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President of two major national architectural organizations – National Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam – says:

    The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to implode as they did

    Watch this short video on Building 7 by Architects and Engineers (ignore any reference to the Twin Towers, deaths on 9/11, or any other topics other than WTC7):

    Fish In a Barrel

    Poking holes in the government's spin on Building 7 is so easy that it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

    As just one example, the spokesman for the government agency which says that the building collapsed due to fire said there was no molten metal at ground zero:


    The facts are a wee bit different:

    Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories:

    Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 .

    The spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amounts of water were hosed on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:

    "Firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

    This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:

    murphy Arguments Regarding the Collapse of the World Trade Center Evaporate Upon Inspection
    In addition, the fires were sprayed with thousands of gallons of high tech fire-retardants.

    The fact that there were raging fires and molten metal even after the application of massive quantities of water and fire retardants shows how silly the government spokesman's claim is.

    Again, this has nothing to do with "inside job" no one was killed in the collapse of Building 7, no wars were launched based on a rallying cry of "remember the Solomon Brothers building", and no civil liberties were lost based on a claim that we have to prevent future WTC7 tragedies.

    It is merely meant to show that government folks sometimes lie even about issues tangentially related to 9/11.

    Pooua > Wolfen Batroach • 2 years ago

    Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be?

    JusticeFor911 > Pooua

    Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was only $386,000,000.

    I'd say nearly half of $1,000,000,000.00 was the primary cause to include this building with the towers. Keep in mind that President Bush's brother Marvin was a principal in the company Securacom that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. Are dots connecting yet?

    Pooua > JusticeFor911

    If you buy a new car, you take out full coverage insurance on it. Insuring billion-dollar buildings is standard procedure, especially when one had already suffered a terrorist attack. You insinuation is nothing but gossip and suggestion.

    No, Securacom did not provide security for WTC; that's the job of the Port Authority of NY & NJ. Securacom had a contract to perform a limited service for PANYNJ, and Marvin Bush was only a bit player (he was on the board of directors) in the company. Your paranoid ramblings are lies.

    IBSHILLIN > Pooua

    Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way.

    All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies, and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never clarified).

    This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down.

    Pooua > IBSHILLIN

    I find it amazing that you consider yourself such an unquestionable expert that you not only feel qualified to insist that explosives brought down the WTC buildings, even in contradiction to scores of scientists, engineers and investigators of NIST, FEMA, FBI and MIT who say otherwise, and you do so without offering any evidence at all to support your bizarre claim.

    No building the size of any of the WTC buildings has ever been brought down by controlled demolition, but of those that come closest, the planning took years, and the rigging took months of hard work by teams of experts working around the clock. This is not something that can be hidden.

    Your suggestion is entirely preposterous and without merit.

    ihaveabrain > Pooua

    explain this? You are smarter than these experts? http://www.hulu.com/watch/4120...

    NIST, FEMA, FBI and MIT are worthless entities! What about the experts in that documentary? Nanothermite brought them down smart guy!

    Pooua > ihaveabrain • 25 days ago

    You posted a 1.5-hour video. I am not here to watch a 1.5-hour video; I'm here to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC 7. If you have something to say, say it here.

    NIST has been the premier standards body used by the US government for a century, covering virtually every aspect of engineering and public safety in this country. It employes thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians. For you to claim that it is a worthless entity is idiocy on your part.

    linked1 > Pooua • 24 days ago

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully flawed NIST report

    You claim to want to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC-7 but you can't be bothered to watch painstakingly researched documentaries that include thousands of witnesses, victims, scientists, and structural professionals.

    You ought to educate yourself before calling other's claims 'worthless idiocy'. You are wrong, and history will prove you wrong.

    Pooua > linked1

    I've been reading arguments about 9/11 for two years. I've been arguing about other issues for the last 25 years, at least since I took a class in classical logic. What you need to understand is, you aren't arguing anything when you send me off to listen to someone else. The other guy might be arguing something, but you aren't doing anything. And, the fact that I've spent two years reading everything I could find on the subject makes me strongly suspect that this five-hour video would be just a waste of my time.

    If you want to discuss this matter, then discuss it. Don't send me off to spend hours of my time listening to someone else. You explain it. If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it, and you are wasting everyone's time.

    mulegino1 . > Pooua

    The levels of energy required to turn most of the Twin Towers and WTC7 into nanoparticles (thus the pyrocastic flow which only occurs in volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations) would be thousands of orders of magnitude greater than airliner impacts and hydrocarbon based office fires, which are claimed to have initiated a "gravity collapse".

    How could a "gravity collapse" perfectly mimic the detonation of a small tactical nuclear device or devices-electromagnetic pulse, molten lava and a mushroom cloud?

    Pooua > mulegino1

    I want you to look at this image from the WTC on 9/11. It shows the debris after the Towers collapsed. Does this look like nanoparticles to you? Most of the debris was bigger than a man's fist.

    Thumbnail

    There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area.

    The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what happened at WTC.

    mulegino1 . > Pooua

    If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless.

    There was indeed a pyroclasticas flow as anyone with youtube can determine for themselves.

    Pooua > WilliamBinney • a year ago

    It is your job to do more than make idiotic, speculative assertions and pretend that constitutes a reason for disregarding the government's account of the event. Yet, you all have completely failed to do anything except expose your own inability to account for the events of that day.

    Dizzer13 > Pooua • a year ago

    Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt. It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob.

    mulegino1 . > Pooua • 2 years ago

    The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.

    The official narrative is so ludicrous from any standpoint that the "debunkers" resort to wildly implausible scenarios in order to convince the above cited demographic that the government and the major national media were reporting factual information when in fact they were reading from a script. And it was a very poorly written script. The Bin Laden bogeyman was already being invoked before the buildings exploded.

    What you've got here is a pseudo-religious narrative designed to so enrage the dumbed down sheeple that they will lash out in their fury against virtually anyone designated by the powers that be as the enemy- a Sorelian myth.

    Like any false narrative, the official story breaks down at the level of discrete facts and can only survive as a holistic mythologized, meta-historical events.

    [Sep 11, 2016] The concept of the unbiased political reporter is difficult to accept today.

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    RBHoughton

    The concept of the unbiased political reporter is difficult to accept today. The financial and commercial systems require us all to be economic animals responding to self-advantage. It is only that handful of people with more loot than they can spend who can step off the treadmill and act honestly.

    Can any of the political reporters be financially qualified in that way? Seems highly unlikely.

    The only thing that might produce an honest pollster is the fear of the owners of the polling company that their venality will be exposed and they will have to start another biz.

    Congrats to Lambert for focusing his attention where it matters and not on the prima donnas.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Globalization, Rise of Neo-Nationalism and the Bankruptcy of the Left

    Notable quotes:
    "... On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries. ..."
    "... The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. ..."
    "... In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves. ..."
    "... The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites. ..."
    "... In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. ..."
    "... Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process; ..."
    "... Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands. ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". ..."
    "... by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement. ..."
    "... it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. ..."
    "... "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage" ..."
    "... It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left ..."
    "... the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. ..."
    "... The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. ..."
    Jul 07, 2016 | www.liveleak.com
    On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries.

    The huge expansion of the anti-globalization movement over the past few years was under control, for the time being, and the EU elites would not have to resort to sanctions against a country at the core of the Union – such as those which may soon be imposed against Poland.

    In fact, the only reason they have not as yet been imposed is, presumably, the fear of Brexit, but as soon as the British people finally submit to the huge campaign of intimidation ("Project Fear") launched against them by the entire transnational elite, Poland's – and later Hungary's – turn will come in earnest.

    The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. The interesting thing, however, is that in the Greek case it was the so-called "NewLeft" represented by SYRIZA, which not only accepted the worst package of measures imposed on Greece (and perhaps any other country) ever,[ii] but which is also currently busy conducting a huge propaganda campaign (using the state media, which it absolutely controls, as its main propaganda tool) to deceive the exhausted Greek people that the government has even achieved some sort of victory in the negotiations! At the same time, the working class – the traditional supporters of the Left – are deserting the Left en masse and heading towards the neo-nationalist parties: from Britain and France to Austria. So how can we explain these seemingly inexplicable phenomena?

    Nationalism vs. neo-nationalism

    As I tried to show in the past,[iii] the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 17th-18th centuries played an important role in the development of the system of the market economy and vice versa. However, whereas the 'nationalization' of the market was necessary for the development of the 'market system' out of the markets of the past, once capital was internationalized and therefore the market system itself was internationalized, the nation state became an impediment to further 'progress' of the market system. This is how the NWO emerged, which involved a radical restructuring not only of the economy, with the rise of Transnational Corporations, but also of polity, with the present phasing out of nation-states and national sovereignty.

    Inevitably, the phasing out of the nation-state and national sovereignty led to the flourishing of neo-nationalism, as a movement for self-determination. Yet, this development became inevitable only because the alternative form of social organization, confederalism, which was alive even up to the time of the Paris Commune had in the meantime disappeared.

    In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves.

    The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites.

    This globalist culture is based on the globalization ideology of multiculturalism, protection of human rights etc., which in fact is an extension of the classical liberal ideology to the NWO. In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. It is not therefore accidental that globalist ideologists characterize the present flourishing of what I called neo-nationalism, as the rise of 'illiberalism'.'[iv] It is therefore clear that we have to distinguish between old (or classical) nationalism and the new phenomenon of neo-nationalism. To my mind, the main differences between them are as follows:

    a) Nationalism developed in the era of nation-states as a movement for uniting communities with a common history, culture and usually language under the common roof of nation-states that were emerging at the time but also even in the 20th century when national liberation movements against colonialist empires were fighting for their own nation states. On the other hand, neo-nationalism developed in the era of globalization with the aim of protecting the national sovereignty of nations which was under extinction because of the integration of their states into the NWO;

    b) Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process;

    c) Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands.

    Naturally, given the origin of many neo-nationalist parties and their supporters, elements of the old nationalist ideology may penetrate them, such as the Islamophobic and anti-immigration trends, which provide the excuse to the elites to dismiss all these movements as 'far right'. However, such demands are by no means the main reasons why such movements expand. Particularly so, as it can easily be shown that the refugee problem is also part and parcel of globalization and the '4 freedoms' (capital, labor, goods and services) its ideology preaches.

    The rise of the neo-nationalist movement

    Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement that arose out of the effects of globalization, particularly as far as the continuous squeezing of employees' real incomes is concerned––as a result of liberalizing labor markets, so that labor could become more competitive. The present 'job miracle', for instance, in Britain, (which is characterized as "the job creation capital of the western economies"), hides the fact that, as an analyst pointed out, "unemployment is low, largely because British workers have been willing to stomach the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian era".[v]

    The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". Of course, given the political and economic power that the elites have concentrated against these neo-nationalist movements, it is possible that neither Brexit nor any of these movements may take over, but this will not stop of course social dissent against the phasing out of national sovereignty.

    The same process is repeated almost everywhere in Europe today, inevitably leading many people (and particularly working class people) to turn to the rising neo-nationalist Right. This is not of course because they suddenly became "nationalists" let alone "fascists", as the globalist "NewLeft" (that is the kind of Left which is fully integrated into the NWO and does not question its institutions, e.g. the EU) accuses them in order to ostracize them. It is simply because the present globalist "NewLeft" does not wish to lead the struggle against globalization, while, at the same time, the popular strata have realized that national and economic sovereignty is incompatible with globalization. This is a fact fully realized, for example, by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement.

    But, it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. As Le Pen stressed, (in a way that the "NewLeft" has abandoned long ago!):

    "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage".[vi]

    In fact, the French National Front is the most important neo-nationalist party in Europe and may well be in power following the next Presidential elections in 2017, unless of course a united front of all globalist parties (including the "NewLeft" and the Greens), supported by the entire TE and particularly the Euro-elites and the mass media controlled by them, prevents it from doing so (exactly as it happens at present in Britain with respect to Brexit). This is how Florian Philippot the FN's vice-president and chief strategist aptly put its case in a FT interview:

    "The people who always voted for the left, who believed in the left and who thought that it represented an improvement in salaries and pensions, social and economic progress, industrial policies  . these people have realized that they were misled."[vii]

    As the same FT report points out, to some observers of French politics, the FN's economic policies, which include exiting the euro and throwing up trade barriers to protect industry, read like something copied from a 1930s political manifesto, while Christian Saint-Étienne, an economist for Le Figaro newspaper, recently described this vision as "Peronist Marxism".[viii] In fact, in a more recent FT interview, Marine Le Pen, the FN president went a step further in the same direction and she called, apart from exiting from the Euro––that she expects to lead to the collapse of the Euro, if not of the EU itself, (which she-rightly–welcomes)––for the nationalization of banks. At the same time she championed public services and presented herself as the protector of workers and farmers in the face of "wild and anarchic globalization which has brought more pain than happiness ".[ix]

    For comparison, it never even occurred to SYRIZA (and Varoufakis who now wears his "radical" hat) to use such slogans before the elections (let alone after them!) Needless to add that her foreign policy is also very different from that of the French establishment, as she wants a radical overhaul of French foreign policy in which relations with the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would be restored and those with the likes of Qatar and Turkey, which she alleges support terrorism, reviewed. At the same time, Le Pen sees the US as a purveyor of dangerous policies and Russia as a more suitable friend.

    Furthermore, as it was also stressed in the same FT report, "the FN is not the only supposedly rightwing European populist party seeking to draw support from disaffected voters on the left. Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party has adopted a similar approach and has been discussing plans "to ring-fence the National Health Service budget and lower taxes for low earners, among a host of measures geared to economically vulnerable voters who would typically support Labor".[x]

    Similar trends are noticed in other European countries like Finland, where the anti-NATO and pro-independence from the EU parties had effectively won the last elections,[xi] as well as in Hungary, where neo-nationalist forces are continuously rising,[xii] and Orban's government has done more than any other EU leader in protecting his country's sovereignty, being as a result, in constant conflict with the Euro-elites. Finally, the rise of a neo-nationalist party in Poland enraged Martin Schulz, the loudmouthed gatekeeper of the TE in the European Parliament, who accused the new government as attempting a "dangerous 'Putinization' of European politics."[xiii]

    However, what Eurocrats like Martin Schulz "forget" is that since Poland joined the EU in 2004, at least two million Poles have emigrated, many of them to the UK. The victory of the Law and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, PiS) in October 2015 was due not just to a backlash by traditional Polish voters to the bulldozing of their values by the ideology of globalization but also to the fact, as Cédric Gouverneur pointed out, that "the nationalist, pro-religion, protectionist, xenophobic PiS has attracted these disappointed people with an ambitious welfare programme: a family allowance of 500 zloty ($130) a month per child, funded through a tax on banks and big business; a minimum wage; and a return to a retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men (PO had planned to raise it to 67 for both).[xiv] In fact, PiS used to be a conservative pro-EU party when they were in power between 2005 and 2007, following faithfully the neoliberal program, and since then they have become increasingly populist and Eurosceptic. As a result, in the last elections they won the parliamentary elections in both the lower house (Sejm) and the Senate, with 37.6% of the vote, against 24.1% for the neoliberals and 8.8% for the populist Kukiz while the "progressive" camp failed to clear the threshold (5% for parties, 8% for coalitions) and have no parliamentary representation at all!

    The bankruptcy of the Left

    It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria).

    Furthermore, there is little doubt anymore that it was the intellectual failure of the Left to grasp the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon, (i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation that has led to the emergence of the globalization era) and its consequent political bankruptcy, which were the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe. This movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order. In fact, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization, thanks mainly to the activities of the globalist Left, it was left to the neo-nationalist movement to fight against globalization in general and against the EU in particular.

    Almost inevitably, in view of the campaigns of the TE against Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria), worrying Islamophobic trends have developed within several of these neo-nationalist movements, some of them turning their old anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, supported on this by Zionists themselves![xv] Even Marine Le Pen did not avoid the temptation to lie about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, stressing that "there is no Islamophobia in France but there is a rise in anti-Semitism".

    Yet, she is well aware of the fact that Islamophobia was growing in France well before Charlie Hebdo,[xvi] with racial attacks against Islamic immigrants, (most of whom live under squalid conditions in virtual ghettos) being very frequent. At the same time, it is well known that the Jewish community is mostly well off and shares a very disproportionate part of political and economic power in the country to its actual size, as it happens of course also––and to an even larger extent–– in UK and USA. This is one more reason why Popular Fronts for National and Social Liberation have to be built in every country of the world to fight not only Eurofascism and the NWO-which is of course the main enemy––but also any racist trends developing within these new anti-globalization movements, which today take the form of neo-nationalism. This would also prevent the elites from using the historically well-tested 'divide and rule' practice to divide the victims of globalization.

    Similarly, the point implicitly raised by the stand of the British "NewLeft" in general on the issue of Brexit cannot just be discussed in terms of the free trade vs. protectionism debate, as the liberal (or globalist) "NewLeft" does (see for instance Jean Bricmont[xvii] and Larry Elliott[xviii] of the Guardian). Yet, the point is whether it is globalization itself, which has led to the present mass economic violence against the vast majority of the world population and the accompanying it military violence. In other words, what all these "NewLeft" trends hide is that globalization is a class issue. But, this is the essence of the bankruptcy of the "NewLeft" , which is reflected in the fact that, today, it is the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the Left in its role of representing the victims of the system in its globalized form , while the Left mainly represents those in the middle class or the petty bourgeoisie who benefit from globalization. Needless to add that today's bankrupt "NewLeft" promptly characterized the rising neo-nationalist parties as racist, if not fascist and neo-Nazis, fully siding with the EU's black propaganda campaign against the rising movement for national sovereignty.

    This is obviously another nail in the coffin of this kind of "NewLeft" , as the millions of European voters who turn their back towards this degraded "NewLeft" are far from racists or fascists but simply want to control their way of life rather than letting it to be determined by the free movement of capital, labor and commodities, as the various Soroses of this world demand!

    The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left,[xix] whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. In the Austrian elections, it became once more clear that the Left expresses now the middle class, while the neo-nationalists the working class. As the super-globalist BBC presented the results:

    Support for Mr Hofer was exceptionally strong among manual workers – nearly 90%. The vote for Mr Van der Bellen was much stronger among people with a university degree or other higher education qualifications. In nine out of Austria's 10 main cities Mr Van der Bellen came top, whereas Mr Hofer dominated the rural areas, the Austrian broadcaster ORF reported (in German).[xx]

    The process of the NewLeft's bankruptcy has been further enhanced by the fact that, faced with political collapse in the May 2014 Euro-parliamentary elections, it allied itself with the elites in condemning the neo-nationalist parties as fascist and neo-Nazi. However, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization (mainly through the World Social Forum, thanks to the activities of the globalist "NewLeft" ),[xxi] it is up to the neo-nationalist movement to fight globalization in general and the EU in particular. It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties which are, in fact, all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that have simply filled the huge gap created by the globalist "NewLeft" . Thus, this "NewLeft" , Instead of placing itself in the front line among all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty, it has indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, supposedly founded on Marxism.

    On the other side, as one might expect, most members of the Globalist "NewLeft" have joined the new 'movement' by Varoufakis to democratize Europe, "forgetting" in the process that 'Democracy' was also the West's propaganda excuse for destroying Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today, it seems that the Soros circus is aiming to use exactly the same excuse to destroy Europe, in the sense of securing the perpetuation of the EU elites' domination of the European peoples and therefore the continuation of the consequent economic violence involved. The most prominent members of the globalist "NewLeft" who have already joined this new DIEM 'movement' range from Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange to Suzan George and Toni Negri, and from Hillary Wainwright of Red Pepper to CounterPunch and other globalist "NewLeft" newspapers and journals all over the world. In this context, it is particularly interesting to refer to Slavoj Žižek's commentary on the 'Manifesto' that was presented at the inaugural meeting of Varoufakis's new movement in Berlin on February 2016.[xxii]

    Neo-nationalism and immigration

    So, the unifying element of neo-nationalists is their struggle for national sovereignty, which they (rightly), see as disappearing in the era of globalization. Even when their main immediate motive is the fight against immigration, indirectly their fight is against globalization, as they realize that it is the opening of all markets, including the labor markets, particularly within economic unions like the EU, which is the direct cause of their own unemployment or low-wage employment, as well as of the deterioration of the welfare state, given that the elites are not prepared to expand social expenditure to accommodate the influx of immigrants. Yet, this is not a racist movement but a purely economic movement, although the TE and the Zionist elites, with the help of the globalist "NewLeft" , try hard to convert it into an Islamophobic movement––as the Charlie Hebdo case clearly showed[xxiii]–––so that they could use it in any way they see fit in the support of the NWO.

    But, what is the relationship of both neo-nationalists and Euro-fascists to historical fascism and Nazism? As I tried to show elsewhere,[xxiv] fascism, as well as National Socialism, presuppose a nation-state, therefore this kind of phenomenon is impossible to develop in any country fully integrated into the NWO, which, by definition, cannot have any significant degree of national sovereignty. The only kind of sovereignty available in the NWO of neoliberal globalization is transnational sovereignty, which, in fact, is exclusively shared by members of the TE. In other words, fascism and Nazism were historical phenomena of the era of nation-state before the ascent of the NWO of neoliberal globalization, when states still had a significant degree of national and economic sovereignty.

    However, in the globalization era, it is exactly this sovereignty that is being phased out for any country fully integrated into the NWO. Therefore, the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. However, as there is overwhelming evidence of the full support they have enjoyed by the Transnational Elite and (paradoxically?) even by the Zionist elite,[xxv] they should more accurately be called Euro-fascists.

    It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements that simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist Left, which, instead of placing itself in the front line of all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty,[xxvi] indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, developed a hundred years ago or so. The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy.

    National and Social Liberation Fronts everywhere!

    So, at this crucial historical juncture that will determine whether we shall all become subservient to neoliberal globalization and the transnational elite (as the DIEM25 Manifesto implies through our subordination to the EU) or not, it is imperative that we create a Popular Front in each country which will include all the victims of globalization among the popular strata, regardless of their current political affiliations.

    In Europe, in particular, where the popular strata are facing economic disaster, what is urgently needed is not an "antifascist" Front within the EU, as proposed by the 'parliamentary juntas' in power and the Euro-elites, also supported by the globalist "NewLeft" (such as Diem25, Plan B in Europe, Die Linke, the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK, SYRIZA in Greece and so on), which would, in fact, unite aggressors and victims. An 'antifascist' front would simply disorient the masses and make them incapable of facing the real fascism being imposed on them[xxviii] by the political and economic elites, which constitute the transnational and local elites. Instead, what is needed is a Popular Front for National and Social Liberation, which that could attract the vast majority of the people who would fight for immediate unilateral withdrawal from the EU – which is managed by the European part of the transnational elite – as well as for economic self- reliance, thus breaking with globalization.

    To my mind, it is only the creation of broad Popular Fronts that could effect each country's exit from the EU, NAFTA and similar economic unions, with the aim of achieving economic self-reliance. Re-development based on self-reliance is the only way in which peoples breaking away from globalization and its institutions (like the EU) could rebuild their productive structures, which have been dismantled by globalization. This could also, objectively, lay the ground for future systemic change, decided upon democratically by the peoples themselves. Therefore, the fundamental aim of the social struggle today should be a complete break with the present NWO and the building of a new global democratic community, in which economic and national sovereignty have been restored, so that peoples could then fight for the ideal society, as they see it.

    Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher, editor of Society & Nature/ Democracy and Nature/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. He has also been a columnist for the Athens Daily Eleftherotypia since 1990. Between 1969 and 1989 he was Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of North London (formerly Polytechnic of North London). He is the author of over 25 books and over 1,500 articles, many of which have been translated into various languages.

    This article is based on Ch. 4 of the book to be published next month by Progressive Press, The New World Order in Action, vol. 1: The NWO, the Left and Neo-Nationalism. This is a major three-volume project aiming to cover all aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/new-world-order-action

    Notes:

    Bruno Waterfield, "Juncker vows to use new powers to block the far-right", [i]The Times, 24/5/2016

    The original source of this article is Global Research. Copyright © Takis Fotopoulos , Global Research, 2016

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/globalization-the-massive-rise-of-neo-nationalism-and-the-bankruptcy-of-the-left/5527157

    [Sep 10, 2016] As Resistance Mounts, TPP Becoming 2016 Elections Third Rail

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.commondreams.org

    As the White House prepares for its final " all-out push " to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress, lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle are being made vulnerable due to growing opposition to the controversial, corporate-friendly trade deal.

    "[I]n 2016," the Guardian reported on Saturday, "America's faltering faith in free trade has become the most sensitive controversy in D.C."

    Yet President Barack Obama "has refused to give up," wrote Guardian journalists Dan Roberts and Ryan Felton, despite the fact that the 12-nation TPP "suddenly faces a wall of political opposition among lawmakers who had, not long ago, nearly set the giant deal in stone."

    ... ... ...

    Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post reported Thursday, but once-supportive Dems are also poised to jump ship.

    To that end, in a column this week, Campaign for America's Future blogger Dave Johnson listed for readers "28 House Democrat targets...who-in spite of opposition from most Democrats and hundreds of labor, consumer, LGBT, health, human rights, faith, democracy and other civil organizations-voted for the 'fast-track' trade promotion authority (TPA) bill that 'greased the skids' for the TPP by setting up rigged rules that will help TPP pass."

    Of the list that includes Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), Jared Polis (Colo.), and Ron Kind (Wis.), Johnson wrote: "Let's get them on the record before the election about whether they will vote for TPP after the election."

    [Sep 10, 2016] Sanders might run as a sheepdog from the very beginning. His attitude toward email skandal was an early warning that the game was rigged

    Notable quotes:
    "... Sanders is a touchy subject with me. The man was offered a spot on the Green party ticket, and obviously didn't take it. Considering the public disgust with the two slimeballs we're stuck with now, I believe he'd have had a real shot at the presidency. Despite my rating him as a C- at best, I'd have voted for the man. It's my opinion he'd have gotten a whole lot of Trump's base too. The poorer members of the GOP know they're getting the shaft, and I suspect a great many of them would have defected too. ..."
    "... There was a theory early-on that Sanders never was really serious, but instead was running as a "sheepdog" to lead the dirty hippy lefties to Clinton. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | angrybearblog.com

    Zachary Smith August 31, 2016 12:13 am

    Sanders is a touchy subject with me. The man was offered a spot on the Green party ticket, and obviously didn't take it. Considering the public disgust with the two slimeballs we're stuck with now, I believe he'd have had a real shot at the presidency. Despite my rating him as a C- at best, I'd have voted for the man. It's my opinion he'd have gotten a whole lot of Trump's base too. The poorer members of the GOP know they're getting the shaft, and I suspect a great many of them would have defected too.

    There was a theory early-on that Sanders never was really serious, but instead was running as a "sheepdog" to lead the dirty hippy lefties to Clinton. That theory looks more plausible now than it did earlier.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Donald Trump is right about defense spending – and that should scare you

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less. ..."
    "... U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582 billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40 billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil, sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand ..."
    "... As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. ..."
    "... "I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary, "like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor." ..."
    "... America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said during a campaign stop in South Carolina. ..."
    "... Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent. ..."
    "... Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute, estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next eight years. ..."
    "... He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. ..."
    "... The Super PAC that backed Bush funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending by $102 billion a year. ..."
    "... Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner to audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects. ..."
    "... Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut in defense spending. ..."
    "... At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National Guard. ..."
    "... Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest employers in the area. ..."
    "... During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're spending billions." ..."
    "... Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got the right idea. ..."
    "... In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more with so much less. ..."
    blogs.reuters.com

    Donald Trump could be the only presidential candidate talking sense about for the American military's budget. That should scare everyone.

    "I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right now," the real- estate-mogul-turned-tautological-demagogue said on Meet the Press. "It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less."

    He's right.

    U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582 billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40 billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil, sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand

    As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

    The much-maligned F-35 will cost at least $1.5 trillion during the 55 years that its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, expects it to be flying. That number is up $500 billion from the original high estimate. But with a long list of problems plaguing the stealth fighter, that price will most likely grow.

    "I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary, "like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor."

    America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said during a campaign stop in South Carolina.

    Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent.

    Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute, estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next eight years.

    Ballistic-missile-launching submarines aren't cheap, for example, and Cruz wants 12 of them. "If you think it's too expensive to defend this nation," Cruz said, "try not defending it."

    He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

    Ohio Governor John Kasich might be expected to have a more reasonable stance. After all, he sat on the House Armed Services Committee for almost 18 years, where he slashed budgets and challenged wasteful Pentagon projects.

    But that past is a liability for him. The Super PAC that backed Bush funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending by $102 billion a year.

    Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner to audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects.

    Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut in defense spending.

    A Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighter flies toward its new home at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, January 11, 2011. REUTERS/U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Joely Santiago/Handout

    At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National Guard.

    Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest employers in the area.

    Yet, Sanders ideological beliefs can sometimes color his views. He was chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee in 2014 as scandal swept the Department of Veterans Affairs. Even as many VA supporters called for reforms, Sanders defended the hospital system because he felt conservatives were attacking a major government social-welfare agency.

    He still defends his stewardship of the committee. "When I was chairman, what we did is pass a $15-billion piece of legislation," Sanders said during a recent debate with Clinton. "We went further than any time in recent history in improving the healthcare of the men and women in this country who put their lives on the line to defend us."

    In the age of terrorism and Islamic State bombers, the prevailing political wisdom holds that appearing soft on defense can lose a candidate the general election. For many of the 2016 presidential candidates, looking strong means spending a ton of cash. Even if you're from the party that holds fiscal responsibility as its cornerstone.

    But Trump doesn't care about any of that. In speech after speech, he has called out politicians and defense contractors for colluding to build costly weapons systems at the price of national security.

    During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're spending billions."

    Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got the right idea.

    In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more with so much less.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Be afraid, Donald Trump. Were about to see the best of Barack Obama

    All this discussion missed the most important point: Obama is neocon and neoliberal and he did what he was supposed to do. "Change we can believe is" was a masterful "bait and switch" operation to full the gullible electorate. he was just a useful puppet for globalist. They used him and they will threw him to the dust bin of history sweetened with $200k speeches.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people! ..."
    "... So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes? ..."
    "... Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency. ..."
    "... Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 ..."
    "... 'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with???? ..."
    "... Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy! ..."
    "... Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder. ..."
    "... Obama's presidency: 1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up. 2. Record # of people living on food stamps. 3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it) 4. Stagnant income for average family 5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income. 6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up. 7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore. ... ... Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over. ..."
    "... Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed. ..."
    "... Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts. ..."
    "... Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary? Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement. ..."
    "... "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries. ..."
    "... "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter? ..."
    "... Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians. ..."
    "... Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. ..."
    "... Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
    "... Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.) ..."
    "... Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did. ..."
    "... Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed). ..."
    "... Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence. ..."
    "... Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states. ..."
    "... Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street. ..."
    "... Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color, ..."
    "... Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state. ..."
    "... Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen ..."
    "... Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons. ..."
    "... Which of these things make you "so proud?" ..."
    "... You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it. ..."
    "... To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd. ..."
    "... This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on. ..."
    "... Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world. ..."
    "... Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-). ..."
    "... TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    slorter

    The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people!

    kittehpavolvski

    So, if we're about to see the best of Obama, what have we been seeing hitherto?

    waitforme

    So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes?

    ForestTrees

    Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency.

    ForestTrees -> Glenn J. Hill 31m ago

    Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

    HelenPatterson

    'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with????

    What a fatuous article about the world's leading terrorist.

    And of course we shouldn't forget that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined.

    Let's not forget that he claims and has exercised his 'right' to murder his own citizens on the basis of secret evidence - one being a 16 year old boy. And when the White House spokesman was asked why the boy was murdered by drone, he said 'He should have had a more responsible father'.

    He sings off on his 'Kill List' of domestic and foreign nationals every Tuesday, dubbed 'Terror Tuesday' by his staff.

    Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy!

    ID7715785

    Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder.

    ninjamia

    Oh, I know. He'll repeat the snide and nasty remarks about Trump that he gave at the Press Club dinner. Such style and grace - not.

    J.K. Stevens -> ninjamia

    Sit back and weep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

    fflambeau

    Casting Donald Trump as the Big Bad Wolf doesn't bring about real change.

    And sadly, in his almost 8 years in office (2 years with absolute control over the Congress) Barack Obama has brought about little real change. For him it is a slogan.

    Larry Robinson

    Obama's presidency:
    1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up.
    2. Record # of people living on food stamps.
    3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it)
    4. Stagnant income for average family
    5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income.
    6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up.
    7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore.
    ... ...

    Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over.

    shinNeMIN -> Larry Robinson

    $500 million worth of arm supply?

    hadeze242 -> Major MajorMajor

    while Obama's messy military interventions become more and more confused, chaotic and tragic his personal appearance gets ever more Hollywood: perfect attire, smile and just the right words. I would prefer the inverse, less tailoring and neat haircuts, but more honesty and transparency. e.g., Obama lied about the NSA for how long in this first term. Answer: all four years long and beyond into the 2nd term.

    BostonCeltics

    Six more months until he goes into the dustbin of history. Small minded people in positions of power who take things personally are the epitome of incompetence.

    Mats Almgren

    Obama became a worse president than Bush. Endless moneyprinting, bombing nine countries, created a operation Condor 2.0 with interventions in Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, didn't withdraw any troops from Afghanistan, lifted the weapon embargo on Vietnam to sell US weapons and at the same time forcing Vietnam to not do trade deals with China, intimidating the Phillipines from doing trade with China, restarted the cold war which had led to biggest military ramp up in Eastern Europe since 1941, drone bombed weddings and hospitals and what not, supported islam militants in Libya, Syria and Iraq which has led to total devastation in these countries. And there has been an increase in the constant US interventionism regarding European elections and referendums. And has continuously protected the dollar hegemony causing death and destruction thoughout the world.

    With that track record it's easy to say that Obama might be worst US president ever. And there has been hardly any critism and critical thinking in the more and more propagandistic and agenda driven western media.

    It's like living in the twilight zone reading the media in Sweden and Britain.

    Jose Sanchez -> Mats Almgren

    Blame a president for trying to sell what we still manufacture are you?

    Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed.

    NewWorldWatcher

    The new leader of the Republican party thinks that that it was stupid to go into Iraq and Afghanistan but it would be good to carpet bomb ISIS. He IS a great Republican. No wonder this party is on the fringe of extinction.

    Mats Almgren -> NewWorldWatcher

    Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts.

    trundlesome1

    Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary?

    Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement.

    zootsuitbeatnick

    "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries.

    That's as hyper-competitive as Trump is selfless.
    Try to be at least a little reality-based.

    hadeze242

    the best of Pres. Obama? Perhaps only someone living a life in the UK could dream this strange dream? Great, compared to whom, to what? Never since WW2 has the US & world seen such a weak, openly-prejudiced, non-performing Pres. Remember O's plan to save Afghanistan? Lybia? Then, working (bombing) with Putin's Russia to collaterally bomb the beautiful, developed, cultural nation of Syria. To what end I ask? To create refugees? Obama has never been at his best, always only at his worst. Ah, yes, his smooth-lawyered sentences come with commas & periods and all that, but there is no feeling inside the man. This man is a great, oratory actor. His promises are well-written & endless, but delivery is never coming. Yes, we can .. was his electoral phrase. No, we can't ... after 8 long, wasted yrs was his result.

    NewWorldWatcher

    In Las Vegas they are gaming on how many votes will Trump lose by not who will win. A Trump loss will be in excess of 10 Million votes.......5to2 odds. The worse loss in recent history!

    Janet Re Johnson -> NewWorldWatcher

    From your mouth to God's ears. But I'm a big baseball fan, so I know it ain't over till it's over.

    Larry Robinson

    Also it's when Obama talks out of outburst rather than from a teleprompter that you can tell his true capability as a leader or lack thereof.

    Notice that Obama said ... not once has an advisor tells him to use the term "radical Islam" ... . Well Mr Obama, it's your own call to decide what term to use on this issue so why are you bringing your advisors out for credence. Right or wrong that's your own decision so you should stand behind it. When you bring advisors in to defend what should be your own call it shows WEAKNESS.

    Obama basically tells everyone that he needs his advisors to tell him what do b/c he does NOT know how to handle it by himself. So who's the leader here, Obama or his advisors? Is Obama just a puppet that needs his advisors to pull the string constantly? Ouch.

    It's the prompter-free moment like this that the truth about Obama comes out. I wonder why Trump has not picked this clear hole up yet.

    raffine

    The POTUS will crush Mr Trump like a 200 year old peanut.

    Carolyn Walas Libbey -> raffine

    The POTUS is about as useful as an old condom.

    PortalooMassacre

    Exposed to the toxic smugness of Richard Wolffe, I'm beginning to see what people find attractive about Donald Trump's refreshing barbarism.

    guy ventner -> synechdoche

    "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter?

    Ron Shuffler

    "Greatest President since Lincoln" "I am proud - so proud! - to say that this man is MY President! Personally, I am ashamed that this man is my President.
    But anyway, here's what Richard Wolffe and y'all are so proud of:

    Here's what your favorite President actually did:

    1. Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians.
    2. Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined.
    3. Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    4. Deported at least 2.8 million "illegal" immigrants
    5. Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.)
    6. Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did.
    7. Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed).
    8. Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence.
    9. Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states.
    10. Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street.
    11. Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color,
    12. Left Guantanamo open (though as Commander-in-Chief he could have closed it down with a phone call).
    13. Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state.
    14. Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen
    15. Sent billions of dollars to the new military rulers of Egypt
    16. Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons.

    Which of these things make you "so proud?"

    BG Davis -> Ron Shuffler

    You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it.
    At the same time, you overestimate the simplicity of just closing Guantanamo prison with "a phone call." So he makes the phone call; then what happens to the prisoners? They aren't all innocent non-entities who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Larry Robinson

    It's only in the mind of die hard liberals that Obama has been strong against terrorists. Just look at how he handles Syria situation. Asad - a Shiite govt - is a sworn enemy to ISIS - a Sunni organization so if you are serious about ISIS you should utilize Asad, right? Well no, Obama is so hell-bent on unseating Asad that he supports those rebels that are also Sunni-based and cozy with ISIS. To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd.

    Lafcadio1944

    What part of Obama's criminal acts in office do think are the best? For me the very best of Obama is how he can project power so suavely while standing before the world as a prima facia criminal. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!! Under the law those who order and/or carry out torture MUST be prosecuted. THAT IS INTERNATIONAL, TREATY AND DOMESTIC US LAW.

    The oh so great and powerful Obama he of such dignity in office has SHOWN UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW!!!

    But that's OK he will say bad things about Trump.

    This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on.

    I want to vomit when the press acts so hypocritically ready to jump all over Putin or China in a heart beat - but challenge US officials who openly violate the law - not a chance.

    babymamaboy

    Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world.

    It would be really easy for him to call it like it is -- we don't care who you worship, just don't mess with our oil. But he actively feeds the narrative while chiding Trump for being too enthusiastic about it. I guess that's what passes for US leadership these days.

    urgonnatrip

    Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex.

    How has Barack done? He's held them in check and avoided an escalation to WW3. I wish I could say the next president was going to continue the trend but somehow I doubt it.

    KerryB -> urgonnatrip

    You had me right up until the last line. I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-).

    zolotoy -> KerryB

    Yeah, just ignore Hillary Clinton's actual record, right?

    AgnosticKen

    TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Is Hillary a Sociopath

    This is an article from 2008 campaign. Still relevant.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary lies, repeatedly and recklessly. ..."
    "... In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough. No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy. ..."
    "... Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next. ..."
    "... Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking about her vote on the war in Iraq. ..."
    "... In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance that would kill two birds with one stone. ..."
    Apr 01, 2008 | dailykos.com

    Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary lies, repeatedly and recklessly.

    She lies when she doesn't need to. And she lies as much for self-aggrandizement as for political gain.

    Sociopaths, driven by an unnatural appetite to get what they want NOW–a t.v. set or the presidency– can't suffer the patience it takes to craft a lie carefully. And their narcissism, coupled with a complete lack of morality, enables them to advance the most outrageous lies. Lies that make you shake your head in disbelief. Lies that end up on "Meet the Press."

    What me worry Hillary. By the time she's busted, the lie has done its work. Confronted, she's cool as a sociopath:"So, I made a mistake." Or I'm a victim of someone else who lies. I voted for the Iraq war because Bush bamboozled me.

    In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough. No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy.

    Lies to show she's got CIC and foreign policy credentials claim she

    1. "landed under sniper fire" in Bosnia.
    2. "helped bring peace to Ireland"
    3. "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into Kosovo"

    The historical record, various eye-witnesses, and contemporaneous sources prove all three claims false "beyond a reasonable doubt."

    Further, Hillary has taken the lion's share of credit for SCHIP. Orrin Hatch, with the disclaimer that he likes her, felt honor-bound to answer this claim honestly: "…does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No – Teddy does, but she doesn't."

    It is clear from HRC's First Lady records, recently released by The National Archives and President Clinton's Library, as well as numerous eye-witness and Press reports that whatever her private thoughts, HRC was head cheerleader on Bill's NAFTA team. Ironically, just days before the Ohio and Texas primaries, Hillary exploited a timely but inaccurate AP report to raise doubts about Obama's NAFTA stance. She succeeded in shifting the contest's outcome.

    Days after AP was contradicted by its own sources within the Canadian government and Press, she continued to hector her rival with yesterday's news until the clock ran out. Though no longer news, latest developments point to Clinton as the NAFTA waffler.

    Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next.

    Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking about her vote on the war in Iraq.

    Let's not mince words. I'm talking about her vote FOR the war in Iraq.

    In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance that would kill two birds with one stone.

    More next diary: From the ashes of 9/11, a new Hillary rises

    [Sep 10, 2016] Sanders was the geriatric Obama, dispensing more Hopium for the dopes. And when Clinton feigns adoption of Sanders policy, like not signing the TPP, she is LYING.

    Picked from comments...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. ..."
    "... spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. ..."
    "... sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. ..."
    OffGuardian

    Richard Le Sarcophage, July 28, 2016

    Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. He is, in fact, with his total and immediate roll-over, even as the corruption of the process was categorically exposed by the e-mails, making no pretense otherwise, spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. He was the geriatric Obama, dispensing more Hopium for the dopes. And when Clinton feigns adoption of Sanders policy, like not signing the TPP, she is LYING.

    Diana, July 28, 2016

    Sanders' own campaign called him the "youth whisperer", but sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. Perhaps he did so hoping that the DNC would play fair, but that goes to show you he's no socialist. A real socialist would have been able to size up the opposition, not made any gentleman's agreements with them and waged a real campaign.


    rtj1211, July 26, 2016

    So far as I'm aware, there must be a mechanism for an Independent to put their name on the ballot.

    If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting for either Hillary or the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent would barely need any publicity. They'd just need to be on the ballot.

    Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase up as 'another Independent' so as they would have someone who'd do as they were told no matter what.

    But until the US public say 'da nada! Pasta! Finito! To hell with the Democrats and the GOP!', you'll still get the choice of 'let's invade Iran' or 'let's nuke Russia'. You'll get the choice of giving Israel a blowjob or agreeing to be tied up and have kinky sex with Israel. You'll get the choice of bailing out Wall Street or bailing out Wall Street AND cutting social security for the poorest Americans. You'll get the choice of running the USA for the bankers or running the USA for the bankers and a few multinational corporations.

    Oh, they'll have to fight for it, just as Martin Luther King et al had to fight for civil rights. They may have the odd candidate shot by the CIA, the oil men or the weapons men. Because that's how US politics works.

    But if they don't want a Republican or a Republican-lite, they need to select an independent and vote for them.

    The rest of us? We have to use whatever influence we have to try and limit what they try to do overseas…….because we are affected by what America does overseas…….

    [Sep 10, 2016] Bernie Sanders should regret what he has done -- he betrayed the very people who believed in this political revolution repeating Obama bat and switch maneuver of 2008

    Sanders as a pupil of the king of "bait and switch" Obama
    Notable quotes:
    "... I think he will come to deeply regret what he has done. He has betrayed these people who believed in this political revolution. We heard this same kind of rhetoric, by the way, in 2008 around Obama. ..."
    Aug 06, 2016 | www.democracynow.org

    CHRIS HEDGES : Well, I didn't back Bernie Sanders because-and Kshama Sawant and I had had a discussion with him before-because he said that he would work within the Democratic structures and support the nominee.

    And I think we have now watched Bernie Sanders walk away from his political moment. You know, he - I think he will come to deeply regret what he has done. He has betrayed these people who believed in this political revolution. We heard this same kind of rhetoric, by the way, in 2008 around Obama.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Sanders is now backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Whether he plays Gorbachov or this is Stockholm syndrome shame on him!

    Notable quotes:
    "... That means backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Shame on him! He told his followers to think of pie in the sky in the decades it will take to take over the Democratic Party from below, from school boards, etc. ..."
    "... What on earth is revolution if it doesn't include either remove the rot in the Democratic Party, the Wall Street control, or start another party? It had to be one or the other. Here was his chance. I think he missed it. ..."
    "... He did miss his chance. Some people were suggesting that he should walk and form his own party. Particularly how the party treated him. ..."
    "... The Democrats and the Republicans together have made it almost impossible for a third party to get registered in every state. To run in every state. To get just all of the mechanics you need because of all the lawsuits against them. The Green Party is the only party that had already solved that. Apart from the Libertarian Party. ..."
    "... The oligarchs have joined the Republicans and the Democrats are now seen to be the same party, called the Democratic Party. Here was his chance to make an alternative. ..."
    "... I believe Hillary's the greater evil, not Trump, because Trump is incompetent and doesn't have the staff around him, or the political support that Hilary has. ..."
    "... I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. ..."
    "... I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight! ..."
    "... Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. ..."
    "... I agree with Hudson that HRC is the greater threat. I also agree with him that Bernie makes no sense. What the hell did Bernie have to lose? He could have accepted the prez nomination with the Greens. In fact, he should have run third party from the git-go. By sucking up to the dems that politically raped him, Bernie is exhibiting a variation of Stockholm syndrome. ..."
    "... Bernie's problem in the end is that he couldn't see that in order to gain power in the Democratic Party (i.e., in order to dislodge the Clintons), the Left might (probably would) have to lose an election. ..."
    "... The Democratic PoC (Party of Clinton) had to be shown as a party that could not win an election without its left half. He wrongly saw the powerless Trump as the greater threat, something that could only be done if he still at least marginally trusted Hillary to ever keep her word on anything. He will come to see that as his greatest mistake of all. ..."
    "... Bernie reminds me of Gorbachev. Both clearly saw what the problem was with their respective societies, but still thought that things could be fixed by changing their respective parties. Bernie it seems, like Gorbachev before him, can not intellectually accept that effective reforms require radical action on the existing power structures. Gorbachev could not break with the Communist system and Bernie can not break with the Democratic party. ..."
    "... I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. ..."
    "... I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight! ..."
    "... Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. ..."
    Aug 10, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    PERIES: Let's turn to Sanders's strategy here. Now, Sanders is, of course, asking people to support Hillary. And if you buy into the idea that she is the lesser of two evils candidate, then we also have to look at Bernie's other strategy – which is to vote as many people as we possibly can at various other levels of the elections that are going on at congressional levels, Senate level, at municipal levels. Is that the way to go, so that we can avoid some of these choices we are offered?

    HUDSON: Well, this is what I don't understand about Sanders's strategy. He says we need a revolution. He's absolutely right. But then, everything he said in terms of the election is about Trump. I can guarantee you that the revolution isn't really about Trump. The way Sanders has described things, you have to take over the Democratic Party and pry away the leadership, away from Wall Street, away from the corporations.

    Democrats pretend to be a party of the working class, a party of the people. But it's teetering with Hillary as it's candidate. If ever there was a time to split it, this was the year. But Bernie missed his chance. He knuckled under and said okay, the election's going to be about Trump. Forget the revolution that I've talked about. Forget reforming the Democratic Party, I'm sorry. Forget that I said Hillary is not fit to be President. I'm sorry, she is fit to be President. We've got to back her.

    That means backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Shame on him! He told his followers to think of pie in the sky in the decades it will take to take over the Democratic Party from below, from school boards, etc.

    Labor unions said this half a century ago. It didn't work. Bernie gave up on everything to back the TPP candidate, the neocon candidate.

    What on earth is revolution if it doesn't include either remove the rot in the Democratic Party, the Wall Street control, or start another party? It had to be one or the other. Here was his chance. I think he missed it.

    PERIES: I think there's a lot of people out there that agree with that analysis, Michael. He did miss his chance. Some people were suggesting that he should walk and form his own party. Particularly how the party treated him. But there is another choice out there. In fact, we at the Real News is out there covering the Green Party election as we are speaking here, Michael. Is that an option?

    HUDSON: It would have been the only option for him. He had decided that you can't really mount a third party, because it's so hard. The Democrats and the Republicans together have made it almost impossible for a third party to get registered in every state. To run in every state. To get just all of the mechanics you need because of all the lawsuits against them. The Green Party is the only party that had already solved that. Apart from the Libertarian Party.

    So here you have the only possible third party he could have run on this time, and he avoided it. I'm sure he must of thought about it. He was offered the presidency on it. He could of used that and brought his revolution into that party and then expanded it as a real alternative to both the Democrats and the Republicans. Because the Republican Party is already split, by the fact that the Tea Party's pretty much destroyed it. The oligarchs have joined the Republicans and the Democrats are now seen to be the same party, called the Democratic Party. Here was his chance to make an alternative.

    I don't think there will be a chance like this again soon. I believe Hillary's the greater evil, not Trump, because Trump is incompetent and doesn't have the staff around him, or the political support that Hilary has. I think Bernie missed his chance to take this party and develop it very quickly, just like George Wallace could have done back in the 1960s when he had a chance. I think Chris Hedges and other people have made this point with you. I have no idea what Bernie's idea of a revolution is, if he's going to try to do it within the Democratic Party that's just stamped on him again and again, you're simply not going to have a revolution within the Democratic party.

    Butch In Waukegan ,, August 10, 2016 at 9:51 am

    Sanders' convention endorsement:

    I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care.

    I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled.

    Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight!

    Sanders' campaign was premised on exactly the opposite. How can anyone now take Bernie seriously?

    Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

    crittermom ,, August 10, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    Okay. I know this comment will bring forth much backlash, but I'm gonna put it out there anyway since my 'give-a-shitter' was severely cracked over 4 yrs ago (when 2 sheriff's deputies evicted me from my home while I had been current on my pymts when the bank foreclosed and the response from EVERY govt agency I contacted told me to "hire a lawyer", which I couldn't afford, with one costing much more than I owed on my home of 20 yrs). I had bought my first house by the time I graduated h.s. and had owned one ever since until now.

    My 'give-a-shitter' completely shattered this year with the election, so here goes:

    So it seems we are offered 3 choices when we vote. Trump, Hillary or Green.

    To someone who is among the 8-10 MILLION (depending on whose figures you believe) whose home was illegally taken from them by the banksters, I would welcome a 4th choice since none of the 3 offered will improve my life before I die.

    The consensus seems to be that it'll take decades to create change through voting.

    I'm a divorced woman turning 65. I don't feel I have decades to wait, while I am forced to live in a place that doesn't even have a flush toilet because it's all I can afford. To someone my age with no degrees or special skills, the job market is nonexistent, even if I lived in a big city (where I couldn't afford the rent).

    When I see reports of an increase in new homes being built, I'd love to see a breakdown showing exactly how many of those homes will be primary residences and how many are second (or third, or fourth) homes.

    There are 4 new custom homes being built within a half mile of me.
    None will be primary residences. All will be 'vacation' homes.

    Yet if we're to believe the latest figures, "the housing market is improving!"
    For whom?

    Yes, I'm extremely disappointed that Bernie bailed on us. I doubt either of us will live long enough to see the change required to change this govt and save the planet with our current choices this election.

    I fear the only thing that this election has given me was initially great hope for my future, before being plunged into the darkness of the same ol', same ol' as my only choices.

    I was never radical or oppositional in my life but I would now welcome a revolution. I don't see me living long enough to welcome that change by voting. Especially with the blatant voter suppression and all else that transpired this election.

    While the govt and political oligarchs may fear Russia & ISIS, if they met 8-10 million of us victims of the banksters, they would come to realize real fear, from those within their homeland.

    Most are horrified when I offer this view, saying I'd be thrown in prison.
    Hmmm…considering that…I'd be fed, clothed, housed-and I'd have a flush toilet!

    Gads, I'd love to see millions of us march on Washington & literally throw those in power out of their seats onto the lawn, saying "enough is enough"!

    So I guess my question is, does anyone else feel as 'at the end of their rope' as I do?
    Can you even truly imagine being in my position and what you would do or how you would feel?

    Yes. I screamed, cried, and wrote Bernie's campaign before his endorsement speech was even completed, expressing my disappointment, after foregoing meals to send him my meager contributions.

    My hopes were shattered and I'm growing impatient for change.

    backwardsevolution ,, August 10, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    crittermom/Bullwinkle – here's one of the articles by Chris Hedges on Bernie Sanders:

    "Because the party is completely captive to corporate power," Hedges said. "And Bernie has cut a Faustian deal with the Democrats. And that's not even speculation. I did an event with him and Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein and Kshama Sawant in New York the day before the Climate March. And Kshama Sawant ,the Socialist City Councilwoman from Seattle and I asked Sanders why he wanted to run as a Democrat. And he said - because I don't want to end up like Nader."

    "He didn't want to end up pushed out of the establishment," Hedges said. "He wanted to keep his committee chairmanships, he wanted to keep his Senate seat. And he knew the forms of retribution, punishment that would be visited upon him if he applied his critique to the Democratic establishment. So he won't."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/15/chris-hedges-on-bernie-sanders-and-the-corporate-democrats/

    Lambert Strether ,, August 10, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    I don't get what's wrong with not ending up like Nader.

    And if Sanders saved the left from another two decades of "Nader Nader neener neener!" more power to him, say I.

    backwardsevolution ,, August 10, 2016 at 8:55 pm

    Fair enough. I don't know enough about Nader to care. To me, it was just the about-face that Bernie did, going from denouncing Hillary (albeit not very strongly) to embracing her. I think if I had been one of his supporters who cheered him on, sent him money, got my hopes raised that he would go all the way, I would have been very disappointed. Almost like a tease.

    crittermom ,, August 10, 2016 at 8:51 pm

    Thanks for that link.

    I'd wanted Bernie to run as an Independent more than anything, but I can understand him wanting to keep his Senate seat and chairs. Without them, he has no power to bring change.
    I had believed he had a good chance to win, whipping a big Bernie Bird to both parties and changing things in my lifetime, running Independent.

    I now realize just how completely corrupt our political system is. Far worse than I ever could have imagined. Wow, have my eyes been opened!

    I'm beginning to think this election may just come down to who has the bigger thugs, Trump or HRC.

    EndOfTheWorld , August 10, 2016 at 5:04 am

    I agree with Hudson that HRC is the greater threat. I also agree with him that Bernie makes no sense. What the hell did Bernie have to lose? He could have accepted the prez nomination with the Greens. In fact, he should have run third party from the git-go. By sucking up to the dems that politically raped him, Bernie is exhibiting a variation of Stockholm syndrome.

    Benedict@Large , August 10, 2016 at 7:26 am

    Bernie's problem in the end is that he couldn't see that in order to gain power in the Democratic Party (i.e., in order to dislodge the Clintons), the Left might (probably would) have to lose an election.

    The Democratic PoC (Party of Clinton) had to be shown as a party that could not win an election without its left half. He wrongly saw the powerless Trump as the greater threat, something that could only be done if he still at least marginally trusted Hillary to ever keep her word on anything. He will come to see that as his greatest mistake of all.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 11:34 am

    Very well stated++

    Another Anon , August 10, 2016 at 7:27 am

    Bernie reminds me of Gorbachev. Both clearly saw what the problem was with their respective societies, but still thought that things could be fixed by changing their respective parties. Bernie it seems, like Gorbachev before him, can not intellectually accept that effective reforms require radical action on the existing power structures. Gorbachev could not break with the Communist system and Bernie can not break with the Democratic party.

    diptherio , August 10, 2016 at 11:33 am

    Bernie is too nice for his own good. He should have used the DNC machinations as an excuse to go back on his promise to endorse. "I made that promise on the assumption that we would all be acting in good faith. Sadly, that has proved not to be the case."

    But no, he's too much of a politician, or too nice, or has too much sense of personal pride…or had his life and his family threatened if he didn't toe the line (not that I'm foily). Whatever his motivations, we don't get a "Get out of Responsibility Free" card just because one dude made some mis-steps. If that's all it takes to derail us, we're so, so screwed.

    Reply
    perpetualWAR , August 10, 2016 at 11:42 am

    No, Bernie is exhibiting behavior of a man whose family was theatened. There's no other explanation for his pained face at the convention.

    Griffith W Jones , August 10, 2016 at 5:30 am

    I also agree with Hudson and EndOfTheWorld that HRC is the greater threat and that Sanders makes no sense.

    Sure, the Dems probably threatened to kick him off of Congressional Committees and to back a rival in Vermont.

    So what! With his tenure and at his age, what's really to lose? If he couldn't face off someone in his home state, it's probably time to retire anyway. And it's not like he was ever in it for the money.

    The best he gets now is mild tolerance from his masters. "Give me your followers and lick my boots." What a coward, could have made history, now he's a goat.

    Fortunately, his "followers" have more integrity…

    Eman , August 10, 2016 at 5:33 am

    It's actually not so surprising given his long history of working within the mainstream system, simply along its fringes. I think many may have been falling into the '08 Obama trap of seeing what they wanted to see in him.

    As a senator he's had plenty of opportunities to grandstand, gum up the works, etc, and he really never does. Even his "filibuster" a few years back wasn't all that disruptive.

    Reply
    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 5:37 am

    EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie. Diametrically opposed to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her! What? I will never understand that.

    "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."

    He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals.

    She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again said she wants to take out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just hope that there's a big Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.

    Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of course, if war wasn't making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary, never mind its continual expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.

    God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP, more NATO, more war, and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails hanging around, now is the time!

    Butch In Waukegan , August 10, 2016 at 9:51 am

    Sanders' convention endorsement:

    I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care.

    I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled.

    Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight!

    Sanders' campaign was premised on exactly the opposite. How can anyone now take Bernie seriously?

    Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good quote on how she felt about universal health care:

    "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)

    "David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer "Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/27/feel-the-hate/

    That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care.

    Perhaps Yves could highlight Hillary's disdain for single-payer healthcare on another post. Thanks.

    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen CBS

    [Sep 10, 2016] Twenty silver coins for Bernie

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bernie had cashed in on the Revolution that he had betrayed, citing as evidence the purchase of a third ..."
    "... I said there might be more to the story, like the fact that Bernie had signed a book deal (ala the Clintons) where he would tell the story of his Glorious Revolution (which ended up with him dumping his foot soldiers into the vaults of the very machine they were warring against.) And guess what? I was right. ..."
    "... Los Angeles Times ..."
    Aug 14, 2016 | www.counterpunch.org

    On Tuesday afternoon, my friend Michael Colby, the fearless environmental activist in Vermont, sent me news that Bernie Sanders had just purchased a new waterfront house on in North Hero, Vermont. I linked to the story on my Facebook page, quipping that Bernie had cashed in on the Revolution that he had betrayed, citing as evidence the purchase of a third house for the Sanders family, a lakefront summer dacha for $600,000.

    This ignited a firestorm on Zuckerburg's internet playpen. People noted that Bernie and Jane lived a penurious existence, surviving on coupons and the kindness of strangers, and the house was just a cramped four-bedroom fishing shack on a cold icy lake with hardly any heat–a place so forsaken even the Iroquois of old wouldn't camp there–which they were only able to afford because Jane sold her dead parents' house.

    I said there might be more to the story, like the fact that Bernie had signed a book deal (ala the Clintons) where he would tell the story of his Glorious Revolution (which ended up with him dumping his foot soldiers into the vaults of the very machine they were warring against.) And guess what? I was right.

    Coming in November to a bookstore near you….Our Revolution by Thomas Dunne Books.

    The love for Bernie is truly blind. It's also touching. I've never seen Leftists defend the purchase of $600,000 lakefront summer homes with such tenacity!

    ... ... ...

    By the way, the median cost of homes sold in North Hero, Vermont so far this year is $189,000.

    ... ... ...

    Fulfilling his pledge to Hillary, Bernie Sanders took to the pages of the Los Angeles Times to plead with his followers to get behind Clinton as the one person who could "unite the country" against Trump.

    In the wake of this pathetic capitulation to the Queen of Chaos, our Australian Shepard, Boomer, drafted an Open Letter on behalf of all sheepdogs renouncing any association with Bernie Sanders. One of the signatories (a Blue Healer from Brentwood) swore, however, that she saw Sander's head popping out of Paris Hilton's handbag…

    A friend lamented the fact that all of the fun and spirit had gone out of the election campaign since Sanders was "neutralized." Was Bernie neutralized? I thought that Bernie neutralized himself. And it was hard to watch. Like an x-rated episode of Nip/Tuck.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Blood Feud The Clintons vs. the Obamas

    Notable quotes:
    "... The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other. ..."
    "... Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president since 2009. ..."
    "... I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their version of events into play. ..."
    "... The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious; Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive, i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded. It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he dies. ..."
    "... You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much else. ..."
    "... There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively; you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy with a bad heart condition? ..."
    "... He and Hillary lead separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence, and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House should she be elected. ..."
    "... some presidential couples become closer in the White House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively estranged. ..."
    "... The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics, as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on any number of fronts. ..."
    Amazon.com
    Daniel Berger

    5.0 out of 5 stars Klein documents how the Obama-Clinton feud evolved and deepened. July 8, 2014

    The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other. Edward Klein documents why and how in this entertaining and fast moving book. It's a good political beach read.

    It's mostly about three elections: that of 2008, where Barack Obama came from behind to knock off front-runner Hillary Clinton for the nomination, with charges and countercharges of race-card-playing in the South Carolina primary; 2012, where Bill Clinton made a whizbang nominating speech for someone he can't stand and Hillary drank the Kool-Aid in agreeing to lie about Benghazi - `it was a spontaneous riot caused by a video' - to seal Obama's reelection; and the 2016 election, where Obama promised Clinton he'd support Hillary in exchange for their carrying his water, then reneged on it.

    There are tons of details and fly-on-the-wall accounts of conversations. The Clintons come off much better than the Obamas do. We know most of the Clintons' dirt already and, as a nation, don't seem to care too much, but meanwhile they seem to have a clue about how to run the country, while the Obamas don't. Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president since 2009.

    I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their version of events into play. Klein found leakers near the Obamas who are unhappy with them, but many Clinton sources appear to be lifelong friends seemingly given the green light to talk for this book - people who wouldn't jeopardize their relationship to do so. And for many of the quotations, there would be no question in the Clintons' minds who had given them - people party to conversations where only one or two others were present. So it stands to reason the anonymous sources don't mind the Clintons knowing.

    The Clintons, heavily covered for over 20 years, may realize there isn't much that can hurt them that hasn't already been printed. We all know about Monica, Clinton's womanizing, the financial scandals dating back to Arkansas days, Hillary's temper and so on. And a lot of the inside poop here is either flattering - Bill Clinton as political mastermind, say - or humanizing. It's remarkable that the Clintons stay together after all they've been through, but they seem politically fascinated with each other. And it's remarkable how many times Hillary initially tells Bill off about something, only to agree later that he's right and go ahead with it. Quite cute, say, is the anecdote about how Bill convinced Hillary to "have some work done" on her face after leaving the State Department, by first doing it himself.

    The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious; Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive, i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded. It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he dies.

    The Obamas seem more on the defensive and more paranoid. You don't get any sense of Klein's sources spinning the narrative back in their direction. Barack comes across as a narcissist stemming from a deepset insecurity about his lack of experience pre-presidency. He's someone who doesn't read much beyond popular novels but thinks he's brilliant. He's visibly bored with the dull business of running the country. He doesn't prepare in advance for big international conferences, who he'll meet and what they'll talk about; he figures he'll just wing it. Detractors (like Hillary) call his administration "rudderless".

    He's threatened by Bill Clinton, who not only isn't intimidated by him but tries to lecture him. (There's a priceless account of a dinner between the two couples - the strained conversations, Obama ignoring Clinton by reading his Blackberry under the table, Obama sneaking out and coming back a while later smelling of cigarettes.) He's shielded from much by Valerie Jarrett, who surrounds him with sycophants and upon whom he relies too much. She has her own room in the presidential quarters and is the only outsider who eats with the family. He thinks he can move the world with his speeches.

    You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much else. Michelle more or less invites herself and friends to Oprah Winfrey's Hawaii estate for a joint birthday party, in part to draw her back into the Obamas' camp and keep her out of Hillary's. The weeklong stay goes fine, but Oprah resists any political rapprochement, and even starts promoting Hillary not long afterwards.

    Obama picks Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg (a third Democratic family as powerful as the Obamas or Clintons) as ambassador to Japan, a way-too-late thanks for Kennedy family support in 2008 - and, apparently, just to get her halfway around the world from Hillary's candidacy.

    It amazes me that the Obamas would work this hard to undermine their own party's frontrunner for the 2016 nomination. The Clintons will have raised a billion dollars for the run.

    There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively; you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy with a bad heart condition?

    His penthouse over the Clinton Library in Little Rock is his bachelor pad - Hillary avoids Little Rock - and effectively the Playboy Mansion South, the scene of many swinging parties. Klein suggests that the town not only shields its favorite son from scrutiny, but that its women, married and single alike, line up to sleep with him. Klein quotes one person saying Clinton will hit on married women even in front of their own husbands. (You'd think in Arkansas this would get a man shot, but then most other men there don't enjoy lifelong Secret Service protection.) He and Hillary lead separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence, and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House should she be elected.

    Klein notes some presidential couples become closer in the White House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively estranged. Michelle Obama, of whom White House staffers are terrified, will burst in suddenly on her husband if he's in a room with other women; she's suspicious of him, believing he'd like to emulate Clinton's ways. Her post-White House plans, according to this book, don't include him. She and Valerie Jarrett, who plans to follow her, envision a high life of globetrotting funded by wealthy donors where they sit on corporate boards and don't have to do much work.

    Barack Obama wants to retain control of the party, but Bill Clinton already sees him losing his clout and political capital.

    The real question mark goes back to Bill Clinton's health. If he dies - a guy with this bad a heart condition? Waitresses and Little Rock matrons, think about it - some think Hillary, relying upon his advice forever, may not go ahead with a presidential run. It often sounds like more his obsession than hers, other than the first-woman-president thing. The family foundation's reins have been handed to Chelsea, in part to take pressure off Bill, and she is being positioned as his replacement as Mom's closest advisor and confidante. Others think Chelsea would encourage her mother to run if Bill dies because it's what he would have wanted. You get the feeling that Hillary, for all her ambition, doesn't have all that much fire in the belly - that it's Bill who's given her the vision, encouraged her, pushed her, made her see a path through obstacles, and been willing to fight battles large and small where she would have been more inclined to go along, get along and acquiesce.

    Truly surreal is the ending. Bill tells an appalled Hillary, in front of friends, exactly how to stage his funeral if he dies before the election: what to wear (widow's weeds), where to do it (Arlington, he's a former commander in chief.) If properly done, he said, the video footage will be worth a couple of million votes." Not for nothing do they call him the smartest political mind of his time.

    PS The day before I filed this, I saw a story online at Business Insider quoting an unnamed Clinton confidante attacking this book as lies, all lies, nothing but lies. The story didn't specifically rebut anything or cite any specific error in the book; it reprised a finding of an error in one of Klein's previous books. It suggests to me, though, this book is right, if the attack against it is as unspecific as "lies, lies, nothing but lies." Perhaps the Clinton camp is doing some preventive public fulminating so that they can deny the unflattering or unfavorable parts of it. I still think they planted a lot of this.

    The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics, as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on any number of fronts.

    [Sep 10, 2016] Obama has proven to be a weak chief executive who is unable to work well with congressional leaders. Obama is not well respected in the Democratic Party

    Notable quotes:
    "... Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS and his power spouse. ..."
    "... Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery. ..."
    amazon.com

    Bloody Feud presents in grisly details the sanguinary slugfest between the Obamas and Clintons over power in the White House, July 5, 2014

    By C. M Mills

    Verified Purchase(What's this?)

    This review is from: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas (Hardcover)

    Blood Feud is a political hardball slammed into the guts of the two most powerful couples in the Democratic Party. Ed Klein who won fame for his earlier ":The Amateur": book about the Obama dysfunctional White House has returned with another blockbuster rich with gossip and political junkie insider poop.

    Among the revelations of Mr Klein":

    1. The Clintons and Obamas loathe one another.
    2. The Clintons worked hard for Obama to be re-elected in 2008. They anticipated that this support would result in Obama';s support for Hillary in her anticipated 2016 quest for the POTUS. This deal has not seen fruition. The Clintons accuse Obama of lying and a lack of loyalty to the Clintons.
    3. Michelle Obama wears the pants in the family as Barack is an uxorious husband. Michelle has considered a run for the Illinois Senate seat but is wary of this political race due to the hard work it would entail.
    4. Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS and his power spouse.
    5. Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery.
    6. Bill Clinton continues his adulterous ways.
    7. Look for a Hillary run for president in 2016 in a campaign masterminded by Bill. Both Clintons are eager to return to the White House.
    8. Oprah Winfrey feels betrayed by the Obamas and has little to do with them. She will probably support Hillary in 2016 as will Caroline and the Kennedy family.
    9. Hillary and the State Department screwed up the Benghazi terrorist attack and covered up to protect their butts.
    10. Obama has proven to be a weak chief executive who is unable to work well with congressional leaders. Obama is not well respected in the Democratic Party.

    Edward Klein has done yeoman-like work in presenting this short but very revealing look into the lives of the Clintons and Obamas.

    All readers who want to learn more about the kind of people leading our nation should read this book and have their eyes opened.

    Recommended and controversial. Read it and decide what you think!

    [Sep 09, 2016] Americas True Role in Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training. ..."
    "... What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either. ..."
    "... Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported. ..."
    "... To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know. ..."
    "... I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground. ..."
    "... The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict. ..."
    "... This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people. ..."
    www.defenddemocracy.press

    - Defend Democracy Press

    Syria's civil war is the most dangerous and destructive crisis on the planet. Since early 2011, hundreds of thousands have died; around ten million Syrians have been displaced; Europe has been convulsed with Islamic State (ISIS) terror and the political fallout of refugees; and the United States and its NATO allies have more than once come perilously close to direct confrontation with Russia.

    Unfortunately, President Barack Obama has greatly compounded the dangers by hiding the US role in Syria from the American people and from world opinion. An end to the Syrian war requires an honest accounting by the US of its ongoing, often secretive role in the Syrian conflict since 2011, including who is funding, arming, training, and abetting the various sides. Such exposure would help bring to an end many countries' reckless actions.

    A widespread – and false – perception is that Obama has kept the US out of the Syrian war. Indeed, the US right wing routinely criticizes him for having drawn a line in the sand for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over chemical weapons, and then backing off when Assad allegedly crossed it (the issue remains murky and disputed, like so much else in Syria). A leading columnist for the Financial Times, repeating the erroneous idea that the US has remained on the sidelines, recently implied that Obama had rejected the advice of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to arm the Syrian rebels fighting Assad.

    Yet the curtain gets lifted from time to time. In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training.

    Unfortunately, the story came and went without further elaboration by the US government or follow up by the New York Times. The public was left in the dark: How big are the ongoing CIA-Saudi operations? How much is the US spending on Syria per year? What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either.

    On more than a dozen occasions, Obama has told the American people that there would be "no US boots on the ground." Yet every few months, the public is also notified in a brief government statement that US special operations forces are being deployed to Syria. The Pentagon routinely denies that they are in the front lines. But when Russia and the Assad government recently carried out bombing runs and artillery fire against rebel strongholds in northern Syria, the US notified the Kremlin that the attacks were threatening American troops on the ground. The public has been given no explanation about their mission, its costs, or counterparties in Syria.

    Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported.

    The US public has had no say in these decisions. There has been no authorizing vote or budget approval by the US Congress. The CIA's role has never been explained or justified. The domestic and international legality of US actions has never been defended to the American people or the world.

    To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know.

    I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground.

    The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict.

    These are issues that should be subject to legal scrutiny and democratic control. I am confident that the American people would respond with a resounding "no" to the ongoing US-led war of regime change in Syria. The American people want security – including the defeat of ISIS – but they also recognize the long and disastrous history of US-led regime-change efforts, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Central America, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

    This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Enabled the Coup in Honduras

    Notable quotes:
    "... Under longstanding and clear-cut US law, all US aid to Honduras - except democracy assistance - including all military aid, should have been immediately suspended following the coup. ..."
    "... Why wasn't US aid to Honduras suspended following the coup? The justification given by Clinton's State Department on August 25 for not suspending US aid to Honduras was that events in Honduras were murky and it was not clear whether a coup had taken place. Clinton's State Department claimed that State Department lawyers were studying the murky question of whether a coup had taken place. ..."
    "... This justification was a lie, and Clinton's State Department knew it was a lie. By July 24, 2009, the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, knew clearly that the action of the Honduran military to remove President Zelaya on June 28, 2009, constituted a coup. On July 24, US Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens sent a cable to top US officials, including Secretary of State Clinton, with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," thoroughly documenting the assertion that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup." ..."
    Feb 23, 2016 | www.truth-out.org

    On June 28, 2009, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, democratically elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was overthrown by a military coup. The United Nations, the European Union and the Organization of American States (OAS) condemned the coup, and on July 5, Honduras was suspended from the OAS.

    Under longstanding and clear-cut US law, all US aid to Honduras - except democracy assistance - including all military aid, should have been immediately suspended following the coup.

    On August 7, 15 House Democrats, led by Rep. Raúl Grijalva, sent a letter to the administration which began, "As you know, on June 28th, 2009, a military coup took place in Honduras," and said: "The State Department should fully acknowledge that a military coup has taken place and follow through with the total suspension of non-humanitarian aid, as required by law."

    Why wasn't US aid to Honduras suspended following the coup? The justification given by Clinton's State Department on August 25 for not suspending US aid to Honduras was that events in Honduras were murky and it was not clear whether a coup had taken place. Clinton's State Department claimed that State Department lawyers were studying the murky question of whether a coup had taken place.

    This justification was a lie, and Clinton's State Department knew it was a lie. By July 24, 2009, the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, knew clearly that the action of the Honduran military to remove President Zelaya on June 28, 2009, constituted a coup. On July 24, US Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens sent a cable to top US officials, including Secretary of State Clinton, with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," thoroughly documenting the assertion that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup."

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 09, 2016] Benghazi Just a Symptom; Interventionism Is the Disease

    Notable quotes:
    "... the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence ..."
    "... as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner , and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war." ..."
    "... And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own. ..."
    "... Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. ..."
    Jun 30, 2016 | Reason.com

    ... ... ...

    And the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence.

    Indeed, the "2012 attack that killed four Americans was a consequence of the disorder and violence the administration left in the wake of its drive-by war," as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner, and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war."

    Unfortunately, that is a lesson too few in Washington are willing to learn. Clinton herself maintains in the face of overwhelming evidence that her handiwork in Libya is an example of "smart power at its best"-a phrase whose blatant inaccuracy should haunt her for the rest of her political career. With arguments in favor of Libya, round two already swirling and Clinton's poll numbers holding strong, it is not difficult to imagine a Clinton White House dragging America back to fiddle with a country it was never particularly interested in fixing by this time next year.

    And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own.

    Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. That's the real story here, and it's a bipartisan failure of judgment which shows all the signs of running on repeat.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Missing Clinton E-Mail Claims Saudis Financed Benghazi Attacks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement? ..."
    "... Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation? These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed to prevent. ..."
    "... Do you really expect Obama's DOJ will do anything against Hitlery Clinton? It is one criminal gangster racket. ..."
    "... The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too. ..."
    "... The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge. BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution. ..."
    "... Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground." ..."
    "... Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified, then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't see either one of them getting into over these particular emails. ..."
    "... If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground before she gives up her dream. ..."
    "... It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily pissed. ..."
    "... Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each campaign speech. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by William Reynolds via Medium.com,

    Something that has gone unnoticed in all the talk about the investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mails is the content of the original leak that started the entire investigation to begin with. In March of 2013, a Romanian hacker calling himself Guccifer hacked into the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal and leaked to Russia Today four e-mails containing intelligence on Libya that Blumenthal sent to Hillary Clinton.

    For those who haven't been following this story, Sidney Blumenthal is a long time friend and adviser of the Clinton family who in an unofficial capacity sent many "intelligence memos" to Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State . Originally displayed on RT.com in Comic Sans font on a pink background with the letter "G" clumsily drawn as a watermark, no one took these leaked e-mails particularly seriously when they came out in 2013. Now, however, we can cross reference this leak with the e-mails the State Department released to the public .

    The first three e-mails in the Russia Today leak from Blumenthal to Clinton all appear word for word in the State Department release. The first e-mail Clinton asks to have printed and she also forwards it to her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan. The second e-mail Clinton describes as "useful insight" and forwards it to Jake Sullivan asking him to circulate it. The third e-mail is also forwarded to Jake Sullivan . The fourth e-mail is missing from the State Department record completely.

    This missing e-mail from February 16, 2013 only exists in the original leak and states that French and Libyan intelligence agencies had evidence that the In Amenas and Benghazi attacks were funded by "Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia." This seems like a rather outlandish claim on the surface, and as such was only reported by conspiracy types and fringe media outlets. Now, however, we have proof that the other three e-mails in the leak were real correspondence from Blumenthal to Clinton that she not only read, but thought highly enough of to send around to others in the State Department. Guccifer speaks English as a second language and most of his writing consists of rambling conspiracies, it's unlikely he would be able to craft such a convincing fake intelligence briefing. This means we have an e-mail from a trusted Clinton adviser that claims the Saudis funded the Benghazi attack, and not only was this not followed up on, but there is not any record of this e-mail ever existing except for the Russia Today leak.

    Why is this e-mail missing? At first I assumed it must be due to some sort of cover up, but it's much simpler than that. The e-mail in question was sent after February 1st, 2013, when John Kerry took over as Secretary of State, so it was not part of the time period being investigated. No one is trying to find a copy of this e-mail. Since Clinton wasn't Secretary of State on February 16th, it wasn't her job to follow up on it.

    So let's forget for a minute about the larger legal implications of the e-mail investigation. How can it be that such a revelation about Saudi Arabia was made public in a leak that turned out to be real and no one looked into it? Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement?

    Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation? These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed to prevent.

    Another E-Mail Turns Up Missing

    Guccifer uncovered something else in his hack that could not be verified until the last of the e-mails were released by the State Department last week. In addition to the four full e-mails he released, he also leaked a screenshot of Sidney Blumenthal's AOL inbox. If we cross reference this screenshot with the Blumenthal e-mails in the State Department release, we can see that the e-mail with the subject "H: Libya security latest. Sid" is missing from the State Department e-mails.

    This missing e-mail is certainly something that would have been requested as part of the investigation as it was sent before February 1st and clearly relates to Libya. The fact that it is missing suggests one of two possibilities:

    1. The State Department does have a copy of this e-mail but deemed it top secret and too sensitive to release, even in redacted form. This would indicate that Sidney Blumenthal was sending highly classified information from his AOL account to Secretary Clinton's private e-mail server despite the fact that he never even had a security clearance to deal with such sensitive information in the first place. If this scenario explains why the e-mail is missing, classified materials were mishandled.
    2. The State Department does not have a copy, and this e-mail was deleted by both Clinton and Blumenthal before turning over their subpoenaed e-mails to investigators, which would be considered destruction of evidence and lying to federal officials. This also speaks to the reason why the private clintonemail.com server may have been established in the first place. If Blumenthal were to regularly send highly sensitive yet technically "unclassified" information from his AOL account to Clinton's official government e-mail account, it could have been revealed with a FOIA request. It has already been established that Hillary Clinton deleted 15 of Sidney Blumenthal's e-mails to her, this discrepancy was discovered when Blumenthal's e-mails were subpoenaed, although a State Department official claims that none of these 15 e-mails have any information about the Benghazi attack. It would seem from the subject line that this e-mail does. And it is missing from the public record.

    In either of these scenarios, Clinton and her close associates are in violation of federal law. In the most generous interpretation where this e-mail is simply a collection of rumors that Blumenthal heard and forwarded unsolicited to Clinton, it would make no sense for it to be missing. It would not be classified if it was a bunch of hot air, and it certainly wouldn't be deleted by both Blumenthal and Clinton at the risk of committing a felony. In the least generous interpretation of these facts, Sidney Blumenthal and Hillary Clinton conspired to cover up an ally of the United States funding the assassination of one of our diplomats in Libya.

    Why A Grand Jury Is Likely Already Convened

    After the final e-mails were released by the State Department on February 29th, it has been reported in the last week that:

    • Clinton's IT staff member who managed the e-mail server, Bryan Pagliano, has been given immunity by a federal judge which suggests that he will be giving testimony to a grand jury about evidence that relates to this investigation and implicates himself in a crime. Until now, Pagliano has been pleading the fifth and refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
    • The hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazar Lehel) just had an 18-month temporary extradition order to the United States granted by a Romanian court , despite being indicted by the US back in 2014. Is Guccifer being extradited now in order to testify to the grand jury that the screengrab with the missing e-mail is real?
    • Attorney General Loretta Lynch was interviewed by Bret Baier and she would not answer whether or not a grand jury has been convened in this case. If there was no grand jury she could have said so, but if a grand jury is meeting to discuss evidence she would not legally be allowed to comment on it.

    This scandal has the potential to completely derail the Clinton campaign in the general election . If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. This is not a right wing conspiracy, it is a failure by one of our highest government officials to uphold the laws that preserve government transparency and national security. It's time for us to ask Secretary Clinton to tell us the truth and do the right thing. If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary Clinton, we can't wait until it's too late.

    strannick

    F.U., cowardly, corrupt, politically aligned Department Of Justice. Big tough cops afraid of a power craving sociopath in a pantsuit.

    Vint Slugs, |

    Mrs. Clinton, and let's call her by her proper name Hillary Clinton - not the familiar "Hillary" that even the most right-of-the-aisle commentators use - is a compulsive liar.

    Rhetorically: how can anyone give even a shred of credence to anything that she might utter? She lies so much that the only conclusion that an objectively observant informed person can reach is that she has permanently lost touch with reality. Given that fact, she therefore is a psychotic personality. I am amazed that no one in the medical profession, assuming that there are independent minds within that group, has spoken out about this psychological affliction of Mrs. Clinton's.

    Mrs. Clinton is a blight upon the Nation. Seriously, I work and associate with people who whole-heartedly support her candidacy for president. After all that has been revealed since 2014 I can only conclude that continuing political support for Mrs. Clinton can only stem from a profound anti-intellectualist philosophy.

    o r c k , |

    We snuck a planeload of Bin-Ladens back to SA on 9-11. That makes this lower than a traffic ticket.

    Money Boo Boo ,

    Clitilda is betting TPTB will make this all go away so that Drumpf doesn't become President, simple as that!

    wildbad ,

    so let me get this straight....the saudis took down the twin towers on 911 2001 and then paid for the benghazi attacks and ambassador murders on 911 2012 and the Bush and Clinton families knew about this but made up stories to protect their saudi pals?

    ok, got it. whats the problem?

    strannick ,

    "If the lawmakers would just do their job, Hilary Clinton won't be running for President" -D.T., March 8

    3.7.77 ,

    She's pure evil, unbelievable people don't see this.

    Goliath Slayer ,

    BUSH killed 2 million people in Iraq for WMD he never found, but this piece of brilliant journalism focuses on "missing" emails that "somehow" should prove that the Saudis did it and hypothetically crucifies Hillary who was just Secretary of State taking orders from Obama who's not mentioned in this again brilliant piece. I guess the Saudis financed the American Iraq invasion too.

    WOW! I'm sold. NOT.

    Guess what, if that's all you got, Hillary Next POTUS >>> http://bit.ly/1p1jKnr

    caconhma ,

    Do you really expect Obama's DOJ will do anything against Hitlery Clinton? It is one criminal gangster racket.

    Slomotrainwreck,

    If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary Clinton, we can't wait until it's too late.

    It's too confusing. Time for O'Bozo to declare himself and his handlers Kings of everything everywhere.

    Freddie ,

    The Bushes and Clintons have been best friends and See Eye Aye drug runners going back to Mena, Arkansas.

    The Romneys are also Bush best buddies. The Romneys and Bushes are best friends with the Mormon hinckley family very well connected to Mormon Church and their John Jr. tried to kill Reagan.

    The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too.

    Chumly, |

    We're a Banana Republic pure and simple. Yes, we're the most powerful Banana Republic to ever exist in the history of the world too.

    The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge. BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution.

    And yes, there is so much more. it's deep, dark and dirty.

    gregga777,

    Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground."

    That said, there is zero probability that the United States Department of Injustice will indict her. Anyone expecting the Feral Bureau of Intimidation and Department of Injustice to enforce equal application of the Law are going to be disappointed. Again. The Rule of Law doesn't apply to the Oligarchs who own the Feral government and their LOYAL political parasites.

    willwork4food ,

    I wouldn't be so sure about that dude. Have you seen Bill lately? He looks beaten to a pulp. The dark side tends to eat their own when it benefits their ultimate goals. Hillary might be that one, of many to (yet) come.

    gregga777,

    Hillary Rodham Clinton was bribed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabian to cover up their role in the assassination of Ambassador Stevens. All United States Secretary's of State take bribes to cover up attacks by foreign governments on United States diplomatic and Armed Forces personnel. At this point what difference does it make?

    Demdere ,

    Why would the Saudis fund that? Stevens was CIA working on arming the jihadis in Syria against Assad. Some of which the US Army screwed up with obsolete shit weapons, I think.

    So lovely, the largest Israeli-Neocon ally being responsible for the loss of Clinton, their main candidate other than Jeb.

    God does work in mysterious way, explained by the great Discordian religious principle : "Imposing order creates disorder". The greeks grokked it first.

    Pancho Villa,|

    Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified, then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't see either one of them getting into over these particular emails.

    As server-gate progresses it will be interesting to see whether Hillary learned anything from Watergate where Nixon got in trouble not because he ordered the Watergate breakins, but because he tried to cover them up.

    The Iconoclast,

    If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground before she gives up her dream.

    Demdere,

    No, there are many political interests in the Democratic party, just like the Republican Party. Same interests, in most cases, overlapping sets of funding. That must be what the parties so contend over, more contributions?

    Contending power centers, mafia rules, courtier rules, an ecosystem of parasites specialized in their evolution for extracting carbon and energy from the government. Parasites divert metabolic energy to their own uses, and the host may die as a result.

    thebigunit,

    A very good point:

    If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate.

    It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily pissed.

    How do you feel these days?

    Don Smith,|

    Anyone notice how the email says "Islamists in Saudi Arabia" but the article hints that "The Saudis" funded it? I'm not an HRC fan, but I think she gets a pass on this one. Like if David Duke gave a bunch of money to Hezbollah and the papers said "The Americans are funding Hezbollah"...

    wildbad,

    BLumenthal and Killary need to be waterboarded until they give up their sources. Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each campaign speech.

    They are living in the real world, we are their slaves.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Clintons Libyan War and the Delusions of Interventionists

    Notable quotes:
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. ..."
    "... Interventionists usually can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action. That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that wreck the lives of millions of people. ..."
    "... This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive, militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy. ..."
    "... This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. ..."
    "... It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support for the war was in making it happen. ..."
    The American Conservative
    The New York Times reports on Hillary Clinton's role in the Libyan war. This passage sums up much of what's wrong with how Clinton and her supporters think about how the U.S. should respond to foreign conflicts:

    Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders "said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off," said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. "They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe." [bold mine-DL]

    It's not surprising that rebels seeking outside support against their government tell representatives of that government things they want to hear, but it is deeply disturbing that our officials are frequently so eager to believe that what they are being told was true. Our officials shouldn't "want to believe" the self-serving propaganda of spokesmen for a foreign insurgency, especially when that leads to U.S. military intervention on their behalf. They should be more cautious than normal when they are hearing "all the right things." Not only should our officials know from previous episodes that the people saying "all the right things" are typically conning Washington in the hopes of receiving support, but they should assume that anyone saying "all the right things" either doesn't represent the forces on the ground that the U.S. will be called on to support or is deliberately misrepresenting the conditions on the ground to make U.S. involvement more attractive.

    "Wanting to believe" in dubious or obviously bad causes in other countries is one of the biggest problems with ideologically-driven interventionists from both parties. They aren't just willing to take sides in foreign conflicts, but they are looking for an excuse to join them. As long as they can get representatives of the opposition to repeat the required phrases and pay lip service to the "right things," they will do their best to drag the U.S. into a conflict in which it has nothing at stake. If that means pretending that terrorist groups are democrats and liberals, that is what they'll do. If it means whitewashing the records of fanatics, that is what they'll do. Even if it means inventing a "moderate" opposition out of thin air, they'll do it. This satisfies their desire to meddle in other countries' affairs, it provides intervention with a superficial justification that credulous pundits and talking heads will be only too happy to repeat, and it frees them from having to come up with plans for what comes after the intervention on the grounds that the locals will take care of it for them later on.

    The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. If one takes for granted that there must be sympathetic liberals-in-waiting in another country that will take over once a regime is toppled, one isn't going to worry about the negative and unintended consequences of regime change. Because interventionists have difficulty imagining how U.S. intervention can go awry or make things worse, they are also unlikely to be suspicious of the motives or goals of the "good guys" they want the U.S. to support. They tend to assume the best about their would-be proxies and allies, and they assume that the country will be in good hands once they are empowered. The fact that this frequently backfires doesn't trouble these interventionists, who will have already moved on to the next country in "need" of their special attentions.

    The article continues:

    The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's questions have come to pass.

    If the article is referring to anyone in the administration, this might be true, but as a general statement it couldn't be more wrong. Many skeptics and opponents of the intervention in Libya warned about many of the things that the Libyan war and regime change have produced, and they issued these warnings before and during the beginning of U.S. and allied bombing. Interventionists usually can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action. That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that wreck the lives of millions of people.

    The report goes on to quote Anne-Marie Slaughter referring to Clinton's foreign policy inclinations:

    "But when the choice is between action and inaction, and you've got risks in either direction, which you often do, she'd rather be caught trying."

    This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive, militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy.

    Maybe the most striking section of the report was the description of the administration's initial reluctance to intervene, which Clinton then successfully overcame:

    France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution supporting a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering his opponents. Ms. Rice was calling to push back, in characteristically salty language.

    "She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud, now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said, 'We'll be obliged to follow and support you, and we don't want to.'

    This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. It also shows how confused everyone in the administration was about the obligations the U.S. owed to its allies. The U.S. isn't obliged to indulge its allies' wars of choice, and it certainly doesn't have to join them, but the administration was already conceding that the U.S. would "follow and support" France and Britain in what they chose to do. As we know, in the end France and Britain definitely could and did drag the U.S. into their "shitty war," and in that effort they received a huge assist from Clinton.

    It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support for the war was in making it happen.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Libyas Chaos Theory Undercuts Hillary

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. ..."
    "... After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared , "we came, we saw, he died." ..."
    "... Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base. (Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?) ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    "... Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a very very dangerous woman. ..."
    "... Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff. ..."
    "... In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya, they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested and sympathetic listeners. ..."
    "... It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom they were associated. ..."
    "... Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good against evil. ..."
    "... My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course their agenda. ..."
    "... Authoritarians with a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power. ..."
    "... The mass media are truly enemies of the people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be utterly destroyed in their ability to do ..."
    Jun 04, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    The Obama administration is hoping that it can yet salvage Hillary Clinton's signature project as Secretary of State, the "regime change" in Libya, via a strategy of funneling Libya's fractious politicians and militias – referred to by one U.S. official as chaotic water "droplets" – into a U.S.-constructed "channel" built out of rewards and punishments.

    ...In recent days, competing militias, supporting elements of the three governments, have converged on Sirte, where the Islamic State jihadists have established a foothold, but the schisms among the various Libyan factions have prevented anything approaching a coordinated attack. Indeed, resistance to the U.S.-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) appears to be growing amid doubts about the political competence of the hand-picked prime minister, Fayez Sirraj.

    ...Thus far, however, many Libyan political figures have been unwilling to jump into the "channel," which has led the Obama administration to both impose and threaten punishments against these rogue water "droplets," such as financial sanctions and even criminal charges.

    ...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    After the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Belhadj was tracked by the CIA and captured in Malaysia in 2004 before being renditioned back to Libya, where he was imprisoned until 2010. In 2011, after Secretary of State Clinton convinced President Obama to join an air war against the Gaddafi regime on "humanitarian" grounds, Belhadj pulled together a jihadist force that helped spearhead the decisive attack on Tripoli.

    After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared, "we came, we saw, he died."

    Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base. (Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?)

    ... ... ...

    Summing up the confusing situation, The New York Times reported on June 2, "One Western official who recently visited the country said the political mood in Libya had become increasingly confrontational during recent months as the United Nations, acting under pressure from the United States and its allies, has struggled to win acceptance for the unity government."

    ... ... ...

    Now, the Obama administration is trying to re-impose order in the country via a hand-picked group of new Libyan officials and by building a "channel" to direct the flow of the nation's politics in the direction favored by Washington. But many Libyan water "droplets" are refusing to climb in.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

    Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    American Foreign Policy: Dumbed Down

    Since the Cold War there has been a narrowing of foreign policy debate. Does this explain why Washington blunders from one fiasco to another?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAFGswEYC0Q

    Susan Raikes Sugar, June 4, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a very very dangerous woman.

    Erik, June 5, 2016 at 7:17 am

    While the narrowing of debate may be attributed to control by economic concentrations of the elections and mass media tools of democracy, it is also due to a poorly structured government. Congress has never been able to debate meaningfully due to politics, and the executive has stolen almost all power of Congress over wars, and runs them continually to get campaign contributions from military industry.

    For example, Congress utterly failed to debate the Civil War issues from 1820 to 1860, producing nothing but tactical compromises, never bringing the sides to common terms and recognition of the rights and interests of each other. It never seriously debated the issues of Vietnam, nor the wars since.

    This is why I advocate a College of policy analysis as a fourth branch of the federal government, to both analyze and debate the issues of each region, preserving the minority viewpoint and the inconvenient solution. It would make available commented summaries of history and fact, analyses of current situations by each discipline and functional area, and debated syntheses of anticipated developments, potential changes due to events human or natural, and the impact of policy alternatives, with comments reflecting the various viewpoints or possibilities. Not many of the uneducated would read the results, but politicians and vocal citizens could more readily be shown to violate what the experts generally agree is workable,

    The College would be conducted largely by internet with experts at the universities, applying expert analysis of every region with a broad range of skills and disciplines, and moderated textual debate with the broadest range of viewpoints.

    Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    Robert has done a good job, and made the point again, which needs repeating until it becomes common gospel.

    Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff.

    The fact that the spinmeisters were directed to tell us that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are dead only tells us that they have some other means of "justifying" the wars and what is going to happen next, which will lead the sheeple into following them right over the edge of the cliff, and when the time is right, run out the new and bigger version to carry the lie onward to…. what?

    One of the reasons I find it so difficult to write lately, is that I feel I am repeating the same thing again, and again. Which does not inspire the best of efforts.

    Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    The theme of Hillary's blunders may be addressed constantly, but for many of us the variations almost always reveal an aspect or element of which we were not aware and another nail that should be driven into HRC's "coffin." This person and her enablers and accomplices are a threat to countless people around the world justifying a constant chorus of criticism until the polls close on November 8th. The great tragedy is that her Republican opponent is probably as perilous as she is.

    Zachary Smith, June 4, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    Publishing variations and new information and/or conclusions is useful to interested current readers as well as those who are new to the site. If an essay title doesn't appeal to me I don't always examine it at all.

    After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared, "we came, we saw, he died."

    In any event, this one just can't be republished too often. The murderous ***** Hillary will – if allowed to become POTUS – be a disaster beating out Bush the Dumber.

    Obama had a job when he entered the White House – coddling and greasing the skids for the lawless Bankers. He has done that very, very well. So far as I can tell he merely outsourced the rest of the Presidency to the neocons and neoliberals. How else can you explain Hillary and Victoria Nuland and the TPP?


    SFOMARCO, June 4, 2016 at 4:42 pm

    "So what we're doing with the Government of National Accord is we're trying to create a channel, for national unity and reconciliation, and for building the institutions Libya needs, for building enough stability so the economy can come back, so they can pump oil, which Libya needs for Libyans, distribute the wealth fairly, equitably, in a way that brings people in, and take advantage of Libya's natural resources to rebuild the country. …" Seems like the status quo ante, sans Ghaddafi. Another expectation a la "topple Saddam and the people will throw flowers and sweets at the liberators"? And now a fluid mechanics metaphor to put Libya back to where it was in 2011?

    Bob Van Noy, June 4, 2016 at 7:46 pm

    I totally agree with your thought SFOMARCO. As I read this I was thinking, so now it's a channel. It seems that coming up with a good metaphor is the basis of American Foreign Policy. This is a hang-up of mine. Back in the Vietnam War all we heard was about dominoes falling which makes such an impressive mental "image." Several years ago I was stunned when I watched Errol Morris' "Fog of War." When Morris sat Robert McNamara down with a North Vietnamese contingent, and he was asked what the War was all about, he started to explain The Domino Theory, and the Vietnamese became agitated and basically told him that that was poor theory, and that he hadn't bothered to educate himself on Vietnamese history or he would know better. I was dumbfounded by that insight. 58,000 casualties because McNamara apparently didn't have the time to understand Vietnamese History!

    How many wars do we have going on now? What do we know of the countries we're dealing with? We really need to get out of the Empire business once and for all. I've watched Hillary enough to realize that regardless of her Wellesley education; she's not that bright.

    dahoit, June 5, 2016 at 11:18 am

    Totally agree;She is an idiot,who just follows the current memes of her Zionist masters. Not one damn evidence of critical thinking ever emanating from her crooked mouth. Imagine if the moron hadn't gotten on the crazy train of Iraq, and shown astute thinking, as every other astute thinker realized (Zionists and toads excluded of course)that its destabilization would bring chaos throughout the region.

    Of course,this might have been purposeful, but only her Ziomasters knew that, she is incapable.

    Susan Raikes Sugar, June 4, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Yes, Debbie, you're probably right about the hands pulling the strings in this devastating - and also demented - picture. The latter because I've listened to people who were in Libya before we pulled our shenanigans there a la Saddam and Iraq. It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US governing circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong. Could it be arrogance?

    In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya, they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested and sympathetic listeners.

    Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 6:21 pm

    It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US governing circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong. Could it be arrogance?

    It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom they were associated.

    In the United States and its satrapies, miscreants are much more "pragmatic." They enlist public relations fabricators to hoodwink the people into believing their naked emperor or empress is dressed in the finest of raiments so they can continue to commit more travesties.

    Abe, June 4, 2016 at 5:54 pm
    What started out as an attempt to divide and destroy Iran's arc of influence across the region has galvanized it instead.

    Moving the mercenary forces of IS out of the region is instrumental in ensuring they "live to fight another day." By placing them in Libya, Washington and its allies hope they will be far out of reach of the growing coalition truly fighting them across the Levant. Further more, placing them in Libya allows other leftover "projects" from the "Arab Spring" to be revisited, such as the destabilization and destruction of Algeria, Tunisia and perhaps even another attempt to destabilize and destroy Egypt.

    IS' presence in Libya could also be used as a pretext for open-ended and much broader military intervention throughout all of Africa by US forces and their European and Persian Gulf allies. As the US has done in Syria, where it has conducted operations for now over a year and a half to absolutely no avail, but has managed to prop up proxy forces and continue undermining and threatening targeted nations, it will likewise do so regarding IS in Libya and its inevitable and predictable spread beyond.

    Despite endless pledges by the US and Europe to take on IS in Libya, neither has admitted they themselves and their actions in 2011 predictably precipitated IS' rise there in the first place. Despite the predictable danger destabilizing and destroying Libya posed to Europe, including a deluge of refugees fleeing North Africa to escape the war in Libya, predicted by many prominent analysts at the time even before the first of NATO's bombs fell on the country, the US and Europe continued forward with military intervention anyway.

    One can only surmise from this that the US and Europe sought to intentionally create this chaos, planning to fully exploit it both at home and abroad to continue its campaign to geopolitically reorder MENA.

    Washington's Fake War on ISIS "Moves" to Libya
    By Ulson Gunnar
    https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2016/04/washingtons-fake-war-on-isis-moves-to.html


    Pablo Diablo, June 4, 2016 at 8:13 pm

    OIL=MONEY.

    Peter GarciaWebb, June 4, 2016 at 10:13 pm

    Of note is that the unity government is not of Libya nor of the Libyan people. It is imposed by the US and is simply yet another example of US Corpocracy (read control of democracy by US corps and banks). That the UN gives it support demonstrates yet again that the UN has become an extension of the 0.01%

    rosemerry, June 5, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    All those years of Gaddaffi being a friend, an enemy, a friend once more, and all the time he worked effectively for Libyans and other Africans, building giant works for water and agriculture in Libya, providing services, listening to the people (!!!! who would do that in the USA?) and working to extend communications to all Africa. Removing him, with all the other destruction, was completely unforgivable and as we see has ruined yet another country. Hillary's sins are many-no need to repeat it.

    Zahid Kramet, June 5, 2016 at 4:06 am

    Regime change, as envisaged by the US, will not survive.And neither will capitalism in its present unregulated form.This is what the Arab Spring was and is all about.The US 'plants' in the Middle East have no future, thus the Clinton doctrine is doomed to fail.Trump, for all his inane ways of expressing it, has the better idea:he wants to compete on the consumer products front with an American label.The option is proxy wars led by the Pentagon and military industrial complexes of the world's three great powers, which will eventually lead to World War 111and the destruction of all mankind.

    Susan Raikes Sugar, June 5, 2016 at 4:17 am
    Here is a YouTube video from a series on Hillary's uncharmed life. Relevant here because it treats the subject of Libya Before, and Libya After. That we purposefully targeted this country in the same way we have targeted Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine, Honduras, Iran (multiple pointless and unfounded threats), as well as most recently Argentina, planted unrest and then pointed to our dirty deeds as the reason our vaunted Secretary of State was compelled to carry out regime-change - that's the story here. But for what reason? She's an egomaniac whose rationale rests mostly on: Because we can, could, will - and no one will dare stop us.

    Evil? Wicked? It's hard to know how best to characterize someone like this, but the repelling revelations are endless… If she becomes President of the United States, the tragic end may be that there will be no more stories. Someone with an incriminating past like Hillary's may not care about just blowing the entire Earth away one day. I suspect she could be just that selfish. She seems to be endowed with the mindset of a serial killer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m8efcUhvDA

    F. G. Sanford, June 5, 2016 at 4:39 am

    Channeling drops and running psy-ops, the machine Clinton helped set in motion,
    Is digging a ditch, the drainage from which, will accumulate sooner or later.
    All will work out, though Republicans pout, and the pundits refute attribution-
    The "A Team" is ready to lend a hand steady, and Clinton will calm this commotion!

    Now that Ukraine has become the refrain for successful destabilized mayhem,
    The mission complete is a model replete with the fruits of a policy triumph.
    The same in Brazil was achieved with good will, and the populace has been preempted,
    Chaos resulting through lack of consulting has adequately served to co-opt them.

    Those financial vultures and big-banking cultures will send in their thieves for a banquet-
    Behind those closed doors, the corporate whores are assembling cohorts adapted:
    They'll get Saakashvili, he's touchy and feely, Jaresko will also be drafted-
    They'll subvert with abandon inserted to stand-in, and as government puppets they'll crank it.

    Now that Brazil's got some corporate shills, and those cronies avoided indictment,
    Michel Temer may serve, because we observe, he's been banned for his acts of corruption.
    He'll now volunteer, and Wall Street will cheer, because Roussef got no help from Clinton,
    Touting motives progressive she's quite the obsessive 'til real women garner excitement!

    If Haftar gets sloppy, some bin Laden copy will step in to the fray and replace him.
    The margin of error for counterfeit terror is large, so there's no need to worry,
    The engineered fraud of a threat from abroad will be stoked by those waves of migration.
    If they run out of boats they'll use rubber tube floats, the Atlantic is such a quick swim!

    The only thing left, and the choice must be deft, is a foreign-born finance advisor.
    They're in ready supply, though Heaven knows why, and their provenance seems quite consistent-
    Like the one in Brazil, who gave banksters a thrill, he'll insure that the Dinar will prosper.
    Austerity measures will save all those treasures Gadaffi retained like a miser!

    Yes, that Neocon panel is digging a channel, that seems more akin to a ditch,
    But the "A Team" will fix it, and Haftar won't nix it, a Jihadi safe-zone will emerge,
    They'll be launching more strikes, we ain't seen the likes, that excrescence will flow unabated.
    The channel will capture to Neocon rapture all that spume and there won't be a hitch.

    But they'll need a Team Leader, a channeling seeder, with clandestine skills leaner and meaner,
    He'll have to have guts, not some amateur klutz, because courage will make him or break him,
    He'll be thrown in that ditch on behalf of the witch whose nefarious schemes spew that stench:
    A shadowy stranger they call "Carlos Danger", they can't trust just any old wiener!

    His fedora pulled low, and that trench-coat bestow a clandestine and camouflaged perch.
    He'll emerge from the mist, a cell phone in his fist, standing by to tweet classified selfies,
    If he opens that coat anywhere near the moat, it won't matter if boxers or briefs,
    The whole White House staff will get a good laugh, but he's got no image to smirch.

    He'll monitor droplets insuring the witch gets real-time situation reports.
    As the channel gets filled with that sewage distilled from another R2P disaster,
    She'll be watching the screen with her friend Abba Dean as intelligence analysts squirm,
    Classified pictures could compromise strictures if emails were found in his shorts.

    As drops coalesce, she'll rely on the press to obscure any overflow drama.
    Suave Carlos Danger will make like a stranger, awaiting his next big assignment.
    If the press were to ask us, that could be Damascus, but secrecy rules must prevail.
    There's no need to flaunt, he'll remain nonchalant, to prevent any legacy trauma.

    The Syrian gambit might be just a scam, but the Russians could really get spooked.
    Then something could drop with an ominous flop, and it won't be a laugh or a cackle.
    Engaged on that spectrum twixt knife and the the rectum may arise an indelible quote:
    "We spoke with a voice, but you gave us no choice. We came, and we saw, and we nuked."

    Joe Tedesky, June 5, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    Muammar Gaddafi's biggest mistake was his believing he could govern a sovereign nation. I use to think that it was all about oil. I believe that the U.S. is largely carrying out Israel's Yinon plan, but there is more. It's not so much a U.S. plan, as it is a U.S./London/Zionist conquest for world hegemony. I realize how most of you who frequent this site, already know this, but the majority of Americans I'm afraid don't have a clue. The western media has promoted the narrative that America is fighting against radical Muslims, and that by winning this war in the Middle East democracy will soon follow. By Robert Parry keeping this Libyian story alive is a good thing. Our MSM is papering over the real reason for all this war, by reporting as much as they can the childish antics of our presidential candidates.

    Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good against evil.

    My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course their agenda.

    Bill Bodden, June 5, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    Beyond death and taxes there are two constants. Authoritarians with a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power.

    This nation has always been fortunate to have courageous people rise to oppose malicious power – Thomas Paine, Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman, Mother Jones, Muhammad Ali, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Robert Parry, Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, etc. – but they have had limited success against the plutocrats and their puppets in the political oligarchies. That failure is due, in part, to an ill-informed and apathetic populace.

    Joe B, June 6, 2016 at 8:00 am

    Very true and well said. The mass media are truly enemies of the people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be utterly destroyed in their ability to do so.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Hillary Clintons Libya

    The failed Libyan policy was one of the key sources of hundred of thousand refugees in Europe now. As well as Syrian events (where all this hired for overthrowing Gaddafi fighters went next)
    Notable quotes:
    "... a proper tally of the ideological culprits who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in Libya ..."
    "... Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect regime change in a third Middle East country. ..."
    "... Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney. ..."
    "... Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political choice not an intelligent one. ..."
    "... She has been a failure at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. ..."
    "... Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the Iraq war is to have a plan for after?" ..."
    "... A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure" of classified information. ..."
    "... She is either lying or totally incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government. ..."
    "... This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. ..."
    "... Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and will neolib us. ..."
    "... The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington ..."
    Nov 19, 2015 | www.huffingtonpost.com

    Some of the better-informed commentators on the recent terrorist attacks by ISIS have noticed the reassertion of the 2002-2003 understanding of the Middle East: that all-out war is the only sensible policy and Israel is our most faithful ally in the region. It is an opportunist line, and it is being pushed hardest by opportunists on the far right. But a proper tally of the ideological culprits who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in Libya. In the Democratic debate on November 14, Clinton got away with saying this unchallenged:

    CLINTON: Well, we did have a plan, and I think it's fair to say that of all of the Arab leaders, Gaddafi probably had more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else. And when he moved on his own people, threatening a massacre, genocide, the Europeans and the Arabs, our allies and partners, did ask for American help and we provided it. And we didn't put a single boot on the ground, and Gaddafi was deposed. The Libyans turned out for one of the most successful, fairest elections that any Arab country has had. They elected moderate leaders. Now, there has been a lot of turmoil and trouble as they have tried to deal with these radical elements which you find in this arc of instability, from north Africa to Afghanistan. And it is imperative that we do more not only to help our friends and partners protect themselves and protect our own homeland, but also to work to try to deal with this arc of instability, which does have a lot of impact on what happens in a country like Libya.

    In response, Martin O'Malley said that Libya was "a mess" and Bernie Sanders said that Iraq had produced half a million PTSD casualties among Americans who served there. Neither showed the slightest indication of having mastered what happened in Libya: the centrality of Clinton's influence in the catastrophic decision to overthrow the government, and the proven consequences -- civil war in Libya itself and the opening of an Islamist pipeline from Libya to Syria and beyond.

    Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect regime change in a third Middle East country.

    Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney.

    ... ... ...

    David Bromwich is a Professor of Literature, Yale University

    Mike Rodriguez · Jacksonville, Florida

    Hillary no. Sanders yes. The US political establishment of both parties no.

    Lybia is the least of these "mistakes" . Bush and Obama and Congress never had a clue what they were doing in the Middle East. We are paying a price for a weak and spiritless political system characterized by voter apathy and ignorance.

    Hillary? Why is she running? Why are the Republicans all running? Man alive we have got little or nothing really. But one of these is going to win no matter how small the voter turnout.

    Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political choice not an intelligent one.

    Goethe Gunther · Las Cruces, New Mexico

    Thank you for this piece. Hillary Clinton and Richard Perle drink from the same neo-con/neo-liberal global political well. I CAN NOT vote for this person. Gaddafi was murdered as a matter of personal vendetta to avoid exposing allege monies he offered Sarkozy's campaign, amongst other issues that will take too much space to elucidate.

    But Obama and Hillary, because of their actions in Libya, made the world a more dangerous place.
    And herer is Hillary on the brutal murder of Gadaffi: https://youtu.be/mlz3-OzcExI

    Gero Lubovnik · Belarus Polyteknik University

    How does Hillary continually escape the truth and proper vetting? She has been a failure at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. Libya and the rest of the middle east, her "Reset Button" with Russia (how's that workin' out?) who blitzkreiged Crimea and screwed Ukraine entirely, working toward parity of trade with China (who is building a military base in the South China Sea). Abject failure. And then one has to wonder how she and Bill amassed a personal fortune, providing no goods or products, nor services of meaningful value? [Answer: Clinton Foundation money laundering machine- where magic happens in past, present and future quid pro quo]?

    AND YOU WANT TO CORONATE HER AS PRESIDENT [EMPRESS], completel with pen and phone??? And then you wonder why America is becoming a second or third world nation.

    Charles Hill · Clifton High School

    This was a HUGE error. Gaddafi used to say "the West would never overthrow him because they did not want a Somalia on the Mediterranean coast". I guess Hillary and Obama did.

    And you can not blame this on Bush. Bush got Gaddafi to give up his WMD and Gaddafi was causing no trouble. He was only fighting the Islamists inside his country that Hillary and Obama decided to support. Now ISIS is running things there.

    Brian Donahue · New York, New York

    The US has a habit of destabilizing these countries (Iraq and Libya). Chaos results. Hillary will be very dangerous as president. She is too quick to use force with no end strategy at all.

    Clarc King · Bronx, New York

    A fair representation of the reality of American foreign policy taken over by the satanic, elitist, neoliberal mob. Libya, once an ally and most progressive state in Africa, was destroyed and is now governed, if you can call it that, by a CIA asset. No wonder people resist American Regime Change. Hillary, a warmonger for Imperialism, cannot possibly be considered for the US presidency. The US citizenry must act quickly and form a new presidential platform.

    Linda LaRoque · Odessa College

    If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you're over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50.

    Amazing to me how much I had forgotten! When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

    Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood - both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.

    Next she chose Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake." Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco , Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

    Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier's radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

    Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.

    Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

    Many younger votes will have no knowledge of "Travelgate." Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson - and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

    Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.
    Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

    Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

    • She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.
    • She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. Hillary's devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives. Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times while under oath.
    • After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.
      Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation - we have no idea what shoe will fall next.

    #DonaldTrumpForPresident #StandUpForTrump #donaldjtrump.com

    Martin Gill · Cabrillo College

    That's all well and good, and probably all true and then some, but the candidates running against her, even with all their clearance for viewing information, have NO IDEA what Clinton and her State Depertment were doing then. Only she and MAYBE Obama does. It has become clear that the State Department was running rogue, just like the IRS and the AG's office were.

    Terry Lee · Telgar

    The State Department was running rogue?! Only she and MAYBE Obama knows what was going on? It seems that you know what was going on, too. LOL!

    Elizabeth Fichtl

    The country is waking up.

    Question put to HRC during the debate.

    Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the Iraq war is to have a plan for after?"

    Leslie Ware · Preston High School

    Just a few reasons to take Clinton to trial:

    1.Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of national defense information by a security clearance holder who "through gross negligence," such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location.

    Subsection F also requires the clearance holder "to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. "A failure to do so "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

    The source said investigators are also focused on possible obstruction of justice. "If someone knows there is an ongoing investigation and takes action to impede an investigation, for example destruction of documents or threatening of witnesses, that could be a separate charge but still remain under a single case," the source said. Currently, the ongoing investigation is led by the Washington Field Office of the FBI.

    2. A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure" of classified information. … "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation," the agreement states.

    Moreover, the agreement covers information of lesser sensitivity. ("In addition to her SCI agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar language, including prohibiting 'negligent handling of classified information,' requiring her to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties.") Well, that is awkward, as the FBI continues its investigation into potential negligent handling of classified information.

    3. 18 U.S. Code § 1001
    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-
    (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
    (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
    (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to-
    (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
    (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

    Its time to escalate this investigation and show the Country how unethical and criminal this pretender to the presidency really is.

    Clinton also should be totally disqualified from a Security Clearance, simply because of her previous behavior and nonchalant lack of safeguarding of classified information. All the while saying she did not recognize the information was CLASSIFIED. She is either lying or totally incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government.

    Clinton for Trial 2016.

    Mike Kelly

    OK, we get it. You don't like HRC.

    The rest of this is a crock. There's simply no evidence that HRC Actually did any of the dire things you are claiming in your long and tiresome post. Virtually all of the classified information was classified by the State Department or CIA AFTER it was received and sent by HRC. As a result, your allegations do not hold water. Certainly much different from outing a CIA agent for political purposes, as was done during the previous administration.

    David Auner · Springfield, Missouri

    This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. The point about repubs being sharper is just wrong - they have honed absurd talking points with Luntz while wasting tax dollars on Benghazi. O'Malley's mess comment was adequate - debate prep can not prepare for every oddly crafted rewrite of history. Rebutting Clinton's narrative would involve hours of pointing out the failures of State's and Obama's narratives in most of their tenure. Sanders knows more than what this article has put forward but a vigorous debate would touch on classified information about the CIA station in Benghazi and their disastrous activities - which candidates must avoid for now. Debates fail easily - the author of this article fails with adequate time for a deeper analysis.

    Elvin B. Ross · University of Idaho

    Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and will neolib us.

    Paul Mountain · Works at Love_Unlimited

    US politicians aren't paid to think, they're paid to follow the leader, and when it comes to Middle Eastern policy that's Israel, the Bible, and the Congressional Military Industrial Complex.

    Michael Rinella · Works at State University of New York Press

    The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington - and then when globalization destablized his economy (foreign workers in eastern Libya taking jobs from the locals) they fell over themselves to put a knife in his back.

    James Charles O'Donnell III

    Why is the institutional American left so frantic to nominate Sec. Clinton, the candidate who is A) unquestionably THE LEAST PROGRESSIVE choice; and B) by far THE LEAST VIABLE contender in a general election, with a cornucopia of baggage, not all of which is imaginary?

    Hillary Clinton has managed DECADES of poor polling, with consistently high negative favorability ratings, especially among independents -- and a huge "trustability" problem. That "dodging sniper fire" fabrication she repeatedly told ON VIDEO will probably be exploited in the general election to cement the American people's (accurate) perception that Ms. Clinton is dishonest, and that will sink her electoral chances for good -- and the LEFT, too, unfortunately (so much for those SCOTUS seats!).

    With Bernie Sanders, AN ACTUAL PROGRESSIVE, looking for all the world like a national winner, inspiring record-breaking crowds and grass-roots donations, the liberal establishment is bizarrely (corruptly) pushing for the coronation of the ONLY Democrat who could possibly lose in 2016 -- and the one who, on policy, is an open neoconservative war hawk and Wall Street champion, a career enemy of the 99%... UNBELIEVABLE.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Hillarys Huge Libya Disaster

    Jun 15, 2016 | The National Interest

    Before the revolution, Libya was a secure, prospering, secular Islamic country and a critical ally providing intelligence on terrorist activity post–September 11, 2001. Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war.

    ... ... ...

    Despite valid ceasefire opportunities to prevent "bloodshed in Benghazi" at the onset of hostilities, Secretary Clinton intervened and quickly pushed her foreign policy in support of a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood and known terrorists in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. One of the Libyan Rebel Brigade commanders, Ahmed Abu Khattala, would later be involved in the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Articulating her indifference to the chaos brought by war, Secretary Clinton stated on May 18, 2013, to the House Oversight Committee and the American public, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?"

    ... ... ...

    U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic served worldwide for over 32 years as a Navy Seabee, and retired in 2005. He served as a senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House, and was appointed in March 2016 as a National Security Policy Advisor to Donald Trump.

    [Sep 09, 2016] Michael Greenberger: Setting the Stage For the Next Wall Street Crisis

    Financial oligarchy rule is now indisputable and subservience of politicians in congress and administration is close to absolute. Financial oligarchy is the dominant power under neoliberalism. No question about it. As Andrew Mellon (US Treasury Secretary, 1921 to 1932) used to say "Strong men have sound ideas, and the force to make these ideas effective." Making Al Capone famous quote more modern, "You can get more with a kind word and money than you can with a kind word alone."
    Notable quotes:
    "... I think that as Greenberger points out, once we were able to see Obama's early financial appointments, we knew that we had been had, once again. Despite his soaring rhetoric for change, he was a loyal member of the Wall Street wing. ..."
    "... Obama and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party, founded by the Clintons, is a brand , cobbled together and groomed for office by the moneyed interests, designed to misdirect and diffuse the angry reaction for reform by the people in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And it was a job well done. ..."
    "... I strongly believe that Hillary has been and still remains a product of Wall Street money, and will continue to follow the money once in office no matter what rhetoric she may wear during any political campaign. ..."
    Feb 10, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain

    Michael Greenberger has long been one of my favorite commenters on regulation, and in particular on futures price manipulation.

    Within the context of the uphill battle against the status quo, Gary Gensler and Bart Chilton may have looked 'good' as regulators, but all in all they looked better only by comparison with some very horrible alternatives. Chilton, as you may recall, did not waste much time going through the revolving door to put on the feedbag from the HFT crowd.

    I think that as Greenberger points out, once we were able to see Obama's early financial appointments, we knew that we had been had, once again. Despite his soaring rhetoric for change, he was a loyal member of the Wall Street wing.

    Obama and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party, founded by the Clintons, is a brand, cobbled together and groomed for office by the moneyed interests, designed to misdirect and diffuse the angry reaction for reform by the people in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And it was a job well done.

    No matter what she says, no matter what promises she may make, no matter what identity branding they may choose to spin for her, I strongly believe that Hillary has been and still remains a product of Wall Street money, and will continue to follow the money once in office no matter what rhetoric she may wear during any political campaign.

    Further, the only major difference between the parties now is that the Republicans have sold out wholesale to the moneyed interests, whereas the Dems have been doing it one despicable betrayal at a time. They merely wear different masks. Money conquers all with this venal brood of vipers.

    Financial reform comes with political campaign money reform. The two are inseparable.


    Posted by Jesse at 1:24 PM

    [Sep 09, 2016] What if illary appoints Victoria Nuland Secretary of State

    Jul 08, 2016 | theintercept.com

    Erelis -> RootieKazootie, June 8 2016, 3:27 p.m.

    Worse yet, if Hillary appoints Victoria Nuland Secretary of State. The effect will be like turning on Skynet.
    Doug Salzmann -> Erelis, June 8 2016, 4:00 p.m.

    But we might get cookies.

    elwood, June 8 2016, 12:49 p.m.

    Now Clinton can put together her ticket.
    She's tapping Martin Shkreli as her VP, and they're calling it the Super Predator ticket.

    [Sep 06, 2016] Obama and Hill Clinton are Saudi tools

    Notable quotes:
    "... A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like. They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized coverage from MSM. ..."
    "... Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal. ..."
    "... Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals. They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower. ..."
    "... But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem) ..."
    Sep 06, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 04:43 PM
    Obama and Hill Clinton are Saudi tools same as W. Keeping AUMF going the past 8 years lets W off a lot of the Iraq/WMD and Afghanistan hooks!

    Bill's adventures included firing a general for commenting on the craziness of losing people over Serbia.

    Bill's evolutionary adventures in the Balkans are anti Russian neocon trials. Their exceptionalism pushed Russia around and moved NATO eastward reneging on deals Bush Sr. had with the Russians.

    Hillary, extending Bill's neocon meme* over Ukraine and Libya are nearing W level insanity.

    Nuland (married to the neocon Kagan family) came with Strobe Talbot in 1993.

    likbez -> ilsm... , Monday, September 05, 2016 at 08:24 PM
    Bravo ilsm !!!

    We really facing a vote for a person who would probably be convicted by Nuremberg tribunal.

    All those factors that are often discussed like Supreme court nominations, estate tax, etc, are of secondary importance to the cardinal question -- "war vs peace" question.

    A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like. They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized coverage from MSM.

    Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal.

    "Trump this and Trump that" blabbing can't hide this important consideration.

    Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals. They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower.

    Moreover, after Bush II there is a consensus that are very few people in the USA who are unqualified to the run the country. From this point of view Trump is extremely qualified (and actually managed to master English language unlike Bush II with his famous Bushisms ).

    But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem)

    [Sep 05, 2016] Gli Usa e la guerra fredda il prezzo della vittoria - rivista italiana di geopolitica

    Bill Clinton was a regular neoliberal bottom feeder (in essence not that different from drunkard Yeltsin) without any strategical vision or political courage, He destroyed the golden possibility of rapprochement of the USA and Russia (which would require something like Marshall plan to help Russia). Instead he decided to plunder the country. It's sad that now Hillary will continue his policies, only in more jingoistic, dangerous fashion. She learn nothing.
    Notable quotes:
    "... However, according to Simes in the years immediately following the dissolution of the USSR, Washington has made perhaps the greatest error of a winner: sold for complacency. ..."
    "... Russia simply ceased to be a U.S. geopolitical variable in the equation, Moscow was irrevocably excluded from the strategic horizon. ..."
    "... The result was that the former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott called at the time the policy of "eat and shut up": the Russian economy was collapsing, the Red Army reduced the ghost of the past and Yeltsin's entourage welcomed with open arms of the IMF aid. In short, Russia is a power failure and as such was treated by administering liberal economic recipes and submitting its projection to a geopolitical drastic weight loss. Everything apart from the feeling of the Russian leadership. ..."
    "... This approach found its full realization, between 1999 and 2004, the expansion of NATO eastward: they were including Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Together with the U.S. intervention in Serbia during the Kosovo war (1999), this move Russia convinced that the cost of the American loans -- a dramatic and permanent reduction of the area of ​​security and its own geopolitical ambitions - was too high . ..."
    Dec 12, 2011 | temi.repubblica.it

    07/12/2011

    America won the Cold War. But in addition to the USSR, has it defeated Russia? This question, which is still in the nineties sounded absurd to most people, began to appear in the last decade, thanks to the work of historians such as Dimitri Simes, John Lewis Gaddis, or in Italy, Adriano Roccucci.

    In the United States is widely believed that the collapse of the Soviet Union was caused in large part by strategic decisions of the Reagan administration. Surely the military and economic pressure exerted by these contributed to the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact and then the final crisis of the Soviet system. However, according to Simes in the years immediately following the dissolution of the USSR, Washington has made perhaps the greatest error of a winner: sold for complacency.

    This has resulted, in retrospect, in an overestimation of U.S. policy choices in the mid-eighties onwards, and in a parallel underestimation of the role played by the Soviet leadership. Gorbachev came to power in 1985 determined to solve the problems left behind by Brezhnev: overexposure military in Afghanistan and subsequent explosion of spending on defense, imposed on an economy tremendously inefficient. But if Reagan pushed the USSR on the edge of the precipice, Gorbachev was disposable, albeit unwittingly, triggering reforms that escaped the hands of his own theorist.

    That fact has been largely removed from public debate and U.S. historiography which has led America in the second mistake: underestimating the enemy defeated, confusing the defunct Soviet Union with what was left of his heart - Russia.

    In fact, Reagan and Bush Sr. after him fully understand the dangers inherent in the collapse of the superpower enemy, dealing with Gorbachev touch, even without discounts: the Soviet leader was refused the pressing demands for economic aid, incompatible with the military escalation Reagan once to crush the Soviet Union under the weight of war spending.

    Even the first Gulf War (1990-91), who saw the massive American intervention in a country (Iraq) at the time near the borders of the USSR, did not provoke a diplomatic rupture between the two superpowers. This Soviet weakness undoubtedly was the result of an empire in decline, but remember that even in 1990 no one - least of all, the leadership in Moscow - the Soviet Union finally gave up on us yet.

    Despite an election campaign played on the charge to GH Bush to focus too much on foreign policy, ignoring the economics (It's the economy, stupid), newly installed in the White House Bill Clinton was not spared aid to Russia, agreeing to this line of credit to be logged on to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), from June 1992. Clinton's support was directed mainly toward the figure of Yeltsin and his policies, with the exception of waging war against Chechen separatism, in 1994.

    If Clinton with these moves proved to understand, like its two predecessors, the importance of "accompany" the Russian transition, avoiding - or at least contain - the chaos following the collapse of a continental empire, the other part of his administration demonstrated sinful paternalism and, above all, acquired the illusion of omnipotence that he saw in the "unipolar moment" end not only the U.S. opposed the US-USSR, but also of any power ambitions of Russia. Russia simply ceased to be a U.S. geopolitical variable in the equation, Moscow was irrevocably excluded from the strategic horizon.

    The result was that the former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott called at the time the policy of "eat and shut up": the Russian economy was collapsing, the Red Army reduced the ghost of the past and Yeltsin's entourage welcomed with open arms of the IMF aid. In short, Russia is a power failure and as such was treated by administering liberal economic recipes and submitting its projection to a geopolitical drastic weight loss. Everything apart from the feeling of the Russian leadership.

    This went hand in hand with growing resentment for the permanent position of inferiority which they were relegated by Washington. To the point that even the then Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, known by the nickname "Yes sir" for his acquiescence to the dictates of Americans, showed growing impatience with the brutal Russian downgrading by America.

    Indeed, the United States administration did not lack critics: former President Nixon, a number of businessmen and experts of Russia expressed skepticism or opposition to the Clinton administration attitude that did not seem to pay particular attention to wounded pride and the strategic interests of a nation that continued to think of itself as empire. However, these positions does not affect the dominant view in the administration of the establishment and much of the U.S., where consencus was that Russia in no longer entitled to have an independent foreign policy.

    This approach found its full realization, between 1999 and 2004, the expansion of NATO eastward: they were including Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Together with the U.S. intervention in Serbia during the Kosovo war (1999), this move Russia convinced that the cost of the American loans -- a dramatic and permanent reduction of the area of ​​security and its own geopolitical ambitions - was too high .

    [Sep 05, 2016] Hillary Clinton email investigation: FBI notes reveal laptop and thumb drive missing

    Everything, absolutely everything demonstrates really terrifying level of incompetence: the transfer of emails to Apple laptop, to Gmail account, then transfer back to window system, handing of USB drive. Amazing level of incompetence. This is really devastating level of incompetence for the organization that took over a lot of CIA functions. Essentially Hillary kept the position which is close to the role of the director of CIA What a tragedy for the country...
    Notable quotes:
    "... It is painfully clear that she traded access and favors for money and reciprocal favors. It is painfully clear that she made little distinction between working for the State Department, the Clinton foundation and her family and tried to keep the records of what was going on inaccessible. The more honest defense would be, all politicians do it, and you have to suck it up because Trump is worse. Which is true. But trying to downplay this and explain it away is offensive, not all of the public are complete idiots. ..."
    "... Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement is about to fade as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he has still succeeded in striking a severe blow against her, and in addition, at the not-so-tin-hat conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support. ..."
    "... All this in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and unbridled corruption, oozing from every orifice of a maverick administration. ..."
    "... Clinton is the one waging war in the middle east. She is the one being bullish and provocative with Russia. Trump has only been conciliatory with these issues, he has been against the war on Iraq ..."
    "... HRC is still likely to be the next President, but this scandal does have legs. She put herself in a corner by claiming lack of recall due to a medical condition (i.e., the concussion). This leaves two possibilities, neither of which is helpful to her cause, to wit: either she was being dishonest or she was (and could still be) cognitively impaired. ..."
    "... Reagan was certainly not someone I admired but at least he tried to reduce the chance of nuclear war. Clinton is an out and out Hawke with the blood of many innocent people on her hands in both Syria and Libya. She is hiding her communications because she does not want to be exposed for the role she played in The destruction of Libya and the gun running of weapons to terrorists in Syria. That is to Al Qaeda and ISIS. World War 3 is more likely under Clinton than any other world leader. Even Trump. ..."
    "... Not forgetting that she was key in making sure the US didn't side with Assad. Had the US done at the beginning, instead of being at the behest of the Saudis and the petrodollar, then the whole thing would have been over in 6 months and IS would never have got more than a dusty district of northern Iraq. ..."
    "... So the applicant to the US presidency does not know what (c) stands for in her emails, archives high security data on a laptop and then losses it for years, uploads same emails on Google's gmail account and then losses devices again. She does not recall many things, not even the training she received on handling the confidential and secure communication. She couldn't recall the procces of drone strikes. (Will she be killing people at a whim, without an accountable protocol?) She is either demented or dangerously reckless or lying. All of these conditions disbar her form her candidacy. ..."
    "... If she could only manage a couple of hours a day because of concussion and a blood clot she should have temporarily stood down until she recovered fully, and had a senior official take over her duties until she was well. You can't have a brain-damaged person in charge of the US's affairs - even though there is a long history of nutters the State Dept. ( ie the Military Industrial Complex HQ). ..."
    "... the clinton foundation does not pay taxes..and dont forget that slick willie has been on the paedophile plane more times than the pilot ..."
    "... She failed to keep up with recordkeeping she agreed to, then when asked to turn over records, somebody destroyed them, but Clinton did not order destruction, or does not remember having done so. Turned over all records-oops I thought WE did! She either lied or has alzheimers ..."
    "... Political baggage is a bitch. If this election cycle has demonstrated anything it is that the leadership of both parties is totally out of touch with the voters and really has no interest except supporting the Neoliberal tenet of fiscal nonintervention. This laissez-faire attitude toward corporate interests is paralysing the American government. ..."
    "... I cannot believe Clinton has got this far in the election, I believe Obama wants her in to hide many of his embarrassing warmongering mistakes. ..."
    "... Today of all days Hillary Clinton puts out a tweet with the following: 'America needs leadership in the White House, not a liability' -- As we have to assume she's not referring to herself it confirms people's suspicion that the person who writes Hillary's tweets is a hostile to her campaign. The tweets are often completely off the mark. ..."
    "... Either Comey is on their payroll, or they have threatened his family. Either way it is business as usual. The NWO decided a long time ago that Hillary was their next puppet PONTUS. ..."
    "... I was a low-level officer at US Embassies and Consulates in various foreign countries. Clinton's claim that she didn't know what (C) was, or that she "she did not pay attention to the difference between top secret, secret and confidential" and "could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information." Are beyond ridiculous. Any fool knows enough to be aware of different levels of classified info, and the obvious fact that you don't get sloppy with classified info. ..."
    "... to paraphrase Leona Helmsley's comment about paying taxes, "security is for little people." So in that respect Hillary is no different from the rest of them. ..."
    "... You'd better hope she's lying, because if the incompetence is genuine she shouldn't be allowed near any confidential information ever again. I hate to admit it but Trump is right on this one. Jesus wept. ..."
    "... The fact that the Sec State could have an email server built at her home and operate with such laughable gross negligence when it comes to national security is surreal and appalling. ..."
    "... If the FBI were not themselves co-conspirators and hopelessly corrupt, they would indict some of the lower level actors and offer them immunity. They could start with the imbecile who put that laptop in the mail and couldn't remember if it was UPS or USPS. ..."
    "... Caddell has voiced an interesting concern that others are beginning to share: that the news media has crawled so far in bed with Hillary Clinton they won't be able to get back out. That the news media in America has lost its soul. Even Jake Tapper started asking this question several weeks ago in the middle of his own show. ..."
    "... The pyramid scheme of created debt has destroyed capitalism and democracy within 40 years of full operation. Captured Govt has bailed out incompetence and failure at every turn, and in so doing, inverted the yield curve and destroyed the future. It is for this reason alone I cannot respect these financial paedophiles or support anything they do. In this contest for the White House, Clinton is the manifestation of the establishment. ..."
    "... "The documents provided a number of new details about Mrs. Clinton's private server, including what appeared to be a frantic effort by a computer specialist to delete an archive of her emails even after a congressional committee had requested they be preserved." -NY Times ..."
    "... Hillary's treatment of top-secret US documents was willful and uncorrected. If she had done the same thing with medical records, the individuals whose medical records had been mishandled could have filed charges and Hillary would have been personally liable for up to $50,000 fine per incident. ..."
    "... Clinton is an absolute liability. Apart from this scandal she's a status quo candidate for a status quo that no longer exists. She stands for neo-liberalism, US hegemony and capitalist globalization all of which are deader than the dodo. That makes her very dangerous in terms of world peace and of course she will do absolutely nothing for the millions of Americans facing joblessness, hunger, bankruptcy and homelessness except make things worse ..."
    "... The entire corrupt establishment want Clinton at all cost, so that they can continue fleecing the future and enslaving the entire world in created debt. All right minded individuals should this as a flashing red light to turn round and vote the other way. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    A Clinton Foundation laptop and a thumb drive used to archive Hillary Clinton's emails from her time as secretary of state are missing, according to FBI notes released on Friday.

    The phrase "Clinton could not recall" litters the summary of the FBI's investigation, which concluded in July that she should not face charges. Amid fierce Republican criticism of the Democratic presidential candidate, the party's nominee, Donald Trump released a statement which said "Hillary Clinton's answers to the FBI about her private email server defy belief" and added that he did not "understand how she was able to get away from prosecution".

    he FBI documents describe how Monica Hanley, a former Clinton aide, received assistance in spring 2013 from Justin Cooper, a former aide to Bill Clinton, in creating an archive of Hillary Clinton's emails. Cooper provided Hanley with an Apple MacBook laptop from the Clinton Foundation – the family organisation currently embroiled in controversy – and talked her through the process of transferring emails from Clinton's private server to the laptop and a thumb drive.

    "Hanley completed this task from her personal residence," the notes record. The devices were intended to be stored at Clinton's homes in New York and Washington. However, Hanley "forgot" to provide the archive laptop and thumb drive to Clinton's staff.

    In early 2014, Hanley located the laptop at her home and tried to transfer the email archive to an IT company, apparently without success. It appears the emails were then transferred to an unnamed person's personal Gmail account and there were problems around Apple software not being compatible with that of Microsoft.

    The unnamed person "told the FBI that, after the transfer was complete, he deleted the emails from the archive laptop but did not wipe the laptop. The laptop was then put in the mail, only to go missing. [Redacted] told the FBI that she never received the laptop from [redacted]; however, she advised that Clinton's staff was moving offices at the time, and it would have been easy for the package to get lost during the transition period.

    "Neither Hanley nor [redacted] could identify the current whereabouts of the archive laptop or thumb drive containing the archive, and the FBI does not have either item in its possession."

    ... ... ...

    The FBI identified a total of 13 mobile devices associated with Clinton's two known phone numbers that potentially were used to send emails using clintonemail.com addresses.

    The 58 pages of notes released on Friday, several of which were redacted, also related that Hanley often purchased replacement BlackBerry devices for Clinton during Clinton's time at the state department. Hanley recalled buying most of them at AT&T stores in the Washington area. Cooper was usually responsible for setting them up and synching them to the server.

    Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and Hanley "indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device", the documents state. "Cooper did recall two instances where he destroyed Clinton's old mobile devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer."

    The notes also contain a string of admissions by Clinton about points she did not know or could not recall: "When asked about the email chain containing '(C)' portion markings that state determined to currently contain CONFIDENTIAL information, Clinton stated that she did not know what the '(C)' meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order."

    Clinton said she did not pay attention to the difference between top secret, secret and confidential but "took all classified information seriously". She did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not have been on an unclassified system. She also stated she received no particular guidance as to how she should use the president's email address.

    In addition, the notes say: "Clinton could not recall when she first received her security clearance and if she carried it with her to state via reciprocity from her time in the Senate. Clinton could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information."

    Clinton was aware she was an original classification authority at the state department, but again "could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by state. Clinton could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined."

    ... ... ...

    The House speaker, Paul Ryan, said: "These documents demonstrate Hillary Clinton's reckless and downright dangerous handling of classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. They also cast further doubt on the justice department's decision to avoid prosecuting what is a clear violation of the law. This is exactly why I have called for her to be denied access to classified information."

    Reince Priebus, chair of the Republican National Committee, said: "The FBI's summary of their interview with Hillary Clinton is a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency. Clinton's answers either show she is completely incompetent or blatantly lied to the FBI or the public.

    "Either way it's clear that, through her own actions, she has disqualified herself from the presidency."

    The Clinton campaign insisted that it was pleased the notes had been made public. Spokesman Brian Fallon said: "While her use of a single email account was clearly a mistake and she has taken responsibility for it, these materials make clear why the justice department believed there was no basis to move forward with this case."

    Terrence James 3h ago

    This is the equivalent of the dog ate my homework. This woman could not utter an honest sentence if her life depended on it. She is a corrupt and evil person, I cannot stand Trump but I think I hate her more. Trump is just crazy and cannot help himself but she is calculatingly evil. We are doomed either way, but he would be more darkly entertaining.


    Smallworld5 3h ago

    Has any of Clinton's state department employees purposely built their own server in their basement on which to conduct official government business, in gross violation of department policy, protocols, and regulations, they would have been summarily fired at a minimum and, yes, quite possibly prosecuted. That's a fact.

    The issue at hand is why Clinton sycophants are so agreeable to the Clinton Double Standard.

    The presumptive next president of the U.S. being held to a lower standard than the average U.S. civil servant. Sickening.


    Laurence Johnson 8h ago

    Hillary's use of gender has no place in politics. When it comes to the top job, the people need the best person for the job, not someone who is given a GO because they represent a group that are encouraged to feel discriminated against.


    foggy2 9h ago

    For the FBI's (or Comey's) this is also a devastating indictment of their or his judgment, honesty and basic competency.

    YANKSOPINION 10h ago

    Perhaps she has early onset of Alzheimers and should not be considered for the job of POTUS. Or maybe she is just a liar.


    AlexLeo 10h ago

    It is painfully clear that she traded access and favors for money and reciprocal favors. It is painfully clear that she made little distinction between working for the State Department, the Clinton foundation and her family and tried to keep the records of what was going on inaccessible. The more honest defense would be, all politicians do it, and you have to suck it up because Trump is worse. Which is true. But trying to downplay this and explain it away is offensive, not all of the public are complete idiots.

    KaleidoscopeWars

    Actually, after you get over all of the baffooning around Trump has done, he actually would make an ideal president. He loves his country, he delegates jobs well to people who show the best results, he's good at building stuff and he wants to do a good job. I'm sure after he purges the terribly corrupted system that he'll be given, he'll have the very best advisors around him to make good decisions for the American people. I'm sure Theresa May and her cabinet will be quick to welcome him and re-solidify the relationship that has affected British politics so much in the past decade. Boris Johnson is perfect for our relations with America under a Trump administration. Shame on you Barack and Hillary. Hopefully Trump will say ''I came, I saw, they died!''

    Ullu001 12h ago

    Ah, The Clintons. They have done it all: destruction of evidence, witness tampering, fraud, lying under oath, murder, witness disappearance. Did I leave anything? Yet, they go unpunished. Too clever, I guess too clever for their own good!

    samwoods77 12h ago

    Hillary wants to be the most powerful person on earth yet claims she doesn't understand the classification system that even the most most junior secretary can....deeply troubling.

    Mistaron 13h ago

    The 'masters' in the shadows are about to throw the harridan under the bus. Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement is about to fade as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he has still succeeded in striking a severe blow against her, and in addition, at the not-so-tin-hat conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support.

    All this in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and unbridled corruption, oozing from every orifice of a maverick administration.

    The seeds have been planted for a defense of diminished responsibility. Don't fall for it! Hillary, (and her illustrious spouse), deserve not a smidgen of pity.

    ''We came, we saw, he died'', she enthusiastically and unempathically cackled.

    Just about sums her up.


    wtfbollos 14h ago

    hiliary clinton beheaded libya and created a hell on earth. here is the proof:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/?page=all#pagebreak

    jean2121 -> ken711 13h ago

    Again, total misunderstanding about what is going on. Clinton is the one waging war in the middle east. She is the one being bullish and provocative with Russia. Trump has only been conciliatory with these issues, he has been against the war on Iraq. So far all evidences point to the fact that the Clintons want another big war and all evidence points to the fact that Trump wants co operation. This has totally escape your analysis. It is a choice between the Plague and the Cholera, I agree, but FGS try to be a little less biased.


    ungruntled 15h ago

    The best case for HC looks pretty grim.
    She has no recollection of......??
    Laptops and Thumb drives laying about unattended
    Total lack of understanding about even the most basic of Data Securit arrangements

    All of these things giver her the benefit of the doubt....That she wasnt a liar and a corrupted politician manipulating events and people to suit her own ends.
    So, with the benefit of the doubt given, ask yourself if this level of incompetance and unreliabilty makes a suitable candidate for office?
    In both cases, with and without BOTD, she shouldnt be allowed anywhere near the corridors of power, let alone the White House.

    IAtheist 17h ago

    Mrs Clinton is deeply divisive. Bought out since her husbands presidency by vested interests in Wall Street and the HMO's (private healthcare insurance management businesses) and having shown lamentable judgement, Benghazi, private Email server used for classified documents and material.

    She has failed to motivate the Democrats white and blue collar working voters male and female. These are the voting demographic who have turned to Trump is significant numbers as he does address their concerns, iniquitous tax rules meaning multi millionaires pay less tax on capital gains and share dividends than employees do on their basic wages, immigration and high levels of drug and gun crime in working class communities Black, White and Hispanic, funding illegal immigrants and failed American youth living on a black economy in the absence of affordable healthcare or a basic welfare system.

    Trump may very well win and is likely to be better for the US than Hilary Clinton.

    digamey 18h ago

    I sympathize with the American electorate - they have to choose between the Devil and the deep blue sea. Given their situation, however, I would definitely choose the Devil I know over the Devil I don't! And that Devil is - - - ?

    MoneyCircus -> digamey 10h ago

    That willful ignorance is your choice! A public businessman can be examined more closely than most.

    Besides, there is a long history of "placemen" presidents whose performance is determined by those they appoint to do the work. Just look in the White House right now.

    As for the Clinton record (they come, incontrovertibly, as a package) from Mena, Arkansas, to her husband's deregulation of the banks which heralded the financial crash that devastated millions of lives... the same banks that are currently HRC's most enthusiastic funders... is something that any genuine Democrat should not be able to stomach...

    ID9761679 19h ago

    My feeling is that she had more to worry about than the location of a thumb drive (I can't recall how many of those I've lost) or even a laptop. When a Secretary of State moves around, I doubt that look after their own appliances. Has anyone asked her where the fan is?

    Karega ID9761679 18h ago

    Problem is she handled top secret and classified information which would endanger her country's security and strategic interests. She was then US Secretary of State. That is why how she handled her thumb drive, laptop nd desktops matter. And there lies the difference between your numerous lost thumb drives and hers. I thought this was obvious?

    EightEyedSpy 23h ago

    HRC is still likely to be the next President, but this scandal does have legs. She put herself in a corner by claiming lack of recall due to a medical condition (i.e., the concussion). This leaves two possibilities, neither of which is helpful to her cause, to wit: either she was being dishonest or she was (and could still be) cognitively impaired.

    1iJack -> EightEyedSpy 22h ago

    either she was being dishonest or she was (and could still be) cognitively impaired.

    Its entirely possible its both.

    Dick York 24h ago

    California survived Arnold Schwarzenegger, the U.S. survived Ronald Reagan, Minnesota survived Jesse "The Body" Ventura and I believe that we will survive Donald Trump. He's only one more celebrity on the road.

    providenciales -> Dick York 23h ago

    You forgot Al Franken.

    antipodes -> Dick York 21h ago

    Reagan was certainly not someone I admired but at least he tried to reduce the chance of nuclear war. Clinton is an out and out Hawke with the blood of many innocent people on her hands in both Syria and Libya. She is hiding her communications because she does not want to be exposed for the role she played in The destruction of Libya and the gun running of weapons to terrorists in Syria. That is to Al Qaeda and ISIS. World War 3 is more likely under Clinton than any other world leader. Even Trump. The Democrats must disendorse her because the details of her criminality are now becoming available and unless she can stop it Trump will win. Get rid of her Democrats and bring back Bernie Sanders.

    Sam3456 1d ago

    We cannot afford a lying, neo-liberal who is more than willing to make her role in government a for profit endeavor.

    Four years of anyone else is preferable to someone who is more than willing for the right contribution to her foundation, sell out the American worker and middle class.

    MakeBeerNotWar 1d ago

    I'm more interested $250k a pop speeches HRC gave to the unindicted Wall St bankster felon scum who nearly took down their country and the global economy yet received a taxpayer bailout and their bonuses paid for being greedy incompetent crooks. How soon we forget....

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/

    sorrentina -> MakeBeerNotWar 22h ago

    even worse is her support for the military coup in Honduras- and her blatant lies in defense of that coup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS-tDVwSHlA

    trow 1d ago

    Its seems there is just one scandal after another with this women but she seems to be bullet proof mainly because the msm media will not go after her for reasons best known to themselves this is causing them to lose credibility and readers who are deserting them for alternative media .

    bashh1 1d ago

    Finally today in an article in The NY Times we learn where Clinton has been for a good part of the summer. In the Hamptons and elsewhere at receptions for celebrities and her biggest donors like Calvin Klein and Harvey Weinstein, raking in the millions for her campaign. Trump on the other hand has appeared in towns in Pennsylvania like Scranton, Erie and Altoona where job are disappearing and times can be tough. Coronations cost money I guess.

    chiefwiley -> bashh1 1d ago

    She is doing what she does best --- raise money.

    ksenak 1d ago

    Not forgetting that she was key in making sure the US didn't side with Assad. Had the US done at the beginning, instead of being at the behest of the Saudis and the petrodollar, then the whole thing would have been over in 6 months and IS would never have got more than a dusty district of northern Iraq.

    ksenak 1d ago

    Hillary is humiliated woman. Humiliated to the core by her cheating hubby she would rather kill than let him go. She is paying her evil revenge to the whole world. As a president of USA Hillary Clinton would destabilise the world and lead it to conflicts that threaten to be very heavy.

    As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was part of the "Arab Spring" (also part of the "Jasmine Revolution), which overthrew leaders such as Gaddafi to Mubarak. Before Gaddafi was overthrown he told the US that without him IS will take over Libya. They did.
    -Benghazi Scandal which ended up killing a US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other Americans.
    The Arab Spring destabilized the Middle East, contributed to the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS and the exodus of Middle Eastern Muslims.

    Sam3456 OXIOXI20 1d ago

    Meh. Obama characterized ISIS as the "JV Team" and refused to acknowledge the threat. I assume he was acting on information provided by his Secretary of State, Clinton.

    Michael109 1d ago

    It's quite possible that Clinton, because she had a fall in 2012 and bonked her head, believes she is telling the truth when she is lying, except that it is not lying when you believe you are telling the truth even though you are lying.

    She said she did not recall 30 times in her interviews with the FBI. She could be suffering from some sort of early degeneration disease. Either way, between her health and the lying and corruption she should be withdrawn as the Dem frontrunner.

    1iJack -> LakumbaDaGreat 1d ago

    She's going to blow it.

    I think she already did. Its like all the shit in her life is coming back on her at once.

    Early on, when it was announced she would run again, I remember one Democrat pundit in particular that didn't think she could survive the existence of the Internet in the general election (I can't remember who it was, though). But it has turned out to be a pretty astute prediction.

    When asked what he meant by that remark, he went on to say "the staying power of the Internet will overwhelm Clinton with her dirty laundry once she gets to the general election. The Clintons were made for the 24 hour news cycles of the past and not the permanent unmanaged exposure of the digital world. Everything is new again on the internet. Its Groundhog Day forever on the Internet."

    That's my best paraphrase of his thoughts. He felt Clinton was the last of the "old school" politicians bringing too much baggage to an election. That with digital "bread crumbs" of some kind or another (email, microphones and cameras in phones, etc) the new generation of politicians will be a cleaner lot, not through virtue, but out of necessity.

    I've often thought back to his remarks while watching Hillary head into the general.

    ImperialAhmed 1d ago

    So the applicant to the US presidency does not know what (c) stands for in her emails, archives high security data on a laptop and then losses it for years, uploads same emails on Google's gmail account and then losses devices again.
    She does not recall many things, not even the training she received on handling the confidential and secure communication.
    She couldn't recall the procces of drone strikes. (Will she be killing people at a whim, without an accountable protocol?)
    She is either demented or dangerously reckless or lying. All of these conditions disbar her form her candidacy.


    AudieTer
    1d ago

    If she could only manage a couple of hours a day because of concussion and a blood clot she should have temporarily stood down until she recovered fully, and had a senior official take over her duties until she was well. You can't have a brain-damaged person in charge of the US's affairs - even though there is a long history of nutters the State Dept. ( ie the Military Industrial Complex HQ). And in the White House for that matter ...Nurse -- nurse -- Dubya needs his meds!

    thedingo8 -> Lenthelurker 1d ago

    the clinton foundation does not pay taxes..and dont forget that slick willie has been on the paedophile plane more times than the pilot

    Littlefella 1d ago

    She destroyed devices and emails after they were told that all evidence had to be preserved. There are then two issues and the FBI and DOJ have not taken any action on either.

    It's no longer just about the emails, it's the corruption.

    DaveG123 1d ago

    Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and Hanley "indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown once she transitioned to a new device"
    -------------
    Probably in the hands of a foreign government. Pretty careless behaviour. Incompetent. Part of a pattern of incompetance that includes bad foreign policy decisions (Libya) and disrespect for rules surrounding conflict of interest (Clinton Foundation).

    YANKSOPINION -> HansB09 1d ago

    She failed to keep up with recordkeeping she agreed to, then when asked to turn over records, somebody destroyed them, but Clinton did not order destruction, or does not remember having done so. Turned over all records-oops I thought WE did! She either lied or has alzheimers

    Andy White 1d ago

    In addition, the notes say:

    "Clinton could not recall when she first received her security clearance and if she carried it with her to state via reciprocity from her time in the Senate. Clinton could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information."

    Clinton was aware she was an original classification authority at the state department, but again "could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by state. Clinton could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined." ...................secretary of state and could not recall basic security protocols???

    ....and people complain about trump....this basic security was mentioned in the bloody west wing series for god's sake.....in comparison even trump is a f'ing genius.......love him or hate him trump has to win over clinton,there is something very,very wrong with her....she should NEVER be in charge of a till at asda......and she is a clinton so we all know a very practised liar but this beggers belief,i can see why trump is angry if that was him he would have been publicly burnt at the stake.....this clinton crap just stink's of the political elite....a total joke cover up and a terrible obvious one to....clinton is just a liar and mentally i think she is very unstable....makes the DON look like hawking lol.....

    namora 1d ago

    Political baggage is a bitch. If this election cycle has demonstrated anything it is that the leadership of both parties is totally out of touch with the voters and really has no interest except supporting the Neoliberal tenet of fiscal nonintervention. This laissez-faire attitude toward corporate interests is paralysing the American government.

    duncandunnit 1d ago

    I cannot believe Clinton has got this far in the election, I believe Obama wants her in to hide many of his embarrassing warmongering mistakes.

    fedback 1d ago

    Today of all days Hillary Clinton puts out a tweet with the following: 'America needs leadership in the White House, not a liability' -- As we have to assume she's not referring to herself it confirms people's suspicion that the person who writes Hillary's tweets is a hostile to her campaign. The tweets are often completely off the mark.

    Hercolubus 1d ago

    Either Comey is on their payroll, or they have threatened his family. Either way it is business as usual. The NWO decided a long time ago that Hillary was their next puppet PONTUS.

    BG Davis 2d ago

    Clinton has always been a devious weasel, but this reveals a new low. I was a low-level officer at US Embassies and Consulates in various foreign countries. Clinton's claim that she didn't know what (C) was, or that she "she did not pay attention to the difference between top secret, secret and confidential" and "could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information." Are beyond ridiculous. Any fool knows enough to be aware of different levels of classified info, and the obvious fact that you don't get sloppy with classified info.

    That said, over the past few years the entire handling of classified info has become beyond sloppy - laptops left in taxis, General Petraeus was sharing classified info with his mistress, etc. I guess nowadays, to paraphrase Leona Helmsley's comment about paying taxes, "security is for little people." So in that respect Hillary is no different from the rest of them.

    Scaff1 2d ago

    You'd better hope she's lying, because if the incompetence is genuine she shouldn't be allowed near any confidential information ever again. I hate to admit it but Trump is right on this one. Jesus wept. I said it before: Clinton is the only candidate who could possibly make a tyrant like Trump electable.


    charlieblue -> gizadog 2d ago

    Where are you getting "looses 13 devices"? (Try loses, nobody is accusing Sec.Clinton of making things loose) I actually read the article, so my information might not be as exciting as yours, but this article states that from the 13 devices that had access to the Clinton server, two (a laptop and a thumb drive) used by one of her aids, are missing. This article doesn't specify whether any "classified" information was on either of them. The FBI doesn't know, because, well... they are missing.

    What the fuck is it with you people and your loose relationship with actual facts? Do you realize that just making shit up undermines whatever point you imagine you are trying to make?

    gizadog 2d ago

    Also: Clinton told FBI she thought classified markings were alphabetical paragraphs

    "When asked what the parenthetical 'C' meant before a paragraph ... Clinton stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the FBI wrote in notes from its interview with her."

    Wow...and there are people that want her to be president.

    Casey13 2d ago

    In my job as a government contractor we are extremely vigilant about not connecting removable devices to work computers, no work email access outside of work, software algorithms that scan our work mails for any sensitive information, and regular required training on information security. The fact that the Sec State could have an email server built at her home and operate with such laughable gross negligence when it comes to national security is surreal and appalling. I could never vote for her and neither could I vote for Trump.

    MonotonousLanguor 2d ago

    >>> A Clinton Foundation laptop and a thumb drive used to archive Hillary Clinton's emails from her time as secretary of state are missing, according to FBI notes released on Friday.<<<

    Oh golly gee, what a surprise. Should we offer a reward??? Maybe Amelia Earhart has the laptop and thumb drive. Were these missing items taken by the Great Right Wing Conspiracy???

    Dani Jenkins 2d ago

    Wtf, from the sublime to the ridiculous, springs to mind..

    Time to get a grip of the gravity involved, here at the Guardian.. This is a total whitewash of the absurd kind.. That leaves people laughing in pure unadultered astonishment..

    SHE lost not just a MacBook & thumb drive with such BS..

    So Trump it is then , like many of us have stated ALL ALONG. Sanders was the only serious contender.. A complete mockery of democracy & the so called Democrats have made the way for Trump to cruise all the way to the Whitewash House..

    Well done Debbie , did the Don pay you?

    chiefwiley -> Lenthelurker 2d ago

    Because the revelations are essentially contradicting all of Hillary's defenses regarding her handling of highly classified information. None of the requirements of the State Department mattered to her or her personal staff. It won't go away --- it will get worse as information trickles out.

    Casey13 2d ago

    Being President of the USA used to be about communicating a vision and inspiring Americans to get behind that dream . Think Lincoln abolishing slavery or JFK setting a goal to put man on the moon. Hillary is boring,has no charisma,and no vision for her Presidency beyond using corruption and intimidation to secure greater power for her and her cronies . Nobody wants to listen to her speeches because she is boring, uninspiring, and has no wit beyond tired cliches. Trump has a vision but that vision is a nightmare for many Americans.

    imperfetto 2d ago

    Clinton is a dangerous warmonger. She is a danger to us Europeans, as she might drag us into a conflict with Russia. We must get rid of her, politically, and re-educate the Americas to respect other nations, and give up exporting their corrupting values.

    Tom Voloshen 2d ago

    Liar liar liar....give her a chance, and another and another and another and another...
    .
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/cnn-stunned-fact-checkers-confirm-clinton-phones-destroyed-hammers/

    JCDavis 2d ago

    "After reading these documents, I really don't understand how she was able to get away from prosecution."

    If the FBI were not themselves co-conspirators and hopelessly corrupt, they would indict some of the lower level actors and offer them immunity. They could start with the imbecile who put that laptop in the mail and couldn't remember if it was UPS or USPS. Or did he actually send it to the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK by accident?

    1iJack 2d ago

    "The job of the media historically, in terms of the First Amendment – what I call the unspoken compact in the First Amendment – is that the free press, without restraint, without checks and balances, is there in order to protect the people from power. Its job is to be a check on government, and those who rule the country, and not to be their lapdogs, and their support system. That's what we're seeing in this election.

    There is an argument to make that the major news media in this country, the mainstream media, is essentially serving against the people's interest. They have made themselves an open ally of protecting a political order that the American people are rejecting, by three quarters or more of the American people. That makes them a legitimate issue, in a sense they never have been before, if Trump takes advantage of it."

    Pat Caddell, 2 Sept 2016

    Caddell has voiced an interesting concern that others are beginning to share: that the news media has crawled so far in bed with Hillary Clinton they won't be able to get back out. That the news media in America has lost its soul. Even Jake Tapper started asking this question several weeks ago in the middle of his own show.

    Will the American press ever have credibility with Americans again? Even Democrats see it and will remember this the next time the press turns against them. There was a new and overt power grab in this election that is still being processed by the American people: the American press "saving" America from Donald Trump. They may never recover from this.

    It even scares my Democrat friends.

    ConBrio 2d ago

    "An unknown individual using the encrypted privacy tool Tor to hide their tracks accessed an email account on a Clinton family server, the FBI revealed Friday.

    "The incident appears to be the first confirmed intrusion into a piece of hardware associated with Hillary Clinton's private email system, which originated with a server established for her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

    The FBI disclosed the event in its newly released report on the former secretary of state's handling of classified information.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/clinton-email-server-tor-227697

    fanUS 2d ago

    Clinton is a very dodgy character and cannot be trusted.

    Boris Johnson, UK Foreign Secretary on Clinton: "She's got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital"

    CleanPool330 2d ago

    The collective mind of the establishment is mentally ill and spinning out of control. In all rites they should be removed but their arrogance, corruption and self-entitlement mean they are incapable of admitting guilt. They have corrupted the weak minds of the majority and will take everybody down with them.

    The pyramid scheme of created debt has destroyed capitalism and democracy within 40 years of full operation. Captured Govt has bailed out incompetence and failure at every turn, and in so doing, inverted the yield curve and destroyed the future. It is for this reason alone I cannot respect these financial paedophiles or support anything they do. In this contest for the White House, Clinton is the manifestation of the establishment.

    unusedusername 2d ago

    If I understand this correctly a laptop and a flashdrive full of classified emails was put in a jiffy bag and stuck in the post and now they're missing and this is, apparently, just one of those things? Amazing!

    Blair Hess 2d ago

    I'm in the military. Not a high rank mind you. It defies all common logic that HRC has never had a briefing, training, or just side conversation about classified information handling when i have about 50 trainings a year on it and i barely handle it. Sheeple wake up and stop drinking the kool aid

    Ullu001 2d ago

    The Clintons have always operated on the edge of the law: extremely clever and dangerous lawyers they are.

    USADanny -> Ullu001

    Hillary may be criminally clever but legally: not so much. You do know that she failed the Washington DC bar exam and all of her legal "success" after that was a result of being very spouse of a powerful politician.

    calderonparalapaz 2d ago

    "The documents provided a number of new details about Mrs. Clinton's private server, including what appeared to be a frantic effort by a computer specialist to delete an archive of her emails even after a congressional committee had requested they be preserved." -NY Times

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi.html?_r=0

    USADanny -> Lee Knutsen 2d ago

    Virtually every American healthcare worker has to take annual HIPAA training, pass a multiple-choice test and signed a document attesting that they have taken the training and are fully aware of the serious consequences of inadvertent and willful violations of HIPAA. Oh the irony – HIPAA is a Clinton era law.

    Hillary's treatment of top-secret US documents was willful and uncorrected. If she had done the same thing with medical records, the individuals whose medical records had been mishandled could have filed charges and Hillary would have been personally liable for up to $50,000 fine per incident.

    http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/hipaahealth-insurance-portability-accountability-act/hipaa-violations-enforcement.page?

    Other than Hillary negligently handling top-secret documents, having a head injury that by her own admission has impaired her memory and using her relationship with the Clinton foundation when she was Secretary of State to extort hundreds of millions of dollars, she is an excellent candidate for the president.

    oeparty 2d ago

    Clinton is an absolute liability. Apart from this scandal she's a status quo candidate for a status quo that no longer exists. She stands for neo-liberalism, US hegemony and capitalist globalization all of which are deader than the dodo. That makes her very dangerous in terms of world peace and of course she will do absolutely nothing for the millions of Americans facing joblessness, hunger, bankruptcy and homelessness except make things worse.

    And yet, and yet, we must vote Clinton simply to Stop Trump. He is a proto-fascist determined to smash resistance to the 1% in America and abroad via military means. He is a realist who realises capitalism is over and only the purest and most overwhelming violence can save the super rich and the elites now. Certainly their economy gives them nothing any more. The American Dream is toast. The Green Stein will simply draw a few votes from Clinton and give Trump the victory and it is not like she is a genuinely progressive candidate herself being something of a Putin fan just like Trump. No, vote Clinton to Stop Trump but only so that we can use the next four years to build the revolutionary socialist alternative. To build the future.

    dongerdo 2d ago

    The Americans are screwed anyways because both easily are the most despicable and awful front runners I can think of in any election of a western democracy in decades (and that is quite an achievement in itself to be honest), the only thing left to hope for is a winner not outright horrible for the rest of the world on which front Clinton loses big time: electing her equals pouring gasoline over half the world, she is up for finishing the disastrous job in the Middle East and North Africa started by her as Secretary of State. Her stance on relations with Russia and China are utterly horrific, listening to her makes even the die-hard GOP neo-cons faction sound like peace corps ambassadors.
    If the choice is between that and some isolationist dimwit busy with making America great again I truly hope for the latter.

    Who would have thought that one day world peace would depend on the vote of the American redneck.....

    Michael109 2d ago

    Clinton's "dog ate my server", I can't (30 times) remember, didn't know what C meant on top of emails - why it means Coventry City, M'amm - excuses are the Dems trying to stagger over the line, everyone holding their noses. But even if she is elected, which is doubtful, this is not going away and she could be arrested as USA President.

    The FBI will rue the day they did not recommend charges against her when they had the chance. She's make Tony Soprano look like the Dalia Lama.

    CleanPool330 2d ago

    The entire corrupt establishment want Clinton at all cost, so that they can continue fleecing the future and enslaving the entire world in created debt. All right minded individuals should this as a flashing red light to turn round and vote the other way.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Bernie sold out. If not that, then he was simply in it as faux opposition from the start.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bernie disgraced himself and drove a dagger through the heart of youth involvement in the democratic process. Millions of kids believd in him. He's is even more repellent that Clinton. Faced with evidence that the DNC had rigged the nomination process in favour of Clinton, what did he do? He backed her. Beyond shame. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Mistaron MacSpeaker

    Bernie sold out. If not that, then he was simply in it as faux opposition from the start. Having unified the militant and disgruntled outliers, he then readily doffed his cap and sheperded his gullible followers towards the only practical Democratic alternative available.

    Wasted effort. The 'masters' in the shadows are about to throw the harridan under the bus. Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement is about to fade as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he's still succeeded in striking a severe blow against her, and also at the not-so-tin-hat conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support, in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and corruption oozing from every orifice of a maverick administration.

    The seeds have been planted for a defense of diminished responsibility. Don't fall for it! Hillary, (and her illustrious spouse), deserve not a smidgen of pity.

    ''We came, we saw, he died'', she enthusiastically and unempathically cackled.

    Just about sums it up


    Michael109 fflambeau 2d ago

    Bernie disgraced himself and drove a dagger through the heart of youth involvement in the democratic process. Millions of kids believd in him. He's is even more repellent that Clinton. Faced with evidence that the DNC had rigged the nomination process in favour of Clinton, what did he do? He backed her. Beyond shame.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Clintons American Legion Speech

    Notable quotes:
    "... Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are an exceptional nation because we are an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance of this claim confirms that she understands "American exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that justifies interfering all over the globe. That is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's rhetoric means today. ..."
    "... Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant part of U.S. "leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the former. This rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance of supporting U.S. clients in the Gulf. ..."
    "... Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential contenders. ..."
    "... That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together" slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat. ..."
    "... Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes. But if that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many faults, didn't pander to them. ..."
    "... Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation. In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting America's credibility." ..."
    "... Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available? ..."
    "... Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her. She won't get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does. Undecided voters (all 2 or 3% of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience. She looks to sound suitably strong more important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice for President. Old World Order , August 31, 2016 at 4:32 pm She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent war. Not surprising, but deeply depressing all the same. ..."
    "... If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans who consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S. hegemony, especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign as running a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life and death decisions on the rest of the world. ..."
    "... When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S. to suppress Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since it contradicts the Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature. ..."
    "... Indispensable to what? Wholesale destabilization of the Middle East? ..."
    "... I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want Clinton to think she has a mandate for this kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy, it appears not to matter which party has the presidency anymore. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, over at the WaPo, neocon cheerleader Jennifer Rubin loves the same speech: Hillary Clinton is a responsible centrist .. . ..."
    "... If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start it intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their own reality. I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens my convictions. To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually studying the Russians. ..."
    "... Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start something. Smells like yellow cake to me. ..."
    "... Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone deaf on this stuff. ..."
    "... The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly for the Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong thing, because we will go to hell if we appear to be weak. ..."
    Aug 31, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Hillary Clinton's speech to the American Legion in Cincinnati didn't contain anything new or surprising. It was billed as an endorsement of "American exceptionalism" defined as support for activist foreign policy and global "leadership," and that is what Clinton delivered. One thing that struck me while listening to it was the muted response from the audience. Despite Clinton's fairly heavy-handed efforts to present herself as a friend of veterans and champion of the military, the crowd didn't seem very impressed. The delivery of the speech was typically wooden, but then no one expects stirring oratory from Clinton. Either the audience wasn't interested in what they were hearing, or they found Clinton to be a poor messenger, or both.

    The substance was mostly boilerplate cheerleading for the status quo in foreign policy, but a few particularly jarring lines stood out. Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are an exceptional nation because we are an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance of this claim confirms that she understands "American exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that justifies interfering all over the globe. That is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's rhetoric means today.

    Clinton thought that she was dinging Trump when she said, "We can't cozy up to dictators." That would be all right if it were true, but it is hard to take seriously from a committed supporter of U.S. "leadership." Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant part of U.S. "leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the former. This rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance of supporting U.S. clients in the Gulf. Clinton has made a point of promising that the U.S. will stay quite cozy with our despotic clients when she is president, and it is likely that the U.S. will probably get even cozier still if she has anything to say about it.

    Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential contenders. There were brief nods to the nuclear deal with Iran and New START that a Republican wouldn't have made, but they were only mentioned in passing. Clinton insisted that "America must lead" and conjured up a vision of the vacuums that would be created if the U.S. did not do this. This is a standard hawkish line that implies that the U.S. always has to be involved in conflict and crises no matter how little the U.S. has at stake in them.

    At one point, Clinton asserted, "Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics." That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed and most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision. That's not healthy for the quality of our foreign policy debates or our foreign policy as a whole, and it shows the degree to which Clinton is out of touch with much of the country that she thinks this is a credible thing to say.

    otto, August 31, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    She is opting for the neo-cons. Smart move
    Viriato , August 31, 2016 at 2:53 pm
    "At one point, Clinton asserted, 'Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics.' That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed and most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision."

    That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together" slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat.

    Broad consensus is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I'd argue that some degree of consensus is necessary in order for a democratic system to function. But any such consensus should emerge from vigorous debate, which does not exist in Washington or in the mainstream media. It should not be simply imposed on the country by an unchallenged, ossified elite that is either stuck in the Cold War past or has a vested interest in renewing the Cold War.

    Myles , August 31, 2016 at 3:01 pm
    Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes. But if that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many faults, didn't pander to them.
    Captain P , August 31, 2016 at 3:40 pm
    Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation. In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting America's credibility."
    Joseph M. , August 31, 2016 at 3:44 pm
    Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available?
    SF, August 31, 2016 at 4:05 pm
    Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her. She won't get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does.

    Undecided voters (all 2 or 3% of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience. She looks to sound suitably strong more important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice for President.

    Old World Order , August 31, 2016 at 4:32 pm
    She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent war. Not surprising, but deeply depressing all the same.

    Here's hoping that someone – anyone, really – keeps this loathsome throwback to the worst aspects of US foreign policy of the past 20 years out of the White House.

    Chris Chuba , August 31, 2016 at 5:02 pm
    If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans who consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S. hegemony, especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign as running a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life and death decisions on the rest of the world.

    When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S. to suppress Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since it contradicts the Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature.

    Do these people believe that corrupt politicians in the U.S. are suddenly anointed by God and transformed into world leaders in a sudden act of Grace? Sorry for the rant but I would seriously love to ask someone this question. This is not a troll at all. I have pondered this many times. How would Huckabee respond to this? He wrote a lucid essay on Iran about 10yrs ago before he went full Neocon.

    Simon94022 , August 31, 2016 at 5:08 pm
    What a choice we face in November – give full executive authority to either:

    1. The volatile vulgarian who is smart enough to reject the tired nation-building, Democracy Evangelization, Responsibility-to-Protect, and other dangerous establishment policies. But who doesn't think much at all about foreign policy and could even blunder into a big war out of personal pique.

    OR

    2. The champion of mindless and discredited bellicosity. Who is - probably - smart enough to avoid a new large ground war or nuclear despite her dangerous anti-Russian rhetoric, but who will CERTAINLY initiate one or more new unnecessary, unjust and futile military interventions.

    Pick your poison.

    Smart Aleck Power , August 31, 2016 at 5:08 pm
    "We are an exceptional nation because we are an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation."

    Indispensable to what? Wholesale destabilization of the Middle East?

    Neal , August 31, 2016 at 5:26 pm
    I wish she would stop putting out this nonsense. I really don't want to skip my vote for president, but this sort of nonsense leaves me cold. I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want Clinton to think she has a mandate for this kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy, it appears not to matter which party has the presidency anymore.
    Commenter Man , August 31, 2016 at 5:43 pm
    Meanwhile, over at the WaPo, neocon cheerleader Jennifer Rubin loves the same speech: Hillary Clinton is a responsible centrist .. .
    Chris Chuba , August 31, 2016 at 7:20 pm
    We are an Exceptional nation because we are an Indispensable nation

    This is a tautology. You can swap the words exceptional and indispensable and have the exact same sentence.

    Commenter Man, yet another example of how people will create their own reality. I am certain I will read the same tripe tomorrow when I peruse the links on 'realclearpolitics.com'. It is the only Neocon portal that I bother with.

    If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start it intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their own reality. I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens my convictions. To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually studying the Russians.

    jk , August 31, 2016 at 9:09 pm
    Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start something. Smells like yellow cake to me.
    cecelia, August 31, 2016 at 9:28 pm
    Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone deaf on this stuff.
    Anonne , September 2, 2016 at 12:07 am
    The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly for the Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong thing, because we will go to hell if we appear to be weak.
    Bowman , September 2, 2016 at 6:40 pm
    " She is aiming exactly for the Jennifer Rubins of the world"

    … and one can but hope that her aim is true …

    [Sep 04, 2016] Neoliberalism is every bit the wellspring of neofascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions. ..."
    "... If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth. ..."
    "... Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution. ..."
    "... It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. ..."
    "... he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed. ..."
    "... What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success. ..."
    Sep 04, 2016 | crookedtimber.org

    Cranky Observer 09.03.16 at 6:28 pm

    = = = I am actually honestly suggesting an intellectual exercise which, I think, might be worth your (extremely valuable) time. I propose you rewrite this post without using the word "neoliberalism" (or a synonym). = = =

    It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions.

    bruce wilder 09.03.16 at 7:47 pm
    In the politics of antonyms, I suppose we are always going get ourselves confused.

    Perhaps because of American usage of the root, liberal, to mean the mildly social democratic New Deal liberal Democrat, with its traces of American Populism and American Progressivism, we seem to want "liberal" to designate an ideology of the left, or at least, the centre-left. Maybe, it is the tendency of historical liberals to embrace idealistic high principles in their contest with reactionary claims for hereditary aristocracy and arbitrary authority.

    If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth.

    All of that is by way of preface to a thumbnail history of modern political ideology different from the one presented by Will G-R.

    Modern political ideology is a by-product of the Enlightenment and the resulting imperative to find a basis and purpose for political Authority in Reason, and apply Reason to the design of political and social institutions.

    Liberalism doesn't so much defeat conservatism as invent conservatism as an alternative to purely reactionary politics. The notion of an "inevitable progress" allows liberals to reconcile both themselves and their reactionary opponents to practical reality with incremental reform. Political paranoia and rhetoric are turned toward thinking about constitutional design.

    Mobilizing mass support and channeling popular discontents is a source of deep ambivalence and risk for liberals and liberalism. Popular democracy can quickly become noisy and vulgar, the proliferation of ideas and conflicting interests paralyzing. Inventing a conservatism that competes with the liberals, but also mobilizes mass support and channels popular discontent, puts bounds on "normal" politics.

    Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution.

    I would put the challenges to liberalism from the left and right well behind in precedence the critical failures and near-failures of liberalism in actual governance.

    Liberalism failed abjectly to bring about a constitutional monarchy in France during the first decade of the French Revolution, or a functioning deliberative assembly or religious toleration or even to resolve the problems of state finance and legal administration that destroyed the ancient regime. In the end, the solution was found in Napoleon Bonaparte, a precedent that would arguably inspire the fascism of dictators and vulgar nationalism, beginning with Napoleon's nephew fifty years later.

    It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. And, this was especially true in the wake of World War I, which many have argued persuasively was Liberalism's greatest and most catastrophic failure. T he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed.

    If liberals invented conservatism, it seems to me that would-be socialists were at pains to re-invent liberalism, and they did it several times going in radically different directions, but always from a base in the basic liberal idea of rationalizing authority. A significant thread in socialism adopted incremental progress and socialist ideas became liberal and conservative means for taming popular discontent in an increasingly urban society.

    Where and when liberalism actually was triumphant, both the range of liberal views and the range of interests presenting a liberal front became too broad for a stable politics. Think about the Liberal Party landslide of 1906, which eventually gave rise to the Labour Party in its role of Left Party in the British two-party system. Or FDR's landslide in 1936, which played a pivotal role in the march of the Southern Democrats to the Right. Or the emergence of the Liberal Consensus in American politics in the late 1950s.

    What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success.

    It is almost a rote reaction to talk about the Republican's Southern Strategy, but they didn't invent the crime wave that enveloped the country in the late 1960s or the riots that followed the enactment of Civil Rights legislation.

    Will G-R's "As soon [as] liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have . . .overcome the socialist and fascist challenges [liberals] are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism" doesn't seem to me to concede enough to Clinton and Blair entrepreneurially inventing a popular politics in response to Reagan and Thatcher, after the actual failures of an older model of social democratic programs and populist politics on its behalf.

    Rich Puchalsky 09.03.16 at 11:09 pm
    I write more about this over at my blog (in a somewhat different context).
    John Quiggin 09.04.16 at 6:57 am
    RW @113 I wrote a whole book using "market liberalism" instead of "neoliberalism", since I wanted a term more neutral and less pejorative. So, going back to "neoliberalism" was something I did advisedly. You say
    The word is abstract and has completely different meanings west and east of the Atlantic. In the USA it refers to weak tea center leftisms. In Europe to hard core liberalism.
    Well, yes. That's precisely why I've used the term, introduced the hard/soft distinction and explained the history. The core point is that, despite their differences soft (US meaning) and hard (European meaning) neoliberalism share crucial aspects of their history, theoretical foundations and policy implications.
    likbez 09.04.16 at 4:18 pm
    I would say that neoliberalism is closer to market fundamentalism, then market liberalism. See, for example:
    http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/Articles/definitions_of_neoliberalism.shtml

    === quote ===
    Neoliberalism is an ideology of market fundamentalism based on deception that promotes "markets" as a universal solution for all human problems in order to hide establishment of neo-fascist regime (pioneered by Pinochet in Chile), where militarized government functions are limited to external aggression and suppression of population within the country (often via establishing National Security State using "terrorists" threat) and corporations are the only "first class" political players. Like in classic corporatism, corporations are above the law and can rule the country as they see fit, using political parties for the legitimatization of the regime.

    The key difference with classic fascism is that instead of political dominance of the corporations of particular nation, those corporations are now transnational and states, including the USA are just enforcers of the will of transnational corporations on the population. Economic or "soft" methods of enforcement such as debt slavery and control of employment are preferred to brute force enforcement. At the same time police is militarized and due to technological achievements the level of surveillance surpasses the level achieved in Eastern Germany.

    Like with bolshevism in the USSR before, high, almost always hysterical, level of neoliberal propaganda and scapegoating of "enemies" as well as the concept of "permanent war for permanent peace" are used to suppress the protest against the wealth redistribution up (which is the key principle of neoliberalism) and to decimate organized labor.

    Multiple definitions of neoliberalism were proposed. Three major attempts to define this social system were made:

    1. Definitions stemming from the concept of "casino capitalism"
    2. Definitions stemming from the concept of Washington consensus
    3. Definitions stemming from the idea that Neoliberalism is Trotskyism for the rich. This idea has two major variations:
      • Definitions stemming from Professor Wendy Brown's concept of Neoliberal rationality which developed the concept of Inverted Totalitarism of Sheldon Wolin
      • Definitions stemming Professor Sheldon Wolin's older concept of Inverted Totalitarism - "the heavy statism forging the novel fusions of economic with political power that he took to be poisoning democracy at its root." (Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism Common Dreams )

    The first two are the most popular.

    likbez 09.04.16 at 5:03 pm

    bruce,

    @117

    Thanks for your post. It contains several important ideas:

    "It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism."

    "What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success."

    Moreover as Will G-R noted:

    "neoliberalism will be every bit the wellspring of fascism that old-school liberalism was."

    Failure of neoliberalism revives neofascist, far right movements. That's what the rise of far right movements in Europe now demonstrates pretty vividly.

    [Sep 04, 2016] Ethnography of the far right

    Notable quotes:
    "... Already feeling marginalized and often targeted, the boys and men described themselves as "searchers" or "seekers," kids looking for a group with which to identify and where they would feel they belonged. "When you enter puberty, it's like you have to choose a branch," said one ex-Nazi. "You have to choose between being a Nazi, anti-Nazi, punk or hip- hopper-in today's society, you just can't choose to be neutral" (cited in Wahlstrom 2001, 13-14). ..."
    "... The systematic deprivation of adequate rest and food may have been a deliberate ploy of the camp organizers to reduce the chances of dissent since time, energy, initiative, and planning are needed to develop a collective sense of grievance. ..."
    "... Festivals are excellent opportunities for far-right groups to spread the word about their successes to like-minded activists and sympathizers, since visitors come from as far away as Italy to see White Power music bands. In the festival mentioned above, a folk-dance act in the afternoon attracted only some hundred spectators, but evening performances by the U.S. band Youngland drew a large crowd that pushed to the front of the stage, leaving only limited space for burly skinheads indulging in pogo dancing. The music created a ritual closeness and attachment among the audience, shaping the emotions and aggression of the like-minded crowd, initially in a playful way, but one that switched into brutality a few moments later. ..."
    "... it is intriguing to see some of the same mechanisms and dynamics in play in creating and sustaining an extremist movement. The importance of performance and music in eliciting loyal participation from young adherents comes up in the articles about Germany, Sweden, and India. Likewise the importance of the emotional needs of boys as they approach manhood, and the hyper-masculine themes of violence and brutality in the neo-Nazi organizations that appeal to them, recurs in several of the essays. ..."
    Aug 01, 2016 | understandingsociety.blogspot.com

    Monday,

    nderstand the dynamics of far-right extremism without understanding far-right extremists? Probably not; it seems clear we need to have a much more "micro" understanding of the actors than we currently have if we are to understand these movements so antithetical to the values of liberal democracy. And yet there isn't much of a literature on this subject.

    An important exception is a 2007 special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography , curated by Kathleen Blee ( link ). This volume brings together several ethnographic studies of extremist groups, and it makes for very interesting reading. Kathleen Blee is a pioneer in this field and is the author of Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement (2002). She writes in Inside Organized Racism :

    Intense, activist racism typically does not arise on its own; it is learned in racist groups . These groups promote ideas radically different from the racist attitudes held by many whites. They teach a complex and contradictory mix of hatred for enemies, belief in conspiracies, and allegiance to an imaginary unified race of "Aryans." (3)
    One of Blee's key contributions has been to highlight the increasingly important and independent role played by women in right-wing extremist movements in the United States and Europe.

    The JCE issue includes valuable studies of right-wing extremist groups in India, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. And each of the essays is well worth reading, including especially Blee's good introduction. Here is the table of contents:


    Key questions concerning the mechanisms of mobilization arise in almost all the essays. What are the mechanisms through which new adherents are recruited? What psychological and emotional mechanisms are in play that keep loyalists involved in the movement? Contributors to this volume find a highly heterogeneous set of circumstances leading to extremist activism. Blee argues that an internalist approach is needed to allow us to have a more nuanced understanding of the social and personal dynamics of extremist movements. What she means by externalist here is the idea that there are societal forces and "risk factors" that contribute to the emergence of hate and racism within a population, and that these factors can be studied in a general way. An internalist approach, by contrast, aims at discovering the motives and causes of extremist engagement through study of the actors themselves, within specific social circumstances.

    But it is problematic to use data garnered in externalist studies to draw conclusions about micromobilization since it is not possible to infer the motivations of activists from the external conditions in which the group emerged. Because people are drawn to far-right movements for a variety of reasons that have little connection to political ideology (Blee 2002)-including a search for community, affirmation of masculinity, and personal loyalties- what motivates someone to join an anti-immigrant group, for example, might-or might not-be animus toward immigrants. (120)
    Based on interviews, participant-observation, and life-history methods, contributors find a mix of factors leading to the choice of extremist involvement: adolescent hyper-masculinity, a desire to belong, a history of bullying and abuse, as well as social exposure to adult hate activists. But this work is more difficult than many other kinds of ethnographic research because of the secrecy, suspiciousness, and danger associated with these kinds of activism:
    Close-up or "internalist" studies of far-right movements can provide a better understanding of the workings of far-right groups and the beliefs and motivations of their activists and supporters, but such studies are rare because data from interviews with members, observations of group activities, and internal documents are difficult to obtain.... Few scholars want to invest the considerable time or to establish the rapport necessary for close-up studies of those they regard as inexplicable and repugnant, in addition to dangerous and difficult. Yet, as the articles in this volume demonstrate, internalist studies of the far right can reveal otherwise obscured and important features of extreme rightist political mobilization. (121-122)
    A few snippets will give some flavor of the volume. Here is Michael Kimmel's description of some of the young men and boys attracted to the neo-Nazi movement in Sweden:
    Insecure and lonely at twelve years old, Edward started hanging out with skinheads because he "moved to a new town, knew nobody, and needed friends." Equally lonely and utterly alienated from his distant father, Pelle met an older skinhead who took him under his wing and became a sort of mentor. Pelle was a "street hooligan" hanging out in street gangs, brawling and drinking with other gangs. "My group actually looked down on the neo-Nazis," he says, because "they weren't real fighters." "All the guys had an insecure role as a man," says Robert. "They were all asking 'who am I?'" ...

    Already feeling marginalized and often targeted, the boys and men described themselves as "searchers" or "seekers," kids looking for a group with which to identify and where they would feel they belonged. "When you enter puberty, it's like you have to choose a branch," said one ex-Nazi. "You have to choose between being a Nazi, anti-Nazi, punk or hip- hopper-in today's society, you just can't choose to be neutral" (cited in Wahlstrom 2001, 13-14). ...

    For others, it was a sense of alienation from family and especially the desire to rebel against their fathers. "Grown-ups often forget an important component of Swedish racism, the emotional conviction," says Jonas Hallen (2000). "If you have been beaten, threatened, and stolen from, you won't listen to facts and numbers."(209-210)

    Here is Meera Sehgal's description of far-right Hindu nationalist training camps for young girls in India:
    The overall atmosphere of this camp and the Samiti's camps in general was rigid and authoritarian, with a strong emphasis on discipline. ... A number of girls fell ill with diarrhea, exhaustion, and heat stroke. Every day at least five to ten girls could be seen crying, wanting to go home. They pleaded with their city's local Samiti leaders, camp instructors, and organizers to be allowed to call their parents, but were not allowed to do so. ... Neither students nor instructors were allowed to get sufficient rest or decent food.

    The training was at a frenetic pace in physically trying conditions. Participants were kept awake and physically and mentally engaged from dawn to late night. Approximately four hours a day were devoted to physical training; five hours to ideological indoctrination through lectures, group discussions, and rote memorization; and two hours to indoctrination through cultural programming like songs, stories, plays, jokes, and skits. Many girls and women were consequently soon physically exhausted, and yet were forced to continue. The systematic deprivation of adequate rest and food may have been a deliberate ploy of the camp organizers to reduce the chances of dissent since time, energy, initiative, and planning are needed to develop a collective sense of grievance.

    Indoctrination, which was the Samiti's first priority, ranged from classroom lectures and small and large group discussions led by different instructors, to nightly cultural programs where skits, storytelling, songs, and chants were taught by the instructors and seasoned activists, based on the lives of various "Hindu" women, both mythical and historical. (170)

    And here is Fabian Virchow's description of the emotional power of music and spectacle at a neo-Nazi rally in Germany:
    Festivals are excellent opportunities for far-right groups to spread the word about their successes to like-minded activists and sympathizers, since visitors come from as far away as Italy to see White Power music bands. In the festival mentioned above, a folk-dance act in the afternoon attracted only some hundred spectators, but evening performances by the U.S. band Youngland drew a large crowd that pushed to the front of the stage, leaving only limited space for burly skinheads indulging in pogo dancing. The music created a ritual closeness and attachment among the audience, shaping the emotions and aggression of the like-minded crowd, initially in a playful way, but one that switched into brutality a few moments later.

    The aggression of White Power music is evident in the messages of its songs, which are either confessing, demonstrating self-assertion against what is perceived as totally hostile surroundings, or requesting action (Meyer 1995). Using Heavy Metal or Oi Punk as its musical basis, White Power music not only attracts those who see themselves as part of the same political movement as the musicians, but also serves as one of the most important tools for recruiting new adherents to the politics of the far right (Dornbusch and Raabe 2002).

    Since the festival I visited takes place only once a year, and because performances of White Power bands are organized clandestinely in most cases and are often disrupted by the police, the far-right movement needs additional events to shape and sustain its collective identity. As the far right and the NPD and neo-Nazi groupuscules in particular regard themselves as a "movement of action," it is no surprise that rallies play an important role in this effort. (151)

    Each of these essays is based on first-hand observation and interaction, and they give some insight into the psychological forces playing on the participants as well as the mobilizational strategies used by the leaders of these kinds of movements. The articles published here offer a good cross-section of the ways in which ethnographic methods can be brought to bear on the phenomenon of extremist right-wing activism. And because the studies are drawn from five quite different national contexts (Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, India, France), it is intriguing to see some of the same mechanisms and dynamics in play in creating and sustaining an extremist movement. The importance of performance and music in eliciting loyal participation from young adherents comes up in the articles about Germany, Sweden, and India. Likewise the importance of the emotional needs of boys as they approach manhood, and the hyper-masculine themes of violence and brutality in the neo-Nazi organizations that appeal to them, recurs in several of the essays.

    Along with KA Kreasap, Kathleen Blee is also the author of a 2010 review article on right-wing extremist movements in Annual Reviews of Sociology ( link ). These are the kinds of hate-based organizations and activists tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center ( link ), and that seem to be more visible than ever before during the current presidential campaign. The essay pays attention to the question of the motivations and "risk factors" that lead people to join right-wing movements. Blee and Kreasap argue that the motivations and circumstances of mobilization into right-wing organizations are substantially more heterogeneous than a simple story leading from racist attitudes to racist mobilization would suggest. They argue that antecedent racist ideology is indeed a factor, but that music, culture, social media, and continent social networks also play significant causal roles.

    [Sep 04, 2016] The rise of Austrofascism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Several recent posts have commented on the rise of a nationalistic, nativist politics in numerous contemporary democracies around the world. ..."
    "... Wasserman emphasizes the importance of ideas and culture within the rise of Austrofascism, and he makes use of Gramsci's concept of hegemony as a way of understanding the link between philosophy and politics. The pro-fascist right held a dominant role within major Viennese cultural and educational institutions. ..."
    "... The ideas represented within its institutions ran a broad spectrum, yet its discourse centered on radical anti-Semitism, German nationalism, völkisch authoritarianism, anti-Enlightenment (and antimodernist) thinking, and corporatism. The potential for collaboration between Catholic conservatives and German nationalists has only in recent years begun to attract scholarly attention. ..."
    Aug 20, 2016 | understandingsociety.blogspot.com

    Understanding Society

    Several recent posts have commented on the rise of a nationalistic, nativist politics in numerous contemporary democracies around the world. The implications of this political process are deeply challenging to the values of liberal democracy. We need to try to understand these developments. (Peter Merkl's research on European right-wing extremism is very helpful here; Right-wing Extremism in the Twenty-first Century .)

    One plausible approach to trying to understand the dynamics of this turn to the far right is to consider relevantly similar historical examples. A very interesting study on the history of Austria's right-wing extremism between the wars was published recently by Janek Wasserman, Black Vienna: The Radical Right in the Red City, 1918-1938 .

    Wasserman emphasizes the importance of ideas and culture within the rise of Austrofascism, and he makes use of Gramsci's concept of hegemony as a way of understanding the link between philosophy and politics. The pro-fascist right held a dominant role within major Viennese cultural and educational institutions. Here is how Wasserman describes the content of ultra-conservative philosophy and ideology in inter-war Vienna:

    The ideas represented within its institutions ran a broad spectrum, yet its discourse centered on radical anti-Semitism, German nationalism, völkisch authoritarianism, anti-Enlightenment (and antimodernist) thinking, and corporatism. The potential for collaboration between Catholic conservatives and German nationalists has only in recent years begun to attract scholarly attention. (6)
    This climate was highly inhospitable towards ideas and values from progressive thinkers. Wasserman describes the intellectual and cultural climate of Vienna in these terms:
    At the turn of the century, Austria was one of the most culturally conservative nations in Europe. The advocacy of avant-garde scientific theories therefore put the First Vienna Circle- and its intellectual forbears- under pressure. Ultimately, it left them in marginal positions until several years after the Great War. In the wake of the Wahrmund affair, discussed in chapter 1, intellectuals advocating secularist, rationalist, or liberal views faced a hostile academic landscape.

    Ernst Mach, for example, was an intellectual outsider at the University of Vienna from 1895 until his death in 1916. Always supportive of socialist causes, he left a portion of his estate to the Social Democrats in his last will and testament. His theories of sensationalism and radical empiricism were challenged on all sides, most notably by his successor Ludwig Boltzmann. His students, among them David Josef Bach and Friedrich Adler, either had to leave the country to find appointments or give up academics altogether. Unable to find positions in Vienna, Frank moved to Prague and Neurath to Heidelberg. Hahn did not receive a position until after the war. The First Vienna Circle disbanded because of a lack of opportunity at home. (110-111)

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 03, 2016] Corporations are one-dollar-one-vote top-down systems. They consider one-person-one-vote democracy illegitimate

    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Corporations are "one-dollar-one-vote" top-down systems. They consider "one-person-one-vote" democracy illegitimate

    [Sep 03, 2016] Gowdy FBI barely probed Clinton about intent on emails

    Aug 25, 2016 | TheHill

    FBI officials failed to aggressively question Hillary Clinton about her intentions in setting up a private email system, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) claimed this week, exposing a potential key vulnerability in the bureau's investigation.

    "I didn't see that many questions on that issue," Gowdy told Fox News's "The Kelly File" on Wednesday evening.

    The detail could be crucial for Republican critics of the FBI's decision not to recommend charges be filed against the former secretary of State for mishandling classified information.

    ... ... ...

    "I looked to see what witnesses were questioned on the issue of intent, including her," he said on Fox News. "I didn't see that many questions on that issue."

    House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz(R-Utah) has called for the FBI to create unclassified versions of the Clinton case file that it gave to Congress, so that the material can be released publicly. Gowdy reiterated the call on Fox News.

    "There's no reason in the world you could not and should not be able to look at the same witness interviews that I had to go to Washington and look at in a classified setting," he said.

    [Sep 03, 2016] The Class Warfare article about St. Louis seemed folksy but is a light shining on the plundering of Middle America

    Notable quotes:
    "... In hindsight; the consolidation, monopolization and then seizure of power by the International Multi-Corps is obvious. $600 EpiPins or the Oxy epidemic are examples of anything goes rip-offs since corporate crooks got a get out of jail card from the Obama Administration. ..."
    "... This is perhaps the last year that identity politics will work. ..."
    "... Just as the military corporations exploit the conflicts between mountain Kurds and lowland Sunni tribes in the Fertile Crescent that go back to the founding of civilization to sell weapons; the racial and ethnic conflicts in the USA are being primed to explode. ..."
    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    For your consideration:

    o What Rail Freight Volume just Said about China | Wolf Street

    o "If You Own a Home in Palo Alto, CA, Sell it Now" | Wolf Street

    o Senators press Mylan on 'exorbitantly expensive' EpiPen | Reuters

    o No "Free Money for All," only for Corporations & Governments; Consumers Need Not Apply: ECB's Nowotny | Wolf Street

    VietnamVet , September 2, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    The Class Warfare article about St. Louis seemed folksy but is a light shining on the plundering of Middle America.

    In hindsight; the consolidation, monopolization and then seizure of power by the International Multi-Corps is obvious. $600 EpiPins or the Oxy epidemic are examples of anything goes rip-offs since corporate crooks got a get out of jail card from the Obama Administration.

    This is perhaps the last year that identity politics will work.

    Just as the military corporations exploit the conflicts between mountain Kurds and lowland Sunni tribes in the Fertile Crescent that go back to the founding of civilization to sell weapons; the racial and ethnic conflicts in the USA are being primed to explode.

    At some point, American Mountaineers (also known as Hillbillies) are going to take their measure of the urbanized Cosmopolitans exploiting them and the splintering apart will start.

    [Sep 03, 2016] The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led global neoliberal empire. So Carthago delenda est is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin. ..."
    "... The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington. ..."
    angrybearblog.com

    likbez , September 3, 2016 9:42 pm

    All this anti-Russian warmongering from esteemed commenters here is suspect. And should be taken with a grain of salt.

    The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led global neoliberal empire (with EU and Japan as major vassals),

    So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin.

    The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington.

    That means that as bad as Trump is, he is a safer bet than Hillary, because the latter is a neocon warmonger, which can get us in the hot war with Russia. And this is the most principal, cardinal issue of the November elections.

    All other issues like climate change record (although nuclear winter will definitely reverse global warming), Supreme Court appointments, etc. are of secondary importance.

    As John Kenneth Galbraith said, "Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."

    [Sep 03, 2016] There is interesting and expert commentary to NSO group software in the Hacker News forum

    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Pavel , September 3, 2016 at 8:11 am

    I just found this via Hacker News… perhaps it was in yesterday's links and I missed it. Truly scary in the Orwellian sense and yet another reason not to use a smartphone. Chilling read.

    SAN FRANCISCO - Want to invisibly spy on 10 iPhone owners without their knowledge? Gather their every keystroke, sound, message and location? That will cost you $650,000, plus a $500,000 setup fee with an Israeli outfit called the NSO Group. You can spy on more people if you would like - just check out the company's price list.

    The NSO Group is one of a number of companies that sell surveillance tools that can capture all the activity on a smartphone, like a user's location and personal contacts. These tools can even turn the phone into a secret recording device.

    Since its founding six years ago, the NSO Group has kept a low profile. But last month, security researchers caught its spyware trying to gain access to the iPhone of a human rights activist in the United Arab Emirates. They also discovered a second target, a Mexican journalist who wrote about corruption in the Mexican government.

    Now, internal NSO Group emails, contracts and commercial proposals obtained by The New York Times offer insight into how companies in this secretive digital surveillance industry operate. The emails and documents were provided by two people who have had dealings with the NSO Group but would not be named for fear of reprisals.

    –NY Times: How Spy Tech Firms Let Governments See Everything on a Smartphone

    There is interesting and expert commentary in the Hacker News forum: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12417938.

    Pat , September 3, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    I could be wrong, but the promos for Sixty Minutes on the local news make it seem they might be about this subject. Either way it is another scare you about what your cell phone can do story, possibly justified this time.

    Jeotsu , September 3, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    An anecdote which I cannot support with links or other evidence:

    A friend of mine used to work for a (non USA) security intelligence service. I was bouncing ideas off him for a book I'm working on, specifically ideas about how monitoring/electronics/spying can be used to measure and manipulate societies. He was useful for telling if my ideas (for a Science Fiction novel) were plausible without ever getting into details. Always very careful to keep his replies in the "white" world of what any computer security person would know, without delving into anything classified.

    One day we were way out in the back blocks, and I laid out one scenario for him to see if it would be plausible. All he did was small cryptically, and point at a cell phone lying on a table 10 meters away. He wouldn't say a word on the subject.

    It wasn't his cellphone, and we were in a relatively remote region with no cell phone coverage.

    It told me that my book idea was far too plausible. It also told me that every cellphone is likely recording everything all the time, for later upload when back in signal range. (Or at least there was the inescapable possibility that the cell phones were doing so, and that he had to assume foreign (or domestic?) agencies could be following him through monitoring of cell phones of friends and neighbors.)

    It was a clarifying moment for me.

    Every cellphone has a monumental amount of storage space (especially for audio files). Almost every cellphone only has a software "switch" for turning it off, not a hardware interlock where you can be sure off is off. So how can you ever really be sure it is "off"? Answer- you can't

    Sobering thought. Especially when you consider the Bluffdale facility in the USA.

    [Sep 03, 2016] September 2, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    Notable quotes:
    "... The article on the difficulty of taking over the Democratic Party hits the nail on the head, but it misses the Michels-ian problem: organizations have a tendency (but not this is a tendency, not a rule or fate) towards increasing oligarchy over time, and organizational members are socialized to trust and obey party leadership. ..."
    "... if you and a faction entered and created a "Destroy the Dems" faction you'd be ignored or hunted out of the party, especially if you pointedly attacked the Dems oligarchy and were openly hostile to their officials, platform and the president – though I would argue you'd need exactly a "Destroy the Dems" faction to succeed in smashing the party oligarchy and changing the culture. ..."
    "... Lack of democracy is a persistent theme in studies of parties for the last century. ..."
    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    The article on the difficulty of taking over the Democratic Party hits the nail on the head, but it misses the Michels-ian problem: organizations have a tendency (but not this is a tendency, not a rule or fate) towards increasing oligarchy over time, and organizational members are socialized to trust and obey party leadership. Factional dissidents within the Dems have to contend not only with the party oligarchy and its formidable resources, the decentralized and sprawling nature of the organization, but with a membership that barely participates but, when it does, turns out when and how the leadership wants.

    The Militant Labour tendency example isn't perfect – entryism into a Parliamentary party is easier than our party system – but it speaks volumes. To get a hearing from the party membership you can only criticize so much of the organization itself; if you and a faction entered and created a "Destroy the Dems" faction you'd be ignored or hunted out of the party, especially if you pointedly attacked the Dems oligarchy and were openly hostile to their officials, platform and the president – though I would argue you'd need exactly a "Destroy the Dems" faction to succeed in smashing the party oligarchy and changing the culture.

    Keep in mind I do say this as a Green and a person who did his PhD on inner-party democracy (or lack thereof). Lack of democracy is a persistent theme in studies of parties for the last century.

    It would make more sense to really unite the left around electoral reform in the long run and push for proportional representation at the state/local level for legislatures and city councils. While it would probably be preferable for democracy's sake to have one big district elected with an open-list vote, in the US context we'd probably go the German route of mixed-member proportional that combines geographical single-member districts with proportional voting.

    [Sep 03, 2016] Russia's False Hopes

    Notable quotes:
    "... The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status. ..."
    "... Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia. ..."
    "... Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe. Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe. ..."
    "... Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put their war planes into the air. ..."
    "... Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional, indispensable" country. No other country has this rank ..."
    "... A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of" any such country. ..."
    "... If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government is out to lunch. ..."
    "... Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington can be a partner. ..."
    "... These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony. ..."
    "... Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World Hegemony ..."
    09, 2015 | Defend Democracy Press

    Russia so desperately desires to be part of the disreputable and collapsing West that Russia is losing its grip on reality.

    Despite hard lesson piled upon hard lesson, Russia cannot give up its hope of being acceptable to the West. The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status.

    Russia miscalculated that diplomacy could solve the crisis that Washington created in Ukraine and placed its hopes on the Minsk Agreement, which has no Western support whatsoever, neither in Kiev nor in Washington, London, and NATO.

    Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia.

    Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe. Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe.

    Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put their war planes into the air.

    This is the failure of diplomacy, not its success. Diplomacy cannot succeed when only one side believes in diplomacy and the other side believes in force.

    Russia needs to understand that diplomacy cannot work with Washington and its NATO vassals who do not believe in diplomacy, but rely instead on force. Russia needs to understand that when Washington declares that Russia is an outlaw state that "does not act in accordance with international norms," Washington means that Russia is not following Washington's orders. By "international norms," Washington means Washington's will. Countries that are not in compliance with Washington's will are not acting in accordance with "international norms."

    Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional, indispensable" country. No other country has this rank.

    A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of" any such country.

    Russia, China, and Iran are in Washington's crosshairs. Treaties and "cooperation" mean nothing. Cooperation only causes Washington's targets to lose focus and to forget that they are targets. Russia's foreign minister Lavrov seems to believe that now with the failure of Washington's policy of war and destruction in the Middle East, Washington and Russia can work together to contain the ISIS jihadists in Iraq and Syria. This is a pipe dream. Russia and Washington cannot work together in Syria and Iraq, because the two governments have conflicting goals. Russia wants peace, respect for international law, and the containment of radical jihadists elements. Washington wants war, no legal constraints, and is funding radical jihadist elements in the interest of Middle East instability and overthrow of Assad in Syria. Even if Washington desired the same goals as Russia, for Washington to work with Russia would undermine the picture of Russia as a threat and enemy.

    Russia, China, and Iran are the three countries that can constrain Washington's unilateral action. Consequently, the three countries are in danger of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. If these countries are so naive as to believe that they can now work with Washington, given the failure of Washington's 14-year old policy of coercion and violence in the Middle East, by rescuing Washington from the quagmire it created that gave rise to the Islamic State, they are deluded sitting ducks for a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

    Washington created the Islamic State. Washington used these jihadists to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent them to overthrow Assad in Syria. The American neoconservatives, everyone of whom is allied with Zionist Israel, do not want any cohesive state in the Middle East capable of interfering with a "Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates."

    The ISIS jihadists learned that Washington's policy of murdering and displacing millions of Muslims in seven countries had created an anti-Western constituency for them among the peoples of the Middle East and have begun acting independently of their Washington creators.

    The consequence is more chaos in the Middle East and Washington's loss of control.

    Instead of leaving Washington to suffer at the hands of its own works, Russia and Iran, the two most hated and demonized countries in the West, have rushed to rescue Washington from its Middle East follies. This is the failure of Russian and Iranian strategic thinking. Countries that cannot think strategically do not survive.

    The Iranians need to understand that their treaty with Washington means nothing. Washington has never honored any treaty. Just ask the Plains Indians or the last Soviet President Gorbachev.

    If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government is out to lunch.

    Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington can be a partner.

    These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony.

    Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World Hegemony.

    Only Russia and China can save the world from Armageddon, but are they too deluded and worshipful of the West to save Planet Earth?

    [Sep 03, 2016] How Spy Tech Firms Let Governments See Everything on a Smartphone

    Sep 03, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    The New York Times

    There are dozens of digital spying companies that can track everything a target does on a smartphone. Credit Spencer Platt/Getty Images

    SAN FRANCISCO - Want to invisibly spy on 10 iPhone owners without their knowledge? Gather their every keystroke, sound, message and location? That will cost you $650,000, plus a $500,000 setup fee with an Israeli outfit called the NSO Group. You can spy on more people if you would like - just check out the company's price list.

    The NSO Group is one of a number of companies that sell surveillance tools that can capture all the activity on a smartphone, like a user's location and personal contacts. These tools can even turn the phone into a secret recording device.

    Since its founding six years ago, the NSO Group has kept a low profile. But last month, security researchers caught its spyware trying to gain access to the iPhone of a human rights activist in the United Arab Emirates. They also discovered a second target, a Mexican journalist who wrote about corruption in the Mexican government.

    Now, internal NSO Group emails, contracts and commercial proposals obtained by The New York Times offer insight into how companies in this secretive digital surveillance industry operate. The emails and documents were provided by two people who have had dealings with the NSO Group but would not be named for fear of reprisals.

    The company is one of dozens of digital spying outfits that track everything a target does on a smartphone. They aggressively market their services to governments and law enforcement agencies around the world. The industry argues that this spying is necessary to track terrorists, kidnappers and drug lords. The NSO Group's corporate mission statement is "Make the world a safe place."

    Ten people familiar with the company's sales, who refused to be identified, said that the NSO Group has a strict internal vetting process to determine who it will sell to. An ethics committee made up of employees and external counsel vets potential customers based on human rights rankings set by the World Bank and other global bodies. And to date, these people all said, NSO has yet to be denied an export license.

    But critics note that the company's spyware has also been used to track journalists and human rights activists.

    "There's no check on this," said Bill Marczak, a senior fellow at the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs. "Once NSO's systems are sold, governments can essentially use them however they want. NSO can say they're trying to make the world a safer place, but they are also making the world a more surveilled place."

    The NSO Group's capabilities are in higher demand now that companies like Apple, Facebook and Google are using stronger encryption to protect data in their systems, in the process making it harder for government agencies to track suspects.

    The NSO Group's spyware finds ways around encryption by baiting targets to click unwittingly on texts containing malicious links or by exploiting previously undiscovered software flaws. It was taking advantage of three such flaws in Apple software - since fixed - when it was discovered by researchers last month.

    The cyberarms industry typified by the NSO Group operates in a legal gray area, and it is often left to the companies to decide how far they are willing to dig into a target's personal life and what governments they will do business with. Israel has strict export controls for digital weaponry, but the country has never barred the sale of NSO Group technology.

    Since it is privately held, not much is known about the NSO Group's finances, but its business is clearly growing. Two years ago, the NSO Group sold a controlling stake in its business to Francisco Partners, a private equity firm based in San Francisco, for $120 million. Nearly a year later, Francisco Partners was exploring a sale of the company for 10 times that amount, according to two people approached by the firm but forbidden to speak about the discussions.

    The company's internal documents detail pitches to countries throughout Europe and multimillion-dollar contracts with Mexico, which paid the NSO Group more than $15 million for three projects over three years, according to internal NSO Group emails dated in 2013.

    "Our intelligence systems are subject to Mexico's relevant legislation and have legal authorization," Ricardo Alday, a spokesman for the Mexican embassy in Washington, said in an emailed statement. "They are not used against journalists or activists. All contracts with the federal government are done in accordance with the law."

    Zamir Dahbash, an NSO Group spokesman, said that the sale of its spyware was restricted to authorized governments and that it was used solely for criminal and terrorist investigations. He declined to comment on whether the company would cease selling to the U.A.E. and Mexico after last week's disclosures.

    For the last six years, the NSO Group's main product, a tracking system called Pegasus, has been used by a growing number of government agencies to target a range of smartphones - including iPhones, Androids, and BlackBerry and Symbian systems - without leaving a trace.

    Among the Pegasus system's capabilities, NSO Group contracts assert, are the abilities to extract text messages, contact lists, calendar records, emails, instant messages and GPS locations. One capability that the NSO Group calls "room tap" can gather sounds in and around the room, using the phone's own microphone.

    Pegasus can use the camera to take snapshots or screen grabs. It can deny the phone access to certain websites and applications, and it can grab search histories or anything viewed with the phone's web browser. And all of the data can be sent back to the agency's server in real time.

    In its commercial proposals, the NSO Group asserts that its tracking software and hardware can install itself in any number of ways, including "over the air stealth installation," tailored text messages and emails, through public Wi-Fi hot spots rigged to secretly install NSO Group software, or the old-fashioned way, by spies in person.

    Much like a traditional software company, the NSO Group prices its surveillance tools by the number of targets, starting with a flat $500,000 installation fee. To spy on 10 iPhone users, NSO charges government agencies $650,000; $650,000 for 10 Android users; $500,000 for five BlackBerry users; or $300,000 for five Symbian users - on top of the setup fee, according to one commercial proposal.

    You can pay for more targets. One hundred additional targets will cost $800,000, 50 extra targets cost $500,000, 20 extra will cost $250,000 and 10 extra costs $150,000, according to an NSO Group commercial proposal. There is an annual system maintenance fee of 17 percent of the total price every year thereafter.

    What that gets you, NSO Group documents say, is "unlimited access to a target's mobile devices." In short, the company says: You can "remotely and covertly collect information about your target's relationships, location, phone calls, plans and activities - whenever and wherever they are."

    And, its proposal adds, "It leaves no traces whatsoever."

    [Sep 02, 2016] FBI Releases Full Report Into Hillary Clinton Email Probe Zero Hedge

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com

    Just as we predicted on a sleepy Friday afternoon ahead of a long weekend, The FBI has released a detailed report on its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, as well as a summary of her interview with agents, providing, what The Washington Post says is the most thorough look yet at the probe that has dogged the campaign of the Democratic presidential nominee.

    Official FBI Statement:

    Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure .

    We also are releasing a factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter. We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

    Appropriate redactions have been made for classified information or other material exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Additional information related to this investigation that the FBI releases in the future will be placed on The Vault, the FBI's electronic FOIA library.

    As The Washington Post adds, the documents released total 58 pages, though large portions and sometimes entire pages are redacted.

    FBI Director James B. Comey announced in July that his agency would not recommend criminal charges against Clinton for her use of a private email server. Comey said that Clinton and her staffers were "extremely careless" in how they treated classified information, but investigators did not find they intended to mishandle such material. Nor did investigators uncover exacerbating factors - like efforts to obstruct justice - that often lead to charges in similar cases, Comey said.

    The FBI turned over to several Congressional committees documents related to the probe and required they only be viewed by those with appropriate security clearances, even though not all of the material was classified, legislators and their staffers have said.

    Those documents included an investigative report and summaries of interviews with more than a dozen senior Clinton staffers, other State Department officials, former secretary of state Colin Powell and at least one other person. The documents released Friday appear to be but a fraction of those.

    ...

    Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon has said turning over the documents was "an extraordinarily rare step that was sought solely by Republicans for the purposes of further second-guessing the career professionals at the FBI."

    But he has said if the material were going to be shared outside the Justice Department, "they should be released widely so that the public can see them for themselves, rather than allow Republicans to mischaracterize them through selective, partisan leaks."

    Though Fallon seems to have gotten his wish, the public release of the documents will undoubtedly draw more attention to a topic that seems to have fueled negative perceptions of Clinton . A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found 41 percent of Americans had a favorable impression of Clinton, while 56 percent had an unfavorable one.

    Key Excerpts...

  • *CLINTON DENIED USING PRIVATE EMAIL TO AVOID FEDERAL RECORDS ACT
  • *CLINTON KNEW SHE HAD DUTY TO PRESERVE FEDERAL RECORDS: FBI
  • *COLIN POWELL WARNED CLINTON PRIVATE E-MAILS COULD BE PUBLIC:FBI
  • *FBI SAYS CLINTON LAWYERS UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY OF 13 DEVICES
  • *AT LEAST 100 STATE DEPT. WORKERS HAD CLINTON'S E-MAIL ADDRESS
  • CLINTON SAID SHE NEVER DELETED, NOR INSTRUCTED ANYONE TO DELETE, HER EMAIL TO AVOID COMPLYING WITH FEDERAL RECORDS LAWS OR FBI OR STATE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
  • CLINTON AIDES SAID SHE FREQUENTLY REPLACED HER BLACKBERRY PHONE AND THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE OLD DEVICE WOULD "FREQUENTLY BECOME UNKOWN"
  • CLINTON CONTACTED POWELL IN JANUARY 2009 TO INQUIRE ABOUT HIS USE OF A BLACKBERRY WHILE IN OFFICE; POWELL ADVISED CLINTON TO 'BE VERY CAREFUL
  • Hillary Clinton used 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads to access clintonemail.com. The FBI only had access to 2 of the iPads and The FBI found no evidence of hacking on those 2...

    And here is the email from Colin Powell telling her that emails would need to be part of the "government records" ...

    And here is Clinton denying that she used a private server to "avoid [the] Federal Records Act" as she just assumed that "based on her practice of emailing staff on their state.gov accounts, [that] communications were captured by State systems." Yes, well what about the "official" communications had with people outside of the State Department? Did retention of those emails ever cross Hillary's mind? * * * Full Report below...

    Hillary Clinton FBI Part 1 of 2

    [Sep 02, 2016] Two Retired Four Star Generals Beat War Drums as a retirement hobby

    Sep 02, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Commentary: Who is hacking U.S. election databases and why are they so difficult to identify?" [ Reuters ]. "This summer has been rife with news of election-related hacking. Last month it was the Democratic National Committee; this week, voter election databases in Illinois and Arizona…

    The FBI has said that government-affiliated Russian hackers are responsible for both intrusions. Yet the hackers' motivation is unclear. We don't know whether the hackers were engaging in espionage, attempting to manipulate the election, or just harvesting low-hanging cyber-fruit for their own financial gain." Well, the FBI is totes apolitical, so that settles that. There are brave Russkis out there. Let's go kill them!

    So much for keeping the military out of politics:

    In a joint statement, two Four Star Generals, Bob Sennewald and David Maddox are endorsing Hillary Clinton for President. Sennewald is the former Commanding General, U.S. Army Forces Command, and Maddox was formerly Commander in Chief, U.S. Army- Europe. Clinton spoke at the American Legion on Wednesday:

    "Having each served over 34 years and retired as an Army 4- star general, we each have worked closely with America's strongest allies, both in NATO and throughout Asia. Our votes have always been private, and neither of us has ever previously lent his name or voice to a presidential candidate. Having studied what is at stake for this country and the alternatives we have now, we see only one viable leader, and will be voting this November for Secretary Hillary Clinton."

    [Sep 02, 2016] Debbie Wasserman Schultz Hangs Onto Her Seat In Florida Primary

    Another slap in the face for Sanders: She defeated progressive law professor Tim Canova.
    www.huffingtonpost.com

    Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) won her primary Tuesday, a positive development for the congresswoman after a tumultuous past few months.

    Wasserman Schultz beat progressive law professor Tim Canova, who drew on the same anti-corporate momentum that fueled the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), earning him national attention and significant contributions from Sanders supporters. The political novice was even raising more money than Wasserman Schultz during the campaign.

    With 98 percent of the votes counted, Wasserman Schultz had 57 percent, to Canova's 43 percent, according to The Associated Press.

    Not that long ago, even talking about a possible Wasserman Schultz defeat would have been outlandish. She ran the Democratic National Committee, held a safe blue seat and had never had a competitive primary.

    But furor at Wasserman Schultz grew during the presidential primary as many progressives criticized her for seeming to tip the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton, and lingering frustrations over her management of the party spilled into the open. Canova campaigned against her as the "quintessential corporate machine politician." In March, President Barack Obama endorsed Wasserman Schultz, an early indication that the congresswoman needed some help in retaining her seat.

    Wasserman Schultz resigned as DNC chair on the eve of the convention last month as Sanders supporters gathered in Philadelphia took to the streets and protested her. The catalyst was a leak of DNC staffers' emails that seemed to show the party working to help get Clinton elected ― even though it was supposed to be neutral in the primary. The congresswoman wanted to keep her speaking spot at the convention, but ultimately, she was forced to give that up as well.

    Wasserman Schultz also faced outrage from progressives for co-sponsoring legislation to gut new rules put forward by the Obama administration intended to rein in predatory payday lending. The activist group Allied Progressive released an ad in Florida, hitting the DNC chair for teaming up with Republicans to defeat the policy.

    For Sanders supporters, the race became a fight against corporate interests and a way to eke out a victory after the senator's loss in the Democratic presidential primary.

    Yet despite this dissatisfaction, Canova's candidacy lagged. Sanders sent out fundraising emails on his behalf, but he never went to Florida and campaigned in person.

    "There are a lot of people who feel disappointed," Canova told The Atlantic. "There are a lot of people in South Florida who wanted Bernie Sanders to come down."

    Clinton, meanwhile, paid a surprise visit to a Wasserman Schultz field office and praised the congresswoman when she was in Miami last month. She also won the district against Sanders by a landslide.

    Being tied to Sanders could also have been a double-edged sword, as Canova told NBC News.

    "Bernie ran a lousy campaign in Florida," he said. "Bernie had his problems with certain constituencies that I don't have problems with."

    The 23rd district is heavily Democratic, and Wasserman Schultz is expected to win in November.

    [Sep 01, 2016] Hillary, liberator of Libya, preaches to the American Legion choir in Ohio

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation," and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." ..."
    "... Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority, Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great. ..."
    "... Like Rome, we make a waste land and call it peace. ..."
    "... It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you choose as we wish if you will. Go America! ..."
    "... "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." LOL! ……Wha!/! she was serious!? Your sh*tting me! ..."
    Sep 01, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jim Haygood , August 31, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Hillary, liberator of Libya, preaches to the American Legion choir in Ohio:

    The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation," and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress."

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-stress-american-exceptionalism-ohio-41764569

    Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority, Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great.

    Dick: " I'm with her! "
    Hillary: " Who knew? "

    http://tinyurl.com/jvaqryp

    Roger Smith , August 31, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Haha I am pretty sure that one does not force peace.

    jsn , August 31, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    Like Rome, we make a waste land and call it peace.

    cwaltz , August 31, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you choose as we wish if you will. Go America!

    fresno dan , August 31, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." LOL! ……Wha!/! she was serious!? Your sh*tting me!

    [Aug 29, 2016] The Scourge of Neoliberalism Why the Democratic Party Is Failing the Poor by Jake Johnson

    Notable quotes:
    "... Though Democrats were happy to take their votes on election day, lower-income Americans were increasingly faced with a party that had taken on a managerial posture, one characterized by both a growing commitment to market principles and an abandonment of the notion - fostered by the New Deal period - that government could play a significant role in improving the material conditions of the population. ..."
    "... Because they eschew any honest critique of capitalism, these are the absurdities to which Democrats are confined: They must justify the economic order and insist that there are good and bad economic elites, those who, out of the kindness of their hearts, share the spoils with their workers and those who, like Trump, don't. ..."
    "... The elite anger the Sanders insurgency provoked was telling: It made clear the opposition within the political establishment to " even mild social democracy ." It teased out the distinctions between those who believe corporate money is inherently corrupting and those who don't, those who support single-payer health care and those who don't, those who support a radical approach to both redistributing income and wealth and addressing the crisis of poverty and those who don't. ..."
    "... With Hillary Clinton at the helm, though, it is unlikely that the Democrats' drift toward becoming " the cosmopolitan elite party " will slow, particularly if Trump_vs_deep_state becomes the dominant current within the GOP. Also, given Clinton's "embrace of amoral billionaires," notes Nathan Robinson, it is "highly unlikely that the party will follow through on any meaningful attempt to reduce American economic inequality." ..."
    "... The problem is, ultimately, systemic: It is about who writes the rules, and how these rules act in the real world to create extraordinary gains for some while leaving others to compete, endlessly and ruthlessly, for the rest. ..."
    "... The problem is no longer, as it was prior to the publication of Michael Harrington's famous study The Other America, that the poor are invisible, unseen by the political class and by those enjoying the gains of an " affluent society ." ..."
    "... "No other advanced nation," writes Eduardo Porter, "tolerates this depth of deprivation." ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | www.commondreams.org
    When Democrats began their rightward lurch in the late 1960's, they were not content to merely broaden their coalition in order to quell the rise of the ultra-reactionary right; they have been concerned, also, with preventing left-wing insurgencies that could spook their patrons and push the party left.

    After Ronald Reagan's decisive victories - first in 1980 against an incumbent president whose administration had, in many ways, fueled the neoliberal turn , and again in 1984 - the efforts of Democrats eager to transform the party, both superficially and ideologically, intensified.

    ... ... ...

    Though it was often framed as a tactical move necessary to undercut movement conservatives, Democrats' shift to the right was accompanied by lucrative material advantages, advantages that organized labor, even at its peak, could not provide.

    But the Democratic Leadership Council's takeover of the party didn't just have the effect of bringing over business interests previously wary of Democrats' ostensible commitment to labor's causes - key DLC advisers, noted Robert Dreyfuss in an analysis of the Third Way's rise, included such corporate giants as Enron, Aetna, British Petroleum, Chevron, and Philip Morris.

    It also had a significant, and often devastating , impact on the poorest Americans.

    Though Democrats were happy to take their votes on election day, lower-income Americans were increasingly faced with a party that had taken on a managerial posture, one characterized by both a growing commitment to market principles and an abandonment of the notion - fostered by the New Deal period - that government could play a significant role in improving the material conditions of the population.

    This message of business friendly "moderation" resonated with rich Americans.

    .... ... ...

    "The 1992 election marked an inflection point of sorts," notes Lee Drutman. The year in which "Democrats changed their policies, with Bill Clinton as the standard bearer for a new pro-business, neoliberal centrism that sought to win over the growing professional classes," the very rich began to find comfort within the party's ever-broadening tent.

    Though there have been diversions, these trends have largely continued up to the present. "The wealthiest 4 percent of voting-age Americans, by a narrow plurality," backed President Obama in 2012, Drutman observes.

    Today, confronting the flailing and odious candidacy of Donald Trump, Democrats have seized upon yet another opportunity to expand their coalition. And, once more, they have looked not to the left - the diverse bloc of Sanders backers pushing for social democracy - but to wealthier constituencies, including those that tend to lean Republican .

    Presenting the 2016 election as a vote for or against "American values," the Clinton campaign has frequently deployed the right-wing language of exceptionalism and patriotism, and Clinton herself has eagerly embraced the endorsements of billionaire businessmen and women eager to legitimize their own wealth by highlighting Trump's history of fraud and abuse.

    Of course, these moves are in no way ahistorical.

    "There is," writes Carl Beijer, "a distinct history of Clintonian coalition-building with right-wing Republicans." And as even the most cursory examination of this history reveals, Democrats' opportunistic and strategic solidarity with the right has real-world consequences; in Beijer's words, such an approach is "undertaken at the risk of normalizing their politics."

    From the gross demonization of poor minorities that permeated Bill Clinton's tenure to the Democratic Party's tacit - and in some cases eager - acceptance of a political process dominated by business interests, this is largely what has happened.

    Sky-high wealth inequality has become the new normal, and far from embracing and aggressively pushing a radical redistributionist agenda, Democrats have embraced a meritocratic message , one that emphasizes the centrality of hard work, dedication, and personal responsibility.

    Such platitudes, while reassuring to the winners of globalization, ring hollow in the ears of those who rightly feel abandoned by the political system in general - and by the Democratic Party in particular.

    This year, with the insurgent campaign of Bernie Sanders doing much to expose long-standing rifts within the Democratic establishment, the flaws inherent in a party reliant on both high-income and lower-income voters have been thrown into sharp relief.

    In a recent piece for the New York Times, Thomas Edsall nicely captures this tension, using housing as the focal point.

    Contrasting Baltimore County - a majority white community where the median household income is over $68,000 - and Baltimore City - a majority black community where the median household income is just over $42,500 - Edsall details "how hard it is for the Democratic Party to reconcile the interests of its upscale wing with those of its lower-income wing."

    Baltimore City, Edsall notes, has always been a Democratic stronghold, but Baltimore County, "in the wake of an influx of educated, higher income professionals, immigrants and minorities," has, of late, been leaning Democratic, as well; Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney there decisively in 2012.

    But progressive attempts to lift poor families in the city - to provide better opportunities for housing, education, and other means of upward mobility - have been met with strong resistance from wealthier communities that, though they increasingly vote Democratic, are wary of attempts to integrate poor and rich neighborhoods.

    The result, Edsall quotes former Maryland attorney general Stephen Sachs as saying, is "economic apartheid."

    To demonstrate the rifts between the county and the city, Edsall cites the recent efforts by Baltimore's Housing Authority to buy homes "in prosperous suburbs to use as public housing." Attempts to provide affordable housing have long been a key component of anti-poverty programs, but opposition to such programs by wealthy county residents has proven intractable.

    Despite attempts by public officials to work "under the radar" to provide opportunities for poor families, anger was quick to mount.

    "The reaction from many was outright racist," Doug Donovan, a journalist who has followed this issue closely, told Edsall.

    "The problems for Democrats on matters of race and housing subsidies are not confined to Baltimore," Edsall points out. "In Westchester County, just north of New York City, an ongoing battle over the court-ordered construction of affordable housing has played a key role in the election and re-election of a Republican county executive - in a suburban jurisdiction that, in presidential elections, has become increasingly Democratic."

    Given her attempts to take both sides on matters of class, and given her embrace of big-tent liberalism, it makes sense that Hillary Clinton has been rather mute on this topic - despite the fact that, as Edsall observes, Clinton owns a home that "happens to be located in the midst of an affordable housing conflict."

    This willingness to quietly accept a status quo that privileges wealthy communities at the expense of the poor pervades the thinking not just of Clinton Democrats, but of the two-party system as a whole.

    "This willingness to quietly accept a status quo that privileges wealthy communities at the expense of the poor pervades the thinking not just of Clinton Democrats, but of the two-party system as a whole."

    Across the board, the interests of organized wealth and economic elites are prioritized over those of much of the population. The case of housing is just one example; health care, including Obamacare, which was subordinated to the interests of the private insurance and pharmaceutical industries at great cost to the most vulnerable, is another.

    In 1996, Adolph Reed denounced Clintonian neoliberalism as "a politics motivated by the desire for proximity to the ruling class and a belief in the basic legitimacy of its power and prerogative. It is a politics which, despite all its idealist puffery and feigned nobility, will sell out any allies or egalitarian objectives in pursuit of gaining the Prince's ear."

    Over the last several decades, the consequences of such a dynamic - one in which both major parties are eager, above all, to serve the needs of their wealthiest constituents - have been stark. While those at the very top are doing extremely well in the aftermath of decades of deregulation and privatization , almost everyone else is in a state of stagnation or decline.

    As Neil Irwin observes , "81 percent of the United States population is in an income bracket with flat or declining income over the last decade."

    And while Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both vie for the support of economically insecure middle class Americans, the poorest are virtually ignored.

    "We don't have a full-voiced condemnation of the level or extent of poverty in America today," Matthew Desmond, the author of an essential book on evictions and deep poverty, told the New York Times. "We aren't having in our presidential debate right now a serious conversation about the fact that we are the richest democracy in the world, with the most poverty. It should be at the very top of the agenda."

    But it isn't. Not satisfied with a crime of omission, however, Democrats, particularly in 2016, have moved in the opposite direction, earnestly courting and proclaiming the benevolence of " the good billionaires ," in contrast with the pernicious Donald Trump.

    Such distinctions say, in effect, that staggering systemic inequities are okay, just as long as those benefiting from these inequities are admirable people - they're not, of course: Warren Buffett has made a lot of money exploiting the poor , and Michael Bloomberg has been quite Trump-like with his extensive history of sexist remarks .

    Because they eschew any honest critique of capitalism, these are the absurdities to which Democrats are confined: They must justify the economic order and insist that there are good and bad economic elites, those who, out of the kindness of their hearts, share the spoils with their workers and those who, like Trump, don't.

    And often, Democrats have not merely capitulated to the anti-poor agenda of the right; they have adopted swaths of it, pushing it on their own under the guise of political compromise. It is no wonder, then, that the poorest tend to not turnout on election day - they feel disowned by a political system that has, in actual fact, disowned them.

    The campaign of Bernie Sanders helped to bring to the surface Democrats' history of rightward sprints, and it offered a brief glimpse of the class and ideological warfare brewing within the confines of the Democratic Party, a party divided by its ostensible commitment to "the people" and its actual commitment to the business interests and the economic elites that have so skillfully captured the legislative process .

    This shaky coalition, Corey Robin notes , "rests upon the age-old powder keg of race, class, and real estate that's just waiting to explode. Everything about the neoliberal Democratic Party depends upon suppressing this conflict."

    We saw this throughout the primary process, during which the Sanders coalition, whose core priority was an aggressive approach to income inequality, was smeared repeatedly as racist, sexist, and class-reductionist.

    The elite anger the Sanders insurgency provoked was telling: It made clear the opposition within the political establishment to " even mild social democracy ." It teased out the distinctions between those who believe corporate money is inherently corrupting and those who don't, those who support single-payer health care and those who don't, those who support a radical approach to both redistributing income and wealth and addressing the crisis of poverty and those who don't.

    These are meaningful distinctions, and they will animate future political contests and, hopefully, successful progressive movements and campaigns.

    With Hillary Clinton at the helm, though, it is unlikely that the Democrats' drift toward becoming " the cosmopolitan elite party " will slow, particularly if Trump_vs_deep_state becomes the dominant current within the GOP. Also, given Clinton's "embrace of amoral billionaires," notes Nathan Robinson, it is "highly unlikely that the party will follow through on any meaningful attempt to reduce American economic inequality."

    But the crises we face - deep poverty is just one of many - reach far beyond the realm of electoral politics, and even the election of the Right Leaders will not move us any closer to ameliorating the suffering in America's most vulnerable communities.

    The problem is, ultimately, systemic: It is about who writes the rules, and how these rules act in the real world to create extraordinary gains for some while leaving others to compete, endlessly and ruthlessly, for the rest.

    As long as those who write the rules are primarily concerned with securing gains for their wealthy constituents, and as long as Democratic initiatives are shaped by the " truly advantaged wing " of the party, there is little reason to believe the steps necessary to eradicate poverty will be taken.

    "The problem is that we have a political system almost wholly captured by those hostile to the radical redistributive agenda necessary to ameliorate the suffering poverty inflicts in communities throughout the world's wealthiest nation."

    "If we are going to spend the bulk of our public dollars on the affluent - at least when it comes to housing - we should own up to that decision and stop repeating the canard about this rich country being unable to afford more," Matthew Desmond writes . "If poverty persists in America, it is not for lack of resources. We lack something else."

    In the present, we lack the mass organization necessary to launch a meaningful counter-offensive to combat " the scourge of neoliberalism ," a political and economic framework that atomizes individuals who would otherwise share common objectives, undercutting avenues for democratic reform and entrenching the power of private capital.

    And, according to the latest census figures , the costs of our inability to challenge these institutional powers are startling: Over 46 million Americans live in poverty; the poverty rate for children under the age of 18 is 21.1 percent. Millions, furthermore, live in deep poverty ; over 17 million families suffer from food insecurity .

    The problem is no longer, as it was prior to the publication of Michael Harrington's famous study The Other America, that the poor are invisible, unseen by the political class and by those enjoying the gains of an " affluent society ."

    The problem is that we have a political system almost wholly captured by those hostile to the radical redistributive agenda necessary to ameliorate the suffering poverty inflicts in communities throughout the world's wealthiest nation. We have, in other words, a political class that sees the poor, but does nothing in response.

    "No other advanced nation," writes Eduardo Porter, "tolerates this depth of deprivation."

    In such a context, even the election of Bernie Sanders would not have been sufficient to alter the nature of the political and economic order. Only labor-based mass movements sustained beyond the extravaganzas of electoral politics and working independently of the anti-democratic forces that so dominate Washington can produce sufficient force to create lasting change.

    Such efforts will be dismissed as Utopian, unfeasible, too idealistic; they will fail more often than they succeed; and they will always provoke a response from those uninterested in ceding the gains they have gone to great lengths to consolidate - they are necessary, nonetheless, given the stakes.

    "Never before has humanity depended so fully for the survival of us all on a social movement being willing to bet on impracticality," write Mark and Paul Engler, in a similar vein as John Dewey's observation , penned in the midst of the Great Depression, that it is, ultimately, "the pressure of necessity which creates and directs all political changes."

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

    [Aug 29, 2016] Spendings on labour force are decreasing while profits are increasing

    Aug 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ken melvin : August 28, 2016 at 10:22 AM

    What they were after:
    When labor's share was 50%, the capitalists looked about for ways getting a part of that 50%. They did this by going offshore, or as in the case of Gates and Co, they did this bringing workers in at half price. In either case, the nation would have been better off to have invested in our own people and used our own workers in the nations work force.

    pgl -> ken melvin, Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:00 AM

    50%? I think it is still higher than that. Labor share is far too low but let's get the facts right. BTW - corporations are indeed trying to capture more of labor's share even as it is right now too low.
    Paine -> pgl... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:48 AM
    What part of the non labor comp portion of our nat net income is the fruits of exploitation
    Paine -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:46 PM

    "We readily find out which part of the economy is behind the decline of the labor share once we look at the change in the labor share within manufacturing, which dropped almost 10 percentage points. Virtually all the major manufacturing subsectors saw their labor shares fall; for nondurable goods manufacturing it dropped from 62 percent to 40 percent. "
    JF -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 04:20 PM
    Dont see the term exploitation as having a helpful bright line meaning.

    But the Commerce Power can decide this and use it as a rational basis for economic policymaking.

    If economic flows shift below a benchmark rules change to get it back. 1965 a good benchmark year? We do not want to be thoughtless and silent again on this matter as became the case.

    The Commerce Power is solely residing in the Legislative Article and as a result has plenary scope to define all matters held back by the takings clause Amendment certainly but everyone needs to recognize what the finding of plenary scope means here.

    The public can and should govern here, this was an essential purpose at the time we framed the Nation and its republican form.

    pgl -> ken melvin... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:02 AM
    Leave it to Tim Taylor to present the actual facts:

    http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2015/08/falling-labor-share-measurement-issues.html

    Labor's share has been falling since 2001 but it still is a wee bit above 50%. Too low and falling. Alas.

    Paine -> pgl... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:42 PM
    "manufacturing, which dropped almost 10 percentage points. Virtually all the major manufacturing subsectors saw their labor shares fall; for nondurable goods manufacturing it dropped from 62 percent to 40 percent. The labor share within the service sector kept increasing, as it had before 1987, but very modestly, only enough to cancel the downward pressure from the shift across sectors. Indeed, had the labor share of income in manufacturing stayed constant, the overall labor share would have barely budged."

    https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/research-and-data/publications/business-review/2015/q3/brq315_a_bit_of_a_miracle_no_more.pdf

    Paine -> pgl... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:48 PM
    Tim Taylor
    Is a lolly pop progressive

    His hands wring some but he smiles a happy smile
    And where's a red clown nose

    Paine -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:49 PM
    A john candy character
    pgl -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 02:55 PM
    You do hate actual analysis. Babble on.
    anne -> pgl... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 03:13 PM
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=6QWb

    January 30, 2016

    Compensation of Employees and After-Tax Corporate Profits as Shares of Gross Domestic Income, 2000-2015

    (Indexed to 2000)


    Decline in compensation of employees share of GDI:

    94 - 100 = - 6%


    Increase in profits share of GDI:

    175 - 100 = 75%

    George H. Blackford : ,
    "Free Trade can nowise guarantee the maintenance of industry, or of an industrial population upon any particular country, and there is no consideration, theoretic or practical, to prevent British capital from transferring itself to China, provided it can find there a cheaper or more efficient supply of labour, or even to prevent Chinese capital with Chinese labour from ousting British produce in neutral markets of the world. What applies to Great Britain applies equally to the other industrial nations which have driven their economic suckers into China. It is at least conceivable that China might so turn the tables upon the Western industrial nations, and, either by adopting their capital and organisers or, as is more probable, by substituting her own, might flood their markets with her cheaper manufactures, and REFUSING THEIR IMPORTS IN EXCHANGE MIGHT TAKE HER PAYMENT IN LIENS UPON THEIR CAPITAL, REVERSING THE EARLIER PROCESS OF INVESTMENT UNTIL SHE GRADUALLY OBTAINED FINANCIAL CONTROL OVER HER QUONDAM PATRONS AND CIVILISERS.

    This is no idle speculation. If China in very truth possesses those industrial and business capacities with which she is commonly accredited, and the Western Powers are able to have their will in developing her upon Western lines, it seems extremely likely that this reaction will result."
    John Atkinson Hobson, Imperialism, A Study, 1902. http://files.libertyfund.org/files/127/0052_Bk.pdf

    And what did today's experts think was going to happen? http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/WDCh_2.htm

    [Aug 29, 2016] So much propaganda, diversioning

    Notable quotes:
    "... White collars hell. They're just timid ..."
    "... It's the gold collar types, the wage mob needs to attack: Corporate suite insiders and their evil twins in private equity ..."
    "... upper level white collar = gold collar ..."
    "... I'd love to see the percent of " compensation" that goes to the executive suite cliques ..."
    "... The upper level white collars Gold collars rake off ten percent of earnings now. I think that's a low ball now ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm said in reply to Tom aka Rusty... Reply Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:20 AM

    so much propaganda, diversioning

    • racist vs neocon
    • anti TPP vs pro TPP
    • neolib vs anti Khan gold star con

    the choices are stark, which one is good for average joe?

    Paine said in reply to Tom aka Rusty...

    White collars hell. They're just timid

    It's the gold collar types, the wage mob needs to attack: Corporate suite insiders and their evil twins in private equity

    Right on the job

    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to Paine... August 28, 2016 at 04:01 PM

    upper level white collar = gold collar

    Paine said in reply to Tom aka Rusty...

    Great

    Then we agree

    I'd love to see the percent of " compensation" that goes to the executive suite cliques
    My old rule of thumb based on a now Forgotten research paper

    The upper level white collars Gold collars rake off ten percent of earnings now. I think that's a low ball now

    [Aug 29, 2016] The disregard of the winners towards the losers

    Aug 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Patricia Shannon :

    The disregard of the winners towards the losers helps to bring about the popularity of people like Trump. I am not at all surprised at the level of his popularity, even though I personally despise him. Reply Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 10:55 AM pgl -> Patricia Shannon ... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:07 AM
    Agreed. If those who lost from trade think Trump will help them - I have a bridge to sell them.
    ilsm -> pgl... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 04:13 PM
    If those who have not lost to trade think Hillary might help them.....

    I just wasted* 2+ hours with a bunch of Hilbots.... all I heard is Trump is so evil and his supports are so dumb or racist or anti Planned Parenthood.

    Not a word to defend Killary except she could not be evil she is watched so much. And Obama called off the DoJ.

    A room full of cognitive dissonance and brainwashed.

    *horts du orvees was okay!

    cm -> Patricia Shannon ... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:10 PM
    It is not only disregard, but active mockery and defamation - accusing the "losers" of hedonism, entitlement thinking, irresposibility, lack of virtue, merit, striving, intelligence, etc.
    cm -> cm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:12 PM
    I.e. reverse puritanism of sorts - lack of success is always to be explained in terms of lack in virtue and striving.
    Paine -> cm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:57 PM
    Yes

    This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too
    Their support for the tax and transfer system
    Humanist noblesse " oblige "


    The system of merit rewards is largely

    Firm but fair

    cm -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 03:41 PM
    "This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too"

    This is where the "limousine liberal" meme comes from (or more precisely gets it support and success from).

    Of course all the claimed demerits exist plenty among the people so accused (as well as among the winners) - though they always did, but I'm under the impression that beforeGlobalization_blowback/technology supported loss of leverage and thus prestige, it wasn't a *public* narrative (in private circles there has always been "if you don't make an effort in school you will end up sweeping the streets", and looking down on the "unskilled", etc. - with the hindsight irony that even street sweeping has been automated).

    Tom aka Rusty : , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:09 AM
    It will be a war of blue collar versus upper level white collar.

    The elites have the money and power, the grunts have the votes.

    In 2020, after the blue collar types are disappointed for four more years, the anger will have grown.

    ilsm -> Tom aka Rusty... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:20 AM
    so much propaganda, diversioning

    racist vs neocon

    anti TPP vs pro TPP

    neolib vs anti Khan gold star con

    the choices are stark, which one is good for average joe?

    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to ilsm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 04:01 PM
    Neither.
    ilsm -> Tom aka Rusty... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 04:15 PM
    Unless joe wants to keep using the women's room.
    Paine -> Tom aka Rusty... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:59 PM
    White collars hell
    They're just timid


    It's the gold collar types the wage mob needs to attack

    Corporate suite insiders and their evil twins in private equity

    Right on the job

    Not in the ballot booth

    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 04:01 PM
    upper level white collar = gold collar
    Paine -> Tom aka Rusty... , -1
    Great

    Then we agree

    I'd love to see the percent of " compensation" that goes to the executive suite cliques. My old rule of thumb based on a now Forgotten research paper

    The upper level white collars Gold collars rake off ten percent of earnings now

    I think that's a low ball now

    [Aug 29, 2016] Polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton to tailor her message for each region and for each venue

    Notable quotes:
    "... With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton to tailor her message for each region and for each venue. ..."
    "... As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no doubt well paid consultants. ..."
    "... Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented two charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing decline in manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position. ..."
    "... They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive. ..."
    "... This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States, which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects. ..."
    "... The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money and power. All else is irrelevant. ..."
    "... Hillary is an intersectional feminist? ..."
    "... As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation one year ago: ..."
    "... Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of networking, posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual power relations-the ultimate win-win." ..."
    "... Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess The Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now seems roughly as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the position and velocity of an electron simultaneously. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    DFA = Democracy for America. This was Howard Dean's organization and part of his 50 state strategies. During non-campaign seasons, he sent campaign organizers touring the country giving short classes on how to organize and manage a political campaign. They came to Wichita and it was something to see, a lot of local Democratic office holders, some even in the State House had signed up. One guy had held his house seat for 8 years and much of the information they were bringing was completely new to him. Yes, a state level Democrat had won 4 election cycles without even knowing the basics. This was the state of the Democratic Party back then – and is largely that way now.

    Now I am going from memory here, but Clinton's "intersectional" was covered in these classes, with at least the basic idea. The idea was to consider how different elements within your campaign plank are connected. And where those connections are poor, to build up a rhetorical foundation on how to address the contradictions. As I said, the idea is not to build connections between different parts of the planks, but how to present separate planks to the voter as being relevant.

    It's a good exercise, a way of organizing your issues and thinking how they all might fit together.

    Now Clintion's hairball – good word by the way – likely takes it to the absurd degree. With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton to tailor her message for each region and for each venue.

    –KACHING- As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no doubt well paid consultants.

    Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented two charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing decline in manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position.

    They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive.

    Synoia , March 7, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    intersectionality

    This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States, which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects.

    The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money and power. All else is irrelevant.

    DakotabornKansan , March 7, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    Hillary is an intersectional feminist?

    As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation one year ago:

    "What this lineup suggested is that there is a kind of naturally occurring solidarity between the millions of women at the bottom of the world's pyramid and the tiny handful of women at its very top The mystic bond between high-achieving American professionals and the planet's most victimized people is a recurring theme in [Hillary Clinton's] life and work What the spectacle had to offer ordinary working American women was another story.

    She enshrined a version of feminism in which liberation is, in part, a matter of taking out loans from banks in order to become an entrepreneur the theology of microfinance Merely by providing impoverished individuals with a tiny loan of fifty or a hundred dollars, it was thought, you could put them on the road to entrepreneurial self-sufficiency, you could make entire countries prosper, you could bring about economic development itself What was most attractive about micro­lending was what it was not, what it made unnecessary: any sort of collective action by poor people coming together in governments or unions The key to development was not doing something to limit the grasp of Western banks, in other words; it was extending Western banking methods to encompass every last individual on earth.

    Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of networking, posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual power relations-the ultimate win-win."

    https://harpers.org/blog/2016/02/nor-a-lender-be/

    Nuggets321 , March 7, 2016 at 4:35 pm

    I'm too confused with all of this, but it sounds to me like a concept called "interlocking systems of oppression" and your figure two seems to provide useful diagrammatic example.

    hunkerdown , March 7, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    The diagram offers no understanding of the intersectional dynamics of oppression, carefully cropping out the oppressors - most of whom are Hillary backers - along with the oppressed, who are all affected differently in their lived experiences by their particular relationship to oppressive conditions.

    Lumping these focus-tested ill conditions together with a rat's nest of undistinguished connections misleadingly equates the interests of persons with their set of group memberships (Fascism is Italian for bundle-ism) and sets the stage for those conditions to be traded off and weighed against each other on net in the future. I believe this is the essence of what is called "triangulation".

    RMO , March 7, 2016 at 8:40 pm

    Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess The Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now seems roughly as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the position and velocity of an electron simultaneously.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Transfere of technology with the help of three letter agencies

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some "American" companies and public research institutions are surely victims of espionage, but for the most part private industry has brought this on itself by building offshore offices and *actively* directing their workers to transfer the knowledge and "train their replacements", so that they can do the work instead of US workers who are let go (or not again hired) because their skills are now "irrelevant". ..."
    "... In "defense" or "national interest" related work, for the most part citizens of or even people originating from countries that are considered military or geopolitical adversaries are excluded from participation. This makes it much harder to infiltrate people in the US, as long as it is not offshored. But then the US govt and its contractors will pay higher rates for the product/service than US consumers who will have to do "more with less" (money). ..."
    "... Oh, China (public and private entities) surely engages in those things it is accused of, but this is by far outweighed by US business captains shoving the "free" know-how and innovation down their throats to enable the short term "cost savings" (which will in short order be compensated for by declining aggregate demand when the formerly well paid local staff can only buy the cheapest stuff, and retail adjusts and mostly orders the cheapest). ..."
    "... Likewise most "everybody else" also. I have a good number of colleagues from China and other Asian countries. Many of them take pride in coming up with their own solutions instead of copying stuff, like people everywhere. ..."
    "... A German language article where this and other cases are mentioned: http://www.zeit.de/1998/28/199828.spionage.neu_.xml Nobody is squeaky clean in this game. ..."
    "... At the time I was working in a tech company there, and new security protocols were instituted, like not sending certain confidential information by email or fax. There was even an anecdote (unverified) of how a foreign service (not US in that case) was allegedly intercepting business documents/negotiations that were conducted by fax, and making the information available to "their" own companies bidding for the same project. Whether true or not, that's what the management was concerned about. ..."
    Aug 29, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com

    EMichael : August 28, 2016 at 11:14 AM

    "Transfer" has more than one meaning.

    " If spying is the world's second oldest profession, the government of China has given it a new, modern-day twist, enlisting an army of spies not to steal military secrets but the trade secrets and intellectual property of American companies. It's being called "the great brain robbery of America."

    The Justice Department says that the scale of China's corporate espionage is so vast it constitutes a national security emergency, with China targeting virtually every sector of the U.S. economy, and costing American companies hundreds of billions of dollars in losses -- and more than two million jobs.

    John Carlin: They're targeting our private companies. And it's not a fair fight. A private company can't compete against the resources of the second largest economy in the world."

    John Carlin: This is a serious threat to our national security. I mean, our economy depends on the ability to innovate. And if there's a dedicated nation state who's using its intelligence apparatus to steal day in and day out what we're trying to develop, that poses a serious threat to our country.

    Lesley Stahl: What is their ultimate goal, the Chinese government's ultimate goal?

    John Carlin: They want to develop certain segments of industry and instead of trying to out-innovate, out-research, out-develop, they're choosing to do it through theft.

    All you have to do, he says, is look at the economic plans published periodically by the Chinese Politburo. They are, according to this recent report by the technology research firm INVNT/IP, in effect, blueprints of what industries and what companies will be targeted for theft."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-great-brain-robbery-china-cyber-espionage/

    cm -> EMichael, August 28, 2016 at 12:38 PM

    Some "American" companies and public research institutions are surely victims of espionage, but for the most part private industry has brought this on itself by building offshore offices and *actively* directing their workers to transfer the knowledge and "train their replacements", so that they can do the work instead of US workers who are let go (or not again hired) because their skills are now "irrelevant".

    Likewise if a manufacturer outsources to an offshore supplier, they have to divulge some of their secret sauce and technical skill to their "partner" if they want the product to meet specs and quality metrics.

    In "defense" or "national interest" related work, for the most part citizens of or even people originating from countries that are considered military or geopolitical adversaries are excluded from participation. This makes it much harder to infiltrate people in the US, as long as it is not offshored. But then the US govt and its contractors will pay higher rates for the product/service than US consumers who will have to do "more with less" (money).

    Paine -> cm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 02:02 PM
    Important

    We have a serious industry in dis info about china

    cm -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 03:47 PM
    Oh, China (public and private entities) surely engages in those things it is accused of, but this is by far outweighed by US business captains shoving the "free" know-how and innovation down their throats to enable the short term "cost savings" (which will in short order be compensated for by declining aggregate demand when the formerly well paid local staff can only buy the cheapest stuff, and retail adjusts and mostly orders the cheapest).
    cm -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 03:54 PM
    Likewise most "everybody else" also. I have a good number of colleagues from China and other Asian countries. Many of them take pride in coming up with their own solutions instead of copying stuff, like people everywhere.

    "Stealing" of ideas is practiced everywhere. I know an anecdote from a "Western" company where a high level engineering manager suggested inviting another academic/research group on the pretext of exploring a collaboration, only to get enough of an idea of their approach, and then dump them. Several of the present staff balked at this and it didn't go anywhere. But it was instructive.

    Paine -> cm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 05:05 PM
    I'd suggest stolen " recipes " to use Paul Romers term
    Only encourage the parallel Han project
    You can't really build something significantly novel
    Simply out of specs
    Paine -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 05:05 PM
    Classic case
    The soviet a bomb project
    cm -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 05:43 PM
    There are two aspects of "stealing ideas":

    (1) How is it done (because we don't know)
    (2) Which approach has been proven to work (out of many that we would have to try)

    The focus in discussing the topic is often on (1), and it is certainly an important aspect, perhaps the most important one if the adversary is in bootstrapping mode.

    However once you are at a certain level, (2) becomes more important - the solution space is simply too large, and knowing what has already worked elsewhere can cut through a lot of failed experiments (including finding a better solution of course).

    (2) also relates somewhat to "best practices" - don't try to innovate and create yet another proprietary thing that only the people who created it understand, do what everybody else is doing, then you can hire more people who "already know it", or if "others" improve or build on the existing solution, that immediately applies to your version as well.

    The downside is that your solution is not "differentiated". But if it is cheaper it doesn't have to.

    ilsm -> Paine... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 04:20 PM
    To sell F-35 the US gives everything needed to manufacture parts of the aircraft to the buying country...

    To do that or any other kind of manufacturing the processes with all drawings and accurate parts lists are in the plant.........

    If you can keep that stuff 'under wraps' you spend a lot, fill the plant with US personnel , endure inefficiencies, create bottlenecks....

    cm -> EMichael... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:05 PM
    Then there was a story about this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enercon#Patent_dispute

    where US electronic surveillance was allegedly involved in a business dispute. In this case there is no explicit claim about technology theft, but two companies were accusing each other of patent violations, and espionage techniques were used to "obtain evidence".

    cm -> cm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 01:07 PM
    A German language article where this and other cases are mentioned: http://www.zeit.de/1998/28/199828.spionage.neu_.xml Nobody is squeaky clean in this game.
    cm -> cm... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 04:12 PM
    BTW note the date - this kind of stuff was going on in the 90's. It is not a recent invention. BTW this here was mentioned, you may have heard of it, in any case it was a big deal in Germany where the US had several operational bases:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

    At the time I was working in a tech company there, and new security protocols were instituted, like not sending certain confidential information by email or fax. There was even an anecdote (unverified) of how a foreign service (not US in that case) was allegedly intercepting business documents/negotiations that were conducted by fax, and making the information available to "their" own companies bidding for the same project. Whether true or not, that's what the management was concerned about.

    Paine -> EMichael... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 02:00 PM
    Pure propaganda

    You have a embark able tolerance for manipulation

    Paine -> EMichael... , Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 02:04 PM
    Trump talk modulated by the manhattan elites

    The same pokes that play the other end of the stick
    That de industrialized the rust belt

    [Aug 29, 2016] The Trumpster Sends The GOP-Neocon Establishment To The Dumpster

    It is unclear to what extent Trump represents a threat to Washington establishment and how easily or difficult it would be to co-opt him. In any case "deep state" will stay in place, so the capabilities of POTUS are limited by the fact of its existence. But comments to the article are great !
    Notable quotes:
    "... It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914. ..."
    "... Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history. ..."
    "... And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet. ..."
    "... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
    "... Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991. ..."
    "... Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm". ..."
    "... There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet. ..."
    "... The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars. ..."
    "... Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed states and economic rubble. ..."
    "... But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle. ..."
    "... But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya. ..."
    "... Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office. ..."
    "... Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan. ..."
    "... At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy. ..."
    "... Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken ..."
    "... Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced or dismantled that easily. ..."
    "... The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself due to being hollowed out :) ..."
    "... David, you are missing some fairly strong evidence that 911 was an inside job. ..."
    "... As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition. ..."
    "... I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American people to go to war. ..."
    "... So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power. This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war. ..."
    "... There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran. There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one) Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil. IMO ..."
    "... As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot. The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex. ..."
    "... In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control the perceived enemies of Capitalism. ..."
    "... Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving as his special envoy to the middle east. ..."
    "... @lloydholiday Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher. ..."
    "... As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil. ..."
    "... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
    "... Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS. ..."
    "... @FreeOregon It will shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment, centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control. ..."
    "... All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was Trump from here on in! ..."
    davidstockmanscontracorner.com
    Wow. Super Tuesday was an earthquake, and not just because Donald Trump ran the tables. The best thing was the complete drubbing and humiliation that voters all over America handed to the little Napoleon from Florida, Marco Rubio.

    So doing, the voters began the process of ridding the nation of the GOP War Party and its neocon claque of rabid interventionists. They have held sway for nearly three decades in the Imperial City and the consequences have been deplorable.

    It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914.

    Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history.

    Yet at that crucial inflection point there was absolutely nothing at stake with respect to the safety and security of the American people in the petty quarrel between Saddam Hussein and the Emir of Kuwait.

    The spate, in fact, was over directional drilling rights in the Rumaila oilfield which straddled their respective borders. Yet these disputed borders had no historical legitimacy whatsoever. Kuwait was a just a bank account with a seat in the UN, which had been created by the British only in 1899 for obscure reasons of imperial maneuver. Likewise, the boundaries of Iraq had been drawn with a straight ruler in 1916 by British and French diplomats in the process of splitting up the loot from the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

    As it happened, Saddam claimed that the Emir of Kuwait, who could never stop stuffing his unspeakably opulent royal domain with more petro dollars, had stolen $10 billion worth of oil from Iraq's side of the field while Saddam was savaging the Iranians during his unprovoked but Washington supported 1980s invasion. At the same time, Hussein had borrowed upwards of $50 billion from Kuwait, the Saudis and the UAE to fund his barbaric attacks on the Iranians and now the sheiks wanted it back.

    At the end of the day, Washington sent 500,000 US troops to the Gulf in order to function as bad debt collectors for three regimes that are the very embodiment of tyranny, corruption, greed and religious fanaticism.

    They have been the fount and exporter of Wahhabi fanaticism and have thereby fostered the scourge of jihadi violence throughout the region. And it was the monumental stupidity of putting American (crusader) boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia that actually gave rise to Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the tragedy of 9/11, the invasion and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act and domestic surveillance state and all the rest of the War Party follies which have followed.

    Worse still, George H.W. Bush's stupid little war corrupted the very political soul and modus operandi of Washington. What should have been a political contest over which party and prospective leader could best lead a revived 1920s style campaign for world disarmament was mutated into a wave of exceptionalist jingoism about how best to impose American hegemony on any nation or force on the planet that refused compliance with Washington's designs and dictates.

    And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet.

    Indeed, as the so-called OPEC cartel crumbles into pitiful impotence and cacophony and as the world oil glut drives prices eventually back into the teens, there can no longer be any dispute. The blazing oilfields of Kuwait in 1991 had nothing to do with domestic oil security and prosperity, and everything to do with the rise of a virulent militarism and imperialism that has drastically undermined national security.

    It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond.

    Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991.

    Yes, the wholly different Shiite branch of Islam centered in Iran had a grievance, too. But that wasn't about America's liberties and libertine ways of life, either. It was about the left over liability from Washington's misguided cold war interventions and, specifically, the 1953 CIA coup that installed the brutal and larcenous Shah on the Peacock Throne.

    The whole Persian nation had deep grievances about that colossal injustice--a grievance that was wantonly amplified in the 1980s by Washington's overt assistance to Saddam Hussein. Via the CIA's satellite reconnaissance, Washington had actually helped him unleash heinous chemical warfare attacks on Iranian forces, including essentially unarmed young boys who had been sent to the battle front as cannon fodder.

    Still, with the election of Rafsanjani in 1989 there was every opportunity to repair this historical transgression and normalize relations with Tehran. In fact, in the early days the Bush state department was well on the way to exactly that. But once the CNN war games in the gulf put the neocons back in the saddle the door was slammed shut by Washington, not the Iranians.

    Indeed at that very time, the re-ascendant neocons explicitly choose to demonize the Iranian regime as a surrogate enemy to replace the defunct Kremlin commissars. Two of the most despicable actors in the post-1991 neocon takeover of the GOP--Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz--actually penned a secret document outlining the spurious anti-Iranian campaign which soon congealed into a full-blown war myth.

    To wit, that the Iranian's were hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons and had become an implacable foe of America and fountain of state sponsored terrorism.

    Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm".

    Whether he immediately signed off an all of its sweeping plans for junking the Oslo Accords and launching regime change initiatives against the Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria is a matter of historical debate. But there can be no doubt that shortly thereafter this manifesto became the operative policy of the Netanyahu government and especially its virulent campaign to demonize Iran as an existential threat to Israel. And that when the younger Bush took office and brought the whole posse of neocons back into power, it became Washington's official policy, as well.

    After 9/11 the dual War Party of Washington and Tel Aviv was off to the races and the US government began its tumble toward $19 trillion of national debt and an eventual fiscal calamity. That's because the neocon War Party sucked the old time religion of fiscal rectitude and monetary orthodoxy right out of the GOP in the name of funding what has in truth become a trillion dollar per year Warfare State.

    There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet.

    Right then and there the GOP was stripped of any fiscal virginity that had survived the Reagan era of triple digit deficits. Right on cue the contemptible Dick Cheney was quick to claim that Reagan proved "deficits don't matter", meaning from that point forward whatever it took to fund the war machine trumped any flickering Republican folk memories of fiscal prudence.

    The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars.

    Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed states and economic rubble.

    The Bush era War Party also committed an even more lamentable error in the midst of all of its foreign policy triumphalism and its utter neglect of the GOP's actual purpose to function as an advocate for sound money and free markets in the governance process of our two party democracy. Namely, it appointed Ben Bernanke, an avowed Keynesian and big government statist who had loudly proclaimed in favor of "helicopter money", to a Federal Reserve system that was already on the verge of an economic coup d'état led by the unfaithful Alan Greenspan.

    That coup was made complete by the loathsome bailout of Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis. And the latter had, in turn, been a consequence of the massive speculation and debt build-up that had been enabled by the Fed's own policies during the prior decade and one-half.

    Now after $3.5 trillion of heedless money printing and 86 months of ZIRP, Wall Street has been transformed into an unstable, dangerous casino. Honest price discovery in the capital and money markets no longer exists, nor has productive capital been flowing into real investments in efficiency and growth.

    Instead, the C-suites of corporate America have been transformed into stock trading rooms where business balance sheets have been hocked to the tune of trillions in cheap debt in order to fund stock buybacks, LBOs and M&A deals designed to goose stock prices and the value of top executive options.

    Indeed, the Fed's unconscionable inflation of the third massive financial bubble of this century has showered speculators and the 1% with unspeakable financial windfalls that are fast creating not only an inevitable thundering financial meltdown, but, also, a virulent populist backlash. The Eccles Building was where the "Bern" that is roiling the electorate was actually midwifed.

    And probably even the far greater political tremblor represented by The Donald, as well.

    Yes, as a libertarian I shudder at the prospect of a man on a white horse heading for the White House, as Donald Trump surely is. His rank demoguery and poisonous rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims, refugees, women, domestic victims of police repression and the spy state and countless more are flat-out contemptible. And the idea of building a horizontal version of Trump Towers on the Rio Grande is just plain nuts.

    But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle.

    So even as The Donald's election would bring on a thundering financial crash on Wall Street and political upheaval in Washington-–the truth is that's going to happen anyway. Look at the hideous mess that US policy has created in Syria or the incendiary corner into which the Fed has backed itself or the fiscal projections that show we will be back into trillion dollar annual deficits as the recession already underway reaches full force. The jig is well and truly up.

    But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya.

    Even his bombast about Obama's bad deal with Iran doesn't go much beyond Trump's ridiculous claim that they are getting a $150 billion reward. In fact, it was their money; we stole it, and by the time of the next election they will have it released anyway.

    Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office.

    Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan.

    At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy.

    He might also come down with wrathful indignation on the Fed if its dares push toward the criminal zone of negative interest rates. As far as I know, The Donald was never mis-educated by the Keynesian swells at Brookings, either. No plain old businessman would ever fall for the sophistry and crank monetary theories that are now ascendant in the Eccles Building.

    When it comes to the nation's current economy wreckers-in-chief, Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer, he might even dust off on day one the skills he honed during 10-years on the Apprentice.

    Worse things could surely happen.

    bill5

    @Protogonus

    Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken

    The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. Its evil effects must be plain enough to everyone. ... There is, in fact, nothing about religious opinions that entitles them to any more respect than other opinions get. On the contrary, they tend to be noticeably silly. ... No, there is nothing notably dignified about religious ideas. They run, rather, to a peculiarly puerile and tedious kind of nonsense. At their best, they are borrowed from metaphysicians, which is to say, from men who devote their lives to proving that twice two is not always or necessarily four. At their worst, they smell of spiritualism and fortune telling. Nor is there any visible virtue in the men who merchant them professionally. Few theologians know anything that is worth knowing, even about theology, and not many of them are honest. ... But the average theologian is a hearty, red-faced, well-fed fellow with no discernible excuse in pathology. He disseminates his blather, not innocently, like a philosopher, but maliciously, like a politician. In a well-organized world he would be on the stone-pile. But in the world as it exists we are asked to listen to him, not only politely, but even reverently, and with our mouths open. H. L. Mencken

    Amen!

    Rich Lancaster
    Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced or dismantled that easily.

    The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself due to being hollowed out :)

    jimbob23

    David, you are missing some fairly strong evidence that 911 was an inside job.

    As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition.

    I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American people to go to war.

    Washington DC
    Rumor is Bloomberg is going to announce. As an Independent.
    Blackdog5555

    So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power. This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war.

    There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran. There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one) Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil. IMO

    BTW the Kuwaiti Royalty were friends of the Bushes.

    We also did Israel a favor as Saddam was funding suicide bombers in Palestine ($20,000.00 to the family for every suicide bomber) Arab mothers were happy to have their kids blown up for that Saddam "reward." Ever notice how the suicide bombs ended/slowed in Israel after Saddam was deposed. I did. Also Saddam was amassing his military on the Saudi's border at that time (Saddam wanted Saudi oil to pay off his war debt) and so as a favor the the Saudi King (Bush's buddy) we ended that threat. Yipee for us. This is never brought out in serious debate or news coverage. So if someone says it was not about the oil...It was about the oil and always has been. It is all about the oil. Oil is short for corporate cash cow money.

    SD is right, Osama hated the fact that Bush's infidels were in the land of Mecca, and that was one of the major instigators for the 9/11 attacks. Efing arrogant, ignorant Bush keeping "Merica" safe. Clinton could have done a much better job cleaning up those King George the 1st's foreign policy blunders, so I fault him to a degree too.

    There are some good web sites that talk about this..I don't have them handy.

    Don't you love history.

    Cheers.

    BD

    MPBadger

    You are absolutely right. As Chas Freeman, who was our ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War, has recounted, the stationing of American troops on Saudi soil in response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait presented a serious issue given that "[m]any Saudis interpret their religious tradition as banning the presence of non-Muslims, especially the armed forces of nonbelievers, on the Kingdom's soil." Shortly after the invasion, Freeman was present at a meeting between King Fahd and Vice-President Cheney at which the King, overruling most of the Saudi royal family, agreed to allow U.S. troops to be stationed in his country. This decision was premised on the clear understanding, stressed by Cheney, that the American forces would be removed from Saudi Arabia once the immediate threat from Saddam was over.

    When that did not happen, Fahd faced serious domestic problems. Several prominent Muslim clerics who objected to his policies were sent into exile, further inflaming the religious community. More significantly for us, Osama Bin Laden began to call for the overthrow of the monarchy and elevated his jihadist fight against the U.S. His Saudi passport was revoked for his anti-government rhetoric, and in April 1991, threatened with arrest, he secretly departed Saudi Arabia for the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, never to return. The result, ten years later, was 9-11.

    zee_point

    As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot. The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex.

    In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control the perceived enemies of Capitalism.

    Now, we talk 24/7 about the Islamic threat, while the Islamists are being supported by our closest allies and elements in the deep state in Washington.

    Diacro222

    We rarely hear about the Shah of Iran and OUR CIA back in 1953. Nor about OBL and his stated reason's for 9/11. Including the vengeful and childish bombardment of highlands behind Beirut by our terribly expensive recommissioned Battle Ship -- Imagine the thinking behind taking that 'thing' out of mothballs to Scare the A - rabs. Invading Grenada was Ollie North's idea to save face.

    cbaker0441

    Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving as his special envoy to the middle east.

    CALARISTOS

    @lloydholiday I lived in MPLS. You would be amazed at how sacrificially 'liberal' they are, much like Merkel and the deluded Germans. Minn let in thousands of Ethiopians and other Muslims who are now giving natives a major headache, much like Europe.

    The women over 30 are nearly fanatic over Black oppression, voted for Obama in droves, and appear to be willing to sacrifice the interests of their own children in favor of aliens and minorities (my own niece raised in Minn is a fanatic in this regard). Rubbero is a loser with a wind up tongue. They are easily impressed by patter however inarticulate.

    Protogonus

    @lloydholiday Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher.

    CALARISTOS

    As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil.

    bill5

    It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond.

    Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS.

    If the GOP disappears, there's always the brain dead Democrats. What we need is an end to both parties. The best way to accomplish that is to cancel the entirety of the Fed Gov. Just get rid of all of it. Let the states become countries and compete on the world stage. Let all those holding Federal paper (the national debt) use it in their bathroom as toilet paper. Cancel the debt - ignore it - lets start fresh with no central bank and real money based on something that the politicians can't conjure into existence. I suggest gold and silver as history has shown that they work well.

    hmkdpm

    @bill5 What I never hear anyone state is that if we had let the Russians alone in Afghanistan this whole mess would have never happened. Isn't that what originally allowed the Taliban and Obama bin Laden rise to power? I though Reagan was a great president but made a catastrophic error in aligning with the islamic insurgents against Russia . The Russians knew a radical Islamic state on their border would be a problem and the existing Afghan government, an ally of Russia, asked them to help quell the islamist civil war. The Russians would have ruthlessly eliminated the islamists without worrying about causing any greenhouse gas emissions or hurting anyones feelings.

    cbaker0441

    @FreeOregon It will shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment, centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control.

    Mugsy7777

    All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was Trump from here on in!

    @Mugsy7777

    He has his own plane, ground crew, flight crew, and body guards which I would guess make a heck of a lot more than the SS...Secret Service that is.

    I'm figuring the election will be rigged.

    @marcopolo2150 @Mugsy7777 one drone..........

    what a pathetic country America has become.

    [Aug 29, 2016] The Perfect GOP Nominee

    What is amazing is that such column was published is such a sycophantic for Hillary and openly anti-Trump rag as NYT. In foreign policy Hillary is the second incarnation of Cheney... Neocons rules NYT coverage of Presidential race and, of course, they all favor Hillary. Of course chances that some on neocons who so enthusiastically support her, crossing Party lines are drafted, get M16 and send to kill brown people for Wall Street interests now is close to zero. Everything is outsourced now. But still, it is simply amazing that even a lonely voice against neocon campaign of demonization of Trump got published in NYT ...
    MSM shilling for Hillary is simply overwhelming, so why this was in NYT is a mystery to me. But this article of Maureen Dowd in on spot. Simply amazing how she manage to publish it !!!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all? Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and got rid of those pesky welfare queens. ..."
    "... Hillary often seems more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates before he jumped the turnstile. ..."
    "... Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6 million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared to his $19,000. ..."
    "... Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms. ..."
    "... Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James Kirchick, keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss." ..."
    "... The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained death squads in Latin America. ..."
    "... Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary. ..."
    "... The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the Trump sharknado. But as David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted." ..."
    "... Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible. What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights? ..."
    "... Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the founders of ISIS ..."
    "... Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone. ..."
    "... You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner, your fabrications have to be more sneaky. ..."
    "... "You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war." ..."
    "... Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL! ..."
    "... Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec... ..."
    "... "America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate of them all." ..."
    "... We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve." ..."
    "... The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations. ..."
    "... It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama. ..."
    "... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies... ..."
    "... All the things you say about Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his insane desire to invade Iraq. ..."
    "... Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today. We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.) ..."
    "... There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist. ..."
    "... America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were gunned down. ..."
    "... While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits of their economic parasitism with society. ..."
    "... I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017. ..."
    "... We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent my choice (Bernie does). ..."
    "... This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board. ..."
    "... The Bush Administration hinted that the anti-war people were traitors and terrorist sympathizers and everybody got steamrolled. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/opinion/culture-war-with-b-2-s.html ..."
    "... HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now. ..."
    "... By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American workers) here we come. Bombs away. ..."
    "... She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon. ..."
    "... The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | The New York Times

    All these woebegone Republicans whining that they can't rally behind their flawed candidate is crazy. The G.O.P. angst, the gnashing and wailing and searching for last-minute substitutes and exit strategies, is getting old. They already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger and hawk it up - unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.

    The Republicans have their candidate: It's Hillary. They can't go with Donald Trump. He's too volatile and unhinged. The erstwhile Goldwater Girl and Goldman Sachs busker can be counted on to do the normal political things, not the abnormal haywire things. Trump's propounding could drag us into war, plunge us into a recession and shatter Washington into a thousand tiny bits.

    Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all? Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and got rid of those pesky welfare queens.

    Pushing her Midwestern Methodist roots, taking advantage of primogeniture, Hillary often seems more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates before he jumped the turnstile.

    Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6 million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared to his $19,000.

    Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms.

    Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James Kirchick, keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss."

    She has finally stirred up some emotion in women, even if it is just moderate suburban Republican women palpitating to leave their own nominee, who has the retro air of a guy who just left the dim recesses of a Playboy bunny club.

    The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained death squads in Latin America.

    Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary.

    Hillary has written that Kissinger is an "idealistic" friend whose counsel she valued as secretary of state, drawing a rebuke from Bernie Sanders during the primaries: "I'm proud to say Henry Kissinger is not my friend."

    The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the Trump sharknado. But as David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted."

    And Isaac Chotiner wrote in Slate, "The prospect of Kissinger having influence in a Clinton White House is downright scary."

    Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible. What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights?

    Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the founders of ISIS. And he still blindly follows his ego, failing to understand the fundamentals of a campaign. "I don't know that we need to get out the vote," he told Fox News Thursday. "I think people that really wanna vote are gonna get out and they're gonna vote for Trump."

    Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone.

    You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner, your fabrications have to be more sneaky.

    As Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted on MSNBC, "the candidate in the race most like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a foreign policy perspective is in fact Hillary Clinton, not the Republican nominee."

    And that's how Republicans prefer their crazy - not like Trump, but like Cheney.

    JohnNJ, New jersey August 14, 2016

    For me, this is her strongest point:

    "You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war."

    There are still people who believe her excuse that she only voted for authorization, blah, blah, blah.

    Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL!

    Red_Dog , Denver CO August 14, 2016

    Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec...

    "America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate of them all."

    And great populist uprising of our times will be gone --- probably for many years.

    FDR Liberal , Sparks, NV August 14, 2016

    Spot on column Ms. Dowd.

    As Americans we are to blame that these two major party candidates are the only viable ones seeking the presidency. Yes, fellow citizens we are to blame because in the end we are the ones that voted for them in various primaries and caucuses. And if you didn't attend a caucus or vote in a primary, you are also part of problem.

    In short, it is not the media's fault, nor is it the top .1%, 1% or 10% fault, nor your kids' fault, nor your parents' fault, nor your neighbors' fault, etc.

    It is our fault because we did this together. Yes, we managed y to select a narcissist, xenophobe, anti-Muslim, racist, misogynist, and dare I say buffoon to the GOP ticket.

    We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve."

    Martin Brod, NYC August 14, 2016

    The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary Clinton.

    The Green Party and Libertarian parties provide sane alternatives to the two most distrusted candidates of the major parties. As debate participants they
    would offer an alternative to evil at a time when the planets count-down clock is racing to mid-night.

    pathenry, berkeley August 14, 2016

    Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations.

    If the negotiations fail, give stingers to our "vetted allies". Who will those stingers be used against? Russia. At least the ones not smuggled to Brussels. And then there is the plan being bandied about by our best and brightest to organize, arm and lead our "vetted allies" in attacks on Russian bases in Syria. A Bay of Pigs in the desert. A dime to a dollar, Clinton is supportive of these plans.

    All of this is dangerous brinksmanship which is how you go to war.

    Mike A. , East Providence, RI August 14, 2016

    The second Pulitzer quality piece from the NYT op-ed columnists in less than a month (see Charles Blow's "Incandescent With Rage" for the first).

    heinrich zwahlen , brooklyn August 14, 2016

    It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama.

    For real progressives it's useless to vote for her and high time to start a new party. Cultural issues are not the main issues that pain America, it's all about the money stupid.

    JohnD, New York August 14, 2016

    ... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies...

    Lee Elliott , Rochester August 14, 2016

    You've written the most depressing column I've read lately. All the things you say about Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his insane desire to invade Iraq. But it was that vote kept her from being president in 2008. Perhaps that will convince her to keep the establishment a little more at arm's length. When there is no other behind for them to kiss, then you can afford to be a little hard to get.

    As for Trump, he is proving to be too much like Ross Perot. He looks great at first but begins to fade when his underlying lunacy begins to bubble to the surface.
    Speaking of Perot, I find it an interesting coincidence that Bill Clinton and now Hillary Clinton will depend on the ravings of an apparent lunatic in order to get elected.

    citizen vox, San Francisco August 14, 2016

    Why the vitriol against Dowd? Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today. We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.)

    Last week's article on how Hillary came to love money was horrifying; because Bill lost a Governor's race, Hillary felt so insecure she called all her wealthy friends for donations. Huh?! Two Harvard trained lawyers asking for financial help?! And never getting enough money to feel secure?! GIVE ME A BREAK (to coin a phrase).

    There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist.

    If readers bemoan anything, let it be that the populist movement of the Dem party was put down by the Dem establishment. We have a choice between a crazy candidate of no particular persuasion and a cold, calculating Republican. How discouraging.

    Thanks, Maureen Dowd.

    Chris, Louisville August 14, 2016

    Maureen please don't ever give up on Hillary bashing. It needs to be done before someone accidentally elects her as President. She is most like Angela Merkel of Germany. Take a look what's happening there. That is enough never to vote for Hillary.

    Susan e, AZ August 14, 2016

    I recall the outrage I, a peace loving liberal who despised W and Cheney, felt while watching the made for TV "shock and awe" invasion of Iraq. I recall how the"liberal Democrats" who supported that disaster with a vote for the IRW could never quite bring themselves to admit their mistake - and I realized that many, like Hillary, didn't feel it was a mistake. Not really. It was necessary for their political careers.

    For me, its not a vote for Hillary, its a vote for a candidate that sees killing innocent people in Syria (or Libya, or Gaza, etc.) as the only way to be viewed as a serious candidate for CIC. I'm old enough to remember another endless war, as the old Vietnam anti-war ballad went: "I ain't gonna vote for war no more."

    John, Switzerland August 14, 2016

    Maureen Dowd is not being nasty, but rather accurate. It is nasty to support and start wars throughout the ME. It is nasty to say (on mic) "We came, we saw, he died" referring to the gruesome torture-murder of Qaddafi.

    Will Hillary start a war against Syria? Yes or no? That is the the "six trillion dollar" question.

    Socrates , is a trusted commenter Downtown Verona, NJ August 13, 2016

    It's hard to a find a good liberal in these United States, not because there's anything wrong with liberalism or progressivism, but because Americans have been taught, hypnotized and beaten by a powerfully insidious and filthy rich right-wing to think that liberalism, progressivism and socialism is a form of fatal cancer.

    America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were gunned down.

    While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits of their economic parasitism with society.

    The end result is that political liberals are forced to triangulate for their survival in right-wing America, and you wind up with Presidents like Bill Clinton and (soon) Hillary Clinton who know how to survive in a pool of right-wing knives, assassins and psychopaths lurking everywhere representing Grand Old Profit.

    ... ... ...

    Dotconnector, New York August 14, 2016

    The trickery deep within the dark art of Clintonism is triangulation. By breeding a nominal Democratic donkey with a de facto Republican elephant, what you get is a corporatist chameleon. There's precious little solace in knowing that this cynical political hybrid is only slightly less risky than Trumpenstein.

    And the fact that Henry Kissinger still has a seat at the table ought to chill the spine of anyone who considers human lives -- those of U.S. service members and foreign noncombatants alike -- to have greater value than pawns in a global chess game.

    Bj, is a trusted commenter Washington,dc August 13, 2016

    I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017. They didn't succeed with Bill. And they were chomping at the bit to try to impeach Obama over his use of executive orders and his decision not to defend an early same sex marriage case. They are just waiting for inauguration to start this process all over again - another circus and waste of taxpayer money.

    petey tonei, Massachusetts August 14, 2016

    Two party system is not enough for a country this big, with such a wide spectrum of political beliefs. We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent my choice (Bernie does). Heard on NPR just today from on the ground reporters in Terre Haute, Indiana, the bellwether of presidential elections, the 2 names that were most heard were Trump and Bernie Sanders, not Hillary. Sadly, Bernie is not even the nominee but he truly represents the guts, soul of mid America

    Schrodinger, is a trusted commenter Northern California August 14, 2016

    This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board.

    What about Ms Dowd herself? Of the four columns she wrote before the vote on October 11th, 2002, only two mentioned the war vote, and one of those was mostly about Hillary. Dowd said of Hillary that, "Whatever doubts she may have privately about the war, she is not articulating her angst as loudly as some of her Democratic colleagues. She knows that any woman who hopes to be elected president cannot have love beads in her jewelry case."

    In her column 'Culture war with B-2's', Dowd comes out as mildly anti-war. "Don't feel bad if you have the uneasy feeling that you're being steamrolled", Dowd writes, "You are not alone." Fourteen years later that column still looks good, and I link to it at the bottom. However, Dowd could and should have done a lot more. I don't think that anybody who draws a paycheck from the New York Times has a right to get on their high horse and lecture Hillary about her vote. They ignored the antiwar protests just like they ignored Bernie Sanders' large crowds.

    The Bush Administration hinted that the anti-war people were traitors and terrorist sympathizers and everybody got steamrolled. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/opinion/culture-war-with-b-2-s.html

    Karen Garcia , is a trusted commenter New Paltz, NY August 13, 2016

    HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now.

    By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American workers) here we come. Bombs away.

    With three months to go before this grotesque circus ends, Trump is giving every indication that he wants out, getting more reckless by the day. And that's a good thing, because with her rise in the polls, Hillary will now have to do more on the stump than inform us she is not Trump. She'll have to ditch the fear factor. She'll have to start sending emails and Tweets with something other than "OMG! Did you hear what Trump just said?!?" on them to convince voters.

    She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon.

    The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl.

    [Aug 29, 2016] Whats a Neoconservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... The "neocons" believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power-through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations' problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world's top authority. ..."
    "... neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America's "greatness" or "exceptionalism." This is essentially the Republican Party's version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America's mission to "make the world safe for democracy." (meaning for international corporations). Douthat describes Rubio as the "great neoconservative hope" because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say "still" because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush's GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives' worries and the Republicans' shift into context... ..."
    "... Almost to a man they have done everything possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. ..."
    "... The problem with the neoconservatives isn't that they flog American exceptionalism, it's that they aren't really Americans. ..."
    "... Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First, the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called "father of the neoconservative movement" was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard. Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary. Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, etc., etc. ..."
    "... " For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it." ..."
    "... Neoconservatives started out as Scoop Jackson Democratic Hawks. The several that I know well enough to know their non-war views are pretty much conventional Democrats in that they are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-big government. ..."
    "... Their shift to the Republicans was tactical when they, led by Richard Perle, got their foot in the door of the Pentagon under Reagan. Under Bush 2, they completed the process and more-or-less took over the DoD. ..."
    "... Neocons are mostly Zionist who put Israel interest above that of their country the USA. The majority are chicken hawks who never served a day in the military and have no problem sending other people kids to fight their wars. ..."
    "... What's a neoconservative? An unrepentant Trotskyite, who recognized that Marxism wasn't the viable way to take over the world and so now proudly (and openly) pledges allegiance to America but always keeps Israel first in his heart. ..."
    "... Exceptional is something I would hope other countries would say about us without having to remind them or ourselves. It's a form of group narcissism to keep bringing it up to convince ourselves our actions are just. ..."
    "... What a fascinating article. The last paragraph was particularly smack on. When I spoke to a conservative friend recently, I was inflamed about our hyper-sized military and our overseas adventures as an example of very big government. ..."
    "... The only thing I said in response was that he should take his 18 year old son by the arm and require him to sign up for the military to fight the battles he thinks we should be fighting. His response: "but he would rather go to college". I then reminded him that no American soldier has died for my freedom in my lifetime (I am 49 years old). That seemed to rankle him because the neocon argument concerning national defense requires that you buy into the propaganda that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom as a nation. ..."
    "... Wish neoconservatism was a philosophy, but its not, only a bait-and-switch sales pitch for the military industrial complex. Since Scoop Jackson, the senator from Boeing, America's political-police-the-world crowd has been the complex's marketing firm. ..."
    "... All work to keep the US government spending billions of dollars on mostly irrelevant military items. None seriously care about national defense: that's why no heads rolled when our billion-dollar air defense was helpless to protect the Pentagon against a small group of Muslem fanatics with box cutters. ..."
    "... Re "American exceptionalism:" I am sixty-seven years old. When I was a child, my Dad (A Mustang officer), told me that the United States was exceptional for reason that the privileges of aristocracy in Europe were the ordinary civil rights of common equals here. ..."
    "... They stand ready to compromise or to countenance disagreement on almost any strictly parochial American social or economic concern, so long as their foreign policy and other "high political" objectives are met. ..."
    "... I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC this past October, entitled "Neoconservatism Defined." Actually, it is a combined review of two books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/anatomy-of-neoconservatism/ ..."
    "... "Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel is central to their political concerns." ..."
    "... The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle, they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly, many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless, some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. "In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president's desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters as a 'man of peace,' ready to negotiate with the Soviets." ..."
    "... The "national greatness" neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action ends at the doors to the Pentagon." ..."
    "... If military hostilities were actually going on in Libya, it certainly would be easy to distinguish between the offensive opponent (all the foreign countries operating under the NATO umbrella and firing all the missiles into Libya and dropping all the bombs on Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi) and the defensive opponent (the Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi, the nominal leader of Libya). ..."
    "... What troubles me is that "Neoconservatism" has become mainstream Republicanism. In fact Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first Neocon president. And it looks as if the Tea Party has been hijacked by Palin, Bachmann and Rubio et al . Trying to change the Republican party from within simply will not work -- for Neocons don't just control the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party. We need a third party that overtly champions fiscal and social conservatism and international isolationism as its three main pillars! ..."
    "... Gil, the GOP leadership may be neocon, but the grassroots are more or less non-interventionist. We see the same split on immigration. I think its too early to give up on the party. ..."
    "... In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?" ..."
    "... They all believe in projecting US military might in order to foster democracy overseas. They ultimately seem to care more about the welfare of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and, Afghanistan than the United States. ..."
    "... What bothers me is what we consider "mainstream" conservatism today in the form of talk radio, Rush, and others is basically a neconservative movement. ..."
    "... It never ceases to amazes me why any true conservative would go any where near a member of the Bush administration and yet Sean has Rove and others on his show routinely when a case can be made that they should stand trial for being responsible for the abuse of those detainees. I have been student of the Holocaust my entire life and to see some of the circumstances of pre war Germany unfold in front of me, the "we have to take these steps in the name of defending the country" the dehumanizing of the muslims which made it easy to justify torturing them, it is all so very scary. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com

    This is a jingoistic political ideology of the Us elite preached by Killary and characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy.

    The "neocons" believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power-through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations' problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world's top authority.

    Critics say the US cannot afford to be the world's policeman. Neoconservatives not only say that we can but we must-and that we will cease to be America if we don't. Writes Boston Globe neoconservative columnist Jeff Jacoby: "Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only their indispensable nation is fit for the job." Neocon intellectual Max Boot says explicitly that the US should be the world's policeman because we are the best policeman.

    Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) heartily champions the neoconservative view.

    ...neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America's "greatness" or "exceptionalism." This is essentially the Republican Party's version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America's mission to "make the world safe for democracy." (meaning for international corporations). Douthat describes Rubio as the "great neoconservative hope" because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say "still" because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush's GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives' worries and the Republicans' shift into context...

    ...But this has always been the neocon ruse-if neoconservatives can convince others that fighting some war, somewhere is for America's actual defense, they will always make this argument and stretch any logic necessary to do so. Whether or not it is true is less important than its effectiveness. But their arguments are only a means to an end. Neoconservatives rarely show any reflection-much less regret-for foreign policy mistakes because for them there are no foreign policy mistakes. America's wars are valid by their own volition. America's "mission" is its missions. Writes Max Boot: "Why should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe… As long as evil exists, someone will have to protect peaceful people from predators."

    bc3b , June 23, 2011 at 8:51 am
    Easy Jack.

    Neoconservatives are primarily socially liberal hawks. Almost to a man they have done everything possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. Next to liberals they are the greatest danger to our country.

    squib , June 23, 2011 at 10:09 am
    Re "American exceptionalism". I thought America was exceptional until it started acting like any old cynical, corrupt, doomed empire. It's silly to go about boasting of your exceptionalism even as you repeat every hackneyed error of your predecessors, and trade your true character for a handful of dust.

    The problem with the neoconservatives isn't that they flog American exceptionalism, it's that they aren't really Americans.

    Steve , June 23, 2011 at 11:10 am
    Oh, come on guys.

    In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?"

    Folks will say this is unfair and a gross distortion of reality, if not in fact a bigoted assertion, but can you name any current neoconservative who is oppossed to US support for Israel? Or even just wants tosee it reduced a bit. I suspect not.

    On domestic issues, there's a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum, but, unlike the case back in the middle 70s when we first began to hear of this troubling new breed of political apostates in the making, it's clear that foreign policy is of much greater importance to the neocons than is domestic policy.

    By the middle eastern sympathiesyou shall know them.

    tbraton , June 23, 2011 at 11:13 am
    "My father suggested to me recently that it might be helpful to better explain what the term "neoconservative" means. "A lot of people don't know," he said. As usual, Dad was right."

    One of those people who didn't know what a "neoconservative" was is our former President, George W. Bush. I remember reading somewhere that, when he was running for President in the late 90's, George W. asked his father what a neoconservative was, and George H. W. replied that he had only to remember one word to understand what a neoconservative was: Israel.

    Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First, the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called "father of the neoconservative movement" was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard. Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary. Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, etc., etc.

    Secondly, the roots of neoconservatism traces back to very liberal political leanings, bordering on socialism and even communism. The elder Kristol was a Trotskyite into his 20's. That would explain their tendency to favor a strong central government, which, of course, allows them to exert their influence more effectively despite their small numbers. It is also consistent with the views of Leo Strauss, one of the great intellectual shapers of neoconservatism. According to an account by a former neoconservative:

    " For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it."

    Thirdly, as evidenced by the George H.W. Bush comment above, a strong underlying belief that seems to unite the neoconservatives is in the perceived need, above all, to make the world safe for Israel.

    Philip Giraldi, June 23, 2011 at 11:22 am
    Great piece Jack! Neoconservatives started out as Scoop Jackson Democratic Hawks. The several that I know well enough to know their non-war views are pretty much conventional Democrats in that they are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-big government.

    Their shift to the Republicans was tactical when they, led by Richard Perle, got their foot in the door of the Pentagon under Reagan. Under Bush 2, they completed the process and more-or-less took over the DoD.

    I expect they are now triangulating frantically to determine if it in their best interests to remain nominally Republicans or to slowly drift back to their natural habitat in the Democratic Party.

    ED. K., June 23, 2011 at 12:28 pm
    Neocons are mostly Zionist who put Israel interest above that of their country the USA. The majority are chicken hawks who never served a day in the military and have no problem sending other people kids to fight their wars.
    eeyore , June 23, 2011 at 2:23 pm
    let us not forget the distinction of constitutional authority for past interventions and the "now in violation of the war powers act" Lybian effort. Those who call themselves conservatives, neo-con or otherwise would do well to refer to their pocket constitution they claim to follow and carry. Criticism of fellow party members who constitutionally oppose these interventions employ the same hate-mongering tactics of the left. Silence the opposition at any cost and never stop feeding the federal leviathan. Thanks to Church and Wilkow for the education.
    Jane Marple , June 23, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    What's a neoconservative? An unrepentant Trotskyite, who recognized that Marxism wasn't the viable way to take over the world and so now proudly (and openly) pledges allegiance to America but always keeps Israel first in his heart.
    Ben, Okla. City , June 23, 2011 at 4:30 pm
    Exceptional is something I would hope other countries would say about us without having to remind them or ourselves. It's a form of group narcissism to keep bringing it up to convince ourselves our actions are just.

    How about some American humility? More Gary Cooper and less Richard Simmons.

    Jack , June 23, 2011 at 5:34 pm
    What a fascinating article. The last paragraph was particularly smack on. When I spoke to a conservative friend recently, I was inflamed about our hyper-sized military and our overseas adventures as an example of very big government.

    The kind that he, as a conservative, should oppose. His retort, of course, was that national security is one of the constitutional purposes of our government. There it is. This friend really thinks that Iraq, Libya, our 1000's of bases all over the world, is what national defense is all about. With his argument, there is literally no limit to the size of the military or the scope of its mission. The neocons have defined it that way.

    The only thing I said in response was that he should take his 18 year old son by the arm and require him to sign up for the military to fight the battles he thinks we should be fighting. His response: "but he would rather go to college". I then reminded him that no American soldier has died for my freedom in my lifetime (I am 49 years old). That seemed to rankle him because the neocon argument concerning national defense requires that you buy into the propaganda that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom as a nation.

    DirtyHarriet , June 23, 2011 at 7:44 pm
    Patrick J. gave a great definition in his Whose War article:

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/mar/24/00007/

    It's one of the best articles ever. TAC should re-run it from time to time, lest we all forget what it's all about.

    Buzz Baldrin , June 24, 2011 at 5:08 am
    Wish neoconservatism was a philosophy, but its not, only a bait-and-switch sales pitch for the military industrial complex. Since Scoop Jackson, the senator from Boeing, America's political-police-the-world crowd has been the complex's marketing firm.

    All work to keep the US government spending billions of dollars on mostly irrelevant military items. None seriously care about national defense: that's why no heads rolled when our billion-dollar air defense was helpless to protect the Pentagon against a small group of Muslem fanatics with box cutters.

    Worse, the military industrial complex will be entrenched until serious elected officials, in the tradition of Dwight Eisenhower, create a peacetime economy to replace our warfare state.

    Until then, too much money, too many jobs in America depend on the complex.

    Nel , June 24, 2011 at 5:10 am
    A Neocon is a con artist.
    Robert Pinkerton , June 24, 2011 at 5:17 am
    Re "American exceptionalism:" I am sixty-seven years old. When I was a child, my Dad (A Mustang officer), told me that the United States was exceptional for reason that the privileges of aristocracy in Europe were the ordinary civil rights of common equals here.

    If I believe in "national greatness," by that I mean a nation of great- soul people, the kind Aristotle calls megalopsychic .

    Nebulosis , June 24, 2011 at 5:49 am
    "On domestic issues, there's a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum,"

    True, but then domestic issues cause a dull glaze to form over neoconservative eyes. They stand ready to compromise or to countenance disagreement on almost any strictly parochial American social or economic concern, so long as their foreign policy and other "high political" objectives are met.

    samwitwicky , June 24, 2011 at 6:23 am
    Revolutions are internal matters of a country … the revolution in Gypto was successful internally … people were not killed, cities were not bombed, war was not raged, outside countries didn't send their forces … whatever was done … it was within the country and by the people … without outside support … that's a revolution.

    Look at the massacre they are carrying out in Tibby … you call that a revolution man … you call that an operation for the people?

    Read more:

    http://godinthejungle.com/index.php/story-notes/390-saturday-june-18-2011.html

    Bill R. , June 24, 2011 at 11:44 am
    Strictly speaking, a neoconservative, is a member of the traditional FDR coalition (unions, minorities – including Catholics, Jews and African Americans, even Southern whites) who flipped to the Republican party and some element of conservative ideology back in the 1970s. As a former FDR Democrat, Ronald Reagan had elements of neoconservatism in his past.

    And social liberalism is far from neocon orthodoxy. People like Gertrude Himmelfarb and John Neuhaus were at the forefront of neoconservatism. Jeane Kirpatrick, by no means a wobbly or wimpy neoconservative, had roots in socialist activism together with Irving Kristol and the like. Indeed, losing its conservative moral sensibilities helped drive the Democratic Party mad.

    It is only relatively recently that a few – but hardly all – Boom generation neocons such as David Frum and David Brooks also contracted the same form of mental illness. Otherwise, this group has become largely indistinguishable from the Republican mainstream, which draws its roots from Roosevelt, Lincoln, Henry Clay and Alexander Hamilton.

    Of course, with the onset of southern neocons with states rights and libertarian ideology, the demographic advances of the GOP in the late 20th century imported Civil War divisions into the party, a theme that Kevin Phillips has – sadistically – played upon. Still, one might well say that there is nothing wrong with neoconservatism except for its detractors. Down with the Traitor. Up with the Star.

    James deLaurier , June 24, 2011 at 1:50 pm
    Jack Hunter: 6/24/2011

    A "great" power can be and is often less than a "good" power. So, the Neoconservatives manifesto mandates foreign policy from the top – down! Who then, is there that stands – up for and represents,"We the People"?

    Thank you – # 16

    tbraton , June 24, 2011 at 3:45 pm
    I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC this past October, entitled "Neoconservatism Defined." Actually, it is a combined review of two books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/anatomy-of-neoconservatism/ In the course of the review, Gordon makes the following observation:

    "Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel is central to their political concerns."

    One of the books concentrates on the intellectual founder of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, and the review makes some consise observations about him.

    tbraton , June 24, 2011 at 3:54 pm
    David Gordon's book review also contains the following observations:

    "No one who absorbs Vaďsse's discussion of this second age can harbor any illusions about whether the neocons count as genuine conservatives. [Senator Henry] Jackson made no secret of his statist views of domestic policy, but this did not in the least impede his neocons allies from enlisting in his behalf.

    Vaďsse by the way understates Jackson's commitment to socialism, which dated from his youth. Contrary to what our author suggests, the League for Industrial Democracy, which Jackson joined while in college, was not "a moderate organization that backed unions and democratic principles." It was a socialist youth movement that aimed to propagate socialism to the public.

    It was not Jackson's domestic policy, though, that principally drew the necons to him. They had an elective affinity for the pursuit of the Cold War. Vaďsse stresses in particular that they collaborated with Paul Nitze and other Cold War hawks. In a notorious incident, "Team B," under the control of the hawks, claimed that CIA estimates of Russian armaments were radically understated. It transpired that the alarms of Team B were baseless; they nevertheless served their purpose in promoting a bellicose foreign policy.

    The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle, they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly, many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless, some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. "In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president's desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters as a 'man of peace,' ready to negotiate with the Soviets."

    The "national greatness" neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action ends at the doors to the Pentagon."

    Masood , June 24, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    Should "the American Policeman" police the rogue state of Israel? I wonder how many neocons will fo for it.
    DirtyHarriet , June 24, 2011 at 9:17 pm
    Masood, your post reminds me of an article that was published in the New York Times on September 10, 2001, of all dates.

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-78029147.html

    "U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study"

    Excerpt:

    The exercise was done by 60 officers dubbed "Jedi Knights," as all second-year SAMS students are nicknamed.

    The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation, and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides.

    It calls Israel's armed forces a "500-pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza and the West Bank. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very unlikely to fire on American forces. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management."

    Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."

    Henry Drummond , June 25, 2011 at 5:59 am
    This would have had some point 200 years ago. Unfortunately, cannon now shoot more than three miles, the 3 mile limit on national sovereignty is obsolete. You cannot distinguish between an offensive and defensive opponent.
    tbraton , June 25, 2011 at 9:48 am
    "You cannot distinguish between an offensive and defensive opponent."

    If military hostilities were actually going on in Libya, it certainly would be easy to distinguish between the offensive opponent (all the foreign countries operating under the NATO umbrella and firing all the missiles into Libya and dropping all the bombs on Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi) and the defensive opponent (the Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi, the nominal leader of Libya).

    Gil , June 26, 2011 at 7:46 pm
    Nice article! I believe that what constitutes a neoconservative has changed over the years. Sure, in an academic sense, a "neoconservative" is someone who might have supported Scoop Jackson in Washington or Strauss at U of Chicago in the 70's- in essence, someone with democratic roots who became more hawkish on foreign policy.

    However, most conservative pundits- Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc, support projecting US power in order to achieve Democracy overseas. As do Bachmann, Palin, Romney, Gingrich, Boener, Perry and most other establishment Republicans.

    They all supported war in Afghanistan and Iraq, all support Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait, Bahrain, and big oil, and all fundamentally decry any attempt to cut the US military budget.

    What troubles me is that "Neoconservatism" has become mainstream Republicanism. In fact Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first Neocon president. And it looks as if the Tea Party has been hijacked by Palin, Bachmann and Rubio et al . Trying to change the Republican party from within simply will not work -- for Neocons don't just control the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party. We need a third party that overtly champions fiscal and social conservatism and international isolationism as its three main pillars!

    Steve in Ohio , June 27, 2011 at 11:04 am
    Gil, the GOP leadership may be neocon, but the grassroots are more or less non-interventionist. We see the same split on immigration. I think its too early to give up on the party.

    By the way, I don't consider RR a neocon President. Along with Eisenhower, he was the most non interventionist prez in recent history.

    Allen , June 28, 2011 at 5:32 am
    WE HAVE A WINNER!;
    'Steve, on June 23rd, 2011 at 11:10 am Said:
    Oh, come on guys.

    In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?"

    Gil , June 28, 2011 at 11:42 am
    Steve-

    Sure, much of the grassroots is non-interventionist, although many, many Evangelicals support the Likud party in Israel for biblical reasons, and those Republicans who listen regularly to Neocons like Hannity and Limbaugh and Dennis Miller, or watch Krauthammer, Kristol and O'Reilly are influenced to support an interventionist foreign policy. Here is the problem! How can you change the Republican party from within when the Tea Party Caucus is headed by an interventionist Neocon like Michelle Bachmann?

    Ronald Reagan was a semi-isolationist. Except, of course, for bombing Libya, stationing troops in Lebanon, and docking the 6th fleet in Israel. Sorry, I know many people consider him a saint, and on both fiscal and social issues he was wonderful. But let's face it- Reagan was a former democratic Union head who became a conservative later on in life and projected US power overseas when it wasn't necessary. A Neocon? At least 75%

    Wesley Mcgranor , June 29, 2011 at 11:54 am
    A neoconservative as an actual social phenomenon – free from intellectual definition – is from the social upheaval of the 'spirit of the 60's'. With all their socialism and revolution against white-western-protestant civilization.
    Gil , June 29, 2011 at 2:01 pm
    Wesley,

    You are fundamentally correct with respect to the origins of most Neoconservative "intellectuals." However, definitions morph and change over time until their origins become so cloudy as to be practically irrelevant. Let's get real - how many young people know that Bill Kristol's dad used to be a Socialist? How many people even know who Bill Kristol is or Scoop Jackson was?

    Ultimately one can only judge people by their actions. And, in my definition, anyone who ACTS like a Neoconservative- or puts others in harm's way in order to further their expansionist aims- IS a Neoconservative.

    And we will never win our battle against the Neoconservatives unless we call things as they are, without getting bogged down in biographical details about people and philosophers who nobody ever hears about. So, while David Frum, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Lindsay Graham Michelle Bachmann and just about every modern republican congressman or senator or conservative think tank member inside the Washington Beltway may never have been hippies in the 60's, and almost all can claim to have been lifelong conservatives, 99% are Neoconservatives because their ACTIONS define who they are.

    They all believe in projecting US military might in order to foster democracy overseas. They ultimately seem to care more about the welfare of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and, Afghanistan than the United States.

    Patrick , July 6, 2011 at 6:26 am
    What bothers me is what we consider "mainstream" conservatism today in the form of talk radio, Rush, and others is basically a neconservative movement.

    What I would consider true conservatism you find here in TAC and also in the Libertarian publications like Reason and Liberty but the reach of talk radio and the neocon blogs seems to be far greater than that of real conservatives and the neocons appear to be setting the agenda these days. It is nothing short of appalling isn't it to see "conservatives" defending torture and the secret prisons run under the Bush administration, all in the name of "defending" the country.

    It never ceases to amazes me why any true conservative would go any where near a member of the Bush administration and yet Sean has Rove and others on his show routinely when a case can be made that they should stand trial for being responsible for the abuse of those detainees. I have been student of the Holocaust my entire life and to see some of the circumstances of pre war Germany unfold in front of me, the "we have to take these steps in the name of defending the country" the dehumanizing of the muslims which made it easy to justify torturing them, it is all so very scary.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Obama is back to his old game: Assad should go

    Notable quotes:
    "... russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms, it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons? that's the answer to that bs... ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80

    OT
    GENEVA - The United States and Russia say they have resolved a number of issues standing in the way of restoring a nationwide truce to Syria and opening up aid deliveries, but were unable once again to forge a comprehensive agreement on stepping up cooperation to end the brutal war that has killed hundreds of thousands.

    After meeting off-and-on for nearly 10 hours in Geneva on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov could point to only incremental progress in filling in details of a broad understanding to boost joint efforts that was reached last month in Moscow.

    Their failure to reach an overall deal highlighted the increasingly complex situation on the ground in Syria - including new Russian-backed Syrian government attacks on opposition forces, the intermingling of some of those opposition forces with an al-Qaida affiliate not covered by the truce and the surrender of a rebel-held suburb of Damascus - as well as deep divisions and mistrust dividing Washington and Moscow.

    The complexities have also grown with the increasing internationalization of what has largely become a proxy war between regional and world powers, highlighted by a move by Turkish troops across the Syrian border against Islamic State fighters this week.

    Kerry said he and Lavrov had agreed on the "vast majority" of technical discussions on steps to reinstate a cease-fire and improve humanitarian access. But critical sticking points remain unresolved and experts will remain in Geneva with an eye toward finalizing those in the coming days, he said.
    ```
    Lavrov echoed that, saying "we still need to finalize a few issues" and pointed to the need to separate fighters from the al-Nusra Front, which has ties to al-Qaida, from U.S.-backed fighters who hold parts of northwest Syria.

    "We have continued our efforts to reduce the areas where we lack understanding and trust, which is an achievement," Lavrov said. "The mutual trust is growing with every meeting."

    Yet, it was clear that neither side believes an overall agreement is imminent or even achievable after numerous previous disappointments shattered a brief period of relative calm earlier this year.

    The inability to wrest an agreement between Russia and the U.S. - as the major sponsors of the opposing sides in the stalled Syria peace talks - all but spells another missed deadline for the U.N. Syria envoy to get the Syrian government and "moderate" opposition back to the table.
    ```
    In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret.
    ```
    And, underscoring deep differences over developments on the ground, Kerry noted that Russia disputes the U.S. "narrative" of recent attacks on heavily populated areas being conducted by Syrian forces, Russia itself and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia. Russia maintains the attacks it has been involved in have targeted legitimate terrorist targets, while the U.S. says they have hit moderate opposition forces.
    ~~~
    At the same time, the Obama administration is not of one mind regarding the Russians. The Pentagon has publicly complained about getting drawn into greater cooperation with Russia even though it has been forced recently to expand communication with Moscow. Last week, the U.S. had to call for Russian help when Syrian warplanes struck an area not far from where U.S. troops were operating.

    U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, open humanitarian aid corridors, and concentrate any offensive action on the Islamic State group and other extremists not covered by what has become a largely ignored truce.

    For their part, U.S. officials say they are willing to press rebels groups they support harder on separating themselves from the Islamic State and al-Nusra, which despite a recent name change is still viewed as al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria.

    Those goals are not new, but recent developments have made achieving them even more urgent and important, according to U.S. officials. Recent developments include military operations around the city of Aleppo, the entry of Turkey into the ground war, Turkish hostility toward U.S.-backed Kurdish rebel groups and the presence of American military advisers in widening conflict zones.

    Meanwhile, in a blow to the opposition, rebel forces and civilians in the besieged Damascus suburb of Daraya were to be evacuated on Friday after agreeing to surrender the town late Thursday after four years of grueling bombardment and a crippling siege that left the sprawling area in ruins.

    The surrender of Daraya, which became an early symbol of the nascent uprising against Assad, marks a success for his government, removing a persistent threat only a few miles from his seat of power.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 27, 2016 11:06:17 AM | 85
    Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80

    Re: Geneva negotiations...
    Love the goto clause:

    "In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed the importance of keeping the details secret."

    Yeah, keeping the details secret so that next time the Yankees backstab Russia, observers won't immediately realise that they were, in fact, just shooting themselves in the foot. Again.

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:27:25 PM | 99
    @92 harrylaw...i agree with you..

    russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms, it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons? that's the answer to that bs...

    as for turkey, clearly the apk has a 'get rid of the kurds' agenda.. works well in their alliance with isis up to a point.. as for turkish/usa alliance and a no fly zone - if russia goes along with this, they better get a hell of a trade off out of it.. i can't see it, although i see the usa continuing on in their support of saudi arabia etc, using their mercenary isis army and saudi arabia to continue to funnel arms sales and weaponry... it is what they do best, bullshite artists that they are...

    james | Aug 27, 2016 4:32:33 PM | 100

    for the latest dose of bullshite - watch

    8 minute propaganda video.. one could flip it around to say the usa supports isis, al nusra, and all the other 'moderate' terrorists they are arming... amazing how these state dept. spokespeople can lie so continuously and not be called out on any of it by the corporate media journalists.. obviously those journalists are paid to go along with the lies, keep their mouth shut, and not ask any hard questions...

    [Aug 27, 2016] The union movements problem, in other words, isnt that workers dont want to fight; its that they dont want to lose

    Notable quotes:
    "... Union opponents think this quiescence means workers don't want to fight. Romantic union supporters, perhaps including the people at the conference, tend to think that workers are ready for a struggle but held back by conservative middle-class leadership. Neither account fully contemplates the idea that the struggle between labor and capital might more simply reflect the balance of power. The union movement's problem, in other words, isn't that workers don't want to fight; it's that they don't want to lose ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.defenddemocracy.press

    "Milanovic and Roemer (2016) show that what seems a very positive development (that is, lower global inequality) when individuals are assumed to be concerned solely with their absolute incomes becomes much less positive when we also include in their welfare functions a concern with relative positions in national income distributions. Then the dominant feeling across the world, reflecting increasing national income inequalities, becomes one of a relative loss" [Branko Milanovic, Defend Democracy ]. Charts, with an analysis of the "elephant graph."

    "Who Works for the Workers?" [ n+1 ].

    "Union opponents think this quiescence means workers don't want to fight. Romantic union supporters, perhaps including the people at the conference, tend to think that workers are ready for a struggle but held back by conservative middle-class leadership. Neither account fully contemplates the idea that the struggle between labor and capital might more simply reflect the balance of power. The union movement's problem, in other words, isn't that workers don't want to fight; it's that they don't want to lose."

    Very interesting article, that overlaps with the movement vs. party discussion.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Social Fragmentation Suits the Powers That Be

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Elites have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their wealth and power, and now the unprivileged, unprotected non-Elites are rebelling in the only way left open to them: voting for anyone who claims to be outside the privileged Elites that dominate our society and economy. ..."
    Jul 29, 2016 | www.oftwominds.com

    The Elites have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their wealth and power.

    Ours is an Age of Fracture (the 2011 book by Daniel Rodgers) in which "earlier notions of history and society that stressed solidity, collective institutions, and social circumstances gave way to a more individualized human nature that emphasized choice, agency, performance, and desire."

    A society that is fragmenting into cultural groups that are themselves fracturing into smaller units of temporary and highly contingent solidarity is ideal for Elites bent on maintaining political and financial control.

    A society that has fragmented into a media-fed cultural war of hot-button identity-gender-religious politics is a society that is incapable of resisting concentrations of power and wealth in the hands of the few at the expense of the many.

    If we set aside the authentic desire of individuals for equal rights and cultural liberation and examine the political and financial ramifications of social fragmentation, we come face to face with Christopher Lasch's insightful analysis on The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (1996 book).

    "The new elites, the professional classes in particular, regard the masses with mingled scorn and apprehension.... Middle Americans, as they appear to the makers of educated opinion, are hopelessly shabby, unfashionable, and provincial, ill informed about changes in taste or intellectual trends, addicted to trashy novels of romance and adventure, and stupefied by prolonged exposure to television. They are at once absurd and vaguely menacing."

    Though better known for his book on the disastrous consequences of consumerism in an era of economic stagnation, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations , Lasch's The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy is the more politically profound analysis, as it links Elite dominance of the media, higher education and cultural narratives to the erosion of democracy as a functioning institution.

    Extreme concentrations of wealth and power are incompatible with democracy, as Elites buy political influence and promote cultural narratives that distract the citizenry with emotionally charged issues. A focus on individual liberation from all constraints precludes an awareness of common economic-political interests beyond the narrow boundaries of fragmenting culturally defined identities.

    In a society stripped of broad-based social contracts and narratives that focus on the structural forces dismantling democracy and social mobility, the Elites have a free hand to consolidate their own personal wealth and power and use those tools to further fragment any potential political resistance to their dominance.

    The Elites have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their wealth and power, and now the unprivileged, unprotected non-Elites are rebelling in the only way left open to them: voting for anyone who claims to be outside the privileged Elites that dominate our society and economy.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Hillary Clintons Ghosts A Legacy of Pushing the Democratic Party to the Right

    Notable quotes:
    "... But the party's latest generation of "New Democrats" - self-described "moderates" who are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, " Ready for the New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats. ..."
    "... The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001 article in The American Prospect . "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally." ..."
    "... Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive council, Dreyfuss reported , was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries. A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions and the grassroots for support. ..."
    "... The height of the DLC's triumph may well have been in the 1990s, when it claimed President Bill Clinton as its most prominent advocate, celebrating his disastrous welfare cuts (which were supported by Hillary Clinton as the first lady), his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and his speech declaring that the "era of big government is over." These initiatives had the DLC's footprint all over them. ..."
    "... The DLC's prescribed Third Way also found a home on Downing Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC, adopted its strategies and lent his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way , he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producer interests." ..."
    "... When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became a major player for the DLC, serving as a prominent member of the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at conferences on multiple occasions and serving as chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections. ..."
    "... She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond. ..."
    "... The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a similar role against Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism." ..."
    "... However, the DLC's influence eventually waned . A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So, when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator. "You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC," he wrote when pressed by the magazine . "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC." ..."
    "... When the DLC closed, it records were acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding members. In September 2015, the foundation hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power ..."
    "... Citizens United ..."
    "... So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who works for a hedge fund and is on the board of trustees for Third Way was also President Obama's White House chief of staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's direction in the 2016 election. ..."
    "... The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper, "Ready for the New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper falsely argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value of today's populist agenda." ..."
    "... When Clinton announced her tax plan, Dow Jones quoted Jim Kessler, a Third Way staffer, praising the plan. On social media , Third Way staffers are routinely cheering on Clinton and attacking Sanders and O'Malley . ..."
    "... and where she will be ..."
    "... Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always been wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support. He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term "Netroots" in support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was leading in the polls during the primary. ..."
    "... Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who attacked him for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base. ..."
    "... The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece "Stop Hillary." ..."
    "... In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon" as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general, flattering terms." ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.truth-out.org
    A discussion about how the Democrats could be compromised by their relationship with the financial institutions that fund their campaigns was unthinkable in past presidential debates. Such a discussion falls way outside the narrow parameters of debate that have dominated political discourse in the mainstream media for decades. But at the Democratic debate in Iowa this November, this issue was front and center: Hillary Clinton was forced to defend her financial relationship with Wall Street numerous times on network television.

    Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed.

    Clinton's response to populist attacks on her Wall Street connections has largely been to adopt similar language and policy positions as her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. In many ways she is trying to minimize the differences between her and Sanders, rather than emphasize them. "The differences among us," she said of her opponents at the Iowa debate , "pale in comparison to what's happening on the Republican [side]."

    Clinton, currently the front-runner, is now making "debt-free" college tuition , minimum wage hikes ( to $12 per hour ) and measures to bring "accountability to Wall Street" major talking points in her campaign. The language of populism - at least for now - is seen as a viable electoral strategy .

    But the party's latest generation of "New Democrats" - self-described "moderates" who are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, " Ready for the New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats.

    This "ideological gulf" inside the party, as The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus describes it , is not a new phenomenon. Before there was Third Way, there was the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). And before there was Bill Daley, there was Hillary Clinton - a key member of the DLC's leadership team during her entire tenure in the US Senate (2000-2008). As Clinton seeks progressive support, it is important to consider her role in the influential movement to, as The American Prospect describes it , "reinvent the [Democratic] party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and a pro-business, pro-free market outlook." This fairly recent history is an important part of Clinton's record, and she owes it to primary voters to answer for it.

    The Reign of the DLC

    A lot has happened since the last time the Democrats had a contested primary. The 2008 economic crisis , the growth of the Occupy movement , the emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement and the consequent increase in public attention to the ongoing killings of Black people by police , and the Bernie Sanders campaign have all played major roles in shaping the political consensus of primary voters. None of these existed when Barack Obama won the nomination over Clinton in June 2008.

    But before all of these events shaped public opinion, the party was largely guided by the ideas of the Democratic Leadership Council. Founded by Southern Democrats in 1985 , the group sought to transform the party by pushing it to embrace more conservative positions and win support from big business.

    Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed.

    The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001 article in The American Prospect . "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally."

    Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive council, Dreyfuss reported , was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries. A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions and the grassroots for support.

    The organization's influence was significant, especially in the 1990s. The New York Times reported that during that era "the Democratic Leadership Council was a maker of presidents." Its influence continued into the post-Clinton years. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt and countless others all lent their names in support of the organization. The DLC and its think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), were well financed and published a seemingly endless barrage of policy papers , op-eds and declarations in their numerous publications.

    "It is almost hard to find anyone who wasn't involved with [the DLC]" said Mark Schmitt, a staffer for the nonpartisan New America Foundation think tank, in an interview with Truthout. "This was before there were a lot of organizations, and the DLC provided a way for politicians to get involved and to be in the same room with important people."

    The height of the DLC's triumph may well have been in the 1990s, when it claimed President Bill Clinton as its most prominent advocate, celebrating his disastrous welfare cuts (which were supported by Hillary Clinton as the first lady), his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and his speech declaring that the "era of big government is over." These initiatives had the DLC's footprint all over them.

    The DLC's prescribed Third Way also found a home on Downing Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC, adopted its strategies and lent his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way , he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producer interests."

    As recently as 2014, Blair has continued to urge the UK's Labour Party to remain committed to these ideals. "Former UK prime minister Tony Blair has urged Labour leader Ed Miliband to stick to the political centre ground, warning that the public has not 'fallen back in love with the state' despite the global financial crisis," according to the Financial Times , which noted that the left-wing base of his party has rejected his centrist leanings. "His decision as prime minister to join the US in its invasion of Iraq - as well as his free-market leanings - have made him a hate figure among the most leftwing Labour activists."

    Hillary Clinton as a New Democrat

    When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became a major player for the DLC, serving as a prominent member of the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at conferences on multiple occasions and serving as chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

    She was even promoted as the DLC's "New Dem of the Week" on its website. (It would be remiss not to note that Martin O'Malley also served as a "New Dem of the Week," and even co-wrote an op-ed on behalf of the DLC with its then-chair, Harold Ford Jr.)

    New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats.

    More importantly, Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed. She tried to portray herself as a crusader for family values when she introduced legislation to ban violent video games and flag burning in 2005. She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond.

    The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a similar role against Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism."

    However, the DLC's influence eventually waned . A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So, when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator. "You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC," he wrote when pressed by the magazine . "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC."

    The DLC's decline continued: A growing sense of discontent among progressives, Clinton's loss in 2008 and the economic crisis that followed turned the DLC into something of a political liability. And in 2011, the Democratic Leadership Council shuttered its doors .

    When the DLC closed, it records were acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding members. In September 2015, the foundation hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power . Amazingly, O'Malley provided a favorable blurb for the book, praising it as a "reminder of the core principles that still drive Democratic success today."

    The 2016 Election and New Democrats

    The DLC's demise was seen as a victory by many progressives, and the populist tone of the 2016 primary is being celebrated as a sign of rising progressivism as well. But it is probably too soon to declare that the "battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is coming to an end," as Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, recently told the Guardian .

    Consider the way Marshall spun the closing of the DLC. "With President Obama consciously reconstructing a winning coalition by reconnecting with the progressive center, the pragmatic ideas of PPI and other organizations are more vital than ever," he said in an interview with Politico .

    His reference to "PPI and other organizations" refers to the still-existing Progressive Policy Institute and Third Way. These institutions have the same Wall Street support and continue to push the same agenda that their predecessor did.

    New Democrats' guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick to defend Clinton.

    Many of these "centrist" ideas lack popular support these days. But New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats. The group's board of trustees is almost entirely made up of Wall Street executives. Further, in the aftermath of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, these same moneyed interests have more influence over the political process than ever before.

    "These organizations now are basically just corporate lobbyists today," Schmitt said.

    So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who works for a hedge fund and is on the board of trustees for Third Way was also President Obama's White House chief of staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's direction in the 2016 election.

    The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper, "Ready for the New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper falsely argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value of today's populist agenda."

    The report attacks Sanders' proposals for expanding Social Security and implementing a single-payer health-care system directly, making faulty claims about both proposals. It also advises Democrats to avoid the "singular focus on income inequality" because its "actual impact on the middle class may be small."

    "Third Way and its allies are gravely misreading the economic and political moment," said Richard Eskow, a writer for Campaign for America's Future, in a rebuttal to the paper. "If their influence continues to wane, perhaps one day Americans can stop paying the price for their ill-conceived, corporation- and billionaire-friendly agenda."

    Eskow is right to use the word "if" instead of "when." Progressives ignore these efforts at their own peril. Despite their archaic and flawed ideas, Third Way's reports and speakers still get undue attention in the mainstream media. For instance, The Washington Post devoted 913 words to Third Way's new paper, describing it as part of a "big economic fight in the Democratic Party." The article provided a platform for Third Way's president Jonathan Cowan to attack Sanders. "We propose that Democrats be Democrats, not socialists," he said. This tone is the status quo for New Democrats in the media. Their guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick to defend Clinton.

    When Clinton was attacked for working with former Wall Street executives, The Wall Street Journal quoted PPI president Will Marshall, defending her. "The idea that you have to excommunicate anybody who ever worked in the financial sector is ridiculous," he said .

    When Clinton announced her tax plan, Dow Jones quoted Jim Kessler, a Third Way staffer, praising the plan. On social media , Third Way staffers are routinely cheering on Clinton and attacking Sanders and O'Malley .

    "The Necessities of the Moment": Will Clinton Run Back to the Right?

    Of course, the New Democrats' preference for Clinton shouldn't surprise anyone. She has been an ally for years. And while they have expressed concern over her leftward tilt, they are confident, as the Post reported , that "she'll tack back their way in a general election." For instance, her recent opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership - which Third Way is supporting aggressively - has centrists "disappointed" but not worried.

    "Everyone knew where she was on that and where she will be , but given the necessities of the moment and a tough Democratic primary, she felt she needed to go there initially," New Democratic Coalition chairman Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisconsin) told the Guardian (emphasis added).

    Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important to be critical, even of candidates for whom you will likely vote.

    If New Democrats aren't worried that Clinton's populist rhetoric is sincere, progressives probably should be worried that it isn't. As DLC founder Al From told the Guardian : "Hillary will bend a little bit but not so much that she can't get herself back on course in the general [election] and when she is governing."

    Some, however, are confident that if elected, Clinton will have to spend political capital on the very populist ideas she is now embracing.

    "When you make these kind of promises it will be difficult to just go back on them," said the New America Foundation's Mark Schmitt. "She will have to work on many of these issues if she is elected."

    Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told Truthout that his group's emphasis is to make any Democratic candidate responsive to the issues important to what he calls the "Warren wing" of the party, which espouses the more populist economic beliefs of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts). Like Warren, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee hasn't endorsed a candidate in the race as of now.

    "It is not about one candidate; it is about trying to make all the candidates address the issues we care about," Green said, citing debt-free education, expanding Social Security benefits and supporting Black Lives Matter as key issues.

    Liberals, Clinton and Partisan Amnesia

    It is understandable why some progressives are hesitant to be critical of Clinton: They fully expect that soon she will be the only thing standing between them and some candidate from the "Republican clown car," as Green described the GOP field.

    But voting pragmatically in a general election is one thing. Ignoring or apologizing for Clinton's very recent and troubling record is another. Too many progressives are engaged in a sort of willful partisan amnesia and are accepting the false narrative that Clinton is "a populist fighter who for decades has been an advocate for families and children," as some unnamed Clinton advisers told The New York Times.

    Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always been wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support. He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term "Netroots" in support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was leading in the polls during the primary.

    Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who attacked him for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base.

    Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton to respond to left critiques will likely not come again soon.

    Yet Moulitsas recently endorsed Clinton in a column for The Hill. Moulitsas was one of the key bloggers who supported Dean in 2004 and helped create the Netroots in its infancy. His goal, he said often, was "crashing the gate" of the Democratic establishment. But his uncritical support for Clinton, the quintessential establishment candidate, has turned much of his own blog into evidence of how some progressives are dismissing recent history for partisan reasons. In the last contested Democratic primary, Moulitsas was extremely critical of Clinton. Now, he is helping her do to Sanders what the DLC did to Dean.

    Why are the likes of Dean and Moulitsas so quick to embrace Clinton after years of battling with her and her allies in the so-called "vital center?" Only they know for sure. In the case of Dean, it may well be because he was never a real populist to begin with. In 2003, Bloomberg did a story asking Vermonters to talk about Dean's ideology. "Howard is not a liberal. He's a pro-business, Rockefeller Republican," said Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of Vermont. This sentiment is shared by many Vermonters, on both the left and right .

    But for other self-identified progressives who have embraced the establishment candidate, such as Moulitsas, the answers may be simpler: partisan loyalty and ambition. The fact is the odds of Clinton winning the nomination are very good. And for the likes of Moulitsas - who now writes columns for an establishment DC paper and is a major fundraiser for Democrats - being on the side of the winner will certainly make him more friends in DC than supporting the self-identified socialist that opposes her. Moulitsas argues that Clinton has dismissed "her husband's ideological baggage" and is "aiming for a truly progressive presidency." He is now a true believer, he claims. It is up to readers to decide if they find his argument to be credible, especially compared to the conflicting statements he has made for many years. Many on his own blog are skeptical.

    But, lastly, the main reason many progressives are willing to overlook Clinton's record is simply fear. They are afraid of a Republican president, and it is hard to blame them. The idea of a President Trump - or Carson or Cruz - is extremely frightening for many people. This is entirely understandable. But even if one feels obligated to vote for Clinton in the general election, should she win the nomination, that does not mean her record ought to be ignored. Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important to be critical, even of candidates for whom you will likely vote.

    The Historical Record: "The Only Antidote"

    The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece "Stop Hillary."

    In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon" as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general, flattering terms."

    Cleary, Clinton's historical record reveals much to be concerned about, including her long career as a New Democrat. For the first time in recent memory, however, progressives actually have some leverage to make her answer for this record.

    Clinton has a reasonably competitive opponent who has challenged her on her record of Wall Street support, her dismissal of the Glass-Steagall Act and her vote for war in Iraq . She should also be challenged vigorously on her role with the DLC.

    Circumstances have created a unique moment where Clinton has to answer these tough questions. But it may be a fleeting moment. Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton - or any major establishment politician - to respond to left critiques will likely not come again soon. Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission .

    Michael Corcoran is a journalist based in Boston. He has written for The Boston Globe, The Nation, The Christian Science Monitor, Extra!, NACLA Report on the Americas and other publications. Follow him on Twitter: @mcorcoran3 .

    [Aug 27, 2016] Total State Or Total Freedom The 8 Marks Of Fascist Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Syndicalist is not usually how we think of our current economic structure. But remember that syndicalism means economic control by the producers. Capitalism is different. It places by virtue of market structures all control in the hands of the consumers. The only question for syndicalists, then, is which producers are going to enjoy political privilege. It might be the workers, but it can also be the largest corporations. ..."
    "... Autarky is the name given to the idea of economic self-sufficiency. Mostly this refers to the economic self determination of the nation-state. The nation-state must be geographically huge in order to support rapid economic growth for a large and growing population. ..."
    Aug 27, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Llewllyn Rockwell via The Mises Institute,

    The most definitive study on fascism written in these years was As We Go Marching by John T. Flynn. Flynn was a journalist and scholar of a liberal spirit who had written a number of best-selling books in the 1920s. It was the New Deal that changed him. His colleagues all followed FDR into fascism, while Flynn himself kept the old faith. That meant that he fought FDR every step of the way, and not only his domestic plans. Flynn was a leader of the America First movement that saw FDR's drive to war as nothing but an extension of the New Deal, which it certainly was.

    As We Go Marching came out in 1944, just at the tail end of the war, and right in the midst of wartime economic controls the world over. It is a wonder that it ever got past the censors. It is a full-scale study of fascist theory and practice, and Flynn saw precisely where fascism ends: in militarism and war as the fulfillment of the stimulus spending agenda. When you run out of everything else to spend money on, you can always depend on nationalist fervor to back more military spending.

    Flynn, like other members of the Old Right, was disgusted by the irony that what he saw, almost everyone else chose to ignore. After reviewing this long history, Flynn proceeds to sum up with a list of eight points he considers to be the main marks of the fascist state.

    As I present them, I will also offer comments on the modern American central state.

    Point 1. The government is totalitarian because it acknowledges no restraint on its powers.

    If you become directly ensnared in the state's web, you will quickly discover that there are indeed no limits to what the state can do. This can happen boarding a flight, driving around in your hometown, or having your business run afoul of some government agency. In the end, you must obey or be caged like an animal or killed. In this way, no matter how much you may believe that you are free, all of us today are but one step away from Guantanamo.

    No aspect of life is untouched by government intervention, and often it takes forms we do not readily see. All of healthcare is regulated, but so is every bit of our food, transportation, clothing, household products, and even private relationships. Mussolini himself put his principle this way: "All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." I submit to you that this is the prevailing ideology in the United States today. This nation, conceived in liberty, has been kidnapped by the fascist state.

    Point 2. Government is a de facto dictatorship based on the leadership principle.

    I wouldn't say that we truly have a dictatorship of one man in this country, but we do have a form of dictatorship of one sector of government over the entire country. The executive branch has spread so dramatically over the last century that it has become a joke to speak of checks and balances.

    The executive state is the state as we know it, all flowing from the White House down. The role of the courts is to enforce the will of the executive. The role of the legislature is to ratify the policy of the executive. This executive is not really about the person who seems to be in charge. The president is only the veneer, and the elections are only the tribal rituals we undergo to confer some legitimacy on the institution. In reality, the nation-state lives and thrives outside any "democratic mandate." Here we find the power to regulate all aspects of life and the wicked power to create the money necessary to fund this executive rule.

    Point 3. Government administers a capitalist system with an immense bureaucracy.

    The reality of bureaucratic administration has been with us at least since the New Deal, which was modeled on the planning bureaucracy that lived in World War I. The planned economy- whether in Mussolini's time or ours- requires bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is the heart, lungs, and veins of the planning state. And yet to regulate an economy as thoroughly as this one is today is to kill prosperity with a billion tiny cuts.

    So where is our growth? Where is the peace dividend that was supposed to come after the end of the Cold War? Where are the fruits of the amazing gains in efficiency that technology has afforded? It has been eaten by the bureaucracy that manages our every move on this earth. The voracious and insatiable monster here is called the Federal Code that calls on thousands of agencies to exercise the police power to prevent us from living free lives.

    It is as Bastiat said: the real cost of the state is the prosperity we do not see, the jobs that don't exist, the technologies to which we do not have access, the businesses that do not come into existence, and the bright future that is stolen from us. The state has looted us just as surely as a robber who enters our home at night and steals all that we love.

    Point 4. Producers are organized into cartels in the way of syndicalism.

    Syndicalist is not usually how we think of our current economic structure. But remember that syndicalism means economic control by the producers. Capitalism is different. It places by virtue of market structures all control in the hands of the consumers. The only question for syndicalists, then, is which producers are going to enjoy political privilege. It might be the workers, but it can also be the largest corporations.

    In the case of the United States, in the last three years, we've seen giant banks, pharmaceutical firms, insurers, car companies, Wall Street banks and brokerage houses, and quasi-private mortgage companies enjoying vast privileges at our expense. They have all joined with the state in living a parasitical existence at our expense.

    Point 5. Economic planning is based on the principle of autarky.

    Autarky is the name given to the idea of economic self-sufficiency. Mostly this refers to the economic self determination of the nation-state. The nation-state must be geographically huge in order to support rapid economic growth for a large and growing population.

    Look at the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. We would be supremely naive to believe that these wars were not motivated in part by the producer interests of the oil industry. It is true of the American empire generally, which supports dollar hegemony. It is the reason for the North American Union.

    Point 6. Government sustains economic life through spending and borrowing.

    This point requires no elaboration because it is no longer hidden. In the latest round, and with a prime-time speech, Obama mused about how is it that people are unemployed at a time when schools, bridges, and infrastructure need repairing. He ordered that supply and demand come together to match up needed work with jobs.

    Hello? The schools, bridges, and infrastructure that Obama refers to are all built and maintained by the state. That's why they are falling apart. And the reason that people don't have jobs is because the state has made it too expensive to hire them. It's not complicated. To sit around and dream of other scenarios is no different from wishing that water flowed uphill or that rocks would float in the air. It amounts to a denial of reality.

    As for the rest of this speech, Obama promised yet another long list of spending projects. But no government in the history of the world has spent as much, borrowed as much, and created as much fake money as the United States, all thanks to the power of the Fed to create money at will. If the United States doesn't qualify as a fascist state in this sense, no government ever has.

    Point 7. Militarism is a mainstay of government spending.

    Have you ever noticed that the military budget is never seriously discussed in policy debates? The United States spends more than most of the rest of the world combined. And yet to hear our leaders talk, the United States is just a tiny commercial republic that wants peace but is constantly under threat from the world. Where is the debate about this policy? Where is the discussion? It is not going on. It is just assumed by both parties that it is essential for the US way of life that the United States be the most deadly country on the planet, threatening everyone with nuclear extinction unless they obey.

    Point 8. Military spending has imperialist aims.

    We've had one war after another, wars waged by the United States against noncompliant countries, and the creation of even more client states and colonies. US military strength has led not to peace but the opposite. It has caused most people in the world to regard the United States as a threat, and it has led to unconscionable wars on many countries. Wars of aggression were defined at Nuremberg as crimes against humanity.

    Obama was supposed to end this. He never promised to do so, but his supporters all believed that he would. Instead, he has done the opposite. He has increased troop levels, entrenched wars, and started new ones. In reality, he has presided over a warfare state just as vicious as any in history. The difference this time is that the Left is no longer criticizing the US role in the world. In that sense, Obama is the best thing ever to happen to the warmongers and the military-industrial complex.

    The Future

    I can think of no greater priority today than a serious and effective antifascist alliance. In many ways, one is already forming. It is not a formal alliance. It is made up of those who protest the Fed, those who refuse to go along with mainstream fascist politics, those who seek decentralization, those who demand lower taxes and free trade, those who seek the right to associate with anyone they want and buy and sell on terms of their own choosing, those who insist they can educate their children on their own, the investors and savers who make economic growth possible, those who do not want to be felt up at airports, and those who have become expatriates.

    It is also made of the millions of independent entrepreneurs who are discovering that the number one threat to their ability to serve others through the commercial marketplace is the institution that claims to be our biggest benefactor: the government.

    How many people fall into this category? It is more than we know. The movement is intellectual. It is political. It is cultural. It is technological. They come from all classes, races, countries, and professions. This is no longer a national movement. It is truly global.

    And what does this movement want? Nothing more or less than sweet liberty. It does not ask that the liberty be granted or given. It only asks for the liberty that is promised by life itself and would otherwise exist were it not for the Leviathan state that robs us, badgers us, jails us, kills us.

    This movement is not departing. We are daily surrounded by evidence that it is right and true. Every day, it is more and more obvious that the state contributes absolutely nothing to our wellbeing; it massively subtracts from it.

    Back in the 1930s, and even up through the 1980s, the partisans of the state were overflowing with ideas. This is no longer true. Fascism has no new ideas, no big projects-and not even its partisans really believe it can accomplish what it sets out to do. The world created by the private sector is so much more useful and beautiful than anything the state has done that the fascists have themselves become demoralized and aware that their agenda has no real intellectual foundation.

    It is ever more widely known that statism does not and cannot work. Statism is the great lie. Statism gives us the exact opposite of its promise. It promised security, prosperity, and peace; it has given us fear, poverty, war, and death. If we want a future, it is one that we have to build ourselves. The fascist state will not give it to us. On the contrary, it stands in the way.

    In the end, this is the choice we face: the total state or total freedom. Which will we choose? If we choose the state, we will continue to sink further and further and eventually lose all that we treasure as a civilization. If we choose freedom, we can harness that remarkable power of human cooperation that will enable us to continue to make a better world.

    In the fight against fascism, there is no reason to be despairing. We must continue to fight with every bit of confidence that the future belongs to us and not them.

    Their world is falling apart. Ours is just being built.Their world is based on bankrupt ideologies. Ours is rooted in the truth about freedom and reality. Their world can only look back to the glory days. Ours looks forward to the future we are building for ourselves.

    Their world is rooted in the corpse of the nation-state. Our world draws on the energies and creativity of all peoples in the world, united in the great and noble project of creating a prospering civilization through peaceful human cooperation. We possess the only weapon that is truly immortal: the right idea. It is this that will lead to victory.

    Future Jim -> NidStyles Aug 27, 2016 9:15 PM

    "All of the leftists out themselves by stating Communists are Fascists."

    I have only heard leftists vehemently deny that communists are fascists. I have never heard a leftist say that communists are fascists. Do you have a link?

    BTW, what could possibly be more fascist than re-education camps?

    http://www.endofinnocence.com/2012/05/fascism-explained.html

    Handful of Dust LN Aug 27, 2016 8:21 PM
    John T Flynn's entire book is online at the Mises Institute in pdf form:

    https://mises.org/system/tdf/As%20We%20Go%20Marching_2.pdf?file=1&type=d...

    NidStyles d KickIce •Aug 27, 2016 8:45 PM
    The State is that which is controlled by the nation in question. A Government is not the state, nor is it the nation. A government is a secular organization emplaced to impose a set of rules that benefit one nation over all other under the same government.

    The failure of the west is not that it allows any one given state to control the power, but that it allows secular governments dominante and forcibly submit all nations to it's demands by a foreign nation. The argument against the state is one that decries the European dominance in the US. It's an anti-European control in European created countries narrative.

    The state that is allowed to exist and hold power within the US is not the state of her citizens or the nations they consist of. It is a foreign state claiming rightful sovereignty through both economic terrorist and threats of force and active persecution.

    The US has been under the rule of a global criminal cartel for decades now. That cartel is a nation onto it's own, and it uses deception, propaganda and economic means to hide it's existence. It is successful because it controls the media, which is the largest propaganda outlet to have ever been devised. It can chose whom to promote and whom to deny the right to exist. We are at this very moment reading an article from one of it's propaganda arms on a site controlled by a different proganda arm that it also controls.

    [Aug 27, 2016] Those "sane and intelligent" neoliberals are enablers and supporters of far right. That means that Greg Mankiw can be legitimately viewed as an enabler of neofascism in the USA

    Aug 27, 2016 | economistsview.typepad.com
    David : , Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 11:05 PM
    Do I like Greg Mankiw's positions? No. But he and others of his ilk are at least sane and intelligent, and certainly not "white nationalists" (dog whistle: racists).

    There are some many progressive people here who perhaps aren't impressed with a lot of these economists or HRC.

    First off, there is only one practical goal: push HRC to more progressive positions.

    Second, elect and support progressives down the ballot.

    Nihilism is an easy pose. Changing the world, a bit harder.

    likbez -> David ... August 26, 2016 at 08:42 PM , August 26, 2016 at 08:42 PM
    It's not that simple.

    Like in 20th neoliberalism created the fertile soil for far right.

    So, in a way, those "sane and intelligent" neoliberals are enablers and supporters of far right. That means that Greg Mankiw can be legitimately viewed as an enabler of neofascism in the USA.

    You just need to see how this played in Europe to see the writing on the wall. Boiling anger at neoliberal globalization, stagnation or dramatic decline of family income (over 50 and unemployed phenomena), growing debt, and loss of jobs (and perspectives) is a dangerous, explosive mix.

    Externality if you like, that neoliberals did not took into account with all their rush to extract profits whenever they can (vampire squid behavior is a neoliberal paradigm).

    As Matt Tabbi aptly said "The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." The problem is that this is a standard neoliberal behavior and in no way it is limited to GS.

    Putting a large part of the US population against the wall of poverty (there is another country within the USA -- a third world county inhabited by Wall-Mart workers, single mothers and like) was deliberate, government supported, and a very destructive action. The USDA Food and Nutrition Service reported that as of September 2014, there were around 46.5 million individual food stamp recipients (22.7 million households).

    Now they might need to pay the price.

    [Aug 27, 2016] The Deep States Catch-22

    www.oftwominds.com

    August 16, 2016 | Of Two Minds

    What happens if the Deep State pursues the usual pathological path of increasing repression? The system it feeds on decays and collapses.

    Catch-22 (from the 1961 novel set in World War II Catch-22) has several shades of meaning (bureaucratic absurdity, for example), but at heart it is a self-referential paradox: you must be insane to be excused from flying your mission, but requesting to be excused by reason of insanity proves you're sane.

    The Deep State in virtually every major nation-state is facing a form of Catch-22: the Deep State needs the nation-state to feed on and support its power, and the nation-state requires stability above all else to survive the vagaries of history.

    The only possible output of extreme wealth inequality is social and economic instability.

    The financial elites of the Deep State (and of the nation-state that the Deep State rules) generate wealth inequality and thus instability by their very existence, i.e. the very concentration of wealth and power that defines the elite.

    So the only way to insure stability is to dissipate the concentrated wealth and power of the financial Deep State. This is the Deep State's Catch-22.

    What happens when extremes of wealth/power inequality have been reached? Depressions, revolutions, wars and the dissolution of empires. Extremes of wealth/power inequality generate political, social and economic instability which then destabilize the regime.

    Ironically, elites try to solve this dilemma by becoming more autocratic and repressing whatever factions they see as the source of instability.

    The irony is they themselves are the source of instability. The crowds of enraged citizens are merely manifestations of an unstable, brittle system that is cracking under the strains of extreme wealth/power inequality.

    Can anyone not in Wall Street, the corporate media, Washington D.C., K Street or the Fed look at this chart and not see profound political disunity on the horizon?

    [Aug 26, 2016] Clinton emails - Proof that the West had lost control of the situation in Libya already since 2011

    Notable quotes:
    "... A letter from Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going to wrong hands through the black market. ..."
    "... (Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.) ..."
    "... Yet, despite the absolute mess, the Western vultures are racing above the Libyan corpse to take as much as they can. ..."
    "... Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not a top priority issue for them. ..."
    Aug 23, 2016 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton.

    The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.

    globinfo freexchange

    A letter from Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going to wrong hands through the black market.

    The Western clowns have failed, one more time, to bring stability and led another country to absolute chaos and destruction. Waves of desperate people are now trying to reach European shores to save themselves from the hell in Libya, as it happens in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.

    Key parts:

    • During the early morning of May 2, 2011 sources with access to the leadership of the Libyan rebellion's ruling Transitional National Council (TNC) stated in confidence that they are concerned that the death of al Qa'ida leader Osama Bin Laden will inspire al Qa'ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) to use weapons they have obtained, which were originally intended for the rebels in Libya, to retaliate against the United States and its allies for this attack in Pakistan. These individuals fear that the use of the weapons in this manner will complicate the TNC's relationship with NATO and the United States, whose support is vital to them in their struggle with the forces of Muammar al Qaddafi.
    • These individuals note that the TNC officials are reacting to reports received during the week of April 25 from their own sources of information, the French General Directorate for External Security (DGSE), and British external intelligence service (MI-6), stating that AQIM has acquired about 10 SAM 7- Grail/Streela man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS or MPADS) from illegal weapons markets in Western Niger and Northern Mali. These weapons were originally intended for sale to the rebel forces in Libya, but AQIM operatives were able to meet secretly with these arms dealers and purchase the equipment. The acquisition of these sophisticated weapons creates a serious threat to air traffic in Southern Morocco, Algeria, Northern Mali, Western Niger, and Eastern Mauritania.
    • (Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.)
    • ... Libyan rebel commanders are also concerned that the death of Bin Laden comes at a time when sensitive information indicates that the leaders of AQIM are planning to launch attacks across North Africa and Europe in an effort to reassert their relevance during the ongoing upheavals in Libya, as well as the rest of North Africa and the Middle East. They believe the first step in this campaign was the April 30 bombing of a café in Marrakesh, Morocco that is frequented by Western tourists.

    Full letter:

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/13013

    Yet, despite the absolute mess, the Western vultures are racing above the Libyan corpse to take as much as they can.

    Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not a top priority issue for them.

    [Aug 26, 2016] How Think Tanks Generate Endless War by Todd E. Pierce

    Hillary election means new wars and death of the US servicemen/servicewomen. So Khan gambit is much more dangerous that it looks as it implicitly promoted militarism and endless "permanent war for permanent peace".
    Notable quotes:
    "... Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks. ..."
    "... There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover. ..."
    "... Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well. ..."
    "... Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically. ..."
    "... The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: " Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better. " ..."
    "... So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations. ..."
    "... Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States. ..."
    "... As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy. ..."
    "... That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. ..."
    Aug 21, 2016 | Defend Democracy Press

    U.S. "think tanks" rile up the American public against an ever-shifting roster of foreign "enemies" to justify wars which line the pockets of military contractors who kick back some profits to the "think tanks," explains retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.

    The New York Times took notice recently of the role that so-called "think tanks" play in corrupting U.S. government policy. Their review of think tanks "identified dozens of examples of scholars conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy."

    Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, while the Times investigation demonstrates well that the U.S. is even more corrupt – albeit the corruption is better disguised – than the many foreign countries which we routinely accuse of corruption, the Times failed to identify the most egregious form of corruption in our system. That is, those think tanks are constantly engaged in the sort of activities which the Defense Department identifies as "Information War" when conducted by foreign countries that are designated by the U.S. as an enemy at any given moment.

    Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks.

    There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover.

    Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well.

    The measure of success from such a disinformation and propaganda effort can be seen when the narrative is adopted by secondary communicators who are perhaps the most important target audience. That is because they are "key communicators" in PsyOp terms, who in turn become provocateurs in propagating the false narrative even more broadly and to its own audiences, and becoming "combat multipliers" in military terms.

    It is readily apparent now that Russia has taken its place as the primary target within U.S. sights. One doesn't have to see the U.S. military buildup on Russia's borders to understand that but only see the propaganda themes of our "think tanks."

    The Role of Rand

    A prime example of an act of waging information war to incite actual military attack is the Rand Corporation, which, incidentally, published a guide to information war and the need to condition the U.S. population for war back in the 1990s.

    A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union. A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

    Rand was founded by, among others, the war enthusiast, Air Force General Curtis LeMay, who was the model for the character of Gen. Buck Turgidson in the movie "Dr. Strangelove." LeMay once stated that he would not be afraid to start a nuclear war with Russia and that spirit would seem to be alive and well at Rand today as they project on to Vladimir Putin our own eagerness for inciting a war.

    The particular act of information warfare by Rand is shown in a recent Rand article: "How to Counter Putin's Subversive War on the West." The title suggests by its presupposition that Putin is acting in the offensive form of war rather than the defensive form of war. But it is plain to see he is in the defensive form of war when one looks at the numerous provocations and acts of aggression carried out by American officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and General Philip Breedlove, and the U.S. and NATO military buildup on Russia's borders.

    Within this Rand article however can be found no better example of psychological projection than this propagandistic pablum that too many commentators, some witless, some not, will predictably repeat:

    "Moscow's provocative active measures cause foreign investors and international lenders to see higher risks in doing business with Russia. Iran is learning a similar, painful lesson as it persists with harsh anti-Western policies even as nuclear-related sanctions fade. Russia will decide its own priorities. But it should not be surprised if disregard for others' interests diminishes the international regard it seeks as an influential great power."

    In fact, an objective, dispassionate observation of U.S./Russian policies would show it has been the U.S. carrying out these "provocative active measures" as the instigator, not Russia.

    Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically.

    The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: "Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better."

    It begins: "The risk of outright conflict in Europe is higher than it has been for years and the confrontation between Russia and the West shows no sign of ending. To prevent misunderstandings and dangerous incidents, the two sides must improve their methods of communication."

    Unfortunately, that is now true. But the article's author suggests throughout that each party, Russia and the U.S./NATO, had an equal hand in the deterioration of relations. He wrote: "The West needs to acknowledge that the standoff with Russia is not merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," as if Western officials don't already know that that accusation was only a propaganda theme for their own populations to cover up the West's aggressiveness.

    Blaming Russia

    So Americans, such as myself, must acknowledge and confront that the standoff with Russia is not only not "merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive," but it is rather, that the U.S. is "turning authoritarian, nationalistic," and even more "assertive," i.e., aggressive, toward the world.

    Suz Tzu wrote that a "sovereign" must know oneself and the enemy. In the case of the U.S. sovereign, the people and their elected, so-called representatives, there is probably no "sovereign" in human history more lacking in self-awareness of their own nation's behavior toward other nations.

    So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations.

    When that then generates a response from some nation with a tin-pot military relative to our own, with ours paid for by the privileged financial position we've put ourselves into post-WWII, our politicians urgently call for even more military spending from the American people to support even more aggression, all in the guise of "national defense."

    Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States.

    The Presidential Policy Guidance "establishes the standard operating procedures for when the United States takes direct action, which refers to lethal and non-lethal uses of force, including capture operations against terrorist targets outside the United States and areas of active hostilities."

    What other nation, besides Israel probably, has a governmental "Regulation" providing for assassinations outside "areas of active hostilities?"

    It should readily be evident that it is the U.S. now carrying out the vast majority of provocative active measures and has the disregard for others complained of here. At least for the moment, however, the U.S. can still hide much of its aggression using the vast financial resources provided by the American people to the Defense Department to produce sophisticated propaganda and to bribe foreign officials with foreign aid to look the other way from U.S. provocations.

    It is ironic that today, one can learn more about the U.S. military and foreign policy from the Rand Corporation only by reading at least one of its historical documents, "The Operational Code of the Politburo." This is described as "part of a major effort at RAND to provide insight into the political leadership and foreign policy in the Soviet Union and other communist states; the development of Soviet military strategy and doctrine."

    As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy.

    That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. That this U.S. MIC would turn against its own people, the American public, by waging perpetual information war against this domestic target just to enrich their investors, might have been even more than Eisenhower could imagine however.

    Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. [This article first appeared at http://original.antiwar.com/Todd_Pierce/2016/08/14/inciting-wars-american-way/]

    See also

    [Aug 26, 2016] Bernie Sanders and the Clintonite Neoliberal Consensus

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Clinton approach from hereon in is one of masquerade: appropriate the Bernie Sanders aura, give the impression that the party has somehow miraculously moved leftward, and snap up a stash of votes come November. ..."
    "... clinging to the fiction that the Clintons are somehow progressive. This ignores the fundamental fact that Bill Clinton, during his presidential tenure through the 1990s, made parts of the GOP strategy plan relatively progressive by way of comparison. Stunned by this embrace of hard right ideas, the Republicans would be kept out of the White House till 2000. ..."
    www.globalresearch.ca
    The reality is that millions were readying themselves to vote for him come November precisely because he was Sanders, meshed with the ideas of basic social democracy. He betrayed them.

    The Clinton approach from hereon in is one of masquerade: appropriate the Bernie Sanders aura, give the impression that the party has somehow miraculously moved leftward, and snap up a stash of votes come November.

    The approach of the Republicans will be self-defeating, clinging to the fiction that the Clintons are somehow progressive. This ignores the fundamental fact that Bill Clinton, during his presidential tenure through the 1990s, made parts of the GOP strategy plan relatively progressive by way of comparison. Stunned by this embrace of hard right ideas, the Republicans would be kept out of the White House till 2000.

    Be wary of any language of change that is merely the language of promise. Keep in mind that US politics remains a "binary" choice, an effective non-choice bankrolled by financial power.

    [Aug 26, 2016] Bernie Sanders' Dubious "Our Revolution" Initiative. Fake Leftist "Big Money Politics" by Stephen Lendman" href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/stephen-lendman">Stephen Lendman

    Notable quotes:
    "... He's no more a progressive revolutionary than any other member of Congress, nor Washington's bipartisan criminal class, bureaucrats included – Sanders a card-carrying member throughout his deplorable political career. ..."
    "... A major concern is the group's tax status as a 501(c)(4) organization able to get large donations from anonymous sources – meaning the usual ones buying influence, letting Sanders pretend to be progressive and revolutionary while operating otherwise. ..."
    "... Claire Sandberg was the initiative's organizing director. "I left and others left because we were alarmed that Jeff (Weaver) would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign," she explained. ..."
    "... She fears Weaver will "betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining grassroots funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a genuine movement." ..."
    "... Vermont GOP vice chairman Brady Toensing blasted Sanders for "preach(ing) transparency and then tr(ying) to set up the most shadowy of shadowy fund-raising organization to support" what he claims to endorse. ..."
    "... Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
    "... His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." ..."
    "... http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html ..."
    "... Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com . ..."
    "... Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. ..."
    Aug 26, 2016 | Global Research -

    He's no more a progressive revolutionary than any other member of Congress, nor Washington's bipartisan criminal class, bureaucrats included – Sanders a card-carrying member throughout his deplorable political career.

    Endorsing Hillary Clinton after rhetorically campaigning against what she represents exposed his duplicity – a progressive in name only. An opportunist for his own self-interest, he wants his extended 15 minutes of fame made more long-lasting.

    Claiming his new initiative "will fight to transform America and advance the progressive agenda (he) believe(s) in" belies his deplorable House and Senate voting records, on the wrong side of most major issues, especially supporting most US wars of aggression.

    A separate Sanders Institute intends operating like his Our Revolution initiative. Maybe his real aim is cashing in on his high-profile persona – including a new book due out in mid-November titled "Our Revolution: A Future To Believe In."

    Save your money. Its contents are clear without reading it – the same mumbo jumbo he used while campaigning.

    It excludes his deplorable history of promising one thing, doing another, going along with Washington scoundrels like Hillary to get along, betraying his loyal supporters – the real Sanders he wants concealed.

    On August 24, The New York Times said his Our Revolution initiative "has been met with criticism and controversy over its financing and management."

    It's "draw(ing) from the same pool of 'dark money' (he) condemned" while campaigning. After his former campaign manager Jeff Weaver was hired to lead the group, "the majority of its staff resigned," said The Times – described as "eight core staff members…"

    "The group's entire organizing department quit this week, along with people working in digital and data positions." They refused to reconsider after Sanders urged them to stay on.

    A major concern is the group's tax status as a 501(c)(4) organization able to get large donations from anonymous sources – meaning the usual ones buying influence, letting Sanders pretend to be progressive and revolutionary while operating otherwise.

    Claire Sandberg was the initiative's organizing director. "I left and others left because we were alarmed that Jeff (Weaver) would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign," she explained.

    She fears Weaver will "betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining grassroots funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a genuine movement."

    Vermont GOP vice chairman Brady Toensing blasted Sanders for "preach(ing) transparency and then tr(ying) to set up the most shadowy of shadowy fund-raising organization to support" what he claims to endorse.

    "What I'm seeing here is a senator who is against big money in politics, but only when" it applies to others, not himself, Toensing added.

    Campaign Legal Center's Paul S. Ryan said "(t)here are definitely some red flags with respect to the formation of this group…We're in a murky area."

    Is Sanders' real aim self-promotion and enrichment? Is his Our Revolution more a scheme than an honest initiative?

    Is it sort of like the Clinton Foundation, Sanders wanting to grab all he can – only much less able to match the kind of super-wealth Bill and Hillary amassed?

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

    His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

    http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

    Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

    Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

    [Aug 25, 2016] Trickle Down Election Economics How Big Money Can Affect Small Races naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Here is an up-to-date look at the massive amount of money that has been donated to Super PACs in this election cycle: http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/07/super-pacs-2016-awash-with-cash.html ..."
    "... The wealthiest Americans still firmly believe that political control belongs to them. ..."
    "... "The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers." ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Will Dippel , August 23, 2016 at 6:50 am

    Here is an up-to-date look at the massive amount of money that has been donated to Super PACs in this election cycle: http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/07/super-pacs-2016-awash-with-cash.html

    The wealthiest Americans still firmly believe that political control belongs to them.

    Sound of the Suburbs , August 23, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    Thinking about trickledown.

    Do companies employ people to make its employees rich? No they employ people to make a profit, the productive output of all employees is split to take a profit for the company, cover costs and pay wages. The employee loses a slice of their productive output to the company for the company to take as profit.

    The employee takes out less than he puts in.

    Someone with a trust fund receives an income from their trust fund without the fund going down.

    They take out more than they put in.

    The system trickles up and assuming it trickles down to lower taxes on the wealthy has polarized personal wealth and is hitting global aggregate demand.

    Adam Smith noted the system flowed upwards in the 18th Century.

    "The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers."

    Where did the idea of trickledown come from?
    US billionaires after a long liquid lunch.

    dk , August 23, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Across the country, the presence and influence of big money exerts a downward pressure on down-ticket candidates across the board. Steve Israel's sentiments are widely shared; without direct and committed backing from large (national-level) donors, candidates have to spend the greater part of their election efforts just to raise money, this of course eats into their constituent outreach. Candidates with expensive consultants/vendors and/or large staff may be under pressured to fundraise from within their own campaign. HRC's decision to forego a visit to Louisiana flood victims may be a case of in-house pressure; money can distort rational, not to mention compassionate, action.

    And significant donations and/or political support can appear as if out of nowhere. I recently spoke with a candidate for D.A. who was surprised to hear his own voice coming out of his car radio; a national PAC had chosen to back him, and was buying local radio time. Since PACs can't (shouldn't) coordinate with formal campaigns, this isn't too unusual. But he has had to answer questions from media about why and how he got this support (they had interviewed him by phone some months earlier, with no further direct contact). His opponent has since dropped out, citing financial pressures and lack of sufficient contributions to continue. The opposing party is scrambling to find a replacement to meet the State's requirements for submission of candidate names, no luck so far; they could actually end up pulling an incumbent State Senator running for re-election to vacate one slot to fill another.

    The flood of money in politics, including the involvement of PACs, also raises the stakes for prospective candidates, who are under increasing scrutiny from mainstream and independent media; outside money drives media attention directly and indirectly, in addition to media capabilities of well financed opposing candidates and parties. Money heats up the entire process, and the emotional and physical (and financial) pressure is considerable. This also leads to more self-funding candidates, and less opportunity for independents with lesser personal means. And the trend of antagonistic campaigning, long of polarizing vitriol and short on substantial issue discussion, is also driven by moneyed influences seeking traction of any kind, while bringing little or no substantial or broadly popular policy agenda to a contest.

    The Sanders direct fundraising model may be evidence of a countercurrent. Bernie famously spent no time courting big donors, and was able to produce a formidable campaign war chest directly from his message and persona. But even while competing favorably with Hillary's campaign fundraising, Clinton benefited from massive PAC support which Sanders never matched. Sanders' campaign also had a hard time finding experienced campaign staff (and possibly other resources); there was considerable implicit (and some explicit) pressure within the Dem consultant stable to avoid opposing the Clinton (Money) Machine. Jobs and careers on the line, with repercussions long after this election cycle.

    ekstase , August 23, 2016 at 8:08 pm

    This is great. Debate your real political opponent, not the front man or woman.
    Good luck to her.

    [Aug 25, 2016] Bernie Sanders' new 'revolution' rocked by revolt of its own as top staff head for the exits US elections

    independent.co.uk
    Already, however, the whole enterprise is in turmoil, thanks to the resignations of several of its top staff members even before it was off the ground, who were angered by the decision of Senator Sanders and his wife, Jane Sanders, to appoint his former campaign manager, John Weaver, as its top officer over their very clearly expressed objections.

    Among those heading to the exits was Claire Sandberg, who was the digital organising director of the campaign and the organising director of Our Revolution. Her entire department of four people quit, in fact.

    She and the others who joined the revolt, including Kenneth Pennington, who was to be the digital director of Our Revolution, were opposed to Mr Weaver's involvement both for reasons of personality clashes and because they felt he mismanaged the Senator's campaign in part by spending too much money on television advertising and failing to harness grassroots support.

    They also contended that Mr Weaver would only exacerbate an additional concern they had with the new entity namely that it has been set up as a so-called 501(c)(4) organisation, which, because of its charitable status, is in theory not allowed to work directly with the election of political candidates and is able to receive large sums from anonymous donors.

    A large part of the premise of Mr Sanders's campaign for president had been precisely to wean political campaigns from the flood of dark money that flows into them. That the Our Revolution entity has been set up precisely to take such money looked to them like a betrayal.

    According to several reports a majority of the staff appointed to run the new outfit resigned as soon as the appointment of Mr Weaver was confirmed on Monday

    [Aug 25, 2016] I wonder if the infomation about Jane Sanders tenure as the president of Burlington college was the dirt that the Clinton campaign was planning to use against Bernie before he endorsed you-know-who on July 12

    Notable quotes:
    "... And, pardon me for being a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist, I wonder if this was the dirt that the Clinton campaign was planning to use against Bernie before he endorsed you-know-who on July 12. ..."
    "... President Sanders was not to last long at BC and she left for still unknown circumstances soon after the purchase of the property. ..."
    "... The next Presidents, Cjristine Plunkett, Mike Smith and Carol Moore then sold off large portions of the property to real estate developers and then, when the ship finally sank under increasingly hopeless and clueless leadership, all of whom could not increase enrollment or or raise any funds (in fact we were eventually told that the school had given up fund raising), Burlington College went into a relentless downward spiral which tragically and painfully closed its doors in May, 20016. ..."
    "... It may ultimately have been the straw that broke the camel's back, and it looks terrible that Jane Sanders was at the helm and instrumental in making the decision, but it also sounds like it was a bold effort – that the Board of Directors signed off on – to change the school's fortunes, and one that unfortunately could not overcome years of struggle and financial instability. ..."
    Aug 25, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Arizona Slim , August 24, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    http://vtdigger.org/2016/08/23/state-taxpayers-pick-tab-burlington-college-student-records/

    My comments on this link: Jane Sanders used to be president of Burlington College.

    And, pardon me for being a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist, I wonder if this was the dirt that the Clinton campaign was planning to use against Bernie before he endorsed you-know-who on July 12.

    Katharine , August 24, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    But if she left five years ago, it is difficult to see how she could be blamed for this specific problem. Whatever her role in the financial problems may have been (and I admit I don't understand that well), her successors were responsible for what was done subsequently, and if they knew they might have to close down should have taken steps to protect student records and ensure their future accessibility.

    Anne , August 24, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    This was a comment left on that article by someone named Sandy Baird:

    Thank you for this reporting. The demise of Burlington College was not caused by Jane Sanders. The Board of trustees and the then President Jane Sanders bought the property from the Catholic diocese. President Sanders was an ambitious President and sought to increase the enrollment by creating substantial, innovative and effective programs, which included the Burlington College/Cuba Semester abroad and by increasing the profile of the school in the community and state. Jane's plan always was to create a thriving campus for a growing student body and for a unique college which had as its mission the "building of sustainable, just, humane and beautiful communities." However, President Sanders was not to last long at BC and she left for still unknown circumstances soon after the purchase of the property.

    The next Presidents, Cjristine Plunkett, Mike Smith and Carol Moore then sold off large portions of the property to real estate developers and then, when the ship finally sank under increasingly hopeless and clueless leadership, all of whom could not increase enrollment or or raise any funds (in fact we were eventually told that the school had given up fund raising), Burlington College went into a relentless downward spiral which tragically and painfully closed its doors in May, 20016.

    The school, the property and the beach will now be picked up by the developer, Eric Farrell and the beach goes to the City. In a final irony, Eric Farrell was awarded an honorary doctorate degree at the final graduation of the school in May when its founder, Stu Lacase gave the graduation address.

    For what it's worth, here's another article from The Atlantic .

    Burlington College was always a fragile concern. Its website notes that in the early days, it "had no financial backing, paid its bills when they came due, and paid its President when it could." Jane Sanders's plan to place a big bet on expansion in order to put the school on a more solid long-term footing was similar to decisions made by other college presidents, and sometimes those bets simply don't work out.

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 24, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    On the last quote, that's how I read it. Owning real estate on the Lake Champlain waterfront is not, ipso facto , a crazy thing to do. It sounds like the college just couldn't outrun trouble. I still don't think it's a good look, though.

    Anne , August 24, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    It may ultimately have been the straw that broke the camel's back, and it looks terrible that Jane Sanders was at the helm and instrumental in making the decision, but it also sounds like it was a bold effort – that the Board of Directors signed off on – to change the school's fortunes, and one that unfortunately could not overcome years of struggle and financial instability.

    The college should have provided the transcripts before it locked the doors, but it looks to me like they wouldn't have been able to do it even then without the state's financial assistance.

    If Jane had only known, she could have gotten the Board to approve a donation to the Clinton Foundation, right?

    Katharine , August 24, 2016 at 4:52 pm

    Looks terrible? Seriously? I'm sorry, but I can't raise my pulse at all because someone took a rational chance her successors were unable to carry through successfully.

    As for providing the transcripts before locking the doors, that would have been problematic, as so many places want original transcripts from the institution and won't accept something that has come through the hands of the student. Those alumni are going to be dogged by that as long as they need transcripts unless the state or somebody funds permanent access.

    afisher , August 24, 2016 at 6:56 pm

    Amen, did anyone hear the screaming about this same scenario when small college had Ben Sasse as President of College? He left, others followed and undid some of his actions and eventually the small college suffered.

    Apparently it is fine for some people to have these behaviors overlooked and not so for others. I believe there is a word for that – hmmm, I'm sure it will come to me eventually.

    [Aug 25, 2016] Neoliberal Obama pushes for TPP/TTIP/TISA

    Notable quotes:
    "... If anything, America is too often at the end of those chains, as the global consumer of last resort. It's not investing in domestic, let alone global, infrastructure. It is the world's largest debtor, and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and consume… ..."
    "... CWA staffer and Sanders advisor Larry Cohen: "It was May of 2015. I'd been criticizing TPP at the time and they said, "He'd like to talk to you." What [Obama] told me was: 'I am too far down the road to change.' He repeated it over and over" [ Mother Jones ]. Terrific interview, well worth reading in full. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    TPP/TTIP/TISA

    "[T]he Obama administration has been careful not to let the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership fall by the wayside. Instead, an enormous amount of work - including regular, bi-weekly communication between U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström - has been ongoing" [Politico]. "While the administration is optimistic about its own ability to work hard as a creative negotiating partner, it remains an open question as to whether the Europeans are ready to go, the official said." Ouch!

    "Why the TPP Deal Won't Improve Our Security" [Clyde Prestowitz, New York Times]. "If anything, America is too often at the end of those chains, as the global consumer of last resort. It's not investing in domestic, let alone global, infrastructure. It is the world's largest debtor, and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and consume…. the administration is absolutely right that America needs tools to counter China's growing influence in Asia and around the world. But until America can come close to matching China's dynamism, it has no hope of countering its economic and geopolitical influence with old-fashioned trade agreements, no matter how monumental they are said to be."

    CWA staffer and Sanders advisor Larry Cohen: "It was May of 2015. I'd been criticizing TPP at the time and they said, "He'd like to talk to you." What [Obama] told me was: 'I am too far down the road to change.' He repeated it over and over" [Mother Jones]. Terrific interview, well worth reading in full.

    "When Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton announced her opposition to TPP last fall, Mr. Obama was furious. He believed she was making a political, not substantive, decision that was designed to diminish an advantage her then-primary opponent Bernie Sanders, who opposed the trade deal, had with Democratic voters" [Wall Street Journal]. No. With Obama, it's about nobody ever making him look bad. Clinton's "political" "decision" was to issue a statement filled with lawyerly parsing designed to allow her to do the deed if Obama can't.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Paul Krugman The Water Next Time

    Notable quotes:
    "... The politicians are battling it out for mindshare in both the electorate and the donor class for related but different reasons. ..."
    "... The electorate is not so committed to serving the masters of capitalism, big finance and large corporations and the ownership class as their petty oligarchs are, but that is why campaign finance needs a makeover. ..."
    "... In both cases though brainwashing starts at an early age. It just does not pay well enough for the general electorate to be as rigid in their thinking as it does for politicians to be rigid in their blinking. That is why media coverage of public affairs needs a makeover. ..."
    Economist's View
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> DeDude...
    The politicians and their electoral constituents are separate matters although there must obviously be a stratum within which political allegiance can be triangulated. The politicians are battling it out for mindshare in both the electorate and the donor class for related but different reasons.

    The electorate is not so committed to serving the masters of capitalism, big finance and large corporations and the ownership class as their petty oligarchs are, but that is why campaign finance needs a makeover.

    In both cases though brainwashing starts at an early age. It just does not pay well enough for the general electorate to be as rigid in their thinking as it does for politicians to be rigid in their blinking. That is why media coverage of public affairs needs a makeover.

    ilsm -> mulp ... ,
    Humpty,

    Check the media........ and money!

    It is a 'system' sustaining itself, and it is corrupt. I have known this since I was a kid.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Scaring voters with Putin is the cornerstone of Hillary electron campaign

    She can not offer anything as she is "kick the can down the road" neoliberal candidate serving financial oligarchy, so playing fear card is her the only chance...
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    UPDATE "'You can get rid of Manafort, but that doesn't end the odd bromance Trump has with Putin,' Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement" [Washington Post]. That's our Democrats; gin up a war scare all to win Eastern Europeans in a swing state (Ohio). That's what this article, read closely, boils down to, read carefully. (I love Mook's "bromance," so reminiscent of the Clinton campaign's vile BernieBro smear.)

    UPDATE "Republicans in North Carolina are pulling out all the stops to suppress the state's reliably Democratic black vote. After the Fourth Circuit court reinstated a week of early voting, GOP-controlled county elections boards are now trying to cut early-voting hours across the state. By virtue of holding the governor's office, Republicans control a majority of votes on all county election boards and yesterday they voted to cut 238 hours of early voting in Charlotte's Mecklenburg County, the largest in the state. 'I'm not a big fan of early voting,' said GOP board chair Mary Potter Summa, brazenly disregarding the federal appeals court's opinion. 'The more [early voting] sites we have, the more opportunities exist for violations'" [The Nation]. Bad Republicans. On the other hand, if the Democrats treated voter registration like a 365/24/7 party function, including purchasing IDs in ID states for those who can't afford them, none of this would be happening.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Paul Krugman The Water Next Time

    Notable quotes:
    "... The politicians are battling it out for mindshare in both the electorate and the donor class for related but different reasons. ..."
    "... The electorate is not so committed to serving the masters of capitalism, big finance and large corporations and the ownership class as their petty oligarchs are, but that is why campaign finance needs a makeover. ..."
    "... In both cases though brainwashing starts at an early age. It just does not pay well enough for the general electorate to be as rigid in their thinking as it does for politicians to be rigid in their blinking. That is why media coverage of public affairs needs a makeover. ..."
    Economist's View
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> DeDude...
    The politicians and their electoral constituents are separate matters although there must obviously be a stratum within which political allegiance can be triangulated. The politicians are battling it out for mindshare in both the electorate and the donor class for related but different reasons.

    The electorate is not so committed to serving the masters of capitalism, big finance and large corporations and the ownership class as their petty oligarchs are, but that is why campaign finance needs a makeover.

    In both cases though brainwashing starts at an early age. It just does not pay well enough for the general electorate to be as rigid in their thinking as it does for politicians to be rigid in their blinking. That is why media coverage of public affairs needs a makeover.

    ilsm -> mulp ... ,
    Humpty,

    Check the media........ and money!

    It is a 'system' sustaining itself, and it is corrupt. I have known this since I was a kid.

    [Aug 24, 2016] Bill Kristol Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew

    Breitbart
    Contrary to Kristol, far from being a non-interventionist, Obama conducted two interventions against dictators in Egypt and Libya with disastrous consequences. The intervention in Libya, which Kristol supported, has created two million refugees, hundreds of thousands of corpses, and a terrorist state. One might suppose that a little re-thinking of interventionism would be in order. Trump's readiness to rethink interventionism is hardly the same as Obama's strategy of retreat and surrender.

    Contrary to Kristol's assertion, Trump is not opposed to all interventions against dictators. He has promised to do what it takes to destroy ISIS, which includes bombing its oil facilities and destroying its headquarters, and is obviously only possible with interventions in Syria and Iraq. Destroying ISIS would also be an action to prevent mass slaughter, despite Kristol groundless claim.

    As for Trump proposing "another re-set with Putin's Russia," there was no re-set with Russia under Obama. Attempting a serious re-set - a re-set from strength - would seem reasonable and prudent, and would hardly be a repeat of Obama's policies. It would be just the opposite.

    "Getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the world" is hardly an Obama policy, as Kristol suggests. Obama's intervention in Eygpt, put the Muslim Brotherhood in power; when the Egyptian military then overthrew the Brotherhood, Obama sided with the Brotherhood and alienated the most important power in the Middle East. These acts, together with Obama's withdrawal from Iraq and waffling in Syria, created a power vacuum that spread instability throughout the region.

    "Avoiding nation-building, while focusing on creating stability" is a foreign policy any true constitutional conservative would support - unless that conservative was driven by an irrational hatred of Trump. Finally, Trump's promise to put American interests first and restore respect for America through rebuilding American strength can only be described as a "national retreat" by a very unprincipled - and careless - individual.

    All these dishonesties and flim-flam excuses pale by comparison with the consequences Kristol and his "Never Trump" cohorts are willing to risk by splitting the Republican vote. Obama has provided America's mortal enemy, Iran, with a path to nuclear weapons, $150 billion dollars, and the freedom to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver the lethal payloads. Trump has promised to abandon the Iran deal, while Hillary Clinton and all but a handful of Democrats have supported this treachery from start to finish. Kristol is now one of their allies.

    I am a Jew who has never been to Israel and has never been a Zionist in the sense of believing that Jews can rid themselves of Jew hatred by having their own nation state. But half of world Jewry now lives in Israel, and the enemies whom Obama and Hillary have empowered - Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, ISIS, and Hamas - have openly sworn to exterminate the Jews. I am also an American (and an American first), whose country is threatened with destruction by the same enemies. To weaken the only party that stands between the Jews and their annihilation, and between America and the forces intent on destroying her, is a political miscalculation so great and a betrayal so profound as to not be easily forgiven.

    [Aug 23, 2016] The Populist Uprising Isn't Over-It's Only Just Begun Common Dreams Breaking News Views for the Progressive Community by Robert Borosage

    www.commondreams.org

    The likelihood is that the Clinton presidency will be tumultuous.

    1. No Honeymoon: On the left, there are fewer hopes about Clinton than about Barack Obama. The pressure will begin even before she takes office in what is likely to be a battle royal in the lame duck session of Congress as Obama tries to force through his TPP trade deal.
    2. New Energy: If the Sanders supporters stay engaged, there could be an organizational form – his OurRevolution and his institute – that can do what a political party should do: educate and mobilize around progressive issues; recruit and support truly progressive candidates. This insurgency may continue to grow.
    3. New Generation: It can't be forgotten how overwhelmingly Sanders won young voters. He not only won 3 of 4 millennial voters in the Democratic primaries, he won a majority of young people of color voting. Some of this was his message. Much of it was the integrity of someone consistent in his views spurning the big money corruptions of our politics. These young people are going to keep moving. They won't find answers in a Clinton administration. We're going to see more movements, more disruptions, and more mobilizations – around jobs, around student debt, about inequality, around criminal justice, immigration, globalization, and climate and more.
    4. New Coalitions: Sanders and Trump clearly have shaken the coalitions of their parties. Trump combined populism with bigotry and xenophobia to break up the Republican establishment's ability to use the latter to support their neoliberal economics. Sanders attracted support of the young across lines of race, challenging the Democratic establishment's ability to use liberal identity politics to fuse minorities and upper middle class professionals into a majority coalition. Clinton fended off the challenge, but the shakeup has only begun.
    5. New Ideas: The Davos era has failed. There is no way it can continue down the road without producing more and more opposition. This is now the second straight "recovery" in which most Americans will lose ground. Already the elite is embattled intellectually on key elements of the neo-liberal agenda: corporate globalization, privatization, austerity, "small government," even global policing. Joe Stiglitz suggests that the Davos era is over, but that is premature. What is clear is that it has failed and the struggle to replace it has just begun. And that waving the white flag because Trump is besmirching populism mistakes today's farce for history's drama.
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

    Robert Borosage is the founder and president of the Institute for America's Future and co-director of its sister organization, the Campaign for America's Future.

    [Aug 22, 2016] Bernie Sanders: The Ron Paul of the Left? Not Quite by Justin Raimondo

    May 29, 2015 | original.antiwar.com

    Yet his real foreign policy record is closer to Hillary's than he likes to admit. Yes, he opposed the Iraq war – and then proceeded to routinely vote to fund that war: ditto Afghanistan. In 2003, at the height of the Iraq war hysteria, then Congressman Sanders voted for a congressional resolution hailing Bush:

    "Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism."

    As the drumbeat for war with Iran got louder, Rep. Sanders voted for the Iran Freedom Support Act, which codified sanctions imposed since the fall of the Shah and handed out millions to "pro-freedom" groups seeking the overthrow of the Tehran regime. The Bush administration, you'll recall, was running a regime change operation at that point which gave covert support to Jundullah, a terrorist group responsible for murdering scores of Iranian civilians. Bush was also canoodling with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a weirdo cult group once designated as a terrorist organization (a label lifted by Hillary Clinton's State Department after a well-oiled public relations campaign).

    Sanders fulsomely supported the Kosovo war: when shocked antiwar activists visited his Senate office in Burlington, Vermont, he called the cops on them. At a Montpelier public meeting featuring a debate on the war, Bernie argued passionately in favor of Bill Clinton's "humanitarian" intervention, and pointedly told hecklers to leave if they didn't like what he had to say.

    As a Senator, his votes on civil liberties issues show a distinct pattern. While he voted against the Patriot Act, in 2006 he voted in favor of making fourteen provisions of the Act permanent, including those that codified the FBI's authority to seize business records and carry out roving wiretaps. Sanders voted no on the legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security, but by the time he was in the Senate he was regularly voting for that agency's ever-expanding budget.

    The evolution of Bernie Sanders – from his days as a Liberty Unionist radical and Trotskyist fellow-traveler, to his first political success as Mayor of Burlington, his election to Congress and then on to the Senate – limns the course of the post-Sixties American left. Although birthed in the turmoil of the Vietnam war, the vaunted anti-interventionism of this crowd soon fell by the wayside as domestic political tradeoffs trumped ideology. Nothing exemplifies this process of incremental betrayal better than Sanders' support for the troubled F-35 fighter jet, the classic case of a military program that exists only to enrich the military-industrial complex. Although the plane has been plagued with technical difficulties, and has toted up hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns, Sanders has stubbornly defended and voted for it because Lockheed-Martin manufactures it in Vermont.

    [Aug 21, 2016] The NSA Leak Is Real, Snowden Documents Confirm by Sam Biddle

    Notable quotes:
    "... The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE. ..."
    Aug 19, 2016 | theintercept.com
    On Monday, a hacking group calling itself the "ShadowBrokers" announced an auction for what it claimed were "cyber weapons" made by the NSA. Based on never-before-published documents provided by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, The Intercept can confirm that the arsenal contains authentic NSA software, part of a powerful constellation of tools used to covertly infect computers worldwide.

    The provenance of the code has been a matter of heated debate this week among cybersecurity experts, and while it remains unclear how the software leaked, one thing is now beyond speculation: The malware is covered with the NSA's virtual fingerprints and clearly originates from the agency.

    The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE.

    SECONDDATE plays a specialized role inside a complex global system built by the U.S. government to infect and monitor what one document estimated to be millions of computers around the world. Its release by ShadowBrokers, alongside dozens of other malicious tools, marks the first time any full copies of the NSA's offensive software have been available to the public, providing a glimpse at how an elaborate system outlined in the Snowden documents looks when deployed in the real world, as well as concrete evidence that NSA hackers don't always have the last word when it comes to computer exploitation.

    But malicious software of this sophistication doesn't just pose a threat to foreign governments, Johns Hopkins University cryptographer Matthew Green told The Intercept:

    The danger of these exploits is that they can be used to target anyone who is using a vulnerable router. This is the equivalent of leaving lockpicking tools lying around a high school cafeteria. It's worse, in fact, because many of these exploits are not available through any other means, so they're just now coming to the attention of the firewall and router manufacturers that need to fix them, as well as the customers that are vulnerable.

    So the risk is twofold: first, that the person or persons who stole this information might have used them against us. If this is indeed Russia, then one assumes that they probably have their own exploits, but there's no need to give them any more. And now that the exploits have been released, we run the risk that ordinary criminals will use them against corporate targets.

    The NSA did not respond to questions concerning ShadowBrokers, the Snowden documents, or its malware.

    A Memorable SECONDDATE

    The offensive tools released by ShadowBrokers are organized under a litany of code names such as POLARSNEEZE and ELIGIBLE BOMBSHELL, and their exact purpose is still being assessed. But we do know more about one of the weapons: SECONDDATE.

    SECONDDATE is a tool designed to intercept web requests and redirect browsers on target computers to an NSA web server. That server, in turn, is designed to infect them with malware. SECONDDATE's existence was first reported by The Intercept in 2014, as part of a look at a global computer exploitation effort code-named TURBINE. The malware server, known as FOXACID, has also been described in previously released Snowden documents.

    Other documents released by The Intercept today not only tie SECONDDATE to the ShadowBrokers leak but also provide new detail on how it fits into the NSA's broader surveillance and infection network. They also show how SECONDDATE has been used, including to spy on Pakistan and a computer system in Lebanon.

    The top-secret manual that authenticates the SECONDDATE found in the wild as the same one used within the NSA is a 31-page document titled "FOXACID SOP for Operational Management" and marked as a draft. It dates to no earlier than 2010. A section within the manual describes administrative tools for tracking how victims are funneled into FOXACID, including a set of tags used to catalogue servers. When such a tag is created in relation to a SECONDDATE-related infection, the document says, a certain distinctive identifier must be used:

    The same SECONDDATE MSGID string appears in 14 different files throughout the ShadowBrokers leak, including in a file titled SecondDate-3021.exe. Viewed through a code-editing program (screenshot below), the NSA's secret number can be found hiding in plain sight:

    All told, throughout many of the folders contained in the ShadowBrokers' package (screenshot below), there are 47 files with SECONDDATE-related names, including different versions of the raw code required to execute a SECONDDATE attack, instructions for how to use it, and other related files.

    .

    After viewing the code, Green told The Intercept the MSGID string's occurrence in both an NSA training document and this week's leak is "unlikely to be a coincidence." Computer security researcher Matt Suiche, founder of UAE-based cybersecurity startup Comae Technologies, who has been particularly vocal in his analysis of the ShadowBrokers this week, told The Intercept "there is no way" the MSGID string's appearance in both places is a coincidence.

    Where SECONDDATE Fits In

    This overview jibes with previously unpublished classified files provided by Snowden that illustrate how SECONDDATE is a component of BADDECISION, a broader NSA infiltration tool. SECONDDATE helps the NSA pull off a "man in the middle" attack against users on a wireless network, tricking them into thinking they're talking to a safe website when in reality they've been sent a malicious payload from an NSA server.

    According to one December 2010 PowerPoint presentation titled "Introduction to BADDECISION," that tool is also designed to send users of a wireless network, sometimes referred to as an 802.11 network, to FOXACID malware servers. Or, as the presentation puts it, BADDECISION is an "802.11 CNE [computer network exploitation] tool that uses a true man-in-the-middle attack and a frame injection technique to redirect a target client to a FOXACID server." As another top-secret slide puts it, the attack homes in on "the greatest vulnerability to your computer: your web browser."

    One slide points out that the attack works on users with an encrypted wireless connection to the internet.

    That trick, it seems, often involves BADDECISION and SECONDDATE, with the latter described as a "component" for the former. A series of diagrams in the "Introduction to BADDECISION" presentation show how an NSA operator "uses SECONDDATE to inject a redirection payload at [a] Target Client," invisibly hijacking a user's web browser as the user attempts to visit a benign website (in the example given, it's CNN.com). Executed correctly, the file explains, a "Target Client continues normal webpage browsing, completely unaware," lands on a malware-filled NSA server, and becomes infected with as much of that malware as possible - or as the presentation puts it, the user will be left "WHACKED!" In the other top-secret presentations, it's put plainly: "How do we redirect the target to the FOXACID server without being noticed"? Simple: "Use NIGHTSTAND or BADDECISION."

    The sheer number of interlocking tools available to crack a computer is dizzying. In the FOXACID manual, government hackers are told an NSA hacker ought to be familiar with using SECONDDATE along with similar man-in-the-middle wi-fi attacks code-named MAGIC SQUIRREL and MAGICBEAN. A top-secret presentation on FOXACID lists further ways to redirect targets to the malware server system.

    To position themselves within range of a vulnerable wireless network, NSA operators can use a mobile antenna system running software code-named BLINDDATE, depicted in the field in what appears to be Kabul. The software can even be attached to a drone. BLINDDATE in turn can run BADDECISION, which allows for a SECONDDATE attack:

    Elsewhere in these files, there are at least two documented cases of SECONDDATE being used to successfully infect computers overseas: An April 2013 presentation boasts of successful attacks against computer systems in both Pakistan and Lebanon. In the first, NSA hackers used SECONDDATE to breach "targets in Pakistan's National Telecommunications Corporation's (NTC) VIP Division," which contained documents pertaining to "the backbone of Pakistan's Green Line communications network" used by "civilian and military leadership."

    In the latter, the NSA used SECONDDATE to pull off a man-in-the-middle attack in Lebanon "for the first time ever," infecting a Lebanese ISP to extract "100+ MB of Hizballah Unit 1800 data," a special subset of the terrorist group dedicated to aiding Palestinian militants.

    SECONDDATE is just one method that the NSA uses to get its target's browser pointed at a FOXACID server. Other methods include sending spam that attempts to exploit bugs in popular web-based email providers or entices targets to click on malicious links that lead to a FOXACID server. One document, a newsletter for the NSA's Special Source Operations division, describes how NSA software other than SECONDDATE was used to repeatedly direct targets in Pakistan to FOXACID malware web servers, eventually infecting the targets' computers.

    A Potentially Mundane Hack

    Snowden, who worked for NSA contractors Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton, has offered some context and a relatively mundane possible explanation for the leak: that the NSA headquarters was not hacked, but rather one of the computers the agency uses to plan and execute attacks was compromised. In a series of tweets, he pointed out that the NSA often lurks on systems that are supposed to be controlled by others, and it's possible someone at the agency took control of a server and failed to clean up after themselves. A regime, hacker group, or intelligence agency could have seized the files and the opportunity to embarrass the agency.

    Documents

    Documents published with this story:

    [Aug 21, 2016] Gaius Publius: You Broke It, You Bought It – A Sanders Activist Challenges Clinton Supporters

    No progressives worth their name would vote for Hillary. Betrayal of Sanders made the choice more difficult, but still there no alternative. Clinton "No passaran!". Also "Clinton proved capable of coming to an agreement with Sanders. He received good money, bought a new house, published a book, and joined with Clinton, calling on his supporters to vote for her"...
    Crappy slogans like "hold her feet to the fire" are lies. Has there ever been serious detail about that? I've seen this line over and over. Hillary is dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal and will behave as such as soon as she get into office. You can view her iether as (more jingoistic) Obama II or (equally reckless) Bush III. If she wins, the next opportunity to check her neoliberal leaning will be only during the next Persidential election.
    Notable quotes:
    "... ...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any number of issues that touch core progressives values. ..."
    "... It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
    "... She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign  -  Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
    "... The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies. ..."
    "... It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in any sense that a normal person understands it. ..."
    "... TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. ..."
    "... Regulatory arb, slice of corruption, and like shareholder value memes an equity burnishing tool… ..."
    "... One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS. Tariffs are necessary. ..."
    "... The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a sovereign nation any more. ..."
    "... You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh). ..."
    "... Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power. ..."
    "... merely infinite wealth and power for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? ..."
    "... Globalization and Technologization is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class. ..."
    "... The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants. ..."
    Aug 20, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com

    ...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any number of issues that touch core progressives values.

    ... ... ...

    Becky Bond on the Challenge to Clinton Supporters

    ...Bond looks at what the primary has wrought, and issues this challenge to activists who helped defeat Sanders: You broke it, you bought it. Will you now take charge in the fight to hold Clinton accountable? Or will you hang back (enjoying the fruits) and let others take the lead? ("Enjoying the fruits" is my addition. As one attendee noted, the Democratic Convention this year seemed very much like "a jobs fair.")

    Bond says this, writing in The Hill (my emphasis):

    Progressive Clinton supporters: You broke it, you bought it

    It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable.

    With Donald Trump tanking in the polls, there's room for progressives to simultaneously crush his bid for the presidency while holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on the TPP .

    And yet:

    She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign  -  Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable.

    ... ... ...

    Bond has more on Salazar and why both he and Tim Kaine are a "tell," a signal of things to come from Hillary Clinton: "The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies."

    ... ... ...

    Carla , August 20, 2016 at 5:40 am

    It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in any sense that a normal person understands it.

    This is the evil behind the lie of calling these "trade" agreements and putting the focus on "jobs." TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions.

    That's what's at stake; not jobs. The jobs will be lost to automation anyway; they are never coming back. The TPP et al legal straight jackets do not sell out jobs, that's already been done. No, what these phony trade agreements do is foreclose any hope of achieving functioning democracies. Please start saying so!

    sd , August 20, 2016 at 5:55 am

    Question – If automation killed jobs, then why did manufacturing move to low wage states and countries?

    Carla , August 20, 2016 at 6:25 am

    I miss-typed above. Of course I meant TPP and not ttp.

    Yes, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., certainly killed jobs. However, those jobs are not coming back to these shores. In the higher wage countries, "good" jobs - in manufacturing and in many "knowledge" and "service" sectors - as well as unskilled jobs, are being or have been replaced with automated means and methods.

    Just a few examples: automobile assemblers; retail cashiers; secretaries; steelworkers; highway toll collectors; gas station attendants. ETC. Here's what's happened so far just in terms of Great Lakes freighters:

    "The wheelman stood behind Captain Ross, clutching a surprisingly tiny, computerized steering wheel. He wore driving gloves and turned the Equinox every few seconds in whatever direction the captain told him to. The wheel, computer monitors and what looked like a server farm filling the wheelhouse are indicative of changes in the shipping industry. Twenty years ago, it took 35 crew members to run a laker. The Equinox operates with 16, only a handful of whom are on duty at once."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/travel/great-lakes-montreal-minnesota.html

    TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not trade, and only very incidentally, jobs. The rulers of the universe vastly prefer paying no wages to paying low wages, and whatever can be automated, will be, eventually in low-wage countries as well as here and in Europe. A great deal of this has already happened and it will continue. Only 5 sections of the TPP even deal with trade–that's out of 29. Don't take this on my authority; Public Citizen is the gold standard of analysis regarding these so-called "trade" agreements.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:00 am

    It took the OverClass several decades to send all those jobs away from our shores. It would take several decades to bring those jobs back to our shores. But it could be done within a context of militant belligerent protectionism.

    Americans are smart enough to make spoons, knives and forks. We used to make them. We could make them again. The only obstacles are contrived and artificial political-economic and policy obstacles. Apply a different Market Forcefield to the American Market, and the actors within that market would act differently over the several decades to come.

    Andrew , August 20, 2016 at 6:34 am

    Automation hasn't eliminated those jobs yet. But it will. See Foxconns investment in automation to eliminate iPhone assemblers.

    Skippy , August 20, 2016 at 6:37 am

    Regulatory arb, slice of corruption, and like shareholder value memes an equity burnishing tool…

    EndOfTheWorld , August 20, 2016 at 6:46 am

    One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS. Tariffs are necessary. They protect your industries while at the same time bringing in a lot of revenue.

    The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a sovereign nation any more.

    casino implosion , August 20, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    Sovereign nations are racist.

    different clue , August 21, 2016 at 2:02 am

    Really? Even multi-ethnic ones like Russia? Or America on a good day? Or Canada?

    You might want to be careful with Davos Man Free-Trade hasbara like that. You could end up giving racism a good name.

    Tom , August 20, 2016 at 6:50 am

    Off-shoring was just a stop-gap measure until human capital could be completely removed from the equation.

    Tom , August 20, 2016 at 7:55 am

    I meant to include a link to this particularly shocking example from a few months ago:
    Foxconn, Apple's Chinese supplier, is replacing 60,000 workers with AI robots.

    John , August 20, 2016 at 10:07 am

    Well then Apple can bring the all it's manufacturing back to the U.S. No need to be in China if they aren't using slave wage workers.

    Tom , August 20, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    Humans are just one line item on the list of expenses..

    dk , August 20, 2016 at 8:20 am

    ^That.

    Vastydeep , August 20, 2016 at 7:19 am

    The first round of industrial revolution automation substituted machines for human/horse mechanical exertion. We reached "peak horse" around 1900, and the move to low-wage/low-regulation states was just a step on the global race to the bottom. You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh).

    Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power.

    Will the rise of the machines lead to abundance for all, or merely infinite wealth and power for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? TPP and it's ilk may be the last chance for we the people to have any say in it.

    PhilU , August 20, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Manufacturing is in decline due to Reagan's tax cuts and low investment. Globalization and Technologization is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class.

    John Zelnicker , August 20, 2016 at 10:23 am

    @Squirrel – Labor costs, as you say, are a driving force; they are not the only one. Notice that the products you mentioned are all large heavy items. In these cases the transportation costs are high enough that the companies want their production to be close to their final market. The lower cost of labor elsewhere is not enough to compensate for the higher shipping costs from those locations. In addition, the wage gap between the US and other places has narrowed over the past 20 years, mostly due to the ongoing suppression of wage gains in the US. Your examples are exceptions that do not falsify the original premise that a huge amount of manufacturing has moved to lower wage locations. And those moves are still ongoing, e.g., Carrier moving to Mexico.

    The cost of manufactured goods has not fallen because the labor savings is going to profit and executive compensation, not reduced prices.

    TimmyB , August 20, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants.

    [Aug 21, 2016] Sanders gets 45% of the vote and leads them down Hillarys cattle chute for slaughter – not cooption, not marginalization, but the bolt gun to the head

    Notable quotes:
    "... All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning with you till your extinction burst finally subsides. ..."
    "... This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military, financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves. ..."
    "... The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by so loathsome a crew as the Clintons. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Mooooo , August 20, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    Here in Temple Grandin's touchy-feely slaughterhouse, Sanders gets 45% of the vote and leads them down Hillary's cattle chute for slaughter – not cooption, not marginalization, but the bolt gun to the head, with lots of sadistic poleaxing straight out of an illegal PETA video. The surviving livestock are auctioned off for flensing through gleeful trading in influence. This we learn, is not beyond redemption. In some demented psycho-Quaker sense, perhaps. What the fuck WON'T you put up with?

    In this psychotic mindset, Kim Jong Un's 99.97% victory proves he's like twice as worthwhile as any Dem. Write him in. Nursultan Nazarbayev, too, his 98% success speaks for itself. Write him in. All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning with you till your extinction burst finally subsides.

    Then we can talk about how you knock over moribund regimes.

    Fiver , August 20, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military, financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves.

    There are 3 critical issues 'progressives', Greens, lefties, libertarians and others must come together en masse to resist: TPP immediately, US foreign policy of permanent wars of aggression now involving the entire Muslim world and fossil fuels. Don't waste any time hoping to influence Clinton (you won't) or fretting about Trump. First TPP, then anti-War/anti-fossil fuels.

    I am convinced TPP can be beaten – not with 'Clinton activists', but with a broad coalition of interests. And once it has been beaten, the supremely idiotic 'war on terror' is next up. Americans' votes and electoral desires have been ignored and suppressed. Other legitimate means therefore must be taken up and utilized to change critical policy failures directly.

    The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by so loathsome a crew as the Clintons.

    [Aug 20, 2016] Trip Reports from Sanders Delegates at the Democrat National Convention

    Notable quotes:
    "... Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A ..."
    "... We discussed how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas, said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be." ..."
    "... "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note, No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions." ..."
    "... The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia, or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice. ..."
    "... why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without a nuclear war? ..."
    naked capitalism
    Militarism

    Mark Lasser (CO): "Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A.'"

    Carole Levers (CA): " I was harassed by five Hillary delegates who got in my face while I was sitting in my seat. They told me that we needed to quit chanting, go home, and that we did not belong there. They added that by chanting "No More Wars" we were disrespecting the veterans. I replied that none of us were disrespecting the veterans. We were honoring them by NOT WANTING ANY MORE DEAD VETERANS, killed in illegal wars for the profits of the wealthy. I reiterated that we were exercising our first amendment rights to which one replied that WE (Bernie delegates) had no rights. I was later shoved by a Hillary delegate into the metal frame of the seats."

    Carol Cizauskas (NV): "We heard other Bernie delegates chanting "No more war" and then the "opposing team" of Hillary delegates thundering over those chants with "USA." It was darkly eerie. We discussed how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas, said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be."

    #SlayTheSmaugs (NY): "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note, No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions."

    Lauren Steiner (CA): "[Clinton supporters] decided to chant with us when we chanted 'Black Lives Matter.' But for some reason, they found 'No More War' to be offensive and shouted "USA" right after. At first, I was puzzled by the fact that they were shouting exactly what Trump supporters shout at his rallies. Then, after all the bellicose speeches and the fact that they had so many Republicans endorsing Clinton, it hit me that perhaps it was because they were courting Republicans now. They didn't care about our support anymore."

    Ike, August 18, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    I am reading Primary Colors by Anonymous. It is entertaining as well as reaffirming a suspected baseline of conduct.

    Lambert Strether, August 18, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Primary Colors (by Joke Line (Joe Klein)) is terrific. The movie is good too. I am so happy and amazed that I live in a world where John Travolta plays Bill Clinton in a movie.

    Jeremy Grimm, August 18, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    The harassment and dirty tricks pulled against the Sanders people - as described in these collected reports - leaves me wondering whether Sanders actually won the nomination. It would have been much more politic for the Hillary people to let the Sanders delegates blow off steam and wait until the nomination and end of the convention to circle the wagons in "unity". If Hillary clearly won the nomination then the stupidity and arrogance in team Hillary's treatment of the Sanders people speaks to a new level of disdain for the 99%. The business about the $700 hotels and the misinformation and lack of information provided from team Sanders raises other questions.

    trent, August 18, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Wow, all those testimonials from the democrat convention are an eye opener, for some. Hillary's soft Nazism on full display for any of the still true believers. Yet the press calls trump the Nazi. Trump is crazy, but its almost an honest craziness compared to Hillary. She's nuts, but manipulates everything she can to hide it. I'll take out in the open crazy, easier to plan for.


    EoinW, August 19, 2016 at 8:51 am

    I haven't voted in years. In Canada, however, we've never been given a choice on anything. Doesn't matter if the election is federal, provincial or municipal, no issues just personalities.

    The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia, or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice.

    But why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without a nuclear war? Speculating on global warming or third party movements kind of lose their significance during a nuclear winter.

    Patricia

    This young woman turned it into a tale, "The Bullshittery of the DNC":

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHD_bj5fXO0

    [Aug 20, 2016] No, Ambassador McFaul Putin Didnt Order Me to Fall in Love with Donald Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong! ..."
    "... On Wednesday night, Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president. ..."
    "... Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee. ..."
    "... In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning, calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself. ..."
    "... It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns, I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump. ..."
    "... The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times? ..."
    "... Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think. The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch (notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media. In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title. ..."
    "... Today, the Obama Administration grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria, despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded), under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong!

    My name is Bill Moran. A native Arizonan, I have worked on dozens of Democratic Party campaigns, and am more recently a proud writer for Sputnik's Washington, DC bureau.

    It also seems, as of Thursday morning, that I am the source of controversy between the United States and Russia - something I never quite could have imagined - for writing an article that was critical of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a stinging headline and a harsh hashtag.

    So, what is this controversy all about? This weekend I published a piece with the headline, "Secret File Confirms Trump Claim: Obama, Hillary 'Founded ISIS' to Oust Assad." I also tweeted out this story from our platform with the hashtag #CrookedHillary. Guilty as charged.

    On Wednesday night, Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president.

    I feel it is necessary to pause, here, before having a substantive argument about the article's merits and purpose within the public discourse, to address the severity of the accusation leveled against me and Sputnik's staff (not by name until now), and its disturbing implications on freedom of speech, dissent, and American democracy - implications that I hope Mr. McFaul, other public proponents of the Hillary campaign, and the cadre of Russian critics consider.

    Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee.

    Mr. McFaul worked side-by-side with the former Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, and his routine accusations that Trump supporters are siding with Putin leaves me to imagine that he is a Clinton insider if not a direct campaign surrogate. That such a public official would suggest reprisals against those with differing viewpoints in the event that she wins is disturbing.

    Our outlet does not endorse or support any particular US presidential candidate, but rather reports news and views for the day in as diligent a manner as we possibly can. This is evident in our very harsh headlines on Trump, which Mr. McFaul failed to review before making his attack.

    In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning, calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself.

    It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns, I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump.

    Donald Trump has the lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Until recently, Clinton had the second lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Their numbers are worse than even Barry Goldwater and George Wallace, in fact.

    The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times?

    There is a reason why both presidential candidates have received less than fawning coverage from our outlet: they have not done anything to warrant positive coverage. My colleagues, also Americans, like so many others in this country, wish they would.

    Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think.

    The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch (notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media.

    In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title.

    Today, the Obama Administration grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria, despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded), under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria.

    We do not pretend that these decisions exist in a vacuum with a clear right and wrong answer upon which no two intelligent people differ, but this is a matter worthy of public discourse.

    And what about that hashtag? Why would I use #CrookedHillary? I mean, I could have put #Imwithher, but I wasn't trying to be ironic. When a hashtag is featured at the end of a sentence, its purpose is for cataloging. Some people, usually non-millennials, use hashtags as text to convey a particular opinion. I was not doing that. I also used #NeverTrump in a separate article.

    But Mr. McFaul lazily cherry-picked, and then labeled (maybe unwittingly) Sputnik's American writers traitors to this country.

    That, I personally, expect an apology for.

    [Aug 20, 2016] Hillarys Neoconservatives

    Aug 19, 2016 | The American Conservative

    Her embrace of hawks is more than an electoral strategy.

    The Hillary Clinton campaign has recently been trumpeting endorsements from neoconservatives. The candidate's embrace of figures such as Robert Kagan, Max Boot, and Eliot Cohen-all once regarded as anathema to the contemporary left-has engendered a wave of pushback from progressive critics.

    Jane Sanders, wife of Bernie, is the most recent high-profile objector, publicly expressing queasiness about Clinton's perceived allying with "architects of regime change." Now, predictably, the pushback has been met with its own pushback, including from Brian Beutler of The New Republic, who cautions progressives not to fret.

    ... ... ...

    Kagan, who not so long ago was denounced by liberal Iraq War opponents, co-signed a June report with Michčle Flournoy-the likely candidate for defense secretary under Clinton-calling for escalated U.S. military presence in Syria, a policy that could lead to all-out ground war or direct confrontation with Russia. So it seems he may already be on Clinton's hawkish team in waiting.

    Few reputable critics would argue that Hillary is herself a neoconservative. Far more plausible is that she'll enable the implementation of a neoconservative foreign-policy agenda by casting the neoconservatives' goals in liberal-interventionist terms, thus garnering Democratic support for initiatives that would face widespread opposition were they spearheaded by a Republican president. Lobe has written that Hillary represents "the point of convergence between liberal interventionism … and neoconservatism," and Hillary's willingness to empower a foreign-policy establishment featuring neoconservatives shows that they have in fact received concrete reputational benefit from lining up behind her.

    Hillary may operate on the premise that anything that might conceivably garner her additional votes is justified on that basis alone. Yet even on that premise, heralding neoconservative ideologues doesn't make sense. Again, neoconservatives have virtually no support in the electorate, as the recent Republican primary contest indicated. Their base is mostly among elites. Beyond that, there's a serious chance that continuing to tout these people will actually damage her electoral fortunes by alienating left-wing voters who might be cajoled into voting for the Democratic ticket, but can't countenance the possibility of ushering the Iraq-invasion architects of the George W. Bush era back into power.

    So if there's no obvious electoral upside, the most likely reason why Hillary is reaching out to such characters is a deceptively simple one: she shares common interests with them, respects their supposed expertise, and wants to bring them into her governing coalition. For that, anyone interested in a sane foreign policy over the next eight years should be exceedingly worried.

    Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.

    [Aug 19, 2016] 6 Problems With Medias Reaction To Trumps ISIS Comments

    This is a very important article and I strongly recommend to read it in full to understand how neoliberal propaganda works.
    This is nice example of how difficult is for ordinary person to cut threw media lies and get to the truth. So some level of brainwashing is inevitable unless you use only alternative media. Neoliberal MSM are disgusting and are lying all the time, but unless you use WWW and foreign sources (like people in the in the USSR did -- substitute radio for WWW, as it did not existed yet) that is not much else.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump did something downright shocking for a debate a few days before an important Republican primary. He went after the country's last Republican president, George W. Bush. Hard. He went after the Republican Party's general foreign policy approach. Hard. ..."
    "... Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? The war in Iraq, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have it. Iran has taken over Iraq with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. ..."
    "... Trump said, "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that That's not keeping us safe." ..."
    "... Compare that little vignette with this week, when Donald Trump repeatedly said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton were founders/co-founders/MVPs of ISIS. ..."
    "... Washington Examiner ..."
    "... DT: I don't care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay? ..."
    "... Vanity Fair ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 | thefederalist.com

    Back in February, candidates for the Republican nomination for president debated each other in South Carolina. The Saturday evening discussion was raucous. Donald Trump did something downright shocking for a debate a few days before an important Republican primary. He went after the country's last Republican president, George W. Bush. Hard. He went after the Republican Party's general foreign policy approach. Hard.

    Moderator John Dickerson asked him about his 2008 comments in favor of impeaching George W. Bush. He had said that year that Bush had "lied" to get the United States into a war in Iraq. Trump said to Dickerson:

    Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? The war in Iraq, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have it. Iran has taken over Iraq with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

    Jeb Bush attempted to defend his brother's honor, saying, "And while Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe. And I'm proud of what he did."

    Trump said, "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that That's not keeping us safe."

    And on it went. Yes, many in the crowd booed. Yes, many Republicans opposed his conspiracy theories about George W. Bush. The media were able to report Trump's challenges to Republican foreign policy without weighing in on the veracity of his claims. The most interesting thing of all? Trump easily won the South Carolina primary a week later with 33 percent of the vote.

    Compare that little vignette with this week, when Donald Trump repeatedly said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton were founders/co-founders/MVPs of ISIS. Even though the media had more than shot their outrage wad for the week, the media doubled, tripled, even quadrupled down on their outrage for the Wednesday night-Thursday news cycle. Here are six problems with the media's complete meltdown over the remarks.

    1. Why Did This Become an Issue Now and Not 7 Months Ago?

      Republicans who oppose Trump claim the media encouraged Trump when he was setting fire to Republican opponents but have fought him tooth and nail in the general. Ammunition for that claim includes the distinct ways the media have reacted to his long-standing claim that Obama and Clinton founded ISIS.

      As the Washington Examiner notes, Trump said this three times in January alone:

      'They've created ISIS. Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama,' he said during a campaign rally in Mississippi.

      Trump restated the claim in an interview on CBS in July. 'Hillary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies,' he said. 'She is responsible for ISIS.'

      He said it again during a rally in Florida one month later. 'It was Hillary Clinton – she should take an award from them as the founder of ISIS.'

      Needless to say, the media response to these comments was more bemused enabling than the abject horror they reserved for this week. The full media meltdown over something Trump has been saying all year long is at best odd and unbecoming. At worst, it suggests deep media corruption.

    2. Hyperliteralism

      Listen, Trump might be an effective communicator with his core audience, but others have trouble understanding him. His speaking style couldn't be more removed from the anodyne and cautious political rhetoric of our era. This can be a challenge for political journalists in particular. His sentences run on into paragraphs. He avoids specificity or contradicts himself when he doesn't. His sentences trail into other sentences before they finish. He doesn't play the usual games that the media are used to. It's frustrating.

      So the media immediately decided Trump was claiming that Obama had literally incorporated ISIS a few years back. And they treated this literal claim as a fact that needed to be debunked.

      Politifact gave the claim one of their vaunted "pants on fire" rulings: ... ... ...

      The "fact" "check" admits that both President Barack Obama's leadership in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's push to change regimes in Libya led to the explosion of ISIS but says that since Trump said he really, totally, no-joke meant Obama and Clinton were co-founders, that they must give him a Pants On Fire rating.

      Even ABC News had a piece headlined, "Obama Is Not the 'Founder' of ISIS – These Guys Are." Nobody can be this stupid, not even our media.

      As for the CNN chyron which appears to be deployed never in the case of Hillary Clinton's many serious troubles with truth-telling, or when Joe Biden told black voters that Republicans were going to "put y'all back in chains," but repeatedly in the case of Donald Trump speaking hyperbolically, this tweet is worth considering:

    3. Failure to Do Due Diligence

      On Thursday morning, Trump did a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt. The media clipped one part of his answer and used it to push a narrative that Donald Trump was super serial about Obama literally going to Baghdad, attending organizational meetings, and holding bake sales to launch his new organization ISIS.

      Kapur's tweet went viral but so did about eleventy billion other reporter tweets making the same point. The Guardian headline was "Trump reiterates he literally believes Barack Obama is the 'founder of Isis'."

      You really need to listen to the interview to get the full flavor of how unjournalistic this narrative is.

      Yes, Trump does reiterate over and over that Obama is the founder of ISIS. And yes, he says he really meant to say Obama founded ISIS. But that's definitely not all. How hard is it to listen for an additional minute or read an additional few words? The relevant portion of the interview is from 15:25 to 16:53. So this is not a huge investment of your time.

      First off, let's note for our hyperliteral media that Trump says "I'm a person that doesn't like insulting people" a few seconds before Hewitt asks about the ISIS comments. (Fact check: Pants on fire, amiright?) In this minute and a half, Trump says "I meant he's the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton." Hewitt pushes back, saying that Obama is trying to kill ISIS. Trump says:

      DT: I don't care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?

      Here, journalists and pundits, is your first slap across the face that maybe, just maybe, Trump is not talking about articles of incorporation but, rather, something else entirely.

      Hewitt says, yeah, but the way you're saying it is opening you up to criticism. Was it a mistake? Trump says not at all. Obama is ISIS's most valuable player. Then Trump asks Hewitt if he doesn't like the way he's phrasing all this! And here's where journalists might want to put on their thinking caps and pay attention. Hewitt says he'd say that Obama and Hillary lost the peace and created a vacuum for ISIS, but he wouldn't say they created it:

      HH: I don't. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn't create ISIS. That's what I would say.

      DT: Well, I disagree.

      HH: All right, that's okay.

      DT: I mean, with his bad policies, that's why ISIS came about.

      HH: That's

      DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn't have had ISIS.

      HH: That's true.

      DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.

      HH: And that's, I'd just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with this, because I know I'm keeping you long, and Hope's going to kill me.

      DT: But they wouldn't talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?

      Now, this is undoubtedly true. When people critique Obama's policies as Hewitt did, the media either call the critic racist or ignore him. When Trump critiques Obama's policies, they do talk about the way he does it. Maybe this means the message gets through to people.

      No matter what, though, the media should have stuck through all 90 seconds of the discussion to avoid the idiotic claim that Trump was saying Obama was literally on the ground in Iraq running ISIS' operations. He flat-out admits he's speaking hyperbolically to force the media to cover it.

    4. Pretending This Rhetoric Is Abnormal

      People accuse their political opponents of being responsible for bad things all the time. Clinton accused Trump of being ISIS' top recruiter. Bush's CIA and NSA chief said Trump was a "recruiting sergeant" for ISIS. Former NYC mayor Rudy Guiliani said Hillary Clinton could be considered a founding member of ISIS. Here was Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, just a few weeks ago, making a completely false claim of Republican's literal ties to ISIS:

      Carly Fiorina and Rick Santorum placed blame for ISIS on Obama and Clinton. Sen. John McCain said Obama was "directly responsible" for the Orlando ISIS attack due to his failure to deal with the terror group. President Obama said he couldn't think of a more potent recruiting tool for ISIS than Republican rhetoric in support of prioritizing help for Christians who had been targeted by the group. Last year, Vanity Fair published a piece blaming George W. Bush for ISIS. Heck, so did President Obama. There are many other examples. This type of rhetoric may not be exemplary, but we shouldn't pretend it's unique to Trump.


    5. Missing Actual Problems with His Comments

      Huge kudos to BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski for avoiding the feigned outrage/fainting couch in favor of an important critique of Trump's comments. He didn't pretend to be confused by what Trump was saying. By avoiding that silliness, he noticed something much more problematic with Trump's comments.

      Trump has cited the conservative critique of President Obama's Iraq policy - that the withdrawal of troops in 2011 led to a power vacuum that allowed ISIS to flourish - in making the claim.

      'He was the founder of ISIS, absolutely,' Trump said on CNBC on Thursday. 'The way he removed our troops - you shouldn't have gone in. I was against the war in Iraq. Totally against it.' (Trump was not against the war as he has repeatedly claimed.) 'The way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, OK?' Trump later said.

      But lost in Trump's immediate comments is that, for years, he pushed passionately and forcefully for the same immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. In interview after interview in the later 2000s, Trump said American forces should be removed from Iraq.

      Read the whole (brief) thing. One of the Trump quotes in the piece specifically has him acknowledging the civil unrest in Iraq that led to ISIS flourishing. It's a devastating critique and a far smarter one than the silly hysteria on display elsewhere.

    6. We're Still Not Talking about Widespread Dissatisfaction with Our Foreign Policy

      Let's think back to the opening vignette. Trump went into the South in the middle of the Republican primary and ostentatiously micturated over George W. Bush's Iraq policy. The voters of South Carolina rewarded him with a victory.

      Here's the real scandal in this outrage-du-jour: by pretending to think that Trump was claiming Obama had operational control over ISIS' day-to-day decision making, the media failed to cover widespread dissatisfaction with this country's foreign policy, whether it's coming from George W. Bush or Barack Obama.

      Many Americans are rather sick of this country's way of fighting wars, where enemies receive decades of nation-building instead of crushing defeats, and where threats are pooh-poohed or poorly managed instead of actually dealt with.

      Trump may be an uneven and erratic communicator who is unable to force that discussion in a way that a more traditional candidate might, but the media shouldn't have to be forced into it. Crowds are cheering Trump's hard statements about Obama and Clinton's policies in the Middle East because they are sick and tired of losing men, women, treasure and time with impotent, misguided, aimless efforts there.

      The vast majority of Americans supported invading Iraq, even if many of them deny they supported it now. Americans have lost confidence in both Republican and Democratic foreign policy approaches. No amount of media hysteria will hide that reality.

    Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway

    [Aug 19, 2016] Whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans

    Notable quotes:
    "... The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America. ..."
    "... What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand. ..."
    "... You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:37 am 87

    84@ The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America.

    What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand.

    What is also clear from your comment is that you, and perhaps some others, believe that this love of country and rich tapestry of subcultures somehow makes Americans very, very special and beyond criticism.

    We understand this much: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor – 68 civilian casualties.

    The US response: "..on the night of March 9-10, 1945…LeMay sent 334 B-29s low over Tokyo from the Marianas. Their mission was to reduce the city to rubble, kill its citizens, and instill terror in the survivors, with jellied gasoline and napalm that would create a sea of flames. Stripped of their guns to make more room for bombs, and flying at altitudes averaging 7,000 feet to evade detection, the bombers, which had been designed for high-altitude precision attacks, carried two kinds of incendiaries: M47s, 100-pound oil gel bombs, 182 per aircraft, each capable of starting a major fire, followed by M69s, 6-pound gelled-gasoline bombs, 1,520 per aircraft in addition to a few high explosives to deter firefighters. [25] The attack on an area that the US Strategic Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 percent residential succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of air force planners…

    The Strategic Bombing Survey, whose formation a few months earlier provided an important signal of Roosevelt's support for strategic bombing, provided a technical description of the firestorm and its effects on Tokyo: The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated, turbid, burning vapors . . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over 15 square miles in 6 hours . . . . The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure or its contents escaped damage."

    The survey concluded-plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945-that

    "probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly."

    The raids continue for all the 'best' military reasons…

    "In July, US planes blanketed the few remaining Japanese cities that had been spared firebombing with an "Appeal to the People." "As you know," it read, "America which stands for humanity, does not wish to injure the innocent people, so you had better evacuate these cities." Half the leafleted cities were firebombed within days of the warning. US planes ruled the skies. Overall, by one calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (My italics) http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/2414/article.html

    kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:59 am

    @ 86 Both my parents served. My grand-fathers served, and most of my uncles and great-uncles served – you know, the whole mess from being shot to dying in hospitals years after the war from gas attacks. And I served, nothing special about any of this.

    You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display.

    Should all the foreigners in your debt salute, or simply prostrate ourselves in awe?

    We're done.

    [Aug 19, 2016] For decades already, neoliberalized centre-left parties all over the world have been engaged to varying extents in deregulation, privatisation, welfare state reduction, TTIP-style neoliberal globalism and now, most recently, austerity not to mention a slavish pro-US foreign policy

    Clinton betrayal and sell out of Democratic Party to Wall Street was actually a phenomenon affecting other similar parties, especially in Europe. And not only in Great Britain, where Tony Bliar was a real copycat.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Ideology or political philosophy may matter to the skilled politician, but it matters less as a matter of conviction than as the précis of a novel's plot. It is like a key they use to encode rhetorical poses for the occasion, to signal that they understand the concerns of whatever group they are speaking to. ..."
    "... It is one of the odd (to me) features of political attitude formation that so many people have amnesia where there should be some basic appreciation for what politics, at base, is about. (Politics is about who gets what, when, how, in Harold Lasswell's immortal title.) ..."
    "... Neoliberalism is possibly the most important set of political phenomena -- certainly the most consequential -- in our generation's experience of political ideas and movements, and yet a common impulse is to deny it is exists or labels anything more meaningful than a catch-all "don't like it". ..."
    "... I do think think there's something to the contention that a political re-alignment is underway and the iron hold that neoliberalism has on the Media discourse is rusting. Rusting or not, the structures of propaganda and manipulation remain highly centralized, so even if the rhetorical tropes lose their meaning and emotional resonance, it isn't clear that the structures of authority won't continue, their legitimacy torn and tattered but not displaced. Because there's no replacement candidate, yet. ..."
    "... I agree, of course, that Marxism is obsolete. But, it does furnish a model of what an ideology can do to explain political economy and its possibilities, providing a rally point and a confession of faith. The contrast to our present common outlook highlights that several things are clearly missing for us now: one is economic class antagonism, the idea that the rich are the enemy, that rich people make themselves rich by preying on the society, and that fundamental, structural remedies are available thru politics. ..."
    "... I do think there's a reservoir of inchoate anger about elite betrayal and malfeasance. The irony of being presented the choice of Trump and Clinton as a remedy is apparently not fully appreciated by our commenters, let alone the irony of rummaging the attic and bringing down Sanders, like he was a suit of retro clothes last worn by one's grandfather. ..."
    "... Above, Layman reminds us that George W Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative. Quite a few adults voted for him I understand. Supposedly quite a few did so thinking that dry drunk would be a good fellow to have a beer with. Because . . . I guess some pundits thought to tell them that that is what politics is about, having a guy in the most powerful office in the federal government that you identify with - a guy who cuts brush at his ranch with a chainsaw. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    bruce wilder 08.11.16 at 5:33 pm 618

    F Foundling @ 605: The 'self' one can rely on is mostly features of temperament and style, not policy. The 'brand' is also to a large extent about style, not substance, and it is subject to change, too.

    The handful of politicians I have known personally have had fewer and lighter personal commitments to political policy preferences, than most, say, news junkies. They are trying to get political power, which rests at the nexus of conflicting forces. They have to put themselves at the crossroads, so to speak, and - maybe this is one of the paradoxes of power -- if they are to exercise power from being at a nexus, they have to be available to be used; they have to be open to persuasion, if they are to persuade.

    Ideology or political philosophy may matter to the skilled politician, but it matters less as a matter of conviction than as the précis of a novel's plot. It is like a key they use to encode rhetorical poses for the occasion, to signal that they understand the concerns of whatever group they are speaking to.

    T: If inequality remains the same or increases and growth remains low (and I believe they are very much linked) there will be new challengers from both the right and left and one of them will win. It did take a good 70 yrs to vanquish the robber barons.

    If there's a perennial lodestar for politics, it is this: the distribution of income, wealth and power. Follow the money is a good way to make sense of any criminal enterprise.

    F. Foundling: For decades already, so-called centre-left parties all over the world (can't vouch for *every* country) have been engaged to varying extents in deregulation, privatisation, welfare state reduction, TTIP-style neoliberal globalism and now, most recently, austerity (not to mention a slavish pro-US foreign policy).

    Yes.

    It is one of the odd (to me) features of political attitude formation that so many people have amnesia where there should be some basic appreciation for what politics, at base, is about. (Politics is about who gets what, when, how, in Harold Lasswell's immortal title.)

    I suspect that William the Conqueror had scarcely summered twice in England before someone was explaining to the peasantry that he was building those castles to protect the people.

    Neoliberalism is possibly the most important set of political phenomena -- certainly the most consequential -- in our generation's experience of political ideas and movements, and yet a common impulse is to deny it is exists or labels anything more meaningful than a catch-all "don't like it".

    RP: A lot of what people seem to be talking about is Overton Window stuff. I'm not convinced.

    I do think think there's something to the contention that a political re-alignment is underway and the iron hold that neoliberalism has on the Media discourse is rusting. Rusting or not, the structures of propaganda and manipulation remain highly centralized, so even if the rhetorical tropes lose their meaning and emotional resonance, it isn't clear that the structures of authority won't continue, their legitimacy torn and tattered but not displaced. Because there's no replacement candidate, yet.

    By replacement candidate, I mean some set of ideas about how society and political economy can be positively structured and legitimated as functional.

    I agree, of course, that Marxism is obsolete. But, it does furnish a model of what an ideology can do to explain political economy and its possibilities, providing a rally point and a confession of faith. The contrast to our present common outlook highlights that several things are clearly missing for us now: one is economic class antagonism, the idea that the rich are the enemy, that rich people make themselves rich by preying on the society, and that fundamental, structural remedies are available thru politics.

    I do think there's a reservoir of inchoate anger about elite betrayal and malfeasance. The irony of being presented the choice of Trump and Clinton as a remedy is apparently not fully appreciated by our commenters, let alone the irony of rummaging the attic and bringing down Sanders, like he was a suit of retro clothes last worn by one's grandfather.

    bruce wilder 08.11.16 at 10:36 pm

    Lee A. Arnold: I don't think I've met anyone over the age of consent who doesn't know what politicians are all about.

    Above, Layman reminds us that George W Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative. Quite a few adults voted for him I understand. Supposedly quite a few did so thinking that dry drunk would be a good fellow to have a beer with. Because . . . I guess some pundits thought to tell them that that is what politics is about, having a guy in the most powerful office in the federal government that you identify with - a guy who cuts brush at his ranch with a chainsaw. How many times did Maureen Dowd tell the story of dog strapped to the roof on the Romney family vacation?

    In my comment, you may have read "politician" but I actually wrote, "politics". And, I did not write that there was only inchoate anger. You added "only".

    [Aug 19, 2016] Historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone

    Obama is a neocon and is fully dedicated to expansion and maintenance of the US global neoliberal empire, at any cost for the US population. Racism card play against Trump, who opposes neoliberal interventionism, is a variant of the classic " Divide et impera" strategy
    Notable quotes:
    "... Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone ..."
    "... Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't socialist or leftist ..."
    "... Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'. Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the behest of special interests. ..."
    "... Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    stevenjohnson 08.12.16 at 3:45 pm

    Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone and forgetting Barack Obama is still president, and won't even be a lame duck till November.

    Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't socialist or leftist, despite Bernie Sanders' long career as a sort of socialist (only informally a Democrat.)

    Historical amnesia means forgetting to even ask what "Watergate" was, and if or how it mattered (or didn't.)

    Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'. Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the behest of special interests.

    (Yes, Lupita believes that imperialism actually pays off for the whole country, which presumably is why when her preferred rich people try to get their own she'll be for that. Nonetheless, the idea is bullshit. At this point, I can only imagine people don't call her out on that because they actually agree that "we" are all in it together with our owners.)

    Historical amnesia includes forgetting Trump has run for president before, with the same personality and the same tactics and the same party base. It is unclear how the essentially racist nature of the vile masses has changed so much in four years.

    Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Clinton is actively seeking Henry Kissingers endorsement.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton's respect for Kissinger has been noted before I think, and it's awful. Even if she were free of that shithead, though, her current goal is to demolish Trump. Voices on the GOP side really are important to erode his support not just among voters but within the party and the donor base. This could be a historic walloping. If monsters can help the effort to flip the senate, court the monsters. ..."
    crookedtimber.org
    Ah, it's official: Clinton is actively seeking Henry Kissinger's endorsement. The man who helped scuttle the peace talks in 1968, prolonging the Vietnam War by seven years, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. Who was at the heart of the secret bombing of Cambodia and Laos-personally selecting targets for bomber runs-which led to the destabilization of Cambodia and ultimately the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide. Who firmly backed the Pakistani military in its genocidal slaughter in Bangladesh. As Greg Grandin, whose book about Kissinger is must-reading, wrote not so long ago, "The full tally hasn't been done, but a back-of-the-envelope count would attribute 3, maybe 4 million deaths to Kissinger's actions, but that number probably undercounts his victims in southern Africa."

    This is the man whose support Hillary wants. Because Kissinger sways so many votes in Ohio or Georgia? No, because he's prudential, realistic, respectable, unlike that irresponsible reckless madman Donald Trump.

    I'm actually beginning to welcome the "we've never had someone as bad as Trump before" meme. I can't think of a greater (and deliciously unintentional) indictment of the United States than that claim. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clinton-republican-elder-statesmen-kissinger-226680#ixzz4GklOFXfV 441

    Corey Robin 08.09.16 at 5:02 pm

    Greg's actually just written an excellent piece on the abomination that is Henry Kissinger and Clinton's attempt to secure his endorsement.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/

    LFC 08.09.16 at 5:07 pm 442
    A glance at the Politico piece reveals it's a bit vague on the details, saying that, according to an unnamed source, the Clinton campaign has "sent out feelers" to Kissinger, Baker, Schultz, and Rice. But yeah, that's a mistake. Her campaign doesn't need them, and why HRC does not do everything to keep her distance from Kissinger - I mean as a political matter (if they want to be on friendly terms in private life, I guess that's their business) - is mystifying. Maybe Bill Clinton, who attended anti-Vietnam War protests in London while a student at Oxford, shd have a long talk w/ HRC about the period. Since, though she lived through it, it apparently did not make that much of an impact. Anyway, I'd be surprised if Kissinger ends up publicly endorsing her.

    The Temporary Name 08.09.16 at 5:09 pm

    This is the man whose support Hillary wants. Because Kissinger sways so many votes in Ohio or Georgia? No, because he's prudential, realistic, respectable, unlike that irresponsible reckless madman Donald Trump.

    Hillary Clinton's respect for Kissinger has been noted before I think, and it's awful. Even if she were free of that shithead, though, her current goal is to demolish Trump. Voices on the GOP side really are important to erode his support not just among voters but within the party and the donor base. This could be a historic walloping. If monsters can help the effort to flip the senate, court the monsters.

    Corey Robin 08.09.16 at 5:13 pm 445

    It's really not mystifying. Clinton has long courted that imprimatur of foreign policy mainstream respectability, and while the origins of that courting may have been instrumental and strategic, pure political calculation, it has since become a part of her political identity. I don't this is cynicism anymore; she believes it.

    Meanwhile, the poll numbers keep climbing for her. Virtually every mainstream journalist now recognizes what some of us have been saying for months. Absent a "miracle," as Rothenberg says here, Trump will be squashed.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/08/09/donald-trump-needs-a-miracle-to-win/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw5&wpmm=1

    [Aug 18, 2016] After I donated $9600 to Obama's campaigns, I got seven White House Christmas cards, genuinely autopenned by President and Mrs. Obama. These are of course very nice, but what I was hoping to buy was an end to things like rendition, torture, and death by killer robots from the sky

    Notable quotes:
    "... These are of course very nice, but what I was hoping to buy was an end to things like rendition, torture, and death by killer robots from the sky. I guess it takes more money to buy nice things like that. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    Layman, 08.11.16 at 2:19 pm

    engels @ 595

    That's a story about contributions of $200 or more. I'm guessing those contributions buy no influence at all. In fact, I'm not guessing: I, personally, donated a total of $9600 to Obama's campaigns, which were so influential that I was able to score 7 (so far) White House Christmas cards, genuinely autopenned by President and Mrs. Obama.

    These are of course very nice, but what I was hoping to buy was an end to things like rendition, torture, and death by killer robots from the sky. I guess it takes more money to buy nice things like that.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted

    Notable quotes:
    "... In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. ..."
    "... The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. ..."
    "... Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? ..."
    "... It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard Nixon, who also had a plan. ..."
    "... Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted ..."
    "... The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine (an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    stevenjohnson 08.09.16 at 3:46 pm

    Criticizing Clinton from the right is just as reactionary as criticizing Trump from the right. Further, assigning an individual such personal responsibility denies the reality of a bipartisan system that administers an imperialist government with only a formal simulacrum of popular support. That is, this "criticism" is fundamentally from the right.

    In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. The careers of Stevenson and Bolton alone show that the potential importance of security council veto means the President reserves direct supervision for himself, no matter what an organizational chart may say.

    The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. The implication that for a Secretary of State to sell weapons to foreign nations isn't constituent service borders on the silly. Besides, isolationism is not left win, never has been, never was.

    And the implication that the any US government would ever favor supporting a leftish president in Latin America because of its commitment to democracy thoroughly falsifies the nature of the US government. Disappearing left criticism of Obama is thoroughly reactionary.

    Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? Buying into this is buying decades of reactionary propaganda. I suppose this is mindlessness enough to satisfy people who alleged that SYRIZA was going to save Greece (the rock that should by the way have sunk Jacobin magazines credibility, leaving next to the Titanic,) or Bernie Sanders was starting a revolution.

    It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard Nixon, who also had a plan. I suppose F. Foundling eager awaits Trump's great "Nixon goes to China" moment. I have no idea why.

    Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted. As to which one it is, there has really never been much doubt that Clinton in the end will gain enough minority support to carry the big cities. But if the reactionaries depress the turnout enough, Trump has a shot at an electoral college victory, especially given the precedents on how votes are counted.

    The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine (an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares.

    [Aug 18, 2016] Trump is no crazier than the current Democratic president

    Notable quotes:
    "... How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall we call it? Well, probably not modesty. ..."
    "... 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date. ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    kidneystones 08.12.16 at 7:00 am 669

    @ 668 "Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors."

    "But there's more evidence that he's batshit crazy. He declaimed that he knew more about ISIS than all the generals. He will trust no one's judgment but his own."

    So, your argument is that Obama (your Muslim socialist) should never have been trusted to be in the Oval Office.

    And that by these, your standards, Trump is no crazier than the current Democratic president.

    Fair enough.

    https://www.aei.org/publication/obama-im-a-better-intelligence-briefer-than-my-intelligence-briefers/

    kidneystones 08.12.16 at 7:39 am 671

    @670 "I won't even look up the quote"

    Oh, you don't need to. That boat sailed the moment you decided to make Obama level hubris grounds for ineligibility. Obama's 'accomplishments prior to entering the Senate in 2004 are the stuff of legend to the clueless, of course.

    How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall we call it? Well, probably not modesty.

    My life twice – plenty for everyone like to learn from! The perfect preparation for a great presidency. That and my love of basketball. That's what makes me so smart! Did anyone notice I'm young, black and handsome? Ignore that, please.

    And we are where we are. I've elided the 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date.

    Trump in 2016!

    [Aug 16, 2016] Diary of an Ex-Neocon

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the New York Post is their Pravda , then The Weekly Standard is the neocons' Iskra , where the ideological twists and turns of the Party Line are explicated at some length ..."
    "... The cynical might suspect that this last is a form of neoconservative special pleading, designed to spirit the war party intellectuals away from the scene when the Bush policy goes down in flames ..."
    "... Robert Kagan and Max Boot are shilling for Hillary, with more of their comrades soon to follow-the former Scoop Jackson Democrats have come full circle, their survival skills fully intact. ..."
    "... They "certainly won't disappear in the way that American communism or segregation have," says McConnell , and one big reason is because "Perhaps most importantly neoconservatism still commands more salaries-able people who can pursue ideological politics as fulltime work in think tanks and periodicals-than its rivals." Which means "the reports of the movement's demise"-and I've authored a few of those-"are thus very much exaggerated." ..."
    "... McConnell isn't just an observer, with a keen eye for detail: he projects himself into these geopolitical conundrums, imbued with the sort of empathy that connects both himself and the reader to real human suffering, a quality that makes him a trenchant critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East. ..."
    "... McConnell likes the Israelis, supports their right to nationhood, and yet insists that we treat them as a normal country, not a pampered child who throws tantrums to get what it wants. He is measured, rational, compassionate, and, most of all, very well informed. We find out many things along the way, such as the real nature of the "good deal" that Yasser Arafat rejected, and rightly so. ..."
    The American Conservative
    McConnell's wit, especially sharp when cutting up his former comrades, had me laughing out loud. Describing Fred Barnes's Rebel in Chief , a hagiography of George W. Bush, he writes : "For readers who might wonder what it is like to be a North Korean and required to read formulaic biographies of great helmsman Kim Il Sung and his son, an afternoon spent with Rebel in Chief should provide a proximate answer."

    If the New York Post is their Pravda , then The Weekly Standard is the neocons' Iskra , where the ideological twists and turns of the Party Line are explicated at some length, and not without some elegance, as McConnell notes. The weekly's key role in diverting the Bush administration into Iraq after the 9/11 attacks is here laid out in all its Machiavellian sinuosity. And the distinctly Soviet air of the Kristolian style is illustrated quite nicely by McConnell's description of the magazine's covers, a typical one being "George W. Bush, gesticulating before an audience of troops, arm extended in a Caesarian pose. 'The Liberator,' the Standard headline proclaimed. Flatter the leader who will do your bidding."

    Yet there is a bit more to the literature of the courtier than appears on the surface. Flatter the king, get close enough to whisper in his ear-and then, if necessary, bury the knife deep in his back. Barnes depicts Bush as the bold leader who defied "the crabbed views of experts. And lest we forget, it is Bush alone who has done this, not his advisors. The cynical might suspect that this last is a form of neoconservative special pleading, designed to spirit the war party intellectuals away from the scene when the Bush policy goes down in flames." Which is precisely what happened, as McConnell chronicles in detail.

    The damage this political cult has done to the American polity, and to the Middle East, cannot even be calculated: how much, after all, is a human life worth? What about hundreds of thousands of lives? Yet they never seem to be finally defeated: as McConnell puts it , "if disrespecting the neoconservatives is emerging as a minor national sport, it should be enjoyed and tempered with realism." Sure, "the last few years have been difficult for the faction," but "they have other options." As they stream back into the Democratic Party after being steamrollered by Donald Trump- Robert Kagan and Max Boot are shilling for Hillary, with more of their comrades soon to follow-the former Scoop Jackson Democrats have come full circle, their survival skills fully intact.

    They "certainly won't disappear in the way that American communism or segregation have," says McConnell , and one big reason is because "Perhaps most importantly neoconservatism still commands more salaries-able people who can pursue ideological politics as fulltime work in think tanks and periodicals-than its rivals." Which means "the reports of the movement's demise"-and I've authored a few of those-"are thus very much exaggerated."

    Well, yes, that's unfortunately true. We've heard of the neocons' demise so many times that the prospect has now become somewhat hopeless: they just keep reincarnating themselves in another form. But that shouldn't stop us from hoping against hope.

    In spite of this book's title, there is much more to it than the storied history of the neocons as seen from inside the tent. There are sections on Israel, the run up to the Iraq war, President Obama, reflections on history, Russia and NATO, racial politics, and more. McConnell is at his best when he writes in the first person: a trip through Syria and Palestine, detailed in " Divided and Conquered ," reveals a perception honed to the finest detail, and a sensitivity and compassion that invariably breaks through a reserved WASP-y persona. McConnell isn't just an observer, with a keen eye for detail: he projects himself into these geopolitical conundrums, imbued with the sort of empathy that connects both himself and the reader to real human suffering, a quality that makes him a trenchant critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

    That critique is laid out in a long essay, " The Special Relationship With Israel: Is It Worth the Cost? " in which the history and consequences of our protracted and expensive patronage of the Jewish state is analyzed and detailed in ways you haven't seen or read before. McConnell likes the Israelis, supports their right to nationhood, and yet insists that we treat them as a normal country, not a pampered child who throws tantrums to get what it wants. He is measured, rational, compassionate, and, most of all, very well informed. We find out many things along the way, such as the real nature of the "good deal" that Yasser Arafat rejected, and rightly so.

    At the end of a long " Open Letter to David Horowitz on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict ," in which the author takes apart the irascible pro-Israel fanatic's argument that the Palestinians aren't really a people and should just get lost, he writes; "David, I hope you know this letter is written in a spirit of friendly, even comradely, disagreement and that it comes from someone who has plenty of appreciation for everything you have done since you came out as a 'Lefty for Reagan' seventeen years ago, and who was an avid Ramparts reader a dozen years before that."

    For my part, he gives Horowitz far too much credit, but that's an essential part of the author of Ex-Neocon : a gentleness that allows him to appreciate the talent and achievements of his ideological opposite numbers, even as he tears their arguments to shreds. His personality comes through in a way that is understated and yet strong. Here he is in Virginia Beach , canvassing for Obama during the 2012 election, riding around with a bunch of female volunteers, two black and one white:

    It was a curiously moving experience. … I have led most of my life not caring very much whether the poor voted, and indeed have sometimes been aware my interests aligned with them not voting at all. But that has changed. And so one knocks on one door after another in tiny houses and apartments in Chesapeake and Newport News, some of them nicely kept and clearly striving to make the best of a modest lot, others as close to the developing world as one gets in America. And at moments one feels a kind of calling-and then laughs at the Alinskian presumption of it all. Yes, we are all connected.

    So what was this ex-neocon, former campaign manager for Pat Buchanan's last presidential run, and former editor of The American Conservative doing canvassing for Barack Obama? You really have to read this book to find out.

    Justin Raimondo is editorial director of Antiwar.com and the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement .

    [Aug 15, 2016] US War Crimes or 'Normalized Deviance' by Nicolas J S Davies

    After the dissolution of the USSR the US elute went completely off rails and started to devour not only other countries, but the USA itself. Neoliberals (like Bolsheviks int he past) are cosmopolitan by definition and consider the USA as just a host to implement their plan. They have zero affinity with the common people of the USA. For them they are just tools for creation and maintnace of the global neoliberal empire. So their allegiance is not to the USA but to the global neoliberal empire. It's the same behaviour that characterized Bolsheviks in Russia.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Then, once the Obama administration had massively escalated the CIA's drone program as an alternative to kidnapping and indefinite detention at Guantanamo, it became even harder to acknowledge that this is a policy of cold-blooded murder that provokes widespread anger and hostility and is counter-productive to legitimate counterterrorism goals – or to admit that it violates the U.N. Charter's prohibition on the use of force, as U.N. special rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings have warned . ..."
    "... The deviant U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy has branded the formal rules that are supposed to govern our country's international behavior as "obsolete" and "quaint", as a White House lawyer wrote in 2004 . And yet these are the very rules that past U.S. leaders deemed so vital that they enshrined them in constitutionally binding international treaties and U.S. law. ..."
    "... In 1945, after two world wars killed 100 million people and left much of the world in ruins, the world's governments were shocked into a moment of sanity in which they agreed to settle future international disputes peacefully. The U.N. Charter therefore prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations. ..."
    "... The U.N. Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of force codifies the long-standing prohibition of aggression in English common law and customary international law, and reinforces the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy in the 1928 Kellogg Briand Pact . The judges at Nuremberg ruled that, even before the U.N. Charter came into effect, aggression was already the "supreme international crime." ..."
    "... No U.S. leader has proposed abolishing or amending the U.N. Charter to permit aggression by the U.S. or any other country. And yet the U.S. is currently conducting ground operations, air strikes or drone strikes in at least seven countries: Afghanistan; Pakistan; Iraq; Syria; Yemen; Somalia; and Libya. U.S. "special operations forces" conduct secret operations in a hundred more . U.S. leaders still openly threaten Iran, despite a diplomatic breakthrough that was supposed to peacefully settle bilateral differences. ..."
    "... Although torture was authorized from the very top of the chain of command, the most senior officer charged with a crime was a Major and the harshest sentence handed down was a five-month prison sentence. ..."
    "... –U.S. rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan have included: systematic, theater-wide use of torture ; orders to "dead-check" or kill wounded enemy combatants; orders to "kill all military-age males" during certain operations; and "weapons-free" zones that mirror Vietnam-era "free-fire" zones. ..."
    "... A U.S. Marine corporal told a court martial that "Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency", nullifying the critical distinction between combatants and civilians that is the very basis of the Fourth Geneva Convention. ..."
    "... –For the past year, U.S. forces bombing Iraq and Syria have operated under loosened rules of engagement that allow the in-theater commander General McFarland to approve bomb- and missile-strikes that are expected to kill up to 10 civilians each. ..."
    "... Left In The Dark ..."
    "... Nobody was charged over the Ghazi Khan raid in Kunar province on Dec. 26, 2009, in which U.S. special forces summarily executed at least seven children, including four who were only 11 or 12 years old. ..."
    "... More recently, U.S. forces attacked a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, killing 42 doctors, staff and patients, but this flagrant violation of Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention did not lead to criminal charges either. ..."
    "... Richard Barnet explored the deviant culture of Vietnam-era U.S. war leaders in his 1972 book Roots Of War ..."
    "... The U.S. role in anti-democratic coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Brazil, Indonesia, Ghana, Chile and other countries was veiled behind thick layers of secrecy and propaganda. A veneer of legitimacy was still considered vital to U.S. policy, even as a culture of deviance was being normalized and institutionalized beneath the surface. ..."
    "... When Nicaragua asked the U.N. Security Council to enforce the payment of reparations ordered by the court, the U.S. abused its position as a Permanent Member of the Security Council to veto the resolution. Since the 1980s, the U.S. has vetoed twice as many Security Council resolutions as the other Permanent Members combined, and the U.N. General Assembly passed resolutions condemning the U.S. invasions of Grenada (by 108 to 9) and Panama (by 75 to 20), calling the latter "a flagrant violation of international law." ..."
    "... President George H.W. Bush and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher obtained U.N. authorization for the First Gulf War and resisted calls to launch a war of regime change against Iraq in violation of their U.N. mandate. Their forces massacred Iraqi forces fleeing Kuwait , and a U.N. report described how the "near apocalyptic" U.S.-led bombardment of Iraq reduced what "had been until January a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society" to "a pre-industrial age nation." ..."
    "... Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq ..."
    consortiumnews.com
    August 15, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    The U.S. foreign policy establishment and its mainstream media operate with a pervasive set of hypocritical standards that justify war crimes - or what might be called a "normalization of deviance," writes Nicolas J S Davies.

    Sociologist Diane Vaughan coined the term "normalization of deviance" as she was investigating the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle in 1986. She used it to describe how the social culture at NASA fostered a disregard for rigorous, physics-based safety standards, effectively creating new, lower de facto standards that came to govern actual NASA operations and led to catastrophic and deadly failures.

    Vaughan published her findings in her prize-winning book , The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and Deviance at NASA , which, in her words, "shows how mistake, mishap, and disaster are socially organized and systematically produced by social structures" and "shifts our attention from individual causal explanations to the structure of power and the power of structure and culture – factors that are difficult to identify and untangle yet have great impact on decision making in organizations."

    President George W. Bush announcing the start of his invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003.

    When the same pattern of organizational culture and behavior at NASA persisted until the loss of a second shuttle in 2003, Diane Vaughan was appointed to NASA's accident investigation board, which belatedly embraced her conclusion that the "normalization of deviance" was a critical factor in these catastrophic failures.

    The normalization of deviance has since been cited in a wide range of corporate crimes and institutional failures, from Volkswagen's rigging of emissions tests to deadly medical mistakes in hospitals. In fact, the normalization of deviance is an ever-present danger in most of the complex institutions that govern the world we live in today, not least in the bureaucracy that formulates and conducts U.S. foreign policy.

    The normalization of deviance from the rules and standards that formally govern U.S. foreign policy has been quite radical. And yet, as in other cases, this has gradually been accepted as a normal state of affairs, first within the corridors of power, then by the corporate media and eventually by much of the public at large.

    Once deviance has been culturally normalized, as Vaughan found in the shuttle program at NASA, there is no longer any effective check on actions that deviate radically from formal or established standards – in the case of U.S. foreign policy, that would refer to the rules and customs of international law, the checks and balances of our constitutional political system and the experience and evolving practice of generations of statesmen and diplomats.

    Normalizing the Abnormal

    It is in the nature of complex institutions infected by the normalization of deviance that insiders are incentivized to downplay potential problems and to avoid precipitating a reassessment based on previously established standards. Once rules have been breached, decision-makers face a cognitive and ethical conundrum whenever the same issue arises again: they can no longer admit that an action will violate responsible standards without admitting that they have already violated them in the past.

    This is not just a matter of avoiding public embarrassment and political or criminal accountability, but a real instance of collective cognitive dissonance among people who have genuinely, although often self-servingly, embraced a deviant culture. Diane Vaughan has compared the normalization of deviance to an elastic waistband that keeps on stretching.

    At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as "shock and awe."

    Within the high priesthood that now manages U.S. foreign policy, advancement and success are based on conformity with this elastic culture of normalized deviance. Whistle-blowers are punished or even prosecuted, and people who question the prevailing deviant culture are routinely and efficiently marginalized, not promoted to decision-making positions.

    For example, once U.S. officials had accepted the Orwellian "doublethink" that "targeted killings," or "manhunts" as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called them, do not violate long-standing prohibitions against assassination , even a new administration could not walk that decision back without forcing a deviant culture to confront the wrong-headedness and illegality of its original decision.

    Then, once the Obama administration had massively escalated the CIA's drone program as an alternative to kidnapping and indefinite detention at Guantanamo, it became even harder to acknowledge that this is a policy of cold-blooded murder that provokes widespread anger and hostility and is counter-productive to legitimate counterterrorism goals – or to admit that it violates the U.N. Charter's prohibition on the use of force, as U.N. special rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings have warned .

    Underlying such decisions is the role of U.S. government lawyers who provide legal cover for them, but who are themselves shielded from accountability by U.S. non-recognition of international courts and the extraordinary deference of U.S. courts to the Executive Branch on matters of "national security." These lawyers enjoy a privilege that is unique in their profession, issuing legal opinions that they will never have to defend before impartial courts to provide legal fig-leaves for war crimes.

    The deviant U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy has branded the formal rules that are supposed to govern our country's international behavior as "obsolete" and "quaint", as a White House lawyer wrote in 2004 . And yet these are the very rules that past U.S. leaders deemed so vital that they enshrined them in constitutionally binding international treaties and U.S. law.

    Let's take a brief look at how the normalization of deviance undermines two of the most critical standards that formally define and legitimize U.S. foreign policy: the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

    The United Nations Charter

    In 1945, after two world wars killed 100 million people and left much of the world in ruins, the world's governments were shocked into a moment of sanity in which they agreed to settle future international disputes peacefully. The U.N. Charter therefore prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations.

    As President Franklin Roosevelt told a joint session of Congress on his return from the Yalta conference, this new "permanent structure of peace … should spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balance of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed."

    The U.N. Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of force codifies the long-standing prohibition of aggression in English common law and customary international law, and reinforces the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy in the 1928 Kellogg Briand Pact . The judges at Nuremberg ruled that, even before the U.N. Charter came into effect, aggression was already the "supreme international crime."

    No U.S. leader has proposed abolishing or amending the U.N. Charter to permit aggression by the U.S. or any other country. And yet the U.S. is currently conducting ground operations, air strikes or drone strikes in at least seven countries: Afghanistan; Pakistan; Iraq; Syria; Yemen; Somalia; and Libya. U.S. "special operations forces" conduct secret operations in a hundred more . U.S. leaders still openly threaten Iran, despite a diplomatic breakthrough that was supposed to peacefully settle bilateral differences.

    President-in-waiting Hillary Clinton still believes in backing U.S. demands on other countries with illegal threats of force, even though every threat she has backed in the past has only served to create a pretext for war, from Yugoslavia to Iraq to Libya. But the U.N. Charter prohibits the threat as well as the use of force precisely because the one so regularly leads to the other.

    The only justifications for the use of force permitted under the U.N. Charter are proportionate and necessary self-defense or an emergency request by the U.N. Security Council for military action "to restore peace and security." But no other country has attacked the United States, nor has the Security Council asked the U.S. to bomb or invade any of the countries where we are now at war.

    The wars we have launched since 2001 have killed about 2 million people , of whom nearly all were completely innocent of involvement in the crimes of 9/11. Instead of "restoring peace and security," U.S. wars have only plunged country after country into unending violence and chaos.

    Like the specifications ignored by the engineers at NASA, the U.N. Charter is still in force, in black and white, for anyone in the world to read. But the normalization of deviance has replaced its nominally binding rules with looser, vaguer ones that the world's governments and people have neither debated, negotiated nor agreed to.

    In this case, the formal rules being ignored are the ones that were designed to provide a viable framework for the survival of human civilization in the face of the existential threat of modern weapons and warfare – surely the last rules on Earth that should have been quietly swept under a rug in the State Department basement.

    The Geneva Conventions

    Courts martial and investigations by officials and human rights groups have exposed "rules of engagement" issued to U.S. forces that flagrantly violate the Geneva Conventions and the protections they provide to wounded combatants, prisoners of war and civilians in war-torn countries:

    –The Command's Responsibility report by Human Rights First examined 98 deaths in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. It revealed a deviant culture in which senior officials abused their authority to block investigations and guarantee their own impunity for murders and torture deaths that U.S. law defines as capital crimes .

    Although torture was authorized from the very top of the chain of command, the most senior officer charged with a crime was a Major and the harshest sentence handed down was a five-month prison sentence.

    –U.S. rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan have included: systematic, theater-wide use of torture ; orders to "dead-check" or kill wounded enemy combatants; orders to "kill all military-age males" during certain operations; and "weapons-free" zones that mirror Vietnam-era "free-fire" zones.

    A U.S. Marine corporal told a court martial that "Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency", nullifying the critical distinction between combatants and civilians that is the very basis of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

    When junior officers or enlisted troops have been charged with war crimes, they have been exonerated or given light sentences because courts have found that they were acting on orders from more senior officers. But the senior officers implicated in these crimes have been allowed to testify in secret or not to appear in court at all, and no senior officer has been convicted of a war crime.

    • –For the past year, U.S. forces bombing Iraq and Syria have operated under loosened rules of engagement that allow the in-theater commander General McFarland to approve bomb- and missile-strikes that are expected to kill up to 10 civilians each. But Kate Clark of the Afghanistan Analysts Network has documented that U.S. rules of engagement already permit routine targeting of civilians based only on cell-phone records or "guilt by proximity" to other people targeted for assassination. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has determined that only 4 percent of thousands of drone victims in Pakistan have been positively identified as Al Qaeda members, the nominal targets of the CIA's drone campaign.
    • –Amnesty International's 2014 report Left In The Dark documented a complete lack of accountability for the killing of civilians by U.S. forces in Afghanistan since President Obama's escalation of the war in 2009 unleashed thousands more air strikes and special forces night raids.

    Nobody was charged over the Ghazi Khan raid in Kunar province on Dec. 26, 2009, in which U.S. special forces summarily executed at least seven children, including four who were only 11 or 12 years old.

    More recently, U.S. forces attacked a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, killing 42 doctors, staff and patients, but this flagrant violation of Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention did not lead to criminal charges either.

    Although the U.S. government would not dare to formally renounce the Geneva Conventions, the normalization of deviance has effectively replaced them with elastic standards of behavior and accountability whose main purpose is to shield senior U.S. military officers and civilian officials from accountability for war crimes.

    The Cold War and Its Aftermath

    The normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy is a byproduct of the disproportionate economic, diplomatic and military power of the United States since 1945. No other country could have got away with such flagrant and systematic violations of international law.

    But in the early days of the Cold War, America's World War II leaders rejected calls to exploit their new-found power and temporary monopoly on nuclear weapons to unleash an aggressive war against the U.S.S.R.

    General Dwight Eisenhower gave a speech in St. Louis in 1947 in which he warned, "Those who measure security solely in terms of offensive capacity distort its meaning and mislead those who pay them heed. No modern nation has ever equaled the crushing offensive power attained by the German war machine in 1939. No modern nation was broken and smashed as was Germany six years later."

    But, as Eisenhower later warned, the Cold War soon gave rise to a "military-industrial complex" that may be the case par excellence of a highly complex tangle of institutions whose social culture is supremely prone to the normalization of deviance. Privately, Eisenhower lamented, "God help this country when someone sits in this chair who doesn't know the military as well as I do."

    That describes everyone who has sat in that chair and tried to manage the U.S. military-industrial complex since 1961, involving critical decisions on war and peace and an ever-growing military budget . Advising the President on these matters are the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, several generals and admirals and the chairs of powerful Congressional committees. Nearly all these officials' careers represent some version of the "revolving door" between the military and "intelligence" bureaucracy, the executive and legislative branches of government, and top jobs with military contractors and lobbying firms.

    Each of the close advisers who have the President's ear on these most critical issues is in turn advised by others who are just as deeply embedded in the military-industrial complex, from think-tanks funded by weapons manufacturers to Members of Congress with military bases or missile plants in their districts to journalists and commentators who market fear, war and militarism to the public.

    With the rise of sanctions and financial warfare as a tool of U.S. power, Wall Street and the Treasury and Commerce Departments are also increasingly entangled in this web of military-industrial interests.

    The incentives driving the creeping, gradual normalization of deviance throughout the ever-growing U.S. military-industrial complex have been powerful and mutually reinforcing for over 70 years, exactly as Eisenhower warned.

    Richard Barnet explored the deviant culture of Vietnam-era U.S. war leaders in his 1972 book Roots Of War . But there are particular reasons why the normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy has become even more dangerous since the end of the Cold War.

    In the aftermath of World War II, the U.S. and U.K. installed allied governments in Western and Southern Europe, restored Western colonies in Asia and militarily occupied South Korea . The divisions of Korea and Vietnam into north and south were justified as temporary, but the governments in the south were U.S. creations imposed to prevent reunification under governments allied with the U.S.S.R. or China. U.S. wars in Korea and Vietnam were then justified, legally and politically, as military assistance to allied governments fighting wars of self-defense.

    The U.S. role in anti-democratic coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Brazil, Indonesia, Ghana, Chile and other countries was veiled behind thick layers of secrecy and propaganda. A veneer of legitimacy was still considered vital to U.S. policy, even as a culture of deviance was being normalized and institutionalized beneath the surface.

    The Reagan Years

    It was not until the 1980s that the U.S. ran seriously afoul of the post-1945 international legal framework it had helped to build. When the U.S. set out to destroy the revolutionary Sandinista government of Nicaragua by mining its harbors and dispatching a mercenary army to terrorize its people, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) convicted the U.S. of aggression and ordered it to pay war reparations.

    The U.S. response revealed how far the normalization of deviance had already taken hold of its foreign policy. Instead of accepting and complying with the court's ruling, the U.S. announced its withdrawal from the binding jurisdiction of the ICJ.

    When Nicaragua asked the U.N. Security Council to enforce the payment of reparations ordered by the court, the U.S. abused its position as a Permanent Member of the Security Council to veto the resolution. Since the 1980s, the U.S. has vetoed twice as many Security Council resolutions as the other Permanent Members combined, and the U.N. General Assembly passed resolutions condemning the U.S. invasions of Grenada (by 108 to 9) and Panama (by 75 to 20), calling the latter "a flagrant violation of international law."

    President George H.W. Bush and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher obtained U.N. authorization for the First Gulf War and resisted calls to launch a war of regime change against Iraq in violation of their U.N. mandate. Their forces massacred Iraqi forces fleeing Kuwait , and a U.N. report described how the "near apocalyptic" U.S.-led bombardment of Iraq reduced what "had been until January a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society" to "a pre-industrial age nation."

    But new voices began to ask why the U.S. should not exploit its unchallenged post-Cold War military superiority to use force with even less restraint. During the Bush-Clinton transition, Madeleine Albright confronted General Colin Powell over his "Powell doctrine" of limited war, protesting, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

    Public hopes for a "peace dividend" were ultimately trumped by a "power dividend" sought by military-industrial interests. The neoconservatives of the Project for the New American Century led the push for war on Iraq, while "humanitarian interventionists" now use the "soft power" of propaganda to selectively identify and demonize targets for U.S.-led regime change and then justify war under the "responsibility to protect" or other pretexts. U.S. allies (NATO, Israel, the Arab monarchies et al) are exempt from such campaigns, safe within what Amnesty International has labeled an "accountability-free zone."

    Madeleine Albright and her colleagues branded Slobodan Milosevic a "new Hitler" for trying to hold Yugoslavia together, even as they ratcheted up their own genocidal sanctions against Iraq . Ten years after Milosevic died in prison at the Hague, he was posthumously exonerated by an international court.

    In 1999, when U.K. Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told Secretary of State Albright the British government was having trouble "with its lawyers" over NATO plans to attack Yugoslavia without U.N. authorization, Albright told him he should "get new lawyers."

    By the time mass murder struck New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, the normalization of deviance was so firmly rooted in the corridors of power that voices of peace and reason were utterly marginalized.

    Former Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz told NPR eight days later, "It is never a legitimate response to punish people who are not responsible for the wrong done. … We must make a distinction between punishing the guilty and punishing others. If you simply retaliate en masse by bombing Afghanistan, let us say, or the Taliban, you will kill many people who don't approve of what has happened."

    But from the day of the crime, the war machine was in motion, targeting Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

    The normalization of deviance that promoted war and marginalized reason at that moment of national crisis was not limited to Dick Cheney and his torture-happy acolytes, and so the global war they unleashed in 2001 is still spinning out of control.

    When President Obama was elected in 2008 and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, few people understood how many of the people and interests shaping his policies were the same people and interests who had shaped President George W. Bush's, nor how deeply they were all steeped in the same deviant culture that had unleashed war, systematic war crimes and intractable violence and chaos upon the world.

    A Sociopathic Culture

    Until the American public, our political representatives and our neighbors around the world can come to grips with the normalization of deviance that is corrupting the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, the existential threats of nuclear war and escalating conventional war will persist and spread.

    President George W. Bush pauses for applause during his State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003, when he made a fraudulent case for invading Iraq. Seated behind him are Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. (White House photo)

    This deviant culture is sociopathic in its disregard for the value of human life and for the survival of human life on Earth. The only thing "normal" about it is that it pervades the powerful, entangled institutions that control U.S. foreign policy, rendering them impervious to reason, public accountability or even catastrophic failure.

    The normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy is driving a self-fulfilling reduction of our miraculous multicultural world to a "battlefield" or testing-ground for the latest U.S. weapons and geopolitical strategies. There is not yet any countervailing movement powerful or united enough to restore reason, humanity or the rule of law, domestically or internationally, although new political movements in many countries offer viable alternatives to the path we are on.

    As the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists warned when it advanced the hands of the Doomsday Clock to 3 minutes to midnight in 2015, we are living at one of the most dangerous times in human history. The normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy lies at the very heart of our predicament.

    Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump is a claim of a career sycophant pandering to neocon lobby by Ray McGovern

    "For Michael Morell, as with many other CIA careerists, his strongest suit seemed to be pleasing his boss and not antagonizing the White House" His loyalty is to qhoewver occupies White House, not necessarily to the truth. "Morell [was] at the center of two key fiascoes: he "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 address to the United Nations and he served as the regular CIA briefer to President George W. Bush. Putting Access Before Honesty" Rise of Another CIA Yes Man – Consortiumnews
    Notable quotes:
    "... Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer. ..."
    "... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
    "... Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | Antiwar.com

    As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer.

    However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS.

    Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article.

    Read more by Ray McGovern

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Mike Morells Kill-Russians Advice

    This is what "New American Militarism" the term coined by Bacevich is about. And it reflect dominance of jingoism among Washington bureaucrats -- war is a source of money and career advancement.
    Notable quotes:
    "... At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, ..."
    "... he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one. ..."
    "... The Great War of Our Time ..."
    "... It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent." ..."
    "... For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [nonexistent] WMD. ..."
    "... The Great War of Our Time ..."
    "... When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was appointed the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence until moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013. ..."
    "... Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of US intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President. ..."
    "... Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer. ..."
    "... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
    "... Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | Antiwar.com
    Perhaps former CIA acting director Michael Morell's shamefully provocative rhetoric toward Russia and Iran will prove too unhinged even for Hillary Clinton. It appears equally likely that it will succeed in earning him a senior job in a possible Clinton administration, so it behooves us to have a closer look at Morell's record.

    My initial reaction of disbelief and anger was the same as that of my VIPS colleague, Larry Johnson, and the points Larry made about Morell's behavior in the Benghazi caper, Iran, Syria, needlessly baiting nuclear-armed Russia, and how to put a "scare" into Bashar al-Assad give ample support to Larry's characterization of Morell's comments as "reckless and vapid." What follows is an attempt to round out the picture on the ambitious 57-year-old Morell.

    I suppose we need to start with Morell telling PBS/CBS interviewer Charlie Rose on Aug. 8 that he (Morell) wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. … make the Russians pay a price in Syria."

    Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"

    Morell: "Yeah."

    Rose: "And killing Iranians?"

    Morell: "Yes … You don't tell the world about it. … But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran."

    You might ask what excellent adventure earned Morell his latest appearance with Charlie Rose? It was a highly unusual Aug. 5 New York Times op-ed titled "I ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton."

    Peabody award winner Rose – having made no secret of how much he admires the glib, smooth-talking Morell – performed true to form. Indeed, he has interviewed him every other month, on average, over the past two years, while Morell has been a national security analyst for CBS.

    This interview, though, is a must for those interested in gauging the caliber of bureaucrats who have bubbled to the top of the CIA since the disastrous tenure of George Tenet (sorry, the interview goes on and on for 46 minutes).

    A Heavy Duty

    Such interviews are a burden for unreconstructed, fact-based analysts of the old school. In a word, they are required to watch them, just as they must plow through the turgid prose of "tell-it-all" memoirs. But due diligence can sometimes harvest an occasional grain of wheat among the chaff.

    For example, George W. Bush's memoir, Decision Points, included a passage the former president seems to have written himself. Was Bush relieved to learn, just 15 months before he left office, the "high-confidence," unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed work on such weapons? No way!

    In his memoir, he complains bitterly that this judgment in that key 2007 National Intelligence Estimate "tied my hands on the military side. … After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?" No, I am not making this up. He wrote that.

    In another sometimes inadvertently revealing memoir, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, CIA Director George Tenet described Michael Morell, whom he picked to be CIA's briefer of President George W. Bush, in these terms: "Wiry, youthful looking, and extremely bright, Mike speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly. He and George Bush hit it off almost immediately. Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief's side."

    Wonder what Morell was telling Bush about those "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and the alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Was Morell winking at Bush the same way Tenet winked at the head of British intelligence on July 20, 2002, telling him that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq?

    High on Morell

    Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell. But he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one.

    So Morell reviewed the "intelligence" that went into Powell's thoroughly deceptive account of the Iraqi threat! Powell later called that dramatic speech, which wowed Washington's media and foreign policy elites and was used to browbeat the few remaining dissenters into silence, a "blot" on his record.

    In Morell's own memoir, The Great War of Our Time, Morell apologized to former Secretary of State Powell for the bogus CIA intelligence that found its way into Powell's address. Morell told CBS: "I thought it important to do so because … he went out there and made this case, and we were wrong."

    It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."

    It strains credulity beyond the breaking point to think that Michael Morell was unaware of the fraudulent nature of the WMD propaganda campaign. Yet, like all too many others, he kept quiet and got promoted.

    Out of Harm's Way

    For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [nonexistent] WMD.

    Cohen made a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible in late November 2003, and was still holding out some hope that WMD would be found. He noted, however, "If we eventually are proved wrong – that is, that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the WMD programs were dormant or abandoned – the American people will be told the truth …" And then Stu disappeared into the woodwork.

    In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with the final bill expected to top $1 billion.

    In Morell's The Great War of Our Time, he writes, "In the summer of 2003 I became CIA's senior focal point for liaison with the analytic community in the United Kingdom." He notes that one of the "dominant" issues, until he left the U.K. in early 2006, was "Iraq, namely our failure to find weapons of mass destruction." (It was a PR problem; Prime Minister Tony Blair and Morell's opposite numbers in British intelligence were fully complicit in the "dodgy-dossier" type of intelligence.)

    When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was appointed the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence until moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013.

    Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of US intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President.

    ... ... ...

    As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer.

    However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS.

    Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article.

    Read more by Ray McGovern

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

    [Aug 14, 2016] Myths We Create in Order to Sleep at Night

    www.counterpunch.org

    This week we also published a terrific piece by John LaForge, which demolishes once and for one of America's most cherished lies: that the US simply had to drop two nuclear bombs on Japanese cities to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of US and Japanese lies. Even Curtis "Mad Bomber" LeMay knew this was bullshit. So did Ike, who sent word to Truman that he thought the plan was insane. You can see why the myth took root. What nation that sees itself a force of goodness and virtue and humanity could live with itself after incinerating two cities and unleashing nuclear terror upon the world?

    [Aug 14, 2016] Isn't it about time for the President to do something to earn that Peace Prize?

    www.counterpunch.org
    As the current US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner prepares to leave office with a record of a Tuesday morning kill list, unconscionable drone attacks on civilians, initiating bombing campaigns where there were none prior to his election and, of course, taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin with unsubstantiated allegations, the US-backed NATO has scheduled AEGIS anti ballistic missile shields to be constructed in Romania and Poland, challenging the integrity of INF Treaty for the first time in almost thirty years.

    In what may shed new light on NATO/US build-up in eastern Europe, Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov denied US charges in June, 2015 that Russia had violated the Treaty and that the US had "failed to provide evidence of Russian breaches." Commenting on US plans to deploy land-based missiles in Europe as a possible response to the alleged "Russian aggression" in the Ukraine, Lavrov warned that ''building up militarist rhetoric is absolutely counterproductive and harmful.' Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov suggested the United States was leveling accusations against Russia in order to justify its own military plans.

    In early August, the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration authorized the final development phase (prior to actual production in 2020) of the B61-21 nuclear bomb at a cost of $350 – $450 billion. A thermonuclear weapon with the capability of reaching Europe and Moscow, the B61-21 is part of President Obama's $1 trillion request for modernizing the US aging and outdated nuclear weapon arsenal.

    Isn't it about time for the President to do something to earn that Peace Prize?

    Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC.

    [Aug 14, 2016] It has been said that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. Bernie Sanders wishes to fool all of the people, at least those who were once his loyal devotees, all of the time.

    www.counterpunch.org
    It has been said that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. Apparently, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders wishes to fool all of the people, at least those who were once his loyal devotees, all of the time. This writer received an enthusiastic email from some organization talking about the next steps in Mr. Sanders 'revolution', and requesting that this writer hold a house party to watch a speech to be given by the senator, as part of the initiation of a new organization called 'Our Revolution'.

    Well, there is certainly something revolting about all this, but it has nothing to do with a social change.

    Mr. Sanders, that avowed socialist with a long and undistinguished career in what passes in the U.S. for public service (well-paid 'service', that is), lost all credibility with any but his most blindly loyal followers when, after months of railing against everything that Hillary Clinton stands for, even to the point of calling her unfit to be president, he put on a happy face and gave her a glowing endorsement at the Democratic Convention. Does this sound to the reader like a man of integrity? Does endorsing Miss Wall Street 2016 have that ring of revolutionary fervor? Does such glowing support of the Princess of Israel sound like part of revolutionary change

    Methinks not. No, his support for Mrs. Clinton, and his forthcoming address about 'Our Revolution', seem to be the work of a career politician who wants to bask in whatever remains of the adulation of his naive and enthusiastic youthful followers, while at the same time enjoying all the perquisites of 'the good old boys' club'. The only thing he sacrifices along the way (in addition, of course, to self-respect, but who in elected office has that anyway?), is credibility. Oh, and integrity. And honesty. Well, maybe he does make many sacrifices to enjoy both the prestige of change agent and maintainer of the status quo. But really, does anyone do it better than he?

    [Aug 14, 2016] Spooks in the Grindhouse

    Notable quotes:
    "... Kill the Messenger ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    It seems like I've known Nicholas Schou forever, though we just pressed flesh for the first time last year in the LBC. His ground-breaking reporting on the Contra-Cocaine network in southern California was crucial source material for a book that Cockburn and I wrote called Whiteout. Nick's own book on Gary Webb is excellent and it was turned into a fine movie, Kill the Messenger. Now Nick has published a new book, Spooked, a terrific and timely history of how the CIA manipulates the media and Hollywood (both useful idiots of the Agency). And, speaking of the devil, here Nick is telling us all about it in the latest installment of CounterPunch Radio with the indefatigable Eric Draitser.

    [Aug 14, 2016] An Urgent History Lesson in Diplomacy with Russia

    www.counterpunch.org
    As the current US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner prepares to leave office with a record of a Tuesday morning kill list, unconscionable drone attacks on civilians, initiating bombing campaigns where there were none prior to his election and, of course, taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin with unsubstantiated allegations, the US-backed NATO has scheduled AEGIS anti ballistic missile shields to be constructed in Romania and Poland, challenging the integrity of INF Treaty for the first time in almost thirty years.

    In what may shed new light on NATO/US build-up in eastern Europe, Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov denied US charges in June, 2015 that Russia had violated the Treaty and that the US had "failed to provide evidence of Russian breaches." Commenting on US plans to deploy land-based missiles in Europe as a possible response to the alleged "Russian aggression" in the Ukraine, Lavrov warned that ''building up militarist rhetoric is absolutely counterproductive and harmful.' Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov suggested the United States was leveling accusations against Russia in order to justify its own military plans.

    In early August, the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration authorized the final development phase (prior to actual production in 2020) of the B61-21 nuclear bomb at a cost of $350 – $450 billion. A thermonuclear weapon with the capability of reaching Europe and Moscow, the B61-21 is part of President Obama's $1 trillion request for modernizing the US aging and outdated nuclear weapon arsenal.

    Isn't it about time for the President to do something to earn that Peace Prize?

    [Aug 14, 2016] The US/European/Saudi/Israeli policy in the ME and Central Asia can be summed up by one word: Destabilization

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is providing a steady stream of military-age Sunni males to sow ever more creative chaos (terrorism, crime and other forms of "cultural enrichment") in the European and American homelands. Obama and Hillary have been faithful servants of this policy. The architects of this policy will not allow it to be derailed by some big-mouth real-estate developer. ..."
    "... Defense Intelligence Agency document declassified last year shows that the Obama administration was warned in August of 2012 that if it continued it's policies, a radical Islamic regime could form in eastern Syria. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at this time. ..."
    "... So in my humble opinion, not only are Obama and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they are the parents that gave birth to his freak of nature known as ISIL/ISIS. ..."
    "... Bush had to invade...of all countries....Iraq....while the perpetrators of 911 were in Afghanistan, and in the Saudi Royal family which bankrolled the 911 operation. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the phony elections of leaders who walked away with pallets of US dollars, only handed Iraq to Iran through the Shii'ia imams ..."
    "... Bush started a war in the wrong country, this makes him one of the worst presidents in History... ..."
    www.yahoo.com

    F. E. Dec, 8 hours ago

    The US/European/Saudi/Israeli policy in the ME and Central Asia can be summed up by one word: Destabilization. Or what the neocon globalists call "creative chaos". What did it create? Artificially high oil prices to line the pockets of the House of Saud and the House of Bush. It created the conditions for ramping up heroin production from Afghanistan, pipelined through the DIA/CIA with military assets. (The US government is the largest drug cartel ever). It is providing a steady stream of military-age Sunni males to sow ever more creative chaos (terrorism, crime and other forms of "cultural enrichment") in the European and American homelands. Obama and Hillary have been faithful servants of this policy. The architects of this policy will not allow it to be derailed by some big-mouth real-estate developer.

    Bill, 7 hours ago

    Defense Intelligence Agency document declassified last year shows that the Obama administration was warned in August of 2012 that if it continued it's policies, a radical Islamic regime could form in eastern Syria. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at this time.

    The report said "There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition wants, in order to isolate the Syrian regime". Lt. General Michael Flynn said; "it was a willful decision to do what they're doing. Supporting Salafist's, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood". So in my humble opinion, not only are Obama and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they are the parents that gave birth to his freak of nature known as ISIL/ISIS.

    Al, 14 hours ago

    When America was attacked on 911, the world inhaled waiting for our response. It could have been anything from a nuke on Afghanistan's mountains where the Taliban and Al Qaeda came together with Osama, or an invasion of Afghanistan and the rounding up of all these thugs for hangings.

    The world would never have said even a word, including Russia. But, no Bush had to invade...of all countries....Iraq....while the perpetrators of 911 were in Afghanistan, and in the Saudi Royal family which bankrolled the 911 operation. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the phony elections of leaders who walked away with pallets of US dollars, only handed Iraq to Iran through the Shii'ia imams.

    Bush started a war in the wrong country, this makes him one of the worst presidents in History...

    [Aug 13, 2016] Inside The Head Of Trump Voters

    Notable quotes:
    "... individuals' innate psychological predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate, that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration, civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most heated. ..."
    "... But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order. ..."
    "... It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And: "They are members of our community." ..."
    "... The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West, and there's really only one way to stop it. ..."
    "... we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says, drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity (as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart. ..."
    "... If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism. ..."
    "... I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for a long time. ..."
    "... The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality. ..."
    "... Haidt says that the authoritarian impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by choice. ..."
    The American Conservative
    If you look back far enough in humankind's history, you will observe that you don't see civilizations starting without their building temples first. Haidt, who is a secular liberal, is not making a theistic point, not really. He's saying that the work of civilization can only be accomplished when a people binds itself together around a shared sense of the sacred. It's what makes a people a people, and a civilization a civilization. "It doesn't have to be a god," says Haidt. Anything that we hold sacred, and hold it together, is enough.

    The thing is, this force works like an electromagnetic field: the more tightly it binds us, the more alien others appear to us, and the more we find it impossible to empathize with them. This is what Haidt means by saying that morality binds and blinds.

    Haidt quizzes the 700-800 people in the hall about their Hillary vs. Trump feelings. The group - all psychologists, therapists, professors of psychology, and so forth - were overwhelmingly pro-Hillary and anti-Trump. No surprise there. But then he tells them that if they believe that they could treat without bias a patient who is an open Trump supporter, they're lying to themselves. In the America of 2016, political bias is the most powerful bias of all - more polarizing by far than race, even.

    Haidt turns to the work of social psychologist Karen Stenner, and her 2005 book The Authoritarian Dynamic. The publisher describes the book like this (boldface emphases mine):

    What are the root causes of intolerance? This book addresses that question by developing a universal theory of what determines intolerance of difference in general, which includes racism, political intolerance, moral intolerance and punitiveness. It demonstrates that all these seemingly disparate attitudes are principally caused by just two factors: individuals' innate psychological predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate, that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration, civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most heated.

    Haidt says Stenner discerns three strands of contemporary political conservatism: 1) laissez-faire libertarians (typically, business Republicans); 2) Burkeans (e.g., social conservatives who value stability); and 3) authoritarians.

    Haidt makes a point of saying that it's simply wrong to call Trump a fascist. He's too individualistic for that. He's an authoritarian, but that is not a synonym for fascist, no matter how much the Left wants to say it is.

    According to Haidt's reading of Stenner, authoritarianism is not a stable personality trait. Most people are not naturally authoritarian. But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order.

    It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And: "They are members of our community."

    The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West, and there's really only one way to stop it.

    At the 41:37 point in the talk, Haidt says that we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says, drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity (as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart.

    This fall, the Democrats are taking Stenner's advice brilliantly, says Haidt, referring to the convention the Dems just put on, and Hillary's speech about how we're all better off standing together. Haidt says this is actually good advice, period. "It's not just propaganda you wheel out at election time," he says. If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism.

    To end the talk, Haidt focuses on what his own very tribe - psychologists and academics - can do to make things better. They can start by being aware of their own extreme bias. "We lean very far left," he says, then shows a graph tracking how far from the center the academy has become over the past 20 years.

    Haidt says we don't need "equality" - that is, an equal number of conservatives and liberals in the academy. We just need to have diversity enough for people to be challenged in their viewpoints, so an academic community can flourish according to its nature. But this is not what we have. According to the research Haidt presents, in 1996, liberals in the academy outnumbered conservatives 2:1. Today, it's 5:1 - and the conservatives are concentrated in engineering and other technical fields. Says Haidt: "In the core areas of the university - in the humanities and social sciences - it's 10 to 1 and 40 to 1."

    The Right has left the university faculties, he said - and a lot of that is because they got tired of the "hostile climate and discrimination"

    "People who are not on the left … are often in the closet," says Haidt. "They can't speak up. They can't criticize. They hear somebody say something, they believe it's false, but they can't speak up and say why they believe it's false. And that is a breakdown in our science."

    Until they repent (my word, not his), university professors will continue to be part of the problem, not the solution, says Haidt. He ends by calling on his colleagues to "get our hearts in order." To stop being moralistic hypocrites. To be humble. To be more forgiving, and more open to hearing what their opponents have to say. Says Haidt, "If we want to change things, we need to do it more from the perspective of love, not of hate."

    It's an extraordinary speech by a brave man who is a true humanist. Watch it all here, and read more about it.

    Here's what I think about all of this.

    I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for a long time.

    We are the people who defile what they consider most sacred: sexual liberty, including abortion rights and gay rights. The liberals in control now (as distinct from all liberals, let me be clear) have made it clear that they will not compromise with what they consider to be evil. We are the Klan to them. Error has no rights in this world they're building.

    If you'll recall my blogging about Hillary Clinton's convention speech, I really liked it in theory - the unity business. The thing is, I don't believe for one second that it is anything but election propaganda. I don't believe that the Democratic Party today has any interest in making space for us. I wish I did believe that. I don't see any evidence for it. They and their supporters will drive us out of certain professions, and do whatever they can to rub our noses in the dirt.

    I know liberal readers of this blog will say, "But we don't!" To which I say: you don't, maybe, but you're not running the show, alas.

    The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality. As I've written in this space many times, this is not something that was done to us; all of us, Republicans and Democrats, Christians and non-Christians, have done this to ourselves. At this point, all I want for my tribe is to be left alone. But the crusading Left won't let that happen anymore. They don't even want the Mormons to be allowed to play football foe the Big 12, for heaven's sake. This assault is relentless. Far too many complacent Christians believe it will never hurt them, that it will never happen where they live. It can and it will.

    There is no center anymore. Alasdair MacIntyre was right. I may not be able to vote in good conscience for Trump (and I certainly will not vote for Hillary Clinton), but I know exactly why a number of good people have convinced themselves that this is the right thing to do. Haidt says that the authoritarian impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by choice.

    This week, I've been interviewing people for the Work chapter of my Benedict Option book. In all but one case, the interviewees - lawyers, law professors, a doctor, corporate types, academics - would only share their opinion if I promised that I wouldn't use their name. They know what things are like where they work. They know that this is going to spread. That fear, that remaining inside the closet, tells you something about where you are. When professionals feel that to state their opinion would be to put their careers at risk, we are not in normal times.

    The center has not held. I certainly wish Jon Haidt well. He's a good man doing brave, important work. And I hope he proves me wrong on this. I honestly do. Because if I'm right, there goes America. On the other hand, reasoning that this must not be true therefore it is not true is a good way to get run over.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in the USA

    Notable quotes:
    "... The party left me ..."
    "... "The larger conclusion from the data is that the Trump campaign - both through the support Trump generates among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated, more affluent voters - has accelerated the ongoing transformation of the Democratic Party. ..."
    "... Once a class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and, importantly, ethnic and racial minorities, many of them low income" ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Democrats' Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S." [The Intercept].

    The party left me

    "The larger conclusion from the data is that the Trump campaign - both through the support Trump generates among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated, more affluent voters - has accelerated the ongoing transformation of the Democratic Party.

    Once a class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and, importantly, ethnic and racial minorities, many of them low income"

    [Thomas Edsall, New York Times]. Citing this tweet:

    [Aug 12, 2016] Robert Fitrakis Sanders May Have Lost Due to Election Fraud

    www.defenddemocracy.press

    Defend Democracy Press

    FITRAKIS: Well one of the obvious things in this election was the visible hijacking of Bernie Sanders voters. Bernie brought in what political scientists would call an asymmetrical entrance of new voters. He went out and got a lot of people that hadn�t voted previously and at first emerged in New York City, in Brooklyn where you had 126 thousand people. Overwhelmingly new voters supporting Bernie that were purged at the last second from the voting rolls. And that�s being investigated but it turned out to be a clerk said to have Republican leanings. But just prior to the purge, the daughter of a Clinton super delegate had bought property from her. A million and a half dollars over the street value that wasn�t even being listed. So at least it calls into question, whether it was an old fashioned Tammany Hall bribe for purging voters.

    So it�s what me and my co-author Harvey [Wasserman] call vote stripping, right? I think before this is all through the leaks by the Democratic National Committee, you�ll find that somebody had access to those databases and were targeting the Bernie people to purge them.

    NOOR: And can you talk about what the tactics were that were used in order to target these Bernie supporters and as youre saying, discount their votes?

    FITRAKIS: Well, you simply purge them from the voting rolls. And that can be done in a variety of ways depending upon the state. In most states people dont realize it but you privatize with companies, the voter databases. And also you have often these poll books. Many of them are electronic that are also created by proprietary companies.

    So the US is the only democracy in the world that allows private for profit partisan companies those that actually make contributions as did Dominion, the remnants of [Depolled] that went out of business for worldwide fraud following the 04 election and Hart Intercivic. So Hart Intercivic and Dominion both made contributions to the Clinton foundation. So you wonder, when a candidates running for president, why are voting machine companies making donations to their campaigns?

    So we allow these private, for-profit partisan companies to count our vote, to set our databases with secret proprietary software that nobody can look at. It violates every principle of transparency. And the only person on a high level willing to talk about this is Jimmy Carter, who says to Der Spiegel that America has a dysfunctional democracy and that we dont meet minimum standards of transparency.

    ... ... ...

    So all the evidence says were the absolute worst. But youve got this enculturation. Youve got two parties and both historically corporate capitalists parties, particularly since the Koch brothers decided we needed a DLC following the 84 election that they wanted a corporate wing of the Republican Party and they got that in 1992 in the form of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, which were both DLC people. Two corporate capitalist free trade parties. People wouldnt even, many people think Sanders was very progressive and he was and he spoke as a democratic socialist.

    But Jerry Brown in 1992 called for a 50% cut in the U.S. military. I mean, thats territory. But George Herbert Walker Bush actually talked about a peace dividend. We dont even talk anymore about nearly half of the money on planet earth beings spent in the U.S. military. And weve got soldier arguably or advisers in 181 out of 203 nations no one wants to say in great detail. And Sanders was touching on all these issues that that appears to be imperialism.

    But these the Stein campaign has enormous room to actually talk about what is happening in the United States. She asked people on the stage at this convention actually used the correct term, imperialism. And they actually do talk about a rigged election system. Because its systematically rigged when you bring these private contractors in and then they say its a computer glitch. In 2004 [D Bolt] two weeks before the election, accidentally glitched 10,000 voters in the city of Cleveland who were going to vote 95% for John Kerry.

    I dont believe those are glitches. I believe private contractors in this privatization has allowed big money to come in in the form of the corporation. And theres an old axiom, theres not much money in counting vote but theres a lot of money in the voting results.

    [Aug 12, 2016] Michael Hudson: Clintons Red-Baiting Distracts from Failure to Address Inequality, War-Mongering as Trump Flails

    This lesser evilness trap is a standard trick inherent in two party system setup, designed to prevent voting for third party candidate and essentially limiting public discourse to selection between two oligarchy stooges. Moreover Hillary is definitely greater evil. Invoking of Nader to justify voting for Hillary is pure neoliberal propaganda designed to get the establishment candidate (who has significant and dangerous for any politician, to say nothing about POTUS, health problems) into White House. that why neoliberal MSM are baking non-stop at Trump, trying exaggerate any his misstep to galactic proportions. ...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American ..."
    "... Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers. ..."
    "... Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump. ..."
    "... She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. ..."
    "... Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. ..."
    "... "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity." ..."
    "... I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals. ..."
    "... I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades? ..."
    "... The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess. ..."
    "... I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. ..."
    "... As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything ..."
    "... You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country. ..."
    "... Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of. ..."
    "... As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager? ..."
    "... It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. ..."
    "... Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention. ..."
    "... I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House. ..."
    "... You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed. ..."
    "... Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things. ..."
    "... Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way. ..."
    "... He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed. ..."
    "... While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake". ..."
    "... Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's. ..."
    "... IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted. ..."
    "... Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war? ..."
    "... It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV. ..."
    "... You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear. ..."
    "... If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now. ..."
    "... "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.) ..."
    "... Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer." ..."
    "... That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care. ..."
    "... clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign. ..."
    "... it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it. ..."
    "... At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." ..."
    "... Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical ..."
    "... The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games. ..."
    "... Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards. ..."
    "... HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc. ..."
    "... They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex ..."
    "... "When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism. ..."
    "... He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech. ..."
    "... Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics ..."
    "... Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye. ..."
    "... Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship. ..."
    "... A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy". ..."
    "... How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile. Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy. ..."
    "... Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for Trump to attempt a mass purge. ..."
    "... Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life! ..."
    "... How could Trump become a dictator? ..."
    "... This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight. ..."
    "... While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ... ... ...

    PERIES: So Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American . Now, this type of association game, which is supposed to make it difficult for Sanders supporters to criticize Clinton, what implication does this have on the overall politics in this country?

    HUDSON: Well, it certainly changed things in earlier elections. The Republican convention was as is normal, all about their candidate Trump. But surprisingly, so was the Democratic convention. That was all about Trump too – as the devil. The platform Hillary's running on is "I'm not Trump. I'm the lesser evil."

    She elaborates that by saying that Trump is Putin's ploy. When the Democratic National Committee (someone within it, or without) leaked the information to Wikileaks, the Democrats and Hillary asked, "Who benefits from this"? Ah-ha. Becaue Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers.

    Then Assange did an Internet interview and implied that it was not a cyberwar attack but a leak – indicating that it came from an insider inn the DNC. If this is true, then the Democrats are simply trying to blame it all on Trump – diverting attention from what the leaks' actual content!

    This is old-fashioned red baiting. I saw it 60 years ago when I was a teenager. I went to a high school where teachers used to turn in reports on what we said in class to the FBI every month. The State Department was emptied out of "realists" and staffed with Alan Dulles-type Cold Warriors. One couldn't talk about certain subjects. That is what red-baiting does. So the effect at the Democratic Convention was about Hillary trying to avoid taking about her own policies and herself. Except for what her husband said about "I met a girl" (not meaning Jennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinski.)

    The red baiting succeeded, and the convention wasn't about Hillary – at least, not her economic policies. It was more about Obama. She tied herself to Obama, and next to Trump = Putin, the convention's second underlying theme was that Hillary was going to be Obama's third term. That's what Obama himself said when he came and addressed the convention.

    The problem with this strategy is it's exactly the problem the Republicans faced in 2008, when voters turned against George Bush's administration. Voters wanted change. And they do today. Hillary did not say "I'm going to have hope and change from the last years of Obama." She said, in effect, "I'm not going to change anything. I'm going to continue Obama's policies that have made you all so prosperous." She talked about how employment is rising and everyone is better off.

    Well, the problem is that many people aren't better off than the last eight years. Ten million families have lost their homes, and most peoples' budgets are being squeezed. Obama saved the banks not the economy. So Trump's line and the Republican line in this election could well be: "Are you really better off than you were eight years ago? Or, are you actually worse off? Where are all your gains? You're further in debt. You're having more difficulty meeting your paychecks, you're running up your student loans. You're really not better off and we're going to be the party of hope and change."

    Hillary can't really counter that with the policies she has. Trump and the Republicans can say that even though she disavowed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the trade agreement with Europe, all the Democratic representatives that voted for the TPP have won re-nomination, and it's still on the burner.

    Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump.

    What did Hilary actually say at the convention besides "I'm not Trump, Trump is worse." She's trying to make the whole election over her rival, not over herself.

    PERIES: Okay, so everything you say about Hillary Clinton may be true, and it's more in your favor that it is true. She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. So when we opened this interview we were talking about what the Bernie Sanders supporters should now do, because Trump is starting to appeal like he's the candidate of ordinary people. So what are they to do?

    HUDSON: Well, if the election is between the most unpopular woman candidate in America and the most unpopular male candidate, the winner is going to be whoever can make the election fought over the other person. Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. It looks like she's able to do this, because Trump is even more narcissistic than she is.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 5:37 am

    EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie. Diametrically opposed to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her! What? I will never understand that.

    "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."

    He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals.

    She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again said she wants to take out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just hope that there's a big Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.

    Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of course, if war wasn't making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary, never mind its continual expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.

    God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP, more NATO, more war, and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails hanging around, now is the time!

    Katniss Everdeen , August 10, 2016 at 7:30 am

    I honestly don't think there's any way to predict what Donald Trump will do if elected. He's effectively a private citizen who, all of a sudden, will have access to every government secret and lie, and no culpability for any of it. It's almost impossible to imagine what that would be like.

    And it's what makes him so "dangerous."

    I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades?

    The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess.

    PlutoniumKun , August 10, 2016 at 8:09 am

    I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. I doubt he would be able to get much done as there would be an establishment consensus to keep him firmly under wraps. He would mostly busy himself with jetting around meeting foreign leaders and he might actually be quite productive at that.

    jrs , August 10, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    or he'll pass what he campaigns on which is standard Republican policy (sometimes) through an entirely Republican legislature duh. So tax cuts, cuts to regulation etc.. Really he's campaigning on these things and they CAN pass a Republican congress.

    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Yes, if Donnie is elected, we'll see some form of a Regency; that's what Pence is there for. Donnie will be Clown Prince, while more traditionally evil Republican/DC technocrats "run" things. It would be a re-doing of the Reagan/Bush-Baker and Bush/Cheney dynamic, as seen on reality TV.

    As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything. Does he lie exactly the way Hillary does? Of course not, she's the accomplished professional, while Donnie spins plates and tries to misdirect by finding someone to insult when they fall and shatter.

    Vote for Hillary or not (I most likely won't, but can't predict much of anything in this all-bets-are-off opera buffa), but by believing anything Donnie says, you risk being the chump he already thinks you are.

    oh , August 10, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country.

    EoinW , August 10, 2016 at 8:28 am

    Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of.

    When was the last time a political candidate in any country was as hated by the establishment as Trump is? That's all you need to know. As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager?

    Pat , August 10, 2016 at 10:32 am

    It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. Something, that for all her rhetoric, there is no reason to believe that Clinton will change. As for waging war, we have a whole lot of information that for all his massive drone wars and interventions in the Middle East, Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention.

    I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House.

    You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed.

    Once again, people are choosing from known despicable, unknown possibly lesser possibly greater despicable, and unlikely to win third parties or write ins – everyone can only do that for themselves.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 10:53 am

    That's fair.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    One New York reporter (sorry, I don't have the link) said that he has watched Trump his whole life and he said, though he could say many bad things about Trump, racism wasn't one of them. He said he had never in all his years of watching him known Trump to be racist in any way.

    Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things.

    Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way.

    He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake".

    Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's.

    IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted.

    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:37 pm

    Needs a link, especially on a key point like that!!

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Okay, I'm pretty sure I saw it at Counterpunch. I think I can probably find it. Thanks.

    Michael Fiorillo , August 10, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    That's preposterous about Donnie not being racist. When the Central Park Five (released from prison and compensated by the state for false impisonment) were arrested, Donnie took out full page ads for days in the NYC papers, all but calling for those (innocent) boy's lynching. He was raised in an explicitly racist milieu – his father arrested at a KKK tussle in Queens in the 1920's, and successfully sued by the Nixon DOJ for his discriminatory rental policies…) and has a long history of saying ignorant, absurd and racist things about "The Blacks."

    shinola , August 10, 2016 at 10:56 am

    "Clinton is awful, but that doesn't mean it's a better idea to elect a hateful, racist, despicable con man"

    Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war?

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 11:25 am

    It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV.

    Hatred and racism is exhibited in leaders by being a war monger and gutting this nation with the TPP and lousy trade deals that sell off our national sovereignty and democracy. You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    I am with Noam Chomsky on this. If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now.

    But as Pat said above, everyone must make up his or her own mind.

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Of course my friend, you have to vote your conscience is the way I've always felt. You have to be able to live with your vote.

    lyman alpha blob , August 10, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Has there ever been any evidence that this type of strategic voting has ever done any good whatsoever or ever had its intended result? Just speculation but I'm guessing that only a very few of the very politically astute would even bother. I say vote your conscience regardless and let the chips fall where they may.

    Not the voters fault that this is the best the two major parties could come up with.

    Tyler , August 10, 2016 at 9:35 am

    Speaking of revolution, I emailed Chomsky yesterday and he replied. The below is my message to him.

    Professor Chomsky,

    In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign, which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death, but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact.

    I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change, poverty, illegal wars, etc.

    Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action?

    Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world.

    The below is Chomsky's reply.

    It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination. I hope you manage to revive it.

    MikeNY , August 10, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    Bravo! Chomsky and MLK are two of my heros, as I think they are for many here.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good quote on how she felt about universal health care:

    "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)

    "David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer "Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/27/feel-the-hate/

    That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care.

    Perhaps Yves could highlight Hillary's disdain for single-payer healthcare on another post. Thanks.

    Lambert Strether , August 10, 2016 at 3:35 pm

    Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen CBS

    vidimi , August 10, 2016 at 9:52 am

    clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign.

    Steve Sewall , August 10, 2016 at 11:08 am

    I love Michael Hudson. But like everyone commenting here he is needlessly thinking inside the crumbling box of America's existing top-down, money-driven system of political discourse. So what is it that keeps us from thinking outside this godawful box? I think we're all so deeply and habitually embedded in the mode of being status quo critics that we're unable to enter the problem-solving mode of finding alternatives to it. But to make government work in America, we need to think in both modes.

    So let's think outside the box for a minute. After all, it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it.

    At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." Yet like all presidential candidates this year Bernie didn't take the next, logical step: he didn't call for the creation of a new political discourse system. (Note that Hillary alone among the top three candidates never, ever has a bad word to say against the current system.)

    OK, so what might a new system look like? First off, it would be non-partisan, issue-centered and deliberative. And citizen-participatory. It would make citizens and governments responsive and accountable to each other in shaping the best futures of their communities. That's its core principal.

    More specifically, the format of a reality TV show like The Voice or American Idol could readily be adapted to create ongoing, prime-time, issue-centered searches for solutions to any and all of the issues of the day. And of course problem-solving Reality TV is just of any number of formats that could work for TV. Other media could develop formats tap their strengths and appeal to their audiences.

    I'm from Chicago, so here's how it could take shape in the Windy City .

    Thanks to the miracle of modern communications technologies, there's nothing to stop Americans from having a citizen-participatory system of political discourse that gives all Americans an informed voice in the political and government decisions that affect their lives. Americans will flock in drove to ongoing, rule-governed problem-solving public forums that earn the respect and trust of citizens and political leaders alike. When we create them, governments at local, state and national levels will start working again. If we don't, our politics will continue to sink deeper into the cesspool we're in now.

    Left in Wisconsin , August 10, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical, unless there is a real socialist-ish movement out there educating and politicizing. In other words, while the political system is indeed broken, the economy is also broken and it is hard to see "empowered" citizens fixing the economy. What I think would happen is the politicians elected by these empowered citizens would be opposed by big business and the politicians they own, nothing good would get done, and there would be a business-financed media drumbeat that more democracy has been "proven" not to work.

    I don't think our political problems can be solved simply be electing better politicians – though of course we do need better politicians.

    TedWa , August 10, 2016 at 11:40 am

    The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    I have not had nearly the hardship you have had crittermom and I have not lived as long either, but at 27, and being someone who has been discontent with social structure since middle school, I have absolutely had enough. Genetics, environment, the combination of internal-external factors, whatever it was I have always had a very ("annoying" and sarcastic) curiousity or oppositional approach to things, especially things people do not question and accept as is (religion, government…).

    Growing older has only led me to greater understanding of the pit we reside within and how we probably will not get out. This election season in particular has been ridiculously… indescribable. The utter incompetence of our selfish administrations is finally coming to a head and people are completely oblivious, pulling the same stale BS that we have seen every four years since before I was born.

    Bernie totally blew it but, outside your hardship, don't ever think you effort was a waste. For once an honest candidate appeared who was backed by the policies we need and you supported that (as I did). That is the most we can do at this point. Bernie the man should absolutely be criticized because he wanted a "revolution" then sold out to the Junta instead of biting back when it would have really sent a message to the people and high rollers. He wasn't willing to sacrifice what was necessary to make a stand. Instead he sided with the people that have made careers sacrificing citizens like you–and that is terrible. The reality these people live in and teach to others is such a lie.

    Roger Smith , August 10, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    These circumstances constantly remind me of the closing passage from Robert A. Heinlein's All You Zombies" :

    The Snake That Eats Its Own Tail, Forever and Ever. I know where I came from-but where did all you
    zombies come from?

    I felt a headache coming on, but a headache powder is one thing I do not take. I did once-and you all went away.

    So I crawled into bed and whistled out the light.

    You aren't really there at all. There isn't anybody but me-Jane-here alone in the dark.

    I miss you dreadfully!

    Carolinian , August 10, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    America needs an ineffective president .

    Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards.

    So despite his potty mouth there's something to be said for Mr. Trump Goes to Washington. By the time he figures out how to be caudillo it may be time for another election.

    backwardsevolution , August 10, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc.

    They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have thought that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in America, wants to stop wars, and the one on the left is for the monied class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.

    The following article is old now, from April, but it gives you an idea of "Why the Establishment Hates Trump" and what he is planning on doing. Watch them go after him; they will vilify him.

    "When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism.

    But the silenced policies he advocates are more like jumping into a crocodile pit. He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech.

    Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics.

    Big Pharma is also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of prices". The even more powerful HMO's are confronted by the possibility of a "one-payer system", the devil incarnate in America's corporate-welfare state."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/05/why-the-establishment-hates-trump/

    Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye.

    MLaRowe , August 10, 2016 at 10:53 pm

    So I don't usually post here, just mostly read what other folks have to say.

    Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship.

    So if that is the case is Trump going to take us into the land of dictatorship (which I believe is highly likely) or are any of us going to be able to tread water for a little longer with HRC (who I agree is ugh a non-choice but hopefully the lesser of the two evils).

    Looking this up I found the concept of the Tytler Cycle. Interesting and scary. This is off wikipedia:

    Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy".

    Anyway can someone refute this for me so I can sleep tonight? Thanks, in advance.

    flora , August 10, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    Sounds a bit too deterministic.

    Roland , August 11, 2016 at 4:51 am

    @ MLaRowe

    How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile. Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy.

    Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for Trump to attempt a mass purge.

    So exactly how the hell would Trump impose his will on the American masses? Answer: No Way.

    President Trump can only be a relatively weak president.

    Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life!

    Roger Smith , August 11, 2016 at 10:48 am

    How could Trump become a dictator?

    Thank you! The same question I have been asking repeatedly throughout this charade. Everyone's favorite line is "Trump will be a dictator [be afriad]!" The obvious question… how ?!

    How is Trump going to have the same or any more power within or over the system than any president before him?? What is a reasonable strategy with which he could upend and create domination over this system with? This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight.

    Roger Smith , August 11, 2016 at 10:42 am

    I have felt for a long time but have struggled to put into words the deep, strong aversion I have towards Clinton (et al.)and that I feel any time I read about her or see her. There is a phrase in the song Art War , by the Knack, that caught my ear; what I originally heard as, "malice of forethought". To me this represents the idea that terrible, harmful, far-reaching, incompetent decisions are made completely on purpose. After doing some research I discovered that the phrase is actually "malice aforethought", related to murderous intent in legal definitions. A second, more appropriate definition here is "a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others". This represents my internal shuddering exactly – a sort of willful, deadly incompetence.

    While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not.

    [Aug 11, 2016] Is Trump Wrecking Both Parties - The New York Times

    Amazing: neoliberalism -- the social system under which everybody in the USA lives is not mentioned onece. This looks like Politburo in the USSR prohibit mentioning communism by name. Clinton health problems, reckless gingoism and neocon domonance in forigh policy also are not discussed. As oif they do not exist. The fact that Demorats lost owrking class was by design as Clinton sold the party to Wall Streeet, counting that blue color workers has nowhere to go. Which was rthe case until 2016 election (actually the king of bait-and-switch Obama striggled in 2012 and if Republican have has better candidate he would be a toast). Betraysl of New Deal hangs like a curse of neoliberal Democtatic Party. Those sucher need to pay for the betrayls and it might that time has come. .
    Notable quotes:
    "... In case you weren't convinced Democrats are becoming the cosmopolitan elite party. ..."
    "... They abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. The enthroning of free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy norm by the European Union, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF was arguably the most fateful decision for the global economy in recent decades. ..."
    "... Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners, in collaboration with many of those in the top 20 percent who are determined to protect and secure their economic and social status. ..."
    "... increasingly disconnected from working-class America. I mean that in a very specific sense. Our residences are increasingly segregated by class. Our schools are increasingly segregated by class. Our extended families are increasingly separated by class. ..."
    "... working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort - programs like Social Security and Medicare. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    ... ... ...

    On Aug. 7, Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at New America, a center-left Washington think tank, posted some of the findings from an Aug. 1 CNN survey on Twitter with a succinct comment:

    In case you weren't convinced Democrats are becoming the cosmopolitan elite party.

    ... ... ...

    "The voice of the left - especially the old social democratic left - has lost force in recent years," Ian Buruma, a professor of democracy, human rights, and journalism at Bard College, wrote me in an email.

    This is partly because leftwing parties since the 1960s began to switch their attention from working class struggle to identity politics.

    There is, Buruma went on,

    a common anxiety about the effects of globalism, multinational corporate power, immigration. More and more people feel unrepresented. When they complained about immigration or the bewildering changes effected by a global economy, such people were too easily dismissed as racists and bigots. Now they blame the "liberal elites" for all their anxieties.

    Dani Rodrik, a professor of international political economy at Harvard, is even harsher in his critique of contemporary liberalism. "Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of the blame," Rodrik writes, in an essay, " The Abdication of the Left ," published in July by Project Syndicate.

    Rodrik does not let up:

    They abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. The enthroning of free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy norm by the European Union, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF was arguably the most fateful decision for the global economy in recent decades.

    Left policy makers and analysts, Rodrik writes, face

    the paradox that earlier waves of reforms from the left – Keynesianism, social democracy, the welfare state – both saved capitalism from itself and effectively rendered themselves superfluous.

    If [neo]liberal public policy intellectuals are unable develop "a clear program to refashion capitalism and globalization for the twenty-first century," Rodrik warns, "the field will be left wide open for populists and far-right groups who will lead the world – as they always have – to deeper division and more frequent conflict."

    If current trends continue, not only will there be a class inversion among the white supporters of the Democratic Party , but the party will become increasingly dependent on a white upper middle class that has isolated itself from the rest of American society.

    Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners, in collaboration with many of those in the top 20 percent who are determined to protect and secure their economic and social status.

    In an interview published by Vox.com on Aug. 8, Robert Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, described the consequences of the emergence of "liberal cosmopolitans, really the upper and middle class of America," who are

    increasingly disconnected from working-class America. I mean that in a very specific sense. Our residences are increasingly segregated by class. Our schools are increasingly segregated by class. Our extended families are increasingly separated by class.

    Writing in Politico magazine in May , Michael Lind, also a fellow at New America, argues that this cultural conflict created the political environment that made the Trump phenomenon possible in the first place:

    Most culture-war conflicts involve sexuality, gender, or reproduction. Social issues spurred a partisan realignment by changing who considered themselves Democrats and Republicans. Over decades, socially conservative working-class whites migrated from the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party, especially in the South. Socially moderate Republicans, especially on the East Coast, shifted to the Democratic coalition.

    The result, in Lind's view, is an emerging Republican Party dominated by

    working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort - programs like Social Security and Medicare. But they will tend to oppose means-tested programs for the poor whose benefits they and their families cannot enjoy.

    This shift, Lind points out, will powerfully alter the Democratic coalition, too. The Democrats will become

    even more of an alliance of upscale, progressive whites with blacks and Latinos, based in large and diverse cities. They will think of the U.S. as a version of their multicultural coalition of distinct racial and ethnic identity groups writ large. Many younger progressives will take it for granted that moral people are citizens of the world, equating nationalism and patriotism with racism and fascism.

    From this vantage point, Trump and the pro-social insurance populist right that has emerged in much of Europe are as much the result of the vacuum created by traditional liberal political parties as they are a function of the neglect of working class interests by conservatives.

  • Matthew Carnicelli is a trusted commenter Brooklyn, New York 5 hours ago

    Tom, I keep reading these elite analyses of the political restructuring that the Drumpf campaign is allegedly ushering in - and yet fail to see where the actual institutional support for these policies will come from within the Republican Party.

    Paul Ryan is still talking down Social Security and Medicare, and he is considered the GOP's intellectual leader. Drumpf was recently quoted as agreeing with Ryan's critique of Social Security.

    The conservative think tanks like AEI and Heritage still have Social Security and Medicare within their crosshairs - and are still peddling the same old supply side snake oil, as is Drumpf with his tax plan. And Drumpf's plan can only be paid for by savage cuts in every other area of the Federal budget.

    The problem with this entire argument is that Drumpf believes in nothing but "winning" - and will say absolutely anything to win, anything at all, even if it has a snowball's chance of hell of finding support with the Republican Party.

    If Drumpf managed to win the Presidency, his single term (and he would only get one) would either be the mother of all political train wrecks - or a complete and utter repudiation of everything he ran on as a candidate, aside from the racism, xenophobia, and collective insanity that has overtaken the right.

    As a person far more comfortable parsing zeitgeist, let me suggest that it's a terrible idea to draw conclusions while in the middle of a wave that you've yet to even identify.

    HDNY is a trusted commenter New York, N.Y. 3 hours ago

    The Times has reverted to its previous position of pretending that Bernie Sanders and his millions of supporters don't exist. This article pretends all Democrats are willful Clinton supporters and that Republicans are forced between choosing Donald Trump's Republican Party or Hillary Clinton's Democratic Party.

    The Times' editors' refusal to give credibility to the Sanders campaign actually shows their complicity in making the Democratic Party more elitist, more corporate and Wall St. oriented, and less involved with the needs of the poor and lower middle classes. Now they are bequeathing that emphasis to Trump, still refusing to acknowledge the impact of the Sanders campaign and its supporters.

    What's even odder is that the article points out the Republican 'Reformocons', a group that made a far less significant impact on this election than did Bernie Sanders.

    The good points made in this article are lost by painting the American political scene with such a broad brush. The Times needs to pay more attention to what's really happening in this country.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Paul Wortman East Setauket, NY 2 hours ago

    "A pox on both their houses." What we have seen over the past 30 years is the end of the social balance between Big Business, Big Government and Big Labor. Today it we have one force--that of the corporate goliaths--in control of government through their funding of politicians who have worked to eliminate labor as a force. If their is one critique on the Bernie Sanders left and the Donald Trump right, it's been the almost total disenfranchisement of working Americans. While the focus is on trade agreement written in secret by corporations, it needs to focus of workers who can bargain collectively to ensure they share in their productivity gains and whose rights are protected from the "race-to-the-bottom" trade agreements. Both political parties have failed here and neither the new Trump right nor the Sanders left have put forward a real pro-worker, pro-Big Labor agenda. If workers are left behind, as we've seen in the rise of communism in the past, we have immense social unrest. And, until we remove the corporate choke-hold on Big Government by getting money out of politics, we will continue to move away from the balance of social forces essential to a viable democracy toward an oligarchy either by an autocratic Trump or a Wall Street corporate Clinton.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • James Lee Arlington, Texas 3 hours ago

    The main conclusion of the studies cited by Professor Edsall seems to center on the inability of either political party to mobilize the long-term support of the white working class. The Republicans remain in thrall to corporate America, as reflected in Paul Ryan's stubborn attachment to discredited supply-side nostrums. The Democrats, although still committed to a higher minimum wage and the social safety net, focus their policies on helping the middle and professional classes.

    The main responsibility for this situation falls on the Democrats. The GOP never represented the interests of the working class, but FDR's party had achieved political dominance by doing so. In the 1960s, LBJ made the momentous decision to stake his party's future on support of the civil right's revolution, a choice he believed would alienate the white south for a generation.

    At the same time, however, he launched his war on poverty, a program with the potential to unite the interests of black Americans with those of the white working class, in the south as well as elsewhere. The failure of that ambitious initiative, caused in part by the diversion of resources and political energy to the war in Vietnam, soured the Democratic leadership after 1968 on expensive programs designed to help the very groups gloabalization would threaten.

    The Clintons won in 1992 by jettisoning their party's social democratic agenda. Even Bernie Sanders paid attention mainly to the needs of the middle class.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Eloise Freehold 2 hours ago

    We certainly hope so. Neither party represents the vast majority of citizens. Instead both major parties represent the interests of the elite, the financial elite, which populate the spectrum of what passes for political thought from extreme liberals, such as Soros, Holloywood and Ivy League tax-free endowments to extreme conservatives, such as Kochs and Limbaugh. From taxation, to trade policies to criminal justice applications to protection of banksters, the major parties are complicit in and responsible for the appalling state of our affairs. A wreck of an election that tarnishes their brands and ushers in alternatives is perhaps too much to expect; it is not however too much to hope for.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Kim New York 2 hours ago

    Recking? More like exposing. No secret the Dems' all-inclusive rhetoric is just that RHETORIC. The party has abandoned the working class. Once American "middle class" was the pride of the world. But what was that "middle class"? It was working class with good jobs and homes, and with the opportunity of yet better life for their children. The only thing lacking was universal health care and inclusion of POC.
    But it never happened. After achieving this amazing success of turning working class into middle class, US has been steadily moving away from that ideal. Both parties have abandoned the working class. Even if the cue came from Reps, Democratic Leadership Council associated Dems (such as Clintons) have been outdoing Reps in the area of "free trade"(=losing manufacturing jobs), dismantling safety net in form of welfare, to make things worse reforming foster care to make taking children away from impoverished working class biological families easier. Dems have been paying lip service to idea of universal healthcare, affordable medications, affordable college, yet rely on the money from these industries. While Democratic rhetoric is inclusive of minorities, and they sponsor special programs for minorities, still not enough to offset the effect their policies on minorities ho are disproportionately represented in the working class. Externally Dems have been pursuing same imperialistic politics as Republicans. Clinton asking Kissinger for endorsement puts a seal on that.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • rareynolds Barnesville, OH 2 hours ago

    I am also puzzled by this column. The young want a New Deal type society. Also, it seems to me the much vaunted self-interest of the newly affluent Democrats would include shoring up the fortunes of the working class so as to increase the tax base to finance a more comfortable infrastructure and also to avoid having their own heads blown off by the mob.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Chris Berlin 2 hours ago

    Yes, Donald Trump is wrecking both parties.

    The Republican Party for obvious reasons, but they've had it coming for a long time and deserve and need to be crushed.
    The Democratic Party almost got crushed as well in 2016, equally deserved, and only survived by rigging the nomination process for the status quo candidate, quelling the populist reform movement. The military industrial complex and Wall Street have now completely moved over to the traditional blue collar Democratic Party.

    There is a good chance the traditional Republican Party will not recover from the 2016 election, becoming a long-time minority party at the presidential election level.

    The base of the Democratic Party, Latinos, Blacks and young people might finally realize that electing Wall Street, elite Democrats is not the answer to the critical issues facing the nation.
    Once white working class people, equally disaffected with trade deals that ship their jobs overseas, with endless wars and military conflicts that are supported by both parties, join forces with the democratic base in 2020, there is a real prospect for a political realignment that could revolutionize American politics for decades to come.

    Thank you, Mr.Edsall, for this this very perceptive analysis of what is happening in the 2016 election.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Marc Kagan NYC 1 hour ago

    As a first response, Bernie Sanders obviously would have been the remedy to the kind of Clintonite Democratic Party you are describing.
    Because there is a path toward a social, economic and cultural justice coalition that appeals to the working class and the casts swaths of college-educated who, due to financial pressures, are effectively working-class themselves.
    So close this year. Will we have another chance?

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Nightwatch Le Sueur MN 2 hours ago

    Both parties were beset by populist insurrections in the recently concluded primaries. The Democratic Party repulsed insurrectionist Sanders and dispatched him to the wilds of Vermont, never to be heard from again. But insurrectionist Trump stormed the Republican Party gates and now takes his insurrection into the general election contest.

    My point is, powerful populist movements attacked both parties from below. That could only happen because both parties were out of touch with a significant portion of the electorate. If Clinton wins in November, the establishment wins again and the populists will be sent away to brood. But this disconnection from the political establishment will surface again.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • EJS Granite City, Illinois 2 hours ago

    There's nothing particularly "bewildering" about the effects of the global economy. It is being structured heavily in favor of the rich and their multinational corporations, without regard for the economic well-being of the hundreds of millions of Americans being victimized. It's not difficult to understand the psychology of people being robbed with nowhere to turn because the perpetrators are both political parties using our government as their instrument. How does this article explain the Senator Bernie Sanders phenomenon? Bernie was a low profile, social democrat who received 46% of the Democratic vote. The Republicans are owned lock, stock and barrel by Organized Money and the only real hope is to recapture the Democratic Party.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Michael Boston 1 hour ago

    No, I would say Hillary bears most of the responsibility for the schisms in the democratic party this election cycle, but, Democrats never pull together. We are famous for it.

    Hillary is a business-friendly economic-moderate. She and Susan Collins have more in common than Hillary has in common with Bernie Sanders and that angers a lot of liberals. I am old enough that I am used to it, and, in general, economically liberal democrats don't win the presidency even when they manage to win the nomination.

    Don't let perfection be the enemy of adequacy. Besides, is compromise really such a horrible thing?

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Freedom Furgle WV 26 minutes ago

    What is happening to the democratic party seems very similar to what has been happening to the Labor party in the UK. At least until they elected the new leader of labor, Jeremy Corbyn.
    As an aside, this article was dull as dirt and felt like it was written on note cards.

  • Thomas McManus Springfield, NJ 27 minutes ago

    As members of the cosmopolitan elite intelligentsia Lee Drutman, Dani Rodrik, and Robert Putnam have an insular view of Amercia. Maybe they should spend some time living in a small town...

    [Aug 11, 2016] Breedlove Network Sought Weapons Deliveries for Ukraine

    High level military commanders are more politicians then commanders. And if they belong to neocons this is a dangerous and potentially explosive combination. Especially if State Department is fully aligned with Pentagon, like happened under Secretary Clinton tenure.
    Notable quotes:
    "... He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of delivering weapons to Kiev. ..."
    "... "I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????" Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell. ..."
    "... Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev. ..."
    "... One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev were asking Karber for help. ..."
    "... According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns, and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine." ..."
    "... Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance, the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days." ..."
    "... In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank munitions to Ukraine." ..."
    "... In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email. ..."
    "... At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye." ..."
    "... Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places." ..."
    "... In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee, was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly. ..."
    "... He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia. ..."
    "... The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear. Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce the number of US troops in Europe. ..."
    "... General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a hardliner vis-a-vis Russia. ..."
    "... What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate for secretary of state. ..."
    "... The now famous and appropriate quote from President Eisenhower: ..."
    "... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. ..."
    "... The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational. The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment, which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO would have no other cause for existence. ..."
    "... The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and especially Jews. ..."
    "... After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance, financed by America. ..."
    "... These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? ..."
    "... Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable. ..."
    "... Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. ..."
    "... Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE. ..."
    "... nato Breedhate? ..."
    "... SPON was always parotting him. And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda. ..."
    SPIEGEL ONLINE (SPON)
    The newly leaked emails reveal a clandestine network of Western agitators around the NATO military chief, whose presence fueled the conflict in Ukraine. Many allies found in Breedlove's alarmist public statements about alleged large Russian troop movements cause for concern early on. Earlier this year, the general was assuring the world that US European Command was "deterring Russia now and preparing to fight and win if necessary."

    The emails document for the first time the questionable sources from whom Breedlove was getting his information. He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of delivering weapons to Kiev.

    The general and his likeminded colleagues perceived US President Barack Obama, the commander-in-chief of all American forces, as well as German Chancellor Angela Merkel as obstacles. Obama and Merkel were being "politically naive & counter-productive" in their calls for de-escalation, according to Phillip Karber, a central figure in Breedlove's network who was feeding information from Ukraine to the general.

    "I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????" Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

    Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev.

    One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev were asking Karber for help.

    Surreptitious Channels

    On February 16, 2015, when the Ukraine crisis had reached its climax, Karber wrote an email to Breedlove, Clark, Pyatt and Rose Gottemoeller, the under secretary for arms control and international security at the State Department, who will be moving to Brussels this fall to take up the post of deputy secretary general of NATO. Karber was in Warsaw, and he said he had found surreptitious channels to get weapons to Ukraine -- without the US being directly involved.

    According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns, and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine."

           A destroyed airport building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk        : Thousands were killed in fighting during the Ukraine conflict.      Zoom AFP

    A destroyed airport building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk : Thousands were killed in fighting during the Ukraine conflict.

    Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance, the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days."

    "Stark," Breedlove replied. "I may share some of this but will thoroughly wipe the fingerprints off."

    In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank munitions to Ukraine."

    Much to the irritation of Breedlove, Clark and Karber, nothing happened. Those responsible were quickly identified. The National Security Council, Obama's circle of advisors, were "slowing things down," Karber complained. Clark pointed his finger directly at the White House, writing, "Our problem is higher than State," a reference to the State Department.

    ... ... ...

    'The Front Is Now Everywhere'

    Karber's emails constantly made it sound as though the apocalypse was only a few weeks away. "The front is now everywhere," he told Breedlove in an email at the beginning of 2015, adding that Russian agents and their proxies "have begun launching a series of terrorist attacks, assassinations, kidnappings and infrastructure bombings," in an effort to destabilize Kiev and other Ukrainian cities.

    In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email.

    At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye."

    Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places."

    Highly Controversial Figure

    In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee, was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly.

    He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia.

    By November 10, 2014, at the latest, Breedlove must have recognized that his informant was on thin ice. That's when Karber reported that the separatists were boasting they had a tactical nuclear warhead for the 2S4 mortar. Karber himself described the news as "weird," but also added that "there is a lot of 'crazy' things going on" in Ukraine.

    The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear. Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce the number of US troops in Europe.

    Karber confirmed the authenticity of the leaked email correspondence. Regarding the questions about the accuracy of his reports, he told SPIEGEL that, "like any information derived from direct observation at the front during the 'fog of war,' it is partial, time sensitive, and perceived through a personal perspective." Looking back with the advantage of hindsight and a more comprehensive perspective, "I believe that I was right more than wrong," Karber writes, "but certainly not perfect." He adds that, "in 170 days at the front, I never once met a German military or official directly observing the conflict."

    Great Interest in Berlin

    Breedlove's leaked email correspondences were read in Berlin with great interest. A year ago, word of the NATO commander's "dangerous propaganda" was circulating around Merkel's Chancellery. In light of the new information, officials felt vindicated in their assessment. Germany's Federal Foreign Office has expressed similar sentiment, saying that fortunately "influential voices had continuously advocated against the delivery of 'lethal weapons.'"

    Karber says he finds it "obscene that the most effective sanction of this war is not the economic limits placed on Russia, but the virtual complete embargo of all lethal aid to the victim. I find this to be the height of sophistry -- if a woman is being attacked by a group of hooligans and yells out to the crowd or passersby, 'Give me a can of mace,' is it better to not supply it because the attackers could have a knife and passively watch her get raped?"

    General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a hardliner vis-a-vis Russia.

    What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate for secretary of state.

    bubasan 07/28/2016

    Upon reading this article, I am reminded of Dwight D Eisenhowers Farewell speech to the American Public on January 17, 1961. So long as we continue the PC mentality of NOT Teaching History, as it really was, we are going to repeat past mistake's. The now famous and appropriate quote from President Eisenhower:

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.

    Inglenda2 07/28/2016

    The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational. The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment, which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO would have no other cause for existence.

    PeterCT 07/28/2016

    Why is Breedlove so fat? He is setting a bad example to his troops. Show all comments

    turnipseed 07/29/2016

    The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and especially Jews.

    After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance, financed by America.

    90-grad 07/31/2016

    Quite detailed article. Not being published in the german website. How to describe these people, basically just trying to ignite bigger conflicts, or even war. Hardliner, hawks, to me not strong enough. These are criminals of war, and they should be named accordingly. These are exactly the kind of persons, who helped Bush to invade Irak, basing on false informations to the public. And their peace endangering activities help politicians like H.Clinton to keep the peoble in fear, solely to their own benefit. Disgusting!

    huguenot1566 07/31/2016

    Extremely disturbing

    I don't even know here to begin. Breedlove, Karber, Clark all Americans, seemingly on their own without Obama's permission, trying to exaggerate or fabricate evidence in order to start a war with Russia and the danger to the world is profoundly terrifying (Iraq 2003). The US Embassy in Ukraine saying they were in the dark and therefore relying on information from a college professor, Karber, who still thinks we're in the Cold War along with Clark who was retired & meddling in an unofficial capacity as far as the story implies tells me they should be brought up on charges. And Breedlove is supposed to follow orders not make up his own policy & then try & manufacture evidence supporting that policy to start war. If the US Embassy in Ukraine says they were in the dark then clearly they were fishing for info to proactively involve themselves in another nation & region's personal business. Congress & the U.S. military should investigate as these actions violate the U.S. Constitution. Thankfully, Germany and NATO is able to say no. It tells Americans that something isn't right on their end of this.

    verbatim128 07/31/2016

    Look who was crying wolf!

    These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? We, public opinion and most Western peace-loving folk, are played like a fiddle to step into the fray to "protect" and further some age-old ethnic and nationalistic rivalries. Time to put an end to this.

    gerhard38 08/01/2016

    Fucking war monger

    Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable.

    aegiov 08/01/2016

    Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. good reporting. thank you.

    titus_norberto 08/02/2016

    The Front Is Now Everywhere, indeed...

    Quote: 'The Front Is Now Everywhere', yes indeed, we can go back to the Wilson administration, he invented the League of Nations and his nation did not even joined.

    There is a folly in American presidents, they believe they can solve worlds problems, especially in the Middle East, with two invariable results:

    1- utter failure plus CHAOS; and

    2- utter disregard for DOMESTIC GOVERNANCE.

    Now, the fact that the front is NOW 2016 everywhere is the result of failure one. Donald Trump is the result of failure two. There is another aspect to consider, what is General Breedlove doing ? Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE.

    vsepr1975 08/03/2016

    nato Breedhate?

    w.schuler 08/09/2016

    Fat Bredlove is a war monger

    This is true and it was obvious from the very beginning. But SPON was always parotting him. And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda.

    [Aug 11, 2016] Is Trump Wrecking Both Parties - The New York Times

    Amazing: neoliberalism -- the social system under which everybody in the USA lives is not mentioned onece. This looks like Politburo in the USSR prohibit mentioning communism by name. Clinton health problems, reckless gingoism and neocon domonance in forigh policy also are not discussed. As oif they do not exist. The fact that Demorats lost owrking class was by design as Clinton sold the party to Wall Streeet, counting that blue color workers has nowhere to go. Which was rthe case until 2016 election (actually the king of bait-and-switch Obama striggled in 2012 and if Republican have has better candidate he would be a toast). Betraysl of New Deal hangs like a curse of neoliberal Democtatic Party. Those sucher need to pay for the betrayls and it might that time has come. .
    Notable quotes:
    "... In case you weren't convinced Democrats are becoming the cosmopolitan elite party. ..."
    "... They abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. The enthroning of free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy norm by the European Union, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF was arguably the most fateful decision for the global economy in recent decades. ..."
    "... Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners, in collaboration with many of those in the top 20 percent who are determined to protect and secure their economic and social status. ..."
    "... increasingly disconnected from working-class America. I mean that in a very specific sense. Our residences are increasingly segregated by class. Our schools are increasingly segregated by class. Our extended families are increasingly separated by class. ..."
    "... working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort - programs like Social Security and Medicare. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    ... ... ...

    On Aug. 7, Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at New America, a center-left Washington think tank, posted some of the findings from an Aug. 1 CNN survey on Twitter with a succinct comment:

    In case you weren't convinced Democrats are becoming the cosmopolitan elite party.

    ... ... ...

    "The voice of the left - especially the old social democratic left - has lost force in recent years," Ian Buruma, a professor of democracy, human rights, and journalism at Bard College, wrote me in an email.

    This is partly because leftwing parties since the 1960s began to switch their attention from working class struggle to identity politics.

    There is, Buruma went on,

    a common anxiety about the effects of globalism, multinational corporate power, immigration. More and more people feel unrepresented. When they complained about immigration or the bewildering changes effected by a global economy, such people were too easily dismissed as racists and bigots. Now they blame the "liberal elites" for all their anxieties.

    Dani Rodrik, a professor of international political economy at Harvard, is even harsher in his critique of contemporary liberalism. "Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of the blame," Rodrik writes, in an essay, " The Abdication of the Left ," published in July by Project Syndicate.

    Rodrik does not let up:

    They abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. The enthroning of free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy norm by the European Union, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF was arguably the most fateful decision for the global economy in recent decades.

    Left policy makers and analysts, Rodrik writes, face

    the paradox that earlier waves of reforms from the left – Keynesianism, social democracy, the welfare state – both saved capitalism from itself and effectively rendered themselves superfluous.

    If [neo]liberal public policy intellectuals are unable develop "a clear program to refashion capitalism and globalization for the twenty-first century," Rodrik warns, "the field will be left wide open for populists and far-right groups who will lead the world – as they always have – to deeper division and more frequent conflict."

    If current trends continue, not only will there be a class inversion among the white supporters of the Democratic Party , but the party will become increasingly dependent on a white upper middle class that has isolated itself from the rest of American society.

    Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners, in collaboration with many of those in the top 20 percent who are determined to protect and secure their economic and social status.

    In an interview published by Vox.com on Aug. 8, Robert Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, described the consequences of the emergence of "liberal cosmopolitans, really the upper and middle class of America," who are

    increasingly disconnected from working-class America. I mean that in a very specific sense. Our residences are increasingly segregated by class. Our schools are increasingly segregated by class. Our extended families are increasingly separated by class.

    Writing in Politico magazine in May , Michael Lind, also a fellow at New America, argues that this cultural conflict created the political environment that made the Trump phenomenon possible in the first place:

    Most culture-war conflicts involve sexuality, gender, or reproduction. Social issues spurred a partisan realignment by changing who considered themselves Democrats and Republicans. Over decades, socially conservative working-class whites migrated from the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party, especially in the South. Socially moderate Republicans, especially on the East Coast, shifted to the Democratic coalition.

    The result, in Lind's view, is an emerging Republican Party dominated by

    working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort - programs like Social Security and Medicare. But they will tend to oppose means-tested programs for the poor whose benefits they and their families cannot enjoy.

    This shift, Lind points out, will powerfully alter the Democratic coalition, too. The Democrats will become

    even more of an alliance of upscale, progressive whites with blacks and Latinos, based in large and diverse cities. They will think of the U.S. as a version of their multicultural coalition of distinct racial and ethnic identity groups writ large. Many younger progressives will take it for granted that moral people are citizens of the world, equating nationalism and patriotism with racism and fascism.

    From this vantage point, Trump and the pro-social insurance populist right that has emerged in much of Europe are as much the result of the vacuum created by traditional liberal political parties as they are a function of the neglect of working class interests by conservatives.

  • Matthew Carnicelli is a trusted commenter Brooklyn, New York 5 hours ago

    Tom, I keep reading these elite analyses of the political restructuring that the Drumpf campaign is allegedly ushering in - and yet fail to see where the actual institutional support for these policies will come from within the Republican Party.

    Paul Ryan is still talking down Social Security and Medicare, and he is considered the GOP's intellectual leader. Drumpf was recently quoted as agreeing with Ryan's critique of Social Security.

    The conservative think tanks like AEI and Heritage still have Social Security and Medicare within their crosshairs - and are still peddling the same old supply side snake oil, as is Drumpf with his tax plan. And Drumpf's plan can only be paid for by savage cuts in every other area of the Federal budget.

    The problem with this entire argument is that Drumpf believes in nothing but "winning" - and will say absolutely anything to win, anything at all, even if it has a snowball's chance of hell of finding support with the Republican Party.

    If Drumpf managed to win the Presidency, his single term (and he would only get one) would either be the mother of all political train wrecks - or a complete and utter repudiation of everything he ran on as a candidate, aside from the racism, xenophobia, and collective insanity that has overtaken the right.

    As a person far more comfortable parsing zeitgeist, let me suggest that it's a terrible idea to draw conclusions while in the middle of a wave that you've yet to even identify.

    HDNY is a trusted commenter New York, N.Y. 3 hours ago

    The Times has reverted to its previous position of pretending that Bernie Sanders and his millions of supporters don't exist. This article pretends all Democrats are willful Clinton supporters and that Republicans are forced between choosing Donald Trump's Republican Party or Hillary Clinton's Democratic Party.

    The Times' editors' refusal to give credibility to the Sanders campaign actually shows their complicity in making the Democratic Party more elitist, more corporate and Wall St. oriented, and less involved with the needs of the poor and lower middle classes. Now they are bequeathing that emphasis to Trump, still refusing to acknowledge the impact of the Sanders campaign and its supporters.

    What's even odder is that the article points out the Republican 'Reformocons', a group that made a far less significant impact on this election than did Bernie Sanders.

    The good points made in this article are lost by painting the American political scene with such a broad brush. The Times needs to pay more attention to what's really happening in this country.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Paul Wortman East Setauket, NY 2 hours ago

    "A pox on both their houses." What we have seen over the past 30 years is the end of the social balance between Big Business, Big Government and Big Labor. Today it we have one force--that of the corporate goliaths--in control of government through their funding of politicians who have worked to eliminate labor as a force. If their is one critique on the Bernie Sanders left and the Donald Trump right, it's been the almost total disenfranchisement of working Americans. While the focus is on trade agreement written in secret by corporations, it needs to focus of workers who can bargain collectively to ensure they share in their productivity gains and whose rights are protected from the "race-to-the-bottom" trade agreements. Both political parties have failed here and neither the new Trump right nor the Sanders left have put forward a real pro-worker, pro-Big Labor agenda. If workers are left behind, as we've seen in the rise of communism in the past, we have immense social unrest. And, until we remove the corporate choke-hold on Big Government by getting money out of politics, we will continue to move away from the balance of social forces essential to a viable democracy toward an oligarchy either by an autocratic Trump or a Wall Street corporate Clinton.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • James Lee Arlington, Texas 3 hours ago

    The main conclusion of the studies cited by Professor Edsall seems to center on the inability of either political party to mobilize the long-term support of the white working class. The Republicans remain in thrall to corporate America, as reflected in Paul Ryan's stubborn attachment to discredited supply-side nostrums. The Democrats, although still committed to a higher minimum wage and the social safety net, focus their policies on helping the middle and professional classes.

    The main responsibility for this situation falls on the Democrats. The GOP never represented the interests of the working class, but FDR's party had achieved political dominance by doing so. In the 1960s, LBJ made the momentous decision to stake his party's future on support of the civil right's revolution, a choice he believed would alienate the white south for a generation.

    At the same time, however, he launched his war on poverty, a program with the potential to unite the interests of black Americans with those of the white working class, in the south as well as elsewhere. The failure of that ambitious initiative, caused in part by the diversion of resources and political energy to the war in Vietnam, soured the Democratic leadership after 1968 on expensive programs designed to help the very groups gloabalization would threaten.

    The Clintons won in 1992 by jettisoning their party's social democratic agenda. Even Bernie Sanders paid attention mainly to the needs of the middle class.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Eloise Freehold 2 hours ago

    We certainly hope so. Neither party represents the vast majority of citizens. Instead both major parties represent the interests of the elite, the financial elite, which populate the spectrum of what passes for political thought from extreme liberals, such as Soros, Holloywood and Ivy League tax-free endowments to extreme conservatives, such as Kochs and Limbaugh. From taxation, to trade policies to criminal justice applications to protection of banksters, the major parties are complicit in and responsible for the appalling state of our affairs. A wreck of an election that tarnishes their brands and ushers in alternatives is perhaps too much to expect; it is not however too much to hope for.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Kim New York 2 hours ago

    Recking? More like exposing. No secret the Dems' all-inclusive rhetoric is just that RHETORIC. The party has abandoned the working class. Once American "middle class" was the pride of the world. But what was that "middle class"? It was working class with good jobs and homes, and with the opportunity of yet better life for their children. The only thing lacking was universal health care and inclusion of POC.
    But it never happened. After achieving this amazing success of turning working class into middle class, US has been steadily moving away from that ideal. Both parties have abandoned the working class. Even if the cue came from Reps, Democratic Leadership Council associated Dems (such as Clintons) have been outdoing Reps in the area of "free trade"(=losing manufacturing jobs), dismantling safety net in form of welfare, to make things worse reforming foster care to make taking children away from impoverished working class biological families easier. Dems have been paying lip service to idea of universal healthcare, affordable medications, affordable college, yet rely on the money from these industries. While Democratic rhetoric is inclusive of minorities, and they sponsor special programs for minorities, still not enough to offset the effect their policies on minorities ho are disproportionately represented in the working class. Externally Dems have been pursuing same imperialistic politics as Republicans. Clinton asking Kissinger for endorsement puts a seal on that.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • rareynolds Barnesville, OH 2 hours ago

    I am also puzzled by this column. The young want a New Deal type society. Also, it seems to me the much vaunted self-interest of the newly affluent Democrats would include shoring up the fortunes of the working class so as to increase the tax base to finance a more comfortable infrastructure and also to avoid having their own heads blown off by the mob.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Chris Berlin 2 hours ago

    Yes, Donald Trump is wrecking both parties.

    The Republican Party for obvious reasons, but they've had it coming for a long time and deserve and need to be crushed.
    The Democratic Party almost got crushed as well in 2016, equally deserved, and only survived by rigging the nomination process for the status quo candidate, quelling the populist reform movement. The military industrial complex and Wall Street have now completely moved over to the traditional blue collar Democratic Party.

    There is a good chance the traditional Republican Party will not recover from the 2016 election, becoming a long-time minority party at the presidential election level.

    The base of the Democratic Party, Latinos, Blacks and young people might finally realize that electing Wall Street, elite Democrats is not the answer to the critical issues facing the nation.
    Once white working class people, equally disaffected with trade deals that ship their jobs overseas, with endless wars and military conflicts that are supported by both parties, join forces with the democratic base in 2020, there is a real prospect for a political realignment that could revolutionize American politics for decades to come.

    Thank you, Mr.Edsall, for this this very perceptive analysis of what is happening in the 2016 election.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Marc Kagan NYC 1 hour ago

    As a first response, Bernie Sanders obviously would have been the remedy to the kind of Clintonite Democratic Party you are describing.
    Because there is a path toward a social, economic and cultural justice coalition that appeals to the working class and the casts swaths of college-educated who, due to financial pressures, are effectively working-class themselves.
    So close this year. Will we have another chance?

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Nightwatch Le Sueur MN 2 hours ago

    Both parties were beset by populist insurrections in the recently concluded primaries. The Democratic Party repulsed insurrectionist Sanders and dispatched him to the wilds of Vermont, never to be heard from again. But insurrectionist Trump stormed the Republican Party gates and now takes his insurrection into the general election contest.

    My point is, powerful populist movements attacked both parties from below. That could only happen because both parties were out of touch with a significant portion of the electorate. If Clinton wins in November, the establishment wins again and the populists will be sent away to brood. But this disconnection from the political establishment will surface again.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • EJS Granite City, Illinois 2 hours ago

    There's nothing particularly "bewildering" about the effects of the global economy. It is being structured heavily in favor of the rich and their multinational corporations, without regard for the economic well-being of the hundreds of millions of Americans being victimized. It's not difficult to understand the psychology of people being robbed with nowhere to turn because the perpetrators are both political parties using our government as their instrument. How does this article explain the Senator Bernie Sanders phenomenon? Bernie was a low profile, social democrat who received 46% of the Democratic vote. The Republicans are owned lock, stock and barrel by Organized Money and the only real hope is to recapture the Democratic Party.

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Michael Boston 1 hour ago

    No, I would say Hillary bears most of the responsibility for the schisms in the democratic party this election cycle, but, Democrats never pull together. We are famous for it.

    Hillary is a business-friendly economic-moderate. She and Susan Collins have more in common than Hillary has in common with Bernie Sanders and that angers a lot of liberals. I am old enough that I am used to it, and, in general, economically liberal democrats don't win the presidency even when they manage to win the nomination.

    Don't let perfection be the enemy of adequacy. Besides, is compromise really such a horrible thing?

  • !--
  • [] /* nyt-a: af3b7ff59cdf0dc56a854b483a262268 */var NYTD=NYTD||{};NYTD.Abra=function(t,n,e){"use strict";function o(e,o){var u=n[e]||{};u[1]?r("ab-expose",e,u[0],o):o&&t.setTimeout(function(){o(null)},0)}function u(t){var e=n[t]||{};return e[0]||null}function r(n,e,o,u){f+="subject="+n+"&test="+encodeURIComponent(e)+"&variant="+encodeURIComponent(o||0)+"&instant=1&skipAugment=true\n",u&&p.push(u),c||(c=t.setTimeout(a,0))}function a(){var n=new t.XMLHttpRequest,o=p;n.withCredentials=!0,n.open("POST",e),n.onreadystatechange=function(){var t,e;if(4==n.readyState)for(t=200==n.status?null:new Error(n.statusText);e=o.shift();)e(t)},n.send(f),f="",p=[],c=null}var s,i,c,l=[],f="",p=[];for(s in n)i=n[s],i[0]&&l.push(s+"="+i[0]),i[1]&&r("ab-alloc",s,i[0]);return l.length&&t.document.documentElement.setAttribute("data-nyt-ab",l.join(" ")),u.reportExposure=o,u}(this,{"www-article-sample":["1a",1],"EC_SampleTest":["variantB"]},"//et.nytimes.com"); var require = { baseUrl: 'https://a1.nyt.com/assets/', waitSeconds: 20, paths: { 'foundation': 'article/20160804-120751/js/foundation', 'shared': 'article/20160804-120751/js/shared', 'article': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article', 'application': 'article/20160804-120751/js/article/story', 'videoFactory': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/2.0/videofactoryrequire', 'videoPlaylist': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js2/build/video/players/extended/2.0/appRequire', 'auth/mtr': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/mtr', 'auth/growl': 'https://static01.nyt.com/js/auth/growl/default', 'vhs': 'https://static01.nyt.com/video/vhs/build/vhs-2.x.min' }, map: { '*': { 'story/main': 'article/story/main' } } }; !-- require.map['*']['foundation/main'] = 'foundation/legacy_main'; window.magnum.processFlags(["limitFabrikSave","moreFollowSuggestions","unfollowComments","scoopTool","videoVHSCover","videoVHSShareTools","videoVHSLive","videoVHSNewControls","videoVHSEmbeddedOnly","allTheEmphases","freeTrial","dedupeWhatsNext","trendingPageLinks","sprinklePaidPost","headerBidder","largeLedeXXL","standardizeWhatsNextCollection","onlyLayoutA","simple","simpleExtendedByline","collectionsWhatsNext","shareToolsUnderHeadline","mobileMediaViewer","whitelistInterstitial","storyPrint","podcastInLede","MovieTickets","requestTragedyAd","MoreInSubsectionFix","seriesIssueMarginalia","serverSideCollectionUrls","multipleBylines","minimalAds","adDisclaimer","bleedtransitions","inlineAdStyles","fabrikWebsocketsOnly","storyFlexFrames","translationLinks","phaseOneAds","updateRestaurantReservations"]); require(['foundation/main'], function () { require(['auth/mtr', 'auth/growl']); });
  • Freedom Furgle WV 26 minutes ago

    What is happening to the democratic party seems very similar to what has been happening to the Labor party in the UK. At least until they elected the new leader of labor, Jeremy Corbyn.
    As an aside, this article was dull as dirt and felt like it was written on note cards.

  • Thomas McManus Springfield, NJ 27 minutes ago

    As members of the cosmopolitan elite intelligentsia Lee Drutman, Dani Rodrik, and Robert Putnam have an insular view of Amercia. Maybe they should spend some time living in a small town...

    [Aug 10, 2016] Neocon Nightmare The Truth Behind the Attacks on Chuck Hagel by Arianna Huffington

    Notable quotes:
    "... This Week with George Stephanopoulos. ..."
    "... America: Our Next Chapter ..."
    "... But the lowest point his critics have gone to is to insinuate, or even claim outright, that Hagel is an anti-Semite. That slanderous charge is being led by Elliott Abrams. He's now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but you might remember him as the man convicted in 1991 of two counts of withholding information from Congress (he was pardoned by outgoing President George H.W. Bush). He claims that Hagel "seems to have some kind of problem with Jews," and, in the Weekly Standard ..."
    "... Of course, the reason the opposition to Hagel is so desperate and so focused on side-issues or made-up charges is because they don't want a debate that would shine a spotlight on their spectacular and disastrous failure in Iraq. "This is the neocons' worst nightmare," says Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, "because you've got a combat soldier, successful businessman and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force." ..."
    Mar 17, 2013 | www.huffingtonpost.com

    If President Obama's second term includes decision making as bold and intelligent as his nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, his presidency might finally fulfill the promise of audacity and change that rallied so many to his campaign five years ago. In fact, the more ridiculous the claims being made by Hagel's critics become, the more the real reasons they don't want him -- and the wisdom of the choice -- come into stark relief.

    The latest canard is about Hagel's supposed "temperament." The charge was made this past Sunday by Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, appearing on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

    "I think another thing, George, that's going to come up is just his overall temperament," said Corker, "and is he suited to run a department or a big agency or a big entity like the Pentagon?" Given that this was a new one, Stephanopoulos asked, slightly incredulously, "Do you have questions about his temperament?" Corker replied, "I think there are numbers of staffers who are coming forth now just talking about the way he has dealt with them."

    Ah yes, his temperament. It's a modern-day male version of the old dig that used to be directed at women, that they might be "PMSing" and therefore shouldn't be put too close to big boy military equipment. It's also worth pointing out that this line of attack is coming from a party that thoroughly approved of that shrinking violet of a Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. It's further worth noting that the opposition to Hagel is being led partly by Senator John McCain, the same guy who thought it prudent to potentially put Sarah Palin second in line to the presidency -- and whose own "temperament" has often been called into question.

    But if Hagel's temperament is somehow relevant, it puts me in mind of the quote by Lincoln who, when approached by some of Grant's critics about the general's drinking, is supposed to have said: "Let me know what brand of whiskey Grant uses. For if it makes fighting generals like Grant, I should like to get some of it for distribution."

    In response to Corker's charge, Politico's Playbook quoted an email from a senior administration official: "This line of attack is a new low. By contrast, Sen. Hagel intends to take the high road in the confirmation process as he defends his strong record." Well, it's certainly a contemptible charge, but whether it's a new low is debatable. There's already been plenty of competition for that title.

    Now, I'm not saying Chuck Hagel is perfect or that I agree with every position he's ever taken, but leadership isn't about conforming to a checklist. Hagel is being nominated for a particular job, and for that job, he has a strong record. And this is exactly why his critics are grasping for straws -- because they don't want to discuss that record, nor what this debate is really about: the Iraq War.

    Yes, then-Senator Hagel voted for the resolution to authorize the war. But even before the vote, he expressed more reservations than most of his colleagues. "You can take the country into a war pretty fast," he said in 2002, "but you can't get us out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are." In his 2008 book America: Our Next Chapter he writes that he voted to authorize military force only as a last option, but the Bush administration had not tried to "exhaust all diplomatic efforts," and that "it all comes down to the fact that we were asked to vote on a resolution based on half truths, untruths, and wishful thinking."

    And after the war began, he became one of the administration's most vocal critics. Among his statements over the course of the war:

    • That Iraq was "a hopeless, winless situation."
    • That Iraq was "an absolute replay of Vietnam."
    • That "Iraq is not going to turn out the way that we were promised it was."
    • That the Iraqi people "want the United States out of Iraq."
    • That the Iraq War was "ill-conceived" and "poorly prosecuted."

    As I wrote back in 2006, criticisms like these were much stronger than what most Democrats were saying at the time. And Hagel was right. We often bemoan the fact that those in Washington who get it wrong never seem to be held accountable, and those who get it right (even if not right away) always seem to be marginalized. Well, this nomination is how the system should -- but seldom does -- work. That's why this nomination, even though Hagel is a Republican, shouldn't be looked at as another attempt by President Obama to curry favor with the opposition. It's the best kind of decision -- one made not to placate some interest group, but, rather, in the interest of the country. As Senator Jack Reed said of the nomination on Sunday, "Chuck has the wherewithal and the ability to speak truth to power. He's demonstrated that throughout his entire career. That is a value that is extraordinarily important to the president." And to the country.

    "When I think of issues like Iraq," Hagel said in 2006, "of how we went into it -- no planning, no preparation, no sense of consequences, of where we were going, how we were going to get out, went in without enough men, no exit strategy, those kinds of things -- I'll speak out. I'll go against my party."

    And that kind of thinking is all the more powerful coming from a man with two Purple Hearts -- and who still has shrapnel lodged in his chest as a reminder, not that he needs one, of what war is really like.

    "Chuck knows that war is not an abstraction," the president said when announcing the nomination. "He understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that's something we only do when it's absolutely necessary. 'My frame of reference,' he has said, is 'geared towards the guy at the bottom who's doing the fighting and the dying.'" That's why, in the lead up to the Iraq War, Hagel pointed out the fact that decisions were being made by those who hadn't "sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off." And for that he was called an "appeaser."

    The president added that it was in the Senate where he came to admire Hagel's "courage and his judgment, his willingness to speak his mind -- even if it wasn't popular, even if it defied the conventional wisdom."

    And if you doubt whether Hagel's views go against the conventional wisdom, at least in Washington, just witness the hysterical, desperate pushback to his nomination. This isn't about temperament, or abortion or gay rights (not that those aren't important issues). It's about the path U.S. foreign policy took at the beginning of the last decade, directed by the neocons. As the New York Times' Jim Rutenberg put it, "The campaign now being waged against Mr. Hagel's nomination as secretary of defense is in some ways a relitigation of that decade-old dispute."

    He's right -- to an extent. Where I think he's off is that this isn't a relitigation -- because the disaster that was, and is, the Iraq War was never actually litigated in the first place. We've never really had that debate. Those who conceived it (badly) and executed it (even more badly) were never held accountable. And they are now the ones trying to torpedo the very idea that someone who is thoughtful and careful about sending our soldiers to die might actually have a role in that decision.

    Rutenberg writes that this debate is "a dramatic return to the public stage by the neoconservatives whose worldview remains a powerful undercurrent in the Republican Party." That is some undercurrent. If it's below the surface, then what is the top current?

    It's not like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are back-benchers. The latter called Hagel's nomination an "in-your-face nomination" and an "incredibly controversial choice." Sadly, in today's Washington the idea that someone who is skeptical and cautious about the consequences of U.S. military intervention should lead the Pentagon is indeed "incredibly controversial." Turning around conventional wisdom in Washington is no small endeavor, which is why this nomination is so important.

    A week later, with an almost comical lack of self-awareness, Senator Graham contrasted Hagel's decision making with that of Graham's BFF, Senator McCain. "I think [Hagel] was very haunted by Vietnam," Graham said, unlike McCain who "doesn't look at every conflict through the eyes of his Vietnam experience -- you know, 'We shouldn't have been there, it went on too long, we didn't have a plan.'" Yes, thank God we left that kind of thinking back in Vietnam -- no instances of it since then, right?

    The relationship between Hagel and McCain goes back a long time. McCain was one of Hagel's earliest supporters and Hagel was one of the few who jumped on the "Straight Talk Express," back when McCain was taking on what he called "agents of intolerance" in the Republican Party. Unlike McCain, Hagel managed to stay on the Straight Talk Express. And now McCain is grasping at straws over Hagel's skepticism about success of the surge strategy in Iraq, something McCain finds "bizarre." Back when it was being considered, Hagel said "This is a Ping-Pong game with American lives," and that "we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder."

    Since then it's become accepted gospel in Washington that the surge was successful. Accepted gospel that is, once again, wrong. Doug Ollivant was an army planning officer in Iraq who was one of those who actually implemented the surge. "The surge really didn't work, per se," Ollivant, now with the New America Foundation, says, adding, "Fundamentally, it was the Iraqis trying to find a solution, and they did."

    A study by U.S. Special Forces officer Maj. Joshua Thiel came to the same conclusion. Thiel looked at where and when the additional surge troops were deployed and compared that to subsequent drops in violence. As Foreign Policy's Robert Haddick put it,

    Thiel concluded that there was no significant correlation between the arrival of U.S. reinforcements and subsequent changes in the level of violence in Iraq's provinces... the connection between surge troops and the change in the level of incidents seems entirely random.
    Another straw being grasped at by McCain is the question, "Why would [Hagel] oppose calling the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization?"

    He's referring to the fact that Hagel didn't sign a letter to the European Union designating Hezbollah a terror group. Hagel's defense was that he "didn't sign on to certain resolutions and letters because they were counter-productive and didn't solve a problem." In other words, Hagel refused to posture. A cardinal sin in Washington. Just as he also said that use of reductivist buzzwords and phrases like "cut and run" cheapen the debate and debase the seriousness of war. How refreshing. And it points to the fact that not only do we need better military policy, we also need a more intelligent way of talking about that policy as a means of making it better.

    But the lowest point his critics have gone to is to insinuate, or even claim outright, that Hagel is an anti-Semite. That slanderous charge is being led by Elliott Abrams. He's now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but you might remember him as the man convicted in 1991 of two counts of withholding information from Congress (he was pardoned by outgoing President George H.W. Bush). He claims that Hagel "seems to have some kind of problem with Jews," and, in the Weekly Standard, offers as evidence "the testimony of the Jewish community that knew him best is most useful: Nebraskans. And the record seems unchallenged: Nebraskan Jewish activists and officials have said he was hostile, and none -- including Obama supporters and Democratic party activists -- have come forward to counter that allegation."

    Actually, it has been challenged -- by, among others, activist Gary Javitch, who, according to the Forward is "considered by locals to be an expert on the local Jewish political scene." Though Javitch is no fan of Hagel, when asked by the Forward if he though Hagel was biased against Jews, he said "no." He also said that "to make such an accusation you need to be very careful," and that Hagel "never demonstrated anything like that in all the meetings I had with him."

    What's amazing is that the Council on Foreign Relations would allow its credibility to be used to advance an accusation like this. In response, a CFR official told Al-Monitor's Laura Rozen that the views of their experts are "theirs only" and that "the Council on Foreign Relations takes no institutional position on matters of policy." But this isn't policy, it's character assassination. Does the Council take no official position on that? As the Daily Beast's Ali Gharib writes:
    Abrams should be challenged by media and by his fellow scholars in the think tank world to find any member in good standing of the Nebraska Jewish community who will say on the record that they consider their former Senator an anti-Semite. Failing that, Abrams should issue a public apology to Hagel for making this scurrilous charge.
    Of course, the reason the opposition to Hagel is so desperate and so focused on side-issues or made-up charges is because they don't want a debate that would shine a spotlight on their spectacular and disastrous failure in Iraq. "This is the neocons' worst nightmare," says Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, "because you've got a combat soldier, successful businessman and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force."

    A nightmare for some but a welcome change for the country. This week, HuffPost is launching a new series focusing on President Obama's second term called "The Road Forward: Obama's Second Term Challenges."

    In the first installment, Howard Fineman writes that "Obama is in an unusually strong position to deliver on the potential of his second term -- but only if he has the will and wherewithal to turn ballot-box victory into real-life results," and asks whether Obama "will be shrewd, persistent and tough enough to turn great promise into true greatness."

    We'll see. But if the nomination of Chuck Hagel is any indication, the road forward is looking much better than what's behind us. Though the upcoming hearings on Hagel's nomination are unlikely to feature the real debate on Iraq that the country deserves, hopefully his tenure will indeed be the departure from the kind of thinking that got us into it that his critics so desperately fear.

    Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

    [Aug 10, 2016] Lying Neocon War Propagandist of the Week by Thomas DiLorenzo

    Notable quotes:
    "... Jewish World Review ..."
    December 28, 2015 | www.lewrockwell.com

    There's always a lot of competition for the title of "Lying Neocon War Propagandist." I would like to nominate for this week's award, one George Will. In the course of a long-winded hissy fit over Donald Trump's political success to date published in Jewish World Review, Will goes berserk over Trump's intransigence over the neocon agenda of starting a war with Russia. Smoke must have been coming out of his ears when he quoted Trump as saying that the U.S. government has killed a lot of people, too, referring to all of the government's endless military interventions in the Middle East, after being told of the alleged killing of journalists in Russia.

    George Will responded to this by saying: "Putin kills journalists, the U.S. kills terrorists." Will is not stupid; he cannot possibly believe that all deaths in the Middle East caused by U.S. military intervention over the past quarter of a century have been of "terrorists." There are numerous sources of the civilian death count there, and it is safe to say that Donald Trump is right and George Will is wrong: The civilian death count is in the hundreds of thousands. This includes at least 200 journalists such as Tareq Ayoub, who was killed on April 3, 2003 when a U.S. warplane bombed the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad. And of course the U.S. military also bombs hospitals, as the entire world learned a few months ago. (Thanks to Chris C. for info on the bombing of the Al Jazeera offices).

    And by the way, there is obviously no evidence that Putin ordered the murder of journalists. ABC News "journalist" (Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!) George Stephanopoulos repeated this latest neocon talking point in an interview with Trump. When Trump asked him for proof, he had NONE). This doesn't prove that Putin did not order the murder of journalists, something the U.S. government has done hundreds of times, but it does prove what a liar and establishment shill George Stephanopoulos is.

    5:35 pm on December 28, 2015 Email Thomas DiLorenzo

    [Aug 09, 2016] They knew nothing about the coup in Turkey! - Defend Democracy Press

    Notable quotes:
    "... German parliamentarians are preparing to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians, by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well. ..."
    "... Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war against "the Crusaders". ..."
    "... The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis in NATO. ..."
    www.defenddemocracy.press

    The US Ambassador to Ankara explains why his country knew nothing about what was going to happen in Turkey

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/no-us-planning-support-knowledge-in-coup-attempt-in-turkey-ambassador.aspx?pageID=238&nID=102529&NewsCatID=510

    In the meantime Austrian and German politicians compare the coup in Turkey with the Reichstag fire in 1933. But they don't know who set the fire

    https://www.rt.com/news/354909-austria-germany-nazi-turkey/

    A leftist politician in Germany wants sanctions against Turkey

    http://www.thelocal.de/20160802/left-party-politician-calls-for-sanctions-against-turkey

    According to our information this is only the first step. German parliamentarians are preparing to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians, by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well.

    According also to our information, top US and Israeli officials are outraged at what is happening. They now have to cancel all family vacation planning and concentrate on how to handle an unbelievable new situation. Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war against "the Crusaders".

    Radicals around Erdogan call for war "against Crusaders"

    The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis in NATO.

    We are still not there and nobody knows if we will reach that point. Russia and Turkey, as history proves, have seriously conflicting interests. As for Erdogan himself, he cannot win over the Kurds by military means and neither can the Kurds win what they want by war. All that is certain is that we are heading straight for very serious conflicts.

    Fortunately for them, and probably for us also, European politicians do not consider any alteration of their vacation programs. They are continuing their enjoyment of their holidays, waiting for Washington to take its decisions.

    D.K.

    [Aug 09, 2016] Fantastic progress of democracy New York Times barely notice the new war in Libya! by Adam H. Johnson

    www.defenddemocracy.press

    Defend Democracy Press

    [Aug 08, 2016] Full and unconditional capitulation of Sanders

    His campaign ended with him performing the classic role of shipdog for Hillary, who shares none of his ideas and economic policies. If this is not Obama style "bait and switch' I do not know what is...
    economistsview.typepad.com

    August 05, 2016

    Fred C. Dobbs :

    LA Times

    Bernie Sanders: I support Hillary Clinton. So should everyone who voted for me http://fw.to/mVDxuLJ

    The conventions are over and the general election has officially begun. In the primaries, I received 1,846 pledged delegates, 46% of the total. Hillary Clinton received 2,205 pledged delegates, 54%. She received 602 superdelegates. I received 48 superdelegates. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee and I will vigorously support her.

    Donald Trump would be a disaster and an embarrassment for our country if he were elected president. His campaign is not based on anything of substance - improving the economy, our education system, healthcare or the environment. It is based on bigotry. He is attempting to win this election by fomenting hatred against Mexicans and Muslims. He has crudely insulted women. And as a leader of the "birther movement," he tried to undermine the legitimacy of our first African American president. That is not just my point of view. That's the perspective of a number of conservative Republicans.

    In these difficult times, we need a president who will bring our nation together, not someone who will divide us by race or religion, not someone who lacks an understanding of what our Constitution is about.

    On virtually every major issue facing this country and the needs of working families, Clinton's positions are far superior to Trump's. Our campaigns worked together to produce the most progressive platform in the history of American politics. Trump's campaign wrote one of the most reactionary documents.

    Clinton understands that Citizens United has undermined our democracy. She will nominate justices who are prepared to overturn that Supreme Court decision, which made it possible for billionaires to buy elections. Her court appointees also would protect a woman's right to choose, workers' rights, the rights of the LGBT community, the needs of minorities and immigrants and the government's ability to protect the environment.

    Trump, on the other hand, has made it clear that his Supreme Court appointees would preserve the court's right-wing majority.

    Clinton understands that in a competitive global economy we need the best-educated workforce in the world. She and I worked together on a proposal that will revolutionize higher education in America. It will guarantee that the children of any family in this country with an annual income of $125,000 a year or less – 83% of our population – will be able to go to a public college or university tuition free. This proposal also substantially reduces student debt.

    Trump, on the other hand, has barely said a word about higher education.

    Clinton understands that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, it is absurd to provide huge tax breaks to the very rich.

    Trump, on the other hand, wants billionaire families like his to enjoy hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax breaks.

    Clinton understands that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is one of the great environmental crises facing our planet. She knows that we must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and move aggressively to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

    Trump, on the other hand, like most Republicans, rejects science and the conclusions of almost all major researchers in the field. He believes that climate change is a "hoax," and that there's no need to address it.

    Clinton understands that this country must move toward universal healthcare. She wants to see that all Americans have the right to choose a public option in their healthcare exchange, that anyone 55 or older should be able to opt in to Medicare, and that we must greatly improve primary healthcare through a major expansion of community health centers. She also wants to lower the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs.

    And what is Donald Trump's position on healthcare? He wants to abolish the Affordable Care Act, throw 20 million people off the health insurance they currently have and cut Medicaid for lower-income Americans.

    During the primaries, my supporters and I began a political revolution to transform America. That revolution continues as Hillary Clinton seeks the White House. It will continue after the election. It will continue until we create a government which represents all of us and not just the 1 percent – a government based on the principle of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.

    I understand that many of my supporters are disappointed by the final results of the nominating process, but being despondent and inactive is not going to improve anything. Going forward and continuing the struggle is what matters. And, in that struggle, the most immediate task we face is to defeat Donald

    [Aug 08, 2016] The communists of China are seeking a long-term partnership with Russia – a nominally capitalist country? Of course, Russia is seeking the same with China

    Blowback for sleazy Barack Obama neocon policies is coming. And it will not be pretty...
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Patient Observer , August 7, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    Isn't it interesting that the communists of China are seeking a long-term partnership with Russia – a nominally capitalist country? Of course, Russia is seeking the same with China.

    July 1, China marked an important date on July 1. It was the 95th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party. Chairman Xi Jinping addressed the solemn meeting devoted to this event. In addition to the praises of "Long live!" (And deservedly so, since the CCP has much to be proud of) there was Chairman Xi's speech which was short, but very important.

    "The world is on the verge of radical change. We see how the European Union is gradually collapsing, as is the US economy - it is all over for the new world order. So, it will never again be as it was before, in 10 years we will have a new world order in which the key will be the union of China and Russia. "

    http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/china-openly-offers-russia-alliance.html

    If the above translation is accurate I wonder what is meant by …key will be the union of China and Russia . In any event, it appears that ideology is not at the core of the unity; its something much deeper and more resilient. I offer that it is a shared view that embraces a realization that the world can no longer accept global hegemony from the West otherwise catastrophe is virtually certain in the form of (pick one or two): nuclear war, financial or ecological collapse. Their mission is basically to save the world from Western insanity which handily trumps anything that may separate them.

    And, I think that the Chinese and Russians are far too wise to seek global hegemony for themselves. The trick for them will be taking down the Western house of cards without triggering a catastrophic miscalculation by the West. …Whew, now time for an hot fudge sundae.

    marknesop , August 7, 2016 at 8:28 pm
    I think it's mutual disgust with the USA's blatant and shameless rigging of the playing field in every contest. If America can't win, then it's a loss for all of mankind. And it blabbers constantly and loudly about its values, and then does things which completely contradict those supposed values, and never appears to notice anything unusual or untoward about it.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Democrats Will Learn All the Wrong Lessons From Brush With Bernie by Matt Taibbi

    "Democratic voters tried to express these frustrations through the Sanders campaign, but the party leaders have been and probably will continue to be too dense to listen."
    Notable quotes:
    "... But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department (though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey). ..."
    "... The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on Beltway politics. ..."
    Jun 09, 2016 | Rolling Stone

    Hohmann's thesis was that the "scope and scale" of Clinton's wins Tuesday night meant mainstream Democrats could now safely return to their traditional We won, screw you posture of "minor concessions" toward the "liberal base."

    Hohmann focused on the fact that with Bernie out of the way, Hillary now had a path to victory that would involve focusing on Trump's negatives. Such a strategy won't require much if any acquiescence toward the huge masses of Democratic voters who just tried to derail her candidacy. And not only is the primary scare over, but Clinton and the centrist Democrats in general are in better shape than ever.

    "Big picture," Hohmann wrote, "Clinton is running a much better and more organized campaign than she did in 2008."

    Then there was Jonathan Capehart, also of the Post, whose "This is how Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are the same person" piece describes Sanders as a "stubborn outsider" who "shares the same DNA" as Donald Trump. Capeheart snootily seethes that both men will ultimately pay a karmic price for not knowing their places.

    "In the battle of the outsider egos storming the political establishment, Trump succeeded where Sanders failed," he wrote. "But the chaos unleashed by Trump's victory could spell doom for the GOP all over the ballot in November. Pardon me while I dab that single tear trickling down my cheek."

    If they had any brains, Beltway Dems and their clucky sycophants like Capeheart would not be celebrating this week. They ought to be horrified to their marrow that the all-powerful Democratic Party ended up having to dig in for a furious rally to stave off a quirky Vermont socialist almost completely lacking big-dollar donors or institutional support.

    They should be freaked out, cowed and relieved, like the Golden State Warriors would be if they needed a big fourth quarter to pull out a win against Valdosta State.

    But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department (though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey).

    The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on Beltway politics. But the major-party leaders and the media mouthpieces they hang out with can't see this, because of what that friend of mine talked about over a decade ago: Washington culture is too far up its own backside to see much of anything at all.

    In D.C., a kind of incestuous myopia very quickly becomes part of many political jobs. Congressional aides in particular work ridiculous hours for terrible pay and hang out almost exclusively with each other. About the only recreations they can afford are booze, shop-talk, and complaining about constituents, who in many offices are considered earth's lowest form of life, somewhere between lichens and nematodes.

    It's somewhat understandable. In congressional offices in particular, people universally dread picking up the phone, because it's mostly only a certain kind of cable-addicted person with too much spare time who calls a politician's office.

    "Have you ever called your congressman? No, because you have a job!" laughs Paul Thacker, a former Senate aide currently working on a book about life on the Hill. Thacker recounts tales of staffers rushing to turn on Fox News once the phones start ringing, because "the people" are usually only triggered to call Washington by some moronic TV news scare campaign.

    In another case, Thacker remembers being in the office of the senator of a far-Northern state, watching an aide impatiently conduct half of a constituent phone call. "He was like, 'Uh huh, yes, I understand.' Then he'd pause and say, 'Yes, sir,' again. This went on for like five minutes," recounts Thacker.

    Finally, the aide firmly hung up the phone, reared back and pointed accusingly at the receiver. "And you are from fucking Missouri!" he shouted. "Why are you calling me?"

    These stories are funny, but they also point to a problem. Since The People is an annoying beast, young pols quickly learn to be focused entirely on each other and on their careers. They get turned on by the narrative of Beltway politics as a cool power game, and before long are way too often reaching for Game of Thrones metaphors to describe their jobs. Eventually, the only action that matters is inside the palace.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Democrats Will Learn All the Wrong Lessons From Brush With Bernie

    Notable quotes:
    "... But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department (though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey). ..."
    "... The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on Beltway politics. ..."
    Rolling Stone

    Hohmann's thesis was that the "scope and scale" of Clinton's wins Tuesday night meant mainstream Democrats could now safely return to their traditional We won, screw you posture of "minor concessions" toward the "liberal base."

    Hohmann focused on the fact that with Bernie out of the way, Hillary now had a path to victory that would involve focusing on Trump's negatives. Such a strategy won't require much if any acquiescence toward the huge masses of Democratic voters who just tried to derail her candidacy. And not only is the primary scare over, but Clinton and the centrist Democrats in general are in better shape than ever.

    "Big picture," Hohmann wrote, "Clinton is running a much better and more organized campaign than she did in 2008."

    Then there was Jonathan Capehart, also of the Post, whose "This is how Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are the same person" piece describes Sanders as a "stubborn outsider" who "shares the same DNA" as Donald Trump. Capeheart snootily seethes that both men will ultimately pay a karmic price for not knowing their places.

    "In the battle of the outsider egos storming the political establishment, Trump succeeded where Sanders failed," he wrote. "But the chaos unleashed by Trump's victory could spell doom for the GOP all over the ballot in November. Pardon me while I dab that single tear trickling down my cheek."

    If they had any brains, Beltway Dems and their clucky sycophants like Capeheart would not be celebrating this week. They ought to be horrified to their marrow that the all-powerful Democratic Party ended up having to dig in for a furious rally to stave off a quirky Vermont socialist almost completely lacking big-dollar donors or institutional support.

    They should be freaked out, cowed and relieved, like the Golden State Warriors would be if they needed a big fourth quarter to pull out a win against Valdosta State.

    But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department (though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey).

    The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on Beltway politics. But the major-party leaders and the media mouthpieces they hang out with can't see this, because of what that friend of mine talked about over a decade ago: Washington culture is too far up its own backside to see much of anything at all.

    [Aug 07, 2016] Commentary The worlds best cyber army doesn't belong to Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... The NSA identified Peńa's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process. ..."
    "... Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account." ..."
    "... At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America. ..."
    "... Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police force and post office. ..."
    "... One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks. ..."
    "... Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying and cyberwarfare. ..."
    "... The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America ..."
    Aug 4, 2016 | Reuters
    National attention is focused on Russian eavesdroppers' possible targeting of U.S. presidential candidates and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Yet, leaked top-secret National Security Agency documents show that the Obama administration has long been involved in major bugging operations against the election campaigns -- and the presidents -- of even its closest allies.

    The United States is, by far, the world's most aggressive nation when it comes to cyberspying and cyberwarfare. The National Security Agency has been eavesdropping on foreign cities, politicians, elections and entire countries since it first turned on its receivers in 1952. Just as other countries, including Russia, attempt to do to the United States. What is new is a country leaking the intercepts back to the public of the target nation through a middleperson.

    There is a strange irony in this. Russia, if it is actually involved in the hacking of the computers of the Democratic National Committee, could be attempting to influence a U.S. election by leaking to the American public the falsehoods of its leaders. This is a tactic Washington used against the Soviet Union and other countries during the Cold War.

    In the 1950s, for example, President Harry S Truman created the Campaign of Truth to reveal to the Russian people the "Big Lies" of their government. Washington had often discovered these lies through eavesdropping and other espionage.

    Today, the United States has morphed from a Cold War, and in some cases a hot war, into a cyberwar, with computer coding replacing bullets and bombs. Yet the American public manages to be "shocked, shocked" that a foreign country would attempt to conduct cyberespionage on the United States.

    NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peńa Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peńa won that election and is now Mexico's president.

    The NSA identified Peńa's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.

    The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.

    Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."

    At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America.

    Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police force and post office.

    And it is about to grow considerably bigger, now that the NSA cyberspies have merged with the cyberwarriors of U.S. Cyber Command, which controls its own Cyber Army, Cyber Navy, Cyber Air Force and Cyber Marine Corps, all armed with state-of-the-art cyberweapons. In charge of it all is a four-star admiral, Michael S. Rogers.

    Now under construction inside NSA's secret city, Cyber Command's new $3.2- billion headquarters is to include 14 buildings, 11 parking garages and an enormous cyberbrain - a 600,000-square-foot, $896.5-million supercomputer facility that will eat up an enormous amount of power, about 60 megawatts. This is enough electricity to power a city of more than 40,000 homes.

    In 2014, for a cover story in Wired and a PBS documentary, I spent three days in Moscow with Snowden, whose last NSA job was as a contract cyberwarrior. I was also granted rare access to his archive of documents. "Cyber Command itself has always been branded in a sort of misleading way from its very inception," Snowden told me. "It's an attack agency. … It's all about computer-network attack and computer-network exploitation at Cyber Command."

    The idea is to turn the Internet from a worldwide web of information into a global battlefield for war. "The next major conflict will start in cyberspace," says one of the secret NSA documents. One key phrase within Cyber Command documents is "Information Dominance."

    The Cyber Navy, for example, calls itself the Information Dominance Corps. The Cyber Army is providing frontline troops with the option of requesting "cyberfire support" from Cyber Command, in much the same way it requests air and artillery support. And the Cyber Air Force is pledged to "dominate cyberspace" just as "today we dominate air and space."

    Among the tools at their disposal is one called Passionatepolka, designed to "remotely brick network cards." "Bricking" a computer means destroying it – turning it into a brick.

    One such situation took place in war-torn Syria in 2012, according to Snowden, when the NSA attempted to remotely and secretly install an "exploit," or bug, into the computer system of a major Internet provider. This was expected to provide access to email and other Internet traffic across much of Syria. But something went wrong. Instead, the computers were bricked. It took down the Internet across the country for a period of time.

    While Cyber Command executes attacks, the National Security Agency seems more interested in tracking virtually everyone connected to the Internet, according to the documents.

    One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks.

    Yet, even as the U.S. government continues building robust eavesdropping and attack systems, it looks like there has been far less focus on security at home. One benefit of the cyber-theft of the Democratic National Committee emails might be that it helps open a public dialogue about the dangerous potential of cyberwarfare. This is long overdue. The possible security problems for the U.S. presidential election in November are already being discussed.

    Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying and cyberwarfare.

    In fact, the United States is the only country ever to launch an actual cyberwar -- when the Obama administration used a cyberattack to destroy thousands of centrifuges, used for nuclear enrichment, in Iran. This was an illegal act of war, according to the Defense Department's own definition.

    Given the news reports that many more DNC emails are waiting to be leaked as the presidential election draws closer, there will likely be many more reminders of the need for a public dialogue on cybersecurity and cyberwarfare before November.

    (James Bamford is the author of The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America. He is a columnist for Foreign Policy magazine.)

    [Aug 07, 2016] Edward Snowden Tweets Cryptic Code Was it a Dead Man's Switch

    sputniknews.com
    © Photo: Screenshot: Council of Europe News 21:57 06.08.2016 (updated 04:45 07.08.2016) Get short URL 31 62487 109 20

    After posting a 64 character hex code that is believed to be an encryption key, the internet worries that the famed whistleblower may have been killed or captured resulting in the triggering of a dead man's switch and potentially the release of many more US national secrets.

    Edward Snowden talks with Jane Mayer via satellite at the 15th Annual New Yorker Festival on Saturday, Oct. 11, 2014 in New York © AP Photo/ Christopher Lane Edward Snowden Not Dead: 'He's Fine' Says Glenn Greenwald After Mysterious Tweet On Friday night, famed NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted out a 64 character code before quickly deleting the message along with a mysterious warning earlier this week that "It's Time" which had called on colleagues of the former contractor to contact him leaving the internet to speculate that the characters could be an encryption key for a major document leak, it may be a "dead man's switch" set to go in effect if the whistleblower were killed or captured, or potentially both.

    A dead man's switch is a message set up to be automatically sent if the holder of an account does not perform a regular check-in. The whistleblower has acknowledged that he has distributed encrypted files to journalists and associates that have not yet been released so in Snowden's case, the dead man's switch could be an encryption key for those files.

    As of this time, Edward Snowden's Twitter account has gone silent for over 24 hours which is far from unprecedented for the whistleblower but is curious at a time when public concern has been raised over his well-being. The 64 hex characters in the code do appear to rule out the initial theory that Edward Snowden, like so many of us, simply butt dialed his phone, but instead is a clearly a secure hash algorithm that can serve as a signature for a data file or as a password.

    The timing shortly after the "It's Time" tweet also have caused concern for some Reddit theorists such as a user named stordoff who believes that the nascent Twitter post "was intended to set something in motion." The user postulates that it is an encrypted message, a signal, or a password.

    Snowden's initial data release in 2013 exposed what many had feared about the NSA for years, that the agency had gone rogue and undertaken a massive scheme of domestic surveillance. However, it is also known that the information released was only part of the document cache he had acquired from government servers.

    A chair is pictured on stage as former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. © REUTERS/ Svein Ove Ekornesvaag/NTB Scanpix 'It's Time': Whistleblower Edward Snowden Tweets Mysterious Warning

    It has been reported that additional government data was distributed in encrypted files to trusted journalists who were told to not release the information unless they received a signal urging them to – information that the whistleblower determined was too sensitive for release at the time.

    The possibility also exists that Snowden has decided that after three years in hiding that additional information needed to be released to the public independent of some physical harm to himself, but the whistleblower's fans and privacy advocates across the world will continue to sit on the edge of their seats in worry until and unless he tweets to confirm that he is safe.

    [Aug 06, 2016] Vladimir Putin Issued a Chilling Warning to the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear hegemony ..."
    "... The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the systems are just as offensive as they are defensive: ..."
    "... Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale wars and military conflicts. ..."
    Aug 04, 2016 | theantimedia.org

    (ANTIMEDIA) As the United States continues to develop and upgrade their nuclear weapons capabilities at an alarming rate, America's ruling class refuses to heed warnings from President Vladimir Putin that Russia will respond as necessary.

    In his most recent attempt to warn his Western counterparts about the impending danger of a new nuclear arms race, Putin told the heads of large foreign companies and business associations that Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear hegemony. He was speaking at the 20th St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

    "We know year by year what will happen, and they know that we know," he said.

    Putin argued that the rationale the U.S. previously gave for maintaining and developing its nuclear weapons system is directed at the so-called "Iranian threat." But that threat has been drastically reduced since the U.S. proved instrumental in reaching an agreement with Iran that should put to rest any possible Iranian nuclear potential.

    The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the systems are just as offensive as they are defensive:

    "They say [the missile systems] are part of their defense capability, and are not offensive, that these systems are aimed at protecting them from aggression. It's not true the strategic ballistic missile defense is part of an offensive strategic capability, [and] functions in conjunction with an aggressive missile strike system."

    This missile system has been launched throughout Europe, and despite American promises at the end of the Cold War that NATO's expansion would not move "as much as a thumb's width further to the East," the missile system has been implemented in many of Russia's neighboring countries, most recently in Romania.

    Russia views this as a direct attack on their security.

    "How do we know what's inside those launchers? All one needs to do is reprogram [the system], which is an absolutely inconspicuous task,"

    Putin stated.

    Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale wars and military conflicts.

    Following George W. Bush's 2001 decision to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, Russia was, according to Putin, left with no choice but to upgrade their capabilities in response.

    Putin warned:

    "Today Russia has reached significant achievements in this field. We have modernized our missile systems and successfully developed new generations. Not to mention missile defense systems We must provide security not only for ourselves. It's important to provide strategic balance in the world, which guarantees peace on the planet.

    Under the guise of following an anti-nuclear weapons policy, the Obama administration has announced plans for a $1 trillion nuclear weapons plan, which - let's face it - is targeted at Russia.

    Neutralizing Russia's nuclear potential will undo, according to Putin, "the mutual threat that has provided [mankind] with global security for decades."

    There is no winner in a nuclear war between Russia and the United States. This has been not only confirmed but repeatedly warned about by atomic scientists who - if we are being honest - are the people whose opinion on this topic should matter the most.

    It should, therefore, come as no surprise that NASA scientists want to colonize the moon by 2022 - we may have to if we don't drastically alter the path we are on. As Albert Einstein famously stated:

    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

    This article (Vladimir Putin Just Issued a Chilling Warning to the United States) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to [email protected].

    [Aug 06, 2016] Empire's Chain Reaction

    Notable quotes:
    "... Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East." ..."
    "... The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.) ..."
    "... Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. ..."
    "... Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades. ..."
    "... "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East. ..."
    "... The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible. ..."
    "... The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect." ..."
    The American Conservative

    Bacevich's latest book, America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, is a bookend of sorts to American Empire. The earlier work was heavy on theory and institutional development, the groundwork for the wars of the early 21st century. The new book covers the history itself-and argues persuasively that the Afghanistan, Iraq, and other, smaller wars since 9/11 are parts of a larger conflict that began much earlier, back in the Carter administration.

    Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East."

    Operation Eagle Claw, Carter's ill-fated mission to rescue Americans held hostage in Iran, was the first combat engagement in the war. Iran would continue to tempt Washington to military action throughout the next 36 years-though paradoxically, attempts to contain Iran more often brought the U.S. into war with the Islamic Republic's hostile neighbor, Iraq.

    The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.)

    Weakened and indebted by that war, and thinking the U.S. tolerant of his ambitions, Saddam then invaded Kuwait, leading to full-scale U.S. military intervention against him: Operation Desert Storm in 1991. (By Bacevich's count, the second Gulf War.) President George H.W. Bush stopped American forces from pushing on to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait, however, because-among other things-toppling Saddam would have created a dangerous vacuum that Iran might fill.

    A decade of sanctions, no-fly zones, and intermittent bombing then ensued, as Washington, under Bush and Clinton, would neither depose Saddam Hussein nor permit him to reassert himself. Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. This would set a precedent for America to democratize every trouble-making state in the region, including Iran.

    Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades.

    Iran released its American hostages the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president: January 20, 1981. So what accounts for another 35 years of conflict with Iran and Iraq? The answer begins with oil.

    Bacevich takes us back to the Carter years. "By June 1979, a just-completed study by a then-obscure Defense Department official named Paul Wolfowitz was attracting notice throughout the national security bureaucracy." This "Limited Contingency Study" described America's "vital and growing stake in the Persian Gulf," arising from "our need for Persian-Gulf oil and because events in the Persian Gulf affect the Arab-Israeli conflict."

    "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East.

    (Bacevich is fair to Wolfowitz, acknowledging that Saddam Hussein was indeed an expansionist, as the Iraqi dictator would demonstrate by invading Iran in 1980 and seizing Kuwait a decade later. Whether this meant that Iraq was ever a threat to U.S. interests is, of course, a different question-as is whether the Soviet Union could really have cut America off from Gulf oil.)

    Wolfowitz was not alone in calling for the U.S. to become the guarantor of Middle East security-and Saudi Arabia's security in particular-and President Carter heeded the advice. In March 1980 he created the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), predecessor to what we now know as the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which has military oversight for the region. The RDJTF's second head, Lt. Gen. Robert Kingston, described its mission, in admirably frank language, as simply "to ensure the unimpeded flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf."

    Iraq and Iran both posed dangers to the flow of oil and its control by Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies-to use the term loosely-of the United States. And just as the U.S. was drawn into wars with Iran and Iraq when it tried to play one against the other, America's defense of Saudi Arabia would have grave unintended consequences-such as the creation of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden was outraged when, in 1990, Saudi Arabia's King Fahd declined his offer to wage holy war against Saddam Hussein and instead turned to American protection, even permitting the stationing of American military personnel in Islam's sacred lands. "To liberate Kuwait," writes Bacevich, bin Laden had "offered to raise an army of mujahedin. Rejecting his offer and his protest, Saudi authorities sought to silence the impertinent bin Laden. Not long thereafter, he fled into exile, determined to lead a holy war that would overthrow the corrupt Saudi royals." The instrument bin Laden forged to accomplish that task, al-Qaeda, would target Americans as well, seeking to push the U.S. out of Muslim lands.

    Bin Laden had reason to hope for success: in the 1980s he had helped mujahedin defeat another superpower, the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan. That struggle, of course, was supported by the U.S., through the CIA's "Operation Cyclone," which funneled arms and money to the Soviets' Muslim opponents. Bacevich offers a verdict on this program:

    Operation Cyclone illustrates one of the central ironies of America's War for the Greater Middle East-the unwitting tendency, while intently focusing on solving one problem, to exacerbate a second and plant the seeds of a third. In Afghanistan, this meant fostering the rise of Islamic radicalism and underwriting Pakistan's transformation into a nuclear-armed quasi-rogue state while attempting to subvert the Soviet Union.

    America's support for the mujahedin succeeded in inflicting defeat on the USSR-but left Afghanistan a haven and magnet for Islamist radicals, including bin Laden.

    Another irony of Bacevich's tale is the way in which the end of the Cold War made escalation of the War for the Greater Middle East possible. The Carter and Reagan administrations never considered the Middle East the centerpiece of their foreign policy: Western Europe and the Cold War took precedence. Carter and Reagan were unsystematic about their engagement with the Middle East and, even as they expanded America's military presence, remained wary of strategic overcommitment. Operation Eagle Claw, Reagan's deployment of troops to Lebanon in 1983 and bombing of Libya in 1986, and even the meddling in Iran and Iraq were all small-scale projects compared to what would be unleashed after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible.

    The Greater Middle East of Bacevich's title centers strategically, if not geographically, upon Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. But its strategic implications and cultural reach are wide, encompassing Libya, Somalia, and other African states with significant Muslim populations; Afghanistan and Pakistan (or "AfPak," in the Obama administration's parlance); and even, on the periphery, the Balkans, where the U.S. intervened militarily in support of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. That Clinton-era intervention is examined in detail by Bacevich: "Today, years after NATO came to their rescue," he writes, "a steady stream of Bosnians and Kosovars leave their homeland and head off toward Syria and Iraq, where they enlist as fighters in the ongoing anti-American, anti-Western jihad."

    Much as George W. Bush believed that liberal democracy would spring up in Saddam Hussein's wake, the humanitarian interventionists who demanded that Bill Clinton send peacekeepers to Bosnia and bomb Serbia on behalf of the Kosovars thought that they were making the world safe for their own liberal, multicultural values. But as Bacevich notes, the Balkan Muslims joining ISIS today are "waging war on behalf of an entirely different set of universal values."

    Bacevich's many books confront readers with painful but necessary truths. The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect."

    Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative.

    [Aug 06, 2016] Saudi Arabia funds and exports Islamic extremism The truth behind the toxic U.S. relationship with the theocratic monarchy

    Notable quotes:
    "... "In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other," Daoud continued. "This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on." ..."
    "... In the past few decades, the Saudi regime has spent an estimated $100 billion exporting its extremist interpretation of Islam worldwide. It infuses its fundamentalist ideology in the ostensible charity work it performs, often targeting poor Muslim communities in countries like Pakistan or places like refugee camps, where uneducated, indigent, oppressed people are more susceptible to it. ..."
    "... What is not contested, on the other hand, is that Saudi elites in the business community and even segments of the royal family support extremist groups like al-Qaida. U.S. government cables leaked by WikiLeaks admit "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." ..."
    "... Sen. Graham has nevertheless insisted that the possibility that elements of the Saudi royal family supported the 9/11 attackers should not be ruled out. In his 2004 book "Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America's War on Terror," Graham further argued these points, from his background within the U.S. government. ..."
    "... The independent, non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania has detailed the allegations and possible evidence - or lack thereof - of Saudi ties to the 9/11 attacks on its website FactCheck.org. ..."
    "... Yet despite its brutality and support for extremism, the U.S. considers the Saudi monarchy a "close ally." The State Department calls Saudi Arabia "a strong partner in regional security and counterterrorism efforts, providing military, diplomatic, and financial cooperation." It stated in September 2015 it "welcomed" the appointment of Saudi Arabia to the head of a U.N. human rights panel. "We're close allies," the State Department remarked. ..."
    "... During the Cold War - and particularly during the Soviet war in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s - the U.S., hand-in-hand with Saudi Arabia, actively encouraged religious extremism. They stressed that socialist and communist movements were often atheistic, and pitted far-right religious fundamentalists against the secular leftists. The remnants of this policy are the extremist movements we see throughout the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia today. ..."
    "... In order to decimate the left in the Cold War, the U.S. emboldened, armed and trained the extreme-right. The Frankenstein's monsters it created in the pursuit of this policy are the al-Qaedas and ISISes of the world. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia is truly a country that was created through Western imperialism. Before Roosevelt met with King Ibn Saud, Saudi Arabia was a relatively weak country with little global political influence. It was Western, and principally U.S., patronage that turned Saudi Arabia into what it is today. ..."
    "... Women are essentially second-class citizens in Saudi Arabia. They are given nowhere near equal rights with men - who basically own their wives and daughters - and cannot travel without men accompanying them. Unemployment rates are skyrocketing among women, even though many are educated, and they were only just granted the right to vote in December 2015 - although they do not have any actual effectual politicians to vote for under an absolute monarchy. ..."
    "... The U.S. will realize that there really is an easy way to stop terrorism: It will stop participating in it, and end its alliance with Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... "There was no 'overthrow.'" ..."
    "... I've seen for myself the investments that Saudi Arabia has made in Kyrgyzstan to turn their Muslim majority into a destabilizing force. They pay for brand new Mosques with gleaming spires, and these are the locations where the local Muslims become radicalized and where guns, ammunition and explosives are held. ..."
    "... one reason the usa government loves saudi is that the government activities enrich the officers of state. dubya not only promoted a war, he enriched his family with munitions contracts. look at the 'carlyle group.' ..."
    "... It's no wonder the average Middle Easterner thinks the US is behind ISIS. ..."
    www.salon.com

    "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." So advised world-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky, one of the most cited thinkers in human history.

    The counsel may sound simple and intuitive - that's because it is. But when it comes to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. ignores it.

    Saudi Arabia is the world's leading sponsor of Islamic extremism. It is also a close U.S. ally.

    ... ... ...

    Saudi Arabia is a theocratic absolute monarchy that governs based on an extreme interpretation of Sharia (Islamic law). It is so extreme, it has been widely compared to ISIS. Algerian journalist Kamel Daoud characterized Saudi Arabia in an op-ed in The New York Times as "an ISIS that has made it."

    "Black Daesh, white Daesh," Daoud wrote, using the Arabic acronym for ISIS. "The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity's common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia."

    "In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other," Daoud continued. "This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on."

    In the past few decades, the Saudi regime has spent an estimated $100 billion exporting its extremist interpretation of Islam worldwide. It infuses its fundamentalist ideology in the ostensible charity work it performs, often targeting poor Muslim communities in countries like Pakistan or places like refugee camps, where uneducated, indigent, oppressed people are more susceptible to it.

    Whether elements within Saudi Arabia support ISIS is contested. Even if Saudi Arabia does not directly support or fund ISIS, however, Saudi Arabia gives legitimacy to the extremist ideology ISIS preaches.

    What is not contested, on the other hand, is that Saudi elites in the business community and even segments of the royal family support extremist groups like al-Qaida. U.S. government cables leaked by WikiLeaks admit "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."

    Supporters of the Saudi monarchy resist comparisons to ISIS. The regime itself threatened to sue social media users who compared it to ISIS. Apologists point out that ISIS and Saudi Arabia are enemies. This is indeed true. But this is not necessarily because they are ideologically different (they are similar) but rather because they threaten each other's power.

    There can only be one autocrat in an autocratic system; ISIS' self-proclaimed Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi refuses to kowtow to present Saudi King Salman, and vice-versa. After all, the Saudi absolute monarch partially justifies his rule through claiming that it has been blessed and ordained by God, and if ISIS' caliph insists the same, they can't both be right.

    Some American politicians have criticized the U.S.-Saudi relationship for these very reasons. Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham has been perhaps the most outspoken critic. Graham has called extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda "a product of Saudi ideals, Saudi money and Saudi organizational support."

    ... ... ...

    Sen. Graham has nevertheless insisted that the possibility that elements of the Saudi royal family supported the 9/11 attackers should not be ruled out. In his 2004 book "Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America's War on Terror," Graham further argued these points, from his background within the U.S. government.

    The independent, non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania has detailed the allegations and possible evidence - or lack thereof - of Saudi ties to the 9/11 attacks on its website FactCheck.org.

    Whatever its role, what is clear is that Saudi Arabia's support for violent extremist groups is well documented. Such support continues to this very day. In Syria, the Saudi monarchy has backed al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate. The U.S. government has bombed al-Nusra, but its ally Saudi Arabia is funding it.

    Yet despite its brutality and support for extremism, the U.S. considers the Saudi monarchy a "close ally." The State Department calls Saudi Arabia "a strong partner in regional security and counterterrorism efforts, providing military, diplomatic, and financial cooperation." It stated in September 2015 it "welcomed" the appointment of Saudi Arabia to the head of a U.N. human rights panel. "We're close allies," the State Department remarked.

    ... ... ...

    During the Cold War - and particularly during the Soviet war in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s - the U.S., hand-in-hand with Saudi Arabia, actively encouraged religious extremism. They stressed that socialist and communist movements were often atheistic, and pitted far-right religious fundamentalists against the secular leftists. The remnants of this policy are the extremist movements we see throughout the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia today.

    In order to decimate the left in the Cold War, the U.S. emboldened, armed and trained the extreme-right. The Frankenstein's monsters it created in the pursuit of this policy are the al-Qaedas and ISISes of the world.

    ... ... ...

    Saudi Arabia is truly a country that was created through Western imperialism. Before Roosevelt met with King Ibn Saud, Saudi Arabia was a relatively weak country with little global political influence. It was Western, and principally U.S., patronage that turned Saudi Arabia into what it is today.

    The Saudi monarchy presents itself as modernized, yet it is still feudal in essence. There is almost no developed civil society in Saudi Arabia, because the regime has made all independent institutionalized forms of dissent illegal.

    Women are essentially second-class citizens in Saudi Arabia. They are given nowhere near equal rights with men - who basically own their wives and daughters - and cannot travel without men accompanying them. Unemployment rates are skyrocketing among women, even though many are educated, and they were only just granted the right to vote in December 2015 - although they do not have any actual effectual politicians to vote for under an absolute monarchy.

    ... ... ...

    If it is truly interested in stopping terrorism, then, the U.S. and the rest of the West will heed Chomsky's advice. The U.S. will realize that there really is an easy way to stop terrorism: It will stop participating in it, and end its alliance with Saudi Arabia.

    Ben Norton is a politics staff writer at Salon. You can find him on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton.

    Publicola,

    @RobertSF claims without evidence:

    "There was no 'overthrow.'"

    CIA documents directly contradict your claim.

    ----------------------------

    CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup

    Declassified documents describe in detail how US – with British help – engineered coup against Mohammad Mosaddeq

    Monday 19 August 2013

    The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement in his overthrow.

    On the 60th anniversary of an event often invoked by Iranians as evidence of western meddling, the US national security archive at George Washington University published a series of declassified CIA documents.

    "The military coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government," reads a previously excised section of an internal CIA history titled The Battle for Iran.

    The documents, published on the archive's website under freedom of information laws, describe in detail how the US – with British help – engineered the coup, codenamed TPAJAX by the CIA and Operation Boot by Britain's MI6...

    Mosaddeq's overthrow, still given as a reason for the Iranian mistrust of British and American politicians, consolidated the Shah's rule for the next 26 years until the 1979 Islamic revolution. It was aimed at making sure the Iranian monarchy would safeguard the west's oil interests in the country.

    The archived CIA documents include a draft internal history of the coup titled "Campaign to install a pro-western government in Iran", which defines the objective of the campaign as "through legal, or quasi-legal, methods to effect the fall of the Mosaddeq government; and to replace it with a pro-western government under the Shah's leadership with Zahedi as its prime minister".

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

    (emphasis mine)

    T Kosciuszko,

    {The Nixon administration created a "Twin Pillars" Middle East policy, in which the U.S.-backed monarchies in Saudi Arabia and Iran were considered pillars of stability. In 1953, the CIA backed a coup that overthrew Iran's first and only democratically elected head of state, Mohammad Mosaddegh}

    That is a rather odd correlation -- Mr. Nixon was inaugurated in 1973 -- 20 yrs after the CIA/MI6 (Mossad was likely lurking, too) toppled Mr. Mosaddegh.

    The Nixon effect stems from Mr. Kissinger's amorous connection -- he made love to Saudi Arabia, and they had a child named Petro-$. It was the birth of the greatest financial con in Human history.

    If one has a grasp of the nature of the Supreme Power behind that curtain, the events unfolding in the world right now, make much sense.

    Helmey91,

    I've seen for myself the investments that Saudi Arabia has made in Kyrgyzstan to turn their Muslim majority into a destabilizing force. They pay for brand new Mosques with gleaming spires, and these are the locations where the local Muslims become radicalized and where guns, ammunition and explosives are held.

    They were successful in starting an armed revolution against of the Kyrgis government in 2010 in this otherwise peaceful country where Muslims and non-Muslims had coexisted for years in peace and harmony. (During my visit, I even had a Muslim business owner thank George Bush during my visit for our USAID support - I was shocked. Muslims are not the enemy. Extremists and authoritarian governments like SA are. They don't want the two cultures to mix.)

    Saudi Arabia is by far the biggest opponent to peace in the Middle East.

    al loomis,

    one reason the usa government loves saudi is that the government activities enrich the officers of state. dubya not only promoted a war, he enriched his family with munitions contracts. look at the 'carlyle group.'

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NEW304A.html

    asynchronicity,

    It's no wonder the average Middle Easterner thinks the US is behind ISIS.

    walkingmountain,

    Until the problem of Saudi Arabia is solved, the problems in the Middle East will not be solved. We thought we could go in the back door by changing Iraq, but we only made things worse. Take away the oil and we would have invaded after 9/11.
    The royal family is basically paying off the radicals to leave them, and their wealth, alone.

    ELYDOG 5ptsFeatured

    Americans have to accept that fact that the U.S. and other western governments prefer fundamentalism - which sells us oil - to democracy, socialism or Arab nationalism. It loves a good theocracy. These really are feudal regimes.

    In Palestine, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Iraq and now Syria, the U.S. and its allies have DIRECTLY funded Al Quada and its offshoots. Much of the weaponry sent from Libya to Syria for 'secular freedom fighters' ended up in the hands of Daesh. The U.S. has worked to crush partially secular regimes over and over again, even using the early Islamic Hamas fundamentalists in Palestine against the PLO, DFLP, PFLP etc. Before that they undermined Nasser, Mossedegh, and ANY left nationalists in sight.

    All for oil. It is still the oil barons and the militarists that back the Saudis and this will not change until the US. government is undermined itself.

    mwcarlton 5ptsFeatured

    These issues are being debated over on MIchael Totten's web site.

    http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/saudi-iranian-eruption

    For once I fear I am in full agreement with Ben Norton.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Furious Sheep

    Notable quotes:
    "... But there is hardly a single valid reason to be found anywhere why someone would want to vote for either them. Some have argued that Trump is less likely to cause World War III, because his instincts are those of a businessman, and he is primarily interested in making money, not war; but Clinton likes money just as much as Trump-just look at her gigantic private slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation! ..."
    "... A 2014 study, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page conclusively showed how the preferences of average citizens matter not a whit, while those of moneyed elites and interest groups certainly do. ..."
    "... no need to concern yourself with who is the "lesser evil," or which candidate made which meaningless promises. You will not be casting a vote for someone; you will be casting a vote against the entire process. Think of yourself as a soldier who volunteered in defense of liberty: you will simply be carrying out your orders. The charge has been laid by someone else; your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to light the fuse and walk away. This should at once motivate you to go and vote and make the voting process easy and stress-free. You are going to show up, subvert the dominant paradigm, and go watch the fireworks. ..."
    "... In any case, the two major parties are dying, and the number of non-party members is now almost the same as the number of Democrats and Republicans put together. ..."
    "... Try the line "This penny can't be bought." Don't argue or debate; rattle off your "elevator speech," hand over the penny and move on. ..."
    "... And that, my fellow Americans, is how you can change a "you lose-they win" outcome to a more just and equitable "you lose-they lose" in this particular game of strategy. ..."
    www.informationclearinghouse.info


    v
    August 04, 2016 Information Clearing House - ICH

    In all my years of watching politics in the US, never have I seen a presidential election generate such overwhelmingly negative emotions. Everyone hates Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or, increasingly, both of them. This is creating a severe psychological problem for many people: they want to tell their friends and the world that Clinton is mentally unstable and a crook, but they are conflicted because they realize that by so doing they would be supporting Trump. Or they want to tell everyone what a vulgar, narcissistic, egotistical blowhard Trump is, but they are conflicted because they realize that by so doing they would be supporting Clinton. Some are abandoning the two-party duopoly in favor of minor parties, ready to vote for Jill Stein the Green or Gary Johnson the Libertarian, but are conflicted because voting for Stein would take votes away from Clinton the crook and thus support Trump the blowhard, while voting for Johnson would take votes away from Trump the blowhard and thus support Clinton the crook. There is just no winning! Or is there?

    There is a long list of arguments for voting against either of the major candidates, some of them seemingly valid. At the top of the list of the seemingly valid ones are that Clinton is corrupt and a warmonger, while Trump is inexperienced and socially divisive. But there is hardly a single valid reason to be found anywhere why someone would want to vote for either them. Some have argued that Trump is less likely to cause World War III, because his instincts are those of a businessman, and he is primarily interested in making money, not war; but Clinton likes money just as much as Trump-just look at her gigantic private slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation! On the other hand, perhaps Trump will like the idea of peace only until the moment he is elected, at which point it will be explained to him that the US empire is an extortion racket, and that breaking legs (a.k.a. war) is how it comes up with the ink. And then he will like war just as much as Clinton does. None of this makes it easy for a lover of liberty and peace to vote for either one of them in good conscience.

    I heard Jill Stein say that people should be able to vote their conscience. Yes, let's concede that voting against your conscience is probably bad for your soul, if not your pocketbook. But this makes it sound as if the voting booth were a confessional rather than what it is-an apparatus by which people can assert their very limited political power. But do you have any political power, or are American elections just a game of manipulation in which you lose no matter how you vote? A 2014 study, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page conclusively showed how the preferences of average citizens matter not a whit, while those of moneyed elites and interest groups certainly do. Thus, the question as to whether you are the winner or the loser in the game of US electoral politics is easily answered: if you are a multibillionaire and a captain of industry, then you might win; if you are an average citizen, then the chances of you winning are precisely zero.

    Given that you are going to lose, how should you play? Should you behave like a Furious Sheep, obeying all the signals fed to you by the candidates, their organizations and the political commentators in the mass media? Should you do your part to hand the largest possible victory to those who are manipulating the political process to their advantage? Or should you withhold cooperation to the largest extent possible and try to unmask them and neutralize their efforts at political manipulation?

    Sure, there are some cheap thrills to be had for the Furious Sheep-endorphins from jumping up and down while waving mass-produced signs and shouting slogans pre-approved by campaign committees. But if you are the sort of person who likes to have an independent thought now and again, what you are probably looking for are three things:

    • avoid psychological damage from having to observe and participate in this absurd and degrading spectacle;
    • experience the delicious thrill of watching this system fail and those behind it lose face; and
    • regain some amount of faith in the possibility of a future for your children and grandchildren that might involve something actually resembling some sort of democracy rather than a humiliating, sordid, rigged game.

    Before we can play, we have to understand what variety of game this is in technical terms. There are many different kinds of games: games of strength (tug-of-war), games of skill (fencing) and games of strategy (backgammon). This one is a game of strength, fought using large bags of money, but it can be turned into a game of strategy by the weaker side, not to win but to deny victory to the other side.

    Most of us are brought up with the nice idea that games should be fair. In a fair game both sides have a chance at victory, and there is normally a winner and a loser, or, failing that, a tie. But fair games represent only a subset of games, while the rest-the vast majority-are unfair. Here, we are talking about a specific type of unfair game in which your side always loses. But does that mean that the other side must always win? Not at all! There are two possible outcomes: "you lose-they win" and "you lose-they lose."

    Now, if you, being neither a multibillionaire nor a captain of industry, are facing the prospect of spending the rest of your life on the losing side, which outcome should you wish for? Of course, you should want the other side to lose too! The reason: if those on the other side start losing, then they will abandon this game and resort to some other means of securing an unfair victory. In the case of the game of American electoral politics, this would pierce the veil of faux-democracy, generating a level of public outrage that might make the restoration of real democracy at least theoretically possible.

    So, how do you change the outcome from "you lose-they win" to "you lose-they lose"?

    The first question to answer is whether you should bother voting at all, and the answer is, Yes, you should vote. If you don't vote, then you abandon the playing field to the Furious Sheep who, being most easily manipulated, will hand an easy victory to the other side. And so the remaining question is, How should you vote to make the other side lose? This should not be regarded as a matter of personal choice; no need to concern yourself with who is the "lesser evil," or which candidate made which meaningless promises. You will not be casting a vote for someone; you will be casting a vote against the entire process. Think of yourself as a soldier who volunteered in defense of liberty: you will simply be carrying out your orders. The charge has been laid by someone else; your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to light the fuse and walk away. This should at once motivate you to go and vote and make the voting process easy and stress-free. You are going to show up, subvert the dominant paradigm, and go watch the fireworks.

    Next, you have to understand the way the electoral game is played. It is played with money-very large sums of money-with votes being quite secondary. In mathematical terms, money is the independent variable and votes are the dependent variable, but the relationship between money and votes is nonlinear and time-variant. In the opening round, the moneyed interests throw huge sums of money at both of the major parties-not because elections have to be, by their nature, ridiculously expensive, but to erect an insurmountable barrier to entry for average citizens. But the final decision is made on a relatively thin margin of victory, in order to make the electoral process appear genuine rather than staged, and to generate excitement. After all, if the moneyed interests just threw all their money at their favorite candidate, making that candidate's victory a foregone conclusion, that wouldn't look sufficiently democratic. And so they use large sums to separate themselves from you the great unwashed, but much smaller sums to tip the scales.

    When calculating how to tip the scales, the political experts employed by the moneyed interests rely on information on party affiliation, polling data and historical voting patterns. To change the outcome from a "lose-win" to a "lose-lose," you need to invalidate all three of these:

    • The proper choice of party affiliation is "none," which, for some bizarre reason, is commonly labeled as "independent," (and watch out for American Independent Party, which is a minor right-wing party in California that has successfully trolled people into joining it by mistake). Be that as it may; let the Furious Sheep call themselves the "dependent" ones. In any case, the two major parties are dying, and the number of non-party members is now almost the same as the number of Democrats and Republicans put together.
    • When responding to a poll, the category you should always opt for is "undecided," up to and including the moment when you walk into the voting booth. When questioned about your stands on various issues, you need to remember that the interest in your opinion is disingenuous: your stand on issues matters not a whit (see study above) except as part of an effort to herd you, a Furious Sheep, into a particular political paddock. Therefore, when talking to pollsters, be vaguely on both sides of every issue while stressing that it plays no role in your decision-making. Should you be asked what does matter to you, concentrate on such issues as the candidates' body language, fashion sense and demeanor. Doing so will effectively short-circuit any attempt to manipulate you using your purely fictional ability to influence public policy. You cannot be for or against a candidate being forthright and well-spoken; nor is there a litmus test for comportment or fashion sense. Politicians are supposed to be able to herd Furious Sheep by making promises they have no intention of keeping. But what if the voters (wise to the fact that their opinions no longer matter) suddenly start demanding better posture, more graceful hand gestures, a more melodious tone of voice and a sprightlier step? Calamity! What was supposed to be a fake but tidy ideological battleground with fictional but clearly delineated front lines suddenly turns into a macabre beauty pageant held on a uniform field of liquefied mud.
    • The final step is to invalidate historical voting patterns. Here, the perfectly obvious solution is to vote randomly. Random voting will produce not random but chaotic results, invalidating the notion that the electoral process is about party platforms, policies, issues or popular mandates. More importantly, it will invalidate the process by which votes are purchased, in effect getting money out of politics. You just have to remember to bring a penny into the voting booth with you. Here is a flowchart that explains how you should decide who to vote for once you are standing in the voting booth holding a penny:
      • If you want to be an activist, bring a pocketful of pennies and hand them out to people while standing in line at the polling place. You won't need to convince that many people to produce the intended effect. Remember, in order to maintain the appearance of a democratic process, the artificial, financially induced margin of victory is kept quite thin, and even a small amount of added randomness is enough to wipe it out. Point out the word "liberty" prominently embossed on each penny. Briefly explain what a Furious Sheep is, and how the exercise of liberty is the exact opposite of being a Furious Sheep.
      • Then explain to them how the pennies are to be used: the first flip of the penny determines whether you are voting for the left or the right; the second-whether you are voting for the major or the minor candidate. Be sure to mention that this is a sure-fire way to get money out of politics. Try the line "This penny can't be bought." Don't argue or debate; rattle off your "elevator speech," hand over the penny and move on. The last detail everyone needs to remember is how to respond to exit polls, in order to deprive the other side of any understanding of what has just happened. When asked how you voted, say: "I voted by secret ballot."

    Then you can go home, turn on the idiot box and watch a fun spectacle featuring the gnashing of teeth, the rending of garments and the scattering of ashes upon talking heads. You won't get to see the behind-the-scenes rancor and the recriminations among the moneyed elites, but you can imagine just how furious they will be, having had their billions of dollars defeated by a few handfuls of pennies.

    You might think that random voting, with each candidate getting an equal share of the votes, would be perfectly predictable, making it possible to secure a victory by hacking a few voting machines. But this would never be the case in the real world, because not everyone will vote randomly. You might then think that it would still be possible to manipulate the nonrandom voters into voting a certain way. But how can anyone predict who will vote randomly and who won't? And if every vote is, in essence, purchased, how would someone go about buying random votes, or figuring out which candidate such a purchase would favor? In this situation, buying votes would only serve to further confuse the outcome. Thus, the effect of added randomness on the outcome will not be random; it will be chaotic.

    And that, my fellow Americans, is how you can change a "you lose-they win" outcome to a more just and equitable "you lose-they lose" in this particular game of strategy.

    Dmitry Orlov was born in Leningrad and immigrated to the United States in the 1970's. He is the author of Reinventing Collapse, Hold Your Applause! and Absolutely Positive, and publishes weekly at the phenomenally popular blog www.ClubOrlov.com .

    [Aug 05, 2016] Free cookies……the Clinton-Nuland-Obama legacy – Jackpine Radicals

    jackpineradicals.com

    In case your wondering who the US is financing in Ukraine, its these Nazis who have now killed over 10,000 ethnic Russian civilians while the corrupt US media has intentionally covered it up.

  • Thanks to US funding they continue to march on…….

    Clarity of Signal

  • Neocon Nuland, spouse of Hillary's neocon buddy, Kagan, signer of the PNAC

    sabrina

  • And things like this are why is is hopelessly naive and playing right

    djean111

  • [Aug 05, 2016] Furious Sheep

    Notable quotes:
    "... But there is hardly a single valid reason to be found anywhere why someone would want to vote for either them. Some have argued that Trump is less likely to cause World War III, because his instincts are those of a businessman, and he is primarily interested in making money, not war; but Clinton likes money just as much as Trump-just look at her gigantic private slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation! ..."
    "... A 2014 study, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page conclusively showed how the preferences of average citizens matter not a whit, while those of moneyed elites and interest groups certainly do. ..."
    "... no need to concern yourself with who is the "lesser evil," or which candidate made which meaningless promises. You will not be casting a vote for someone; you will be casting a vote against the entire process. Think of yourself as a soldier who volunteered in defense of liberty: you will simply be carrying out your orders. The charge has been laid by someone else; your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to light the fuse and walk away. This should at once motivate you to go and vote and make the voting process easy and stress-free. You are going to show up, subvert the dominant paradigm, and go watch the fireworks. ..."
    "... In any case, the two major parties are dying, and the number of non-party members is now almost the same as the number of Democrats and Republicans put together. ..."
    "... Try the line "This penny can't be bought." Don't argue or debate; rattle off your "elevator speech," hand over the penny and move on. ..."
    "... And that, my fellow Americans, is how you can change a "you lose-they win" outcome to a more just and equitable "you lose-they lose" in this particular game of strategy. ..."
    www.informationclearinghouse.info


    v
    August 04, 2016 Information Clearing House - ICH

    In all my years of watching politics in the US, never have I seen a presidential election generate such overwhelmingly negative emotions. Everyone hates Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or, increasingly, both of them. This is creating a severe psychological problem for many people: they want to tell their friends and the world that Clinton is mentally unstable and a crook, but they are conflicted because they realize that by so doing they would be supporting Trump. Or they want to tell everyone what a vulgar, narcissistic, egotistical blowhard Trump is, but they are conflicted because they realize that by so doing they would be supporting Clinton. Some are abandoning the two-party duopoly in favor of minor parties, ready to vote for Jill Stein the Green or Gary Johnson the Libertarian, but are conflicted because voting for Stein would take votes away from Clinton the crook and thus support Trump the blowhard, while voting for Johnson would take votes away from Trump the blowhard and thus support Clinton the crook. There is just no winning! Or is there?

    There is a long list of arguments for voting against either of the major candidates, some of them seemingly valid. At the top of the list of the seemingly valid ones are that Clinton is corrupt and a warmonger, while Trump is inexperienced and socially divisive. But there is hardly a single valid reason to be found anywhere why someone would want to vote for either them. Some have argued that Trump is less likely to cause World War III, because his instincts are those of a businessman, and he is primarily interested in making money, not war; but Clinton likes money just as much as Trump-just look at her gigantic private slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation! On the other hand, perhaps Trump will like the idea of peace only until the moment he is elected, at which point it will be explained to him that the US empire is an extortion racket, and that breaking legs (a.k.a. war) is how it comes up with the ink. And then he will like war just as much as Clinton does. None of this makes it easy for a lover of liberty and peace to vote for either one of them in good conscience.

    I heard Jill Stein say that people should be able to vote their conscience. Yes, let's concede that voting against your conscience is probably bad for your soul, if not your pocketbook. But this makes it sound as if the voting booth were a confessional rather than what it is-an apparatus by which people can assert their very limited political power. But do you have any political power, or are American elections just a game of manipulation in which you lose no matter how you vote? A 2014 study, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page conclusively showed how the preferences of average citizens matter not a whit, while those of moneyed elites and interest groups certainly do. Thus, the question as to whether you are the winner or the loser in the game of US electoral politics is easily answered: if you are a multibillionaire and a captain of industry, then you might win; if you are an average citizen, then the chances of you winning are precisely zero.

    Given that you are going to lose, how should you play? Should you behave like a Furious Sheep, obeying all the signals fed to you by the candidates, their organizations and the political commentators in the mass media? Should you do your part to hand the largest possible victory to those who are manipulating the political process to their advantage? Or should you withhold cooperation to the largest extent possible and try to unmask them and neutralize their efforts at political manipulation?

    Sure, there are some cheap thrills to be had for the Furious Sheep-endorphins from jumping up and down while waving mass-produced signs and shouting slogans pre-approved by campaign committees. But if you are the sort of person who likes to have an independent thought now and again, what you are probably looking for are three things:

    • avoid psychological damage from having to observe and participate in this absurd and degrading spectacle;
    • experience the delicious thrill of watching this system fail and those behind it lose face; and
    • regain some amount of faith in the possibility of a future for your children and grandchildren that might involve something actually resembling some sort of democracy rather than a humiliating, sordid, rigged game.

    Before we can play, we have to understand what variety of game this is in technical terms. There are many different kinds of games: games of strength (tug-of-war), games of skill (fencing) and games of strategy (backgammon). This one is a game of strength, fought using large bags of money, but it can be turned into a game of strategy by the weaker side, not to win but to deny victory to the other side.

    Most of us are brought up with the nice idea that games should be fair. In a fair game both sides have a chance at victory, and there is normally a winner and a loser, or, failing that, a tie. But fair games represent only a subset of games, while the rest-the vast majority-are unfair. Here, we are talking about a specific type of unfair game in which your side always loses. But does that mean that the other side must always win? Not at all! There are two possible outcomes: "you lose-they win" and "you lose-they lose."

    Now, if you, being neither a multibillionaire nor a captain of industry, are facing the prospect of spending the rest of your life on the losing side, which outcome should you wish for? Of course, you should want the other side to lose too! The reason: if those on the other side start losing, then they will abandon this game and resort to some other means of securing an unfair victory. In the case of the game of American electoral politics, this would pierce the veil of faux-democracy, generating a level of public outrage that might make the restoration of real democracy at least theoretically possible.

    So, how do you change the outcome from "you lose-they win" to "you lose-they lose"?

    The first question to answer is whether you should bother voting at all, and the answer is, Yes, you should vote. If you don't vote, then you abandon the playing field to the Furious Sheep who, being most easily manipulated, will hand an easy victory to the other side. And so the remaining question is, How should you vote to make the other side lose? This should not be regarded as a matter of personal choice; no need to concern yourself with who is the "lesser evil," or which candidate made which meaningless promises. You will not be casting a vote for someone; you will be casting a vote against the entire process. Think of yourself as a soldier who volunteered in defense of liberty: you will simply be carrying out your orders. The charge has been laid by someone else; your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to light the fuse and walk away. This should at once motivate you to go and vote and make the voting process easy and stress-free. You are going to show up, subvert the dominant paradigm, and go watch the fireworks.

    Next, you have to understand the way the electoral game is played. It is played with money-very large sums of money-with votes being quite secondary. In mathematical terms, money is the independent variable and votes are the dependent variable, but the relationship between money and votes is nonlinear and time-variant. In the opening round, the moneyed interests throw huge sums of money at both of the major parties-not because elections have to be, by their nature, ridiculously expensive, but to erect an insurmountable barrier to entry for average citizens. But the final decision is made on a relatively thin margin of victory, in order to make the electoral process appear genuine rather than staged, and to generate excitement. After all, if the moneyed interests just threw all their money at their favorite candidate, making that candidate's victory a foregone conclusion, that wouldn't look sufficiently democratic. And so they use large sums to separate themselves from you the great unwashed, but much smaller sums to tip the scales.

    When calculating how to tip the scales, the political experts employed by the moneyed interests rely on information on party affiliation, polling data and historical voting patterns. To change the outcome from a "lose-win" to a "lose-lose," you need to invalidate all three of these:

    • The proper choice of party affiliation is "none," which, for some bizarre reason, is commonly labeled as "independent," (and watch out for American Independent Party, which is a minor right-wing party in California that has successfully trolled people into joining it by mistake). Be that as it may; let the Furious Sheep call themselves the "dependent" ones. In any case, the two major parties are dying, and the number of non-party members is now almost the same as the number of Democrats and Republicans put together.
    • When responding to a poll, the category you should always opt for is "undecided," up to and including the moment when you walk into the voting booth. When questioned about your stands on various issues, you need to remember that the interest in your opinion is disingenuous: your stand on issues matters not a whit (see study above) except as part of an effort to herd you, a Furious Sheep, into a particular political paddock. Therefore, when talking to pollsters, be vaguely on both sides of every issue while stressing that it plays no role in your decision-making. Should you be asked what does matter to you, concentrate on such issues as the candidates' body language, fashion sense and demeanor. Doing so will effectively short-circuit any attempt to manipulate you using your purely fictional ability to influence public policy. You cannot be for or against a candidate being forthright and well-spoken; nor is there a litmus test for comportment or fashion sense. Politicians are supposed to be able to herd Furious Sheep by making promises they have no intention of keeping. But what if the voters (wise to the fact that their opinions no longer matter) suddenly start demanding better posture, more graceful hand gestures, a more melodious tone of voice and a sprightlier step? Calamity! What was supposed to be a fake but tidy ideological battleground with fictional but clearly delineated front lines suddenly turns into a macabre beauty pageant held on a uniform field of liquefied mud.
    • The final step is to invalidate historical voting patterns. Here, the perfectly obvious solution is to vote randomly. Random voting will produce not random but chaotic results, invalidating the notion that the electoral process is about party platforms, policies, issues or popular mandates. More importantly, it will invalidate the process by which votes are purchased, in effect getting money out of politics. You just have to remember to bring a penny into the voting booth with you. Here is a flowchart that explains how you should decide who to vote for once you are standing in the voting booth holding a penny:
      • If you want to be an activist, bring a pocketful of pennies and hand them out to people while standing in line at the polling place. You won't need to convince that many people to produce the intended effect. Remember, in order to maintain the appearance of a democratic process, the artificial, financially induced margin of victory is kept quite thin, and even a small amount of added randomness is enough to wipe it out. Point out the word "liberty" prominently embossed on each penny. Briefly explain what a Furious Sheep is, and how the exercise of liberty is the exact opposite of being a Furious Sheep.
      • Then explain to them how the pennies are to be used: the first flip of the penny determines whether you are voting for the left or the right; the second-whether you are voting for the major or the minor candidate. Be sure to mention that this is a sure-fire way to get money out of politics. Try the line "This penny can't be bought." Don't argue or debate; rattle off your "elevator speech," hand over the penny and move on. The last detail everyone needs to remember is how to respond to exit polls, in order to deprive the other side of any understanding of what has just happened. When asked how you voted, say: "I voted by secret ballot."

    Then you can go home, turn on the idiot box and watch a fun spectacle featuring the gnashing of teeth, the rending of garments and the scattering of ashes upon talking heads. You won't get to see the behind-the-scenes rancor and the recriminations among the moneyed elites, but you can imagine just how furious they will be, having had their billions of dollars defeated by a few handfuls of pennies.

    You might think that random voting, with each candidate getting an equal share of the votes, would be perfectly predictable, making it possible to secure a victory by hacking a few voting machines. But this would never be the case in the real world, because not everyone will vote randomly. You might then think that it would still be possible to manipulate the nonrandom voters into voting a certain way. But how can anyone predict who will vote randomly and who won't? And if every vote is, in essence, purchased, how would someone go about buying random votes, or figuring out which candidate such a purchase would favor? In this situation, buying votes would only serve to further confuse the outcome. Thus, the effect of added randomness on the outcome will not be random; it will be chaotic.

    And that, my fellow Americans, is how you can change a "you lose-they win" outcome to a more just and equitable "you lose-they lose" in this particular game of strategy.

    Dmitry Orlov was born in Leningrad and immigrated to the United States in the 1970's. He is the author of Reinventing Collapse, Hold Your Applause! and Absolutely Positive, and publishes weekly at the phenomenally popular blog www.ClubOrlov.com .

    [Aug 05, 2016] Government Involvement in 9-11

    Notable quotes:
    "... PNAC members, and signees to its policy documents, include: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wofowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, William Bennet, William Kristol, and Zalmy Khalilzad - men with their hands deep in the private defense, oil, and multi-national corporate industries poised to make vast sums of money and secure huge tracts of power and influence if PNAC policy evolved into U.S. Government policy. Nine months after they rose to power, and assumed central positions of leadership up and down the spectrum of military, civilian, domestic, and international agencies, they got their 'New Pearl Harbor'. And PNAC policy essentially evolved into the Bush Administration's official agenda. While this alarmingly convenient coincidence does not prove anything in and of itself, it does establish motive. And it certainly would raise the eyebrows of concern from any serious investigator looking into the facts of September 11. ..."
    "... In an interview with journalist Alex Jones , Hilton reports that, under the supervision of Strauss, his senior thesis detailed a plan to establish a Presidential Dictatorship using a fabricated 'Pearl Harbor-like incident' as justification. He further states that he, Perle, Wolfowitz, and other students of Strauss discussed an array of different plots and incidents 'like September 11th' and 'flying airplanes into buildings way back in the 60s'. ..."
    www.911hardfacts.com
    In the summer of 2000, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think tank riddled with soon to be Bush administration officials and advisors, issued a document calling for the radical restructuring of U.S. government and military policies. It advocated the massive expansion of defense spending, the re-invasion of Iraq, the military and economic securing of Afghanistan and Central Asia, increased centralized power and funds for the CIA, FBI, and NSA, among a slew of other policies that would, in the near future, be enacted upon their ascension to power. In the same document, they cite a potential problem with their plan. Referring to the goals of transforming the U.S. and global power structure, the paper states that because of the American Public's slant toward ideas of democracy and freedom, "this process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." (ibid.)

    PNAC members, and signees to its policy documents, include: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wofowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, William Bennet, William Kristol, and Zalmy Khalilzad - men with their hands deep in the private defense, oil, and multi-national corporate industries poised to make vast sums of money and secure huge tracts of power and influence if PNAC policy evolved into U.S. Government policy. Nine months after they rose to power, and assumed central positions of leadership up and down the spectrum of military, civilian, domestic, and international agencies, they got their 'New Pearl Harbor'. And PNAC policy essentially evolved into the Bush Administration's official agenda. While this alarmingly convenient coincidence does not prove anything in and of itself, it does establish motive. And it certainly would raise the eyebrows of concern from any serious investigator looking into the facts of September 11.

    Another alarming coincidence surrounding PNAC and September 11 has been revealed by attorney Stanley Hilton. Hilton, a graduate of Harvard Law School and former senior advisor and lead counsel for Bob Dole, attended the University of Chicago as an undergraduate in the 1960s. He studied under the infamous Leo Strauss, considered by many the father of neo-conservatism. Fellow students and acquaintances of Hilton's at the time included Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. In an interview with journalist Alex Jones, Hilton reports that, under the supervision of Strauss, his senior thesis detailed a plan to establish a Presidential Dictatorship using a fabricated 'Pearl Harbor-like incident' as justification. He further states that he, Perle, Wolfowitz, and other students of Strauss discussed an array of different plots and incidents 'like September 11th' and 'flying airplanes into buildings way back in the 60s'.

    In light of these revelations, it is no surprise that Hilton has been trying to blow the whistle on government involvement in 9/11 for years. He has also filed a lawsuit against the government on behalf of a number of victims' families. As a result of his actions, Hilton has been harassed, threatened, burgled, and hounded repeatedly by the authorities.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Neocons and Liberal Interventionists -- Like Hillary -- Are Converging on Foreign Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Financial Times ..."
    "... On the contrary, the Persian Gulf should be deemed a region of vital interest to the security of the United States. ..."
    "... We also reject Iran's attempt to blame others for regional tensions it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia. ..."
    "... Earlier on WorldPost: ..."
    www.huffingtonpost.com

    Wahhab proclaimed those who did not accept his puritan monotheism as apostates and idolaters who should be killed immediately. And now, Shiites, Alawites, Zaidis, Druze, Ismailis - and Kurds, who are mostly Sunni Muslim - are defending themselves and their families from the truly fundamentalist zealotry of neo-Wahhabism that murders all whom it deems apostate. To reverse the narrative and cast their efforts to defend themselves as somehow sectarian is bizarre - especially since the bulk of the Syrian army and Kurds fighting ISIS are themselves Sunni Muslims.

    To fight ISIS is not anti-Sunni. To fight ISIS is to be against Wahhab's revived doctrines. The leading Iraqi commentator Hayder al-Khoei highlighted that in a recent op-ed :

    The tip of the spear in Falluja is not an Iranian-backed paramilitary group but the U.S.-created Counter Terrorism Service and its elite U.S.-trained Special Forces known locally as the Golden Division. These forces, besides being a mixed Shia-Sunni unit, are led by a Kurdish commander ... At a time when sectarian dynamics is one of many factors fueling the crises in Iraq and beyond, it is important for Western journalists and analysts to not be more sectarian than the Iraqis on the ground actually fighting ISIS.
    In short, the ephemeral global narrative does not relate well to the facts on the ground where there is much less sectarianism than this Western-Gulf narrative purports to exist.

    But let that pass. This narrative, echoed widely beyond the Financial Times , is Orwellian in another way. It serves another deeper purpose. It has much to do with finding and articulating, as Jim Lobe notes , the point of intersection between liberal interventionism and neoconservatism. This intersection is the subject of a May 16 report from the Center for a New American Security, which was drawn up by a bipartisan task force of 10 senior members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment and augmented by six dinner discussions with invited experts.

    Their approach is to cast Iran as the source of all 'regional tensions' and to hold onto America's Gulf bases in order to be a 'force that can flex across several different mission sets and prevail.'
    It is, in a sense, the riposte from the two interventionist wings of American politics to Trump's iconoclasm in foreign policy. And, Lobe writes, "it's fair to predict that the above-mentioned report is likely to be the best guide to date of where a Hillary Clinton presidency will want to take the country's foreign policy."

    The report is all about how to maintain America's benevolent hegemony - or how to maintain and expand today's "rules-based international order," which implies maintaining and expanding the geo-financial order as much as the political order. As we saw in U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter's interview with Vox, there are clear, though somewhat cushioned, echoes of the 1992 U.S. Defense Planning Guidance.

    The CNAS report states, "[F]rom a resurgent Russia to a rising China that is challenging the rules-based international order to chaos, and the struggle for power in the Middle East, the United States needs a force that can flex across several different mission sets and prevail." The report simply restates in more nuanced language many of ideas that underline the concept of the " American Century " and U.S.-led unipolar world order.

    What does this have to do with propagating the meme that the war on ISIS is a disguised sectarian war on Sunni Islam? Well, quite a lot. Consider this from the report (italics mine):

    The United States should adopt a comprehensive strategy, employing an appropriate mix of military, economic and diplomatic resources, to undermine and defeat Iran's hegemonic ambitions in the Greater Middle East. Whether in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria or Bahrain, Tehran's advances and longer-term ambitions should be regarded as a threat to stability that it is in the U.S. interest to counter and deter.

    The next administration must make abundantly clear that it has no interest in pursuing an off-shore balancing strategy, such as the 'new equilibrium' some have suggested, which envisages a significant U.S. military drawdown from the region. On the contrary, the Persian Gulf should be deemed a region of vital interest to the security of the United States. As such, U.S. military forces in the region should be sufficient to ensure the security of Gulf allies and the Strait of Hormuz against potential Iranian aggression. At the same time, Gulf allies should have access to sufficient defense articles and services to deter Tehran even if U.S. forces are not present or immediately available to assist.

    We also reject Iran's attempt to blame others for regional tensions it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia.
    The last sentence is truly amazing. So the spread of cultural and militant Wahhabism has nothing to do with tension in the region? Here we see that the crux of the joint neocon, liberal-interventionist foreign policy for the Middle East is to cast Iran as the source of all "regional tensions" and secondly, to hold onto America's Gulf bases - in order to "flex across several different mission sets and prevail."

    Saudi Arabia is mildly rebuked in the CNAS report for having helped radicalize Sunni Islamist groups in the past, but the Kingdom receives applause for its law enforcement and intelligence cooperation. It is very clear from the report's context that a makeover of Saudi Arabia's status as a U.S. ally is underway and that this rehabilitation is seen as integral to aiding America's "hard-nosed enforcement strategy ... to counter Iran's destabilizing activities throughout the region, from its support to terrorist groups like Hezbollah to its efforts to sow instability in the Sunni Arab states."

    The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni radicalism as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won't be dismantled completely.
    Another gloss in the CNAS report is striking: while ISIS as a threat is made much of, and a call is issued to "uproot" it, when it comes to Syria, the report simply states that "it is also essential to assist in the formation of a Sunni alternative to ISIS and the [Syria President Bashar] Assad regime" and to create "a safe space ... where moderate opposition militias can arm, train, and organize." Yet there is no mention of Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda's Syria wing. Its role simply is not addressed.

    This conscious lacuna suggests that the authors do not want to embarrass Saudi Arabia for all its fired-up Sunni jihadist tools. The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni radicalism as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won't be dismantled completely. It is fine, evidently, to make a hoo-ha about ISIS while Nusra is to be slipped quietly into the Syrian calculus in order to shift the military balance and convince Assad that he cannot remain in power.

    This new/old policy platform is well assisted by broadcasting a narrative that those fighting ISIS on the ground (Iran and its allies) are the "naked sectarians" who compound their sectarian intent by provoking Sunnis to rally to ISIS, their defender. Thus, Iran becomes the threat to regional security, and the CNAS case against Iran is crystalized. This is working quite well, it seems, to judge by its play in the media.

    It may be fairly asked however, why these eminent American foreign policy hands should be espousing what many might see as such a retrograde stance. Promoting Saudi Arabia and Gulf states as key U.S. allies would seem to go against the grain of contemporary - even Congressional - sentiment. Ditto for maintaining America's necklace of (expensive) military bases around the globe in order to project American military power. Are Americans not tiring of endless war? And has not the arming and training of a Sunni opposition in Syria been tried several times and failed? Why should this policy be any more successful next time around?

    ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted by all and sundry, but its spirit - neo-Wahabbism - is not to be rooted out.
    It is not that the report's authors don't grasp these points, but if the neocons have one constancy, it has been their unwavering support for Israel. They think that the Gulf states are ready for a normalization with Israel and wish to do profitable business with it. What stands in the way of this rapprochement, in the neocon view, is Iran, Syria and Hezbollah's vehement opposition - and their ability to ignite public opinion across the Muslim world on behalf of the Palestinians.

    So what is the final takeaway from all this? It is that ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted by all and sundry, but its spirit - neo-Wahabbism - is not to be rooted out. It is too useful to Saudi Arabia and Turkey and to Western interests - to weaken Assad, for example, and to contain Iran and fight Hezbollah .

    Whether in the form of Nusra or Ahrar al-Sham, another al Qaeda-allied rebel group in Syria, this chameleon-like Sunni jihadist force collectively provides a useful pivot around which neocons and liberal interventionists alike can pursue interventionism and the continuance of "the American Century." It also provides a valuable intersection between Israel and Gulf interests. As Lobe wryly notes , "the authors' undisguised hostility toward Tehran pours forth with specific policy recommendations that, frankly, could have been written as a joint paper submitted by Saudi Arabia and Israel."

    Will the report, like the neocon Project for the New American Century, to which it is perhaps conceived as a successor, come to form the basis of American foreign policy if a Democrat won the forthcoming election? Possibly, yes.

    But there is also an intangible feeling of something passé in these policy prescriptions, a sense that they belong to a former era. The current presidential campaign, with all its iconoclasm and evidence of widespread popular anger towards the status quo, suggests that such a palpable replay of the past is not tenable.

    Earlier on WorldPost:

    [Aug 05, 2016] Meet Neocon "Doughnut Dolly" Victoria Nuland by Wayne MADSEN

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself. ..."
    "... Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists. ..."
    "... Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government. ..."
    18.12.2013 | www.strategic-culture.org

    Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself.

    Kagan began laying the groundwork for his wife's continued presence in a Democratic administration when, in 2007, he switched sides from the Republicans and aligned with the Democrats. This was in the waning days of the Bush administration and, true to form, neo-cons, who politically and family-wise hail from Trotskyite chameleons, saw the opportunity to continue their influence over U.S. foreign policy.

    With the election of Obama in 2008, Kagan was able to maintain a PNAC presence, through his wife, inside the State Department. Kagan, a co-founder of PNAC, monitors his wife's activities from his perch at the influential Brookings Institution. And it was no surprise that McCain followed Nuland to Maidan Square. Kagan was one of McCain's top foreign policy advisers in the 2008 campaign, even though he publicly switched to the Democrats the year before. Kagan ensured that he kept a foot in both parties. Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists.

    Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government.

    But dominance of U.S. foreign policy does not end with Nuland and her husband. Kagan's brother, Fred Kagan, is another neo-con foreign policy launderer. Residing at the American Enterprise Institute, Fred Kagan was an "anti-corruption" adviser to General David Petraeus. Kagan held this job even as Petraeus was engaged in an extra-marital affair, which he corruptly covered up. Fred Kagan's wife is Kimberly Kagan. She has been involved in helping to formulate disastrous U.S. policies for the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Fred and Kimberly have also worked on U.S. covert operations to overthrow the government of Iran. No family in the history of the United States, with the possible exception of John Foster and Allen Dulles, has had more blood on its hands than have the Kagans. And it is this family that is today helping to ratchet up the Cold War on the streets of Kyiv.

    Victoria Nuland is, indeed, the proper "Doughnut Dolly" for the paid George Soros, U.S. Agency for International Development, National Endowment for Democracy, and Freedom House provocateurs on Maidan Square. Political prostitutes representing so many causes, from nationalistic Ukrainian fascists to pro-EU globalists, require a symbol. There is no better symbol for the foreign-made "Orange Revolution II" than the biscuit-distributing Victoria Nuland.

    Her unleavened biscuits have found the hungry mouths of America's "Three Stooges" of ex-boxer and political opportunist Vitaly Klitschko, globalist Arseny Yatsenyuk, and neo-Nazi Oleg Tyagnibok.

    Wayne MADSEN Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club

    [Aug 05, 2016] Nuland is a Democrat? Boy they let anybody in

    US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Vicrotia Nuland was appointed by Hillary nu the forigh policy is domain of the President, so she executed policy hatched by "Obama the neocon", who is great admirer of books by Robert Kagan...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Nuland is a Democrat? Boy they let anybody in. I only ask because she's supposed to be a Bush holdover but maybe worked for the Clintons before that? ..."
    "... Nuland started out with Bill Clinton, then moved on to Dick Cheney . She certainly is nimble! ..."
    "... Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration. ..."
    "... FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great! ..."
    "... You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart. Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary! ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Carolinian , August 4, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    Paul Wolfowitz is leaning Clinton. Nuff said.

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 4, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    Following along with his good friend, Republican Robert Kagan (married, in good bipartisan power couple fashion, to Victoria Nuland, rumored to be inline for Clinton's Secretary of State, but I don't think so. Not even Clinton could be that crazy).

    Carolinian , August 4, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    Nuland is a Democrat? Boy they let anybody in. I only ask because she's supposed to be a Bush holdover but maybe worked for the Clintons before that?

    Lambert Strether Post author , August 4, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    Nuland started out with Bill Clinton, then moved on to Dick Cheney . She certainly is nimble!

    I can't find a link that makes her party affiliation explicit. Foreign Policy :

    Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration.

    But FP does not then go on to clarify. I assumed she was a Democrat because of the Clinton connection. My bad!

    Carla , August 4, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great!

    John k , August 4, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart. Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary!
    Hugoodanode?

    NotTimothyGeithner , August 4, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    It's probably bias, but my sense is Republicans love to parade anyone who is Jewish or not white in front of cameras who can say, "im a Republican" without drooling or dying a little on the inside. Since Nuland is Jewish, the GOP would have her on their book tour if she was suspected Republican especially given the GOP obsession with winning Florida Jewish retirees.

    If Nuland was a Republican, we would know.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Obama's Failed Foreign Policy Change The American Conservative by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order, Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century." ..."
    "... Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her predecessors at State put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests. ..."
    "... Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East. ..."
    "... Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters. ..."
    "... The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea. ..."
    "... And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony in May she cited how the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline? Last week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's blatant aggression in Ukraine." ..."
    "... The president also reportedly is an admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she has been doing, which should give everyone pause. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com

    A new administration only gave interventionism a confused, humanitarian face-lift.

    President Barack Obama presents something of a dilemma. I voted for him twice in the belief that he was basically a cautious operator who would not rush into a new war in Asia, unlike his Republican opponents who virtually promised to attack Iran upon assuming office. Unfortunately, Obama's second term has revealed that his instinct nevertheless is to rely on America's ability to project military power overseas as either a complement to or a substitute for diplomacy that differs only from George W. Bush in its style and its emphasis on humanitarian objectives.

    That the president is indeed cautious has made the actual process of engagement different, witness the ill-fated involvement in Libya and the impending war-without-calling-it-war in Syria and Iraq, both of which are framed as having limited objectives and manageable risk for Washington even when that is not the case. Obama's foreign and security policy is an incremental process mired in contradictions whereby the United States continues to involve itself in conflicts for which it has little understanding, seemingly doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past thirteen years but without the shock and awe.

    Obama's actual intentions might most clearly be discerned by looking at his inner circle. Three women are prominent in decision making relating to foreign policy: Samantha Power at the United Nations, Susan Rice heading the National Security Council, and Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett in the White House. One might also add Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State, operated far more independently than her successor John Kerry, putting her own stamp on policy much more than he has been able to do. Where Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel fits into the decision making is unclear, but it is notable that both he and Kerry frequently appear to be somewhat out of sync with the White House.

    What does the Obama team represent? Certain things are obvious. They are hesitant to involve the United States in long, drawn out military adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan but much more inclined to intervene than was George W. Bush when there is an apparent humanitarian crisis, operating under the principle of responsibility to protect or R2P. That R2P is often a pretext for intervention that actually is driven by other less altruistic motives is certainly a complication but it is nevertheless the public face of much of American foreign policy, as the nation is currently witnessing regarding ISIS.

    Hillary Clinton has criticized Obama foreign policy because on her view he did not act soon enough on ISIS and "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle." Her criticism is odd as she was a formulator of much of what the president has been doing and one should perhaps assume that her distancing from it might have something to do with her presidential ambitions. Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order, Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century."

    Now if all of that is true, and it might just be putting lipstick on a pig to create an illusion of coherency where none exists, then the United States might just be engaging in a sensible reset of its foreign policy, something like the Nixon Doctrine of old. But the actual policy itself suggests otherwise, with the tendency to "do stupid stuff" prevailing, perhaps attributable to another Clinton book review assertion of "a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service of a just and liberal order."

    Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her predecessors at State put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests.

    And the arrogance that comes with power means that the country's leadership is not often able to explain what it is doing. Currently, the administration has failed to make any compelling case that the United States is actually threatened by ISIS beyond purely conjectural "what if" scenarios, suggesting that the policy is evolving in an ad hoc but risk-averse fashion to create the impression that something is actually being accomplished. Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East.

    The tendency to act instead of think might be attributable to fear of appearing weak with midterm elections approaching, but it might also be due to the persistence of neoconservative national security views within the administration, which brings us to Victoria Nuland. Nuland, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters.

    A Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton protégé who is married to leading neocon Robert Kagan, Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget, but Washington has long believed in a global double standard for evaluating its own behavior.

    Nuland is most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. To be sure, her aggressive guidance of U.S. policy in Eurasia is a lot more important than whatever plays out in Syria and Iraq over the remainder of Obama's time in office in terms of palpable threats to actual American interests. The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.

    Victoria Nuland is playing with fire. Russia, as the only nation with the military capability to destroy the U.S., is not a sideshow like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Backing Moscow into a corner with no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good policy. Washington has many excellent reasons to maintain a stable relationship with Moscow, including counter-terrorism efforts, and little to gain from moving in the opposite direction. Russia is not about to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact and there is no compelling reason to return to a Cold War footing by either arming Ukraine or permitting it to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

    And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony in May she cited how the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline? Last week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's blatant aggression in Ukraine."

    In 2009 President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." In retrospect it was all hat and no cattle given the ongoing saga in Afghanistan, the reduction of a relatively stable Libya to chaos, meddling in Ukraine while simultaneously threatening Russia, failure to restrain Israel and the creation of an Islamic terror state in the Arab heartland. Not to mention "pivots" and additional developments in Africa and Asia. It is not a record to brag about and it certainly does not suggest that the administration is as strategically agile as Hillary Clinton would like to have one believe.

    Victoria Nuland is a career civil servant and cannot easily be fired but she could be removed from her top-level policy position and sent downstairs to head the mailroom at the State Department. It would send the message that aggressive democracy promotion is not U.S. policy, but President Obama has kept her on the job. The president also reportedly is an admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she has been doing, which should give everyone pause.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Aug 05, 2016] Clinton's Hawk-in-Waiting The American Conservative by Philip Giraldi

    May 19, 2016 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    If Hillary wins the White House, expect Victoria Nuland to be at her side.

    The other day, a question popped up on a Facebook thread I was commenting on: "Where is Victoria Nuland?" The short answer, of course, is that she is still holding down her position as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

    But a related question begs for a more expansive response: Where will Victoria Nuland be after January? Nuland is one of Hillary Clinton's protégés at the State Department, and she is also greatly admired by hardline Republicans. This suggests she would be easily approved by Congress as secretary of state or maybe even national-security adviser-which in turn suggests that her foreign-policy views deserve a closer look.

    Nuland comes from what might be called the First Family of Military Interventionists. Her husband, Robert Kagan, is a leading neoconservative who co-founded the Project for the New American Century in 1998 around a demand for "regime change" in Iraq. He is currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, an author, and a regular contributor to the op-ed pages of a number of national newspapers. He has already declared that he will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November, a shift away from the GOP that many have seen as a clever career-enhancing move for both him and his wife.

    Robert's brother, Fred, is with the hawkish American Enterprise Institute, and his sister-in-law, Kimberly, is the head of the Institute for the Study of War, which is largely funded by defense contractors. The Kagans work to encourage military action, both through their positions in government and by influencing the public debate through think-tank reports and op-eds. It is a family enterprise that mirrors the military-industrial complex as a whole, with think tanks coming up with reasons to increase military spending and providing "expert" support for the government officials who actually promote and implement the policies. Defense contractors, meanwhile, benefit from the largesse and kick back some money to the think tanks, which then develop new reasons to spend still more on military procurement.

    The Kagans' underlying belief is that the United States has both the power and the obligation to replace governments that are considered either uncooperative with Washington (the "Leader of the Free World") or hostile to American interests. American interests are, of course, mutable, and they include values like democracy and the rule of law as well as practical considerations such as economic and political competition. Given the elasticity of the interests, many countries can be and are considered potential targets for Washington's tender ministrations.

    For what it's worth, President Obama is reportedly an admirer of Robert Kagan's books, which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." The persistence of neoconservative foreign-policy views in the Obama administration has often been remarked upon, though Democrats and Republicans embrace military interventionism for different reasons. The GOP sees it as an international leadership imperative driven by American "exceptionalism," while the Dems romanticize "liberal intervention" as a sometimes-necessary evil undertaken most often for humanitarian reasons. But the result is the same, as no administration wants to be seen as weak when dealing with the outside world. George W. Bush's catastrophic failures in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to bear fruit under a Democratic administration, while Obama has added a string of additional "boots on the ground" interventions in Libya, Syria, Yemen, the Philippines, and Somalia.

    And Nuland herself, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-14. Yanukovych, admittedly a corrupt autocrat, nevertheless assumed office after a free election. In spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev ostensibly had friendly relations, Nuland provided open support for the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, passing out cookies to protesters on the square and holding photo ops with a beaming Sen. John McCain.

    Nuland started her rapid rise as an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Subsequently, she was serially promoted by secretaries of state Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, attaining her current position in September 2013. But it was her behavior in Ukraine that made her a media figure. It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere in domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget, but Washington has long adhered to a double standard when evaluating its own behavior.

    Nuland is most famous for using foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest in Ukraine that she and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) had helped create. She even discussed with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who the new leader of Ukraine ought to be. "Yats is the guy" she said (referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk), while pondering how she would "glue this thing" as Pyatt simultaneously considered how to "midwife" it. Their insecure phone call was intercepted and leaked, possibly by the Russian intelligence service, though anyone equipped with a scanner could have done the job.

    The inevitable replacement of the government in Kiev, actually a coup but sold to the media as a triumph for "democracy," was only the prelude to a sharp break-and escalating conflict-with Moscow over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine. The new regime in Kiev, as corrupt as its predecessor and supported by neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists, was consistently whitewashed in the Western media, and the conflict was depicted as "pro-democracy" forces resisting unprovoked "Russian aggression."

    Indeed, the real objective of interfering in Ukraine was, right from the start, to install a regime hostile to Moscow. Carl Gershman, the head of the taxpayer-funded NED, called Ukraine "the biggest prize" in the effort to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin, who "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." But Gershman and Nuland were playing with fire in their assessment, as Russia had vital interests at stake and is the only nation with the military capability to destroy the U.S.

    And make no mistake about Nuland's clear intention to expand the conflict and directly confront Moscow. In Senate testimony in May of 2014, she noted how the Obama administration was "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia."

    Nuland and her neoconservative allies celebrated their "regime change" in Kiev oblivious to the fact that Putin would recognize the strategic threat to his own country and would react, particularly to protect the historic Russian naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. Barack Obama responded predictably, initiating what soon became something like a new Cold War against Russia, risking escalation into a possible nuclear confrontation. It was a crisis that would not have existed but for Nuland and her allies.

    Though there was no evidence that Putin had initiated the Ukraine crisis and much evidence to the contrary, the U.S. government propaganda machine rolled into action, claiming that Russia's measures in Ukraine would be the first step in an invasion of Eastern Europe. Former Secretary of State Clinton dutifully compared Putin to Adolf Hitler. And Robert Kagan provided the argument for more intervention, producing a lengthy essay in The New Republic entitled "Superpowers Don't Get to Retire," in which he criticized President Obama for failing to maintain American dominance in the world. The New York Times revealed that the essay was apparently part of a joint project in which Nuland regularly edited her husband's articles, even though this particular piece attacked the administration she worked for.

    As the situation in Ukraine continued to deteriorate in 2014, Nuland exerted herself to scuttle several European attempts to arrange a ceasefire. When NATO Commander Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove was cited as being in favor of sending more weapons to the Ukrainian government to "raise the battlefield cost for Putin," Nuland commented, "I'd strongly urge you to use the phrase 'defensive systems' that we would deliver to oppose Putin's 'offensive systems.'"

    To return to the initial question of where Victoria Nuland is, the long answer would be that while she is not much in the news, she is continuing to provide support for policies that the White House apparently approves of. Late last month, she was again in Kiev. She criticized Russia for its lack of press freedom and its "puppets" in the Donbas region while telling a Ukrainian audience about a "strong U.S. commitment to stand with Ukraine as it stays on the path of a clean, democratic, European future. … We remain committed to retaining sanctions that apply to the situation in Crimea until Crimea is returned to Ukraine." Before that, she was in Cyprus and France discussing "a range of regional and global issues with senior government officials."

    But one has to suspect that, at this point, she is mainly waiting to see what happens in November. And wondering where she might be going in January.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Aug 04, 2016] Anti-Russian Hysteria, Rigged Primaries Americas Longest War Gets Longer

    Notable quotes:
    "... Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails. ..."
    "... Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons. ..."
    "... And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them. ..."
    "... I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle? ..."
    "... One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges. ..."
    "... But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies. ..."
    "... So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military. ..."
    "... This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood. ..."
    "... No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan. ..."
    www.strategic-culture.org

    Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails.

    This was rich coming from the US that snoops into everyone's emails and phones across the globe. Remember German chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone being bugged by the US National Security Agency?

    Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

    Blaming Putin was a master-stroke of deflection. No more talk of Hillary's slush fund foundation or her status as a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street. All attention was focused on President Putin who has been outrageously demonized by the US media and politicians.

    Except for a small faux pas – a montage of warships shown at the end of the Democratic Convention is a blaze of jingoistic effusion embarrassingly turned out to be Russian warships!

    Probably another trick by the awful Putin who has come to replace Satan in the minds of many Americans.

    And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them.

    I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle?

    One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges.

    The saintly President Barack Obama repeatedly proclaimed the Afghan War over and staged phony troops withdrawals. He must have believed his generals who kept claiming they had just about defeated the resistance alliance, known as Taliban.

    But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies.

    So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military.

    Look what happened to the Soviets after they admitted defeat in Afghanistan and pulled out. Why expose the US Empire to a similar geopolitical risk?

    With al-Qaida down to less than 50 members in Afghanistan, according to former US defense chief Leon Panetta, what was the ostensible reason for Washington to keep garrisoning Afghanistan? The shadowy ISIS is now being dredged up as the excuse to stay.

    This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood.

    No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan.

    EricMargolis.com

    [Aug 03, 2016] Hillary Clinton took $100,000 of cash from a company she ran (and worked for in the 80s and 90s) that also funded ISIS in Syria.

    www.theguardian.com

    doublreed -> legalimmigrant

    DryBack, Voilŕ: Wikileaks recently released documents proving that Hillary Clinton took $100,000 of cash from a company she ran (and worked for in the 80's and 90's) that also funded ISIS in Syria. French industrial giant, Lafarge, gave money to the Islamic state to operate their (Lafarge's) cement plant in Syria, and purchased oil from ISIS. Lafarge are also large donators to Clinton's election and the Clinton Foundation. More is here: http://yournewswire.com/clinton-was-director-of-company-that-donated-money-to-isis/

    Lafarge is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm's up to $100,000 donation was listed in its annual donor list for 2015.


    rberger -> doublreed

    Lame. When Clinton worked as a lawyer, she did some legal work for Lafarge. She later said on the board. This was in 1991. The so-called association with ISIS happened in 2014. Clinton did not take $100,000 from the company. The company donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which is a non-profit organization and not a cent goes to Clinton.

    [Aug 03, 2016] Israel to US Give Us More! by Justin Raimondo

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources to get Congress to pressure the White House. ..."
    "... As Glenn Greenwald points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure, their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is occurring. ..."
    "... We made possible the Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use the "f"-word lightly. I've been chronicling Israel's slide toward a repulsive ethno-nationalism for years , and today – with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders – my predictions are coming true. ..."
    "... The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous insults , slights, and outright sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from You Know Who: it's time to put America first. ..."
    "... What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's just what they are. ..."
    original.antiwar.com
    August 03, 2016 | Antiwar.com

    Washington is preparing to increase US aid to Israel by billions of dollars, with a ten-year ironclad agreement that couldn't be altered by President Obama's successor. But that isn't good enough for Bibi Netanyahu. He wants more. Much more.

    Unlike the case with other countries, the US engages in protracted and often difficult negotiations with Israel over how much free stuff they're going to get come budget time. This year, the talks are taking on a particularly urgent tone because of … you guessed it, Donald Trump. While Trump is fervently pro-Israel, he has said that the Israelis, like our NATO allies, are going to have to start paying for their own defense (although with him, you never know what his position is from one day to the next ). This uncertainty has the two parties racing to sign an agreement before President Obama's term is up in January. And it also has inspired the inclusion of a novel clause: a ten-year guarantee that aid will remain at the agreed level, with no possibility that the new President – whoever that may be – will lower it.

    The Israelis currently receive over half the foreign aid doled out by Uncle Sam annually, most of it in military assistance with an extra added dollop for "refugee resettlement." That combined with loan guarantees comes to roughly $3.5 billion per year – with all the money handed to them up front, in the first weeks of the fiscal year, instead of being released over time like other countries.

    So how much is this increase going to amount to? With negotiations still ongoing, the US isn't releasing any solid figures, although Bibi, we are told, is demanding $5 billion annually. The New York Times is reporting the final sum could "top $40 billion." What we do know is that the administration told Congress in a letter that they are prepared to offer Tel Aviv an aid package "that would constitute the largest pledge of military assistance to any country in US history." In addition, it would guarantee US aid for Israel's missile defense, taking it out of the annual appropriations song-and-dance, and immunizing it from any cuts.

    Aside from the "haggling" – as the Times put it – over the amount, there is another issue: the Israeli exception to a rule that applies to all other recipients of American aid. Other countries must spend their welfare check in dollars – that is, they must buy American. Not the Israelis. They're allowed to spend up to 25% of their aid package at home: which means that US taxpayers have been subsidizing the Israeli military-industrial complex to the tune of multi-billions since the 1980s, when this special arrangement was legislated. However, in an era where "America First" is now a popular political slogan – popularized by You Know Who – the Obama administration is trying to end this exception to the rules. Naturally, the Israelis are resisting, but, according to Ha'aretz :

    "The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth said the White House was prepared to let Israel keep the arrangement for the first five years of the new MOU but it would be gradually phased out in the second five years, except for joint U.S.-Israeli military projects."

    If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources to get Congress to pressure the White House.

    In their letter to Congress, national security honcho Susan Rice and OMB chief Shaun Donovan evoke the Iran deal as justification for this new and sweeter aid package. Yet this argument undermines the administration's contention that the agreement with Iran doesn't endanger Israel – because if it doesn't, then why do the Israelis need billions more in aid in the first place?

    What the letter tiptoes around is the fact that this aid package is extortion, pure and simple. It's a purely political attempt by the Obama White House to appease the Israelis, and mobilize the Israel lobby behind the Democrats in a crucial election year. It's important to keep Haim Saban happy.

    As Glenn Greenwald points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure, their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is occurring.

    What in the heck is going on here?

    We made possible the Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use the "f"-word lightly. I've been chronicling Israel's slide toward a repulsive ethno-nationalism for years , and today – with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders – my predictions are coming true.

    The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous insults , slights, and outright sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from You Know Who: it's time to put America first.

    What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's just what they are.

    [Aug 03, 2016] Neocon-like Groupthink Dominates Both Conventions

    Notable quotes:
    "... The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland. ..."
    "... The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it. ..."
    "... Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation. ..."
    "... And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago. ..."
    "... Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents. ..."
    "... Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party. ..."
    "... If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020. ..."
    The Unz Review

    The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland.

    The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it.

    Those in the media and around Hillary who were baying the loudest about how outraged they were over the hack curiously appear to have no knowledge of the existence of the National Security Agency, located at Fort Meade Maryland, which routinely breaks into the government computers of friends and foes alike worldwide. Apparently what is fair game for American codebreakers is no longer seen so positively when there is any suggestion that the tables might have been turned.

    Republican nominee Donald Trump noted that if the Russians were in truth behind the hack he would like them to search for the 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton reportedly deleted from her home server. The comment, which to my mind was sarcastically making a point about Clinton's mendacity, brought down the wrath of the media, with the New York Times reporting that "foreign policy experts," also sometimes known as "carefully selected 'Trump haters,'" were shocked by The Donald. The paper quoted one William Inboden, allegedly a University of Texas professor who served on President George W. Bush's National Security Council. Inboden complained that the comments were "an assault on the Constitution" and "tantamount to treason." Now I have never heard of Inboden, which might be sheer ignorance on my part, but he really should refresh himself on what the Constitution actually says about treason, tantamount or otherwise. According to Article III of the Constitution of the United States one can only commit treason if there is a declared war going on and one is actively aiding an enemy, which as far as I know is not currently the case as applied to the U.S. relationship with Russia.

    Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation.

    And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago.

    Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents.

    No other foreign country was mentioned as often as Israel apart from Iran, which was regularly cited as an enemy of both the U.S. and – you guessed it – Israel. Indeed, the constant thumping of Iran is a reflection of the overweening affection for Netanyahu and his right wing government. Regarding Iran, the GOP foreign policy platform states "We consider the Administration's deal with Iran, to lift international sanctions and make hundreds of billions of dollars available to the Mullahs, a personal agreement between the President and his negotiat­ing partners and non-binding on the next president. Without a two-thirds endorsement by the Senate, it does not have treaty status. Because of it, the de­fiant and emboldened regime in Tehran continues to sponsor terrorism across the region, develop a nuclear weapon, test-fire ballistic missiles inscribed with 'Death to Israel,' and abuse the basic human rights of its citizens."

    The final written Republican platform for 2016 as relating to the Middle East, drawn up with the input of two Trump advisors Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, rather supports the suggestion that Trump would be pro-Israel rather than the claim of impartiality. The plank entitled "Our Unequivocal Support of Israel and Jerusalem," promises to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, praises Israel in five different sections, eulogizing it as a "beacon of democracy and humanity" brimming over with freedom of speech and religion while concluding that "support for Israel is an expression of Americanism." It pledges "no daylight" between the two countries, denies that Israel is an "occupier," and slams the peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS), which it describes as anti-Semitic and seeking to destroy Israel. It calls for legal action to "thwart" BDS. There is no mention of a Palestinian state or of any Palestinian rights to anything at all.

    The Democratic plank on the Middle East gives lip service to a two state solution for Israel-Palestine but is mostly notable for what it chose to address. Two Bernie Sanders supporters on the platform drafting committee James Zogby and Cornel West wanted to remove any illegal under international law affirmation that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and also sought to eliminated any condemnation of BDS. They failed on both issues and then tried to have included mild language criticizing Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its settlement building. They were outvoted by Hillary supporters on all the issues they considered important. Indeed, there is no language at all critical in any way of Israel, instead asserting that "a strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism." That none of that was or is true apparently bothered no one in the Hillary camp.

    The Democratic platform document explicitly condemns any support for BDS. Hillary Clinton, who has promised to take the relationship with Israel to a whole new level, has reportedly agreed to an anti-BDS pledge to appease her principal financial supporter Haim Saban, an Israeli-American film producer. Clinton also directly and personally intervened through her surrogate on the committee Wendy Sherman to make sure that the party platform would remain pro-Israel.

    But many Democrats on the floor of the convention hall have, to their credit, promoted a somewhat different perspective, displaying signs and stickers while calling for support of Palestinian rights. One demonstrator outside the convention center burned an Israeli flag, producing a sharp response from Hillary's spokeswoman for Jewish outreach Sarah Bard, "Hillary Clinton has always stood against efforts to marginalize Israel and incitement, and she strongly condemns this kind of hatred. Burning the Israeli flag is a reckless act that undermines peace and our values." Bill meanwhile was seen in the hall wearing a Hillary button written in Hebrew. It was a full court press pander and one has to wonder how Hillary would have felt about someone burning a Russian flag or seeing Bill sport a button in Cyrillic.

    Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party.

    The Democratic platform also beats down on Iran, declaring only tepid support for the nuclear deal while focusing more on draconian enforcement, asserting that they would "not hesitate to take military action if Iran violates the agreement." It also cited Iran as "the leading state sponsor of terrorism" and claimed that Tehran "has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East." For what it's worth, neither assertion about Iran's regional role is true and Tehran reportedly has complied completely with the multilateral nuclear agreement. It is the U.S. government that is failing to live up to its commitments by refusing to allow Iranian access to financial markets while the Congress has even blocked an Iranian bid to buy Made-in-the-U.S.A. civilian jetliners.

    So those of us who had hoped for at least a partial abandonment of the hitherto dominant foreign policy consensus have to be disappointed as they in the pro-war crowd in their various guises as liberal interventionists or global supremacy warriors continue to control much of the discourse from left to right. Russia continues to be a popular target to vent Administration frustration over its inept posturing overseas, though there is some hope that Donald Trump might actually reverse that tendency. Iran serves as a useful punchline whenever a politician on the make runs out of other things to vilify. And then there is always Israel, ever the victim, perpetually the greatest ally and friend. And invariably needing some extra cash, a warplane or two or a little political protection in venues like the United Nations.

    If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020.

    [Aug 02, 2016] NSA Architect: Agency Has ALL of Clinton's Deleted Emails

    A very important, informative interview. Outlines complexity of challenges of modern society and the real power of "alphabet agencies" in the modern societies (not only in the USA) pretty vividly. You need to listen to it several times to understand better the current environment.
    Very sloppy security was the immanent feature both of Hillary "bathroom" server and DNC emails hacks. So there probably were multiple parties that has access to those data not a single one (anti Russian hysteria presumes that the only party are Russian and that's silly; what about China, Iran and Israel?). Russian government would not use a "known attack" as they would immediately be traced back.
    Anything, any communications that goes over the network are totally. 100% exposed to NSA data collection infrastructure. Clinton email messages are not exception. NSA does have information on them, including all envelopes (the body of the message might be encrypted and that's slightly complicate the matter, but there is no signs that Clinton of DNC used encryption of them)
    NSA has the technical capabilities to trace the data back and they most probably have most if not all of deleted mail. The "total surveillance", the total data mailing used by NSA definitely includes the mail envelopes which makes possible to enumerate all the missing mails.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday. ..."
    "... Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists." ..."
    "... "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
    "... Listen to the full interview here: ... ..."
    "... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer ..."
    www.breitbart.com
    The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday.

    Speaking as an analyst, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National Committee's server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned about Clinton's compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.

    Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.

    He was speaking on this reporter's Sunday radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio," broadcast on New York's AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia's NewsTalk 990 AM.

    Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."

    Stated Binney:

    "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails."

    "So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.

    Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.

    "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there."

    Listen to the full interview here: ...

    Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.

    And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.

    The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:

    GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).

    Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

    [Aug 02, 2016] Feel the BURN Bernie Hot Mic Proves He Was Never a Real Candidate

    www.youtube.com

    YouTube

    Published on Jul 26, 2016

    Most of us knew this already, but now here's proof. Is Bernie going down fighting for his political beliefs like a real presidential candidate would? Is he even being remotely honest with his supporters at this point? Nope. He's keeping his mouth shut and staying on script for Hillary - who everyone knows will be the worst kind of tyrannical dictator - saying, "I'm proud to stand with her".

    For those of us who didn't know this, Bernie was like a magical fairy unicorn. People want so badly to believe it's real... but it just isn't... and it never was. Feel the burn...

    Truthstream Can Be Found Here:
    Website: http://TruthstreamMedia.com
    FB: http://Facebook.com/TruthstreamMedia
    Twitter: @TruthstreamNews
    Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/bbxcWX

    ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*­~*~*~*~*~

    Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Lemmy Fuque 1 day ago

    For decades the Clintons have run a criminal organization of fraud, deception, hypocrisy, conspiracy, bribes, blackmail, espionage, treason, murder, assassination, money laundering, sex-slaves, pedophilia, etc. that would leave Capone and Giancana in awe. Leaked DNC emails is your proof that Bernie was just another Clinton pawn. (Add Seth Rich to the Clinton body count after leaking DNC emails). Though Bernie attracted a lot of followers, do NOT under estimate the stupidity of the brainwashed Libtard electorate to vote the skank criminal cunt for POTUS. Clintons run the $100B criminal Clinton Foundation & Global initiative and get what they want-or they will take you out. Libtards will be the easiest and first lead to FEMA camps for NWO depopulation.
    cros99 1 day ago
    You can't blame Bernie for he is a Professional politician after all. To survive in that game, one has to play ball with party management. Half the trouble in this country comes from the two parties who make the decisions....Not the people.
    Garren Luce 5 hours ago
    like jessse venture said ..politics is exactly like wrestling - In front of the cameras they hate each other , but when it's off they eating lunch together
    j jay 4 hours ago
    Bernies reaction that night when Clinton dared to thank him said it all ,sad fact is he refuses to say they fucked him and lied and cheated because she has offered him something or he is scared.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time

    Guardian presstitutes are trying hard to please their owners...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Joe Biden's son has major business interests in Ukraine. Is that why Biden is so supportive of Ukraine? Paul Manafort is a rat, like all the major league campaign operatives ..."
    "... Under globalism, it is only natural for corporations and their CEOs to have more contact with foreign entities and their leaders. Apple and CEO Tim Cook has made a huge commitment to communist China, one that he told President Obama will not be shaken or reduced. ..."
    "... This is all so entertaining for as much as they try they cannot lay a finger on Putin.. the PBS special on Putin wealth ended an hour of innuendo with this.. ''How much is a matter of speculation and some educated guesswork.'' ..."
    "... I have family in the military and the last thing we need is Clinton leading us into another cold war. ..."
    "... Clinton: corruption you can believe in. ..."
    "... Well looks like Hillary has stared the cold war again before she ever got into office. This is worse than anything Trump could do...but very beneficial to her military/security industrial complex backers. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton = Dick Cheney ..."
    "... Julian Assange is not a Republican. He's an Australian with no vested interest in the election. I'd be worried if I were a Clinton supporter. ..."
    "... The extremely well informed Israeli website Debkafile is confident that the Russians didn't hack the DNC or any aspect of the Democrats. Debka believes the signatures on the hack are so easy to find and so obviously intended to be found that the real culprit lies somewhere within an anti-Clinton faction of the Democrats. ..."
    "... This is a fantasy article, pie in the sky stuff. I can't stand Trump and I am sure neither can the Russian government, he's unpredictable, unstable, what he says today he changes his mind on tomorrow and so on. Now, Clinton isn't much better all said. Anyone who would trust either needs to see a psychiatrist urgently. Russia is but a bystander in the US presidential race, except for the conspiracy theorists at The Guardian. ..."
    "... So a former official of that russophobic neocon infested State Department which ran both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 coup in Kiev also member of the US-Ukraine business council is now supposed to have helped Yanokovich in 2010 and be in bed with Putin. How gullible do you think we are? ..."
    "... Stop the presses! Trump and people associated with him have had dealings with people from the LARGEST country in the world. If that doesn't prove he's an active Manchurian candidate on The Kremlin payroll, then nothing will. ..."
    "... What it really proves is that by going the low road of McCarthyist red-baiting, the Democrats seemed determined to blow another election by not running a campaign on Hillary's supposed merits and attacking Trump for rational, verifiable reasons. ..."
    "... You are all a school of piranhas waiting to tear the flesh of anyone who is against 'Her'. I have noticed your comments towards any rational reply is met with condescending and abusive tones. You've probably realised I am poorly educated. However, I have common sense which I believe most of you don't. Most of you comment in order to receive recognition and votes in order to make you feel good because of low self esteem and belonging issues. ..."
    "... I believe we in the west currently live in a pluralist society for now. If Hillary is elected I reckon she will lay the foundation for sharia law, Merkel is doing her bit. Anyway, how can anyone vote for this vile human being? ..."
    "... Hillary Rodman Clinton does not care about YOU! Its all about her wanting power to control YOU. Have you ever asked yourself why does she want to be President? What is her motivation? ..."
    "... Oh, come on, Hillary has all 30 of the admirals and generals that previously endorsed Jeb. Can't Donald have one general? The US military is in schism between the moderates (represented by Flynn) and the hawks (represented by Allen, presumably). Hillary's hawks got booed off the stage at the convention. Allen was trying to shout down the protesters but they were pretty feisty. ..."
    "... Follow the money. The Clinton elite and the military/security industrial complex will MAKE BILLIONS with a new cold war. As much as they made off of Iraq and MORE! ..."
    "... Julian Assange showed to the DNC who they are, but they are not angry at him, they are angry at Donald Trump. Of course, how can anyone be angry at the mirror because it has shown its ugly face.:-))) ..."
    "... A vote against Hillary is not a vote for Trump any more than a vote against the Iraq War was a vote for Saddam Hussein. ..."
    "... Hilarious. This Red Scare is ridiculous, will only carry weight with the over 60s. It is just one of the many missteps in Hillary's tone deaf campaign which is going to cost her the presidency. ..."
    "... Not a Trump supporter, but this shitty rag attacks everyone except the Red Queen...who is responsible for many acts of terror and murder...documented. ..."
    "... Ta, much of the information, especially what Tom Curley (formerly AP chief) revealed, has been removed from the net. I wish I had saved the pdf of his Kansas speech before it vanished everywhere. There was also something on a British server, but that stopped being fed. ..."
    "... Often we could see it on the posters' string, how many in how many hours, hence the attempts to hide it through multi ID facility. For disqus, they block the string. We know we are being manipulated. And very few people take things at face value these days, or do they? ..."
    "... That single sentence exposes the Guardian as a completely fraudulent news reporting medium. With tears in my eyes I ask you "How does Putin releasing e-mails about the secret and illegal American electoral shenanigans amount to an attack on western democracy?" ..."
    "... The old saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" is demonstrated by the Guardians reporting without sources, other than anonymous so-called "experts". Your journalistic integrity is little higher than the height of Hillary Clinton's honesty, or the level of the Donald's business ethics. Shame on you. Double shame for being so blatantly easy to expose. ..."
    "... The western media, controlled by special interest groups, are driving your low-level sputum which tries to pass for accurate and unbiased reportage. ..."
    "... On the whole I would have to agree with you. The picture painted by the Western News Media is that the US is the White Knight when it comes to democracy, they never interfere in other countries political affairs, never try to break into computer systems of other countries, try to topple or assassinate leaders of other countries. They never carry out torture and they ignore the 30m on the poverty line in their own country. ..."
    "... Well at least Trump is fostering positive relations with Russia - Hillary Clinton is pushing us to the brink of nuclear war with them. You Tube it. Wishing Good Luck to all people of courage and honesty. ..."
    "... Reuters/Ipsos changed it polling methodology as soon as they saw a 17 point swing in favor of Donald the Drumpf. When the methodology by their own admission was under reporting Trump support and over reporting Hillbilly's numbers they did nothing. So don't believe any polls. There is no enthusiasm for Hillbilly in the Democratic party, so the Democratic turn out will be low, on the other hand people want to shake things up, they will vote for Drumpf. I just wished Donald had half a brain in his head to see how much good he could do, with the opportunity he has. ..."
    "... A lot of associations and coincidences have been listed here. But no hard evidence linking the hacking to Putin, nor Putin to Trump. It sounds like a load of muckraking. ..."
    "... True. If it was the other way round, Guardian journalists and establishment shills would be screaming 'tin-foil' when they should be holding that woman to account. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    varyat

    Joe Biden's son has major business interests in Ukraine. Is that why Biden is so supportive of Ukraine? Paul Manafort is a rat, like all the major league campaign operatives. All that is important to them is the win and those that can jump over each other to rent their expertise around the globe to whatever scumbag has money. It is a bipartisan gig. To spin this in such a partisan manner when the entire political machinery on both sides operates like this is is either knowingly deceitful or just plain ignorant. When it is nearly impossible to just get straight balanced news from a newspaper, when the coverage is just so obviously slanted, real journalism is dead. This style of news by innuendo and the selective parsing of fact is shoddy reportage. Shame.

    macmarco

    Under globalism, it is only natural for corporations and their CEOs to have more contact with foreign entities and their leaders. Apple and CEO Tim Cook has made a huge commitment to communist China, one that he told President Obama will not be shaken or reduced.

    US tax laws that allow 'profit centers' to be claimed anywhere around the world will almost certainly bring corporate leaders and foreign leaders closer together as their interests merge and intertwine.

    Political parties will have difficulty claiming this or that country is now an enemy depending on how much corporate investment and profit holdings were made in the new 'enemy'. One could see the enormous difficulty the DNC/Hillary would have if they had to make a case against communist China hacking their emails. Apple, Walmart etal would be working overtime to protect the relationship at all costs.

    notindoctrinated

    Has it ever occurred to you Yanks that Putin may be playing global political chess. I'm sure he is shrewd enough to realize that open support to Trump could be a "kiss of death". A Democratic presidency may be in Russia's long-term interest, if they want the US to go further down the drain:

    1. Overrunning of the US by Hispanics, as well as Muslims from North Africa and the Mideast, the latter resulting in increasing insecurity and terrorist attacks at home
    2. Destruction of US economy by the pursuit of green fanatic policies.

    Of course a trigger-happy Clinton presidency increases the risk for WW3, therefore Putin's finger will never be far from the nuke-button.

    Lee Van Over -> notindoctrinated

    1. This will not happen, please see below.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U-t3GetV_Q

    2. The number one US economic strain is War.....not windfarms.

    3. Clinton is a bit more hawkish than I would like, but she is far from trigger happy. Also, she can handle an insult without declaring the need to punch someone in the face :p


    Sam3456

    I love the entitled Hillary fans are trying to stifle any dissent of the Queen with "You're a Putin Bot, You're a commie, your a Trumpster."

    Stifling dissent allows for corruption and abuse of power and is what got us into the Iraq War.

    Their condescending attitude is what we can expect from a Clinton Administration?

    JohnManyjars

    Putin bashing idiots...choke on your spittle! At least he puts the interests of his country first, unlike US/UK sell outs to Israel-First traitors.

    R. Ben Madison -> JohnManyjars

    Yet another antisemitic diatribe from the Hillary-haters.


    Lee Van Over -> JohnManyjars

    Lol, the US supports Israel because its in the best interests of the US, not Israel. They, unfortunately, are our little forward base of operations in the Mid-east.


    John Smith

    Burisma is the largest non-governmental gas producer in Ukraine, it was incorporated in 2006 and is based in Limassol, Cyprus - a European tax haven
    April 18, 2014, Burisma Holdings announced us VP Biden's son Hunter Biden appointed to the board

    Aleksander Kwaśniewski,took up in a director's post named in January.[27] Kwaśniewski was President of the Republic of Poland from 1995 to 2005 permitted the CIA torture ops in Poland during the G. W. Bush presidency

    Chairman of Burisma is the Wall Street former Merrill Lynch investment banker Alan Apter

    Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's partner at the US investment firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, and a manager of the family wealth fund of Secretary of State John Kerry's wife Theresa Heinz Kerry,

    And all friends together in a company that should be helping Ukraine recover nestled away in a tax haven!

    The director of the US-Ukraine Business Council Morgan Williams pointed to an "American tradition that frowns on close family members of government working for organizations with business links to active politics". Williams stated Biden appears to have violated this unwritten principle: "... when you're trying to keep the political sector separate from the business sector, and reduce corruption, then it's not just about holding down corruption, it's also the appearance.

    Blatant yankee cronyism beyond words! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/2014/may/14/hunter-biden-job-board-ukraine-biggest-gas-producer-burisma

    Joe Biden's son was booted from the military after failing a drug test, it was revealed Thursday.

    Hunter Biden, the youngest son of the vice president, was discharged from the Navy Reserve in February after he tested positive for cocaine, the Navy said.
    http://nypost.com/2014/10/16/bidens-son-hunter-kicked-out-of-the-navy-after-failing-cocaine-test/

    John Smith

    This is all so entertaining for as much as they try they cannot lay a finger on Putin.. the PBS special on Putin wealth ended an hour of innuendo with this.. ''How much is a matter of speculation and some educated guesswork.''

    And thats what it was speculation & guesswork!

    he may be the richest man on the planet.. he may be richer than god... but they just can't find it.. they can't find a bankstatement with billions or trillions in it they can't even find the shoebox with all his cash under his bed... they got nothing!

    MtnClimber -> John Smith

    They found Putin's money. It's cared for by "friends". One is a concert cellist with over a billion dollars. They must pay musicians well in Russia.

    You seem to like dictators. Do you like the complete censorship of the media in Russia? Do you like the new laws that allow Putin to jail anyone that denounces him or Russia?

    Given that Russians are only allowed to post good things about Putin, what do you expect to see from them?

    John Smith -> MtnClimber

    there were plenty of russians in that PBS 'show' complaining about putin and they are still alive n well..
    the only time russian critics become endangered is when they are of no further use to the yankee and then they come to a sticky end and then the finger gets pointed at putin.. then they have fully 'outlived' their usefulness.. more useful dead!

    annberk

    It is obvious that Trump will benefit financially from being nice to Putin and his inner circle. Trump combs the world for projects and money and Russia must be seen as a target. Win or lose the election he'll be seen as a friend who deserves to be rewarded. At some point in the next year or so, the Trump Corporation will announce at least one landmark Russian hotel/condo tower. I'd bet money on it. Meanwhile, poor old Hillary who has devoted her life to doing good, is being bullied and lied about by the serfs who want to elect him. (Read 'Dark Money' to see what I mean by serfs. Trump's adherents won't benefit in the slightest from his policies.)

    Sam3456

    I have family in the military and the last thing we need is Clinton leading us into another cold war.

    delphicvi

    What a lame lead in i.e. "Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time.

    Donald Trump travelled to Moscow in 2013 to meet Vladimir Putin hoping to discuss plans for a Trump Tower near Red Square."

    Did it really take four 'journalists' viz. Peter Stone, David Smith, Ben Jacobs, Alec Luhn and Rupert Neate to write this fluff? More worthy of a supermarket check out rag than a serious newspaper. This facile attempt to stitch together the incongruous and the bizarre is downright amazing for a paper that puffs itself as the leaker of truth. By the bye, Ukraine is not Russia. And Russia is not Ukraine.

    Sam3456

    The Director of National Intelligence says Washington is still unsure of who might be behind the latest WikiLeaks release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails, while urging that an end be put to the "reactionary mode" blaming it all on Russia.

    "We don't know enough to ascribe motivation regardless of who it might have been," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said speaking at Aspen's Security Forum in Colorado, when asked if the media was getting ahead of themselves in fingering the perpetrator of the hack.

    John Smith -> Sam3456

    Anonymous have been quietly busy in the background... laughing at the merkins blaming everything on Russia..
    clintons corrupt... and its Russia's fault??

    ''The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.

    The $6 billion in unaccounted funds poses a "significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department's contract actions," according to the report.'' http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/04/07/6-billion-went-missing-hillary-clintons-state-departmentwhere-did-money-go

    I know billions don't mean much today after the american laundering of Trillions of $s worth of their bad mortgage debt causing the 2008 crash....... BUT SURELY $6 Billion missing must count for something!

    sejong -> John Smith

    Clinton: corruption you can believe in.

    John Smith
    So again...
    what really happened in Benghazi? in September 2012
    Were they sending gaddafi's weapons to unsavouries in Syria and Assad got wind of it & sent a team to stop it?
    Because it was not a youtube vid or some people on a friday night out deciding to kill americans as clinton would have us believe. What we have is a clandestine operation.. a democrat version of reagans ''Arms for Iran''.. or shall we say 'Arms for ISIS' Did they get Ollie North out of retirement for this??
    Having failed this gun running operation...
    They then went to Plan B..
    ''claimed 3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via Jordan since November (2012).'' 3000 tons of weapons!!...... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9918785/US-and-Europe-in-major-airlift-of-arms-to-Syrian-rebels-through-Zagreb.html

    But When they arrived in Jordan..

    ''Weapons shipped into Jordan by the Central Intelligence Agency and Saudi Arabia intended for Syrian rebels have been systematically stolen by Jordanian intelligence operatives and sold to arms merchants on the black market, according to American and Jordanian officials.'' I mean can the CIA be that incompetent? or is this incompetence covering up something else...?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/27/world/middleeast/cia-arms-for-syrian-rebels-supplied-black-market-officials-say.html?_r=1
    So who did those weapons go to if not legit Rebel Syrians... I can only think of one other organisation..ISIS

    Then we have the $500,000,000 to train 54 rebel Syrians to fight Assad.
    do we really think the US military or special forces are that dumb?

    ''The Pentagon's $500 million (Ł300 million) Turkey-based training programme has fallen well short of expectations. Announced in June 2014 as Isil seized swathes of Iraq, it took almost a year to get off the ground and had until recently produced only 54 out of the 5,000 fighters it had intended to train within a year.'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11878048/75-US-trained-rebels-enter-Syria-from-Turkey.html
    ''US-trained Division 30 rebels 'betray US and hand weapons over to al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria' Pentagon-trained rebels are reported to have betrayed US and handed weapons over to Jabhat al-Nusra immediately after entering Syria'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11882195/US-trained-Division-30-rebels-betrayed-US-and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria.html
    So what was that HALF BILLION DOLLARS really spent on??
    I am still calling Shenanigans!

    ClaudiaLucarelli

    There is MORE of a connection between Hillary and RUSSIA:

    Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    Sam3456 -> DCBill0

    Well looks like Hillary has stared the cold war again before she ever got into office. This is worse than anything Trump could do...but very beneficial to her military/security industrial complex backers.

    Hillary Clinton = Dick Cheney.

    Oldiebutgoodie

    With all the tension and volatility in the world, we need mature, rational people leading our countries. Let's hope that's what we get -- * Vote thoughtfully.
    While we watch campaign circuses, a serious situation is taking place in Turkey that will effect Europe, the West, and the Middle East.
    - Erdogan has taken control of, and is purging all sectors of Turkish society.

    Scary stuff going on there.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/31/turkey-to-shut-military-academies-as-it-targets-armed-forces-for-cleansing

    -War in Iraq is escalating- gas depots being destroyed.
    These things have ripple effects for the rest of us.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/31/militants-storm-iraqi-oil-facility-bai-hassan

    Henrychan -> Wanda Bowen

    Julian Assange is not a Republican. He's an Australian with no vested interest in the election. I'd be worried if I were a Clinton supporter.

    spraydrift

    'Trump's links to Russia are under scrutiny after a hack of Democratic national committee emails,'

    The extremely well informed Israeli website Debkafile is confident that the Russians didn't hack the DNC or any aspect of the Democrats. Debka believes the signatures on the hack are so easy to find and so obviously intended to be found that the real culprit lies somewhere within an anti-Clinton faction of the Democrats. Now who might that be?

    Greg Popa -> spraydrift

    Wired.com's Noah Shachtman wrote in 2001 that the site "clearly reports with a point of view; the site is unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics".[4] Yediot Achronot investigative reporter Ronen Bergman states that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as neo-conservative elements of the US Republican Party, "whose worldview is that the situation is bad and is only going to get worse," and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1] Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf calls Debka his "favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors."[5]

    The site's operators, in contrast, state that 80 percent of what Debka reports turns out to be true, and point to its year 2000 prediction that al-Qaeda would again strike the World Trade Center, and that it had warned well before the 2006 war in Lebanon that Hezbollah had amassed 12,000 Katyusha rockets pointed at northern Israel.[1]

    mandzorp

    This is a fantasy article, pie in the sky stuff. I can't stand Trump and I am sure neither can the Russian government, he's unpredictable, unstable, what he says today he changes his mind on tomorrow and so on. Now, Clinton isn't much better all said. Anyone who would trust either needs to see a psychiatrist urgently. Russia is but a bystander in the US presidential race, except for the conspiracy theorists at The Guardian.

    errovi

    "The coordinator of the Washington diplomatic corps for the Republicans in Cleveland was Frank Mermoud, a former state department official involved in business ventures in Ukraine via Cub Energy, a Black Sea-focused oil and gas company of which he is a director. He is also on the board of the US Ukraine Business Council."

    So a former official of that russophobic neocon infested State Department which ran both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 coup in Kiev also member of the US-Ukraine business council is now supposed to have helped Yanokovich in 2010 and be in bed with Putin. How gullible do you think we are?

    Oldiebutgoodie -> errovi

    Seems every news media outlet and reporter is looking into his Russian business dealings and funding.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/289047-exploring-russian-ties-to-the-men-lurking-behind

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3583619/Melania-Trump-s-secret-brother-lives-rural-Slovenia-says-wants-meet-sister-Donald-presidential-election.html

    Brian Burman

    Stop the presses! Trump and people associated with him have had dealings with people from the LARGEST country in the world. If that doesn't prove he's an active Manchurian candidate on The Kremlin payroll, then nothing will.

    What it really proves is that by going the low road of McCarthyist red-baiting, the Democrats seemed determined to blow another election by not running a campaign on Hillary's supposed merits and attacking Trump for rational, verifiable reasons.

    John Smith -> MentalToo

    drivel.. Nuland admitted/boasted about spendin $5 billion in ''bring democracy to ukraine..
    $5 Billion is a lot of money in Ukraine..
    Did they build schools No
    Did they build hospitals No!
    They just destabilised the country...
    So $5 billion wasted and the yanks wonder why they don't really have a space program... coz $5 Billion would have bought 3 Space shuttles!

    jezzam -> John Smith

    The US spent 5 billion over 25 years - trying to encourage the basic institutions of democracy in Ukraine. Without these corruption cannot be eliminated. Without the elimination of corruption, none of the things you mention are possible. Non-coincidentally such institutions have been eliminated in Russia since Putin came to power.

    Brian Burman -> jezzam

    Yes, those NGOs encouraged democracy so well that they instigated a violent coup against the elected government. Halt, you say, that government was corrupt!?! But by all standards, the current government is more corrupt than the one that was overthrown, and polls in the last year show that Ukrainians are convinced of that fact. Infact, the man hand-picked by Victoria Nuland to be Prime Minister, "Yats" Yatesenyuk, had to resign under accusations of corruption. Andbthe current Kiev reginme continues to bomb the civilian population of Donbass and terrorize them with neo-Nazi militias...ah, the wonders of US funded "democracy".

    Виктор Захаров

    I wonder, if you say that you are democrats why you are not interested in truth about Malaysian Boing? Now in the West, Merkel, Obama etc, no one worried about this tragedy because now it's clear that Ukrainian authorities did it. It's barbarian blasphemous....

    Henrychan

    Hello all Hillary supporters,

    You are all a school of piranhas waiting to tear the flesh of anyone who is against 'Her'. I have noticed your comments towards any rational reply is met with condescending and abusive tones. You've probably realised I am poorly educated. However, I have common sense which I believe most of you don't. Most of you comment in order to receive recognition and votes in order to make you feel good because of low self esteem and belonging issues.

    I believe we in the west currently live in a pluralist society for now. If Hillary is elected I reckon she will lay the foundation for sharia law, Merkel is doing her bit. Anyway, how can anyone vote for this vile human being?

    You must be either:
    Ignorant
    Misinformed
    Lack common sense or
    Mentally ill

    Hillary Rodman Clinton does not care about YOU! Its all about her wanting power to control YOU. Have you ever asked yourself why does she want to be President? What is her motivation?

    Comment all you like, you Hillary supporter are defending a witch. I'm not with HER.

    Oilyheart

    Bernie Sanders visited the USSR. Does that make him a communist? Bernie Sanders visited the Vatican. Does that make him a Catholic? Gen. Flynn visited RT. Does that make him Scott Pelley? Bill visits a lot of places.

    Виктор Захаров

    First of all why Obama calls yourself democrat? It's nonsense, by definition democrats those who against the coup! Having lied once who would believe you ( Russian saying ). Obama continued to lie. Malaysian Boing had been shot down by Ukrainian jet, radars neither in Dnepro nor in Rostov hadn't seen buk missile, buk missile weighs 700 kg radar could not to see it. But radars had seen Ukrainian jet, Ukrainian authorities restricted access to records....

    Oilyheart

    Oh, come on, Hillary has all 30 of the admirals and generals that previously endorsed Jeb. Can't Donald have one general? The US military is in schism between the moderates (represented by Flynn) and the hawks (represented by Allen, presumably). Hillary's hawks got booed off the stage at the convention. Allen was trying to shout down the protesters but they were pretty feisty. Try not to bogart all the retired general officers, Democrats. The moderates are trying to de-escalate tensions with Russia, is that so wrong? Does gangsterism have to proliferate all over the place? Does the whole world have to break bad like Walter White into gangsterism and chaos because it's cool?

    GODsaysBRESCAPE

    Clinton wants a new cold war with Russia, forget the real enemy the Islamists. She is showing her warmongering stripes again already. Shame on you Sanders for your betrayal of your supporters, that will now be your ever lasting and shameful legacy.


    Sam3456 -> GODsaysBRESCAPE

    Follow the money. The Clinton elite and the military/security industrial complex will MAKE BILLIONS with a new cold war. As much as they made off of Iraq and MORE!

    HRC is Dick Cheney in a pants suit.


    GODsaysBRESCAPE

    The media, big business and the pentagon: "a web that grows more tangled all the time"


    dikcheney

    I have to do this. #canthackHillary.
    I cant hack her lies
    I cant hack her faux ignorance of IT security
    I cant hack her unbelievability
    I cant hack her attacks on any challenger
    I cant hack the cloth she didn't use to wipe her server
    I cant hack the way she puts USA security at risk to protect her "private" shenanigans
    I cant hack her capacity to corrupt any decent process associated with democray
    I cant hack her network of "get out of jail free cards"
    I cant hack her transparent deceptions
    I cant hack her associates
    I cant hack her war criminal mentors
    I cant hack her media admirers and shills
    I cant hack her Wall Street buddies
    I cant hack her mate Obama

    Is there anyone out there who can hack Hillary?

    Shatford Shatford -> dikcheney

    You left out Clinton Foundation donors who receive lucrative contracts in disaster zones or in African dictatorships.

    nnedjo

    Julian Assange showed to the DNC who they are, but they are not angry at him, they are angry at Donald Trump. Of course, how can anyone be angry at the mirror because it has shown its ugly face.:-)))

    Shatford Shatford -> nnedjo

    Bless cognitive dissonance for keeping everyone from seeing the truth.


    Shatford Shatford -> NewWorldWatcher

    I'm sure once Hillary cheats her way into the White House, she'll sick the IRS on him since she does that to all of her enemies. And naturally, all of her and her husband's crimes will go unpunished as they always have. Her husband almost got impeached. Not for getting a hummer from an intern, but because there was so much other bullshit they wanted to nail him on and lying under oath was the only thing they could use because the Clintons are very good at buying people off.

    nnedjo

    The Democratic Party and its vassal media proves for the umpteenth time that they have nothing to do with democracy. If the opposition is called traitors and accused of collaboration with foreign governments without any evidence, then it is not a democracy, it is called a dictatorship.
    So if they think they have evidence that Trump is a traitor, they should arrest him. Otherwise, they have to admit that Donald Trump is genuine representative of American democracy, and that they would rather belong to a kind of dictatorship.

    gondwanaboy -> nnedjo

    So if they think they have evidence that Trump is a traitor, they should arrest him.

    They don't have any evidence. This is mud slinging and a diversion from the DNC email corruption scandal that actually has proof

    miri84

    Analysts suggest three primary motivations for the WikiLeaks email dump, quite probably overlapping: doing harm to the US political process to undermine its credibility; doing harm to Clinton (WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is no friend); and boosting Trump

    The hack would not have succeeded in any of these areas, had the DNC been conducting its operations fairly and with integrity.

    guest88888

    Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time

    Only if you're full of BS, and lack even a shred of journalistic integrity.

    McCarthy would be proud. After years of pretending otherwise, it seems the US government has finally returned to its old and proud tradition of smearing anyone it finds undesirable as in cahoots with the ever-changing 'enemy.'

    All of this is merely a diversion to avoid talking about the mountain of corruption revealed about both parties in recent days. Not to mention a diversion from talking about the key issue, that the US is increasingly antagonizing nuclear armed powers like Russia and China, which if not stopped will lead to a war capable of killing millions.

    selvak

    I am not Trump but I would much rather ally with Russia than Saudi Arabia. Both have plenty of oil by the way. Only one is spreading a Death cult over the Globe but still Presidents Bush and Obama bowed for the Saudi king. More money the be made out of Arab oil for a few uber rich in the US Establishment I guess. Less 'competition" for the Pentagon from Riyadh too.

    sejong -> selvak

    Bibi and King Salman will get joint custody of Clinton, so don't worry.

    PCollens

    100% bullshit, lies and a psy-op being fed to us from all sides on this.
    Seriously Graun, what gives with this bullshit? Confirms my conclusion that the Graun, like the rest of the MSM, has been infiltrated by an Operation Mockingbird as well.
    So many psychopaths - GOP, DNC, Trump, the US deep state petro-nazis, the oligarchs in all countries - all panicking more and more now, out of control.
    Here comes some kind of armagedon. Sorry, sheeple - but its bad news for us all.

    Alec Dacyczyn

    It's worth mentioning the context of the "the US would not automatically come to the aid of Nato allies" thing. He wants for other Nato countries to either pull their own weight militarily (2% of GDP) or pay to cover the costs of other countries for defend them. The threat of willingness to "walk away" is negotiating leverage. He's making a gamble that they will capitulate rather than be left defenseless.

    I believe it's a reasonable safe bet. So until these Nato countries indicate that they'd rather not spend that much on their militarizes I reject the argument that a President Trump would result in a weaker Nato alliance and that Putin want Trump to win for that reason (I suspect Putin would indeed prefer Trump, but because he views Clinton as a neo-con warmonger who would rather bomb someone than negotiate a deal).

    Bruno Costa Alec Dacyczyn

    I hate Trump, but this is a VERY safe bet.
    Russia will not invade Poland or the Baltic. The world change. Putin has an agenda different from Ivan the Terrible...
    NATO countries will pay their bills and psychopaths like Erdogan will think twice before put down a Russian fighter.
    That was insane. The most dangerous act since the 80's!
    Made by a religious fanatical dictator who is ending Turkey secular tradition.
    If Russia had responded, protecting Erdogan would've been fair? NATO starting 3rd WW because of a authoritarian guy that should be expelled is reasonable?

    Sam3456

    A vote against Hillary is not a vote for Trump any more than a vote against the Iraq War was a vote for Saddam Hussein.

    niftydude

    Hilarious. This Red Scare is ridiculous, will only carry weight with the over 60s. It is just one of the many missteps in Hillary's tone deaf campaign which is going to cost her the presidency.

    livingstonfc

    Not a Trump supporter, but this shitty rag attacks everyone except the Red Queen...who is responsible for many acts of terror and murder...documented.

    BSchwartz

    Trump is married to a woman who grew up under communism. Some his closest advisors have worked for communists. Many of his own business dealings are with Russians. He has claimed a relationshp with Putin and says he admires him. He has amended Republican policies to favour Russia. He called on the Russian's to undertake espionage into Hillary Clinton. There is a pattern here.

    A man like Trump, who believed in the conspiracy theory that Obama was Kenyan, should understand that conspiracies grow as evidence build. There was no evidence to sustain Trump's conspiracy regarding Obama.

    But Trump himself provides much evidence to sustain the theory that his interests are closer to the Russians than to much of America.

    Sam3456 -> BSchwartz

    Really? Democrats red baiting and calling people "commies" how shameful and ignorant of you history. What next Hillary comes out with a "list of Trump/Putin sympathizers"? Shame.

    Bruno Costa -> BSchwartz

    Hahahahahahahahahaha OMG! Are you going beyond Manchurian Candidate and saying that Trump is communist? Do you really understand how funny this is?

    PCollens -> BSchwartz

    A-ha! I see it now! Trump is a commie Manchurian candidate, cleverly hidden as a son of a rich guy who became a billionaire, spreading capitalist ideology to the masses as a front for his USSR commie masters. Its obvious! Wake up sheeple!

    Gem59

    The Clinton-Media machine in full force....Those Russians are in bed with Trump! It must be the barbarians! Shame on you traitor Donald! Whatever it takes, corrupted Media! Here is an interview with Julian Assange who argues there is no evidence of any hacking by Russians

    http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fradionational%2Fprograms%2Flatenightlive%2Frussia-and-the-dnc-leaks%2F7663250&h=TAQEnZ2rE

    Matronum

    A wee bit...creepy!

    Russian literature, the language, the culture...all quite beautiful. OK, and maybe the women too. But this 'relationship' between Trump and Russia makes me feel uncomfortable. I'm willing to admit that I may simply be conditioned to be wary of Russian involvement because of all those Cold War years. Still...creepy!

    Pork Mistret -> Matronum

    See a doctor . A case of severe russophobia

    Heathenlullaby

    US Military Caught Manipulating Social Media, Running Mass Propaganda Accounts

    http://www.storyleak.com/us-military-caught-social-media-running-mass-propaganda-accounts/

    HauptmannGurski -> Heathenlullaby

    Ta, much of the information, especially what Tom Curley (formerly AP chief) revealed, has been removed from the net. I wish I had saved the pdf of his Kansas speech before it vanished everywhere. There was also something on a British server, but that stopped being fed.

    Often we could see it on the posters' string, how many in how many hours, hence the attempts to hide it through multi ID facility. For disqus, they block the string. We know we are being manipulated. And very few people take things at face value these days, or do they?

    Ping2fyoutoo

    "experts argue Vladimir Putin has attempted in the past to damage western democracy."

    That single sentence exposes the Guardian as a completely fraudulent news reporting medium. With tears in my eyes I ask you "How does Putin releasing e-mails about the secret and illegal American electoral shenanigans amount to an attack on western democracy?"

    It doesn't. It's something the western mainstream media should be doing to enlighten the people about the depths of the crookedness and the evil chicanery surrounding "western democracy" (as practised today in the US). That omission is what weakens and threatens western democracy.

    The old saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" is demonstrated by the Guardians reporting without sources, other than anonymous so-called "experts". Your journalistic integrity is little higher than the height of Hillary Clinton's honesty, or the level of the Donald's business ethics. Shame on you. Double shame for being so blatantly easy to expose.

    The western media, controlled by special interest groups, are driving your low-level sputum which tries to pass for accurate and unbiased reportage.

    And please let us know who these "experts" are that you say that you are quoting.

    Alexander Dunnett -> Ping2fyoutoo

    On the whole I would have to agree with you. The picture painted by the Western News Media is that the US is the White Knight when it comes to democracy, they never interfere in other countries political affairs, never try to break into computer systems of other countries, try to topple or assassinate leaders of other countries. They never carry out torture and they ignore the 30m on the poverty line in their own country.

    PCollens -> Ping2fyoutoo

    Agreed. There is a Deep State mole inside the Graun.
    Its Operation Mockingbird for sure.

    normankirk

    So Starbucks is in Russia,sinister? or is it just that globalisation means financial interests are worldwide.
    And why is no one mentioning that James Clapper head of the NSA, who should know, says that he is "taken aback by the media's hyperventilations" and that no one knows who was behind the hack of the DNC.

    Suga

    Whatever Lies you believe or even think of HRC...
    Clinton is our only hope of keeping the White House from The Insane Republican Party!.
    Please...Check-out this excellent interview with Michael Ruppert, who tracked exactly what took place under The Horrible Bush/Cheney Reign Of Terror that brought down America on 9/11!

    (Ruppert supposedly committed suicide in 2014) It's amazing this interview is still available...it will absolutely shock you into realizing that we cannot give the White House back to the GOP...they are surrounded by Pure Evil!

    9/11 and the Cheney Conspiracy with Michael Ruppert
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW5qiuLb8jY


    PCollens Suga

    Brilliant! - Bless you. Mike Ruppert is the greatest hero to emerge from all this.

    Copy-paste the following - it is pure fact, forensic level evidence, of the most serious issues, yet it always gets taken down. I've concluded that this is by the moles in the MSM, including the Graun, sadly:


    AE911Truth Experts Speak Out
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4

    9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3xgjxJwedA

    9/11 Pentagon Attack - Behind the Smoke Curtain - Barbara Honegger
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk

    Chapter and verse on the drills of terror attacks being run on 911 which removed the air defences – an coordinated by Cheney: 9/11 Synthetic Terror
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6I0jUg6Vs

    The Chief CIA back-channel asset who exposed the fore-knowledge of 911 survived the attempts to rub her out, and finally told the truth:
    CIA WhistleBlower Susan Lindauer EXPOSES Everything - "Extreme Prejudice"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA

    If you only have 5 minutes, this is a great distillation:
    https://youtu.be/yuC_4mGTs98

    poststructuralist

    Well at least Trump is fostering positive relations with Russia - Hillary Clinton is pushing us to the brink of nuclear war with them. You Tube it. Wishing Good Luck to all people of courage and honesty.

    Eddie2000

    Reds under the bed! Reds under the bed! Surely they can beat Trump without resorting to this nonsense?


    woof92105

    ****warning - This comment area is infested with russian trolls. It becomes easy to spot their bizarre but consistent pro-putin statements. They reply to each other and uprate each other, etc. These people are in Russia and are paid by Putin's cronies.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=0

    sejong -> woof92105

    Accuracy score 1/10.

    normankirk -> woof92105

    and how do we know you aren't part of the cyber warrior force thats become a growth industry in the US and UK?

    Gina Mihajlovska -> woof92105

    Your an idiot. It's not about Putin it's about how the public is being played. No matter where the leak came from the dnc is corrupt.focus on the prize. Not on the BS....

    shaftedpig

    Trump might have his faults, like being a motor mouth but he's not even in the same category as GW Bush or HR Clinton when it comes to corruption, the Democrats haven't got much on Trump, so they resort to tin-foil hat conspiracy theories, when what is staring at us directly in the face is out-and-out full-on corruption by HRC.

    This is not about left vs right, it's about right vs wrong. Read any book by investigative journalist, Roger Stone who nails HRC. If you're on the left and feel let down by Bernie, at least consider Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, I can't for the life of me understand why Americans revere corrupt officials when you got decent potential presidents who aren't in the pockets of banksters like HRC.

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5798e0d2e4b01180b5312ad2

    ClearItUp

    Reuters/Ipsos changed it polling methodology as soon as they saw a 17 point swing in favor of Donald the Drumpf. When the methodology by their own admission was under reporting Trump support and over reporting Hillbilly's numbers they did nothing. So don't believe any polls. There is no enthusiasm for Hillbilly in the Democratic party, so the Democratic turn out will be low, on the other hand people want to shake things up, they will vote for Drumpf. I just wished Donald had half a brain in his head to see how much good he could do, with the opportunity he has.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-reutersipsos-idUSKCN10910T

    Tim Cahill

    So the dreaded ruskies are trying to help Trump? Oh my goodness!

    Meanwhile, Clinton's big love for Israel remains unmentioned during most of the Primaries and even now. I've done a lot of work around the Middle East. The reason certain people hate us is because the US has vetoed all UN efforts to right the wrongs committed by Israel against the Palestinians. And with Netanyahu in his 4th term, gelding the news media, and rolling more completely fascist, we can expect more rubber stamping of territory occupation (that seems like a very simple and illegal act, but since the USA - and only the USA - disagrees, it's okay) and abuses that will further fuel hatred from people who'd, at minimum, appreciate it if justice could apply to them.

    Let the candidate without sin cast the first stone of superiority!

    BTW - What the Russians want is more cash for their wealthiest, trusted oligarchs. That's exactly what Clinton and Trump are working to do. So why can't they all just be friends?

    ahmedfez

    A lot of associations and coincidences have been listed here. But no hard evidence linking the hacking to Putin, nor Putin to Trump. It sounds like a load of muckraking.

    shaftedpig -> ahmedfez

    True. If it was the other way round, Guardian journalists and establishment shills would be screaming 'tin-foil' when they should be holding that woman to account.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Strengthening Russo-Turkish Alliance Stokes US-Russian Cold War naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally. ..."
    "... Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big setback for the US and a big gain for Russia ..."
    "... The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts" get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous. These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR. ..."
    "... NATO gets aggressive and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions. ..."
    "... I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to invade or start a war!" ..."
    "... US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria (by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable reaction. Same goes for Ukraine. ..."
    "... The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development, they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college. ..."
    "... If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists, strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged: ..."
    "... Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well. ..."
    "... While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement. ..."
    "... But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen, as Edmonds says. ..."
    "... Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing to speak out about it. ..."
    "... Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial, cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded within the USA and Congress. ..."
    "... For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point. ..."
    "... Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin? ..."
    "... Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the 9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period (i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte"). ..."
    "... But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all a happy one. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    nmb , August 1, 2016 at 6:21 am

    It's rather improbable to see a Russo-Turkish alliance against US and NATO. The US and the Russians have probably already agreed on the new Middle East map which includes Kurdish state. This explains to a great extent why Erdogan is so nervous, making sloppy and dangerous moves.

    Yves Smith Post author , August 1, 2016 at 8:30 am

    Um, given reports that the Turks briefly closed the airbase that the US uses to conduct operations in Syria over the weekend, Erdogan seems plenty pissed with the US for not turning over Gulen, as he has repeatedly requested. Europe has agreed to give him only 3 billion euros to halt the refugee flow into Europe, which is hardly adequate, and a vague promise that maybe the EU will give Turks the freedom of movement too. The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally.

    Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big setback for the US and a big gain for Russia

    Steve H. , August 1, 2016 at 9:01 am

    Islamic State calls on members to carry out jihad in Russia

    Could be oblique pressure from Turkey, which has been supplying IS.

    Ask Bandar how that works out.

    John Candlish , August 1, 2016 at 6:38 am

    The Guardian is cranking its front page handorgan while its monkey dances to the tune of Syrian rebels launch operation to break Aleppo siege

    The Al-nursra rebranding hits the spotlight.

    Carla , August 1, 2016 at 8:00 am

    Thanks for mentioning the Real News Network fundraiser, Yves. They have a dollar-for-dollar matching grant going on as well, doubling the impact of every donation.

    rhcaldwell , August 1, 2016 at 8:03 am

    'Sure hope we've flown all our nukes out of Incirlik…

    Praedor , August 1, 2016 at 9:14 am

    The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts" get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous. These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR.

    They take it on faith that the US/West and Russia MUST be at odds, no matter what, to the point that they create out of whole cloth conflicts where none existed before. NATO gets aggressive and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions.

    Personally, I couldn't care less if Turkey and Russia get kissy-faced with each other. Big wup. Russia is NOT preparing to invade Western Europe (as much as NATO WISHES it were). Russia is NOT invading countries and overthrowing their governments to install puppet regimes, that's the USA and NATO ONLY. The West transgresses, grossly, again and again and when Russia coughs or clears its throat in opposition, it is "RUSSIAN AGGRESSION! Yaaaa! The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!!!!"

    I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to invade or start a war!" On the other hand, I've seen nothing BUT war starting by the West. First NATO takes something that wasn't, in all actuality, THAT bad a situation (the breakup of Yugoslavia) and turns it into a complete hell in Europe.

    US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria (by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable reaction. Same goes for Ukraine.

    The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development, they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college.

    Ralph Reed , August 1, 2016 at 11:11 am

    If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists, strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged:

     There is now only one way out. The time has come for the United States to make common cause with the Soviet Union. The bringing together of the Soviet landmass (with all its natural resources) and our island empire (with all its technological resources) would be of great benefit to each society, not to mention the world. Also, to recall the wisdom of the Four Horsemen who gave us our empire, the Soviet Union and our section of North America combined would be a match, industrially and technologically, for the Sino-Japanese axis that will dominate the future just as Japan dominates world trade today. But where the horsemen thought of war as the supreme solvent, we now know that war is worse than useless. Therefore, the alliance of the two great powers of the Northern Hemisphere will double the strength of each and give us, working together, an opportunity to survive, economically, in a highly centralized Asiatic world.

    Then again, the international co-operation around protecting the ozone layer could have been deepened if the Red Greens hadn't already been promised as sacrificial lambs to the Gladio remnants, their old money benefactors, Western intelligence agencies, Mossad, the CIA, FBI, and disgruntled Russian elites who already hated hippies.

    Ralph Reed , August 1, 2016 at 11:17 am

    I messed up the format and don't seem to be able to edit. My apologies.

    Ralph Reed (@RalphWalterReed) , August 1, 2016 at 11:32 am

    Rereading this it sacrifices coherence to venting. The premise is that historical contiguity with the racial residues of empire could be confronted or not if they were more simply transparent.

    The bigger point I wanted to make is the current demographic disaster may be intentional if one looks at the recent Russian experience as an experiment. Broken Force? Then social pressure through thwarting the traditional modes of reproduction of labor leading to a reinvigorated military economy in 15 years.

    digi_owl , August 1, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    Yeah the whole "soviet threat" issue vanished the day Stalin passed. But i fear that the US, and thus NATO, needed it to maintain compliance within their own nations.

    And thus the threat was stoked until the 90s, then it was eased back as they thought they had the old bear chained down while Yeltsin was in office, only for their antics to cause a blowback that is still ongoing once Putin took over.

    TheCatSaid , August 1, 2016 at 10:49 am

    Great interview. It's good to see Helmer on TRNN.

    Last week I got curious to have a better understanding of the Turkey situation than what I was getting from MSM. I decided to see if Sibel Edmonds had spoken up–and discovered that she predicted this coup 18 months ago.

    There are a number of insightful interviews she has given about Turkey over the last 18 months. Here are a couple:

    Lengthy video interview with Edmonds about
    Turkey / Gulen background from 2014, "Sibel Edmonds Explains the CIA's "Reverse Engineering" of Erdogan". She says it is easy to document Gulen's close links to the CIA, and makes a strong case for his status as being strongly protected by the USA. It references articles she's written including " Turkish PM Erdogan: The Speedy Transformation of an Imperial Puppet ".

    Two recent interviews since the coup.
    Sibel Edmonds Dissects the Turkish Coup

    Breaking News: Turkey's Coup Plotters are Members of NATO's Rapid Deployable Corps (July 24 2016)

    The "BellingTheCat" website with WhatsApp translated messages of Turkish military during the coup, which Helmers also mentions, are here . Helmers says this website is a NATO-sponsored website and that it is not always trustworthy, but isn't sure in this case. Edmonds doesn't mention this website being linked to NATO.

    For background on Edmonds see " Kill the Messenger ", a 2006 documentary about her whistleblowing within the FBI.

    jagger , August 1, 2016 at 11:40 am

    Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well.

    TheCatSaid , August 1, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Something I found intriguing:

    While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement.

    But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen, as Edmonds says.

    Within the CIA there are therefore different angles / understandings / strategies. The upper echelon strategy seems to be about supporting Gulen (including helping clandestinely Gulen–or his puppet-master(s)–to effect regime change). LIHOP is too weak an argument, given the kind of support Gulen receives from his USA base. Probably he's just a figurehead and the real power is out of view. (USA? Off-world?)

    Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing to speak out about it.

    TheCatSaid , August 1, 2016 at 11:01 am

    Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial, cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded within the USA and Congress.

    A longer post with a number of links has been sidetracked to moderation. In case it disappears I'm posting this short comment.

    For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point.

    jagger , August 1, 2016 at 11:32 am

    How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there?

    Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin?

    dbk , August 1, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    This thread seems to have petered out rather early on, not sure how much to add.

    For those (if anyone is still out there) interested, Pat Lang's site SST has been posting regularly on Turkey, and he has commenters from the region and who are knowledgeable about ME/NE military and political affairs.

    I had read the John Helmer piece on his blog when it was first posted, and forwarded it to a friend who's similar in many respects to Lang (career military officer, now retired; author of historical studies and books; keen student of the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey, Cyprus, the Balkans) except that he's Greek.

    In return he sent me a link to his own latest two pieces on a Greek blog. One discusses the "coup" in considerable detail. Some random factoids I picked up on, in no particular order or hierarchy:

    • -Russia is not interested in regime change in Turkey at the moment;
    • -Russia is very interested in maintaining its buffer zone (called "The Rimland" by the late Nicholas Spykman, a geopolitics theoretician), of which Turkey forms perhaps the key part (historically, and now);
    • -Russia turned the shooting down of that SU 24 into an opportunity to install S400s or possibly, S500s, in Syria;
    • -The current situation in Syria is more or less a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia;
    • -Russia has recently become very active in the so-called "Northern Corridor" (aka, the Arctic Circle), something most analysts forget;
    • -By 2020, Russia will be 100% self-sufficient in food production;
    • -It is likely that Russian surveillance technology picked up the news of the impending coup and informed Erdogan of it;
    • -The presence of nuclear weapons at Incirlik is in violation of Article 2 of the 1975 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
    • -Russia wants/needs a "southern corridor" to move LNG to the Med. Turkey is in the right geographic location to serve this purpose.

    The historical relationship between Turkey and Russia comes out a bit garbled in Helmer's (original post) title, i.e. "The New Byzantine Alliance: The Kremlin and the Porte," etc.

    Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the 9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period (i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte").

    Short version: when you start messing around in somebody else's backyard, trouble ensues.

    The 2016 election offers voters two rather stark choices. Another blog I read, LGM, recently had a comment on a thread about Trump-Clinton (there are so many, one loses count) that laid out why voters are choosing one or the other candidate very neatly. If one is in the U.S. and is relatively or very well-off, the Democrats' championing (qualified, I would say) of identity politics looks pretty good, or at least, not as bad as the Republicans' (I'm still aghast at how black voters are so staunchly supportive of someone whose husband shoved TANF through in place of AFDC, but hey). But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all a happy one.

    [Aug 01, 2016] Henry A. Giroux White Supremacy and Sanctioned Violence in the Age of Donald Trump by Henry A. Giroux

    A very weak article, but some ideas are worth quoting. I think "Make America Great" again is a slogan of paleoconservatives, who are organically opposed neoconservatives -- the groups most closely related to neofascism (despite the fact that it consists mainly of Jewish intellectuals and policymakers). So Henry A. Giroux is wrong on this particular slogan: neofascism is first of all the wars of [neoliberal] conquest and Noninterventionalism is not compatible with neofascism. In this sense Hillary Clinton is truly neofascist candidate in the current race.
    Notable quotes:
    "... State-manufactured fear offers up new forms of domestic terrorism embodied in the rise of a surveillance state while providing a powerful platform for militarizing many aspects of society. ..."
    "... Under such circumstance, the bonds of trust dissolve, while hating the other becomes normalized and lawlessness is elevated to a matter of commonsense. ..."
    www.truth-out.org
    July 27, 2016 | truth-out.org

    Across the globe, fascism and white supremacy in their diverse forms are on the rise. In Greece, France, Poland, Austria and Germany, among other nations, right-wing extremists have used the hateful discourse of racism, xenophobia and white nationalism to demonize immigrants and undermine democratic modes of rule and policies. As Chris Hedges observes, much of the right-wing, racist rhetoric coming out of these countries mimics what Trump and his followers are saying in the United States.

    One consequence is that the public spheres that produce a critically engaged citizenry and make a democracy possible are under siege and in rapid retreat. Economic stagnation, massive inequality, the rise of religious fundamentalism and growing forms of ultra-nationalism now aim to put democratic nations to rest. Echoes of the right-wing movements in Europe have come home with a vengeance.

    Demagogues wrapped in xenophobia, white supremacy and the false appeal to a lost past echo a brutally familiar fascism, with slogans similar to Donald Trump's call to "Make America Great Again" and "Make America Safe Again." These are barely coded messages that call for forms of racial and social cleansing. They are on the march, spewing hatred, embracing forms of anti-semitism and white supremacy, and showing a deep-seated disdain for any form of justice on the side of democracy. As Peter Foster points out in The Telegraph, "The toxic combination of the most prolonged period of economic stagnation and the worst refugee crisis since the end of the Second World War has seen the far-Right surging across the continent, from Athens to Amsterdam and many points in between."

    State-manufactured lawlessness has become normalized and extends from the ongoing and often brutalizing and murderous police violence against Black people and other vulnerable groups to a criminogenic market-based system run by a financial elite that strips everyone but the upper 1% of a future, not only by stealing their possessions but also by condemning them to a life in which the only available option is to fall back on one's individual resources in order to barely survive. In addition, as Kathy Kelly points out, at the national level, lawlessness now drives a militarized foreign policy intent on assassinating alleged enemies rather than using traditional forms of interrogation, arrest and conviction. The killing of people abroad based on race is paralleled by (and connected with) the killing of Black people at home. Kelly correctly notes that the whole world has become a battlefield driven by racial profiling, where lethal violence replaces the protocols of serve and protect.

    Fear is the reigning ideology and war its operative mode of action, pitting different groups against each other, shutting down the possibilities of shared responsibilities, and legitimating the growth of a paramilitary police force that kills Black people with impunity. State-manufactured fear offers up new forms of domestic terrorism embodied in the rise of a surveillance state while providing a powerful platform for militarizing many aspects of society. One consequence is that, as Charles Derber argues, America has become a warrior society whose "culture and institutions... program civilians for violence at home as well as abroad." And, as Zygmunt Bauman argues in his book Liquid Fear, in a society saturated in violence and hate, "human relations are a source of anxiety" and everyone is viewed with mistrust. Compassion gives way to suspicion and a celebration of fear and revulsion accorded to those others who allegedly have the potential to become monsters, criminals, or even worse, murderous terrorists. Under such circumstance, the bonds of trust dissolve, while hating the other becomes normalized and lawlessness is elevated to a matter of commonsense.

    Politics is now a form of warfare creating and producing an expanding geography of combat zones that hold entire cities, such as Ferguson, Missouri, hostage to forms of extortion, violence lock downs and domestic terrorism -- something I have demonstrated in detail in my book America at War with Itself. These are cities where most of those targeted are Black. Within these zones of racial violence, Black people are often terrified by the presence of the police and subject to endless forms of domestic terrorism. Hannah Arendt once wrote that terror was the essence of totalitarianism. She was right and we are witnessing the dystopian visions of the new authoritarians who now trade in terror, fear, hatred, demonization, violence and racism. Trump and his neo-Nazi bulldogs are no longer on the fringe of political life and they have no interests in instilling values that will make America great. On the contrary, they are deeply concerned with creating expanding constellations of force and fear, while inculcating convictions that will destroy the ability to form critical capacities and modes of civic courage that offer a glimmer of resistance and justice.

    ... ... ...

    In short, this emerging American neo-fascism in its various forms is largely about social and racial cleansing and its end point is the construction of prisons, detention centers, enclosures, walls, and all the other varieties of murderous apparatus that accompany the discourse of national greatness and racial purity. Americans have lived through 40 years of the dismantling of the welfare state, the elimination of democratic public spheres, such as schools and libraries, and the attack on public goods and social provisions. In their place, we have the rise of the punishing state with its support for a range of criminogenic institutions, extending from banks and hedge funds to state governments and militarized police departments that depend on extortion to meet their budgets.

    [Aug 01, 2016] The top one tenth of percent couldnt have done so much damage to the world if millions supposedly good people hadnt fallen into their traps so easily...

    www.moonofalabama.org

    @84 PhilK

    Anything I got wrong? Anything I missed? There's an address you can reach me at the page if you have suggestions.

    Posted by: jfl | Jul 30, 2016 1:37:48 AM | 90

    @86 Thank you, Penelope. You make very good points, as always. :-)

    But let me repeat my conclusion - the world is evil because people are weak.

    The 0.1% couldn't have done so much damage to the world if millions supposedly "good people" hadn't fallen into their traps so easily...

    Posted by: ProPeace | Jul 30, 2016 2:57:04 AM | 91

    @72 Many good USians have been murdered (Phill Marshall, sen. Paul Wellstone, JFK junior - competing with Hitlary for the Senate seat), silenced, imprisoned, intimidated, disenfranchised for standing up to the criminal elite.

    They deserve our utmost respect.

    Do not use collective responsibility, Bolshevik style.

    Posted by: ProPeace | Jul 30, 2016 3:05:11 AM | 92

    [Jul 31, 2016] Clearly, from Hickenloopers speech before Clinton, the military brass cant wait for her becoaming POTUS!

    Notable quotes:
    "... 0bama v Bush43, who was the More Effective Evil? At least Bush43 didn't have the passion for Crapifying social insurance like 0bama did – IIRC Bush43 meekly tried to privatize SS & then let it go. Bush43 didn't push any Rigged Trade Outsourcing deals the size of TPP, perhaps there was a minor one (DR-CAFTA?). ..."
    "... I'd guesstimate 0bama is even worse than Bush43. The sad thing is that I fear the Fockin New Guy will be even worse than 0bama ..."
    "... Well, Bush43 has Iraq going for him. And IMNSHO, the only reason Obama didn't seriously put "boots on the ground" is that Iraq and Afghanistan broke the army. But I bet they're recovered enough now, and ready for Hillary! ..."
    "... Clearly, from Hickenlooper's speech before Clinton, the brass can't wait! ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ProNewerDeal , July 29, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    BTW, do you think we "dodge 2 bullets" & make it to Jan 2017 without 0bama being able to implement his beloved TPP & Grand Ripoff?

    Flying Spaghetti Monster Willing, I hope so!

    0bama v Bush43, who was the More Effective Evil? At least Bush43 didn't have the passion for Crapifying social insurance like 0bama did – IIRC Bush43 meekly tried to privatize SS & then let it go. Bush43 didn't push any Rigged Trade Outsourcing deals the size of TPP, perhaps there was a minor one (DR-CAFTA?).

    0bama's passion is allowing the 1%ers enrichment by parasitically ripping off 99%ers. In contrast Bush43's passion was neocon Middle East warmongering regime-change, & Christian Theocratic stances like banning stem cell research & gay marriage, & fellow theocrat SCOTUS nominations.

    I'd guesstimate 0bama is even worse than Bush43. The sad thing is that I fear the Fockin New Guy will be even worse than 0bama.

    Perhaps there is a small chance for HClinton to be less bad than 0bama if the Sanders-ish social democrats (typically labeled Progressives) can force HClinton to halfway stick to the 2016 platform. Based on HClinton's behavior during the campaign, I doubt that is possible – she seems to detest the Progressive faction, based off the Kaine nomination & authoritarian banning of Sanders delegates from the convention floor, etc, & so far HClinton seems to get away with this "hippie punching" behavior.

    One positive aspect is that I feel like that HClinton will be unable to use the 0bama excuses to valid Progressives' policy critiques of

    1. You are a sexist for critizing Dear Leader! (racist in 0bama's case)
    2. Those Evil Rs won't let her do that policy

    These bogus replies are "dead horses" after continual use by 0bamabots, that IMHO will not be available for HClinton to use.

    Lambert Strether Post author , July 29, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    Well, Bush43 has Iraq going for him. And IMNSHO, the only reason Obama didn't seriously put "boots on the ground" is that Iraq and Afghanistan broke the army. But I bet they're recovered enough now, and ready for Hillary!

    Clearly, from Hickenlooper's speech before Clinton, the brass can't wait!

    [Jul 31, 2016] Trump Ad Hillary Clinton Crooked Warmonger

    Stakes are too high to elect warmonger like Hillary Clinton. Vote for Trump in November. See also another look at Hillary's war record. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNu-0Vrvrf0&feature=youtu.be
    Notable quotes:
    "... How can anyone vote for that corrupt warmonger? Seriously, can someone explain why she has 50% of the votes in the USA. Unbelievable. ..."
    "... Killary, like Barry, loves killing people. Psychopaths--both of them. ..."
    "... I honestly don't care if Trump wins. I don't think it will be good, but whatever. But I know for a fact that no matter what, Hillary must not win. ..."
    "... Oy Vey! It's funny how Liberals, most Muslims etc are offended by Trump but not offended by the direct policies of the same old warmongers resulting in the deaths of millions of people in the Middle East for a decade and on going in the sham war on t3rror. The fuck? ..."
    YouTube
    aspiesresearchmom1 week ago
    This video should be viral. #KweenKrookedKillary and her moronic minions don't have a chance when Bernie's voters get on board the #TrumpTrain2016
    Oxymoron2
    How can anyone vote for that corrupt warmonger? Seriously, can someone explain why she has 50% of the votes in the USA. Unbelievable.
    gspotjazz
    Killary, like Barry, loves killing people. Psychopaths--both of them.
    Jim Mooney
    Funny the Dems are so hot for Hillary and don't recognize she's a regime-changing warmonger on a par with Bush, responsible for millions of dead and displaced in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
    Bad Dog
    Exactly how nuts do you have to be to think you can go to war with Russia? Even if you come out on top, what's the environment going to be like? Is emerging from your bunker with 70% of the population dead and no atmosphere left considered a win? FUCK HILLARY RAW.
    Alex O.
    I honestly don't care if Trump wins. I don't think it will be good, but whatever. But I know for a fact that no matter what, Hillary must not win. She's bad news.
    Tina Siz
    WE ARE WITNESSING THE MOST CORRUPT, MAFIA-LIKE.. ANTI AMERICAN WOMAN IN HISTORY OF POLITICS. THERE ARE REASONS WHY SCANDALS AND LIES AND DEATHS HAVE FOLLOWED HER FOR YEARS.

    Truth Archives

    Oy Vey! It's funny how Liberals, most Muslims etc are offended by Trump but not offended by the direct policies of the same old warmongers resulting in the deaths of millions of people in the Middle East for a decade and on going in the sham war on t3rror. The fuck?

    2eyesofhorus

    Hillary has become in effect, a NeoConservative, not a Democrat-she votes for war continually

    Aisha K

    Actually a lot of Muslims don't support Hillary or Trump and prefer Bernie because Bernie really did vote against the war in Iraq, while Trump only claims he was once against it. Regardless of that fact, Trump makes a powerful argument against voting for Hillary because of her warmonger record in Iraq, Libya and any other place she gets involved in, and the damage it has caused the entire world, including USA.

    1800 Pupusas

    I'm Hispanic but I prefer Trump

    De Selby

    she will literally say anything to benefit herself. the country will be ruined if she is elected president.

    NSA Spying

    Hilary Clinton is our generation's Henry Kissinger.

    oanimalinho2

    +NSA Spying No, she isn't. She is much worse than that.

    Christopher Horton
    This Trump ad gives us a taste of what the Democrats will be up against if we have to try to mobilize the voters behind Hillary to stop him. And why so many of us won't be able to put our hearts into it. Because on this issue he is absolutely right. Hillary's record on foreign policy is reprehensible - and terrifying. But it's not just on this issue - she has been lying about many things, among them the state of the economy. With no public voting record to defend, no fundamental commitment to the truth or reality, with a prostitute press that selectively forgets what he said yesterday, Trump can be selectively right - and righteous - on any issue he chooses. Until it no longer suits him.

    Do I think Trump would be better than Clinton on issues of war and peace? Not for a minute. Would he be worse? Maybe - I'm honestly not sure...

    Garou

    Take it from me .. She's a monster.

    gamira007

    +PeaceAndJustice Yes absolutely she is propped up by the MSM and the Corporate death machine. The Majority do know this woman is pure evil but our rulers hand pick who is prez here cause if voting did really matter then it would be illegal.

    PeaceAndJustice

    +Philo Beddoe

    Her 'support' is driven by the MSM which is completely controlled by the PRC (Predatory Ruling Class). Basically the people that believe the television think she is just a swell lady.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party

    Notable quotes:
    "... However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept on George W. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command, such as Gen. David Petraeus. ..."
    "... Inside Obama's foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president. ..."
    "... Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama's request by the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton sank that deal and escalated tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Clinton favorite. ..."
    "... But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton's invasion of Syria would stop at a "safe zone." As with Libya, once the camel's nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal would be filling up the whole tent. ..."
    "... Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars. ..."
    "... In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to "liberate" the people of Crimea from "Russian aggression" (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)? ..."
    "... Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed Clinton, saying "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." [See Consortiumnews.com's " Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon. "] ..."
    "... So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968 days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy – and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America's new aggressive war party. ..."
    Jun 08, 2016 | Consortiumnews

    ... But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve "regime change" in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires. She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.

    Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major party's presumptive nominee, Democrats appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing as the party more skeptical about the use of military force. Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes.

    As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton voted for and avidly supported the Iraq War, only cooling her enthusiasm in 2006 when it became clear that the Democratic base had turned decisively against the war and her hawkish position endangered her chances for the 2008 presidential nomination, which she lost to Barack Obama, an Iraq War opponent.

    However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept on George W. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command, such as Gen. David Petraeus.

    This "Team of Rivals" – named after Abraham Lincoln's initial Civil War cabinet – ensured a powerful bloc of pro-war sentiment, which pushed Obama toward more militaristic solutions than he otherwise favored, notably the wasteful counterinsurgency "surge" in Afghanistan in 2009 which did little beyond get another 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed and many more Afghans.

    Clinton was a strong supporter of that "surge" – and Gates reported in his memoir that she acknowledged only opposing the Iraq War "surge" in 2007 for political reasons. Inside Obama's foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president.

    Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama's request by the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton sank that deal and escalated tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Clinton favorite.

    Pumping for War in Libya

    In 2011, Clinton successfully lobbied Obama to go to war against Libya to achieve another "regime change," albeit cloaked in the more modest goal of establishing only a "no-fly zone" to "protect civilians."

    Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had claimed he was battling jihadists and terrorists who were building strongholds around Benghazi, but Clinton and her State Department underlings accused him of slaughtering civilians and (in one of the more colorful lies used to justify the war) distributing Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women.

    Despite resistance from Russia and China, the United Nations Security Council fell for the deception about protecting civilians. Russia and China agreed to abstain from the vote, giving Clinton her "no-fly zone." Once that was secured, however, the Obama administration and several European allies unveiled their real plan, to destroy the Libyan army and pave the way for the violent overthrow of Gaddafi.

    Privately, Clinton's senior aides viewed the Libyan "regime change" as a chance to establish what they called the "Clinton Doctrine" on using "smart power" with plans for Clinton to rush to the fore and claim credit once Gaddafi was ousted. But that scheme failed when President Obama grabbed the limelight after Gaddafi's government collapsed.

    But Clinton would not be denied her second opportunity to claim the glory when jihadist rebels captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him. Hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Clinton went into a network interview and declared , "we came, we saw, he died" and clapped her hands in glee.

    Clinton's glee was short-lived, however. Libya soon descended into chaos with Islamic extremists gaining control of large swaths of the country. On Sept. 11, 2012, jihadists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American personnel. It turned out Gaddafi had been right about the nature of his enemies.

    Undaunted by the mess in Libya, Clinton made similar plans for Syria where again she marched in lock-step with the neocons and their "liberal interventionist" sidekicks in support of another violent "regime change," ousting the Assad dynasty, a top neocon/Israeli goal since the 1990s.

    Clinton pressed Obama to escalate weapons shipments and training for anti-government rebels who were deemed "moderate" but in reality collaborated closely with radical Islamic forces, including Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda's Syrian franchise) and some even more extreme jihadists (who coalesced into the Islamic State).

    Again, Clinton's war plans were cloaked in humanitarian language, such as the need to create a "safe zone" inside Syria to save civilians. But her plans would have required a major U.S. invasion of a sovereign country, the destruction of its air force and much of its military, and the creation of conditions for another "regime change."

    In the case of Syria, however, Obama resisted the pressure from Clinton and other hawks inside his own administration. The President did approve some covert assistance to the rebels and allowed Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states to do much more, but he did not agree to an outright U.S.-led invasion to Clinton's disappointment.

    Parting Ways

    Clinton finally left the Obama administration at the start of his second term in 2013, some say voluntarily and others say in line with Obama's desire to finally move ahead with serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and to apply more pressure on Israel to reach a long-delayed peace settlement with the Palestinians. Secretary of State John Kerry was willing to do some of the politically risky work that Clinton was not.

    Many on the Left deride Obama as "Obomber" and mock his hypocritical acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. And there is no doubt that Obama has waged war his entire presidency, bombing at least seven countries by his own count. But the truth is that he has generally been among the most dovish members of his administration, advocating a "realistic" (or restrained) application of American power. By contrast, Clinton was among the most hawkish senior officials.

    A major testing moment for Obama came in August 2013 after a sarin gas attack outside Damascus, Syria, that killed hundreds of Syrians and that the State Department and the mainstream U.S. media immediately blamed on the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    There was almost universal pressure inside Official Washington to militarily enforce Obama's "red line" against Assad using chemical weapons. Amid this intense momentum toward war, it was widely assumed that Obama would order a harsh retaliatory strike against the Syrian military. But U.S. intelligence and key figures in the U.S. military smelled a rat, a provocation carried out by Islamic extremists to draw the United States into the Syrian war on their side.

    At the last minute and at great political cost to himself, Obama listened to the doubts of his intelligence advisers and called off the attack, referring the issue to the U.S. Congress and then accepting a Russian-brokered deal in which Assad surrendered all his chemical weapons though continuing to deny a role in the sarin attack.

    Eventually, the sarin case against Assad would collapse. Only one rocket was found to have carried sarin and it had a very limited range placing its firing position likely within rebel-controlled territory. But Official Washington's conventional wisdom never budged. To this day, politicians and pundits denounce Obama for not enforcing his "red line."

    There's little doubt, however, what Hillary Clinton would have done. She has been eager for a much more aggressive U.S. military role in Syria since the civil war began in 2011. Much as she used propaganda and deception to achieve "regime change" in Libya, she surely would have done the same in Syria, embracing the pretext of the sarin attack – "killing innocent children" – to destroy the Syrian military even if the rebels were the guilty parties.

    Still Lusting for War

    Indeed, during the 2016 campaign – in those few moments that have touched on foreign policy – Clinton declared that as President she would order the U.S. military to invade Syria. "Yes, I do still support a no-fly zone," she said during the April 14 debate. She also wants a "safe zone" that would require seizing territory inside Syria.

    But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton's invasion of Syria would stop at a "safe zone." As with Libya, once the camel's nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal would be filling up the whole tent.

    Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars.

    For instance, would President Hillary Clinton push the Iranians so hard – in line with what Netanyahu favors – that they would renounce the nuclear deal and give Clinton an excuse to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran?

    In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to "liberate" the people of Crimea from "Russian aggression" (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)?

    Would President Clinton expect the Russians to stand down and accept these massacres? Would she take matters to the next level to demonstrate how tough she can be against Russian President Vladimir Putin whom she has compared to Hitler? Might she buy into the latest neocon dream of achieving "regime change" in Moscow? Would she be wise enough to recognize how dangerous such instability could be?

    Of course, one would expect that all of Clinton's actions would be clothed in the crocodile tears of "humanitarian" warfare, starting wars to "save the children" or to stop the evil enemy from "raping defenseless girls." The truth of such emotional allegations would be left for the post-war historians to try to sort out. In the meantime, President Clinton would have her wars.

    Having covered Washington for nearly four decades, I always marvel at how selective concerns for human rights can be. When "friendly" civilians are dying, we are told that we have a "responsibility to protect," but when pro-U.S. forces are slaughtering civilians of an adversary country or movement, reports of those atrocities are dismissed as "enemy propaganda" or ignored altogether. Clinton is among the most cynical in this regard.

    Trading Places

    But the larger picture for the Democrats is that they have just adopted an extraordinary historical reversal whether they understand it or not. They have replaced the Republicans as the party of aggressive war, though clearly many Republicans still dance to the neocon drummer just as Clinton and "liberal interventionists" do. Still, Donald Trump, for all his faults, has adopted a relatively peaceful point of view, especially in the Mideast and with Russia.

    While today many Democrats are congratulating themselves for becoming the first major party to make a woman the presumptive nominee, they may soon have to decide whether that distinction justifies putting an aggressive war hawk in the White House. In a way, the issue is an old one for Democrats, whether "identity politics" or anti-war policies are more important.

    At least since 1968 and the chaotic Democratic convention in Chicago, the party has advanced, sometimes haltingly, those two agendas, pushing for broader rights for all and seeking to restrain the nation's militaristic impulses.

    In the 1970s, Democrats largely repudiated the Vietnam War while the Republicans waved the flag and equated anti-war positions with treason. By the 1980s and early 1990s, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were making war fun again – Grenada, Afghanistan, Panama and the Persian Gulf, all relatively low-cost conflicts with victorious conclusions.

    By the 1990s, Bill Clinton (along with Hillary Clinton) saw militarism as just another issue to be triangulated. With the Soviet Union's collapse, the Clinton-42 administration saw the opportunity for more low-cost tough-guy/gal-ism – continuing a harsh embargo and periodic air strikes against Iraq (causing the deaths of a U.N.-estimated half million children); blasting Serbia into submission over Kosovo; and expanding NATO to the east toward Russia's borders.

    But Bill Clinton did balk at the more extreme neocon ideas, such as the one from the Project for the New American Century for a militarily enforced "regime change" in Iraq. That had to wait for George W. Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. As a New York senator, Hillary Clinton made sure she was onboard for war on Iraq just as she sided with Israel's pummeling of Lebanon and the Palestinians in Gaza.

    Hillary Clinton was taking triangulation to an even more acute angle as she sided with virtually every position of the Netanyahu government in Israel and moved in tandem with the neocons as they cemented their control of Washington's foreign policy establishment. Her only brief flirtation with an anti-war position came in 2006 when her political advisers informed her that her continued support for Bush's Iraq War would doom her in the Democratic presidential race.

    But she let her hawkish plumage show again as Obama's Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 – and once she felt she had the 2016 Democratic race in hand (after her success in the southern primaries) she pivoted back to her hard-line positions in full support of Israel and in a full-throated defense of her war on Libya, which she still won't view as a failure.

    The smarter neocons are already lining up to endorse Clinton, especially given Donald Trump's hostile takeover of the Republican Party and his disdain for neocon strategies that he views as simply spreading chaos around the globe. As The New York Times has reported, Clinton is "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes."

    Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed Clinton, saying "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon."]

    So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968 days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy – and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America's new aggressive war party.

    [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's "Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?']

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

    [Jul 31, 2016] Clinton has now made Democrats the anti-Russia party

    How about WAPO does some real reporting and compares the two candidate on the issues at hand and leaves out all the speculation"
    Judging from comments the level of brainwashing of WaPo readship is just staggering... Far above that existed in soviet Russia (were most people were supciously about Soviet nomeklatura and did not trust them).
    Notable quotes:
    "... In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the two major American parties on U.S.-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to, if she becomes president. ..."
    "... And now, for mostly political reasons, the Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric on Russia. ..."
    "... This year, the Clinton team is accusing Putin of waging information warfare against the Democratic candidate in order to help elect the Republican candidate. Clinton is also running ads claiming she stood up to Putin. Meanwhile, Trump is called for a weakening of NATO and his staff worked to remove an anti-Russia stance on Ukraine from the GOP platform. ..."
    "... Now that the Democrats are the tough-on-Russia party, they should explain exactly what that means. What would Clinton do about Russia's increasingly aggressive cyber-espionage and information warfare in Europe and around the world? Would she expand sanctions on Russia in response to the hacks? Would she use U.S. cyber forces to retaliate? Would she abandon President Obama's plan to deepen U.S.-Russian military and intelligence cooperation in Syria? ..."
    "... if Clinton wins, she will be committed to implementing the anti-Putin, tough-on-Russia policy she is running on and Democrats will need to fall in line ..."
    "... I am not a national security expert but it does not look intelligent to antagonize Russia and China at the same time. But I think it is unfair to blame Hillary for this, Obama has been antagonizing Russia and China for some time now. He has being very successful at that, for the first time in many years now Russia and China are BFF doing naval exercises together. ..."
    "... In other words, her use of a homebrew email server constituted a threat to national security? ..."
    "... The Dems and their Washington Post surrogates are apoplectic over Donald Trump's supposed affinity for the Russians. Russia is now America's mortal enemy in the current Dem narrative. ..."
    "... Mook's claim of Russian involvement would be more convincing if he had offered any proof. Otherwise it just looks like pure deflection and distraction and disinformation. ..."
    Jul 28, 2016 | The Washington Post

    In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the two major American parties on U.S.-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to, if she becomes president.

    The side switching between the parties on Russia is the result of two converging trends. U.S.-Russian relations have gone downhill since Russian President Vladimir Putin came back to power in 2012, torpedoing the Obama administration's first term outreach to Moscow, which Clinton led. Then, in the past year, Trump's Russia-friendly policy has filled the pro-engagement space that Democrats once occupied.

    And now, for mostly political reasons, the Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric on Russia. After Trump suggested Wednesday that if Russia had indeed hacked Clinton's private email server it should release the emails, the Clinton campaign sent out its Democratic surrogates to bash Russia and Trump in a manner traditionally reserved for Republicans.

    "This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue," Clinton senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.

    Set to one side that Trump was probably joking. Russia clearly does not need Trump's permission to hack U.S. political organizations or government institutions. And there's no consensus that Russia released the Democratic National Committee emails in order to disrupt the presidential election. In fact, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has his own personal vendetta against Clinton, claimed that he alone chose the timing of the release of the DNC emails.

    Regardless, the idea that a GOP presidential nominee would endorse Russian cyber-espionage was too tempting for the Clinton campaign to resist, especially on the day their convention was dedicated to painting Trump as dangerous on national security.

    At an event on the sidelines of the convention Wednesday, several top Clinton national security surrogates focused on Trump's latest comments to argue that they embolden Russia in its plan to destabilize and dominate the West. Former national security adviser Tom Donilon said that Russia is interfering with elections all over Europe and said Trump is helping Russia directly.

    "The Russians have engaged in cyberattacks in a number of places that we know about, in Georgia, in Estonia and in Ukraine. . . . In the Russian takeover of Crimea, information warfare was a central part of their operations," Donilon said. "To dangerously embrace a set of strategies by the Russian Federation that are intent on undermining key Western institutions . . . is playing into the hands of Russian strategy."

    Former defense secretary and CIA director Leon Panetta said that if Donilon was still in the White House, he would have tasked the CIA to retaliate against Moscow. Panetta then doubled down on Sullivan's argument that Trump's comments by themselves are making the United States less safe.

    "This is crazy stuff, and yet somehow you get the sense that people think it's a joke. It has already represented a threat to our national security," Panetta said. "Because if you go abroad and talk to people, they are very worried that someone like this could become president of the United States."

    In 2008, the Russian government was definitely not rooting for the Republican candidate for president. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) had made a feature of his campaign a pledge to stand up to Russian aggression and dispatched two top surrogates to Georgia after the Russian invasion.

    In 2012, Mitt Romney warned that Russia was the United States' "number one geopolitical foe." Then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry mocked Romney at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, saying that Romney got his information about Russia from the movie "Rocky IV."

    This year, the Clinton team is accusing Putin of waging information warfare against the Democratic candidate in order to help elect the Republican candidate. Clinton is also running ads claiming she stood up to Putin. Meanwhile, Trump is called for a weakening of NATO and his staff worked to remove an anti-Russia stance on Ukraine from the GOP platform.

    Now that the Democrats are the tough-on-Russia party, they should explain exactly what that means. What would Clinton do about Russia's increasingly aggressive cyber-espionage and information warfare in Europe and around the world? Would she expand sanctions on Russia in response to the hacks? Would she use U.S. cyber forces to retaliate? Would she abandon President Obama's plan to deepen U.S.-Russian military and intelligence cooperation in Syria?

    The Clinton team hasn't said. For now, they are content to use Trump's statements about Russia to make the argument that he's not commander-in-chief material. But if Clinton wins, she will be committed to implementing the anti-Putin, tough-on-Russia policy she is running on and Democrats will need to fall in line . If Putin wasn't rooting for Trump before, he is now.

    NotaClinton , 7/28/2016 6:25 PM EDT

    So TRUMP is threat to NATIONAL SECURITY for asking RUSSIA for the emails she destroyed? Because they would be the one likely to have them since she completely ignored Security protocol while in Russia? WOW they get better every day. They have already explain Russia could have been in and out of her accounts all along because of her complete lack of security of her devises. She had less security than a commercial account using the private server the way she did. And she did cause a breach in national security. She fwd classified email to an intern and it did get hacked. Whether or not Russia got any info from her we will never know. Because the lack of security on her server Russia could have got her password and and the info leaving no tracks.

    NotaClinton , 7/28/2016 5:22 PM EDT

    People agree with PUTIN you know like the ones in CRIMEA and SYRIA. I'd rather see a PUTIN TRUMP ticket. I like what I see in PUTIN doing in the world. He seems to be the one SAVING people around the world. Assad let the people have freedom of religion. These Sunni the USA is arming want to force Sharia law. I don't approve of my tax dollars being spent arming those terrorists nor do I consider Saudi Arabia an ally!!! I would rather see a TRUMP PUTIN ticket and add 75 more stars to our flag. Than what the current government is. Although I would more so like to see the USA government take a much more democratic stance. Change our government to be more like Switzerland Norway and the Netherlands. Who were inspired by the USA constitution. Our constitution and democracy has been lost to corruption!!!!

    George1955, 7/28/2016 5:08 PM EDT

    I am not a national security expert but it does not look intelligent to antagonize Russia and China at the same time. But I think it is unfair to blame Hillary for this, Obama has been antagonizing Russia and China for some time now. He has being very successful at that, for the first time in many years now Russia and China are BFF doing naval exercises together. Maybe there is a very profound strategy in that (everybody says that Obama is a genius) but I cannot see what is the logic of provoking at the same time the two biggest military powers apart of the United States while weakening our military forces with budget cuts.

    Aleksandar Malečić, 7/28/2016 5:16 PM EDT

    It's meant to be profitable, not intelligent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww_z6Teynow

    chayapartiya, 7/28/2016 5:21 PM EDT

    It is the worst foreign policy since the Arab Spring brought us ISIS. They are incapable of intelligent policy. Their whole idea was to "not do stupid stuff" and here they are. They just can't help themselves.

    chayapartiya, 7/28/2016 5:01 PM EDT

    The only thing standing between a highly productive US/Russian relationship are the other relationships the United States has, both institutional and personal among our elites.

    Russia is the sworn enemy of many US allies and has barred our richest citizens from taking charge of large sectors of the Russian economy. That is the source of our new Cold War.

    Lacking Communist ideology Russia will never be an existential threat to the United States or our way of life. On the other hand, Islam is. On the other hand, Red China is.

    You have to be willing to abandon the entire US foreign policy establishment to turn our relationship with Russia around, and if we did maintaining our relationships with Poland, the Baltics, Georgia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and more would become vastly more difficult.

    But the idea is too good of one to abandon, Russia is far too influential to ignore. I'm glad one major party is going to recognize that now.

    invention13, 7/28/2016 5:01 PM EDT

    "This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue," Clinton senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.

    In other words, her use of a homebrew email server constituted a threat to national security?

    I'm finding this whole flap just too funny. The whole point was probably to step on the news coverage of the convention on the night that the president and vice president were to speak. Trump is happy to fan the flames a bit. This is what he does when there is something he doesn't want people to pay attention to (whether it is unfavorable coverage of Trump University, or a convention). He throws out something outrageous that sucks the oxygen out of the news cycle. This whole thing will die down, simply because in the absence of hard evidence, most people don't believe it is true that Trump is Putin's agent. He may admire him, but work for him? I doubt it.

    NotaClinton, 7/28/2016 5:44 PM EDT

    Her actions DID once agains threaten NATIONAL SECURITY there was no doubt about that. She fwd classified email to her interns who got hacked. That is definitely a threat to national security. She carried her Blackberry and laptop into countries while acting as head of state. Which was not recommended for anyone to do even if there devices were secured by the state. She took hers to countries with her personal server that had zero security less than a commercial account. Then there was the fact she deleted and kept her business out of reach of FOIA. Zero respect for those laws. All federal employees are allowed to have a personal email for there person life. But Hilary decides she is above the law. Those federal laws don't apply to her and got away with it. When Comey was asked about that. He said he wasn't asked to investigate whether she broke those federal laws. He wasn't investigating whether she broke the law. But only if he should charge her for violating security. His conclusion was yes she violated the law. But he sees the law meant nothing so why file a criminal charge.

    Trump only requested information that they very well may have. Because Hilary handed it to them. it's hard to believe the Russians hacked the DNC. They most likely had the passwords from Hilary's accounts. Which would leave no footprints.

    OswegoTex , 7/28/2016 2:54 PM EDT

    The Dems and their Washington Post surrogates are apoplectic over Donald Trump's supposed affinity for the Russians. Russia is now America's mortal enemy in the current Dem narrative. Wasn't Romney ridiculed by a snarky and arrogant Obama and his press sycophants for identifying Russia as a major geopolitical threat in the 2012 election cycle. What happened? Oh-- I know--- the Clinton/Obama "reset".

    stella blue, 7/28/2016 2:45 PM EDT

    Very interesting article. Hillary is a neocon. She never saw a war she didn't like. I don't know what would be so wrong with having good relations with Russia. Wasn't that what Hillary's stupid reset button was all about?

    NotaClinton, 7/28/2016 6:11 PM EDT [Edited]

    I admire PUTIN and so do a lot of people. If you are a Citizens and believe in our values and the constitution. He held a democratic Legal election in Crimea. Where the people voted unanimously in favor of Belonging to Russia, A Vote that would be exactly the same today. The USA invades Syria with terrorists from countries whose own people wouldn't vote them in.

    All I have seen Putin do is save people. He saved Syria finally. i don't know what took him so long. Maybe WMDs he knew the opposition would use and some more dirty filthy rotten tricks that have been happening there. He turned the war around on less money than a shipment of weapons and training to the rebels forces costed the USA. those shipments and training was going on since before the conflict broke out. What was the point?

    Why has the USA spent a dime in that country other than they should have immediately neutralized, destroyed or recovered all the military equipment that was stolen from Iraq. I you like Russian your anti american? If you don't like illegal Immigrants your a racist. That is to be expected from those educated Hilary Voters...

    Nikdo, 7/28/2016 4:26 PM EDT

    Mook's claim of Russian involvement would be more convincing if he had offered any proof. Otherwise it just looks like pure deflection and distraction and disinformation.

    [Jul 31, 2016] If Sanders had defined success as betraying his supporters, he is a successful man

    Notable quotes:
    "... Older people–and older AAs are no exception–I think just are less receptive to the Sanders message. They've been propagandized for too long and too successfully. Actually I don't just think this, the polling data fairly screams it. It might be a waste of time chasing those AA church lady grandmothers, they are right wing conservatives in almost any objective sense who minus the identity politics woo woo would be Republicans but just need a safe space to be that way without rubbing shoulders with overt white racists, and the corporate neocon-neolib DP mainstream is a perfect fit for them. ..."
    "... Obama, who pretty much could be George W Bush in blackface, is the perfect identity politics totem for that role. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    APPENDIX II: Sanders' Role in the 2016 Election

    We will have to wait for the campaign tell-alls to understand what the Sanders campaign believed its strategy was, and whether the campaign believes it was successful, or not. While it is true that reform efforts in the Democrat Party have a very poor track record, it's also true that third parties have a terrible track record. (It's worth noting that in the eight years just past, with the capitol occupations, Occupy proper, Black Lives Matter, fracking campaigns all on the boil, the Green Party was flatlined, seeminly unable to make an institutional connection with any of these popular movements. It may be that 2016 is different. It may also be that the iron law of institutions applies to the GP just as much as it does to any other party.) Therefore, "working within the Democrat Party" - which Sanders consistently said he would do; the label on the package was always there - is not, a priori , a poor strategic choice, especially if "working within" amounts to a hostile takeover followed by a management purge. And it's hard for me to recall another "working within" approach that garnered 45% of the vote, severed the youth of the party - of all identities - from the base of the ruling faction, and invented an entirely new and highly successful funding model. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, which the dominant faction in today's Democrat Party destroyed, would be the closest parallel, and the material conditions of working people are worse today than they were in Jackson's time, and institutions generally far less likely to be perceived as legitimate. And if we consider the idea that one of Sander's strategic goals was not the office but the successful propagation of the socialist idea - as a Johnny Appleseed, rather than a happy warrior - then the campaign was a success by any measure. (That said, readers know my priors on this: I define victory in 2016 as the creation of independent entities with a left voice; an "Overton Prism," as it were, three-sided, rather than an Overton Window, two-sided. I've got some hope that this victory is on the way, because it's bigger than any election.)

    With those views as background, most of the attacks on Sanders accuse him of bad faith. This was the case with the Green Party's successfully propagated "sheepdog" meme; it's also the case with the various forms of post-defeat armchair cynicism, all of which urge, that in some way Sanders succeeded by betraying his supporters in some way. (This is, I suppose, easier to accept than the idea that Sanders got a beating by an powerful political campaign with a ton of money and the virtually unanimous support of the political class.)

    If Sanders had defined success as betraying his supporters, I would expect him to act and behave like a successful man. That's not the case. Here is Sanders putting Clinton's name into nomination:

    It's a sad, even awful, moment, I agree, but politics ain't beanbag. While it would be irresponsible to speculate that Sanders looks so strained and unhappy because he found a horse's head in his bed ( "Mrs. Clinton never asks a second favor once she's refused the first, understood?" ), his body language certainly doesn't look like he's a happy man, a man who is happy with the deal he's made, or a man who has achieved success through the betrayal of others; you'd have to look at the smiling faces on the Democrat main stage for that.

    ....

    ambrit, July 29, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    I don't know the psychology of Sanders, but, how much did he really expect to win in the early days of his campaign? Could "getting the Socialism ball rolling" have been his definition of success in the beginning? Like Trump, the other disruptional candidate, could his very success in the primary season have surprised him? If so, then his pivot back to the Senate and Socialist coalition movement building makes perfect sense.

    In this sense, the anger focused on Sanders would be a displacement of the groundswell of anger by the general public at the sheer brazenness of the DNC's anti public policies. The DNC has shown contempt and disdain for the very people they purport to work for. Whoever shifted the popular anger from the DNC onto Sanders has done a masterful job of propaganda. Saint Bernays would be proud.

    Toby613, July 29, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    I don't think he was expecting to win when he started, but at the same time he was probably thinking it was worth a running a primary challenge to change the conversation. His political strategy of trying to increase turnout of working class voters was not a bad one, considering that Democrat primary voters have lately been the demographics who support either neoliberalism or would be racially biased against a non-Christian candidate. He was mainly hurt by three things, two of which were largely out of his control: (1) he lacked the polish/media saavy to not get dragged into minor issues that distracted from his core message (like the flap about calling Clinton unqualified, or his visit to the Vatican), (2) he literally had the entire media and political establishment working against him, and arguably inciting voter suppression and fraud , and (3) his non-Christianity limited his ability to coalesce support from older African-Americans, which hurt him in the South and hurt him from a perception standpoint.

    What remains to be seen is where his supporters go now. Dissatisfaction with the status quo will only continue to increase. Something interesting though, is that Tulsi Gabbard seems to be setting herself to be the continuation of the Sanders movement. I am unfamiliar with her policies, but her positioning is in stark contrast to the rest of the Democrat Party.

    Kurt Sperry, July 29, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Older people–and older AAs are no exception–I think just are less receptive to the Sanders message. They've been propagandized for too long and too successfully. Actually I don't just think this, the polling data fairly screams it. It might be a waste of time chasing those AA church lady grandmothers, they are right wing conservatives in almost any objective sense who minus the identity politics woo woo would be Republicans but just need a safe space to be that way without rubbing shoulders with overt white racists, and the corporate neocon-neolib DP mainstream is a perfect fit for them.

    Obama, who pretty much could be George W Bush in blackface, is the perfect identity politics totem for that role. The good news is obviously that this demographic is dying off and young AAs don't share their elders' pretty extreme right wing Christian viewpoint. I don't think the left needs to fix that "problem" or even can. Time will fix it and nothing much else can.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Dear Sanders Supporters You and you beliefs will be thrown under the bus. Hilary has plans to attract Republican Votes to secure the presidency, as predicted

    Notable quotes:
    "... You have succeeded in making Hillary's coronation unpleasant for her. Embarrassed her with her shady past, and demonstrated on topics on which she has a firm interest in pas$$ing (TPP). ..."
    "... For those of you who believe Jill Stein is worthy of a vote, I do not believe so. If she were motivated then she would be copying Bernie's fundraising activities, and not off in her own world of irrelevance (and possibly privilege). The Iron Law of Institutions hold here, she is happier in her position and has demonstrated no incentive to change things. ..."
    "... Of course Clinton does not respect my views. But the idea that Donald Trump "respects my views" is patently ludicrous. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Synoia, July 29, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Dear Sanders Supporters:

    I'll be blunt. You and you beliefs will be thrown under the bus, and trampled into the dust. Hilary has plans to attract Republican Votes to secure the presidency, as predicted.

    You have succeeded in making Hillary's coronation unpleasant for her. Embarrassed her with her shady past, and demonstrated on topics on which she has a firm interest in pas$$ing (TPP).

    Note:

    The DNC has also informed Sanders delegates that they will have their credentials taken away for holding up anti-TPP signage as well

    That is not the action of a person who respects your views in any manner at all.

    For those of you who believe Jill Stein is worthy of a vote, I do not believe so. If she were motivated then she would be copying Bernie's fundraising activities, and not off in her own world of irrelevance (and possibly privilege). The Iron Law of Institutions hold here, she is happier in her position and has demonstrated no incentive to change things.

    So who will you vote for? That's a poor question, a better question is who will you vote against?

    Why do I write that? Well, you can vote for (Jill, the Looser, Stein), a person who will damage you (Hillary the Honest), or a person who might help you (Donald the Magnificent). – Just to be clear, sarcasm is intended in all three instances.

    Good luck with that decision, mine is made, and I made it months ago (a list of preferences, 1, 2 3), 3 was ABC – Anyone but Clinton, for I believe firmly that she will do me no good, and probably do myself and my children and my grandchildren much harm.

    What I read here is people somewhere in the stages of grief. Time to move on, at least by November.

    Optimader, July 29, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    Of course Clinton does not respect my views. But the idea that Donald Trump "respects my views" is patently ludicrous.

    And is a fallacy of false choice. I'm surprised you offer that. The fact that Trump doesn't "respect your views" doesn't make HRC a more acceptable choice.

    Vatch, July 29, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    ...Although I know other people who are convinced that Clinton is the lesser evil. Anyhow, Lesser Evilism is only relevant in swing states. Everywhere else, people ought to vote strategically. They should look to the future, and choose a candidate who will help create positive outcomes in future elections. We already know that the result of the 2016 election will be a disaster.

    [Jul 31, 2016] Obama and the Kitchen Table

    Notable quotes:
    "... Turning incrementalism into triumphalism is a neat rhetorical trick, and only a con man as smooth as Obama could have achieved it, or even attempted it. But let me draw your attention to one sentence: ..."
    "... [OBAMA:] More work to do for … .everyone who has not yet felt the progress of these past seven and a half years. ..."
    "... Check the charts above in "The Kitchen Table in Chart Form," and you'll see that Obama's "everyone who has not yet felt the progress" is, like, 90% of the population if you use the kitchen table metric of concrete material benefits given to working class households. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Obama's speech is a return to hope and change, but in a minor key. Here's Obama's appeal to the working class :

    By so many measures [but not the kitchen table charts above] , our country is stronger and more prosperous than it was when we started. And through every victory and every setback, I've insisted that change is never easy, and never quick; that we wouldn't meet all of our challenges in one term, or one presidency, or even in one lifetime.

    So, tonight, I'm here to tell you that, yes, we [who?] 've still got more work to do. More work to do for every American still in need of a good job or a raise, paid leave or a decent retirement; for every child who needs a sturdier ladder out of poverty or a world-class education [credentiaism]; for everyone who has not yet felt the progress of these past seven and a half years. We need to keep making our streets safer and our criminal justice system fairer - (applause) - our homeland more secure, our world more peaceful and sustainable for the next generation. (Applause.) We're not done perfecting our union, or living up to our founding creed that all of us are created equal; all of us are free in the eyes of God. (Applause.)

    (I'm sorry, that's the best I can come up with.) Turning incrementalism into triumphalism is a neat rhetorical trick, and only a con man as smooth as Obama could have achieved it, or even attempted it. But let me draw your attention to one sentence:

    [OBAMA:] More work to do for … .everyone who has not yet felt the progress of these past seven and a half years.

    Check the charts above in "The Kitchen Table in Chart Form," and you'll see that Obama's "everyone who has not yet felt the progress" is, like, 90% of the population if you use the kitchen table metric of concrete material benefits given to working class households.

    So where Sanders exposes the power imbalance between labor and capital - might even be said to enact it in the intellectual and rhetorical concessions in part two of his speech - Obama carefully erases it. He does so by pushing out the horizon for hopes to be realized ("not yet felt," not "even in one lifetime",) and minimizing our expectations for change. Look at his adjectives: "more work," "sturdier ladder," "safer," "fairer," "more secure," "more peaceful." It's like the soft inverted totalitarianism of low expectations.

    This after a candidate explicitly calling for (dread word) socialism - which, for those who came in late, is all about the power imbalance between labor and capital - took 45% of the Democrat vote in a grotesquely rigged primary --

    [Jul 31, 2016] Obama is neoliberal and behaved like a typical neoliberal during 2008 crisis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama whipped for the TARP. His support as President presumptive at that point, was essential for its passing (and I have that directly from Congressional staffers). Obama appointed Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, who refused to nationalize any bank, even when, in early 2009, even only mildly left of center economists like Paul Krugman were calling for nationalization of Citi and Bank of America. Shiela Bair's book Taking the Bull by the Horn details how Geithner fought her. ..."
    "... Geithner was also the architect of the second, stealth bank bailout, that of letting the banks out of massive liability for violating their own mortgage securitization agreements, which we described long form here for the better part of two years, and shorter form in a New York Times op ed. The National Mortgage Settlement of 2012 was a massive get out of liability almost free card for the banks, and Obama refused to require bank servicers to make principal modifications for viable borrowers, which would have greatly lowered both investor losses and foreclosures. The liability here was hundreds of billions of dollars when the banks had not rebuilt their balance sheets, so this was most assuredly a bailout. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Karl , July 30, 2016 at 12:34 am

    Bizarre post. Obama bailed out the banks? Most of the bank bailout money from TARP was spent under the Bush administration after TARP was enacted in October 2008, before Obama took office, and the bulk of the remaining money spent under TARP after Obama took office was for the auto industry rescue. I'm no Hillary fan, but get your facts straight even if they don't fit your narrative. I used to love Naked Capitalism, but it has gone off the rails recently with its authors' bizarre assertions - Krugman a necon, Kaine a Blue Dog Democrat, Hillary soliciting donations from the Koch Brothers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the one hand (both big fans of hers, I hear), and George Soros on the other - and conspiracy theories (Diebold in league with the DNC to fix elections - evidence, please). And let me know when the remake of the "Siberian Candidate" (sic) is released to theaters so I can catch it before your seemingly preferred candidate Trump - that pacifist who thinks nuclear proliferation is a good thing and won't rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons against ISIS, and that man of the working class who proposes yuuuge! tax cuts for the top 1/10th of 1% - bans such subversive material

    Yves Smith Post author , July 30, 2016 at 1:26 am

    You suffer from a reading comprehension problem, so you should read another site.

    Obama whipped for the TARP. His support as President presumptive at that point, was essential for its passing (and I have that directly from Congressional staffers). Obama appointed Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, who refused to nationalize any bank, even when, in early 2009, even only mildly left of center economists like Paul Krugman were calling for nationalization of Citi and Bank of America. Shiela Bair's book Taking the Bull by the Horn details how Geithner fought her.

    Geithner was also the architect of the second, stealth bank bailout, that of letting the banks out of massive liability for violating their own mortgage securitization agreements, which we described long form here for the better part of two years, and shorter form in a New York Times op ed. The National Mortgage Settlement of 2012 was a massive get out of liability almost free card for the banks, and Obama refused to require bank servicers to make principal modifications for viable borrowers, which would have greatly lowered both investor losses and foreclosures. The liability here was hundreds of billions of dollars when the banks had not rebuilt their balance sheets, so this was most assuredly a bailout.

    As for your other arguments, you seem to have a fondness for fabrication. We've never posted on the Kochs and the Clintons, but a highly respected political reporter, Lee Fang of the Intercept, has on how the Clinton campaign has deep ties to Koch lobbyists , so you seem unable to remember where you read things. We've repeatedly called Krugman a neo liberal because he is one. While technically Kaine cannot be a Blue Dog, because as a Senator while the Blue Dogs are a House coalition. But Hudson finessed that by calling him a Senate Blue Dog. If you Google the term, it is used both specifically to refer to the House coalition, but also generically to describe conservative Southern Democrats.

    And while Clinton boosters like The Nation and FiveThirtyEight in recent days have tried denying that Kaine is a Blue Dog, more detached media outlets like the UK's Sun have used that precise term to describe his politics. Now that the anti-regulation, pro-business Blue Dogs in the House have been largely turfed out, they appear to have been redefined as being further right than they were to Kaine's benefit. They were "pragmatic" and pro-corporate, which hews to Kaine's pro free trade, pro bank deregulation stance. And did you miss that he is also anti abortion?.

    Nor have we said anything re Diebold being in cahoots with the Dems. As for Trump's tax cuts, with Federal spending at 18% of GDP, he can't cut taxes much, as he's finding out. You seem to have missed that he's had to go back to the drawing board on his plan , and is already messaging that the cuts for the rich would be way lower than he originally contemplated. If he wants to lower taxes for the rich, he's going to have to raise taxes elsewhere, and he'll rapidly find out that all those "somewheres" have lots of lobbyists protecting them.

    We don't have a position on Trump but we have pointed out at length the way the media is not merely cheerleading for Hillary but distorting things Trump said and/or taking them badly out of context, the latest being his joke about Russia turning over Hillary's e-mails. If you look at what Trump actually said, he said no one knew who did the hack (and computer forensic experts confirm that is true) and then said if Russia were behind the hack, it would be bad, and next said something like, "Hey, China, Russia, or whoever in your bed, if you have Hillary's missing e-mails, it would be great if you turned them over. I'm sure you would be rewarded handsomely by our media."

    More broadly, what seems to offend you is that we and our readers, to borrow Glen Ford's expression, are willing to consider that Trump may well be the less effective evil. We think both are dreadful candidates, but Trump, who would be even more of an outsider than Jimmy Carter, is more likely to get little done. And let us not forget that Carter had Democrats in charge of the House and Senate, and was not despised by his own party, as Trump is.

    You seem to be attributing many remarks made in comments to the Lambert and me. Readers argue a lot of positions we don't agree with, like pro gunz and the Tory PR that the EU will roll over in Brexit talks to preserve their exports to the UK. I gather you'd rather have us censor comments so they reflect only your views.

    Shorter: better trolls, please.

    [Jul 31, 2016] (((Scott))) on Twitter Has anyone thought to ask THIS about Obama's citizenship

    twitter.com

    #NeverHillary #LockHerUp

    The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions,
    they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a
    rather short and simple one.

    Q; Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
    A : Yes, by his own admission.

    Q: What passport did he travel under?
    A: There are only three possibilities.
    1) He traveled with a U.S. ... Passport,
    2) He traveled with a British passport, or
    3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

    Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
    A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department's
    "no travel" list in 1981.
    • (((Scott))) @bamasevere 11 h
    Has anyone thought to ask THIS about Obama's citizenship?
    #NeverHillary #LockHerllp
    4ч 28 V 35 •••

    [Jul 30, 2016] Russian factor in US elections

    Jul 28, 2016 | katehon.com

    The Russian theme has expectedly become one of the most important in the US presidential election. Democrats are unsurprisingly engaged in anti-Russian hysteria. Donald Trump says that he will establish good relations with Russia and is ready to discuss the issue of recognition of the referendum in the Crimea.

    Noise and hysteria

    Mass hysteria on the part of the Democrats, neocons, ultra-liberals and plain and simple Russophobes, was provoked by the recent statements of Donald Trump. Speaking at a press conference in Florida, Trump called on Russia to hand over the 30,000 emails "missing" from the Hillary Clinton's email server in the US. Their absence is a clear sign that Clinton destroyed evidence proving that she used her personal e-mail server to send sensitive information. Democrats immediately accused Trump of pandering to Russian hackers, although in reality the multi-billionaire rhetorically hinted that the data that Clinton hid from the American investigation is in the hands of foreign intelligence services. So, Clinton is a possible target for blackmail.

    Trump's statement that he is ready to discuss the status of Crimea and the removal of anti-Russian sanctions caused even more noise. This view is not accepted either in the Democrat or in the Republican mainstream. Trump also said that Vladimir Putin does not respect Clinton and Obama, while Trump himself hopes to find a common language with him. Trump appreciates Putin's leadership and believes that the US must work together with Russia to deal with common threats, particularly against Islamic extremism.

    The establishment's tantrum

    Both Democrats and Republicans are taking aim at Trump. The vice-presidential candidate, Mike Pence, made threats to Russia. The head of the Republican majority in Congress, Paul Ryan, became somewhat hysterical. He said that Putin is "a thug and should stay out of these elections."

    It is Putin personally, and the Russian security services, who are accused of leaking correspondences of top employees of the National Committee of the Democratic Party. This unverified story united part of the Republicans and all of the Democrats, including the Clinton and Barack Obama themselves. Trump supporters note that the Russian threat is used to divert attention from the content of these letters. And these show the fraud carried out during the primaries which favored Hillary Clinton.

    The pro-American candidate

    The "Russian scandal" demonstrates that on the one hand the thesis of the normalization of relations with Russia, despite the propaganda, is becoming popular in US society. It is unlikely that Donald Trump has made campaign statements that are not designed to gain the support of the public in this election. On the other hand - Trump - a hard realist, like Putin, is not pro-Russian, but a pro-American politician, and therefore the improvement of relations with Russia in his eyes corresponds to the US's national interests. Trump has never to date done anything that would not be to his advantage. Sometimes he even said he would order US fighter jets to engage with Russian ones, and declared he would have a hard stance in relations with Russia.

    Another thing is that his understanding of US national interests is fundamentally different from the dominant American globalist elite consensus. For Trump, the US should not be the source of a global liberal remaking of the world, but a national power, which optimizes its position just as efficiently as any commercial project. And in terms of optimizing the position of the United States, he says there should be a normal American interaction with Putin and Russia in the field of combating terrorism and preventing the sliding of the two countries into a global war. He claims this is to be the priority instead of issues relating to the promotion of democracy and the so-called fight against "authoritarian regimes".

    Related links

    [Jul 30, 2016] Is Russia our enemy?

    Notable quotes:
    "... "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us." ..."
    "... Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it. ..."
    "... I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy to get updated. ..."
    "... Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then became the most powerful land power in the world. ..."
    "... Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests. ..."
    "... Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit of happiness". ..."
    "... I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this: you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened. ..."
    "... I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious. ..."
    "... "I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened on this watch, see the case of MH-17. ..."
    "... The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea. The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always vulnerable Kaliningrad). ..."
    "... Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover. The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006. By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991. ..."
    "... In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by 500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!" ..."
    "... Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia. ..."
    "... Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend itself (and their interests). ..."
    "... Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts. It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at its peak during the late 90's: ..."
    "... The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change. ..."
    "... If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary. Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally, I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind. ..."
    "... I remember the end of Cold War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away." ..."
    "... In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day. ..."
    Jul 28, 2016 | turcopolier.typepad.com
    The Democratic Party convention and the media are full of the assumption that Russia is the enemy of the United States. What is the basis for that assumption?
    • Russian support for the Russian ethnic minority in eastern Ukraine? How does that threaten the United States?
    • Russian annexation of the Crimea? Khrushchev arbitrarily transferred that part of Russia to Ukraine during his time as head of the USSR. Khrushchev was a Ukrainian. Russia never accepted the arbitrary transfer of a territory that had been theirs since the 18th Century. How does this annexation threaten the United States?
    • Russia does not want to see Syria crushed by the jihadis and acts accordingly? How does that threaten the United States?
    • Russia threatens the NATO states in eastern Europe? Tell me how they actually do that. Is it by stationing their forces on their side of the border with these countries? Have the Russians made threatening statements about the NATO states?
    • Russia has made threatening and hostile statements directed at the United States? When and where was that?
    • Russia does not accept the principle of state sovereignty? Really? The United States is on shaky ground citing that principle. Remember Iraq?
    • Russian intelligence may have intercepted and collected the DNC's communications (hacked) as well as HC's stash of illegal e-mails? Possibly true but every country on earth that has the capability does the same kind of thing every single day. That would include the United States.

    The Obama Administration is apparently committed to a pre-emptive assertion that Russia is a world class committed enemy of the United States. The Borgist media fully support that.

    We should all sober up. pl

    Valissa

    "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us."
    -- Thich Nhat Hanh

    Not to mention the financial advantages to the Military-Industrial-Thinktank complex (I'm including NATO in this) and all the politicians that benefit from the lobbying monies from that complex.

    Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it.

    Grizziz -> Ghostship...

    I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy to get updated.

    rkka said in reply to Grizziz...

    Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then became the most powerful land power in the world.

    Maritime empires hate, with undying passion, the most powerful land power in the world.

    And its a funny thing, the U.S. hatred of Russia dates from the early 1880s, right when the U.S. began laying down a new steel navy to replace the rotting wooden navy built for the Civil War, started with the explicit intention of making the U.S. a global power.

    Tel said in reply to Valissa...

    Quote: "Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it."

    Clinton and Obama are busy campaigning that the USA has been completely successful, nothing is going wrong, everyone has jobs, etc.

    I dunno who would believe this, but that's their story and for the time being they are sticking to it. You have never had it so good.

    Dave Schuler

    Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests.

    SmoothieX12 -> kooshy ...

    Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit of happiness".

    I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this: you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened.

    NotTimothyGeithner said...

    Moscow is large enough to be a mommy figure for a small country with an interest in dealing with China which doesn't want to be swamped by Beijing's sheer size. Moscow is a threat to U.S. financial and military domination without firing a shot, engaging in a trade war, or leading a diplomatic revolt.

    The average American doesn't care about a loss of hegemony. We naturally want cooperation and hippie peace, love, dope. The Western industries with effective monopolies abroad would see immense profits under threat because the Chinese and Russian competitors would drive prices down in finance, defense, pharmaceuticals, tech, and so forth. So they are turning to the Goering play book to keep the Russians out of the world stage. The professional Risk players in the neoconservatives would see their plans fall apart if the Erdogan-Putin meeting is a positive one.

    Also, Putin embarrassed Obama over Syria in 2013 and then was magnanimous. Obama hasn't forgotten that perceived slight.

    SmoothieX12 -> NotTimothyGeithner...

    Moscow is large enough to be

    A medium-size European country herself. It is also a very peculiar economic entity. I do, however, have a question on what do you mean by a "mommy for a small country"? No matter how small the country is, in my understanding, it still will have a fair degree of freedom when building trade relations with any entity, even of such mammoth size as China.

    Cee:

    Col. Lang,

    I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/27/hillary-the-hawk-a-history-clinton-2016-military-intervention-libya-iraq-syria/

    Thomas -> Cee...

    "I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened on this watch, see the case of MH-17.

    Erik

    The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea. The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always vulnerable Kaliningrad).

    All the rest about Russia's alleged expansionism is similar debating team poppycock.

    Looking at the history of empire building and aggressive wars, one is well served to think in terms of the 3 legged stool of criminology (for aggressive wars are simply, as Jackson said at Nurnberg, the supreme international crime) and consider means, opportunity, and motive.

    We have motive, the Russians do not. The motive in this case is theft, plain and simple. Russia with its small population and vast real estate holdings is already provided with more resources than she knows what to do with. We, on the other hand are not, and have not been since at least the seventies. Russia has its work cut out for it to develop what it owns already and why would they want to conquer populous resource poor neighbor states?

    Not only has Putin snatched away the score of the century by re-asserting Russian control over Crimea, but he had since 2000 or so been forestalling the western feeding frenzy on the carcass of the Soviet Union that had Americans creaming their jeans. Re assertion of Russian true sovereignty was his real offense.

    What's so poignant is the long standing western ambition to be able to steal what Russia has. 2 centuries of western aggression against Russia, and all dedicated to theft. Same now, and the drumbeat of warmongering rhetoric now directed at Russia is hilarious in a dangerous way. We really are using the Goering argument to drag our unwilling population towards war.


    James said...

    If I might be permitted to express some thoughts about why Russians feel the way they do about Putin ...

    Median income in Russia increased 260% (in inflation adjusted terms) during the first 10 years that Putin was in power. That is a staggering increase in people's financial well being. The Economist and its brethren like to dismiss this achievement as being "solely due to the increased price of oil" - but if you look at Canada, its oil production per capita was and is equal to that of Russia yet Canada's median income only increased 9% during the same time period.

    I think a good way to get a better sense of how the Russian's feel about Putin is to watch the Russian film "Bimmer" (if you can get access to a copy with English subtitles):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimmer_(film)

    I took a trip in Africa where our white South African guides favorite catch phrase was "In Africa, anything is possible." Dystopias are terribly messed up and most people living in them suffer greatly - but there is something really sexy about them, about the feeling that anything is possible.

    Russia was dystopic like this before Putin came to power - utter anarchy, crime, poverty, worse corruption than now despite what you hear from the Borg ... but at the same time, anything was possible. Bimmer depicts the transition from the anarchy of the Yeltsin years to the greater prosperity and rule of law that Russia now enjoys - while at the same time communicating the fact that many Russians can't help but feel some nostalgia for the time when anything was possible.

    (I visited Russia before, during, and after this transition. I have friends who live there.)

    kao_hsien_chih said in reply to James...

    The 260% increase in the Russian median income (an important point--the middle Russian became financial secure under Putin) under Putin's watch underscores the other point: before Putin, Russia was a total and complete economic wreck. People who saw economic ruin firsthand don't cavalierly dismiss hard won economic security.

    rkka -> Ulenspiegel...

    While Russia was being run by FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers, Russians were dying off at the rate of nearly a million/year.

    Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover. The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006. By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991.

    In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by 500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!"

    Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia.

    Russia now has a future. That's what Putin did, and he is rightly popular with Russians, Russians who pine for the days of the drunken incompetent comprador buffoon Yeltsin excepted.


    SmoothieX12 -> Ulenspiegel...

    Putin is judged by his ability to transform the Russian economy from an exporter of oil, gas and academics to something more sustainable.

    It seems like you are one of those thinkers who thinks that repeating popular BS will create new reality. FYI, Russia now is #1 exporter of grain in the world. If you didn't catch real news from Russia, Rosatom's portfolio of contracts exceeds 100 billion USD. Evidently you also missed the fact that Russia is #2 exporter of many #1 weapon systems in the world, some of which are beyond the expertise (industrial and scientific) of Europe (I assume you are from that part of the world). Do you know what it takes and what host of real hi-tech goes into production of a top fighter jet or modern SSK? Russia is an active and a dominant player at the commercial space launch business, in fact whole US Atlas program flies on Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines. I will repeat again, learn facts on the ground, which is relatively easy to do in the world of global IT. And finally, Russia will never live as well as US or Canada, for starters--there is a colossal difference in consumer patterns between Russians and North Americans (albeit there are many similarities too) but there is very little doubt that standard of living in Russia grew tremendously and a lot of it has very little to do with gas or oil prices. It has, however, a lot to do with retooling and re-industrialization of the country, which was ongoing since circa 2008. It is a very significant year. Last, but not least--Russia is huge own consumer market (and then some due to markets of former USSR) and that is a key. German MTU followed sanctions, well, guess what--it will never appear again on Russian markets. Thales loved to sell IR matrices to Russia, well, guess what.....you may fill in the blanks.

    SmoothieX12 said in reply to different clue...

    In terms of pork and poultry Russia produces 100% of that and, which did surprise me, even exports turkey. Beef--about 80% covered. Most of what Russia consumes in food stuff is home grown or made. Exceptions are some luxury food items and things like well-aged cheeses. Russian food stores can give any best US or European grocery chain a run for their money. Variety is excellent and most of it affordable. Per salmon, as far as I know it is both farm-raised and wild. What are the proportions, I don't know. I can, however, testify to the fact that, say, in Troitsky supermarket you can buy alive strelyad' (sturgeon). ...

    SmoothieX12,

    This is good to hear. When the "sanction Russia" crowd began embargoing various food-items being sold to Russia, they unintentionally began without realizing it an economic experiment in Protectionism. The food embargo against food going into Russia amounts to a kind of Protectionism for Russian food production within a protectionized and defended Russian market.

    If it ends up allowing more monetizable food-as-wealth to be produced withIN Russia, that will allow all sorts of sectors and people to buy and sell more monetizable non-food goods and non-food services FROM withIN Russia TO withIN Russia as well. If that allows Russia to become more all-sectors-in-balance wealthier, that fact would be hard to hide eventually. And various farm-sector advocates in America could seize upon it and point to it as evidence that Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to increase its own net production and enjoyment of overall wealth withIN its own borders. And it might inspire more people to suggest we try it here within America as well. And through the abolition of NAFTA, allow Mexico to revive Protectionism for its agricultural sector as well. It might allow for enough broad-based ground-up revival of economic activity withIN Mexico that some of the millions of NAFTAstinian exiles in America might decide they have a Mexican economy to go back to again. And some of them might go back.

    IF! NAFTA can be abolished and Mexico set free to re-protectionize its own agricultural economy. Perhaps if enough Mexican political-economic analysts look at events in Russia and see the ongoing success there, they too might agitate for the abolition of NAFTA and the re-protectionization of farm-country Mexico.


    SmoothieX12 -> different clue...

    Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to increase its own net production and enjoyment of overall wealth withIN its own borders

    Free Trade fundamentalism (which is a first derivative of liberalism) is what killing USA and, I assume, Mexico. Most "academic" so called economists and bankers (monetarists) are clueless but it is them who set the framework of discussion on economy. It is a long discussion but let me put it this way--all their "theories" are crap. As for Russia--she is largely self-sustainable for years now.

    kao_hsien_chih -> Ulenspiegel...

    That Russia before Putin provides for better explanation of his support than even the 260%. Yes, Russia is still a relatively poor country, but only a decade before, it was a total and complete basketcase and people remember that Putin is responsible for putting things back to a semblance of normalcy.


    Daniel Nicolas

    In another thread, it was mentioned that countries have no friends, only interests.

    Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend itself (and their interests).

    Obama's USA has been far too hostile to Russia without apparent cause. A Clinton administration would likely swing even further. While Russia has openly declared that it not want a new hot war, they are preparing accordingly because they have no choice but to prepare for the possible future USA being even more hostile.

    LondonBob -> Daniel Nicolas...

    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/

    Not likely, will be.

    JohnsonR

    Interesting Spiegel piece about some of Breedlove's email exchanges regarding the Ukraine from two years ago:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/breedlove-network-sought-weapons-deliveries-for-ukraine-a-1104837.html

    The Germans are obviously still sore about it all.

    EricB

    Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts. It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at its peak during the late 90's:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/02/russia.lukeharding1

    ... ... ...

    VietnamVet :

    Colonel,

    The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change.

    Hillary Clinton is supremely qualified to maintain the status quo. If Donald Trump wins, it has to be due to the perfidious Russians hacking the election; not Globalism's Losers voting against their exploitation by the insanely wealthy and the enabling technocrats. Meanwhile, the "War of Russian Aggression" heats up, Turkey turns Islamist and the EU splinters due to the war refugees and austerity.

    Old Microbiologist -> Bill Herschel...

    Bill,
    I am with you all the way. It, of course, goes much further. There are ongoing US-manufactured destabilization events unfolding all around Russia. Then you have the economic attacks via sanctions and trade which have arguably crippled Russia. On top of that you have these insipid attacks via things like SWIFT bank transfers, IMF, World Bank and idiocy such as attempting to ban the entire Russian Olympic team from the Olympics. Russia senses these attacks on all fronts and was unfortunately caught early being unprepared. During the Soviet Union Russia was 100% self sufficient but as mentioned in other comments under Yeltsin's "privatization" programs an awful lot of that industry was sold or closed. Now Russia has had to start from scratch replacements for things not available in Russia and yet still has a budget surplus (unlike the US with a near $20 trillion deficit). They have created alternates to SWIFT, VISA/Mastercard, the IMF and even the G8.

    The Crimea debacle was a clear attempt to kick Russia out of their base in Sevastopol which was brilliantly countered. However, the cost has been enormous. Little commented on is that Ukraine under US leadership has cut off water, gas, and electricity to the peninsula and blocked all traffic to the mainland. Russia is nearing the completion of the bridge to Crimea from Russia and water/power are already being delivered. This is a huge effort which shows the dedication to their control of Crimea.

    Then they have undertaken to directly thwart the anti-Assad US-led coalition in Syria and have hoisted the US on its own petard. It hasn't been easy nor cheap and all of this has been happening simultaneously. On top of all of this we have buildups on the Russian borders so Putin also has to upgrade his military to counter any potential EU/NATO/US invasion of Russia. The aggression has all been one sided but delusional citizens in the US see our aggression as defensive as bizarre as that is. Outside the US people see US aggression for what it is and are not fooled into believing that we are trying to help anyone except the rich plutocrats. The immigrant invasion of Europe is seen as a US caused problem for these continuous insane wars that never end nor apparently have any actual purpose.

    If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary. Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally, I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind.

    Peter Reichard said...

    Have always thought Russians and Americans were more like each other than either of us were like Europeans. Both a little crude, crazy, traditionally religious and musical with big countries created from an expanding frontier and thinking big in terms of infrastructure and vehicles. We ought to be natural allies as we were in the nineteenth century in opposition to the British Empire and again in World War 2. Russia, a land power in the heart of the world island in balance with the US, an ocean power on the other side of the planet with mutual respect could create a stable multi-polar world.

    SmoothieX12 -> Peter Reichard...

    That is generally true. There are a lot of similarities. And I remember the end of Cold War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away."

    kao_hsien_chih -> SmoothieX12...

    In mid-19th century, Russia was extremely friendly to United States, where many remained deeply suspicious of the British Empire. Somehow, by the end of 19th century, United States became peculiarly fond of the British Empire and inexplicably hostile to Russia--Mahan was both an Anglophile and Russophobe, as I understand, and his sentiments shows up in his ideas, or so I've heard. (I imagine SmoothieX12, as an ex Soviet navy man, is far more familiar with this than I ever could). How did that happen?

    rkka -> kao_hsien_chih...

    "How did that happen?"

    In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day.

    [Jul 30, 2016] Two liberal IT luminaries today pick up the (totally unproven) assertion that Russia hacked and published via wikileaks the DNC shennigens of preferring Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... Westen is a Democrat and he basically wrote this book to try and help Democrats win more presidential election, though the research portion in the beginning of the book shows how people in both parties are biased in their interpretation of political events based on their political party allegiance. ..."
    "... Then a year or two later he wrote some follow up articles whining and complaining about how disappointed he was in Obama not being much different from Bush, etc, etc ..."
    "... The fact that Mr. Western could wake up to Obama's basic Bushness in only one or two years means that Mr. Western had a freer mind than most Obama supporters. ..."
    "... Good find. Yes and yes. They never stop manipulating. Now the MSM will finally have to admit that the machines are compromised ONLY when it serves the interests of th few. ..."
    turcopolier.typepad.com

    b , 28 July 2016 at 12:41 PM

    Of interest:

    Two "liberal" IT luminaries today pick up the (totally unproven) assertion that Russia hacked and published via wikileaks the DNC shennigens of preferring Clinton.

    The used this to (preemptively) accuse Russia of manipulating the U.S. election via voting computers on November 9.

    Bruce Schneier

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/27/by-november-russian-hackers-could-target-voting-machines/

    By November, Russian hackers could target voting machines >

    Cory Doctorow

    http://boingboing.net/2016/07/27/russia-and-other-states-could.html

    Russia and other states could hack the US election by attacking voting machines

    This is curious as both are usually much more carefully about attribution of such hacks.

    Could this be a "preemptive" attempt to find Russia guilty should the November 9 result come into question?

    John Robb warned earlier that such a scenario could lead to civil war

    http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2016/03/how-the-us-ends-up-in-a-civil-war.html

    Valissa -> b, 28 July 2016 at 02:02 PM

    I think this is a sign that both Schneier and Doctorow are democrats who fear Trump. Tribal allegiance exerts a very powerful, and irrational, force on the so-called rational mind.

    The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, by Drew Westen https://www.amazon.com/Political-Brain-Emotion-Deciding-Nation/dp/1586485733/

    Warning, Westen is a Democrat and he basically wrote this book to try and help Democrats win more presidential election, though the research portion in the beginning of the book shows how people in both parties are biased in their interpretation of political events based on their political party allegiance.

    When Obama first ran in 2007-2008, Westen had clearly been drinking the glorious pro-Obama koolaid as was evident in some HuffPo articles he wrote at the time.

    Then a year or two later he wrote some follow up articles whining and complaining about how disappointed he was in Obama not being much different from Bush, etc, etc.

    Clearly this man was so caught up in his tribal allegiance he couldn't recognize the very biases his research showed. Btw, he is still a consultant to the Democrats... attempting to be the Frank Luntz of the left.

    different clue -> Valissa, 28 July 2016 at 08:58 PM

    The fact that Mr. Western could wake up to Obama's basic Bushness in only one or two years means that Mr. Western had a freer mind than most Obama supporters.

    rjj -> b, 28 July 2016 at 03:11 PM
    guessing they are setting the scene to invalidate an unfavorable vote count and take it to House of Representatives.

    writers could be persuaded they were Doing Good.

    Cee -> b, 28 July 2016 at 03:15 PM
    B,

    Good find. Yes and yes. They never stop manipulating. Now the MSM will finally have to admit that the machines are compromised ONLY when it serves the interests of th few.

    [Jul 30, 2016] If Russian Intelligence Did Hack the DNC, the NSA Would Know, Snowden Says

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    theintercept.com

    As my colleague Glenn Greenwald told WNYC on Monday, while there may never be conclusive evidence that the Democratic National Committee was hacked by Russian intelligence operatives to extract the trove of embarrassing emails published by WikiLeaks, it would hardly be shocking if that was what happened.

    "Governments do spy on each other and do try to influence events in other countries," Glenn noted. "Certainly the U.S. government has a very long and successful history of doing exactly that."

    Even so, he added, given the ease with which we were misled into war in Iraq by false claims about weapons of mass destruction - and the long history of Russophobia in American politics - it is vital to cast a skeptical eye over whatever evidence is presented to support the claim, made by Hillary Clinton's aide Robby Mook, that this is all part of a Russian plot to sabotage the Democrats and help Donald Trump win the election.

    The theory gained some traction , particularly among Trump's detractors, in part because the candidate has seemed obsessed at times with reminding crowds that Russian President Vladimir Putin once said something sort of nice about him (though not, as Trump falsely claims , that the American is "a genius"). Then last week, Trump's campaign staff watered down a pledge to help Ukraine defend its territory from Russian-backed rebels and the candidate told the New York Times he would not necessarily honor the NATO treaty commitment that requires the United States military to defend other member states from a direct attack by Russia.

    Since Trump has refused to release his tax returns, there are also questions about whether or not his businesses might depend to some extent on Russian investors. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Trump's son Donald Jr. told a real estate conference in 2008, the Washington Post reported last month. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

    Paul Manafort, who is directing Trump's campaign and was for years a close adviser of a Putin ally, former President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine, called the theory that Trump's campaign had ties to the Russian government "absurd." (On Monday, Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News reported that a DNC researcher looking into Manafort's ties to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine in May had been warned that her personal Yahoo email account was under attack. "We strongly suspect that your account has been the target of state-sponsored actors," the warning from the email service security team read.)

    Unhelpfully for Trump, his most senior adviser with knowledge of the world of hacking, retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Bloomberg View that he "would not be surprised at all" to learn that Russia was behind the breach of the DNC network. "Both China and Russia have the full capability to do this," he said.

    Later on Monday, Trump himself then attributed the attack on the DNC to "China, Russia, one of our many, many 'friends,'" who "came in and hacked the hell out of us."

    Since very few of us are cybersecurity experts, and the Iraq debacle is a reminder of how dangerous it can be to put blind faith in experts whose claims might reinforce our own political positions, there is also the question of who we can trust to provide reliable evidence.

    One expert in the field, who is well aware of the evidence-gathering capabilities of the U.S. government, is Edward Snowden, the former Central Intelligence Agency technician and National Security Agency whistleblower who exposed the extent of mass surveillance and has been given temporary asylum in Russia.

    "If Russia hacked the #DNC, they should be condemned for it," Snowden wrote on Twitter on Monday, with a link to a 2015 report on the U.S. government's response to the hacking of Sony Pictures. In that case, he noted, "the FBI presented evidence" for its conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the hacking and subsequent release of internal emails. (The FBI is now investigating the breach of the DNC's network, which officials told the Daily Beast they first made the committee aware of in April.)

    What's more, Snowden added, the NSA has tools that should make it possible to trace the source of the hack. Even though the Director of National Intelligence usually opposes making such evidence public, he argued, this is a case in which the agency should do so, if only to discourage future attacks.

    Edward Snowden
    ✔ ‎@Snowden

    Even if the attackers try to obfuscate origin, #XKEYSCORE makes following exfiltrated data easy. I did this personally against Chinese ops.

    Edward Snowden
    ✔ ‎@Snowden

    Evidence that could publicly attribute responsibility for the DNC hack certainly exists at #NSA, but DNI traditionally objects to sharing.

    Edward Snowden
    ✔ ‎@Snowden

    The aversion to sharing #NSA evidence is fear of revealing "sources and methods" of intel collection, but #XKEYSCORE is now publicly known.

    Edward Snowden2 Verified account ?
    ‏@Snowden
    Without a credible threat that USG can and will use #NSA capabilities to publicly attribute responsibility, such hacks will become common.

    [Jul 26, 2016] Huge See, I Told You So Hillary Admits We Backed ISIS in Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama has been refusing to help Iraq for at least a year. A year ago, it would have been easy, comparatively, to wipe out ISIS. They were still gathering tightly together in their staging zones. ..."
    "... Had you heard of ISIS a year ago? I venture to say that most people heard of ISIS for the first time in the past couple months. So Obama had plenty of chances. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, if Obama had wanted to take out ISIS, he would not have formed a supportive relationship with them in Syria! ISIS is who is "the rebels" in Syria opposing Bashar al-Assad. Before I get to Syria, I just want to put the exclamation point on this thought. ..."
    "... Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and the media (their willing accomplices) need Iraq to be always seen as a Bush miserable failure, a Bush war, a Bush failure. Just as Vietnam was supposed to be seen as a failure for Nixon. Now, you may be learning for the first time that the rebels in Syria were ISIS. Over the weekend, it was reported that Hillary Clinton ripped into Obama for his failure to help the Syrian rebels and that this failure to help the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS. ..."
    "... MCINERNEY: I happen to agree with her. I'm not sure why it's just coming out now. I was pushing for the Free Syrian Army. They were a huge ally. We ended up arming the wrong people over there, and, remember, ISIS was formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and so look at what we have now create -- we didn't create it. By doing nothing, we let it create itself. And if we don't stop it now and stop it and protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally. ..."
    "... I said, "I'm not defending Assad. As always, I'm interested in the truth, and I just don't believe --" I had to work hard to get to a point where I automatically reject everything I hear coming out of the news media in Washington when the Democrats are in power because, by and large, when it comes to foreign policy, every story is made to cover up for their inadequacies, their incompetence, and the fact that they're wrong about everything. But here's McInerney again because there's a little hidden gem in this sound bite that I want to see, if by some chance, some of you picked up. ..."
    Aug 11, 2014 | The Rush Limbaugh Show

    RUSH: Now, I mentioned this, I think, in first hour, previously on the program. Obama has been refusing to help Iraq for at least a year. A year ago, it would have been easy, comparatively, to wipe out ISIS. They were still gathering tightly together in their staging zones.

    Had you heard of ISIS a year ago? I venture to say that most people heard of ISIS for the first time in the past couple months. So Obama had plenty of chances. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, if Obama had wanted to take out ISIS, he would not have formed a supportive relationship with them in Syria! ISIS is who is "the rebels" in Syria opposing Bashar al-Assad. Before I get to Syria, I just want to put the exclamation point on this thought.

    Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and the media (their willing accomplices) need Iraq to be always seen as a Bush miserable failure, a Bush war, a Bush failure. Just as Vietnam was supposed to be seen as a failure for Nixon. Now, you may be learning for the first time that the rebels in Syria were ISIS. Over the weekend, it was reported that Hillary Clinton ripped into Obama for his failure to help the Syrian rebels and that this failure to help the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS.

    It's in The Atlantic in a story by Jeffrey Goldberg. It's a long interview. But there is this knife-in-the-back criticism that Hillary directs at Obama, a comment that he made while Hillary was his secretary of state. Do you remember he praised her, "best secretary of state ever"? She might be, he said. On the day she resigned or the day they announced of her resignation, there was a joint presser.

    Obama is praising Hillary to the nines and talking about how she may be one of the best secretaries of state ever, and now here comes Hillary back-stabbing Obama by claiming that his failure to help the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS. Right here it is, Jeffrey Goldberg: "The former secretary of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine.

    "She says this about President Obama's: 'Great nations need organizing principles, and "Don't do stupid stuff" is not an organizing principle.'" It's a slam, but I wonder: Are reset buttons organizing principles? Because, let's not forget that Mrs. Clinton actually showed up with a Soviet leader... (pfft, slap myself) a Russian leader with a plastic and red toy that said, in crudely spelled words, "reset button." I kid you not!

    ... ... ...

    The conventional wisdom was that Assad was gassing his own people. Remember, Obama, in the previous summer of 2013, issued this red line and dared Assad not to cross it. (imitating Obama) "You cross that red line, pal, you're gonna have me to deal with," and we never did anything. But the word was out that Assad was gassing and harming his own people. And I remember saying on this program -- Koko, go back to that era and just for the website today, go find what I said on those days and relink it, 'cause I made the point, I asked the question, "What if it isn't Assad? What if the people creating mayhem in Syria are actually Assad's enemies disguising themselves as protesters of Assad and trying to make it appear as though he's doing this, when in fact he's not?"

    And after I'd mentioned that, I got an e-mail from a friend who is somewhat aware of the circumstances in Iraq and I was told that I was more right than I knew. And Hillary is now coming along and essentially saying the same thing. She's not suggesting that ISIS was there. She is suggesting that our lack of doing anything about it led to ISIS taking over the anti-Assad movement, when in fact it was ISIS all along. ISIS was doing it and they were making it look like Assad did it. And just like the media was biased toward Hamas, so was the media biased toward the same type of people in Syria who are trying to make it look like Assad was doing this.

    I had never seen any evidence that Bashar Assad -- his father was different. His father, Hafez al-Assad, was a brutal guy and did commit atrocities to keep people in line. But there's no evidence that Bashar had really done it. I knew that Al-Qaeda's on the march and they're trying to gain control. The Muslim Brotherhood's trying to gain control, that whole area. It was a lot of Christians in Syria that were being beaten up, killed, assaulted, what have you, and it was made to look like it was Assad, and now we've learned that it wasn't.

    The point is I called it. I was right, and that's what Hillary is now claiming that Obama missed and that she was right about, but she never said it.

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: Okay. Here's me, folks, from this program on September 11th, 2013. By the way, Koko, if you want to find the website history to link to what I originally said about this, find September 2nd, 3rd, 4th, somewhere in there, my memory is. But this was September 11th of last year.

    RUSH ARCHIVE: Here we are 12 years later after 9/11, and think about it. Twelve years later we are supporting Muslim terrorists in Syria. Muslim terrorists who are threatening to kill Syrian Christians if they don't convert to Islam. That's who our allies are. Those are the rebels that Bashar Assad is supposedly gassing. So we're aligned with 'em because we're aligned against Assad. They're threatening to kill Syrian Christians if they don't convert to Islam.

    RUSH: This was ISIS, folks, and we were anti-Assad. It was made to look like Assad was doing the gassing. He wasn't, as it turns out. This morning on Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade spoke to retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney about Clinton's remarks criticizing Obama's handling of ISIS and here's what the general said about Hillary's remarks.

    MCINERNEY: I happen to agree with her. I'm not sure why it's just coming out now. I was pushing for the Free Syrian Army. They were a huge ally. We ended up arming the wrong people over there, and, remember, ISIS was formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and so look at what we have now create -- we didn't create it. By doing nothing, we let it create itself. And if we don't stop it now and stop it and protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally.

    RUSH: Well, that's General McInerney. I've got 15 seconds before the break. It turns out that my sources on this way back a year ago were absolutely right, that Assad was not the bad guy.

    BREAK TRANSCRIPT

    RUSH: You know, I tell you what's funny about this is Hillary Clinton. It's clear to me that Hillary Clinton obviously thinks that foreign policy is still gonna be her strong pantsuit, as she heads into the campaign. She really does. That's why she's doing all of this. But I want to play this audio sound bite again from General McInerney, because there's a gem in this that is another example of how Obama and the left, the Democrats, the media lied for five years, 2004 to 2009. Actually, 2003 to 2008 would be the specific time period, bashing Iraq every day, every night, every day of the year.

    One other thing. Koko has found exactly what I was talking about. There was a post at RushLimbaugh.com on September 3rd, "What if Assad Didn't Do It?" And my memory has now been refreshed. I had a couple of sources and an e-mail from a friend confirm, so three different confirmations here from people, that what we were getting in the news every day that Assad was gassing his people probably wasn't true. That it was, it turns out ISIS, at the time known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq that was doing it, and making it look like it was Assad, and that's who our allies were. We were anti-Assad and we actually had an alliance, loose though it was, formed with the very people we're now bombing in Iraq.

    I remember I took my fair share of heat, and I always do when I'm not part of the conventional wisdom. Assad's easy to hate. Assad's a dictator. Assad has a typical bad image and when somebody says he's gassing his own people, it's automatically believed. And here I came, all of Washington supports the idea that Assad was doing it, and I said, "I'm not so sure. What if."

    "Rush, you didn't have to say anything. Why are you going out on a limb? Why do you want to sound like you're defending Assad?"

    I said, "I'm not defending Assad. As always, I'm interested in the truth, and I just don't believe --" I had to work hard to get to a point where I automatically reject everything I hear coming out of the news media in Washington when the Democrats are in power because, by and large, when it comes to foreign policy, every story is made to cover up for their inadequacies, their incompetence, and the fact that they're wrong about everything. But here's McInerney again because there's a little hidden gem in this sound bite that I want to see, if by some chance, some of you picked up.

    MCINERNEY: I happen to agree with her. I'm not sure why it's just coming out now. I was pushing for the Free Syrian Army. They were a huge ally. We ended up arming the wrong people over there, and, remember, ISIS was formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and so look at what we have now create -- we didn't create it. By doing nothing, we let it create itself. And if we don't stop it now and stop it and protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally.

    RUSH: In the early days of 2002 when Bush was traveling the country making the case for invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein, I remember a couple of instances pointing out that Al-Qaeda, prior to 9/11, had done some training in Iraq. And one of the things that had been found was a hollowed-out shell of an airliner fuselage.

    Now, the conventional wisdom was that Al-Qaeda had never been in Iraq, that Bush was making this up, or that the intel was all wrong, but likely it was just Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld lying to make their case, because Al-Qaeda was clearly the enemy after 9/11. Al-Qaeda had hijacked the planes at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and Al-Qaeda was the evil, Osama bin Laden, and Bush was going after them in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq.

    The Democrats and the media, led by Obama starting in 2002, and other Democrats, Teddy Kennedy, they were all -- I mean, John Kerry, they were all making fun and mocking the idea that Al-Qaeda had anything to do with Iraq. Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq and nobody can prove it, they said. Saddam had nothing to do with 911. Now, the Bush people at the time were saying, "We can't afford --" 9/11 had just happened. "What happened here is real. And any time there is anybody in the world vowing to do that or more, we are going to take it seriously."

    They were making the case for preemptive military strikes. That's what all this was called, because the left and the Democrats were arguing that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, therefore it was not moral or strategically wise to hit Iraq. They had nothing to do with it. The Bush people were saying, whether they did or didn't, it doesn't matter, they're threatening to do the same thing. And after it's happened once, we are in charge of protecting this country and defending the people, and we can't sit here and take these threats lightly.

    Saddam at the time was lying to the UN inspectors about his weapons of mass destruction. It turned out that he was big timing and he was trying to look like the most powerful Arab in the region by being the most feared. So he was lying about at least the size of his weapons of mass destruction stock. And part of the lie, part of the illusion was to not let the inspectors in. He wanted everybody to conclude that he had a boatload of the stuff. And the Bush administration was trying to tell everybody we can't afford to wait to be hit again to take action. We've got to hit preemptively.

    I'll never forget any of this, folks. Because I'll never forget the Democrats arguing about it. Because the Democrats, even after 9/11, after a week of solidarity went by, the Democrats conceived a political strategy, the purpose of which was to make sure Bush did not secure any long-lasting credit for any policy he instituted following 9/11.

    Also remember this, along those same lines. Bill Clinton, it was reported -- he later denied it -- but Clinton, according to some famous well-known Democrats, was lamenting that 9/11 didn't happen on his watch, because it prevented him an opportunity to show greatness and leadership. He was upset that it had happened with Bush. If it was gonna happen, why couldn't it have happened during his time? We reported that and all hell broke loose. A string of denials were forthcoming.

    But the point is they politicize everything. There was unity for a week and after that the Democrats devised a political strategy, the purpose of which was to make sure Bush did not secure one positive achievement in the aftermath of 911. So these guys began opposing everything Bush wanted to do when it came to Iraq. At first they even opposed the use of force in Afghanistan. That's when they asked for the vote a second time.

    Remember, there was a memo uncovered, a memo that was written by Jay Rockefeller, Democrat senator from West Virginia, in which it was stated that as a strategy -- and this had come from James Carville and Stan Greenberg in a memo. It was then written up by Rockefeller, who was the Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat in the Senate. He said that they had to make Bush out to be a liar.

    And it said if they were to succeed with this, that their strategy depended on convincing people that Bush was lying about all of this in order to depress and lower his high approval numbers. So, as I say, here's the gem that was in McInerney's piece ('cause I'm running out of time here). Throughout all of this in the run-up to invading Iraq, whenever the possibility that Al-Qaeda might have been in Iraq came up, the Democrats said, "No way!

    "Al-Qaeda never found its way to Iraq! They wouldn't know how to get to Iraq if you gave 'em a map. They haven't been to Iraq. They don't have anything to do with Saddam! They were helpless." Now listen to what we just heard here. ISIS was originally known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Now, some of you might be saying, "Well, maybe so, Rush, but Al-Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before we attacked."

    It did!

    We were able to confirm that elements of Al-Qaeda did connect with Saddam for training exercises and so forth. But the point is, in hindsight, look at what we're learning here. ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Iraq are all over the Middle East, just like the Muslim Brotherhood. And in Syria, we were actually, stupidity and maybe unknowingly (given this bunch, I could believe it was unknowingly) supporting them

    Because we had concluded that Bashar Assad was the one gassing his own people. I had never seen any evidence that Assad treated his own people that way. I knew he treated political enemies that way, which is why it was not a very long leap to making people believe that he might gas his own people if he's gassed others. Ditto, Saddam and the Kurds. But there hadn't been any evidence that Bashar Assad gassed his own people.

    So, anyway, that's that, and it's just... Some of it's ancient history, but some of it's just last year and some of it's just yesterday, and so much of it is lies. And so many of these lies are why we're even here today. So all of these lies about all of this stuff is one of the very large reasons why Obama was elected in the first place. It's just dispiriting in a way -- and in another way, surely frustrating, and that's why I've been so ticked off all day.

    END TRANSCRIPT

    [Jul 25, 2016] Hillary Clinton Admits U.S. Created Al Qaeda, ISIS

    Notable quotes:
    "... If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!" I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians going back to the time of the Apostle Paul. ..."
    "... On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their murderous hands. ..."
    chuckbaldwinlive.com
    May 26, 2016

    Why isn't the Mainstream Media (MSM) in America reporting the fact that Hillary Clinton admitted in public that the U.S. government created Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Nusra, etc.? Why does the MSM refuse to tell the American people that the United States has not ever actually fought ISIS but instead has surreptitiously and very actively supported ISIS and the other radical Muslim terrorists in the Middle East? Why has the media refused to reveal the fact that ever since Russia started to fight a true offensive war against ISIS the terrorist organization has been reduced to almost half?

    I'll tell you why: the MSM is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the U.S. government--no matter which party is in power. The MSM doesn't work for the U.S. citizenry. It doesn't even work for its corporate sponsors. It works for the Washington Power Elite permanently ensconced in D.C. (and yes, those same Power Elite control most of those media corporate sponsors).

    It is a sad reality that if one wants to get accurate news reporting, one must mostly bypass the U.S. propaganda media and look to sources outside the U.S. Here is a Canadian publication that covered the Hillary admission:

    "The following video features Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton acknowledging that America created and funded Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:

    "'Let's remember here the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago.

    "'Let's go recruit these mujahideen.

    "'And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.'"

    "What she does not mention is that at no time in the course of the last 35 years has the US ceased to support and finance Al Qaeda as a means to destabilizing sovereign countries. It was 'a pretty good idea', says Hillary, and it remains a good idea today:

    "Amply documented, the ISIS and Al Nusrah Mujahideen are recruited by NATO and the Turkish High command, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.

    "The more fundamental question:

    "Should a presidential candidate who candidly acknowledges that 'We created Al Qaeda' without a word of caution or regret become president of the US, not to mention Hillary's commitment to waging nuclear war on Russia if and when she becomes president of the United States of America."

    The report continues:

    "The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is led by the United States. It is not directed against Al Qaeda.

    "Quite the opposite: The 'Global War on Terrorism' uses Al Qaeda terrorist operatives as their foot soldiers.

    "'Political Islam' and the imposition of an 'Islamic State' (modeled on Qatar or Saudi Arabia) is an integral part of US foreign policy."

    The report further states:

    "It is a means to destabilizing sovereign countries and imposing 'regime change'.

    "Clinton's successor at the State Department, John Kerry is in direct liaison with Al Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliated organization in Syria, integrated by terrorists and funded by the US and its allies.

    "In a bitter irony, John Kerry is not only complicit in the killings committed by Al Nusra, he is also in blatant violation of US anti-terrorist legislation. If the latter were to be applied to politicians in high office, John Kerry would be considered as a 'Terror Suspect'".

    See the report here:

    Hillary Clinton: "We Created Al Qaeda". The Protagonists Of The "Global War On Terrorism" Are The Terrorists

    Think it through, folks: the U.S. government creates the radical Islamic terror networks that justify America's "Global War On Terror" which directly results in millions of refugees (and no doubt plants terrorists among them) flooding Europe. At the same time, it purposely refuses to protect our own borders and even forces states and local communities to accept hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees (but the government is not sending any Christian refugees to America, even though a sizable percentage of the refugees include Christians also) and pushes NATO to the doorstep of Russia, which to any objective observer could only be regarded as an overt incitement to war.

    Furthermore, why doesn't the MSM report the words of Hillary saying that the "best way to help Israel" is to destroy Syria? Why doesn't the media acknowledge that official U.S. foreign policy is to foment perpetual war, not in the name of the safety and security of the United States, but in the name of "helping" Israel?

    Here is how the same Canadian publication covers this part of the story:

    "A newly-released Hillary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the 'best way to help Israel.'

    "In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the 'right thing' to personally threaten Bashar Assad's family with death.

    "In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the 'best way to help Israel' is to 'use force' in Syria to overthrow the government."

    It continues:

    "Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Iran's 'atomic bomb' program as a hoax, (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to 'justify' destroying Syria in the name of Israel."

    And again:

    "The email proves--as if any more proof was needed--that the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to 'protect' Israel.

    "It is also a sobering thought to consider that the 'refugee' crisis which currently threatens to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.

    "In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to Iraq--all thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the 'rebels' and stoking the fires of war in Syria."

    See the report here:

    Hillary Clinton: Destroy Syria For Israel: "The Best Way To Help Israel"

    If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!" I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians going back to the time of the Apostle Paul.

    The truth is, Hillary (and the rest of the grubby gaggle of Neocons) doesn't give a tinker's dam about Israel. Neocons such as Hillary Clinton simply use Israel (and the misguided passions of Christians and conservatives who blindly support Israel) as cover to accomplish their real agenda: manipulating world governments to the enrichment and empowerment of themselves.

    Donald Trump is untested. But if Hillary should be elected, I'm confident she would not make it through her first term without taking us into another G.W. Bush-type war (or worse)--except she will also add the attempted disarmament of the American people to her nefarious agenda.

    That's what Neocons do: they foment war. To their very soul, they are warmongers. And never forget that Hillary Clinton is a true-blue Neocon. Or if the word "Neoliberal" sounds better to you in describing Hillary, so be it. They both mean the same thing: WAR.

    Here is a good explanation of how both Neocons and Neolibs are working from the same script:

    Neocons And Neolibs: How Dead Ideas Kill

    On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their murderous hands.

    And if you think my indictment against the Neocons is an exaggeration, Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan) was even more scathing in his condemnation of them:

    "The remaining danger is the crazed American neoconservatives. I know many of them. They are completely insane ideologues. This inhuman filth has controlled the foreign policy of every US government since Clinton's second term. They are a danger to all life on earth. Look at the destruction they have wreaked in the former Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Georgia and South Ossetia, in Africa, in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The American people were too brainwashed by lies and by political impotence to do anything about it, and Washington's vassals in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan had to pretend that this policy of international murder was 'bringing freedom and democracy.'

    "The crazed filth that controls US foreign policy is capable of defending US hegemony with nuclear weapons. The neoconservatives must be removed from power, arrested, and put on international trial for their horrendous war crimes before they defend their hegemony with Armageddon.

    "Neoconservatives and their allies in the military/security complex make audacious use of false flag attacks. These evil people are capable of orchestrating a false flag attack that propels the US and Russia to war."

    See Roberts' column here:

    The Fall Of The Unipower

    And make no mistake about it: the national news media is a deliberate and willing facilitator of these international crimes against humanity.

    © Chuck Baldwin

    [Jul 25, 2016] Sanders responce to Wikileaks reminds me of battered wife syndrome

    Notable quotes:
    "... So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them. ..."
    "... His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest. ..."
    "... Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are. ..."
    "... Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. ..."
    "... And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for! ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the latest over the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails.

    Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the emails. Like that makes it any better that you rigged the primary."

    Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -

    Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?"

    Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect working families in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media is not necessarily focused on these things. But what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton, it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this country, blah blah blah..."

    "[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and making sure Hillary Clinton is elected president."

    So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them.

    UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!

    His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest.

    I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain neutral.

    Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are.

    If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that man to take some serious time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get away from the bubble and clear your head and soul.

    Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter.

    And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for!

    Posted by: h | Jul 24, 2016 1:24:40 PM | 11

    [Jul 25, 2016] Bernie Sanders Gets Booed When He Asks Delegates to Elect Hillary Clinton

    www.legitgov.org
    July 26, 2016

    Bernie Sanders Gets Booed When He Asks Delegates to Elect Hillary Clinton | 25 July 2016 |The crowd of delegates in the convention center ballroom didn't come for unity: They came for Bernie Sanders. Sanders, the Vermont senator whose bid to beat back Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination fell short, took the stage this afternoon to speak to his delegates before he'll take a bigger stage in a few hours-at the Democratic National Convention on its opening night, in a bid to promote unity in the party as it gears up to face Republican Donald Trump in the fall. The packed ballroom cheered and chanted as Sanders recounted the successes of his campaign...But when he finally got around to speaking about the woman who will actually be the Democratic nominee, the crowd soured on their hero.

    [Jul 25, 2016] Sanders response to Wikileaks: betrayal of supporters or battered wife syndrome

    Notable quotes:
    "... So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them. ..."
    "... His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest. ..."
    "... I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain neutral. ..."
    "... Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are. ..."
    "... Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. ..."
    "... And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for! ..."
    "... AFAICT he got very little for his support (will he get a cabinet position for himself?). He didn't have to endorse Hillary. He doesn't have to speak at the Convention (but he will tonight). ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the latest over the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails.

    Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the emails. Like that makes it any better that you rigged the primary."

    Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -

    Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?"

    Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect working families in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media is not necessarily focused on these things. But what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton, it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this country, blah blah blah..."

    "[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and making sure Hillary Clinton is elected president."

    So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them.

    UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!

    His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest.

    I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain neutral.

    Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are.

    If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that man to take some serious time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get away from the bubble and clear your head and soul.

    Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter.

    And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for!

    Posted by: h | Jul 24, 2016 1:24:40 PM | 11

    Jackrabbit | Jul 24, 2016 2:28:41 PM | 25

    h @11:

    His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome.
    You are assuming that Sanders is a victim instead of a conspirator.

    Why would anyone give any politician in our corrupt system the benefit of the doubt? Even one that seems to be against 'the system'?

    Why didn't Bernie release more than one year of tax returns?

    Especially since Hillary cited this as a reason not to release the transcripts of her speaches to Goldman Sachs.

    Why didn't Bernie use the emails against Hillary after the State Department Inspector General released their report?

    This official report clearly demonstrated that Hillary had consistently misled the nation about her emails.

    Why didn't Bernie attack Obama's record on Black/Minority affairs?

    Obama's support is part of the reason that Blacks/Minorities were voting for Hillary. Obama never went to Feruson or New York or Baltimore. Obama's weak economic stimulous and austerity policies have been very bad for blacks/minorities. Obama bailed out banks that targeted minorities for toxic loans. Etc.

    Why does Bernie, at 74-years old, care more about Hillary (which he calls a friend of 25 years) and the Democratic Party than his principles?

    AFAICT he got very little for his support (will he get a cabinet position for himself?). He didn't have to endorse Hillary. He doesn't have to speak at the Convention (but he will tonight).

    [Jul 25, 2016] The New American Century was announced at the UN in November, 1991 by George Herbert Walker Bush

    Notable quotes:
    "... "it's been 15 years now since the dawn of the criminal 'New American Century'," You must be young. The New American Century was announced at the UN in November, 1991 by George Herbert Walker Bush. ..."
    "... Bush lost the election twelve months later, but the criminal who won was even more effective in establishing this new world order than Bush could have ever been. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Macon Richardson | Jul 23, 2016 6:09:36 PM | 36

    jfl @ 2, you note that "it's been 15 years now since the dawn of the criminal 'New American Century'," You must be young. The New American Century was announced at the UN in November, 1991 by George Herbert Walker Bush. I watched him on television that evening announcing a "new world order" and my blood ran cold. I knew that evening where all this was leading to. It was leading to where we are right now.

    Bush lost the election twelve months later, but the criminal who won was even more effective in establishing this new world order than Bush could have ever been.

    The New American Century was announced in November, 1991. Internationally, the policy began with Bush senior urging Sadaam to invade Kuwait, thereby creating a cassus belli for everything that has happened since.

    Domestically, it began with the wanton siege of the Waco religious sect and the murder of Randy Weaver's wife and baby.

    [Jul 24, 2016] Hillary Clinton Didnt Create ISIS, But America Can Still Blame Itself

    Notable quotes:
    "... Robert Mackey would like you to know that many in the Arab-speaking world are doing some genuine soul-searching about their culture's own role in the emergence of ISIS and that these conspiracy theories have simply been a haven for the obstinate and the self-deluded; Muslims who are too afraid to look themselves and their societies in the mirror. ..."
    "... Ha, ha. "Washington." What buffoons! ..."
    "... In a report this week on the blistering efficiency and military prowess of ISIS, ABC News reporter James Gordon Meek got an incredibly great, short answer as to where the Islamic State gained its technical expertise: "Probably the Chechens," a U.S. official said. ..."
    "... ISIS, or ISIL, or the Islamic State-whatever you want to call it-was nearly dead in 2007, after U.S. forces in Iraq and local Sunni tribes successfully joined forces against the group. It wasn't until the Syrian uprisings that it reemerged as a potent force, after a failed merger with the al-Qaida-affiliated Syrian rebel group al-Nusra, lead most of al-Nusra's foreign-born jihadis to defect to ISIS . ..."
    "... "Foreign-born jihadis" here meaning career Islamists like the Chechen groups, which have been conducting terror campaigns, kidnappings, and suicide bombings in Russia , with a reasonable degree of success, for over 15 years now. Some of the most prominent leaders now fighting with ISIS are Chechens: the ginger-bearded "rising star" Omar al-Shishani and the group's Che Guevara, Muslem al-Shishani (the unnervingly studly viking face pictured above). In addition to Saudi and Pakistani assistance, many of the Chechens were led and supported by the CIA-trained Afghan mujahideen, up-to-and-including Osama bin Laden: ace mentors, in other words, with proven experience in a professional terror setting. ..."
    "... When not actively defending the Chechen extremists with weirdly bipartisan neocon-neoliberal advocacy groups , policy makers and government officials in Washington have turned a proactively blind eye to Chechen Islamist activities in Russia and here in the United States with infamously fatal consequences. Both the 9/11 Commission Report and FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have shown that senior-level officials refused to classify Islamic terrorists in Chechnya-like their then-leader Ibn al Khattab who had direct contact with bin Laden-as actual terrorists, thus preventing the FBI from properly investigating "20th hijacker" Zaccarias Moussaoui before 9/11. ..."
    "... A big part of the reason for this sensitivity is that covertly letting the Saudis and their Islamic radicals chip away at the oil-rich rubble on the fringes of the collapsed Soviet empire has been America's favored strategy for collecting the spoils of the Cold War. ..."
    "... "The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army," a former CIA analyst told Swiss journalist Richard Labévičre back in the late 1990s . "The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia." ..."
    blackbag.gawker.com

    Wise Men of Foreign Affairs have jumped at the chance to debunk a wild rumor that Hillary Clinton bragged about creating ISIS in her new memoir-truly an easy layup in the annals of punditry. The rumor even got the name of Clinton's memoir wrong. But, that's OK: The remaining facts still allow America to feel guilty.

    According to at least one Egyptian blogger, the conspiracy theory-complete with fake quotes from a fantasy version of Clinton's memoir entitled Plan 360-emerged from the hothouse of Egypt's Pro-Mubarak/Pro-Military Facebook pages: a social circle in which it is already de rigueur to suggest that the U.S. and the Muslim Brotherhood secretly conspired to orchestrate the Arab Spring. This screenshot of a Facebook page for the Egyptian military's counter-terrorism and special operations unit, Task Force 777, and its reconnaissance special operations unit, Task Force 999, depicts one of the earliest appearances of the fake Clinton quotes:

    Leaving aside for the moment the question of why Clinton would brag about this covert operation, in progress, in her memoir, what foreign policy objectives could possibly be achieved by America manufacturing ISIS? Like: Why do that? To what ends?

    One version involves Israel (obviously), and something about balkanizing Israel's Mid-East neighbors to both justify their nefarious Zionist expansion, or whatever, and remove opposition to it. Another version, as The Week pointed out Tuesday, claims that the U.S. would plan to recognize an ISIS caliphate and that this caliphate would turn out to be (somehow) very amenable to America's strategic and economic interests.

    Despite the fact that the U.S. Embassy in Beirut felt compelled to publicly debunk all this on their Facebook page, it's unclear how many people in the region actually believed it.

    The hashtag #HilaryClintonsMemoirs ( #مذكرات_هيلاري_كلينتون) quickly started trending across social media in the region, Huffington Post UK reported, "with satirical tweets mocking the theory with outlandish claims about what else the Secretary of State might have written-like a secret CIA plot to close all the restaurants in Cairo and replace them with McDonalds."

    Good one, the Middle East. I'm lovin' it.

    Not everyone appreciated the Middle East's jokes, however. Writing in his "Open Source" column for the New York Times, Robert Mackey would like you to know that many in the Arab-speaking world are doing some genuine soul-searching about their culture's own role in the emergence of ISIS and that these conspiracy theories have simply been a haven for the obstinate and the self-deluded; Muslims who are too afraid to look themselves and their societies in the mirror.

    For instance, the Lebanese scholar Ziad Majed wrote on his blog that at least six factors from the recent history of the Middle East helped give birth to the militant movement, including "despotism in the most heinous form that has plagued the region," as well as "the American invasion of Iraq in 2003," and "a profound crisis, deeply rooted in the thinking of some Islamist groups seeking to escape from their terrible failure to confront the challenges of the present toward a delusional model ostensibly taken from the seventh century."

    That sort of introspection is not for everyone, of course, so a popular conspiracy theory has spread online that offers an easier answer to the riddle of where ISIS came from: Washington.

    Ha, ha. "Washington." What buffoons!

    Let's learn a valuable lesson from the psychological projections of these weak-willed Third World plebes: desert Archie Bunkers and izaar-clad Tony Sopranos too parochial in their worldview and too much in denial of their own culpability to face this present danger.

    America is better than that.

    Let us examine with clear eyes all the ways in which our own democratically elected government-in Washington-is responsible for where ISIS came from.

    U.S. Policy in Chechnya

    In a report this week on the blistering efficiency and military prowess of ISIS, ABC News reporter James Gordon Meek got an incredibly great, short answer as to where the Islamic State gained its technical expertise: "Probably the Chechens," a U.S. official said.

    ISIS, or ISIL, or the Islamic State-whatever you want to call it-was nearly dead in 2007, after U.S. forces in Iraq and local Sunni tribes successfully joined forces against the group. It wasn't until the Syrian uprisings that it reemerged as a potent force, after a failed merger with the al-Qaida-affiliated Syrian rebel group al-Nusra, lead most of al-Nusra's foreign-born jihadis to defect to ISIS.

    "Foreign-born jihadis" here meaning career Islamists like the Chechen groups, which have been conducting terror campaigns, kidnappings, and suicide bombings in Russia, with a reasonable degree of success, for over 15 years now. Some of the most prominent leaders now fighting with ISIS are Chechens: the ginger-bearded "rising star" Omar al-Shishani and the group's Che Guevara, Muslem al-Shishani (the unnervingly studly viking face pictured above). In addition to Saudi and Pakistani assistance, many of the Chechens were led and supported by the CIA-trained Afghan mujahideen, up-to-and-including Osama bin Laden: ace mentors, in other words, with proven experience in a professional terror setting.

    When not actively defending the Chechen extremists with weirdly bipartisan neocon-neoliberal advocacy groups, policy makers and government officials in Washington have turned a proactively blind eye to Chechen Islamist activities in Russia and here in the United States with infamously fatal consequences. Both the 9/11 Commission Report and FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have shown that senior-level officials refused to classify Islamic terrorists in Chechnya-like their then-leader Ibn al Khattab who had direct contact with bin Laden-as actual terrorists, thus preventing the FBI from properly investigating "20th hijacker" Zaccarias Moussaoui before 9/11. Another pre-9/11 FBI investigation, this time into a Florida summer camp run by the Saudi-funded World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), discovered that the group was showing children videos praising Chechen bombers, only to be pulled off the case according to an FBI memo, ID 1991-WF-213589, uncovered by Greg Palast for the BBC and Vice.

    Upon further digging by Palast:

    Several insiders repeated the same story: U.S. agencies ended the investigation of the bin Laden-terrorist-Chechen-jihad connection out of fear of exposing uncomfortable facts. U.S. intelligence had turned a blind eye to the Abdullah bin Laden organisation [yes, WAMY was run by a bin Laden brother] because our own government was more than happy that our Saudi allies were sending jihadis to Afghanistan, then, via WAMY, helping Muslims to fight in Bosnia then, later, giving the Russians grief in Chechnya. The problem is that terrorists are like homing pigeons – they come home to roost.

    As Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, who helped me on the investigation, said, "It would be unseemly if [someone] were arrested by the FBI and word got back that he'd once been on the payroll of the CIA What we're talking about is blow-back. What we're talking about is embarrassing, career-destroying blow-back for intelligence officials."

    The agency has gone to great lengths to paper over this. When former CIA agent Robert Baer-whose writing served as the factual basis for that weird George Clooney movie Syriana-wanted to cite Russian sources about the Saudi-Chechen connection in his book Sleeping With the Devil, the agency pressured him not to. This despite the fact that it was publicly available information he'd acquired after retiring from government service.

    A big part of the reason for this sensitivity is that covertly letting the Saudis and their Islamic radicals chip away at the oil-rich rubble on the fringes of the collapsed Soviet empire has been America's favored strategy for collecting the spoils of the Cold War.

    "The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army," a former CIA analyst told Swiss journalist Richard Labévičre back in the late 1990s. "The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia."

    Granted: The events of September 11th made this grand strategy a little tricky, domestically, but as you may have noticed over the past few years, particularly in Russian-allied Syria, it's mostly back on track.

    [Jul 20, 2016] FBI Agents Silenced on Hillary Probe

    Notable quotes:
    "... FBI agents who worked on the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server reportedly had to sign an unusual non-disclosure form banning them from talking about the case unless they were called to testify. ..."
    "... Unnamed sources tell the New York Post they'd never heard of the special form - known as a "case briefing acknowledgment" - being used before, though all agents initially have to sign nondisclosure agreements to obtain security clearance. ..."
    Jul 13, 2016 | www.newsmax.com

    FBI agents who worked on the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server reportedly had to sign an unusual non-disclosure form banning them from talking about the case unless they were called to testify.

    Unnamed sources tell the New York Post they'd never heard of the special form - known as a "case briefing acknowledgment" - being used before, though all agents initially have to sign nondisclosure agreements to obtain security clearance.

    "This is very, very unusual. I've never signed one, never circulated one to others," one unnamed retired FBI chief tells the Post. "I have never heard of such a form. Sounds strange," an anonymous FBI agent said.

    The Post additionally reports some FBI agents are disappointed that Director James Comey decided against recommending that charges be brought against Clinton for her mishandling of classified information.

    "FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the [Attorney General] Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting" just hours before the release of a House report on the Benghazi, Libya terror attack in 2012, one unnamed source tells the Post.

    Another Justice Department source tells the newspaper he was "furious" with Comey, deriding him for having "managed to piss off right and left."

    [Jul 20, 2016] Sanders Delegation Plotting in Public and Secretly to Shake Up Democratic Convention

    Notable quotes:
    "... On Monday night, aides for the former secretary of state held a private conference call with members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee and laid out how the campaign would like those members to vote at an upcoming rules meeting in Philadelphia. The purpose of the conference call was to answer any questions and ensure that the Rules Committee members, picked by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and by Clinton, remained in lockstep with the presumptive Democratic nominee. ..."
    "... The stars will ultimately align and the convention will go smoothly and without a hitch. Bernie and Liddy Warren will continue their unabashed endorsement of Her, the party will be united, and the good of the American people will be top priority on the go forward. Curtain. Exit stage left. Thank you for attending another Clinton Theater production. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    3.14e-9 , July 20, 2016 at 6:31 am

    Looks like there's a slightly different dynamic in the Clinton camp:

    On Monday night, aides for the former secretary of state held a private conference call with members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee and laid out how the campaign would like those members to vote at an upcoming rules meeting in Philadelphia. The purpose of the conference call was to answer any questions and ensure that the Rules Committee members, picked by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and by Clinton, remained in lockstep with the presumptive Democratic nominee.

    The roughly 30-minute call was a glimpse into how Clinton officials have sought to shape the party platform and party rules with minimal public drama. Campaign officials have corresponded with members via text messages to direct them how to vote and counseled them to bring concerns directly to the campaign, rather than follow a process laid out by the DNC for submitting amendments and resolutions. …

    The plea to keep any policy disputes in-house, and off-camera, underscores the campaign's determination to present a united front at the convention, and stave off any conflict between the Clinton-aligned committee members and Sanders members during the drafting process. A few months ago, Sanders was vowing to take his policy sticking points all the way to the convention floor.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-convention-2016-delegate-fight-225798?cmpid=sf

    Patricia , July 20, 2016 at 8:45 am

    Vid about the larger protesting groups going to D convention (6min):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8sh0tGvGgo

    Pirmann , July 20, 2016 at 10:24 am

    This is nothing more than a ploy to get Sanders supporters to watch the convention coverage, so we can become acquainted with the "new" Hillary Clinton, and thus vote for Her in November.

    "Let's all tune in; maybe the Bernie delegates will turn the party upside down". Expect to be disappointed.

    The stars will ultimately align and the convention will go smoothly and without a hitch. Bernie and Liddy Warren will continue their unabashed endorsement of Her, the party will be united, and the good of the American people will be top priority on the go forward. Curtain. Exit stage left. Thank you for attending another Clinton Theater production.

    Oh, and none of the speeches will result in legislation that actually benefits the American people, but at least they won't be plagiarized!

    [Jul 20, 2016] Global elites must heed the warning of populist rage by Martin Wolf

    Notable quotes:
    "... Real income stagnation over a far longer period than any since the second world war is a fundamental political fact. But it cannot be the only driver of discontent. For many of those in the middle of the income distribution, cultural changes also appear threatening. So, too, does immigration - globalisation made flesh. Citizenship of their nations is the most valuable asset owned by most people in wealthy countries. They will resent sharing this with outsiders. Britain's vote to leave the EU was a warning. ..."
    "... First, understand that we depend on one another for our prosperity. It is essential to balance assertions of sovereignty with the requirements of global co-operation. ..."
    "... Second, reform capitalism. The role of finance is excessive. The stability of the financial system has improved. But it remains riddled with perverse incentives. The interests of shareholders are given excessive weight over those of other stakeholders in corporations. ..."
    "... Above all, recognise the challenge. Prolonged stagnation, cultural upheavals and policy failures are combining to shake the balance between democratic legitimacy and global order. The candidacy of Mr Trump is a result. ..."
    July 19, 2016 | ft.com

    Real income stagnation over a longer period than any since the war is a fundamental political fact

    For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong." HL Mencken could have been thinking of today's politics. The western world undoubtedly confronts complex problems, notably, the dissatisfaction of so many citizens. Equally, aspirants to power, such as Donald Trump in the US and Marine Le Pen in France, offer clear, simple and wrong solutions - notably, nationalism, nativism and protectionism.

    The remedies they offer are bogus. But the illnesses are real. If governing elites continue to fail to offer convincing cures, they might soon be swept away and, with them, the effort to marry democratic self-government with an open and co-operative world order.

    What is the explanation for this backlash? A large part of the answer must be economic. Rising prosperity is a good in itself. But it also creates the possibility of positive-sum politics. This underpins democracy because it is then feasible for everybody to become better off at the same time. Rising prosperity reconciles people to economic and social disruption. Its absence foments rage.

    The McKinsey Global Institute sheds powerful light on what has been happening in a report entitled, tellingly, Poorer than their Parents?, which demonstrates how many households have been suffering from stagnant or falling real incomes. On average between 65 and 70 per cent of households in 25 high-income economies experienced this between 2005 and 2014. In the period between 1993 and 2005, however, only 2 per cent of households suffered stagnant or declining real incomes. This applies to market income. Because of fiscal redistribution, the proportion suffering from stagnant real disposable incomes was between 20 and 25 per cent. (See charts.)

    McKinsey has examined personal satisfaction through a survey of 6,000 French, British and Americans. The consultants found that satisfaction depended more on whether people were advancing relative to others like them in the past than whether they were improving relative to those better off than themselves today. Thus people preferred becoming better off, even if they were not catching up with contemporaries better off still. Stagnant incomes bother people more than rising inequality.

    The main explanation for the prolonged stagnation in real incomes is the financial crises and subsequent weak recovery. These experiences have destroyed popular confidence in the competence and probity of business, administrative and political elites. But other shifts have also been adverse. Among these are ageing (particularly important in Italy) and declining shares of wages in national income (particularly important in the US, UK and Netherlands).

    Real income stagnation over a far longer period than any since the second world war is a fundamental political fact. But it cannot be the only driver of discontent. For many of those in the middle of the income distribution, cultural changes also appear threatening. So, too, does immigration - globalisation made flesh. Citizenship of their nations is the most valuable asset owned by most people in wealthy countries. They will resent sharing this with outsiders. Britain's vote to leave the EU was a warning.

    So what is to be done? If Mr Trump were to become president of the US, it might already be too late. But suppose that this does not happen or, if it does, that the result is not as dire as I fear. What then might be done?

    1. First, understand that we depend on one another for our prosperity. It is essential to balance assertions of sovereignty with the requirements of global co-operation. Global governance, while essential, must be oriented towards doing things countries cannot do for themselves. It must focus on providing the essential global public goods. Today this means climate change is a higher priority than further opening of world trade or capital flows.
    2. Second, reform capitalism. The role of finance is excessive. The stability of the financial system has improved. But it remains riddled with perverse incentives. The interests of shareholders are given excessive weight over those of other stakeholders in corporations.
    3. Third, focus international co-operation where it will help governments achieve significant domestic objectives. Perhaps the most important is taxation. Wealth owners, who depend on the security created by legitimate democracies, should not escape taxation.
    4. Fourth, accelerate economic growth and improve opportunities. Part of the answer is stronger support for aggregate demand, particularly in the eurozone. But it is also essential to promote investment and innovation. It may be impossible to transform economic prospects. But higher minimum wages and generous tax credits for working people are effective tools for raising incomes at the bottom of the distribution.
    5. Fifth, fight the quacks. It is impossible to resist pressure to control flows of un­skilled workers into advanced economies. But this will not transform wages. Equally, protection against imports is costly and will also fail to raise the share of manufacturing in employment significantly. True, that share is far higher in Germany than in the US or UK. But Germany runs a huge trade surplus and has a strong comparative advantage in manufacturing. This is not a generalisable state of affairs. (See chart.)

    Above all, recognise the challenge. Prolonged stagnation, cultural upheavals and policy failures are combining to shake the balance between democratic legitimacy and global order. The candidacy of Mr Trump is a result. Those who reject the chauvinist response must come forward with imaginative and ambitious ideas aimed at re-establishing that balance. It is not going to be easy. But failure must not be accepted. Our civilisation itself is at stake.

    [email protected]

    More on this topic

    [Jul 20, 2016] This despicable king of bait and switch Obama wants to join venture capital

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have with Silicon Valley and with venture capital pull together my interests in science and organization in a way I find really satisfying. ..."
    "... I am not aiming to infuriate because the man we elected in 2008 to get tough with high finance and shut the revolving door was now talking about taking his own walk through that door and getting a job in finance. ..."
    "... My object here is to describe the confident, complacent mood of the country's ruling class in the middle of last month ..."
    "... It's easy to see the problems presented by a cliquish elite when they happen elsewhere. ..."
    "... when an "idealistic" American president announces that he wants to seek a career in venture capital, we have trouble saying much of anything. ..."
    "... This panic about so called elites is really a reaction to the notion that economics is a science and that those who 'run' the economy are 'technocrats'. The fact that economists differ so radically among themselves about their discipline is clear evidence that their ideas are not scientific in the properly accepted sense of the word. The world's economy is much too large and complex to be modeled by demonstrable theories. So what we have instead is not science, but politics. And a person's political views are are function of personality, background and worldly experience. ..."
    "... To all this must be added the effect of the near-universal adoption of neo-liberal economic dogma to the globalized economy, with the consequent severity of inequality and its inevitable discontents. ..."
    The Guardian

    And so President Barack Obama did an interview with Business Week in which he was congratulated for his stewardship of the economy and asked "what industries" he might choose to join upon his retirement from the White House. The president replied as follows:

    … what I will say is that – just to bring things full circle about innovation – the conversations I have with Silicon Valley and with venture capital pull together my interests in science and organization in a way I find really satisfying.

    In relating this anecdote, I am not aiming to infuriate because the man we elected in 2008 to get tough with high finance and shut the revolving door was now talking about taking his own walk through that door and getting a job in finance. No.

    My object here is to describe the confident, complacent mood of the country's ruling class in the middle of last month

    ... ... ...

    It's easy to see the problems presented by a cliquish elite when they happen elsewhere. In the countries of Old Europe, maybe, powerful politicians sell out grotesquely to Goldman Sachs; but when an "idealistic" American president announces that he wants to seek a career in venture capital, we have trouble saying much of anything.

    MrSleary

    I suppose that before voting for any candidate these days we would need him/her to be able to demonstrate complete ignorance in every field.

    This panic about so called elites is really a reaction to the notion that economics is a science and that those who 'run' the economy are 'technocrats'. The fact that economists differ so radically among themselves about their discipline is clear evidence that their ideas are not scientific in the properly accepted sense of the word. The world's economy is much too large and complex to be modeled by demonstrable theories. So what we have instead is not science, but politics. And a person's political views are are function of personality, background and worldly experience.

    The other aspect of this is the effect that developments in technology have had on previously industrialized societies. In most of the countries of Western Europe industrialization created a situation in which organized labour had real power and a distinctive voice. De-industrialization has largely eliminated this from our political landscape with the result that people previously represented by the unions no longer have either power or a voice. The alienating effect of this can be seen in both Europe and the USA.

    To all this must be added the effect of the near-universal adoption of neo-liberal economic dogma to the globalized economy, with the consequent severity of inequality and its inevitable discontents.

    The radical, and in many instance, violent responses to various local circumstances in widely different parts of the world - USA, France, Britain, Turkey, Syria, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia - one could go on - may seem to be quite distinct, but they surely have a common root; at a time of rapid and radical change in the very texture of human life, growing inequality within is an explosive factor.

    [Jul 19, 2016] Bern Out: Beyond Cowardly Lion Leftism by Paul Street

    www.counterpunch.org
    I doubt many public figures were happier than Bernie Sanders to see the seemingly endless presidential election carnival overtaken by other news last week. Beneath the headlines on race and criminal justice, the nominal socialist "revolution" advocate Sanders got to make his official endorsement of the right-wing corporatist and war hawk Hillary Clinton with the public's eyes focused on different and more immediately hideous matters.

    Anyone on the left who was surprised or disappointed by Bernie's long-promised Cowardly Lion endorsement of Mrs. Clinton one week ago hadn't paid serious attention to his campaign and career. Sanders' "democratic socialism" has always been a leaky cloak for a mildly social-democratic liberalism that is fiscally and morally negated by his commitment to the nation's giant Pentagon System. More

    [Jul 19, 2016] What Republican Foreign Policy Reform Requires by Daniel Larison

    Notable quotes:
    "... Admitting that the Iraq war was a grievous, horrible error is necessary but not sufficient to reform Republican foreign policy. ..."
    "... The trouble with the rest of the 2016 field wasn't just that many of the candidates were Iraq war dead-enders, but that they were so obsessed with the idea of American "leadership" that almost all of them thought that the U.S. needed to be involved in multiple conflicts in different parts of the world in one way or another. ..."
    "... Almost none of the declared 2016 candidates opposed the Libyan war at the time, and very few concluded that the problem with intervening in Libya was the intervention itself. The standard hawkish line on Libya for years has been that the U.S. should have committed itself to another open-ended exercise in stabilizing a country we helped to destabilize. ..."
    "... Until Republican politicians and their advisers start to understand that reflexive support for "action" (and some kind of military action at that) is normally the wrong response, we can't expect much to change. Most Republican foreign policy professionals seem to hold the same shoddy assumptions that led them to endorse all of the interventions of the last 15 years without exception, and nothing that has happened during that time has caused most of them to reexamine those assumptions. ..."
    "... Until they stop fetishizing American "leadership" and invoking "American exceptionalism" as an excuse to meddle in every new crisis, Republicans will end up in the same cul-de-sac of self-defeating belligerence. ..."
    "... Opposition to the deal reflects so many of the flaws in current Republican foreign policy views: automatic opposition to any diplomatic compromise that might actually work, grossly exaggerating the potential threat from another state, conflating U.S. interests with those of unreliable client states, continually moving goalposts to judge a negotiated deal by unreasonable standards, insisting on maximalist concessions from the other side while refusing to agree to minimal concessions from ours, and making spurious and unfounded allegations of "appeasement" at every turn to score points against political adversaries at home. ..."
    July 19, 2016 | The American Conservative

    It would be a good start if all future presidential candidates could acknowledge the disastrous and costly folly of the Iraq war, but it would only be a start. Admitting that the Iraq war was a grievous, horrible error is necessary but not sufficient to reform Republican foreign policy.

    The trouble with the rest of the 2016 field wasn't just that many of the candidates were Iraq war dead-enders, but that they were so obsessed with the idea of American "leadership" that almost all of them thought that the U.S. needed to be involved in multiple conflicts in different parts of the world in one way or another.

    Almost none of the declared 2016 candidates opposed the Libyan war at the time, and very few concluded that the problem with intervening in Libya was the intervention itself. The standard hawkish line on Libya for years has been that the U.S. should have committed itself to another open-ended exercise in stabilizing a country we helped to destabilize. Most Republican politicians are so wedded to a belief in the efficacy of using hard power that they refuse to admit that there are many problems that the U.S. can't and shouldn't try to solve with it.

    Until Republican politicians and their advisers start to understand that reflexive support for "action" (and some kind of military action at that) is normally the wrong response, we can't expect much to change. Most Republican foreign policy professionals seem to hold the same shoddy assumptions that led them to endorse all of the interventions of the last 15 years without exception, and nothing that has happened during that time has caused most of them to reexamine those assumptions.

    Until they stop fetishizing American "leadership" and invoking "American exceptionalism" as an excuse to meddle in every new crisis, Republicans will end up in the same cul-de-sac of self-defeating belligerence. Unless Republicans adopt a much less expansive definition of "vital interests," they will routinely end up on the wrong side of most major foreign policy debates.

    Finally, unless most Republican politicians and their advisers overcome their aversion to diplomatic engagement they will end up supporting costlier, less effective, and more destructive policies for lack of practical alternatives. The virtually unanimous opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran is a good example of the sort of thing that a reformed Republican Party wouldn't do.

    Opposition to the deal reflects so many of the flaws in current Republican foreign policy views: automatic opposition to any diplomatic compromise that might actually work, grossly exaggerating the potential threat from another state, conflating U.S. interests with those of unreliable client states, continually moving goalposts to judge a negotiated deal by unreasonable standards, insisting on maximalist concessions from the other side while refusing to agree to minimal concessions from ours, and making spurious and unfounded allegations of "appeasement" at every turn to score points against political adversaries at home.

    Obviously these are habits cultivated over decades and are not going to be fixed quickly or easily, but if the next Republican administration (whenever that may be) doesn't want to conduct foreign policy as disastrously as the last one did they are habits that need to be broken.

    Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter.

    [Jul 19, 2016] The Hawks Are Still in Charge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Nonetheless, the Platform Committee's debates last week were interesting to watch and a good barometer of where the Republican Party stands on certain issues. The interactions on foreign policy and national security were especially revealing, and they all led to the same conclusion: neoconservatives are still very much the leaders of the GOP's foreign-policy machinery. ..."
    "... If they were driven by public opinion, then, the delegates would have brought the platform's national-security proposals in a less hawkish and more realist direction. But every single amendment from libertarian-esque and anti-interventionist delegate Eric Brakey was defeated by voice vote without much debate. ..."
    The American Conservative

    In the grand scheme of things, a political party's platform is an insignificant document. The Republican Party's platform this year doesn't change this; despite the media's fascination with the fact that Donald Trump's border wall made its way into the platform, the document is still a non-binding, ideological missive, more of a goodie bag for conservative activists than an operational plan.

    Nonetheless, the Platform Committee's debates last week were interesting to watch and a good barometer of where the Republican Party stands on certain issues. The interactions on foreign policy and national security were especially revealing, and they all led to the same conclusion: neoconservatives are still very much the leaders of the GOP's foreign-policy machinery.

    According to a May 2016 Pew Research Center survey, a majority of Americans would rather let other countries deal with their own affairs (57 percent) than plunge manpower and money overseas to help other countries confront their challenges (37 percent). 62 percent of Republicans surveyed want the United States to start taking its own domestic problems more seriously, and Pew reports that "roughly 55 percent of Republicans view global economic engagement negatively." In addition, the single most consequential foreign-policy decision that neoconservatives have made-the invasion and occupation of Iraq-has been labeled a failure by a majority of Americans.

    If they were driven by public opinion, then, the delegates would have brought the platform's national-security proposals in a less hawkish and more realist direction. But every single amendment from libertarian-esque and anti-interventionist delegate Eric Brakey was defeated by voice vote without much debate. International diplomacy, the life-blood of U.S. foreign policy and the option of first resort, was largely overshadowed by provisions that resemble the doomsday scenarios you would find in an apocalyptic Hollywood thriller.

    ... ... ...

    Daniel R. DePetris is an analyst at Wikistrat, Inc., a geostrategic consulting firm, and a freelance researcher. He has also written for CNN.com, Small Wars Journal, and the Diplomat.

    [Jul 18, 2016] Democrats struggle for unity as protesters swarm Netroots convention US news

    The Guardian

    Stephen Mitchell

    1. Sanders: Clinton has backed "virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions of jobs"
    2. Sanders: Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street
    3. Sanders: Hillary Clinton = D.C. Establishment
    4. Sanders: Democrat Establishment immigration policies would drive down Americans' wages, create open borders
    5. Sanders: Clinton supports nation-building in Middle East through war and invasion

    Sanders: "And now, I support her 100%."

    DurbanPoisonWillBurn

    Anyone who believes Hillary is progressive deserves the horrible outcome a Hillary presidency will bring. How ANYONE can still support Hillary is beyond me. The woman has accomplished NOTHING except chaos & failure. Wake up folks. Hillary does NOT care about you. She cares about power, money, and making deals that benefit HER. Vote Jill Stein

    [Jul 16, 2016] Sanders much-vaunted e-mailing list has a pesky shrinkage problem

    Bernie on Monday to his supporters : Thanks for comin', see ya!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Donations to Jill Stine skyrocket after Sander's endorsement. https://www.rt.com/usa/351129-jill-stein-bernie-donations/ ..."
    "... And, let me guess: Sanders' much-vaunted e-mailing list has a pesky shrinkage problem. Which started on Tuesday. ..."
    "... Bernie denouement is the best thing that could have happened to Stein and the Greens. ..."
    "... The Stein campaign seems unprepared. They simply don't have any staff to deal with volunteers. There is a well trained group out there now, so they need gear, packets, flyers, talking points. ..."
    "... Sanders will attempt to maintain his supporters by focusing their time, skills and money on his new institute. Should serve to keep a good number from paying attention to Stein. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Code Name D , July 15, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    Donations to Jill Stine skyrocket after Sander's endorsement. https://www.rt.com/usa/351129-jill-stein-bernie-donations/

    Arizona Slim , July 15, 2016 at 4:06 pm

    And, let me guess: Sanders' much-vaunted e-mailing list has a pesky shrinkage problem. Which started on Tuesday.

    Steve C , July 15, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    Bernie denouement is the best thing that could have happened to Stein and the Greens. If Bernie and West had started with the Greens, they would have gotten zero traction. Another noble cause no one's ever heard of. Instead, Bernie started something that came close to blowing up the Democrats the way Trump blew up the Republicans.

    Now a lot of the Bernie sisses and bros are looking for somewhere to go. Stein is well placed to pick up the pieces if she knows what to do with them.

    Waldenpond , July 15, 2016 at 9:52 pm

    The Stein campaign seems unprepared. They simply don't have any staff to deal with volunteers. There is a well trained group out there now, so they need gear, packets, flyers, talking points.

    Sanders will attempt to maintain his supporters by focusing their time, skills and money on his new institute. Should serve to keep a good number from paying attention to Stein.

    The Stein campaign has a narrow window.

    [Jul 16, 2016] Trump Bernie Just Lost The FBI Primary; Today Proves He Was Right About The Rigged System Video RealClearPolitics

    www.realclearpolitics.com

    Donald Trump comments on the end of what he called the "FBI Primary," saying that Bernie Sanders has so far refused to drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination in hopes that Clinton might be indicted. He says that the FBI's recommendation not to indict proves Sanders was right when he said the Democratic primary was "rigged."

    Today is the best evidence ever that we have seen that our system is totally, absolutely rigged," Trump said at a rally in North Carolina.

    "It's rigged," Trump said. "And I used that term nationally when I was running in the Republican primaries, and I was the first to use it, and then all of a sudden it became a hot term and everyone was using the word rigged, rigged, rigged. But if you remember, I won Louisiana. And I didn't get enough delegate, what happened? Places like Colorado, which was so good to me, but all of a sudden we find out that they don't have the vote... I'll be honest, if I didn't win in landslides, I wouldn't be standing here. You would be watching some politician who will lose to Hillary.

    "I learned about the rigged system really fast. All of a sudden, Bernie started using it and now everyone talks about the system being rigged," he said.

    "I'm going to keep using it because I was the one that brought it up."

    "I asked a couple of political pros," he said. "Think of Bernie Sanders. I think the one with the most to be angry about. The one with the most to lose is Bernie Sanders, because honestly, he was waiting for the FBI primary, and guess what? He just lost today the FBI primary!"

    "He lost the FBI primary! Bernie, my poor Bernie, oh, Bernie! I feel so badly for Bernie, but you know what? A lot of Bernie Sanders supporters are going to be voting for Trump, because Bernie Sanders was right! Bernie Sanders was right about a couple of things. He's right about the system being rigged, but he's also right about trade. Our trade deals are a disaster. They're killing our jobs. They're killing our families. They're killing our incomes."

    [Jul 16, 2016] Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders Sheepdogging for Hillary and the Democrats in 2016 Black Agenda Report

    blackagendareport.com

    Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box.

    [Jul 15, 2016] How U.S. And UK Liberals Disfranchise Their Party Members

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bernie supporters are crowing about his great success at influencing the Democratic Party platform. How exciting is that? Is there anything less useful than the platform of a political party? Screen doors in a submarine come to mind. A political party platform has all of the significance and impact of a good healthy a fart in the midst of a hurricane. ..."
    "... bernie sanders, when it comes right down to it, is either a liar, or is willing to support hillary in spite of who and what she stands for.. trumps comments on this are indeed bang on. ..."
    "... The Sanders move is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook of the last 100 years, as so many predicted. The Democrats have co-opted every grass-roots movement that has arisen in the US, co-opted and quashed it. ..."
    "... The party primaries in the USA are not intended to be representative, democratic elections: they simply serve as a sort of consumer survey to see which of their candidates would be most popular in the general election. ..."
    "... Bernie Sanders claims some concessions were achieved in the platform committee document. But one issue of greatest importance, on trade issues,--specifically the rejection of TPP, is a lost cause. Bernie threw in the towel. The phony sideshow of reconstituted New Deal hoopla is merely the same tired fantasy narrative that the Democrats predictably trot out for every presidential election. ..."
    "... The dear old man who started this campaign with this gem of rhetoric: "What we need is a revolution in the streets", is ending his monkeyshines with a ringing endosement of one of the most politically corrupt figures in our history. ..."
    "... Jill Stein, who ran for president on the Green Party platform, says that Bernie's endorsement of Hillary is the "last nail in the coffin" which turns Sanders' revolution over to a counter-revolutionary party. ..."
    "... Trump would do well to attract Bernie Voters now, by exploiting areas of agreement. The TPP is one example. ..."
    "... He led people to believe that he had principles - that he really was against Wall St. and SuperPACs and all that Hillary stands for. He also (late in the race) began talking about 'revolution' to play to the discontented and young idealists. ..."
    "... Its all just bullshit when he ultimately supports Hillary. But those who support Hillary (like rufus does) try hard to finesse Sanders failing because they value the "service" that Sanders performed for the Obama-Hillary "Third Way" Democratic Party. ..."
    "... What chance do we have with Hillary?--a back-stabbing, forked-tongue, daughter of Goldman Sachs, whose speeches to the industrialists and bankers are practically a state secret? Yes, Hillary!--who is coated from head to toe with a patina of blood, and smells of corpses? ..."
    "... US corporations aren't stupid. They know bad, expensive education, decaying infrastructure and violence in the street are bad for business. They might even realize that corruption is bad for them. And that worker representation makes life easier all around. ..."
    "... In fact, Sanders pulled several key punches in the race ..."
    "... he failed to call Hillary out on her emails after the State Inspector General report was release and it was CLEAR that she had lied about her emails; ..."
    "... he is close/friendly with all of the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him to win his Senate seat; Schumer endorses him; he calls Hillary a 'friend' of 25 years. ..."
    "... Except in style, Hillary is no different than Obama, Bush II, or her husband. Whereas earlier presidents felt the need to put on a show of decency -- well, okay, Bush II let it drop now and then -- H. Clinton will be a bitch Cheney, going out of her way to rub everyone's face in it and bragging there's nothing they can do about it. ..."
    "... There's a bright side however. She's dumb and knows no bounds. Think Louis XVI. That, along with her arrogance, may finally bring a tipping point of sorts. With things coming apart everywhere, a smooth-talking fraud like Reagan or Obama might be able to somehow hold it together a little longer. Hillary's nastiness could actually bring real change. God in his infinite irony. ..."
    "... To say there is a deep state controlling Clinton may be an over simplification. More likely their are lots of competing and conflicting forces working in the dark, none with any clear idea or plan (or inkling of what other powers are doing) each pushing for immediate gains without a thought for the future. ..."
    "... In the struggle for power everyone. including H. Clinton, is a useful fool and a potential patsy. Those hidden powers have a history of eating their own. ..."
    "... Sanders has been a great disappointment. In order to prevent Trump from getting the votes, he is embracing and selling his soul and his supporters to a demon! In fact Sanders has more in common with Trump that he has with Hillary. ..."
    "... "Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs" ..."
    "... His followers were fools. I think some of them know that now. ..."
    "... I for one, hoped for more than "sheepdog" from Sanders, but, alas, those who said so, were totally correct ..."
    "... in American politics, none of these people are for dismantling the biggest budgetary fraud & boondoggle in human history: the pentagon. anybody saying they are for "small gov't" who doesn't immediately propose to slash the military/para-military budget (not the VA, not now) by 50% every year for the next 500 years is lying. ..."
    "... Hillary represents a continuation of the last 8 years, or even perhaps the last 16 or 24+ years. There is absolutely no doubt about that. ..."
    "... People taken in by Sanders learned no lessons from gushing over Obama. They hurt themselves again and are sociopathically indifferent to the far greater harm they have done to those who were not gullible. ..."
    "... Even if she had given any "significant concession", it would have been meaningless noise with not an iota of intention to implement such concessions. She is a POS who will say anything at all to get elected. The only thing we really know is she relishes confrontation on the foreign policy scene. Otherwise nobody can rely on her to act in their interests in the domestic realm, except big corporate entities. ..."
    "... It is stupid for B to keep linking to Trumps quotes exclusively. Why does b not link to Jill Stein criticism. Sure Trumps criticism of evil Hillarys corruption will gather important support, but exclusively giving torture loving warmongering Trump ammunition, strangles other better candidates in their political birth in the alternative to status quo attention. In the same way that the Sanders, Chomsky, and other shortsighted cowards react by strangle politically strangling a desperate new movement. ..."
    "... Congrats to those who labeled the 'Sheepdog' so early. Such an apt description. Good call. ..."
    "... Sanders released only one year of tax returns (2015). His campaign manager claimed his taxes held no surprises. Well they didn't for 2015. But why didn't Sanders release earlier years? Any serious Presidential candidate would expect to release at least 3 years of tax returns. ..."
    "... Given the 'service' that he performed, it might be especially interesting to have seen his taxes for 2014, the year before he entered the race. The lack of transparency and Sanders' 'sheepdogging' raises questions of whether he received any inducements to enter the race. ..."
    "... The Plan was always from the start for Bernie to hold down the Left, so Hillary could capture Center-Right, and Donald could lead the Far Right into Smackdown. Then Bernie would deliver the Left to Hillary. And so it has come to pass. ..."
    "... Strange bedfellows? Not at all. The Israelis and the GCC countries, the USG and EU, are all soul brothers : tiny 'elite' minorities attempting to rule their respective roosts by technological means encompassing everything from drones to the media to their ubiquitous taps. ..."
    "... in loco parentis ..."
    "... In 1963 there was a coup in America. Since then the military-industrial complex has run the country. It has been most apparent in its foreign policy, which has been the conquest of natural resources (especially oil and gas) worldwide. America's resentment with the USSR/Russia has to do with their living on top of resources. ..."
    "... But in order to continue the illusion of democracy in the US, it was necessary to maintain some differences between the two parties so that Americans would think that they have a choice. Meanwhile, the party that is supposed to represent the working class has been sliding into the arms of the corporatists. Essentially, in order to give Americans a "choice" Trump has been pushed as the demonic clown versus H. Clinton. Unfortunately, for good reasons as well as because of endless propaganda from the right, most Americans distrust Clinton, as well they should. Her casual announcement about enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Syria is essentially a declaration of war against Russia. ..."
    "... Going back to the coup in 1963, in order to maintain control of the population it was necessary for the ruling class to continue to generate candidates each election cycle to pretend to care about the working class. I have long suspected that early on in their careers both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were recruited by US intelligence. During his time in Britain Bill's classmates assumed that he was CIA ..."
    "... I suspect it was the beginning of her career in US power politics. Shortly after she wrote a pro-Vietnam speech for Melvin Laird in 1968, she was involved with the various Black Panther trials around the US. ..."
    "... It's hard to believe that the Hillary who stands before us now was ever a political ally of the Panthers. Rather, I suspect she was observing for an intelligence agency, the FBI or CIA She sat through a Panther trial in New Haven, Connecticut, and then spent a summer in Oakland working for the law firm that was representing the Panthers in the Bay Area. Essentially, she was in the right place at the right time to glean information for COINTELPRO, the massive spying program directed against anti-war and black movements. A few years later she worked on the Democrats' legal team for Watergate, another good place for a government informant to be. Bill, during his time at Oxford, would have functioned like the thousands of informants who sat in on peace group meetings across American campuses. ..."
    "... Later, when the CIA was dumping cocaine at Mena, Arkansas, Bill Clinton was in position to make sure state police left the operation alone. It's not surprising that George W. Bush's first head of the DEA was Asa Hutchinson, who'd been the incurious federal prosecutor over that part of Arkansas when the drugs came in. ..."
    "... The Clintons were prominent in the Democratic Leadership Council, which was an organization within the Democratic Party pushing it to the right. In 1992 Bill pushed trade agreements that would destroy the American middle class. Since then the party has been hopelessly corrupted by Wall Street money. ..."
    "... I cannot think of another president in memory who is more wed to military adventurism than Hillary. ..."
    "... But if she polls badly enough, Democratic establishment may see the light and go for Sanders. ..."
    Jun 13, 2016 |

    Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters' opinions. This disenfranchises the people who supported him.

    ... ... ...

    I expect the "Not Hillary" protest vote to be very strong in the November election. There is still more significant dirt to be dug up about her and her family foundation. Trumps current lows in the polls will recover when the media return to the "close race" mantra that makes them money. He still has a decent chance to win.

    V. Arnold | Jul 13, 2016 1:04:11 AM | 1
    It is long, long past the time to see the world we really live in; the realities of our western faux democracies. Until and unless we recognise the facts, as they are, nothing can be changed. The problem/s must be identified for it/them to be solved.

    It doesn't take a critical mass of people; but it takes more than a few; far more than evidenced this election cycle...

    Bill H | Jul 13, 2016 1:07:34 AM | 2
    Bernie supporters are crowing about his great success at influencing the Democratic Party platform. How exciting is that? Is there anything less useful than the platform of a political party? Screen doors in a submarine come to mind. A political party platform has all of the significance and impact of a good healthy a fart in the midst of a hurricane.
    james | Jul 13, 2016 1:27:48 AM | 3
    thanks b, for highlighting these sad realities. bernie sanders, when it comes right down to it, is either a liar, or is willing to support hillary in spite of who and what she stands for.. trumps comments on this are indeed bang on.

    the labour. party is run by a gang of thugs.. i hope the people who want corbyn are able to overcome the mostroisity the labour party has become.

    i echo @1 v. arnolds comments..

    @2 bill..bernie spporters better not show how stupid they are by also voting for hillary..

    Grieved | Jul 13, 2016 2:46:33 AM | 4
    The Sanders move is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook of the last 100 years, as so many predicted. The Democrats have co-opted every grass-roots movement that has arisen in the US, co-opted and quashed it.

    Even as deliberately unplugged as I've been from this race, it's been easy to see at a glance that Sanders magnetized the next wave of concerned citizens - of course the young people rallied to his banner - and will now leave them broken and in disarray, or delivered to the Democrats.

    He was an independent. He so simply could have turned the Green Party into a ten-percent force in the US, making it hugely important, and advancing in one leap the cause of multi-party governance.

    He didn't.

    Brunswick | Jul 13, 2016 2:48:56 AM | 5

    http://www.vox.com/2016/7/1/12083494/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-concessions

    okie farmer | Jul 13, 2016 5:04:31 AM | 10

    Thomas Frank: It's Bill Clinton Who Wrecked the Democratic Party.
    https://youtu.be/pmCibWptzZQ

    ralphieboy | Jul 13, 2016 6:25:21 AM | 11
    The party primaries in the USA are not intended to be representative, democratic elections: they simply serve as a sort of consumer survey to see which of their candidates would be most popular in the general election.

    Registering for a party does not mean that you are a member of a particular party or even support it, you are simply choosing to vote in their primary elections (if you live in a state with closed primaries). That is something a lot of Bernie supporters found out much too late. But that is not a "rigged system", those rules were in place long before Sanders decided to run as a Democrat.

    And rules differ from state to state: some places allot delegates proportionally, in others it is winner-take-all. Some states hold a general election, other hold a caucus:you have to travel to a certain place at a certain time to cast your vote, which means you have to have the time and money in order to participate.

    I have never seen a similar system in place anywhere else. Usually it is only card-carrying, dues-paying party members who are allowed to select their candidates.

    nmb | Jul 13, 2016 7:13:16 AM | 13
    From Tsipras to Corbyn and Sanders: This is not the Left we want
    rufus magister | Jul 13, 2016 7:29:34 AM | 15
    Further to 14 -- Big Legacies of Bernie Sanders' Historic Campaign.
    Seventh is the real possibility Bernie has inspired of a third party – if the Democratic Party doesn't respond to the necessity of getting big money out of politics and reversing widening inequality, if it doesn't begin to advocate for a single-payer healthcare system, or push hard for higher taxes on the wealthy - including a wealth tax - to pay for better education and better opportunities for everyone else, if it doesn't expand Social Security and lift the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax, if it doesn't bust up the biggest banks and strengthen antitrust laws, and expand voting rights.

    If it doesn't act on these critical issues. the Democratic Party will become irrelevant to the future of America, and a third party will emerge to address them.

    From the first I hoped that the revolutionary left would be able to capitalize on the issues raised by Sanders' insurgency. You will win support by winning concrete gains for real people. Not by shrill denunciations of the masses ignorance or gullibility.

    Copeland | Jul 13, 2016 7:56:07 AM | 18
    Very good observations from b. Bernie Sanders claims some concessions were achieved in the platform committee document. But one issue of greatest importance, on trade issues,--specifically the rejection of TPP, is a lost cause. Bernie threw in the towel. The phony sideshow of reconstituted New Deal hoopla is merely the same tired fantasy narrative that the Democrats predictably trot out for every presidential election.

    The dear old man who started this campaign with this gem of rhetoric: "What we need is a revolution in the streets", is ending his monkeyshines with a ringing endosement of one of the most politically corrupt figures in our history. And once again, every 1930s, New Deal trope and hurrah, is to be trotted out, even though the former Clinton administration drove a stake into the heart of most of FDR's work.

    Get in line sheep. Mutton will be served.

    Jill Stein, who ran for president on the Green Party platform, says that Bernie's endorsement of Hillary is the "last nail in the coffin" which turns Sanders' revolution over to a counter-revolutionary party.

    fast freddy | Jul 13, 2016 8:11:02 AM | 19
    Trump would do well to attract Bernie Voters now, by exploiting areas of agreement. The TPP is one example.

    Owned by Goldman Bilderberg and the CFR, the Den of Lying Thieves and Whores - aka the Democratic Party - now has sneakily moved forward to tee up the TPP for passage by Crooked Hillary if not Oilbomber.

    Note: The Republican Party is also a Den of Lying Thieves and Whores.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2016 8:26:49 AM | 21
    rufus: Sanders did what he said he would from the start ...

    He led people to believe that he had principles - that he really was against Wall St. and SuperPACs and all that Hillary stands for. He also (late in the race) began talking about 'revolution' to play to the discontented and young idealists.

    Its all just bullshit when he ultimately supports Hillary. But those who support Hillary (like rufus does) try hard to finesse Sanders failing because they value the "service" that Sanders performed for the Obama-Hillary "Third Way" Democratic Party.

    Those who said that Sanders was a sheepdog from the start were right: the Democratic Party led by "Third Way" sellouts is hopeless. Long past time to move on.

    Vote Green Party.

    Bluemot5 | Jul 13, 2016 8:33:17 AM | 23
    Jill Stein response to Bernie endorsement of Hilary:
    http://www.jill2016.com/sanders_endorsement_clinton
    dahoit | Jul 13, 2016 8:35:54 AM | 24
    16;Heru;You gotta throw that ideology crap in the can.

    Wtf do think Trumps support is, but democrats and republicans tired of Israeli shills?

    Trump will win, as the only way the pos crud could is by Trumps assassination.

    Did you hear what he said about Ginsburg? Her mind is shot! An Israeli on the SC.3 in fact. sheesh.

    Copeland | Jul 13, 2016 8:54:37 AM | 26
    Now now Jackrabbit, go easy on rufus. You have to remember that cognitive dissonance is infinitely extensible across a mind that is captured by delusion.

    Yes Virginia, they are all hucksters -- Surely the microscopic communist party, or its pale American likeness, of which rufus is a mustache twirling member, is less of a political fantasy, than the Green Party!

    What chance do we have with Hillary?--a back-stabbing, forked-tongue, daughter of Goldman Sachs, whose speeches to the industrialists and bankers are practically a state secret? Yes, Hillary!--who is coated from head to toe with a patina of blood, and smells of corpses?

    somebody | Jul 13, 2016 9:46:28 AM | 30
    @harrylaw | Jul 13, 2016 9:18:24 AM | 27

    So it is basically the British Trade Unions making sure their members dominate in the leadership election?

    The US democratic party is a huge income generating corporation with some worker representation. Sanders is correct to stay inside if he wants to change politics. If Sandernistas continue the fight (they will, it is generational, same as the Clintons were generational) seat for seat they will change the party. They will get changed themselves in the process for sure.

    It seems the Libertarian party succeeds in splitting Republicans. For Sanders to split Democrats would be voting for Trump. He would have to live with this fame outside of the Democratic Party with no one to team up in the Senate.

    US corporations aren't stupid. They know bad, expensive education, decaying infrastructure and violence in the street are bad for business. They might even realize that corruption is bad for them. And that worker representation makes life easier all around.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2016 9:48:55 AM | 31
    Bluemot5 @23

    Jill goes easy on Sanders in her statement because she wants to attract his supporters.

    In fact, Sanders pulled several key punches in the race:

    > he was late in calling out Hillary-DNC collusion - campaign financing got the headlines but what about the DNC's silence about: a) media bias toward Hillary and b) voter irregularities: AP called the race for Hillary the day before California voted based on secret polling of Super-delegates! ;

    > he failed to attack Obama's record on black/minority affairs - despite Sanders having conducted a fake filibuster over the Fiscal Cliff/Sequester - Hillary walked away with the black vote;

    > he failed to call Hillary out on her emails after the State Inspector General report was release and it was CLEAR that she had lied about her emails;

    And Sanders is not an "independent" as any ordinary person would interpret that term:

    > he has caucused with the Democrats for a very long time (nearly 20 years?);

    > he runs in the Vermont Democratic Primary when running for House/Senate with the understanding that he will not run in general election as a Democrat (this effectively blocks opposition from a Democratic candidate);

    > he is close/friendly with all of the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him to win his Senate seat; Schumer endorses him; he calls Hillary a 'friend' of 25 years.

    Felicity | Jul 13, 2016 10:35:54 AM | 33
    I "stole" this great piece for Global Research, with so many thanks again:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-u-s-and-uk-liberals-disfranchise-their-party-members/5535699

    RIP democracy in the US and UK, finally out of it's misery, been gasping it's last for a very long time.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2016 10:45:08 AM | 34
    Kshama Sawant: Bernie Sanders Abandons the Revolution
    The strategy of lesser evilism has been an utter disaster for the 99%. Effectively unchallenged by the left, the Democratic Party helped the Republican Party to push the agenda steadily to the right over the past decades. As Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has aptly put it, "the politics of fear has delivered everything we were afraid of."

    ... Bernie's endorsement will be used in an attempt to prop up that same rotten establishment ... [that makes] Sanders endorsement of Clinton is [sic] a fundamental failure of leadership.
    ...
    We can't afford to follow Bernie's error. It is time for us to move on. ... That is why I'm endorsing Green Party candidate Jill Stein. ... There can be no doubt that Jill's campaign is the clear continuation of our political revolution, and deserves the broadest possible support from Sandernistas.

    Ken Nari | Jul 13, 2016 10:55:38 AM | 35
    Mark Stoval @ 16 -- We've had a fascist economic system (since the 30s)...

    Even before. At least since 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which transferred the holdings of the U.S. treasury to international bankers.

    b, me too. For the first time I think Clinton may actually be president. Sanders never had a chance for the simple reason -- never stated -- that he is too old. When he took office he would have been only a few years short of the age Reagan was when he left.

    (For some reason age has never come up with this elderly bunch. Both Bill Clinton (as co-president) and Trump will be older than Reagan was on election day, and Hillary will be only a few months younger. You'd think we'd be seeing clips of Hillary chopping logs and Trump free climbing the face of cliffs -- the sort of stuff they put poor old Ron through.)

    A scary thought is that age has never come up because the powers that pick presidents don't intend for them to be in office long.

    Except in style, Hillary is no different than Obama, Bush II, or her husband. Whereas earlier presidents felt the need to put on a show of decency -- well, okay, Bush II let it drop now and then -- H. Clinton will be a bitch Cheney, going out of her way to rub everyone's face in it and bragging there's nothing they can do about it.

    Her style's different, but the same game will go on.

    There's a bright side however. She's dumb and knows no bounds. Think Louis XVI. That, along with her arrogance, may finally bring a tipping point of sorts. With things coming apart everywhere, a smooth-talking fraud like Reagan or Obama might be able to somehow hold it together a little longer. Hillary's nastiness could actually bring real change. God in his infinite irony.

    To riff off a comment by Banger a few posts back. To say there is a deep state controlling Clinton may be an over simplification. More likely their are lots of competing and conflicting forces working in the dark, none with any clear idea or plan (or inkling of what other powers are doing) each pushing for immediate gains without a thought for the future.

    It's often said here that the plan is chaos. Maybe, or it could be that there is such confusion and turmoil and chaos is so prevalent, that it looks like it must be a plan. Or taking a longer view, it could be what we're seeing everywhere is the inevitable collapse of a vast culture that has grown too complex.

    In the struggle for power everyone. including H. Clinton, is a useful fool and a potential patsy. Those hidden powers have a history of eating their own.

    virgile | Jul 13, 2016 11:04:50 AM | 36
    Sanders has been a great disappointment. In order to prevent Trump from getting the votes, he is embracing and selling his soul and his supporters to a demon! In fact Sanders has more in common with Trump that he has with Hillary.

    One hopes that disenchanted Sanders supporters will either abstain or vote for Trump.
    Having the choice only of two candidates is an absurdity.

    Stan | Jul 13, 2016 11:26:42 AM | 41
    "Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs" is not a valid statement.

    Sanders is a long time member of The Party and Congress. One cannot be a member of those clubs for so long -- particularly during the years spanning the turn of the last century -- and not be rotten to the core.

    His followers were fools. I think some of them know that now.

    Jack Smith | Jul 13, 2016 12:14:52 PM | 44
    @Grieved | Jul 13, 2016 2:46:33 AM | 4

    Excuse me, not meant to be offensive. :-)

    Like million and millions of Americans you have been fooled not once but repeatedly and still believe in democracy and Democratic party. Get real, Sanders probably a better lair than most liars but not as good as Obomo and Hillary. Understands million and millions still believe these two liars (dun believes me look at the most recent poll).

    Do the smart things vote the opposite what the masses or MSM tells you. Better still vote Trump and end the drip, drip and drips. Buy yourself a good cheap pitchfork, snows shovel or whatever in yr local Craigslist or yard sales. Get ready for the final solution.

    Good luck. :-)

    ben | Jul 13, 2016 12:23:08 PM | 47
    Good take b, thanks.

    I for one, hoped for more than "sheepdog" from Sanders, but, alas, those who said so, were totally correct. Trump and HRC are 2 sides of the same coin. It matters not who wins. With either one, workers of the world are fucked. The corporate global takeover rolls on.

    I will "vote" for Jill Stein.

    On the efficacy of E-voting in the U$A.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14545

    jason | Jul 13, 2016 12:29:05 PM | 48
    jules @ 46: in American politics, none of these people are for dismantling the biggest budgetary fraud & boondoggle in human history: the pentagon. anybody saying they are for "small gov't" who doesn't immediately propose to slash the military/para-military budget (not the VA, not now) by 50% every year for the next 500 years is lying.
    Jules | Jul 13, 2016 12:34:42 PM | 51
    @rufus magister | Jul 13, 2016 8:29:00 AM | 22

    I would have thought anyone with half a brain could see why there is an attraction for Trump.

    Hillary represents a continuation of the last 8 years, or even perhaps the last 16 or 24+ years. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

    Trump represents someone who's just so mad he might well blow up the entire global trading system starting trade wars left right and centre.

    How do you think a US trade war with China will go down?

    It will destroy the G20, WTO, perhaps even the US trading relations with Europe in the backdraft!

    For anyone who is against the NWO, this can surely be only a good thing.

    Also, Trump's stated foreign policies are basically bomb and kill all the terrorists and leave the various thug governments alone.

    Sounds better to me than NeoCon Wars all over the place "of choice".

    Ala, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.

    ben | Jul 13, 2016 12:37:14 PM | 52
    PS-I guess, to distill the question, one might say.. Should corporations serve the people, or should people serve the corporations? As of now, "the powers that are", believe in the latter.
    Stan | Jul 13, 2016 2:31:27 PM | 68
    @juliania | Jul 13, 2016 2:00:54 PM

    People taken in by Sanders learned no lessons from gushing over Obama. They hurt themselves again and are sociopathically indifferent to the far greater harm they have done to those who were not gullible.

    Casowary Gentry | Jul 13, 2016 2:57:06 PM | 70
    "Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters' opinions. This disenfranchises the people who supported him."

    Even if she had given any "significant concession", it would have been meaningless noise with not an iota of intention to implement such concessions.
    She is a POS who will say anything at all to get elected. The only thing we really know is she relishes confrontation on the foreign policy scene. Otherwise nobody can rely on her to act in their interests in the domestic realm, except big corporate entities.

    tom | Jul 13, 2016 5:13:00 PM | 82
    Syriza...oops, Sanders, was always more loyal to the Democratic party then his ideology. ALWAYS.
    I don't know why his supporters are surprised. Did they actually think he was lying when he said he would support Hillary Clinton.
    And not only that, he out right lied saying that the Democrats have the most progressive platform in Democrat history !!! A fucking ludicrous lie to protect evil Hillary. Disgraceful.

    Most of The left are so pathetic it's embarrassing, it's a great invitation to be dominated by the right wing.
    I believe every threat that the despicable right wing will bring, I do not believe the ideology commitment the vast majority of the left wing in power. Miserable lying cowards.

    It is stupid for B to keep linking to Trumps quotes exclusively. Why does b not link to Jill Stein criticism. Sure Trumps criticism of evil Hillarys corruption will gather important support, but exclusively giving torture loving warmongering Trump ammunition, strangles other better candidates in their political birth in the alternative to status quo attention. In the same way that the Sanders, Chomsky, and other shortsighted cowards react by strangle politically strangling a desperate new movement.

    MadMax2 | Jul 13, 2016 5:41:33 PM | 83
    Congrats to those who labeled the 'Sheepdog' so early. Such an apt description. Good call.
    Yesterday I had two emails from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, giddy with joy over Sanders endorsement of Clinton. Today I had another, which made me giddy with joy:
    After Bernie's call for unity yesterday, we just figured Democrats would...well...unify.

    But instead, everything is falling apart.

    FIRST: We heard barely a peep from grassroots Democrats.
    THEN: A Quinnipiac poll showed Trump and Clinton tied in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
    NOW: We're questioning whether the Democratic Party can unify at all.

    Great to hear that they're falling on their faces. The DCCC recruits ex-Republicans, Republicans-Lite, and conservative Democrats to run for Congress, and actively oppose liberal candidates. Long may they fail. Support worthy individual candidates.
    karlof1 | Jul 13, 2016 7:56:55 PM | 86
    Don't know if anyone's mentioned this book: "The Clinton's war on Women." There's a good long review posted here, http://thesaker.is/the-clintons-war-on-women/ Lots of potential mud for Trump to sling that will stick.
    Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2016 8:36:09 PM | 90
    Sanders released only one year of tax returns (2015). His campaign manager claimed his taxes held no surprises. Well they didn't for 2015. But why didn't Sanders release earlier years? Any serious Presidential candidate would expect to release at least 3 years of tax returns.

    Given the 'service' that he performed, it might be especially interesting to have seen his taxes for 2014, the year before he entered the race. The lack of transparency and Sanders' 'sheepdogging' raises questions of whether he received any inducements to enter the race.

    Donald Trump is even worse. He hasn't released any tax info. He claims that the IRS is auditing him (and that they have for many years) . But why not release estimates and/or earlier tax returns?

    ALberto | Jul 13, 2016 9:26:55 PM | 91
    We have gone through the looking glass. This evening on Public Broadcasting Service television news hour Dr. Assad was interviewed by Judy Woodruff, a talking head teleprompter reading hand puppet. Dr. Assad was asked if Donald Trump was elected President would his lack of foreign relations diplomacy chops hinder his administrations abilities to achieve their goals. The question was of no import. Nor was the answer. THE FACT THAT DR. ASSAD WAS TREATED AS AN EQUAL and not "Assad must go" is a very significant event. VERY SIGNIFICANT!

    Just me opinion...

    rufus magister | Jul 13, 2016 9:29:33 PM | 92
    in re 82 --

    He's a democratic socialist, so such affiliations and tactics are not unusual. The Democratic Socialists of America, for example, a Socialist International section, is wholly within the Democratic Party.

    Cho Nyawinh | Jul 13, 2016 10:17:28 PM | 94
    The Plan was always from the start for Bernie to hold down the Left, so Hillary could capture Center-Right, and Donald could lead the Far Right into Smackdown. Then Bernie would deliver the Left to Hillary. And so it has come to pass.

    I thought everyone knew Bernie, Hillary and Donald are all bought and sold by Goldman? Hillary and Donald sold their progeny to The Tribe, and Bernie is a woo-woo already. The traitor Chosen sold US into slavery with Gramm-Leich-Bliley, and fawning sycophant Al-Clintonim signed that bill into 'law' (sic), in return for her US Senate seat from NY.

    Badda-boom, badda-bing!

    These are the Vampire Squid, the Takers, Mafia Elites 'who settled the Western Frontier' and now are the 'Disruptors' of the Public Space into a privatized Fivrr-Uber hell. They own you. You are owned by the Private Central Bankim. Even a small child will tell you that your only real 'free choice' is to write-in "HELL NO!" in November, then flee to the 3W.

    "We did not know" Lol, sure you didn't.

    Jackrabbit | Jul 13, 2016 10:36:03 PM | 99
    followup @89

    Sanders didn't release his other tax returns even when it became an issue in the campaign .

    Hillary said that she wouldn't release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches until Sanders had released more tax returns. Her reasoning: she had complied with what was expected of a Presidential candidate while the other had not yet done so.

    Why wouldn't he immediately release those returns - which his campaign had claimed contained no surprises - so as to force Hillary to release the transcripts?

    Very suspicious.

    rufus magister | Jul 14, 2016 8:21:04 AM | 112
    Here's an indicator of what sort of transparency in government one might expect from the Trump "Administration."

    Trump Sues Ex-Staffer For $10 Million For Breaking Nondisclosure Agreement.

    Not only are staffers subjected to this, volunteers are as well. "The tight control of volunteers stands in stark contrast to not only American political-campaign norms but also Trump's reputation for speaking his mind."

    Combine that with his statement that he'd like to change libel laws to make it easier for himself to sue news organizations that down fawn all over him. Does he seem like the sort to encourage whistle-blowers like Manning or Snowden? Will he be logging all his email traffic for future FOIA requests? Or maybe he'll kill that off, too.

    PavewayIV | Jul 14, 2016 2:57:23 PM | 122
    News Flash: Israel wins U.S. election; Iran to be nuked during inauguration

    Trump just picked Mike Pence as running mate. And from ((( Forward ))):

    "...Pence has said his support of Israel is deeply rooted in his Christian faith, as well as in his strong relationship with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Pence was introduced to AIPAC members in 2009 by then-board member Marshall Cooper at an AIPAC policy conference.

    "Let me say emphatically, like the overwhelming majority of my constituents, my Christian faith compels me to cherish the state of Israel," then-Rep. Pence said.

    Cooper described Pence to the audience as "Israel's good friend."..."

    So whether Hillary or Trump gets the job (or Obama declares a national emergency an remains) Israel will be the de-facto new commander-in-chief of the U.S., henceforth to be know as Palestine West.

    jfl | Jul 14, 2016 7:28:16 PM | 126
    Israeli Mass Surveillance System Launched in UAE

    The new Falcon Eye surveillance system-sold to the UAE by an Israeli defense contractor-"links thousands of cameras spread across the city, as well as thousands of other cameras installed at facilities and buildings in the emirate," the Abu Dhabi Monitoring and Control Center said in an official statement. The Falcon Eye will "help control roads by monitoring traffic violations while also monitoring significant behaviors in (Abu Dhabi) such as public hygiene and human assemblies in non-dedicated areas."

    Strange bedfellows? Not at all. The Israelis and the GCC countries, the USG and EU, are all soul brothers : tiny 'elite' minorities attempting to rule their respective roosts by technological means encompassing everything from drones to the media to their ubiquitous taps.

    Totalitarianism is alive and well in the Middle East ... and in North America, the UK, Europe ... the last thing to be tolerated, the first things to be crushed, are 'human assemblies in non-dedicated areas' over which their corporate selves would rule.

    The Powers That Are are thicker than thieves. Among mere thieves competition remains. The PTA are acting in loco parentis ... taking 'care' of us all for their own good.

    Mike Gravel used to describe our present political situation as 'adolescent': mature enough to understand the fix we're in, too immature to do anything but complain to 'those in charge'.

    We're in charge. We've just been asleep at the wheel. Time to wake up, finally? Before our whole world become Nice?

    Bob In Portland | Jul 14, 2016 8:02:35 PM | 127
    I agree that if Sanders had gone on to the Green Party he could have gotten significant support, enough to guarantee Clinton's loss. But that's not what he wanted to do, whatever his reasons for running. Folks overseas who think that Trump is anything more than a loudmouth, racist who would be controlled by the same forces as Clinton is controlled by are fooling themselves. If Sanders ran as a "pied piper" it wasn't successful. If anything, he presented a contrast to what the Democratic Party has become.

    In 1963 there was a coup in America. Since then the military-industrial complex has run the country. It has been most apparent in its foreign policy, which has been the conquest of natural resources (especially oil and gas) worldwide. America's resentment with the USSR/Russia has to do with their living on top of resources.

    But in order to continue the illusion of democracy in the US, it was necessary to maintain some differences between the two parties so that Americans would think that they have a choice. Meanwhile, the party that is supposed to represent the working class has been sliding into the arms of the corporatists. Essentially, in order to give Americans a "choice" Trump has been pushed as the demonic clown versus H. Clinton. Unfortunately, for good reasons as well as because of endless propaganda from the right, most Americans distrust Clinton, as well they should. Her casual announcement about enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Syria is essentially a declaration of war against Russia.

    Going back to the coup in 1963, in order to maintain control of the population it was necessary for the ruling class to continue to generate candidates each election cycle to pretend to care about the working class. I have long suspected that early on in their careers both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were recruited by US intelligence. During his time in Britain Bill's classmates assumed that he was CIA At about this time Hillary, who'd been raised a rabid Republican, went to both the Republican and Democratic national conventions in 1968. Not only was it a rather expensive thing to do for a college student, but most people who are interested in one party aren't interested in the other. I suspect it was the beginning of her career in US power politics. Shortly after she wrote a pro-Vietnam speech for Melvin Laird in 1968, she was involved with the various Black Panther trials around the US.

    It's hard to believe that the Hillary who stands before us now was ever a political ally of the Panthers. Rather, I suspect she was observing for an intelligence agency, the FBI or CIA She sat through a Panther trial in New Haven, Connecticut, and then spent a summer in Oakland working for the law firm that was representing the Panthers in the Bay Area. Essentially, she was in the right place at the right time to glean information for COINTELPRO, the massive spying program directed against anti-war and black movements. A few years later she worked on the Democrats' legal team for Watergate, another good place for a government informant to be. Bill, during his time at Oxford, would have functioned like the thousands of informants who sat in on peace group meetings across American campuses.

    Later, when the CIA was dumping cocaine at Mena, Arkansas, Bill Clinton was in position to make sure state police left the operation alone. It's not surprising that George W. Bush's first head of the DEA was Asa Hutchinson, who'd been the incurious federal prosecutor over that part of Arkansas when the drugs came in.

    The Clintons were prominent in the Democratic Leadership Council, which was an organization within the Democratic Party pushing it to the right. In 1992 Bill pushed trade agreements that would destroy the American middle class. Since then the party has been hopelessly corrupted by Wall Street money.

    It's now Hillary's turn. If you've always wanted to take a vacation somewhere or wanted to do something before you die, I suggest you make time for it this year. I cannot think of another president in memory who is more wed to military adventurism than Hillary.

    Piotr Berman | Jul 14, 2016 9:19:55 PM | 129
    Proportional representation etc. is not a panaceum. I think that party solidarity, even if the party is only partially satisfactory is a good tool. What is happening is that Sanders who represents "turn left" for Democrats is now more electable than Clinton. This has a potential for a big change, much bigger than ephemeral "relative success" of the Greens, who are fated to collect less votes than Libertarians (they may have their best year in a long, long time).

    Of course, the "right wing of the left" discards party solidarity with ease. They more or less rejected McGovern and Carter. Hillary's health care reform had the same fate. But they have very hard time copying with change. Hillary basically promised good old times, and this is not good enough. I suspect that her game plan is to unload full blast of "Trump's corruption" ads closer to elections and keep the "positive tone" for now, and that may even work.

    But if she polls badly enough, Democratic establishment may see the light and go for Sanders.

    [Jul 15, 2016] US media trouncing Trump 24-7 proves democracy a charade by Finian Cunningham

    Notable quotes:
    "... The mainstream US news media have never liked the brash billionaire Trump. He makes good circulation figures for sure, but the large coverage the Republican contender has received from the outset is preponderantly negative. ..."
    "... Trump's campaign has instead been buoyed by the popular vote, not by endorsement from the elite establishment, including the Republican Party leadership and the corporate media. Now that the race for the presidency is turning into a two-horse contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump, the media's antipathy towards Trump is moving to an all-out barrage of attacks. Attacks, it has to be said, that are bordering on hysteria and which only a corporate machine could convey. ..."
    "... Trump vehemently rebuffed the claims. He said it was simply a star, like the ones that US Marshals use. When his campaign team reacted to the initial media furor by replacing the red star with a circle it only served to fuel accusations against Trump because he was seen to be acting defensively. However, he later defiantly rebuked his campaign team and said they should have stuck with the star image and let him defend that choice of image as simply an innocuous star shape. For what it's worth, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, subsequently rallied to the tycoon's defense and said he was not racist nor anti-Semitic and that the controversy was a media-contrived storm in a teacup. ..."
    "... Trump makes a valid point that Clinton's abuse of state secrecy – whether intentional or negligent – has in fact posed a national security threat. Yet the media focus is decidedly not on his Democrat rival. It is rather centered on overblown concerns about the wealthy real estate developer. ..."
    "... Trump is right. The political system in the US is rigged . Not just in terms of double standards of the justice system, but in the bigger context of how candidates are screened and vetted – in this case through undue vilification. ..."
    "... Trump's reactionary views on immigration, race relations and international politics are certainly questionable. His credibility as the next president of the US may be dubious. But is his credibility any less than that of Hillary Clinton? Her melding of official capacity with private gain from Wall Street banks and foreign governments acting as donors to her family's fund-raising Clinton Foundation has the pungent whiff of selling federal policy for profit. Her penchant for criminal regime change operations in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Ukraine speak of a political mafia don. ..."
    "... American politics has long been derided as a "dog and pony show" ..."
    "... But what we are witnessing is a brazen display of how the powers-that-be (Wall Street, media, Pentagon, Washington, etc) are audaciously intervening in this electoral cycle to disenfranchise the voting population. ..."
    www.rt.com

    RT Op-Edge

    Presidential hopeful Donald Trump is right: the 'system is 'rigged'. The media barrage against the billionaire demonstrates irrefutably how the power establishment, not the people, decides who sits in the White House.

    Trump is increasingly assailed in the US media with alleged character flaws. The latest blast paints Trump as a total loose cannon who would launch World War III. In short, a "nuke nut".

    In the Pentagon-aligned Defense One journal, the property magnate is described as someone who cannot be trusted with his finger on the nuclear button. Trump would order nuclear strikes equivalent to 20,000 Hiroshima bombings as "easy as ordering a pizza", claimed the opinion piece.

    If that's not an example of "project fear" then what is?

    The mainstream US news media have never liked the brash billionaire Trump. He makes good circulation figures for sure, but the large coverage the Republican contender has received from the outset is preponderantly negative.

    Trump's campaign has instead been buoyed by the popular vote, not by endorsement from the elite establishment, including the Republican Party leadership and the corporate media. Now that the race for the presidency is turning into a two-horse contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump, the media's antipathy towards Trump is moving to an all-out barrage of attacks. Attacks, it has to be said, that are bordering on hysteria and which only a corporate machine could convey.

    Like a giant screening process, the Trump candidacy and his supporters are being systematically disenfranchised. At this rate of attrition, by the time the election takes place in November the result will already have been all but formally decided – by the powers-that-be, not the popular will.

    The past week provides a snapshot of the intensifying media barrage facing Trump. Major US media outlets have run prominent claims that Trump is a fan of the former brutal Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Those claims were based on a loose interpretation of what Trump said at a rally when he referred to Saddam's strong-arm suppression of terrorism. He didn't say he liked Saddam. In fact, called him a "bad guy". But Trump said that the Iraqi dictator efficiently eliminated terrorists.

    A second media meme to emerge was "Trump the anti-Semite". This referred to an image his campaign team tweeted of Hillary Clinton as "the most corrupt candidate ever". The words were emblazoned on a red, six-pointed star. Again, the mainstream media gave copious coverage to claims that the image was anti-Semitic because, allegedly, it was a Jewish 'Star of David'.

    Trump vehemently rebuffed the claims. He said it was simply a star, like the ones that US Marshals use. When his campaign team reacted to the initial media furor by replacing the red star with a circle it only served to fuel accusations against Trump because he was seen to be acting defensively. However, he later defiantly rebuked his campaign team and said they should have stuck with the star image and let him defend that choice of image as simply an innocuous star shape.

    For what it's worth, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, subsequently rallied to the tycoon's defense and said he was not racist nor anti-Semitic and that the controversy was a media-contrived storm in a teacup.

    Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump. © Jim YoungLawsuit that may break The Donald's back: Virginia GOP delegate challenges Trump
    In the same week that the alleged dictator-loving, anti-Semitic Trump hit newsstands, we then read about nuclear trigger-happy Donald.

    Not only that but the Trump-risks-Armageddon article also refers to him being in the same company as Russian leader Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jung Un who, we are told, "also have their finger on the nuclear button".

    Under the headline, 'How to slow Donald Trump from pushing the nuclear button', a photograph shows the presidential contender with a raised thump in a downward motion. The answer being begged is: Don't vote for this guy – unless you want to incinerate the planet!

    This is scare-tactics to the extreme thrown in for good measure along with slander and demonization. And all pumped up to maximum volume by the US corporate media, all owned by just six conglomerates.

    Trump is having to now spend more of his time explaining what he is alleged to have said or did not say, instead of being allowed to level criticisms at his Democrat rival or to advance whatever political program he intends to deliver as president.

    The accusation that Trump is a threat to US national security is all the more ironic given that this week Hillary Clinton was labelled as "extremely careless" by the head of the FBI over her dissemination of state secrets through her insecure private email account.

    Many legal experts and former US government officials maintain that Clinton's breach of classified information is deserving of criminal prosecution – an outcome that would debar her from contesting the presidential election.

    Why the FBI should have determined that there is no case for prosecution even though more than 100 classified documents were circulated by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (2009-2013) has raised public heckles of "double standards".

    The controversy has been compounded by the US Attorney General Loretta Lynch also declaring that no charges will be pressed and the case is closed – a week after she met with Hillary's husband, Bill, on board her plane for a hush-hush chat.

    Trump makes a valid point that Clinton's abuse of state secrecy – whether intentional or negligent – has in fact posed a national security threat. Yet the media focus is decidedly not on his Democrat rival. It is rather centered on overblown concerns about the wealthy real estate developer.

    Trump is right. The political system in the US is rigged. Not just in terms of double standards of the justice system, but in the bigger context of how candidates are screened and vetted – in this case through undue vilification.

    Trump's reactionary views on immigration, race relations and international politics are certainly questionable. His credibility as the next president of the US may be dubious. But is his credibility any less than that of Hillary Clinton? Her melding of official capacity with private gain from Wall Street banks and foreign governments acting as donors to her family's fund-raising Clinton Foundation has the pungent whiff of selling federal policy for profit. Her penchant for criminal regime change operations in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Ukraine speak of a political mafia don.

    American politics has long been derided as a "dog and pony show", whereby powerful lobbies buy the pageant outcome. Trump's own participation in the election is only possible because he is a multi-billionaire who is able to fund a political campaign. That said, however, the New York businessman has garnered a sizable popular following from his maverick attacks on the rotten Washington establishment.

    But what we are witnessing is a brazen display of how the powers-that-be (Wall Street, media, Pentagon, Washington, etc) are audaciously intervening in this electoral cycle to disenfranchise the voting population.

    Clinton has emerged as the candidate-of-choice for the establishment, and the race to the White House is being nobbled – like never before.

    US democracy a race? More like a knacker's yard.

    [Jul 15, 2016] Sanders Prepares to Bow Down to Hillary, But Many of His Supporters Won't

    www.blackagendareport.com

    Black Agenda Report

    It is difficult to imagine how the Trump rank and file and the party's corporate "establishment" will paper over their irreconcilable differences, rooted in the party's failure to preserve skin privilege and good jobs in a White Man's Country.

    Just as brazenly, Trump, the rabble rousing billionaire, has violated the most sacred ruling class taboos by rejecting the national security rationale for the hyper-aggressive, ever-expanding, global U.S. military presence. If Trump fails to convincingly recant such heresies, the rulers will deal with him with extreme prejudice.

    [Jul 15, 2016] How Dissent Has Shaped the US An Interview With Author Ralph Young

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think that dissent will continue as long as the United States continues. We don't know exactly what forms it will take, or what causes dissenters will take up. But we do have a pretty good idea from history that dissenters will always push for more freedom, more liberty, more economic equality, and that there will be counter-dissenters who will seek to deprive them of these goals. There always seems to be that for every two steps forward, there's one step back. ..."
    www.truth-out.org

    What do you foresee as far as the future of dissent is concerned in the United States?

    I think that dissent will continue as long as the United States continues. We don't know exactly what forms it will take, or what causes dissenters will take up. But we do have a pretty good idea from history that dissenters will always push for more freedom, more liberty, more economic equality, and that there will be counter-dissenters who will seek to deprive them of these goals. There always seems to be that for every two steps forward, there's one step back.

    What is gained for leftist movements today by anchoring themselves a positive account of the nation's founding (accounts that suggest that this nation has leftist impulses at its core)?

    I think that leftist movements today have a deep, abiding faith in "democracy." And in that way, they are the true heirs of the American Revolution. Even if most of the "founding fathers" like [George] Washington and [Alexander] Hamilton and [Thomas] Jefferson were elites who distrusted the masses, they did give lip service to liberty and equality, and they did formulate fundamental arguments promoting the idea of a government of the people. Today, their ideas are more broadly conceived than they themselves conceived them. Because leftists today believe in the value of democracy, what they are in essence doing is holding America's feet to the fire. They are demanding that the United States live up to those ideals ensconced in our founding documents. "Be true to what you said on paper," as Martin Luther King Jr. expressed it in his last speech on April 3, 1968, in Memphis.

    What is inevitably lost or papered over when one embraces a positive founding narrative about a nation-state?

    What is papered over is that the majority of the "founding fathers" were slave owners. And the institution of slavery gave them the leisure time to devote to thinking and writing about such high-fallutin' and precious concepts as democracy, liberty and republican forms of government. Historian Edmund S. Morgan, in his book American Slavery, American Freedom, makes a compelling argument that the notions we have of freedom, that the basis for American freedom is slavery. If it weren't for slavery, we would never have developed as we have. So it is rather presumptuous of us, even for the left, to feel that we've embraced freedom and believe in equality for all. Still, despite that, it doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. What it does mean is that we should aspire to those ideals, even if the "founding fathers" didn't fully believe in them themselves, even if they were disingenuous hypocrites who framed a constitution solely to benefit and protect the property rights and aristocratic status of their class.

    Today, we need to take those ideals seriously and work toward making the reality of American society more closely resemble the ideals they espoused in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    [Jul 14, 2016] Final nail in the coffin Green Partys Jill Stein to RT on Sanders endorsement of Clinton

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We have been offering Bernie Sanders, basically to sit down and talk and to explore how we might be collaborate, because I can't give away the nomination," ..."
    "... "could certainly work with him for all sorts of possibilities, including leading the ticket." ..."
    "... "truly saw the light," ..."
    "... "the green light, that we do need independent politics." ..."
    "... "the revolution is now being stuffed back into a counter-revolutionary party," ..."
    "... "leading the charge for Wall Street, for wars and for the Walmart economy." ..."
    "... "Bernie said let's forget the past, but I don't think people can forget this movement that they've worked so hard to build," ..."
    "... "there were a lot of people who were watching this endorsement in complete and utter disbelief." ..."
    "... "I think there are a lot of broken hearts out there among the Bernie campaign. A lot of people who are feeling burned by the Democratic Party, who are not going to simply resign themselves to an election that offers them either a billionaire, one hand, or a cheerleader for the billionaires," she added. ..."
    Jul 12, 2016 | RT America
    Following Sanders officially dropping out of the race, Stein reminded RT viewers of her proposal to step aside in order to offer him the nomination in her Green Party.

    "We have been offering Bernie Sanders, basically to sit down and talk and to explore how we might be collaborate, because I can't give away the nomination," Stein told RT, stressing that even though she cannot take the delegates' role of assigning nominations, she "could certainly work with him for all sorts of possibilities, including leading the ticket."

    This could be possible, she said, if Sanders "truly saw the light," meaning "the green light, that we do need independent politics."

    In Stein's view, "the revolution is now being stuffed back into a counter-revolutionary party," whose standard bearer, Clinton, she scorns for "leading the charge for Wall Street, for wars and for the Walmart economy."

    "Bernie said let's forget the past, but I don't think people can forget this movement that they've worked so hard to build," Stein said, adding that on Tuesday "there were a lot of people who were watching this endorsement in complete and utter disbelief."

    .... ... ...

    Sanders supporters have taken to social media in a stern backlash against the former Democratic presidential candidate.

    "They also can't forget Hillary Clinton's record, which is very much the opposite of what they have been working for the past year," Stein says.

    Dr. Jill Stein
    ✔ ‎@DrJillStein

    The truth is that we cannot have a revolutionary campaign inside a counter-revolutionary party. jill2016.com/steins_respons e_to_sanders_endorsement_of_clinton …

    2:45 PM - 12 Jul 2016

    "I think there are a lot of broken hearts out there among the Bernie campaign. A lot of people who are feeling burned by the Democratic Party, who are not going to simply resign themselves to an election that offers them either a billionaire, one hand, or a cheerleader for the billionaires," she added.

    She says that after primaries in California where "it became clear that the Democratic Party was really shutting [Sanders] out," her Green Party began to see people's interest surge.

    "We are seeing that now, in the last 24 to 36 hours as well, as people realize that the game is over," Stein said.

    @MajorCallowayLeader

    Well, now it's Stein or Trump - time will tell.
    Sanders is the worst kind of turncoat.
    How can he possibly support the Laughing Butcher of Libya? He must have been a lost soul to begin with, or sold it long ago.

    [Jul 14, 2016] Sanders Warmongering Corporate Sell-out - Arthur Schaper

    Notable quotes:
    "... In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman Bernie Sanders' Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves the "Instant Antiwar Action Group," we decided to bring our outrage at Bernie's escalating hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted in 15 of us being arrested for trespass. ..."
    "... Dissident Voices ..."
    "... Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. . . . His hawkish [stance] drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher, to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support?" ..."
    "... Dissident Voices ..."
    "... Under the Bush regime, Sanders' militarism has only grown worse. While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress' resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks. ..."
    "... After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan. Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals. ..."
    "... While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan. ..."
    townhall.com

    What also stands out in the above criticism is that Sanders, seeking the Democratic nomination as a Tea Party of the Left outlier, has a long-standing history of supporting presidential military forays: anathema to aggressive progressives.

    In 1999, Congressman Sanders signed onto President Bill Clinton's military interventions into Kosovo. Peace activists crashed his Burlington, VT Congressional Office. One of the protesters commented on the Liberty Union Party website :

    In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman Bernie Sanders' Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves the "Instant Antiwar Action Group," we decided to bring our outrage at Bernie's escalating hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted in 15 of us being arrested for trespass.

    Dissident Voices blasted Sanders not just for cozying up with the Democratic Party, but war authorizations throughout his tenure in the House of Representatives.

    Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. . . . His hawkish [stance] drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher, to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support?"

    Click on this link for Brecher's letter of resignation.

    Dissident Voices continues:

    Under the Bush regime, Sanders' militarism has only grown worse. While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress' resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks.

    Indeed, Barbara Lee (D-CA) was the lone vote against granting this extended power to President Bush. Sanders joined with both parties on this issue. Of course. While Presidential candidate Sanders has relaunched his speech on the House floor opposing the War on Iraq in 2002, Counterpunch has already exposed Sanders' connections with Bush 43's military ventures:

    After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan. Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals.

    And then:

    While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan.

    Sanders has followed a pattern of voting against initial efforts to expand government resources into the War on Terror, then voted for funding them afterwards.

    The Democratic Party's 2016 Presidential bench is a clown-car of political dysphoria. From Hillary Clinton's early yearning for Republican Barry Goldwater, to Lincoln Chafee's former GOP US Senator status, and Jim Webb's service in the Reagan Administration, now left-wing partisans can argue that "Weekend at Bernie" Sanders is right-wing warmonger .

    [Jul 14, 2016] Sanders endorses Clinton, reversing everything hes said about Wall Street candidate (QUOTES)

    RT America
    Sanders has spent a lot of time and energy convincing voters that Clinton had no place in the Oval Office.

    The following are just a few examples.

    1"Are you qualified to be President of the United States when you're raising millions of dollars from Wall Street whose greed, recklessness and illegal behavior helped to destroy our economy?" – Philadelphia rally, April 2016.

    However, Sanders may be singing a different tune when he is back in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention. His change of heart Tuesday included telling the audience: "I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president."

    2 "I proudly stood with the workers. Secretary Clinton stood with the big money interests" – Youngstown, Ohio March 14

    Sanders has frequently attacked Clinton's use of Super PACs and potential interest from elite banks. While the former secretary of state has been endorsed by many unions, such as the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Sanders' speech swapped that rhetoric for something a little more flattering.

    In his endorsement speech, he said: "Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new wealth and income to the top one percent."

    3 "Do I have a problem, when a sitting Secretary of State and a Foundation ran by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, governments which are dictatorship… um yeah, do I have a problem with that? Yeah I do."

    Sanders passionately attacked the Clinton Foundation in June, calling its reception of money from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia a "conflict of interest." However, on Tuesday he told the audience that Clinton "knows that it is absurd that middle-class Americans are paying an effective tax rate higher than hedge fund millionaires, and that there are corporations in this country making billions in profit while they pay no federal income taxes in a given year because of loopholes their lobbyists created."

    4 "She was very reluctant to come out in opposition. She is running for president. She concluded it was a good idea to oppose the TPP, and she did."

    Clinton's slow opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) raised the ire of both Sanders and his supporters. Perhaps through intense negotiations to make Clinton's campaign more progressive, he is now willing to focus more on Clinton's interior economy, saying, "She wants to create millions of new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure – our roads, bridges, water systems and wastewater plants."

    5 "Well, I don't think Hillary Clinton can lead a political revolution"

    Commenting on Clinton's potential to carry the torch for the political revolution he claimed he was spearheading, Sanders lacked faith in her ability to make the changes he deemed necessary back in June, when he was on CBS's "Face the Nation."

    However, perhaps through negotiating the terms of his endorsement, Clinton's platform sounds more and more like Sanders' when he talks about it. Describing new platforms such as lowering student debt and making free education attainable without accruing massive amounts of debt, along with expanding the use of generic medicine and expanding community health centers all sound like shades of Sanders.

    6 "When you support and continue to support fracking, despite the crisis that we have in terms of clean water… the American people do not believe that that is the kind of president that we need to make the changes in America to protect the working families of this country."

    Back in an April debate, many voters were frustrated when Clinton gave a lengthy, difficult explanation about her stance on fracking. Sanders, a longtime opponent of hydraulic fracturing.

    However, since the CNN Democratic Debate, Sanders and Clinton may have both shifted their positions on the matter that was once clear cut for the senator from Vermont.

    According to Sanders, "Hillary Clinton is listening to the scientists who tell us that if we do not act boldly in the very near future there will be more drought, more floods, more acidification of the oceans, more rising sea levels."

    7 "When this campaign began, I said that we got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it to $12 ... To suddenly announce now that you're for $15, I don't think is quite accurate."

    At the same CNN debate in Brooklyn, Sanders hammered on Clinton's inconsistent stance on raising the minimum wage. While her opinion has shifted from debate to debate, it seems that Sanders' has as well.

    "She believes that we should raise the minimum wage to a living wage," Sanders said, without specifying what the minimum wage would be increased to under her more progressive campaign.

    8 "Almost all of the polls that… have come out suggest that I am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton."

    Sanders might be eating crow for this one. His entire endorsement speech often focused on the party's need to defeat presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump. Throughout the speech, Sanders contrasted the new and improved Clinton strategy that includes more of Sanders' talking points with those from Trump.

    Sanders went as far as to place the importance of the election on keeping Trump away from the Supreme Court, saying, "If you don't believe this election is important, take a moment to think about the Supreme Court justices that Donald Trump will nominate, and what that means to civil liberties, equal rights and the future of our country."

    9 "[Super predators] was a racist term and everybody knew it was a racist term."

    Clinton's involvement with the criminal justice reform of the 1990s that contributed to the mass incarceration has frequently been a contentious point in this election. In 1996, she went on to warn the public about the existence of "super predators," or children with "no conscience, no empathy, we can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel."

    However, both Clinton and Sanders have a track record of working with the civil rights movements, and now Sanders may not be so quick to put Clinton and racist in the same sentence.

    "Hillary Clinton understands that our diversity is one of our greatest strengths," he said Tuesday.

    READ MORE:

    [Jul 13, 2016] 'You Broke My Heart' Supporters of Bernie Sanders React to Endorsement

    Note the NYT was afraid to open comment section for this article :-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Intelligent Bernie supporters will NEVER support her because she stands for everything were fighting against," he said. "Just because Bernie has left our movement does not mean it is over." ..."
    "... Despite Hillary's penchant for flip-flopping rhetoric, she's spent decades serving the causes of the Wall Street, war, & Walmart economy. ..."
    Jul 12, 2016 | The New York Timeul

    Daniel Whitfield, of Discovery Bay, Calif., insisted that the political revolution Mr. Sanders had championed did not have to end just because the senator had given up. However, he said that voting for Mrs. Clinton was not an option.

    "Intelligent Bernie supporters will NEVER support her because she stands for everything were fighting against," he said. "Just because Bernie has left our movement does not mean it is over."

    ... ... ...

    Some of the lesser-known candidates running for president sought to capitalize on the moment.

    Jill Stein, the Green Party's presidential nominee, sent out a barrage of Twitter posts as Mr. Sanders made his endorsement arguing that Mrs. Clinton's policies were antithetical to a liberal progressive agenda.

    Dr. Jill Stein
    ✔ ‎@DrJillStein

    Despite Hillary's penchant for flip-flopping rhetoric, she's spent decades serving the causes of the Wall Street, war, & Walmart economy.


    Gov. Gary Johnson
    ✔ ‎@GovGaryJohnson

    If joining Sen. Sanders in the Clinton Establishment isn't a good fit, there IS another option... #afterthebern

    For those who believed that Mr. Sanders still had a chance to snatch the nomination at the convention in Philadelphia, it was too soon after his endorsement to consider alternatives. It would take time for the mix of anger and disbelief to subside.

    "You chose her over us," Jessica Watrous Boyer, of Westerly, R.I., wrote on Mr. Sanders's Facebook page, lamenting that he had broken his promise to take the fight to the convention. "Truly shocked and saddened by this."

    [Jul 13, 2016] Sanders supporters lash out following Clinton endorsement

    www.foxnews.com

    Fox News

    Some of Bernie Sanders' most loyal backers have turned into his biggest bashers on the heels of his Hillary Clinton endorsement.

    The Vermont senator, who slammed Clinton repeatedly during the presidential primary campaign, offered his unwavering support to the presumptive Democratic nominee at a rally in New Hampshire Tuesday.

    "Hillary Clinton will make a great president and I am proud to stand with her today," he said.

    What followed was an avalanche of angry tweets, blogs and other social media posts from those who had been feeling the 'Bern' -- and now just feel burned.

    In New York, Monroe County Sanders activist Kevin Sweeney told the Democrat & Chronicle he's shifting his donations to Green Party candidate Jill Stein. "A lot of Bernie supporters are making $27 donations to Jill Stein's campaign today," he said.

    Others were more direct, as the hashtag #SelloutSanders and others took off on Twitter....

    ... ... ...

    Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, jumped in on the action.

    He tweeted, "Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs. "

    brendajc

    Bernie supporters.......trump welcomes you

    1. We are and have been socialist since FDR....welfare...unemployment ...medicare....social security. ...,studebt loans....these a3 socialist programs.

    nobody wants these socialist programs gone

    We just don't want communism

    And we want fiscal responsibility.

    Come join us.

    are122

    I sometimes think Bernie was nothing more then a setup or a patsy encouraged to run by the DNC. With all the "superdelegates" supporting HC, the Bern had to know he virtually had no chance to win but put on a show anyway. He's suddenly very nice to all those that basically shafted him in advance.

    hotdogsdownhallways

    Cannot wait until we find out how much the Clinton Foundation gave him.


    [Jul 13, 2016] Bernie Sanders Wrong Beliefs, but Laudably Principled

    From Twitter: Bernie Sanders, We didn't donate $230M to vote for a warmonger with 4 superPACs, scam charity and $150M speeches who sabotaged your campaign
    Notable quotes:
    "... Today, you decided to officially express your support for Hillary Clinton in the race for president of the United States. Unlike many, I will not label you a "sellout." Though I'm disappointed in your decision, I would also like to thank you for your contribution to American politics. ..."
    "... But I reject the political hive-mind's notion that you had to endorse Hillary. You did not. You've been an independent for decades, refusing to officially associate yourself with a party that you didn't fully believe in. ..."
    National Review

    Dear Bernie,

    Today, you decided to officially express your support for Hillary Clinton in the race for president of the United States. Unlike many, I will not label you a "sellout." Though I'm disappointed in your decision, I would also like to thank you for your contribution to American politics.

    ... ... ...

    Like me and many other conservatives, your supporters now stand without a candidate to believe in. And, like me, they are disappointed in your decision to bow to the pressure exerted by the political muscle that the Clintons have been flexing for decades. I understand that your arm has been twisted by every establishment Democrat from the top down...

    But I reject the political hive-mind's notion that you had to endorse Hillary. You did not. You've been an independent for decades, refusing to officially associate yourself with a party that you didn't fully believe in. Throughout the campaign, you highlighted all of the problems with your opponent, and even went so far as to declare her "unfit" for the office of the presidency. You told America that you were starting a political revolution. By its very nature, though, a revolution refuses to be cowed by the protectors of the status quo. It can concede temporary defeat in certain battles, sure, but it can't survive if betrayed by its leaders. It is disingenuous for you to pretend that you will continue your revolution despite your endorsement - or even worse, imply that Hillary will. I thought you were better than that.

    ...During your endorsement speech, once more you called out the Wall Street billionaires for whom you've so often expressed unqualified loathing over the last 14 months. But this time, something was wrong: There stood, bobbing her head next to you, someone who has made a career out of selling favors to those very same billionaires. I thought you were someone who put principles before politics, and that you would never hesitate to stick to your guns, regardless of the pressure. I guess not. Despite feeling disappointed and deflated, I want to thank you for helping to rekindle my faith and interest in politics.

    ... ... ...

    Sincerely, Andrew - Andrew Badinelli is an intern at National Review.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437758/bernie-sanders-wrong-beliefs-ideologically-principled

    [Jul 12, 2016] Democracy And The Future Of The United States

    www.informationclearinghouse.info
    By Peter Koenig and Alessandro Bianchi

    July 12, 2016 " Information Clearing House " - Alessandro Bianchi from the Anti- Diplomatico in Italy interviewed distinguished author and economist Peter Koenig on Democracy and the Future of the United States . The Interview was published in Italian.

    Alessandro Bianchi: I would start from a brutal question: what kind of country has become one that offers Donald Trump as the best candidate?

    Peter Koenig: The United States is a country, almost hermetically closed to the rest of the real world, brainwashed to the core with lies and propaganda – and every day being told how great America is. This propaganda is not new, though. It has been going on for as long as the US exists, but has rapidly intensified after WWII and especially during the Cold War – and then again after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    And thus, Americans, meaning North Americans – not mixing them up with Latin America which is also part of the Americas – the vast majority of the US citizens cannot see what is really going on. They are blinded by propaganda – and immobilized by their comfort. They love comfortable lives, many of them – and although they do realize that something is not as it should be, it would give them an uneasy feeling searching for the truth. The truth they suspect is too hard to swallow.

    In such an ambiance someone like Donald Trump can flourish. He is different and he has a personality the populace in general lack. The populace is unhappy with what's going on in their country, though they are 'comfortable' how they live and how they lived all their lives. Change is uncomfortable. Trump personalizes their change, without having to do anything. And Trump reconfirms their values – of a great country – supremacy above all. – Trump is an 'old Nazi', while Hillary, better called 'Killary' is a new Nazi, or a neo-Nazi.

    You see – fascism is difficult to escape in the US of A.

    But what's the alternative to Trump? – Killary? –

    With her you know whom she is working for – the Zionists, of whom she is actually part; neoliberals, of whom she is part; corporate and financial elites by whom she is paid; Israel, as the Israeli influence through AIPAC in the US and the US Congress is unparalleled and unbeatable to the point of the going saying that "the tail (Israel, the Zionists) wags the Dog (US)". They, the Zionists support her, she supports them. The circle is perfect. And both go to war. They want the total chaos in the Middle East, to be dominated by the Israel of Netanyahu and Washington. Killary is the war candidate – perfect for the Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex.

    So – I believe, the 'system' – the 'elite system' behind the mysterious Lucifer eye on top of the pyramid on the dollar bill, this system will make Killary their next president. She is perfect for them. She and trump are but two sides of the same coin. Therefore, no chance that anything will change towards peace in the US of A in the coming years. Change may come only if people at home wake up and take politics in their own hands – seeking peace, seeking true unification – not dominion – with the rest of the world.

    Peoples of the world do not need a sledgehammer, a dictator – one that enslaves them, robs them, rapes and exploits them, kills them if they don't behave as the Masters in Washington deem necessary. People in the US suffer the same from a Trump or Killary as would the rest of the world. Poverty and injustice, the advancement of the police- and military dictatorship in the US is alarming, depriving citizens of their rights, their livelihood, their freedom. But they must wake up to stop this process.

    AB: In a recent survey over 53% of Americans were against both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. How long will we continue to consider the United States a democracy? And why, in your opinion, abstention is the only form of "rebellion" of a completely excluded from the decision-making stage population?

    PK: I don't know anyone, other than the mainstream media (MSM), that considers the US a democracy. Indeed, the last form of 'rebellion' – of active protest that no military can stop, is abstention from voting, not going to the polls – staying home. In a system where the people are given the candidates that the evil eye pre-selects for them – and where none of theirs would stand a chance – in such a system NOT voting may be the only solution, the only way to send a strong message of disagreement. It would, however, take an organization of campaigning much harder than folding into the mood of every four years, listening to the same lies and propaganda over and over again – and what's worse, taking the candidates seriously. Debating Killary and Trump is already taking them too seriously, giving them credit they don't deserve. They are both criminals – with Killary being a murderer.

    AB: Bernie Sanders was really the change that many in Europe have described?

    PK: Not at all. Bernie is a fake. He was and I guess, still is a test case for the system. Lucifer wants to see how far he can go – and what is it that the people want to hear. Accordingly, will be adjusted the discourse of the two candidates. Sanders has a (Senate) voting record which does not portray what he pledges to stand for. He is someone who when it suits him to be politically correct, calls Chavez a dead dictator, distancing himself from this great mentor of a free world.

    What kind of a worthy candidate would do that?
    Sanders, early on has said that if he should not succeed, he would support Killary. Hello! what message does that convey? – That he would support a warmonger par excellence? – Europeans like many Americans have been fooled by Bernie's charm and rebellious appearance. All fake!

    AB: What would happen to the world with a Hillary Clinton's presidency?

    PK: The short answer – WWIII – if it hadn't already started as one of Obama's last agenda item to be achieved before leaving office. Killary and Israel – they would certainly not stop from annihilating the Middle East on the way to achieve The PNAC's (Plan for a New American Century) sole objective – Full Spectrum Dominance – controlling the world. To do so, wars with Russia and China are unavoidable. I still hope – Hope dies last! – that Presidents Putin and Xi, the real visionaries and excellent chess players in this geopolitical game, will be able to gently pull out all the plugs from the monster octopus, deflating the beast economically – so as to spill as little blood as possible -and, so as the rest of the world can continue living with a peaceful economic and monetary system, the one being designed by Russia, China, India (the BRICS, now without the 'B'), the central and eastern Asian countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and those also belonging to the EEU (Eurasian Economic Union) covering some 50% of the world population and controlling about a third of the world's economic output.

    AB: What did you feel when you saw Obama speaking recently at Hiroshima not apologizing for what was done by his country and declaring almost sarcastically – as the head of the world's first atomic power – to hope for a world without nuclear weapons?

    PK: Utter disgust – a hypocrite on top of his class.

    AB: Will the growing US expansionism come to a breaking point and collision with China?

    PK: As I said before, let's hope China and Russia will be able to deflate the monster's steady aggressions through encroachment of Russia by NATO and China by the US Navy fleet in the South China Sea. They are a constant provocation. But so far Russia and China haven't fallen into the trap.
    What is more worrisome – the European vassals, especially Germany, France and the UK, they are totally enslaved- or bought? – by Washington. They let the expansion of NATO going on, even pay for it!!! – while not realizing – are they really so blind? – that the next war, WWIII, would play out again in Europe? – Europe the third time in 100 years the theatre of war, destruction and annihilation. This time to the end of life – very likely.

    AB: Although it is NATO that is bringing his installations more and more to the east, in Europe our information feeds a danger of an aggressive Russia. Who benefits feed this feeling of Russophobia?

    PK: The information in Europe and elsewhere in the western world is controlled to literally 90% by 6 giant Anglo-Zionist media corporations. Every piece of propaganda news – LIES – is repeated at nauseatum by all the MSM outlets. It's an old doctrine, Hitler and many before him knew, when you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. That's happening to an agonizing degree in Europe – a sheer continent of vassals. – They harm themselves most – and, of course, support Lucifer behind his clandestine eye on top of the pyramid.

    AB: Since the advent of the so-called Arab Spring, which began with the famous Obama's speech at the University of Cairo in 2009, the Eastern Mediterranean has become a powder keg. Was it an external plan planned destruction of states hostile rulers in Washington, Libya and Syria in particular, or real quest for democracy and freedom?

    PK: Well, my friend, you know that it had and has nothing to do with democracy. The 'Arab Spring' was as planned by the CIA, Mossad and other secret services of the evil powers as were the so-called Color Revolutions in the former Soviet Republics – and of course, the last one we have witnessed to the extreme, Ukraine, where Washington didn't relent before a pure Nazi Government was installed; a Nazi Government – for which such (in)famous newspapers like the Swiss NZZ (Neue Zürcher Zeitung) seek support by asking the west to go to war against Russia. Can you imagine!

    None of the destroyed states were 'hostile' to Washington. It is, as always, the other way around, hostility is instigated by Washington, to provoke wars and 'regime change' that's precisely what has happened in the Middle East – and continues to happen until all those countries that have to fall – as it is planned in the PNAC – will eventually fall. The only ones that can stop that merciless killing machine are Russia and China.

    AB: Is right to define today Aleppo as the "Stalingrad of Syria" and "the cemetery of the dreams of fascist Erdogan" as stated by the Syrian President Assad?

    PK: Yes, President Assad may be right. This is an interesting allegation and association. But then again – Aleppo still stands today and Mr. Putin will not let it fall.

    AB: What do you think will be the final scenario for Syria. It risks a crystallization like Cold War-style situation between the two blocks – Damascus, Russia and regional allies, on the one hand, and Kurds with the United States on the other – with Raqqa which will become a new Berlin?

    PK: It's very difficult to predict the outcome of the Syria conflict – a US instigated conflict, let me make that very clear. In any case, as it stands now, the axis Syria-Iran is still alive and well. China, the single largest client of Iran's hydrocarbons, will not let Iran fall. Mr. Putin, likewise, will, in my opinion, not let Mr. Assad be overthrown by Lucifer and his minions. And let's hope that they prevail. To prevail, however, Washington would have to take some major blows, some weakening blows. This is currently the case. The empire is on its last legs, as many say – breathing heavily, like an angry beast in agony – it lashes around itself and kills indiscriminately whatever it can, so nobody may survive its demise. This could well happen. The US triggering WWIII – a nuclear annihilation. But let's hope it will NOT happen.

    AB: What role, in your opinion, the human rights NGOs play in the current international context?

    PK: What Human rights NGOs? – There is none left that deserves the term. They are all bought. Have you ever seen, for example, Amnesty international accusing the empire of whatever human rights abuses they have carried out – the most flagrant human rights abuser in the universe is never mentioned by AI? – What a joke! – Same with Human Rights Watch and others. They are all subdued, even Green Peace – probably all financed by the dollars of which the FED has taken on its own the power to create unlimited quantities from thin air.

    AB: 14 years ago, the coup in Venezuela against the democratically elected President Hugo Chavez failed and began the US exit from Latin America. Shortly after, the US invaded Iraq. Today that the hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean wobbles, Washington uses all its weapons known to return in Latin America. Was in your opinion the President Rafael Correa right when he says that we are facing a new Plan Condor in the region?

    PK: Of course, President Correa is right, when he refers to a new Plan Condor. It is happening very fast. Thinking of it makes one sick. We – those who foster hope to the end – have been hoping that at least one important part of the world, Latin America, or especially South America, will withstand the pressure of Washington. But no. These governments, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, they seem to be too honest – maybe not astute enough – to use the same weapons the neoliberals do. For example, it goes beyond me that Dilma Rousseff did not stop the propaganda media, kick them out, declare Martial Law to reinstate the rule of Law, of the democratically elected Government. Macri, as you know, closed immediately TeleSUR, the only media that brings the truth to South America. He got away with it. He is the neo-Nazi leader of Argentina.

    The same with Mr. Maduro. Why does he not order the military to distribute food to the stores and assure that the electricity grid functions? We know that food is available, but the distribution is interrupted by the local rightwing forces supported and trained by Washington. The same that the CIA did in Chile to organize a coup against President Allende – they interrupted the food chain, and people took to the streets. It's all orchestrated from Washington. Old methods in new clothes. Especially if it worked the first time, why wouldn't it work a second and third time? – People have very short memories.

    AB: And if so, considering also what happened in Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia, which techniques are used today?

    PK: The techniques of infiltration. Vulnerable, buyable locals from the opposition are bought, trained in the US or even sometime on location, by the CIA and other foreign and western forces – some in the form of foreign do-gooder 'NGOs', to create and instigate peoples' unhappiness – through strikes, blockages, as mentioned before, interruptions of food chains. The media propaganda. In all these countries the foreign media is by far domineering. And the local media are in the hands of oligarchs, the elite, and of course want any left-leaning government to disappear as fast and lasting as possible. And they get the steady support from Washington. The 'election coup' in Argentina was orchestrated largely by the media. Although there was some fraud going on during and after the elections. But most of it was done by the western rightwing media.

    The 'parliamentary coup' in Brazil, and before in Paraguay in 2012, were remote-guided from Washington. That is not surprising. But what is surprising to me is that people just let it happen, that Dilma Rousseff just looked on as her government was being destroyed – by corrupt scoundrels who themselves should be and will eventually be in prison. Michel Temer, Brazil's interim President, is constitutionally not allowed to stand for public office for the next at least 8 years, as he is convicted for corruption in the 'Car Wash' scandal. Yet, he heads Brazil's interim government. What a farce. It's like kids' play – they – Lucifer's vassals – go as far as they can, until somebody stops them. Nobody, inside or outside Brazil has had the guts to say 'stop' and take the necessary actions.
    Never forget, money is plentiful. May it cost whatever ridiculously astronomic amount is needed to influence and buy people, money is just being produced by the empire which still has the dollar monopoly – that the rest of the world – except Russia and China – adheres to. So, that's how everything is financed – weapons, including a destructive media bulldozer. Other, 'normal' countries do not have access to unlimited amounts of money. Therefore, they will not win a media war. Unless, they do what they are allowed to do: stop a slander and lie-driven media campaign, by force. This has nothing to do with free-press or freedom of expression. The Government has a democratic and constitutional right to stop lies and slander. Dilma did not use her power to stop the media lies and slander.

    AB: The future of the world offers at the moment two possible tracks: a US unilateralism, particularly in the event of Clinton's presidency, made up of areas of "free" trade treaty around the world on the NAFTA model (such as the TTIP in Europe), with millions the desperate poor products, profits only for multinationals and the planned destruction of all countries who rebel against this vision in Libya and Syria style; or, second hypothesis, a period of multilateralism, respect for sovereignty, self-determination and peace if to prevail is the alternative project to the Washington Consensus of the Brics and the regional integration in Latin America designed and built by Chavez, Lula and Kirchner. Are we a lot far from reality? And which of the two views will prevail in your opinion?

    PK: US unilateralism, or a free world of sovereign countries, peacefully trading with each other well, you know which one should prevail, and I must say that a positive outlook has a lot to do with what eventually will happen. The 'power of the mind' effect of human thinking and will-power is amazing. But, indeed, it may take a long time until we will be living in a world of peace, justice and equality. Foremost, it will take awakening of the "We, the People" to a different consciousness. Even if darkness will prevail for a while longer – light will overwhelmingly outshine darkness, eventually.

    Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, Chinese 4th Media, TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance .

    [Jul 12, 2016] FBI s Critique of Hillary Clinton Is a Ready-Made Attack Ad

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton may not be indicted on criminal charges over her handling of classified email, but the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, all but indicted her judgment and competence on Tuesday - two vital pillars of her presidential candidacy - and in the kind of terms that would be politically devastating in a normal election year. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    Hillary Clinton may not be indicted on criminal charges over her handling of classified email, but the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, all but indicted her judgment and competence on Tuesday - two vital pillars of her presidential candidacy - and in the kind of terms that would be politically devastating in a normal election year.

    ... ... ...

    To her charge that he is "reckless," Mr. Trump may now respond by citing Mr. Comey's rebuke: that Mrs. Clinton and her team "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

    To her promises to defend the United States, Mr. Trump may now retort with Mr. Comey's warning that "it is possible that hostile actors gained access" to Mrs. Clinton's email account and the top secret information it contained.

    And to her reproofs about his temperament and responsibility, Mr. Trump may now point to Mr. Comey's finding that "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes" on handling classified information - though Mr. Comey said that other factors, like Mrs. Clinton's intent, argued against criminal charges.


    Worst of all was the totality of Mr. Comey's judgment about Mrs. Clinton's judgment.

    She is running as a supremely competent candidate and portraying Mr. Trump, in essence, as irresponsible and dangerous. Yet the director of the F.B.I. basically just called her out for having committed one of the most irresponsible moves in the modern history of the State Department.

    ... ... ...

    Her clearest selling point - that she, unlike Mr. Trump, can manage challenging relationships with allies and adversaries - has now been undercut because she personally mismanaged the safeguarding of national security information.

    [Jul 12, 2016] Bernie betrays all his supporters

    www.armstrongeconomics.com

    Armstrong Economics

    Of course Bernie Sanders appears to have sold out emerging from a White House meeting with President Barack Obama vowing to work together with Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump in November. Bernie would rather endorse a traitor who has sold her influence as Secretary of State just to save the Democratic Party. Obama assured Bernie, no doubt, that he would not allow Hillary to be indicted. And to further rig the game, the State Department refuses to release her emails until AFTER the election. But the actual date they gave was November 31st, 2016, which does not exist since November has only 30 days. Once she is president, no doubt they will vanish altogether.

    It appears that Bernie is betraying all those who supported him. Hillary will raise $1 billion to buy the White House. That kind of money does not come from bankers without strings. Wall Street supports Hillary – not Trump. That says it all. How Bernie can just give up is amazing. What happened to his "revolution" will never be discussed.

    [Jul 12, 2016] Was Sanders a sheepdog corraling voters for Hillary?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    Sanders and Clinton in New Hampshire

    So, what's happening with the Sanders list?

    "Text of Bernie Sanders' speech endorsing Hillary Clinton" [MarketWatch]. Lambert here: Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. The moment had to come, and now it has come. Will Sanders, in practice, have proven to be a sheepdog? Will Sanders' endorsement decapitate his movement? To me, the open question is what actions Sanders voters will take, going forward, beyond the ballot box, and as organizers. I'm not really sanguine about that, because the Chicago conference didn't give me confidence the left could unsilo itself, and distinguish itself, as a single institutional force ready to take power, from the (neoliberal) liberals (mostly Democrats) and the (neoliberal) conservatives (some Democrats, mostly Republicans). That said, the Sanders campaign did more than the left could have expected in its wildest dreams. To the text:

    [SANDERS:] I have come here today not to talk about the past but to focus on the future. That future will be shaped more by what happens on November 8 in voting booths across our nation than by any other event in the world. I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president.

    During the last year I had the extraordinary opportunity to speak to more than 1.4 million Americans at rallies in almost every state in this country. I was also able to meet with many thousands of other people at smaller gatherings. And the profound lesson that I have learned from all of that is that this campaign is not really about Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, or any other candidate who sought the presidency. This campaign is about the needs of the American people and addressing the very serious crises that we face. And there is no doubt in my mind that, as we head into November, Hillary Clinton is far and away the best candidate to do that.

    I'd prefer the position that Clinton hasn't won the nomination until there's a vote on the convention floor, which I had understood to be the position of the Sanders campaign.

    [SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new wealth and income to the top one percent.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    [SANDERS:] This election is about the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality that currently exists, the worst it has been since 1928. Hillary Clinton knows that something is very wrong when the very rich become richer while many others are working longer hours for lower wages.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    [SANDERS:] I am happy to tell you that at the Democratic Platform Committee which ended Sunday night in Orlando, there was a significant coming together between the two campaigns and we produced, by far, the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party. Our job now is to see that platform implemented by a Democratic Senate, a Democratic House and a Hillary Clinton president - and I am going to do everything I can to make that happen.

    Platform as a highly inadequate baseline and a method to hold Clinton's feet to the fire? Yes. Not negligible, but not much. And Clinton immediately showed - before the rally! - that she didn't take it seriously.

    [SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today.

    I don't see how the institutionalized corruption of both legacy parties generally and the Clinton Dynasty in particular make any of this possible. One door closes, another opens…

    "'I can't help but say how much more enjoyable this election is going to be when we are on the same side,' [Clinton] said. "You know what? We are stronger together!'" [CNN]. Whichever Clinton operative decided to deploy the "stronger together" slogan shouldn't be expected to have known that it's also a slogan developed by the military junta in Thailand. But whatever.

    "Tuesday's rally drew supporters of Clinton and Sanders, some of whom chanted 'Bernie' while others chanted 'unity.' Some Sanders supporters left their seats when Sanders endorsed Clinton. Earlier, when New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said 'we need to elect Hillary,' she was interrupted by shouts of 'No!' and chants of "Bernie, Bernie' [USA Today]. "But there were deafening cheers as Sanders said Clinton would 'make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today.'"

    "The most ringing portion of the endorsement came at the end, with Sanders bringing up some of the personal reasons why he had chosen to support Clinton. But even this portion felt a bit lifeless, with Sanders citing Clinton's intellect and passion on children's issues, and failing to address her integrity, which he directly challenged during the campaign and which will continue to be an issue the Republicans attack in the wake of the conclusion of the FBI's investigation into her email scandal" [Slate].

    And what happened here?

    Do we have any readers who were on that conference call?

    "[I]n a nod to Sanders's successful fundraising efforts that brought in millions of dollars from small donors, with at one time an average donation of $27, Clinton's campaign has made $27 an option on its online donor page" [CNN].

    "About 85 percent of Democrats who backed Mr. Sanders in the primary contests said they planned to vote for her in the general election, according to a Pew poll released last week. Yet she has struggled to appeal to the independents and liberals who rallied behind the senator's call for a 'political revolution' to topple establishment politicians, Mrs. Clinton included" [New York Times]. 85% of declared Democrats. Not such a good number from a third of the electorate.

    "I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, regardless of her endorsement by Bernie Sanders. My decision isn't because of the scandal around her emails or because of some concern over her character. My reasons are pretty straightforward. I don't agree with her ideologically" [Eddie S. Glaude, Time].

    The Trail

    "The final amendment to the Democratic Party platform was meant to sprinkle Hillary Clinton's name throughout the document, putting a contentious and drawn-out primary process to rest in favor of a unified party. It never came up for a vote" [Bloomberg]. "Despite having the support of both the Clinton and Bernie Sanders campaign staffs, the amendment hadn't been run by committee members or Sanders supporters in the audience, some of whom angrily shouted down the language because, they argued, Clinton isn't the official nominee yet. The moment highlighted the state of the party after a long weekend of intense debates in Orlando, Florida, that left some tempers frayed, and extensive back-room policy negotiations between the two campaigns…."

    "On Tuesday, the [Trump and Indiana Governor Mike Pence] will put their compatibility to the test when they appear together at a rally near Indianapolis, the latest in a string of public auditions for the running mate role" [RealClearPolitics].

    ""Hillary Clinton's campaign is vetting James G. Stavridis, a retired four-star Navy admiral who served as the 16th supreme allied commander at NATO, as a possible running mate" [New York Times]. From the Wikipedia entry, which seems to have been written by a Clinton operative: "Stavridis has long advocated the use of "Smart Power," which he defines as the balance of hard and soft power taken together. In numerous articles[17] and speeches, he has advocated creating security in the 21st century by building bridges, not walls." I mean, come on.

    jo6pac

    Those that sent money to Bernie please let Lambert and us know if dddc or dnc ask for $$$$$$. Then may be it will just be a letter from the foundation asking for $$$$$$$$$$$$.

    Roger Smith

    I will update should I receive anything. I am curious about the list as well.

    Arizona Slim

    I just unsubscribed from Bernie's e-mailing list.

    Rick

    As did I. I will keep the poster I bought from his campaign as a reminder of a now passed moment of hope.

    cwaltz

    The moment hasn't passed unless you were expecting Bernie Sanders to do all the heavy lifting.

    The reality is that each and every person disappointed today should make a concerted effort to let the DNC know in no uncertain terms did their lying, cheating and outright rigging of this primary mean that they'll be getting a vote this November. It also means that each and every person find their spine and support someone other than the Democratic nominee. Expect to hunker down for 4 years no matter what because if Clinton or Trump are the nominees then you can pretty much expect there won't be many benefits for average Americans.

    [Jul 12, 2016] Bernie Sanders Supporters: Bernie is a fraud

    Notable quotes:
    "... "A Sanders endorsement of Clinton would be the ultimate betrayal of his supporters, especially those of us that poured money into his campaign." ..."
    "... "Bernie, if you endorse Hillary Clinton, after is NOW A PROVEN FACT she lied to the American people, then you sir are a FRAUD." ..."
    "... "Bernie, endorsing Clinton destroys every point you made and everything you stood for in the race. You are letting the people who supported you down. You made a promise to fight in the end, but instead you are conceding. You are not the elected leader you lead us to believe in. Shame on you." ..."
    thebuzzinsider.com

    "Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today," Sanders said at the end of the rally.

    This proclamation is a far cry from how his stance was a couple months ago, when he claimed that Clinton wasn't qualified for the presidency.

    "I don't believe that she is qualified," Sanders said in a Philadelphia rally back in April, as reported by thinkprogress.org. "[I]f she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC."

    Trump was one of the first to call Sanders a sell-out on Twitter, comparing his endorsement of "Crooked Hillary Clinton" to Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs.

    "I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself and his supporters," Trump tweeted. "They are not happy that he is selling out!"

    While some Democrats are happy that the party has seemed to have finally united, like the Communications Workers of America who have now changed their endorsement from Sanders to Clinton, other supporters share Trumps sentiments, feeling outraged and disappointed at Bernie's sudden change of heart.

    "A Sanders endorsement of Clinton would be the ultimate betrayal of his supporters, especially those of us that poured money into his campaign."

    "Bernie, if you endorse Hillary Clinton, after is NOW A PROVEN FACT she lied to the American people, then you sir are a FRAUD."

    "Bernie, endorsing Clinton destroys every point you made and everything you stood for in the race. You are letting the people who supported you down. You made a promise to fight in the end, but instead you are conceding. You are not the elected leader you lead us to believe in. Shame on you."

    These are just some of the comments people have been leaving on Sander's Facebook page, as reported on the Forward Progressives website.

    Other supporters have asked him to wait for the Democrats Party convention, to run in a third-party or to join Jill Stein in the Green Party ticket.

    Now that Sanders has endorsed Clinton, Clinton's campaign will most likely focus on convincing his supporters to join them in their fight for the presidency.

    [Jul 12, 2016] If that is not a betrayal of his supporters and his principles what is it then

    Bernie is anti war, anti Wall St., anti TPP. If that is not a betrayal of his supporters and his principles what is it then. Endorsing Clinton is like taking a job at Goldman-Sachs.
    www.theguardian.com
    Jul 12, 2016

    Potyka Kalman

    , 2016-07-12 19:30:33
    So why exactly he endorses her? We still don't know.

    The Democrats has good political operatives. There is Barack, the "change-no-change" "black not for blacks" candidate, and Bernie, The Revolutionary who stands staunchly behind Goldman Sachs and everything it presents.

    Of course the real governing task is delegated to Hillary Clinton and the "experts" from the banks.

    Hey guys. Good job. Just remember: ultimately there is that cliff you're marching towards.


    X Girl , 2016-07-12 19:18:28
    Why is he not doing as he promised and taking his message and challenge all the way to the convention? The super delegates are still an play and I doubt they've even finished counting California...This is very disheartening... Prepare for eternal war.


    CivilDiscussion , 2016-07-12 18:51:45
    Lyin' Bernie. A Trojan Horse for the corporate mafia from the very start.
    CrookedWilly99 , 2016-07-12 18:51:19
    I'd like to formally thank Bernie Sanders for endorsing my wife Hillary today. I know how tough it was for Bernie to stump for her today. Especially considering Hillary is even more crooked than my 4-inch yogurt slinger. As many of my young interns know, that's really crooked!

    I'd also like to formally apologize to Bernie for all the death threats and that severed horse's head my guys left in his bed. lol whoops! Ok, gotta go make another phone call to my good friend Trump now.....

    Itsyaboi , 2016-07-12 18:47:10
    You could just crawl back into your socialist hole and not say anything Bernie, but no, you're just another fool brought by Clinton because she needs your votes like she needs air. Congratulations on becoming another member of the Clinton foundations bankroll
    David Michael , 2016-07-12 18:37:02
    The problem isnt her most recent rhetoric, it is her person, and trusting to do the things she says (as she has held every side of every position). The endorsement doesn't fix the problem that we still don't want her... I think many of us will be looking for at the third party alternatives. If we give into this lesser of two evils every election cycle, we'll soon find candidates worse than Trump.
    Falanx , 2016-07-12 18:30:07
    1. Party platforms are consolation bullshit. They mean nothing, especially when the big money funding the campaign is against the platform. This is just a political fact.

    2. Therefore, Bernie's campaign has not started a revolution, but rather has dead-ended with a big bowl of nothing.

    3. Parties are the vehicles through which policies get pushed and accomplished. Since it was re-engineered by the Clinton's in the 1990's, the Democratic Party is like a vehicle with its steering welded to turn right.

    4. Therefore the only way to achieve a successful and peaceful political revolution is to re-engineer the vehicle; and this requires breaking it down and putting it back together.
    In other words, for the sake of progress, the D.N.C. as presently constituted and managed had to be destroyed.

    5. The only way to destroy the D.N.C. would have been to hand Hillary a defeat on a platter. This would have driven home, in the only way politicians understand, that progressive Americans will not be played and fooled.

    6. The willingness to do this requires strategic fortitude -- a willingness to think in long term objectives and to endure immediate and temporary inconveniences. Four years of Trump will not be the "sky-is-falling" disaster the Hillary Hens are clucking over. Eight years of Hillary will only solidify the grip corporations, banks and neo-con militarists, have on the country.

    7. Bernie should have run as an independent, precisely in order to defeat Hillary. Only then could a four year hiatus be used to clean out the D.N.C., and revitalize it with real progressive blood. Then and only then will progressives get the "platform" they want. Is four years of Clown Trump worth it? You bet.

    RobO83 , 2016-07-12 18:26:48
    Clintons character is as dubious as her husbands pants after an afternoon with Monica.
    pull2open RobO83 , 2016-07-12 18:31:36
    But in comparison to her opponent?
    YetAnotherSimon RobO83 , 2016-07-12 18:32:56
    Or one of his 26 flights on sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein's plane the 'Lolita Express'
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-clinton-ditched-secret-service-on-multiple-lo /
    fedback gooner4thewin , 2016-07-12 18:36:37
    Bernie is anti war, anti Wall St., anti TPP. If that is not a betrayal of his supporters and his principles what is it then
    mikehowleydcu , 2016-07-12 18:25:02
    Chris Hedges was right all along.
    IanB52 mikehowleydcu , 2016-07-12 18:39:53
    I disagree. Chris Hedges believes that Sanders intended to mislead voters and intentionally funnel them back to Hillary Clinton under the belief that they would uncritically support her. That seems to be completely false, and even if it were true, it's seems he made a terrible sheepdog as many of us will not support Hillary. The problem was that although he saw no chance for an independent to win, the Democratic Party is a dead end for real change as well. I guess we all know that now.
    mikehowleydcu IanB52 , 2016-07-12 18:48:36
    Point taken.

    When it comes to intention I guess that I believed that he was genuine in his attempt to win and bring about change (except on the nation that cannot be criticised and on foreign policy) but the endorsement of HRC is another blow for the massive desire to remove these two corporatist parties.

    With the DNC having decided to support fracking, settlements etc the American people (and the world) are in for more of the same, war, privatisation, alienation of the poor, secret trade deals that give more power to corporations and environmental destruction etc. etc. etc

    mikehowleydcu IanB52 , 2016-07-12 18:52:33
    Here's what Chris said to Ralph Nader

    "He's lending credibility to a party that is completely corporatized. He has agreed that he will endorse the candidate, which, unless there is some miracle, will probably be Hillary Clinton."

    Jeff1000 , 2016-07-12 18:20:34
    Oh Bernie.

    You bottled it in the end. Sad. I never liked him much, but in running as an independent or siding with the Greens he could have showed that he stands for something. Endorsing Clinton is like taking a job at Goldman-Sachs.

    Hell, maybe that's where he's headed.

    Tuan Hoang hureharehure , 2016-07-12 18:58:45
    Oh, so he admitted it'd be better to support a lesser evil? How should you support an evil anyway? How about quietly withdrawing from the race and not saying anything that violates his own principles? I don't see what that's difficult to understand myself!
    novenator , 2016-07-12 18:20:35
    There was never a doubt that Democrats would eventually unite behind whoever ended up being the nominee. The problem is that all those NON-Democrats who so passionately supported Bernie will not. He was the real deal, and our best hope of actually engaging them, expanding our party, and having the wave election we need to actually get progress done.

    I have been actively trying to recruit folks like this into our ranks for many years now, so trust me when I tell you that we are in very serious trouble this year. No matter what Bernie says or does, these non-Dems will not feel the bern for her. We are heading to a low voter turnout election with two major candidates that have record low net favorability ratings, and Republicans usually do best in situations like that since they have the most reliable voting base.

    Tuan Hoang , 2016-07-12 18:20:01
    In my book, when you've run against somebody, you must think that guy would be a bad choice. When you think a person is a bad choice, how come you endorse that person? Bernie lost my respect (even though he doesn't care)!
    RankinRalph , 2016-07-12 18:15:59
    F*** this lesser-of-two-evils rubbish. We paid for his campaign, to resist this criminal and what she represents with every fibre of his body and he's sold us out. Jill Stein offered him something that could have brought real change and he sold us out. He is there because of the money and faith we put in him.
    What a turncoat bastard. I am disgusted.
    BennCarey , 2016-07-12 18:10:21
    For a vast library of information detailing the many crimes of the ghastly Clinton crime syndicate, please see the following link. http://www.arkancide.com
    DammitJim72 , 2016-07-12 18:10:05
    Super delegates have yet to vote, Hillary has not made it past the threshold, so if Sanders torpedos her, he gets booted out as a Dem nominee by party rules. So in order to stay to the convention he is doing what he has to.

    Has he conceded? No! If Bernie showed and asked me to vote for Hillary I would tell him no.

    Bernie or Jill, never Hill! Still Sanders!

    NoSerf , 2016-07-12 18:09:52
    Hillary is vetted by Netanyahu.
    wakeupbomb , 2016-07-12 18:08:41
    Another completely meaningless choice awaits the American people, how thrilling.
    Drewv , 2016-07-12 18:08:24
    At this point, Bernie's endorsement of Hillary does not matter at all. The genie of his movement is already out of the bottle, and it cannot be put back in.

    The movement never belonged to him, he belongs to the movement, and Bernie knows it. He knows it even as he pronounces the endorsement. He has played his enormously important part in that movement through his candidacy and now he will go back to fighting for the progressive cause from inside the Democratic party, because that is what he has been doing for twenty years and before he launched that candidacy. But the forces that he has unleashed will keep growing and gathering strength on their own.

    Never Hillary!!

    NadaZero , 2016-07-12 18:10:31
    Same old shit then. The Plutocrats won again and can freely go on selling 'war for profit' as 'fighting for freedoms.'

    Christ on a fucking cracker.

    ethane21 NadaZero , 2016-07-12 18:38:28

    Same old shit then. The Plutocrats won again and can freely go on selling 'war for profit' as 'fighting for freedoms.'

    With the useful benefit that La Clinton can now swan about on stage draped in a coat made from the hide of an old leftie.
    "We came, we saw we skinned it." And oh how the laughter rang out the entire length of Wall Street.
    Anjeska , 2016-07-12 17:51:27
    Trump has spoken against globalism. Trump has spoken against neocon wars. Trump wants to uphold our laws.

    Hillary is a globalist shill.
    Hillary is a warmongerer.
    Hillary thinks laws are for little people.

    The choice is simple.

    Merseysidefella , 2016-07-12 17:51:12
    Even if Hillary chooses Pocahontas as her running mate, they will lose because everyone is fed up with the Regime.
    The US is not a democracy
    CriticalThinking4000 , 2016-07-12 17:45:57
    So the warmongers and wall street win again. For the moment at least. The struggle continues. A new front opens under the banner of the Greens. In the UK the Grassoots on the left now have the whole power of the elite arrayed against them, with dirty tricks and media lies. The right wing blairites are using every trick in the book to split our Labouur Movement and remove our democratically elected Leader Corbyn. We are hanging in. Wish us luck, American friends! Looks like we are going to need it. No surrender!
    Jayarava Attwood CriticalThinking4000 , 2016-07-12 18:16:14
    There was never any doubt, in any election ever fought in the USA, that the military-industrial-financial complex would be the winner. They always are.

    The left in the UK are tearing themselves apart Life of Brian style (how prescient that film was!). It will be generations before they every wield power in this country, if ever. I'll probably see out my days under a vicious Tory administration.

    NullPointerException , 2016-07-12 17:44:50
    It's a shame it has come to this but kind of expected.

    Bernie wants to stop Trump now, and he believes that his is the way to do it. I don't personally this will have the desired effect enough people despise Clinton, but we will see.

    If I was a US citizen and had a vote, I would have thrown my full support behind Bernie, but this endorsement certainly would not make me vote for Hillary either (I certainly wouldn't support Trump, I'm not totally insane), I'd prefer to abstain completely.

    Strategic voting is an expression of support for the rigid, corrupt and self-serving political system that led to self-serving cretins like Trump and Clinton being among the elite ruling class in the first place.

    All it does is prolong the death rattles of the lower orders of society.

    Jedermann , 2016-07-12 17:44:33
    He closed, thumping the lectern and proclaiming: "Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her today."

    How can he say that? I feel so very let down.

    imithemountain , 2016-07-12 17:44:02
    Fellow Americans: Our country was demolished by Clinton, and Obama has been running a kill list for extra judicial killins, and he is the sitting president under wich a police force appears to be on a rampage to coloured people. The first black president leading a nation of multiple racist killings.

    Do
    Not
    Ever
    Vote
    Democrats
    Again

    The word lie doesnt cover it. The word lying says it doesnt want anything to do with Democrats. Trump, or any other republican, is a far better bet. bring back George Bush jr for all I care. Anyone but a Demorcratic president. Dont do it.

    SgtEmileKlinger , 2016-07-12 17:31:03
    To endorse Hillary Clinton is to be in alliance with a cynical and utterly corrupt liar who is willing to say anything to get elected. By endorsing Hillary you, Bernie, have become a part of everything you have been complaining about. Never mind. It never was about you and your endorsement isn't worth shit.
    jimithemountain , 2016-07-12 17:24:51
    Fuck you, Bernie Sanders, and fuck off.
    Mike5000 , 2016-07-12 17:20:54
    Why did you sell out before the convention, Bernie?
    fedback , 2016-07-12 17:20:42
    Bernie has to work hard to pay back the 200 mio. dollars supporters donated to his campaign. The money was not meant to go to a Clinton endorsement
    MaryElla22 , 2016-07-12 17:19:51
    And?

    If Brexit is any indicative: Trump won.

    Histfel , 2016-07-12 17:15:54
    After the progressive cause was successively sold out to Goldman Sachs by Paul Krugman, Gloria Steinem, John Lewis and the Congressional black caucus, Lena Dunham, Beyonce, George Clooney and Elizabeth Warren (Did I forget any of the earlier hate figures here?) it was inevitable that Bernie would ultimately also be revealed as a neoliberal sellout.
    NarodnayaVolya Porl D , 2016-07-12 17:08:47
    Has to be viewed in the context of the global threat of Donald Trump though

    yeah imagine anyone daring to public oppose further neo-conservative onslaught.
    Obviously the man's unhinged and has to be stopped pronto.
    fortunately bill kristol, victoria nuland, robert kagan et al are hot on the case and 100% on board with hillary (& bill) on this

    ID984302 , 2016-07-12 16:50:31
    Ah hello, Clinton Foundation?? Hasn't he read the FBI insider leaks??

    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/07/fbi-insider-leaks-all-clinton-foundation-exposed-involves-entire-us-government-3381515.html

    C'mon Putin, it's data dump time!!!

    Lafcadio1944 , 2016-07-12 16:45:40
    Sanders and Warren are now subsumed into the maw of the Empire of the Exceptionals and are pledging their loyalty to it. Just like Obama all hopie changie during campaigns but when the chips are down they show their true colors as Neoliberal sycophants and support every policy the claimed to oppose.
    Declan Mccann , 2016-07-12 16:42:11
    I for one will never support a now proven corrupt and dishonest career politician. Sorry Bernie, but the political revolution can never take place within a party as establishment focused as the Democratic Party. A sad and depressing time for all real progressives.
    Vulpes Inculta Tystnaden , 2016-07-12 16:49:22
    Hillary is more dangerous.

    Trump is a man whose uncompromising attitude means he'll get even less done than Obama. He'd be remembered as an ineffective washout of a president, unable to get anything done and sorely disappointing a lot of voters.

    Hillary is a smooth political operator who's in it for her own gain and will get an awful lot done - just not the things you want her to do. She'll be hawkish against Russia, interventionist against the Middle East, she'll throw her full weight behind the establishment in both America and Europe, and she'll make sure her paymasters at Goldman Sachs aren't disappointed in her.

    David Wiebelt II , 2016-07-12 16:39:40
    Bought and sold Bernie. Bernie shows his true political colors as a tool of the elite class.
    cidcid , 2016-07-12 16:38:37
    Chicken and traitor. Deceived millions of naive young people who believed him.
    Montezuma74 Tystnaden , 2016-07-12 17:06:27
    He's a little traitor. Spending donor's money on his own whims, then betraying the people he said he'd stick up for.

    Then, he joins the Goldman Sachs, George Soros, Saudi and Israeli owned Clinton, who, as Obama said, will promise everything and change nothing.

    Not to mention, FBI director Comey just testified in court that HRC gave classified documents to those who should not have seen them.

    Bernie sold out everyone who fought for him. Discusting, snivelling little coward. Unsurprising for most of us though.

    garrylee , 2016-07-12 16:38:10
    Oh,Bernie.What have you done?Legitimised a neo-liberal craven warmonger.You're not like Corbyn after all!
    LinearBandKeramik AndyCh , 2016-07-12 17:33:37

    Some people are just stupid.

    I suppose voting for Hillary to stop Trump might be an unavoidable course of action. But few people realize the danger Hillary represents to the United States... not because of what she will do, but because of what she won't do.

    Across the Western world, the centre is rapidly crumbling. Without a significant course correction, it will soon fall and what replaces it is hard to predict – but I doubt it will be pretty. Austria almost elected a far right president, the UK voted for Brexit, the GOP nominated Trump. You're a fool if you think this is the anti-establishment backlash... it's only the beginning, and these events are just canaries in the mine. The real backlash is yet to come.

    With 4-8 years of a Clinton-led status quo government, resentment will grow, inequality and hopelessness will increase... and eventually a right wing demagogue who is much smarter than Trump will see an opportunity and pounce. I suspect it'll happen right after the next market crash, which Clinton will do nothing to prevent.

    Historically illiterate people are constantly looking out for the "next Hitler" and so point their finger at the likes of Trump. But that's the wrong question. Anyone who understands the events that led to Nazism realizes the true question is who is the next Von Hindenburg . Clinton looks like a pretty good candidate in that respect.

    steveOhollywood , 2016-07-12 16:31:07
    OK. I am officially un-endorsing Bernie Sanders.

    [Jul 11, 2016] 5 Reasons The Comey Hearing Was The Worst Education In Criminal Justice The American Public Has Ever Had by Seth Abramson

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... The reality is that prosecutors don't normally consider the legislative history or possible unconstitutionality of criminal statutes. Why? Because that's not their job. ..."
    "... We can say, accurately, that the judgment of the FBI in its investigation into Clinton and her associates ― and Comey confirmed Clinton was indeed a "subject" of the investigation ― is that Clinton is a criminal. ..."
    "... whether criminal statutes on the books had been violated ..."
    "... criminal statutes had been violated ..."
    "... So, my first point: for Comey to imply that there is any prosecutor in America uncomfortable with the "constitutionality" of criminal statutes predicated on "negligent," "reckless," or "knowing" mental states is not just laughable but an insult to both the prosecutorial class and our entire criminal justice system. Whatever issue Comey may have had with the felony statute he agrees Clinton violated, that wasn't it. ..."
    "... specific intent ..."
    "... Black's Law Dictionary ..."
    "... First he asked, "What would other prosecutors do?" That's not a question prosecutors are charged to ask, and we now see why: as Comey himself concedes, countless prosecutors have already come out in public to say that, had they been investigating Clinton, they would have prosecuted her. A standard for prosecutorial discretion in which you weigh what others in your shoes might do based on some sort of a census leads immediately to madness, not just for the reasons I'm articulating here but many others too numerous to go into in detail in this space. ..."
    "... Comey found credible that Clinton had created her private basement server set-up purely out of "convenience"; yet he also found that old servers, once replaced, were "stored and decommissioned in various ways." Wait, "various ways"? If Clinton was trying to create a streamlined, convenient personal process for data storage, why were things handled so haphazardly that Comey himself would say that the servers were dealt with "in various ways" over time? ..."
    "... And indeed, the evidence Comey turned up showed that Clinton's staff was aware ― was repeatedly and systematically made aware ― that the Secretary's set-up had the effect of evading FOIA requests. And Clinton was, by her own admission, clear with her inferiors that "avoiding access to the personal" was key to her private basement-server set-up. That's very different from "convenience." ..."
    "... completely different and more stringent protocols and requirements for data storage ..."
    "... simply by looking at their headers ..."
    "... every other action ..."
    www.huffingtonpost.com
    1. According to Comey, Clinton committed multiple federal felonies and misdemeanors. Many people will miss this in the wash of punditry from non-attorneys in the mainstream media that has followed Comey's public remarks and Congressional testimony.

    The issue for Comey wasn't that Clinton hadn't committed any federal crimes, but that in his personal opinion the federal felony statute Clinton violated (18 U.S.C. 793f) has been too rarely applied for him to feel comfortable applying it to Clinton. This is quite different from saying that no crime was committed; rather, Comey's position is that crimes were committed, but he has decided not to prosecute those crimes because (a) the statute he focused most on has only been used once in the last century (keeping in mind how relatively rare cases like these are in the first instance, and therefore how rarely we would naturally expect a statute like this to apply in any case), and (b) he personally believes that the statute in question might be unconstitutional because, as he put it, it might punish people for crimes they didn't specifically intend to commit (specifically, it requires only a finding of "gross negligence," which Comey conceded he could prove). Comey appears to have taken the extraordinary step of researching the legislative history of this particular criminal statute in order to render this latter assessment.

    The reality is that prosecutors don't normally consider the legislative history or possible unconstitutionality of criminal statutes. Why? Because that's not their job. Their job is to apply the laws as written, unless and until they are superseded by new legislation or struck down by the judicial branch. In Comey's case, this deep dive into the history books is even more puzzling as, prior to Attorney General Loretta Lynch unethically having a private meeting with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac, Comey wasn't even slated to be the final arbiter of whether Clinton was prosecuted or not. He would have been expected, in a case like this, to note to the Department of Justice's career prosecutors that the FBI had found evidence of multiple federal crimes, and then leave it to their prosecutorial discretion as to whether or not to pursue a prosecution. But more broadly, we must note that when Comey gave his public justification for not bringing charges ― a public justification in itself highly unusual, and suggestive of the possibility that Comey knew his inaction was extraordinary, and therefore felt the need to defend himself in equally extraordinary fashion ― he did not state the truth: that Clinton had committed multiple federal crimes per statutes presently on the books, and that the lack of a recommendation for prosecution was based not on the lack of a crime but the lack of prosecutorial will (or, as he might otherwise have put it, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion).

    The danger here is that Americans will now believe many untrue things about the executive branch of their government. For instance, watching Comey's testimony one might believe that if the executive branch exercises its prosecutorial discretion and declines to prosecute crimes it determines have been committed, it means no crimes were committed. In fact, what it means (in a case like this) is that crimes were committed but will not be prosecuted. We can say, accurately, that the judgment of the FBI in its investigation into Clinton and her associates ― and Comey confirmed Clinton was indeed a "subject" of the investigation ― is that Clinton is a criminal. She simply shouldn't, in the view of the FBI, be prosecuted for her crimes. Prosecutorial discretion of this sort is relatively common, and indeed should be much more common when it comes to criminal cases involving poor Americans; instead, we find it most commonly in law enforcement's treatment of Americans with substantial personal, financial, sociocultural, and legal resources.

    Americans might also wrongly believe, watching Comey's testimony, that it is the job of executive-branch employees to determine which criminal statutes written by the legislative branch will be acknowledged. While one could argue that this task does fall to the head of the prosecuting authority in a given instance ― here, Attorney General Loretta Lynch; had an independent prosecutor been secured in this case, as should have happened, that person, instead ― one could not argue that James Comey's role in this scenario was to decide which on-the-books criminal statutes matter and which don't. Indeed, Comey himself said, during his announcement of the FBI's recommendation, that his role was to refer the case to the DOJ for a "prosecutive decision" ― in other words, the decision on whether to prosecute wasn't his. His job was only to determine whether criminal statutes on the books had been violated.

    By this test, Comey didn't just not do the job he set out to do, he wildly and irresponsibly exceeded it, to the point where its original contours were unrecognizable. To be blunt: by obscuring, in his public remarks and advice to the DOJ, the fact that criminal statutes had been violated ― in favor of observing, more broadly, that there should be no prosecution ― he made it not just easy but a fait accompli for the media and workaday Americans to think that not only would no prosecution commence, but that indeed there had been no statutory violations.

    Which there were.

    Americans might also wrongly take at face value Comey's contention that the felony statute Clinton violated was unconstitutional ― on the grounds that it criminalizes behavior that does not include a specific intent to do wrong. This is, as every attorney knows, laughable. Every single day in America, prosecutors prosecute Americans ― usually but not exclusively poor people ― for crimes whose governing statutes lack the requirement of "specific intent." Ever heard of negligent homicide? That's a statute that doesn't require what lawyers call (depending on the jurisdiction) an "intentional" or "purposeful" mental state. Rather, it requires "negligence." Many other statutes require only a showing of "recklessness," which likewise is dramatically distinct from "purposeful" or "intentional" conduct. And an even larger number of statutes have a "knowing" mental state, which Comey well knows ― but the average American does not ― is a general- rather than specific-intent mental state (mens rea, in legal terms).

    And the term "knowingly" is absolutely key to the misdemeanors Comey appears to concede Clinton committed, but has declined to charge her for.

    To discuss what "knowingly" means in the law, I'll start with an example. When I practiced criminal law in New Hampshire, it was a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to "knowingly cause unprivileged physical contact with another person." The three key elements to this particular crime, which is known as Simple Assault, are "knowingly," "unprivileged," and "physical contact." If a prosecutor can prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant could, at the discretion of a judge, find themselves locked in a cage for a year. "Physical contact" means just about exactly what you'd expect, as does "unprivileged" ― contact for which you have no claim of privilege, such as self-defense, defense of another, permission of the alleged victim, and so on. But what the heck does "knowingly" mean? Well, as any law student can tell you, it means that you were aware of the physical act you were engaged in, even if you didn't intend the consequences that act caused. For instance, say you're in the pit at a particularly raucous speed-metal concert, leaping about, as one does, in close proximity with many other people. Now let's say that after one of your leaps you land on a young woman's foot and break it. If charged with Simple Assault, your defense won't be as to your mental state, because you were "knowingly" leaping about, even if you intended no harm in doing so. Instead, your defense will probably be that the contact (which you also wouldn't contest) was "privileged," because the young lady had implicitly taken on, as had you, the risks of being in a pit in the middle of a speed-metal concert. See the difference between knowingly engaging in a physical act that has hurtful consequences, and "intending" or having as your "purpose" those consequences? Just so, I've seen juveniles prosecuted for Simple Assault for throwing food during an in-school cafeteria food fight; in that instance, no one was hurt, nor did anyone intend to hurt anybody, but "unprivileged physical contact" was "knowingly" made all the same (in this case, via the instrument of, say, a chicken nugget).

    So, my first point: for Comey to imply that there is any prosecutor in America uncomfortable with the "constitutionality" of criminal statutes predicated on "negligent," "reckless," or "knowing" mental states is not just laughable but an insult to both the prosecutorial class and our entire criminal justice system. Whatever issue Comey may have had with the felony statute he agrees Clinton violated, that wasn't it.

    What about the misdemeanor statute?

    Well, there's now terrifying evidence available for public consumption to the effect that Director Comey doesn't understand the use of the word "knowingly" in the law ― indeed, understands it less than even a law student in his or her first semester would. Just over an hour (at 1:06) into the six-hour C-SPAN video of Comey's Congressional testimony, Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) makes a brief but absolutely unimpeachable case that, using the term "knowingly" as I have here and as it is used in every courtroom in America, Secretary Clinton committed multiple federal misdemeanors inasmuch as she, per the relevant statute (Title 18 U.S.C. 1924), "became possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States....and knowingly removed such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location." Comey, misunderstanding the word "knowingly" in a way any law school student would scream at their TV over, states that the FBI would still, under that statutory language, need to prove specific intent to convict Clinton of a Title 18 U.S.C. 1924 violation. Lummis points out that Comey is dead wrong ― and she's right, he is wrong. Per the above, all Clinton had to be aware of is that (a) she was in possession of classified documents, and (b) she had removed them to an unauthorized location. Comey admits these two facts are true, and yet he won't prosecute because he's added a clause that's not in the statute. I can't emphasize this enough: Comey makes clear with his answers throughout his testimony that Clinton committed this federal misdemeanor, but equally makes clear that he didn't charge her with it because he didn't understand the statute. (At 1:53 in the video linked to above, Representative Ken Buck of Colorado goes back to the topic of Title 18 U.S.C. 1924, locking down that Comey is indeed deliberately adding language to that federal criminal statute that quite literally is not there.)

    Yes, it's true. Watch the video for yourself, look up the word "knowingly" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll see that I'm right. This is scary stuff for an attorney like me, or really for any of us, to see on television ― a government attorney with less knowledge of criminal law than a first-year law student.

    2. Comey has dramatically misrepresented what prosecutorial discretion looks like. The result of this is that Americans will fundamentally misunderstand our adversarial system of justice.

    Things like our Fourth and Fifth Amendment are part and parcel of our "adversarial" system of justice. We could have elected, as a nation, to have an "inquisitorial" system of justice ― as some countries in Europe, with far fewer protections for criminal defendants, do ― but we made the decision that the best truth-seeking mechanism is one in which two reflexively zealous advocates, a prosecutor and a defense attorney, push their cases to the utmost of their ability (within certain well-established ethical strictures).

    James Comey, in his testimony before Congress, left the impression that his job as a prosecutor was to weigh his ability to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt not as a prosecutor, but as a member of a prospective jury. That's not how things work in America; it certainly, and quite spectacularly, isn't how it works for poor black men. In fact, what American prosecutors are charged to do is imagine a situation in which (a) they present their case to a jury as zealously as humanly possible within the well-established ethical code of the American courtroom, (b) all facts and inferences are taken by that jury in the prosecution's favor, and then (c) whether, given all those conditions, there is a reasonable likelihood that all twelve jurors would vote for a conviction.

    That is not the standard James Comey used to determine whether to prosecute Hillary Clinton.

    What Comey did was something else altogether.

    First he asked, "What would other prosecutors do?" That's not a question prosecutors are charged to ask, and we now see why: as Comey himself concedes, countless prosecutors have already come out in public to say that, had they been investigating Clinton, they would have prosecuted her. A standard for prosecutorial discretion in which you weigh what others in your shoes might do based on some sort of a census leads immediately to madness, not just for the reasons I'm articulating here but many others too numerous to go into in detail in this space.

    The second thing Comey did was ask, "Am I guaranteed to win this case at trial?" Would that this slowed the roll of prosecutors when dealing with poor black men! Instead, as I discuss later on, prosecutors ― via the blunt instrument of the grand jury ― usually use the mere fact of misdemeanor or felony charges against a defendant as a mechanism for ending a case short of trial. Even prosecutors who ultimately drop a case will charge (misdemeanor) or indict (felony) it first, if only to give themselves time ― because defendants do have speedy trial rights, and statutes of limitation do sometimes intercede ― to plan their next move.

    Third, Comey imagined his case at trial through the following lens: "How would we do at trial if the jury took every fact and presumption ― as we already have ― in Clinton's favor?" Indeed, I'm having more than a hard time ― actually an impossible time ― finding a single unknown or unclear fact that Comey took in a light unfavorable to Clinton (including, incredibly, the facts that became unknowable because of Clinton's own actions and evasions). Instead, Hillary was given the benefit of the doubt at every turn, so much so that it was obvious that the only evidence of "intent" Comey would accept was a full confession from Clinton. That's something prosecutors rarely get, and certainly (therefore) never make a prerequisite for prosecution. But Comey clearly did here.

    I have never seen this standard used in the prosecution of a poor person. Not once.

    3. Comey left the indelible impression, with American news-watchers, that prosecutors only prosecute specific-intent crimes, and will only find a sufficient mens rea (mental state) if and when a defendant has confessed. Imagine, for a moment, if police officers only shot unarmed black men who were in the process of confessing either verbally ("I'm about to pull a gun on you!") or physically (e.g., by assaulting the officer). Impossible to imagine, right? That's because that's not how this works; indeed, that's not how any of this works. Prosecutors, like police officers, are, in seeking signs of intent, trained to read ― and conceding here that some of them do it poorly ― contextual clues that precede, are contemporaneous with, and/or follow the commission of a crime.

    But this apparently doesn't apply to Hillary Clinton.

    It would be easier to identify the contextual clues that don't suggest Clinton had consciousness of guilt than those that do ― as there are exponentially more of the latter than the former. But let's do our best, and consider just a few of the clear signs that Clinton and her team, judging them solely by their words and actions, knew that what they were doing was unlawful.

    For instance, Clinton repeatedly said she used one server and only one device ― not that she thought that that was the correct information, but that she knew it was. Yet the FBI found, per Comey's July 5th statement, that Clinton used "several different servers" and "numerous mobile devices." So either Clinton didn't know the truth but pretended in all her public statements that she did; or she was given bad information which she then repeated uncritically, in which case a prosecutor would demand to know from whom she received that information (as surely that person would know they'd spread misinformation); or she knew the truth and was lying. A prosecutor would want clear, on-the-record answers on these issues; instead, Comey let other FBI agents have an unrecorded, untranscripted interview with Clinton that he himself didn't bother to attend. It's not even clear that that interview was much considered by the FBI; Comey declared his decision just a few dozen hours after the interview was over, and word leaked that there would be no indictment just two hours after the interview. Which, again, incredibly ― and not in keeping with any law enforcement policy regarding subject interviews I'm aware of ― was unrecorded, untranscripted, unsworn, and unattended by the lead prosecutor.

    This in the context of a year-long investigation for which Clinton was the primary subject. Since when is an hours-long interview with an investigation's subject so immaterial to the charging decision? And since when is such an interview treated as such a casual event? Since never. At least for poor people.

    And since when are false exculpatory statements not strong evidence of intent?

    Since never - at least for poor people.

    Comey found credible that Clinton had created her private basement server set-up purely out of "convenience"; yet he also found that old servers, once replaced, were "stored and decommissioned in various ways." Wait, "various ways"? If Clinton was trying to create a streamlined, convenient personal process for data storage, why were things handled so haphazardly that Comey himself would say that the servers were dealt with "in various ways" over time? Just so, Comey would naturally want to test Clinton's narrative by seeing whether or not all FOIA requests were fully responded to by Clinton and her staff in the four years she was the head of the State Department. Surely, Clinton and her staff had been fully briefed on their legal obligations under FOIA ― that's provable ― so if Clinton's "convenience" had caused a conflict with the Secretary's FOIA obligations that would have been immediately obvious to both Clinton and her staff, and would have been remedied immediately if the purpose of the server was not to avoid FOIA requests but mere convenience. At a minimum, Comey would find evidence (either hard or testimonial) that such conversations occurred. And indeed, the evidence Comey turned up showed that Clinton's staff was aware ― was repeatedly and systematically made aware ― that the Secretary's set-up had the effect of evading FOIA requests. And Clinton was, by her own admission, clear with her inferiors that "avoiding access to the personal" was key to her private basement-server set-up. That's very different from "convenience."

    Even if Comey believed that "avoiding access to the personal," rather than "convenience," was the reason for Clinton's server set-up, that explanation would have imploded under the weight of evidence Clinton, her team, and her attorneys exercised no due caution whatsoever in determining what was "personal" and what was not personal when they were wiping those servers clean. If Clinton's concern was privacy, there's no evidence that much attention was paid to accurately and narrowly protecting that interest ― rather, the weight of the evidence suggests that the aim, at all times, was to keep the maximum amount of information away from FOIA discovery, not just "personal" information but (as Comey found) a wealth of work-related information.

    But let's pull back for a moment and be a little less legalistic. Clinton claimed the reason for her set-up was ― exclusively ― "convenience"; nevertheless, Comey said it took "thousands of hours of painstaking effort" to "piece back together" exactly what Clinton was up to. Wouldn't that fact alone give the lie to the claim that this system was more "convenient" than the protocols State already had in place? "Millions of email fragments ended up in the server's 'slack space'," Comey said of Clinton's "convenient" email-storage arrangement. See the contradiction? How would "millions of email fragments ending up in a server's 'slack space'" in any way have served Clinton's presumptive desire for both (a) convenience, (b) FOIA complicance, (c) a securing of her privacy, and (d) compliance with State Department email-storage regulations? Would any reasonable person have found this set-up convenient? And if not ― and Comey explicitly found not ― why in the world didn't that help to establish the real intent of Clinton's private basement servers? Indeed, had Clinton intended on complying with FOIA, presumably her own staff would have had to do the very same painstaking work it took the FBI a year to do. But FOIA requests come in too fast and furious, at State, for Clinton's staff to do the work it took the FBI a year to do in a matter of days; wouldn't this in itself establish that Clinton and her staff had no ability, and therefore well knew they had no intention, of acceding to any of the Department's hundreds or even thousands of annual FOIA requests in full? And wouldn't ignoring all those requests be not just illegal but "inconvenient" in the extreme? And speak to the question of intent?

    It took Clinton two years to hand over work emails she was supposed to hand over the day she left office; and during that time, she and her lawyers, some of whom appear to have looked at classified material without clearance, deleted thousands of "personal" emails ― many of which turned out the be exactly the sort of work emails she was supposed to turn over the day she left State. In this situation, an actor acting in good faith would have (a) erred on the side of caution in deleting emails, (b) responded with far, far more alacrity to the valid demands of State to see all work-related emails, and (c) having erroneously deleted certain emails, would have rushed to correct the mistake themselves rather than seeing if they could get away with deleting ― mind you ― not just work emails but work emails with (in several instances) classified information in them. How in the world was none of this taken toward the question of intent? Certainly, it was taken toward the finding of "gross negligence" Comey made, but how in the world was none of it seen as relevant to Clinton's specific intent also? Why does it seem the only evidence of specific intent Comey would've looked at was a smoking gun? Does he realize how few criminal cases would ever be brought against anyone in America if a "smoking gun" standard was in effect? Does anyone realize how many poor black men wouldn't be in prison if that standard was in effect for them as well as Secretary Clinton?

    4. Comey made it seem that the amount and quality of prosecutorial consideration he gave Clinton was normal. The mere fact that Comey gave public statements justifying his prosecutorial discretion misleads the public into thinking that, say, poor black men receive this level of care when prosecutors are choosing whether to indict them.

    While at least he had the good grace to call the fact of his making a public statement "unusual" ― chalking it up to the "intense public interest" that meant Clinton (and the public) "deserved" an explanation for his behavior ― that grace ultimately obscured, rather than underscored, that what Comey did in publicly justifying his behavior is unheard of in cases involving poor people. In the real America, prosecutors are basically unaccountable to anyone but their bosses in terms of their prosecutorial discretion, as cases in which abuse of prosecutorial discretion is successfully alleged are vanishingly rare. Many are the mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers of poor black men who would love to have had their sons' (or brothers', or fathers') over-charged criminal cases explained to them with the sort of care and detail Hillary Clinton naturally receives when she's being investigated. Clinton and the public "deserve" prosecutorial transparency when the defendant is a Clinton; just about no one else deserves this level of not just transparency but also ― given the year-long length of the FBI investigation ― prosecutorial and investigative caution.

    What's amazing is how little use Comey actually made of all the extra time and effort. For instance, on July 5th he said that every email the FBI uncovered was sent to the "owning" organization to see if they wanted to "up-classify" it ― in other words, declare that it should have been classified at the time it was sent and/or received, even if not marked that way at the time. One might think Comey would want this information, the better to determine Clinton's intent with respect to those emails (i.e., given Clinton's training, knowledge, and experience, how frequently did she "miss" the classified nature of an email, relative to the assessment of owning agencies that a given email was effectively and/or should have been considered classified ― even if not marked so ― at the time Clinton handled it?) Keep in mind, here, that certain types of information, as Clinton without a doubt knew, are "born classified" whether marked as such or not. And yet, just two days after July 5th, Comey testified before Congress that he "didn't pay much attention" to "up-classified" emails. Why? Because, said Comey, they couldn't tell him anything about Clinton's intent. Bluntly, this is an astonishing and indeed embarrassing statement for any prosecutor to make.

    Whereas every day knowledge and motives are imparted to poor black men that are, as the poet Claudia Rankine has observed, purely the product of a police officer's "imagination," the actual and indisputable knowledge and motives and ― yes ― responsibilities held by Clinton were "downgraded" by Comey to that of merely an average American. That is, despite the fact that Clinton was one of the most powerful people on Earth, charged with managing an agency that collects among the highest number of classified pieces of information of any agency anywhere; despite the fact that Clinton's agency had the strictest policies for data storage for this very reason; despite the fact that State is, as Clinton well knew, daily subjected to FOIA requests; despite all this, Comey actually said the following: "Like many email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails..."

    What?

    How in the world does the "many email users" standard come into play here? Clinton's server, unlike anyone else's server, was set up in a way that permitted no archiving, an arrangement that one now imagines led (in part) to the person who set up that server taking the Fifth more than a hundred times in interviews with the FBI; even assuming Clinton didn't know, and didn't request, for her server to be set up in this astonishing way ― a way, again, that her own employees believe could incriminate them ― how in the world could she have been sanguine about deleting emails "like many email users" when the agency she headed had completely different and more stringent protocols and requirements for data storage than just about any government agency on Earth? Just so, once it was clear that Clinton had deleted (per Comey) "thousands of emails that were work-related" instead of turning them over to State, in what universe can no intent be implied from the fact that her attorneys purged 30,000 emails simply by looking at their headers? At what point does Clinton, as former Secretary of State, begin to have ill intent imputed to her by not directing her attorneys to actually read emails before permanently destroying them and making them unavailable to the FBI as evidence? If you were in her situation, and instead of saying to your team either (a) "don't delete any more emails," or (b) "if you delete any emails, make sure you've read them in full first," would you expect anyone to impute "no specific intent" to your behavior?

    The result: despite saying she never sent or received emails on her private basement server that were classified "at the time," the FBI found that 52 email chains on Clinton's server ― including 110 emails ― contained information that was classified at the time (eight chains contained "top secret" information; 36, "secret" information; and another eight "confidential" information). Moreover, Clinton's team wrongly purged ― at a minimum ― "thousands" of work-related emails. (And I'm putting aside entirely here the 2,000 emails on Clinton's server that were later "up-classified.") At what point does this harm become foreseeable, and not seeing it ― when you're one of the best-educated, smartest, most experienced public servants in U.S. history, as your political team keeps reminding us ― become evidence of "intent"? Comey's answer? Never.

    Indeed, Comey instead makes the positively fantastical observation that "none [of the emails Clinton didn't turn over but was supposed to] were intentionally deleted." The problem is, by Comey's own admission all of those emails were intentionally deleted, under circumstances in which the problems with that deletion would not just have been evident to "any reasonable person" but specifically were clear ― the context proves it ― to Clinton herself. During her four years as Secretary of State Clinton routinely expressed concern to staff about her own and others' email-storage practices, establishing beyond any doubt that not only was Clinton's literal key-pressing deliberate ― the "knowing" standard ― but also its repeated, systemic effect was fully appreciated by her in advance. Likewise, that her attorneys were acting entirely on their own prerogative, without her knowledge, is a claim no jury would credit.

    Clinton's attorneys worked Clinton's case in consultation with Clinton ― that's how things work. In other words, Clinton's lawyers are not rogue actors here. So when Comey says, "They [Clinton and her team] deleted all emails they did not produce for State, and the lawyers then cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery," we have to ask, what possible reason would an attorney have for wiping a server entirely within their control to ensure that no future court order could access the permanently deleted information? In what universe is such behavior not actual consciousness of guilt with respect to the destruction of evidence? Because we must be clear: Comey isn't saying Clinton and her lawyers accidentally put these emails outside even a hypothetical future judicial review; they did so intentionally.

    There's that word again.

    The result of these actions? The same as every other action Clinton took that Comey somehow attributes no intent to: a clear legal benefit to Clinton and a frustration, indeed an obstruction, of the FBI's investigation. As Comey said on July 5th, the FBI can't know how many emails are "gone" (i.e., permanently) because of Clinton and her team's intentional acts after-the-fact. So Comey is quite literally telling us that the FBI couldn't conclude their investigation with absolute confidence that they had all the relevant facts, and that the reason for this was the intentional destruction of evidence by the subject of the investigation at a time when there was no earthly reason to destroy evidence except to keep it from the FBI.

    In case you're wondering, no, you don't need a legal degree to see the problem there.

    As an attorney, I can't imagine destroying evidence at a time I knew it was the subject of a federal investigation. And if I ever were to do something like that, I would certainly assume that all such actions would later be deemed "intentional" by law enforcement, as my intent would be inferred from my training, knowledge, and experience as an attorney, as well as my specific awareness of a pending federal investigation in which the items I was destroying might later become key evidence. That Clinton and her team repeatedly (and falsely) claimed the FBI investigation was a mere "security review" ― yet another assertion whose falseness was resoundingly noted by Comey in his public statements ― was clearly a transparent attempt to negate intent in destroying those emails. (The theory being, "Well, yes, I destroyed possible evidence just by looking at email headers, but this was all just a 'security review,' right? Not a federal investigation? Even though I knew the three grounds for referral of the case to the FBI, and knew that only one of them involved anything like a 'security review'?")

    And certainly, none of this explains Comey's (again) gymnastic avoidance of stating the obvious: that crimes were committed.

    Listen to his language on July 5th: "Although we did not find clear evidence that Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information" (emphasis in original) ― actually, let's stop there. You'd expect the second half of that sentence to be something like, "...they nevertheless did violate those laws, despite not intending to." It's the natural continuation of the thought. Instead, Comey, who had prepared his remarks in advance, finished the thought this way: "....there is evidence that they were extremely careless with very sensitive, highly classified information" (emphasis in original).

    Note that Comey now uses the phrase "extremely careless" instead of "gross negligence," despite using the latter phrase ― a legal phrase ― at the beginning of his July 5th remarks. That matters because at the beginning of those remarks he conceded "gross negligence" would lead to a statutory violation. So why the sudden shift in language, when from a legal standpoint "extreme carelessness" and "gross negligence" are synonymous ― both indicating the presence of a duty of care, the failure to meet that duty, and moreover a repeated failure on this score? Comey also avoids finishing his sentence with the obvious thought: that they may not have intended to violate criminal statutes, but they did nonetheless. Remember that, just like our hypothetical raver may not have intended to commit a Simple Assault by stepping on that poor young woman's foot, he nevertheless could be found to have done so; just so, had Comey accepted the statute as written, Clinton's "gross negligence" would have forced him to end the above sentence with the finding of a statutory violation, even if there had been no "specific intent" to do so.

    This is how the law works. For poor black men, just not for rich white women.

    5. Comey, along with the rest of Congress, left the impression, much like the Supreme Court did in 2000, that legal analyses are fundamentally political analyses. Not only is this untrue, it also is unspeakably damaging to both our legal system and Americans' understanding of that system's operations.

    I'm a staunch Democrat, but I'm also an attorney. Watching fellow Democrats twist themselves into pretzels to analyze Clinton's actions through a farcically slapdash legal framework, rather than merely acknowledging that Clinton is a human being and, like any human being, can both (a) commit crimes, and (b) be replaced on a political ticket if need be, makes me sick as both a Democrat and a lawyer. Just so, watching Republicans who had no issue with George W. Bush declaring unilateral war in contravention of international law, and who had no issue with the obviously illegal behavior of Scooter Libby in another recent high-profile intel-related criminal case, acting like the rule of law is anything they care about makes me sick. Our government is dirty as all get-out, but the one thing it's apparently clean of is anyone with both (a) legal training, and (b) a sense of the ethics that govern legal practice. Over and over during Comey's Congressional testimony I heard politicians noting their legal experience, and then going on to either shame their association with that august profession or honor it but (in doing so) call into question their inability or unwillingness to do so in other instances.

    When Comey says, "any reasonable person should have known" not to act as Clinton did, many don't realize he's quoting a legal standard ― the "reasonable person standard." A failure to meet that standard can be used to establish either negligence or recklessness in a court of law. But here, Clinton wasn't in the position of a "reasonable person" ― the average fellow or lady ― and Comey wasn't looking merely at a "reasonableness" standard, but rather a "purposeful" standard that requires Comey to ask all sorts of questions about Clinton's specific, fully contextualized situation and background that he doesn't appear to have asked. One might argue that, in keeping with Clinton's campaign theme, no one in American political history was more richly prepared ― by knowledge, training, experience, and innate gifts ― to know how to act properly in the situations Clinton found herself. That in those situations she failed to act even as a man or woman taken off the street and put in a similar situation would have acted is not indicative of innocence or a lack of specific intent, but the opposite. If a reasonable person wouldn't have done what Clinton did, the most exquisitely prepared person for the situations in which Clinton found herself must in fact have been providing prosecutors with prima facie evidence of intent by failing to meet even the lowest threshold for proper conduct. Comey knows this; any prosecutor knows this. Maybe a jury would disagree with Comey on this point, but his job is to assume that, if he zealously advocates for this extremely powerful circumstantial case, a reasonable jury, taking the facts in the light most favorable to the government, would see things his way.

    Look, I can't possibly summarize for anyone reading this the silly nonsense I have seen prosecutors indict people for; a common saying in the law is that the average grand jury "would indict a ham sandwich," and to be clear that happens not because the run-of-the-mill citizens who sit on grand juries are bloodthirsty, but because the habitual practice of American prosecutors is to indict first and ask questions later ― and because indictments are absurdly easy to acquire. In other words, I've seen thousands of poor people get over-charged for either nonsense or nothing at all, only to have their prosecutors attempt to leverage their flimsy cases into a plea deal to a lesser charge. By comparison, it is evident to every defense attorney of my acquaintance that I've spoken to that James Comey bent over backwards to not indict Hillary Clinton ― much like the hundreds of state and federal prosecutors who have bent over backwards not to indict police officers over the past few decades. Every attorney who's practiced in criminal courts for years can smell when the fix is in ― can hear and see when the court's usual actors are acting highly unusually ― and that's what's happened here. The tragedy is that it will convince Americans that our legal system is fundamentally about what a prosecutor feels they can and should be able to get away with, an answer informed largely, it will seem to many, by various attorneys' personal temperaments and political prejudices.

    No one in America who's dedicated their life to the law can feel any satisfaction with how Hillary Clinton's case was investigated or ultimately disposed of, no more than we can feel sanguine about prosecutors whose approach to poor black defendants is draconian and to embattled police officers positively beatific. What we need in Congress, and in prosecutor's offices, are men and women of principle who act in accordance with their ethical charge no matter the circumstances. While James Comey is not a political hack, and was not, I don't believe, in any sense acting conspiratorially in not bringing charges against Hillary Clinton, I believe that, much like SCOTUS did not decide in the 2000 voting rights case Bush v. Gore, Comey felt that this was a bad time for an executive-branch officer to interfere with the workings of domestic politics. Perhaps Comey had the best of intentions in not doing his duty; perhaps he thought letting voters, not prosecutors, decide the 2016 election was his civic duty. Many Democrats could wish the Supreme Court had felt the same way in 2000 with respect to the role of judges. But the fact remains that the non-indictment of Hillary Clinton is as much a stain on the fair and equal administration of justice as is the disparate treatment of poor black males at all stages of the criminal justice system. I witnessed the latter injustice close up, nearly every day, during my seven years working as a public defender; now America has seen the same thing, albeit on a very different stage, involving a defendant of a very different class and hue.

    To have prosecuted Clinton, said Comey, he would need to have seen "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or....efforts to obstruct justice..." When Comey concludes, "we do not see those things here," America should ― and indeed must ― wonder what facts he could possibly be looking at, and, moreover, what understanding of his role in American life he could possibly be acting upon. The answers to these two questions would take us at least two steps forward in discussing how average Americans are treated by our increasingly dysfunctional system of justice.

    Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University) and the author, most recently, of DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).

    [Jul 11, 2016] Letter signed by over 200 members of Congress demanding answers from FBI Director Comey

    Neoliberal MSM response to latest FBI director Comey testimony is a textbook example of brainwashing (or groupthink). It shows to me again that you need to go to the source watch at least the fragments of the testimony on YouTube. It deadly serious situation for Hillary. No person with even cursory knowledge of security can avoid thinking that she should be in jail. Republicans know it and will not let her off the hook. Probably special prosecutor will be appointed. See for example https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/House-Letter-to-FBI-Director-1.pdf
    Now Comey is under strong fire and need to save his own skin. You can tell anything about Republican members of House of Representative, but it is now quite clear to me that several of them are brilliant former lawyers/prosecutor/judges.
    From now on they will block all attempt to swipe this matter under the carpet and unless Hillary withdraw they might try to implicate Obama in the cover-up (and they have facts: he recklessly corresponded with her on this account).
    They already requested all FBI files on Clinton. Soon they will have all the dirty laundering from Hillary server and FBI probably recovered most of it.
    From this point it is up-hill battle for Obama, and might well think about finding appropriate sacrificial lamp NOW. My impression is that she lost her chance to became the President. With FBI files in hand, In four month they can do so much damage that she would be better to take her toys and leave the playground.
    And this topic hopefully already influence super-delegates. I think her best option now is give Sanders a chance. Because the real threat now is not that she will go to jail. She belongs to the elite and is above the law. Now the real threat is that all her close associates might.
    judiciary.house.gov

    On Tuesday, the FBI assumed the role of prosecutor and not simply investigator and took the unprecedented act of proclaiming that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Based on the perception that a decision has been made by the FBI that has seemingly ignored facts that the FBI itself found in its own investigation, we have additional questions that are aimed at ensuring that the cloud which now hovers over our justice system is at least minimally pierced:

    1) As a former prosecutor, please explain your understanding of the legal difference between actions performed with "gross negligence" and those done "extremely carelessly." How did you determine that "extreme carelessness" did not equate to "gross negligence?"

    2) You said that no reasonable prosecutor would decide to prosecute the Clinton case on the evidence found by FBI agents during the Bureau's investigation over the past year. We have multiple former prosecutors in Congress, and it is not far-fetched for many of us to envision a successful prosecution of someone for doing far less than that which was committed by Secretary Clinton. Is your statement not an indictment and prejudgment against any Assistant United States Attorney who is now tasked with reviewing the evidence you presented Tuesday? In your judgment, does it not follow that you would think that a prosecutor who moved forward with the instant prosecution of Secretary Clinton would be "unreasonable?"

    3) Are you aware of any internal opinions by FBI agents or management who were intimately aware of the Clinton investigation which differed from your eventual decision to not recommend the case for prosecution?

    4) You mentioned that Top Secret Special Access Programs (SAPs) were included in emails sent and received by Secretary Clinton. SAP material is some of the most highly classified and controlled material of the U.S. Government. If an agency of the U.S. Government were to encounter similar information from a foreign adversary, it would be extremely valuable data for us to exploit. Did the FBI assess how SAP information, due to its controlled nature, ever made it onto unclassified systems that were not air-gapped or physically blocked from outside Internet access? Is it not "gross negligence" to permit such SAP data to leave the confines of the most protective and secure governmental enclaves? Or even "intentional" conduct that allowed that to happen?

    5) You mentioned that this investigation stemmed from a referral from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to determine whether classified information had been transmitted on an unclassified personal system. Following your investigation, it is clear that Secretary Clinton transmitted classified information on an unclassified system. Secretary Clinton on multiple occasions has said that she did not send or receive classified information or information marked as classified.3 In light of your decision to also not refer a false statements charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for prosecution, we can only presume that Secretary Clinton admitted during her interview with your agents that she, in fact, sent and received emails containing classified information. Please confirm.

    6) Are you aware of whether any deleted emails which the FBI was able to forensically recover from Secretary Clinton's servers pertained to the Clinton Foundation?

    7) You stated Tuesday, "Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account." Is the FBI's Counterintelligence Division still involved in determining the level of damage related to possible exploitation of Secretary Clinton's or her associates' email accounts and other communications?

    8) If the FBI performed a background check on an applicant for employment with the FBI or elsewhere in the U.S. Government, and that applicant engaged in conduct committed by Secretary Clinton, would a security clearance ever be granted to that person?

    [Jul 11, 2016] FBI Findings Damage Many of Hillary Clinton s Claims by STEVEN LEE MYERS

    Jul 05, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

    Mr. Comey said the emails included eight chains of emails and replies, some written by her, that contained information classified as "top secret: special access programs." That classification is the highest level, reserved for the nation's most highly guarded intelligence operations or sources.

    Another 36 chains were "secret," which is defined as including information that "could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security"; eight others had information classified at the lowest level, "confidential."

    [Jul 10, 2016] Anti-militarism by John Quiggin

    This thread is interesting by presence of complete lunatics like Brett Dunbar , who claims tha capitalism leads to peace.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively [^1] to defend or promote national interests ..."
    "... Bringing Bush, Blair, and Aznar to justice would be the greatest deterrent for further war. I like the part about economic crimes. Justice brings peace. ..."
    "... War is a tool of competition for resources. Think Iraq. ..."
    "... the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal hanged Nazis for doing exactly what Bush 2 and company did ..."
    "... The Labour leader said last year Blair could face trial if the report found he was guilty of launching an illegal war. ..."
    "... John Quiggin, I think your definition of militarism is flawed. I think that cultural attitudes and the social status of the military are very important as well. To paraphrase Andrew Bacevich, Militarism is the idea that military solutions to a country's problems are more effective than they really are. Militarism assumes that the military's way of running things is inherently correct. A militaristic society glorifies violence and the people who carry it out in the name of the state. ..."
    "... They chose force first and dealt with the consequences later. So militarism can exist and flourish on a tight budget. Its all about mentality. ..."
    "... The notion that capitalism is peaceful is preposterous, even if you accept the bizarre notion that only wars between the capitalist Great Powers really count as wars. It's true that it's tacitly presumed by many, perhaps most, learned authorities. But that is an indictment of the authorities, not a justification for the claim. The closely related claim that capitalism is responsible for technological advancement on inspection suggests that the real story is that technological progress enabled the European states to begin empires that funded capitalist development. ..."
    "... Russia and China had achieved success in Central Asia, unlike the United States, by pursuing a respectful [sic] foreign policy based on mutual interest. ..."
    "... Although the term 'global policeman' (or 'cops of the world') is mostly used ironically (in my experience), 'policeman' does have a straight meaning, denoting a person who operates under the authority of law, whereas the supreme Mafia capo is a law and authority unto himself, at least until someone assassinates him. I think this second metaphor more closely approximates the position and behavior of the present United States. ..."
    "... ..."
    crookedtimber.org

    100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from the catastrophe of the Great War and the decades of slaughter that followed it. Rather than get bogged down (yet again) in specifics that invariably decline into arguments about who know more of the historical detail, I'm going to try a different approach, looking at the militarist ideology that gave us the War, and trying to articulate an anti-militarist alternative. Wikipedia offers a definition of militarism which, with the deletion of a single weasel word, seems to be entirely satisfactory and also seems to describe the dominant view of the political class, and much of the population in nearly every country in the world.

    Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively[^1] to defend or promote national interests

    Wikipedia isn't as satisfactory (to me) on anti-militarism, so I'll essentially reverse the definition above, and offer the following provisional definition

    Anti-militarism is the belief or desire that a military expenditure should held to the minimum required to protect a country against armed attack and that, with the exception of self-defense, military power should not be used to promote national interests

    I'd want to qualify this a bit, but it seems like a good starting point.

    ... ... ...

    My case for anti-militarism has two main elements.

    1. First, the consequentialist case against the discretionary use of military force is overwhelming. Wars cause huge damage and destruction and preparation for war is immensely costly. Yet it is just about impossible to find examples where a discretionary decision to go to war has produced a clear benefit for the country concerned, or even for its ruling class. Even in cases where war is initially defensive, attempts to secure war aims beyond the status quo ante have commonly led to disaster.
    2. Second, war is (almost) inevitably criminal since it involves killing and maiming people who have done nothing personally to justify this; not only civilians, but soldiers (commonly including conscripts) obeying the lawful orders of their governments.

    Having made the strong case, I'll admit a couple of exceptions. First, although most of the above has been posed in terms of national military power, there's nothing special in the argument that requires this. Collective self-defense by a group of nations is justified (or not) on the same grounds as national self-defense.

    ... ... ...

    [^1]: The deleted word "aggressive" is doing a lot of work here. Almost no government ever admits to being aggressive. Territorial expansion is invariable represented as the restoration of historically justified borders while the overthrow of a rival government is the liberation of its oppressed people. So, no one ever has to admit to being a militarist.

    Dylan 07.04.16 at 6:20 am 2

    Is it obvious that limiting use of military force to self-defense entails a minimal capability for force projection?

    If the cost of entirely securing a nation's territory (Prof Q, you will recognise the phrase "Fortress Australia") is very high relative to the cost of being able to threaten an adversary's territorial interests in a way that is credible and meaningful – would it not then be unavoidably tempting to appeal to an expanded notion of self-defence and buy a force-projection capability, even if your intent is genuinely peaceful?

    To speculate a little further – I would worry that so many people would need to be committed to "national defence" on a purely defensive model that it would have the unintended side effect of promoting a martial culture that normalises the use of armed force.

    Of course, none of this applies if everyone abandons their force-projection capability – but is that a stable equilibrium, even if it could be achieved?

    Lowhim 07.04.16 at 6:24 am 3

    Well, you'll be pleased to know that they're working hard on WWI's perception [1]. Many of us working against militarism. Not easy. And the linked NYtimes piece is worth reading.

    [1] http://www.worldwar1centennial.org/index.php/about.html

    Ze K 07.04.16 at 7:21 am 4

    I think it'd make sense to talk about imperialism, rather than militarism. Military is just a tool. One could, for example, bribe another country's military leaders, or finance a paramilitary force in the targeted state, or just organize a violence-inciting mass-media campaign to produce the same result.

    bad Jim 07.04.16 at 7:54 am 5

    We'd need an alternative history of the Cold War to work through the ramifications of a less aggressive Western military. Russia would have developed nuclear weapons even if there hadn't been an army at its borders, and the borders of the Eastern bloc were arguably more the result of opportunity than necessity. The colonial wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan and everywhere else could be similarly described.

    After World War I, the chastened combatants sheepishly disarmed, cognizant of their insanity. World War II taught a different lesson, perhaps because, in contrast to the previous kerfuffle, both the Russian and American behemoths became fully engaged and unleashed their full industrial and demographic might, sweeping their common foes from the field, and found themselves confronting each other in dubious peace.

    Both sides armed for the apocalypse with as many ways to bring about the end of civilization as they could devise, all the while mindlessly meddling with each other around the globe. Eventually the Russians gave up; their system really was as bad as we thought, and Moore's law is pitiless: the gap expands exponentially. They've shrunk, and so has their military.

    So why is America such a pre-eminent bully, able to defeat the rest of the world combined in combat? Habit, pride, domestic politics, sure; but blame our allies as well. Britain and France asked us to to kick ass in Libya, and Syria is not that different. We've got this huge death-dealing machine and everyone tells us how to use it.

    Ridiculous as it is, it's not nearly as bad as it was a hundred years ago, or seventy, or forty. We may still be on course to extinguish human civilization, but warfare no longer looks like its likely cause.

    david 07.04.16 at 8:14 am

    As you point out in fn1, nobody seems to ever fight "aggressive" wars. By the same token, there's no agreed status quo ante. For France in 1913, the status quo ante bellum has Lorraine restored to France. Also, Germany fractures into Prussia and everyone else, and the Germans should go back to putting out local regionalist fires (as Austria-Hungary is busy doing) rather than challenging French supremacy in Europe and Africa please.

    The position advanced in the essay is one for an era where ships do not hop from coaling station to coaling station, where the supremacy of the Most Favoured Nation system means that powerful countries do not find their domestic politics held hostage for access to raw materials controlled by other countries, where shipping lanes are neutral as a matter of course, and where the Green Revolution has let rival countries be content to bid, not kill, for limited resources. We can argue over whether this state of affairs is contingent on the tiger-repelling rock or actual, angry tigers, but I don't think we disagree that this is the state of affairs, at least for the countries powerful enough to matter.

    But, you know, that's not advice that 1913 would find appealing, which is a little odd given the conceit that this is about the Somme. The Concert of Europe bounced from war to war to war. Every flag that permits war in this 'anti-militarist' position is met and then some. It was unending crisis after crisis that miraculously never escalated to total war, but no country today would regard crises of those nature as acceptable today – hundreds of thousands of Germans were besieging Paris in 1870! Hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen were dead! If Napoleon III had the Bomb he would have used it. But he did not. There was no three score years of postwar consumer economy under the peaceful shadow of nuclear armageddon.

    Anderson 07.04.16 at 9:07 am
    3: "After World War I, the chastened combatants sheepishly disarmed, cognizant of their insanity."
    One could only wish this were true. Germany was disarmed by force and promptly schemed for the day it would rearm; Russia's civil war continued for some years; France and Britain disarmed because they were broke, not because they'd recognized any folly.
    … Quiggin, I don't know if you read Daniel Larison at The American Conservative; his domestic politics would likely horrify us both, but happily


    jake the antisoshul sohulist 07.04.16 at 1:32 pm

    Other than the reference to "the redempive power of war", the mythification of the military is not mentioned in the definition of militarism. I don't think a definition of militarism can focus only on the political/policy aspects and ignore the cultural aspects.
    Militarism is as much cultural as it is political, and likely even more so.

    Theophylact 07.04.16 at 2:17 pm

    Tacitus:

    Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant (To plunder, butcher, steal, these things they misname empire: they make a desolation and they call it peace).


    LFC 07.04.16 at 4:55 pm

    from the OP:

    100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from the catastrophe of the Great War

    The counterargument to this statement is that the world's 'great powers' did indeed learn something from the Great War: namely, they learned that great-power war is a pointless endeavor. Hitler of course didn't learn that, which is, basically, why WW2 happened. But there hasn't been a great-power war - i.e., a sustained conflict directly between two or more 'great' or major powers - since WW2 (or some wd say the Korean War qualifies as a great-power war, in which case 1953 wd be the date of the end of the last great-power war).

    The next step is to extend the learned lesson about great-power war to other kinds of war. That extension has proven difficult, but there's no reason to assume it's forever impossible.

    -–

    p.s. There are various extant definitions of 'great power', some of which emphasize factors other than military power. For purposes of this comment, though, one can go with Mearsheimer's definition: "To qualify as a great power, a state [i.e., country] must have sufficient military assets to put up a serious fight in an all-out conventional war against the most [militarily] powerful state in the world" (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), p.5). Using this definition of 'great power', the last war in which two or more great powers directly fought each other in any kind of sustained fashion (i.e. more than a short conflict of roughly a week or two [or less]) was, as stated above, either WW2 or Korea (depending on one's view of whether China qualified as a great power at the time of the Korean War).


    Lupita 07.04.16 at 7:06 pm

    ZM @ 7 quoting Mary Kaldor:

    An emphasis on justice and accountability for war crimes, human rights violations and economic crimes, is something that is demanded by civil society in all these conflicts. Justice is probably the most significant policy that makes a human security approach different from current stabilisation approaches.

    Bringing Bush, Blair, and Aznar to justice would be the greatest deterrent for further war. I like the part about economic crimes. Justice brings peace.


    Kevin Cox 07.04.16 at 9:19 pm

    The place to start is with the Efficient Market Hypothesis as the mechanism to allocate resources. This hypothesis says that entities compete for markets. War is a tool of competition for resources. Think Iraq.

    Instead of allocating resources via markets let us allocate resources cooperatively via the ideas of the Commons. Start with "Think like a Commoner: A short introduction to the Life of the Commons" by David Bollier.

    A country that uses this approach to the allocation of resources will not want to go to war and will try to persuade other countries to use the same approach.

    The place to start is with renewable energy. Find a way to "distribute renewable energy" based on the commons and anti militarism will likely follow.


    Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 12:31 am

    Lupita 07.04.16 at 10:22 pm @ 46 -

    While the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal hanged Nazis for doing exactly what Bush 2 and company did, I doubt if starting a war of aggression is against U.S. law in an enforceable way. However, since the war was completely unjustified, I suppose Bush could be charged with murder (and many other crimes). This sort of question is now rising in the UK with regard to Blair because of the Chilcot inquiry.


    Ze K 07.05.16 at 1:29 pm

    Not in internal national politics, but in international law. There's something called 'crimes againt peace', for example. Obviously it's not there to prosecute leaders of boss-countries, but theoretically it could. And, in fact, the fact that it's accepted that the leaders of powerful countries are not to be procesuted is exactly a case of perversion of justice you are talking about… no?


    Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 1:56 pm

    Watson Ladd 07.05.16 at 3:57 am @ 56 -
    According to what I read at the time the US, or at least some of its leadership, encouraged the Georgian leadership to believe that if they tried to knock off a few pieces of Russia, the US would somehow back them up if the project didn't turn out as well as hoped. Now, I get this from the same media that called the Georgian invasion of Russia 'Russian aggression' so it may not be very reliable, but that's what was said, and the invasion of a state the size of Russia by a state the size of Georgia doesn't make much sense unless the latter thought they were going to get some kind of help if things turned out badly. I guess the model was supposed to be the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, but bombing the hell out of Serbia is one thing and bombing the hell out of Russia quite another.

    It is interesting in regard to Georgia 2008 to trace the related career of Mr. Saakashvili, who was then the president of Georgia, having replaced Mr. Shevardnadze in one of those color revolutions, and was reported to have said that he wanted Georgia to become America's Israel in central Asia. The Georgians apparently did not relish this proposed role once they found out what it entailed and kicked him out. He subsequently popped up in Ukraine, where according to Wikipedia he is the governor of the Odessa Oblast, whatever that means. Again, I get this from our media, so it may all be lies; but it does seem to make a kind of sense which I probably don't need to spell out.


    Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:10 pm

    No, south Ossetia was a part of Georgia. They were fighting for autonomy (Georgia is a bit of an empire itself), and Russian peacekeeping troops were placed there to prevent farther infighting. One day, Georgian military, encouraged by US neocons, started shelling South Ossetian capital, killing, among other people, some of the Russian peacekeeprs, and this is how the 2008 war started.


    Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:31 pm

    …a lot of these ethnic issues in Georgia are really the legacy of stalinism, when in many places (Abkhazia, for sure) local populations suffered mass-repressions with ethnic Georgians migrating there and becaming majorities (not to mention, bosses). Fasil Iskander, great Abkhaz writer, described that. Once the USSR collapsed, it all started to unwind, and Georgia got screwed. Oh well.


    Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 4:34 pm

    Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:38 pm @ 80 -
    The Russian ruling class experimented with being the US ruling class's buddy in the 1990s, sort of. It didn't work well for them. The destruction of Yugoslavia, the business in Abkhazia and Ossetia, the coup in Ukraine, the American intervention in Syria which must seem (heh) as if aimed at the Russian naval base at Tartus, the extensions of NATO, the ABMs, and so on, these cannot have been reassuring. Reassurance then had to come from taking up bordering territory, building weapons, and the like. Let us hope the Russian leadership do not also come to the conclusion that the best defense is a good offense.


    Lupita 07.05.16 at 5:52 pm

    We're a nation of killers.

    Justice can ameliorate that problem. For example, Pinochet being indicted, charged, and placed under house arrest until his death (though never convicted) for crimes against humanity, murder, torture, embezzlement, arms trafficking, drugs trafficking, tax fraud, and passport forgery and, in Argentina, Videla getting a life sentence plus another 500 being convicted with many cases still in progress, at the very least may give pause to those who would kill and torture as a career enhancement move in these countries and, hopefully, throughout Latin America. Maybe one of these countries can at least indict Kissinger for Operación Cóndor and give American presidents something extra to plan for when planning their covert operations.

    For heads of state to stop behaving as if they were untouchable and people believing that they are, we need more convictions, more accountability, more laws, more justice.

    Asteele 07.05.16 at 7:42 pm

    In a capitalist system if you can make money by impoverishing others you do it. There are individual capitalists and firms that make money off of war, the fact that the public at large sees no aggregate benefit in not a problem for them.


    Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 8:35 pm

    LFC 07.05.16 at 5:28 pm @ 85 -
    I think that, on the evidence, one must doubt (to put it mildly) that either the Russian or the American leadership care whether Mr. Assad is a nice person or not. They have not worried much about a lot of other not-nice people over recent decades as long as the not-nice people seemed to serve their purposes. Hence I can only conclude that the business in Syria, which goes back well before the appearance of the Islamic State, is dependent on some other variable, like maybe the existence of a Russian naval base in mare nostrum. I'm just guessing, of course; more advanced conspiratists see Israeli, Iranian, Saudi, and Turkish connections. Note as well that the business in Ukraine involved a big Russian naval base. And I used to heard it said that navies were obsolete!


    ZM 07.06.16 at 7:06 am

    There has been coverage in The Guardian about the Chilcot report into the UK military interventions in Iraq.

    "The former civil servant promised that the report would answer some of the questions raised by families of the dead British soldiers. "The conversations we've had with the families were invaluable in shaping some of the report," Chilcot said.

    Some of the families will be at the launch of the report at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, at Westminster. Others will join anti-war protesters outside who are calling for Blair to be prosecuted for alleged war crimes at the international criminal court in The Hague.

    Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday, Karen Thornton, whose son Lee was killed in Iraq in 2006, said she was convinced that Blair had exaggerated intelligence about Iraq's capabilities.

    "If it is proved that he lied then obviously he should be held accountable for it," she said, adding that meant a trial for war crimes. "He shouldn't be allowed to just get away with it," she said. But she did not express confidence that Chilcot's report would provide the accountability that she was hoping for. "Nobody's going to be held to account and that's so wrong," she said. "We just want the truth."

    Chilcot insisted that any criticism would be supported by careful examination of the evidence. "We are not a court – not a judge or jury at work – but we've tried to apply the highest possible standards of rigorous analysis to the evidence where we make a criticism."

    Jeremy Corbyn, who will respond to the report in parliament on Wednesday, is understood to have concluded that international laws are neither strong nor clear enough to make any war crimes prosecution a reality. The Labour leader said last year Blair could face trial if the report found he was guilty of launching an illegal war.

    Corbyn is expected to fulfil a promise he made during his leadership campaign to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. He will speak in the House of Commons after David Cameron, who is scheduled to make a statement shortly after 12.30pm. "

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/05/john-chilcot-says-iraq-war-inquiry-will-not-shy-away-from-criticisms


    Layman 07.06.16 at 11:45 am

    Only Tony Blair could read the Chilcot report and claim it vindicates his conduct.


    LFC 07.06.16 at 5:48 pm

    B. Dunbar @123
    Interstate wars have declined, and the 'logic' you identify might be one of various reasons for that.

    The wars dominating the headlines today - e.g. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine/Donetsk/Russia - are not, however, classic interstate wars. They are either civil wars or 'internationalized' civil wars or have a civil-war aspect. Thus the 'logic' of business-wants-peace-and-trade doesn't really apply there. Apple doesn't want war w China but Apple doesn't care that much whether there is a prolonged civil war in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, etc.

    So even if one accepted the argument that 'capitalism' leads to peace, we'd be left w a set of wars to which the argument doesn't apply. I don't have, obvs., the answer to the current conflicts. I think (as already mentioned) that there are some steps that might prove helpful in general if not nec. w.r.t. specific conflict x or y.

    The Kaldor remark about reversing the predatory economy - by which I take it she means, inter alia, black-market-driven, underground, in some cases criminal commerce connected to war - is suggestive. Easier said than done, I'm sure. Plus strengthening peacekeeping. And one cd come up w other things, no doubt.


    Ze K 07.06.16 at 6:35 pm

    @120, 121, yes, Georgians living in minority areas did suffer. But ethnic cleansing/genocides that would've most likely taken place should the Georgian government have had its way were prevented. Same as Crimea and Eastern Ukraine two years ago. This is not too difficult to understand – if you try – is it? Similarly (to Georgians in Abkhasia) millions of ethnic Russians suffered in the new central Asian republics, in Chechnya (all 100% were cleansed, many killed), and, in a slightly softer manner, in the Baltic republics… But that's okay with you, right? Well deserved? It's only when Abkhazs attack Georgians, then it's the outrage, and only because Russia was defending the Abkhazs, correct?

    Lupita 07.07.16 at 3:23 pm

    My impression since yesterday is that, while Brits are making a very big deal out of the Chilcot report, with much commentary about how momentous it is and the huge impact it will have, coverage of this event by the US media is notoriously subdued, particularly compared with the hysterical coverage Brexit got just some days ago. This leads me to believe that it is indeed justice that is feared the most by western imperialists such as Bush, Blair, Howard, Aznar, and Kwaśniewski and the elites that supported them and continue to cover up for them. I take this cowardly and creepy silence in the US media as an indicator that Pax Americana is so weakened that it cannot withstand the light of justice being shined upon it and that the end is near.


    Anarcissie 07.07.16 at 3:46 pm

    Lupita 07.07.16 at 3:23 pm @ 147 - For the kind of people in the US who pay attention to such things, the Chilcot Report is not really news. And the majority don't care, as witness the fortunes of the Clintons.


    Anarcissie 07.08.16 at 12:25 am

    Brett Dunbar 07.07.16 at 11:47 pm @ 160 -

    If capitalist types are so totally against war, it's hard to understand why the grand poster child of capitalism, the plutocratic United States, is so addicted to war. It is hard to consider it an aberration when the US has attacked dozens of countries not threatening it over the last fifty or sixty years, killed or injured or beggared or terrorized millions of noncombatants, and maintains hundreds of overseas bases and a world-destroying nuclear stockpile. What could the explanation possibly be?

    As human powers of production increase, at least in potential, existing scarcities of basic goods such as food, medicine, and housing are overcome. If people now become satisfied with their standard of living - not totally satisfied, but satisfied enough not to sweat and strain all the time for more - sales, profits, and employment will fall, and capitalists will become less important. In order to retain their ruling-class role, there needs to be a constant crisis of production-consumption which only the capitalist masters of industry can solve. Hence new scarcities must be produced. The major traditional methods of doing this have been imperialism, war, waste, and consumerism (including advertising). Conceded, major processes of environmental destruction such as climate change and the vitiating of antibiotics may lead to powerful new self-reinforcing scarcities which will take their place next to their traditional relatives, so that producing new scarcities would be less of a problem.


    Anarcissie 07.08.16 at 2:30 am

    LFC 07.08.16 at 1:30 am @ 163:
    'OTOH, I don't think capitalism esp. needs war to create this kind of scarcity….'

    But then one must explain why the major capitalist powers have engaged in so much of it, since it is so dirty and risky. I suppose one possible explanation is that whoever has the power to do so engages in it, capitalist or not; it is hardly a recent invention. However, I am mindful of the position of the US at the end of World War 2, with 50% of the worlds total productive capacity. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive! So war turned out to be pretty handy for some people. And now we have lots of them.


    Matt_L 07.08.16 at 3:32 am

    John Quiggin, I think your definition of militarism is flawed. I think that cultural attitudes and the social status of the military are very important as well. To paraphrase Andrew Bacevich, Militarism is the idea that military solutions to a country's problems are more effective than they really are. Militarism assumes that the military's way of running things is inherently correct. A militaristic society glorifies violence and the people who carry it out in the name of the state.

    I also think that just reducing military spending or the capacity for military action is not enough to counter serious militarism. Austria-Hungary was a very militaristic society, but it spent the less on armaments than the other European Powers in the years leading up to 1914. The leaders of the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy caused World War One by invading Serbia for a crime committed by a Bosnian Serb subject of the Monarchy. They had some good guesses that the Serbian military intelligence was involved, but not a lot of proof.

    Franz Joseph and the other leaders chose to solve a foreign policy problem by placing armed force before diplomacy and a complete criminal investigation. Their capacity to wage war relative to the other great powers of Europe did not enter into their calculations. They chose force first and dealt with the consequences later. So militarism can exist and flourish on a tight budget. Its all about mentality.


    stevenjohnson 07.08.16 at 9:29 pm

    "Great Power warfare became a lot less common after 1815, at the same point that the most advanced of the great powers developed capitalism."

    In Europe, locus of the alleged Long Peace, there were the Greek Rebellion; the First and Second Italian Wars of Independence; the First and Second Schleswig Wars; the Seven Weeks War; the Crimean War; the Franco-Prussian War; the First and Second Balkan Wars. Wars between a major capitalist state and another well established modern state included the Opium Wars; the Mexican War; the French invasion of Mexico; the War of the Triple Alliance; the War of the Pacific; the Spanish-American War; the Russo-Japanese War. Assaults by the allegedly peaceful capitalist nations against non-state societies or weak traditional states are too numerous to remember, but the death toll was enormous, on a scale matching the slaughter of the World Wars.

    Further the tensions between the Great Powers threatened war on numerous occasions, such as conflict over the Oregon territory; the Aroostook "war;" the Trent Affair; two Moroccan crises; the Fashoda Incident…again, these are too numerous to remember.

    The notion that capitalism is peaceful is preposterous, even if you accept the bizarre notion that only wars between the capitalist Great Powers really count as wars. It's true that it's tacitly presumed by many, perhaps most, learned authorities. But that is an indictment of the authorities, not a justification for the claim. The closely related claim that capitalism is responsible for technological advancement on inspection suggests that the real story is that technological progress enabled the European states to begin empires that funded capitalist development.


    Hidari 07.09.16 at 11:13 am

    ' Capitalist states tend to avoid war with their trading partners.'

    This has an element of truth in it, but it can be parsed in a number of ways. For example, 'Rich, powerful countries tend to avoid war with other rich, powerful countries'. After all, in the 2nd half of the 20th century, the US avoided going to war with Russia, despite having clear economic interests in doing so (access to natural resources, markets) mainly because Russia was strong (not least militarily) and the cost-benefit matrix never made sense (i.e. from the Americans' point of view).

    A much stronger case can be made that self-proclaimed Socialist states tend not to go to war with each other. After all, there were big fallings out between the socialist (or 'socialist', depending on your point of view) countries in the 20th century but they rarely turned to war, and when they did (Vietnam-Cambodia, Vietnam-China) they were short term and relatively limited in scope. The Sino-Soviet split was a split, not a war.

    But again this is probably not the best way to look at it. A much stronger case can be made that the basic reason for the non-appearance of a Chinese-Russian war was simply the size and population of those countries. The risks outweighed any potential benefits.

    Of course, between 1914 and 1945, lots of capitalist states went to war with each other.


    Anarcissie 07.09.16 at 3:22 pm

    Layman 07.09.16 at 2:59 pm @ 188 -
    One explanation, I think already given, is that the capitalist powers were too busy with imperial seizures in what we now call the Third World to fight one another. In the New World, the United States and some South American states were busy annihilating the natives, speaking of ethnic cleansing. If capitalism is a pacific influence, the behavior of the British and American ruling classes since 1815 seems incomprehensible, right down to the present: the plutocrat Clinton ought to be the peace candidate, not the scary war freak.


    Hidari 07.09.16 at 5:44 pm

    Surely (assuming that it's real) the decline in wars in some parts of the world since 1945 is because of the Pax Americana?

    Most countries are too frightened to attack (at least directly) the United States. There is a sense in which the US really is the 'Global Policeman'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana

    Anarcissie 07.09.16 at 11:55 pm

    Or the global Mafia capo di tutti capi.


    Ze K 07.10.16 at 6:39 am

    WaPo: Trump, Adviser Carter Page are 'Broadly Non-Interventionist'

    …WaPo continues that Trump is "broadly noninterventionist, questioning the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and calling for Europe to play a larger role in ensuring its security." Page, too, "has regularly criticized U.S. intervention":


    In one article for Global Policy Journal, he wrote, "From U.S. policies toward Russia to Iran to China, sanctimonious expressions of moral superiority stand at the root of many problems seen worldwide today."

    Page wrote that the war in eastern Ukraine was "precipitated by U.S. meddling in the Maidan revolution…

    And so, here we are: Trump is the lesser evil in this cycle. Vote Trump, save the world.


    LFC 07.10.16 at 2:40 pm

    Hidari @192

    Surely (assuming that it's real) the decline in wars in some parts of the world since 1945 is because of the Pax Americana?

    Started to write a long reply but decided no point. Shorter version: reasons for no WW2-style-war in Europe from '45 to '90 are multiple; 'pax Americana' only one factor of many.

    End of CW was destabilizing in various ways (e.g., wars in ex-Yugoslavia) but so far not enough to reverse the overall trend in Europe. Decline in destructiveness of conflict in some (not all) other parts of the world has to do in large part w change in nature/type of conflict (sustained interstate wars have traditionally been the most destructive and they don't happen much or at all anymore, for reasons that are somewhat debatable, but, again, pax Americana wd be only one of multiple reasons, if that).


    LFC 07.10.16 at 2:54 pm

    Re Carter Page (see Ze K @194)

    Page refused [speaking in Moscow] refused to comment specifically on the U.S. presidential election, his relationship with Trump or U.S. sanctions against Russia, saying he was in Russia as a "private citizen." He gave a lecture, titled "The Evolution of the World Economy: Trends and Potential," in which he noted that Russia and China had achieved success in Central Asia, unlike the United States, by pursuing a respectful [sic] foreign policy based on mutual interest.

    He generally avoided questions on U.S. foreign policy, but when one attendee asked him whether he really believed the United States was a "liberal, democratic society," Page told him to "read between the lines."

    "If I'm understanding the direction you're coming from, I tend to agree with you that it's not always as liberal as it may seem," he said. "I'm with you."

    In a meeting with The Washington Post editorial board in March, Trump named Page, a former Merrill Lynch executive in Moscow who later advised the Russian state energy giant Gazprom on major oil and gas deals, as one of his foreign policy advisers. Page refused to say whether his Moscow trip included a meeting with Russian officials. He is scheduled to deliver a graduation address Friday at the New Economic School, a speech that some officials are expected to attend.

    Above quote is from the Stars & Stripes piece, evidently republished from WaPo, linked at the 'Washington's Blog' that Ze K linked to.

    If you want to put for. policy in the hands of the likes of Carter Page (former Merrill Lynch exec., Gazprom adviser), vote Trump all right.

    HRC's for. policy advisers may not be great, but I don't think this guy Page is better. He does have connections to the Russian govt as a past consultant, apparently, which is no doubt why Ze K is so high on him.

    Ze K 07.10.16 at 3:16 pm

    You bet this guy Page is better. Anyone is better.

    And why would I care at all (let alone "no doubt") if he was a Gazprom consultant? What the fuck was that supposed to mean? Asshole much?

    LFC 07.10.16 at 5:25 pm

    And why would I care at all (let alone "no doubt") if he was a Gazprom consultant?

    B.c Gazprom is a Russian state-owned company and a fair inference from your many comments on this blog (not just this thread but others) is that you are, in general, favorably disposed to the present Russian govt. and its activities. Not Gazprom in particular necessarily, but the govt in general. You make all these comments and then get upset when they are read to say what they say.

    You consistently attack HRC as a war-monger, as corrupt etc. You consistently say anyone wd be better. "Vote Trump save the world." You said there was no Poland in existence in '39 when the USSR invaded it. Your comments and exchanges in this thread are here for anyone to read, so I don't have to continue.

    Ze K 07.10.16 at 5:44 pm

    "You make all these comments and then get upset when they are read to say what they say. "

    You're right; come to think of it, you've been into slimeball-style slur for a while now, and I should've gotten used to it already, and just ignored you. Fine, carry on.

    Anarcissie 07.11.16 at 2:19 am

    @Hidari 07.10.16 at 2:57 pm @ 197 -

    Although the term 'global policeman' (or 'cops of the world') is mostly used ironically (in my experience), 'policeman' does have a straight meaning, denoting a person who operates under the authority of law, whereas the supreme Mafia capo is a law and authority unto himself, at least until someone assassinates him. I think this second metaphor more closely approximates the position and behavior of the present United States.



    [Jul 08, 2016] 12 highlights of FBI Director Comey s testimony on Clinton email investigation WJLA

    Notable quotes:
    "... House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) formally requested Thursday that Clinton's security clearance be revoked because of the careless handling of classified material that the FBI investigation revealed. ..."
    "... Clinton's personal system did not have full-time security staff ensuring that its protection was up to date. ..."
    "... Comey said as many as ten people who did not have clearance had access to the system. ..."
    "... Unconfirmed media reports had indicated that the FBI investigation spread to look at the activities of the Clinton Foundation as well ..."
    wjla.com

    House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) formally requested Thursday that Clinton's security clearance be revoked because of the careless handling of classified material that the FBI investigation revealed.

    ... ... ...

    While Comey maintained that nobody else would face criminal prosecution for doing the same things Clinton did, he emphasized in his testimony that there would be consequences if a current government employee did it. This could include termination, administrative sanctions, or losing clearance.

    He refused to definitively assess a hypothetical situation where someone like Clinton was seeking security clearance for an FBI job, though.

    ... ... ...

    Gmail: One aspect of Clinton's actions that Comey said was particularly troubling was that he could not completely exclude the possibility that her email account was hacked. Unlike the State Department or even email providers like Gmail, Clinton's personal system did not have full-time security staff ensuring that its protection was up to date.

    ... ... ...

    Clearance: Clinton and her top aides had security clearance to view the classified material that was improperly being transmitted on the server, but Comey said as many as ten people who did not have clearance had access to the system.

    ... ... ...

    Clinton Foundation: Unconfirmed media reports had indicated that the FBI investigation spread to look at the activities of the Clinton Foundation as well

    [Jul 08, 2016] Trey Gowdy GRILLS James Comey On Hillary Clinton Emails

    That was very impressive... This is the first time question of signing of NDA by Hillary Clinton and her aides. See all hearing Full Congressional Hearing With FBI Director James Comey 7-7-2016 - YouTube
    In full transcript Ke Buck ask interesting question at 1:55. Lawyer did not have any security clearances 4:09 and 11:25
    Jul 07, 2016 | YouTube

    Trey Gowdy GRILLS James Comey On Hillary Clinton Emails. Hillary Clinton Email Investigation FBI Director James Comey testified at a hearing on the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of private email servers while serving as secretary of state, as well as the decision to not recommend criminal charges against her. Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department.

    At a congressional hearing Thursday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) grilled FBI director James Comey about several of Hillary Clinton's statements to the public, which the FBI investigation revealed to be untrue. For instance, Clinton had previously claimed that she had never received or sent classified information to or from her private email server; Comey conceded to Rep. Gowdy that that was not true.

    Another claim of Clinton's, which the investigation revealed to be untrue, was that she had retained all work-related emails. Comey noted that they had uncovered "thousands" of work-related emails not returned to the State Department. "In the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon," Gowdy concluded after running through a catalogue of Clinton's claims, "I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements."

    But Gowdy determined that "false exculpatory statements" can be used to determine intention and consciousness of guilt.

    Wesley Eskildsen

    Is this guy a Starfish from Bikini Bottom!? If Hillary gave her Lawyer, or anyone without the proper Security Clearance AND the "Need to know", access to her Server containing classified information then she is in violation of Federal Law. If she were on active Duty she would be court-martialed. that is Chaffetz point exactly!

    John Doe

    As a democrat, I am disgusted that every member of my party, when givin the opportunity to ask some questions, not one of these cowards asked a real question and instead focussed on basically explaining about what a wonderful human being Hillary Clinton is, and what terrible people the republicans are....

    Wayne Paul

    This chick Maloney just throwing softballs I have no clue why she is even talking.

    aadrgtagtwe aaqerytwerhywerytqery

    Comey is a liar, look at his reaction when asked about what questions did FBI ask hillary during the 3 and a half hour interview. He said he couldn't remember at the moment. How is that possible? The only question to ask hillary during the fbi interview was: "Did you send and receive classified top secret emails through your servers?"

    Both answers Hillary could have given, would have been enough to indict her. If she said "Yes", then she would have been indicted for sending top secret info. If she said "No" , she would have lied, because the report that Comey presented said that "top secret emails were sent and received, and they were top secret at the time they were sent and received. Fbi didn't ask that question at all. That tells you that the whole interview was a sham, Hillary was never interviewed.

    The propaganda-media reported "hillary was grilled by fbi during 3 and a half hour interview". What unbelievable bullshit! WE WANT JUSTICE!!!!!!!!! For all those people who are now in jail for the rest of their lives for doing much less than the criminal-hillary!!!!!!!

    [Jul 08, 2016] FB. Director Testifies on Clinton Emails to Withering Criticism From GOP

    Notable quotes:
    "... At a contentious hearing of the House oversight committee, Mr. Comey acknowledged under questioning that a number of key assertions that Mrs. Clinton made for months in defending her email system were contradicted by the FBI's investigation. ..."
    "... Mr. Comey said that Mrs. Clinton had failed to return "thousands" of work-related emails to the State Department, despite her public insistence to the contrary, and that her lawyers may have destroyed classified material that the F.B.I. was unable to recover. He also described her handling of classified material as secretary of state as "negligent" - a legal term he avoided using when he announced on Tuesday that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    ... He also provided new details that could prove damaging to her just weeks before she is to be named the Democrats' presidential nominee.

    At a contentious hearing of the House oversight committee, Mr. Comey acknowledged under questioning that a number of key assertions that Mrs. Clinton made for months in defending her email system were contradicted by the FBI's investigation.

    Mr. Comey said that Mrs. Clinton had failed to return "thousands" of work-related emails to the State Department, despite her public insistence to the contrary, and that her lawyers may have destroyed classified material that the F.B.I. was unable to recover. He also described her handling of classified material as secretary of state as "negligent" - a legal term he avoided using when he announced on Tuesday that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her.

    [Jul 08, 2016] Clinton Email Hairball

    Notable quotes:
    "... I also made this comment during the morning links, but I think it bears repeating. Robinson considers this to be a great day for Clinton? By what standard? The FBI director went on national television and described her as "extremely careless," and then essentially called her a liar. Is a politician considered to be ethical if he or she is not indicted? ..."
    "... Called her a liar? Un-indicted liar or perjurer because the investigators are reasonable. ..."
    "... What an inversion – this must be the first time it was good for Hillary that her husband had a scandalous private meeting with a younger woman. ..."
    "... In Hillary's nomination victory speech a month ago she argued she has the moral high ground and Trump's response was to focus on the problems in the economy. If the recession starts to hit hard enough late this year, Trump will win, and he will tell Hillary and Bill, "Its the economy stupid!" ..."
    "... It is a SAD day when a President of the US cheers for an "extremely careless" leaker after being the most aggressive prosecutor of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act ever. Can I haz my money back? ..."
    "... When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance? ..."
    "... Can a president operate without having a security clearance? ..."
    "... "Mere mortals" get indicted. Here is the complaint filed in U.S.A v. Bryan Nishimura, July 24, 2015 ..."
    "... BRYAN H. NISHIMURA, defendant herein, from on or about January 2007 through April 2012, while deployed outside of the United States on active military duty with the United States Navy Reserve in Afghanistan and thereafter at his residence located in the County of Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, being an officer and employee of the United States, specifically: a United States Navy Reserve Commander, and, by virtue of his office and employment as such, becoming possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, specifically: CLASSIFIED United States Army records, did knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at his residence in the County of Sacramento, an unauthorized location, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924(a), a Class A misdemeanor. ..."
    "... In a decision Tuesday in a case not involving Clinton directly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that messages contained in a personal email account can sometimes be considered government records subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. ..."
    "... Apparently Hillary's problems with the FOIA cases will worsen. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Comey and Lynch asked to testify before Congress on Clinton probe" [MarketWatch]. From my armchair at 30,000 feet: If the Republicans really want to make Lynch squirm, they just have to ask Lynch one question, which Comey - strong passive-aggressive move, there, Jim! - handed to them on a silver platter at his presser, yesterday. I've helpfully written it down (quoted phrases from Comey's press release, parsed here):

    Q: Attorney General Lynch, what "security or administrative sanctions" do you feel are appropriate for Secretary Clinton's "extremely careless" handling of her email communications at the State Department?

    No speeches instead of questions, no primping on camera for the folks back home, nothing about the endless lying, no Benghazi red meat, no sphincter-driven ranting about "security", tie gormless Trey Gowdy up in a canvas bag and stuff him under a desk. Just ask that one question. And when Lynch dodges, as she will, ask it again. I don't ever recall having written a sentence that includes "the American people want," but what the American people want is to see some member of the elite, some time, any time, held accountable for wrong-doing. If it's Clinton's "turn" for that, then so be it. She should look at the big picture and consider the larger benefit of continued legitimacy for the Republic and take one for the team. So let's see if the Republicans overplay their hand. They always have. UPDATE This is a good, that is, sane letter from Bob Goodlatte (pdf), chair of the House Judiciary Committee (via MsExPat). But don't get down in the goddamned weeds!! K.I.S.S.!!!

    "Comey's solo appearance Tuesday stood out for historical reasons, because it's highly unusual for the FBI to make public findings when investigators have decided no charges should be brought" [CNN]. This purports to be the inside story of how Comey "stood alone" to make the announcement. But there are some holes in the narrative:

    Matthew Miller, the former top Justice spokesman under Attorney General Eric Holder, called Comey's announcement "outrageous." "The FBI's job is to investigate cases and when it's appropriate to work with the Justice Department to bring charges," he said on CNN. House Republican sides with Comey over Trump on Clinton emails. Instead, Miller said: "Jim Comey is the final arbiter in determining the appropriateness of Hillary Clinton's conduct. That's not his job."

    When you've lost Eric Holder's spokesperson And then there's this. After Clinton's "long-awaited" Fourth-of-July weekend three hours of testimony:

    Officials said it was already clear that there wasn't enough evidence to bring criminal charges. The interview cemented that decision among FBI and Justice officials who were present.

    By Monday night, Comey and other FBI officials decided the public announcement should come at the earliest opportunity.

    The fact that Tuesday would also mark the first public campaign appearance by Obama alongside Hillary Clinton didn't enter in the calculation, officials said.

    But as Yves points out, there was no time to write an official report of Clinton's "interview" over the weekend. So for this narrative to work, you've got to form a mental picture of high FBI officials scanning the transcript of Clinton's "interview," throwing up their hands, and saying "We got nuthin'. You take it from here, Jim." That doesn't scan. I mean, the FBI is called a bureau for good reason. So to me, the obvious process violation means that political pressure was brought to bear on Comey, most likely by Obama, despite the denials (those being subject to the Rice-Davies Rule). But Comey did the bare minimum to comply, in essence carefully building a three-scoop Sundae of Accountability, and then handing it, with the cherry ("security or administrative sanctions"), to Lynch, so Lynch could have the pleasant task of making the decision about whether to put the cherry on top. Or not. Of course, if our elites were as dedicated to public service as they were in Nixon's day, there would have been a second Saturday Night Massacre (link for those who came in late), but these are different times. (Extending the sundae metaphor even further, it will be interesting to see if the ice cream shop staff knows what else is back in the freezer, the nuts and syrups that Comey decided not to add; Comey certainly made the ethical case for leaks.)

    "Hillary Clinton's email problems might be even worse than we thought " [Chris Cilizza, WaPo]. Cillizza, for whom I confess a sneaking affection, as for Nooners, isn't the most combative writer in WaPo's stable


    voteforno6, July 6, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Re: "Hillary Clinton's great day"

    I also made this comment during the morning links, but I think it bears repeating. Robinson considers this to be a great day for Clinton? By what standard? The FBI director went on national television and described her as "extremely careless," and then essentially called her a liar. Is a politician considered to be ethical if he or she is not indicted?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef, July 6, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Called her a liar? Un-indicted liar or perjurer because the investigators are reasonable.

    Elizabeth Burton, July 6, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    The cultish nature of Clinton followers struck me months ago; it's quite plain to anyone who's done any amount of study of cults. The giddy insistence now that the Comey statement is total vindication is a case in point, and any attempt to point out how damning it actually was only brings an "innocent until proven guilty" reply.

    One can only surmise that a large number of people have been so inured to corruption they no longer consider it a negative unless the perpetrator goes to jail; and even then there would likely be more insistence that person was railroaded.

    Tertium Squid, July 6, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    What an inversion – this must be the first time it was good for Hillary that her husband had a scandalous private meeting with a younger woman.

    Tim, July 6, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    On election day hindsight will show the real inversion with the Clintons is:

    In 1990s Bob Dole ran on a platform of having the moral high ground, while Bill Clinton said "it's the economy stupid", and Bill won.

    In Hillary's nomination victory speech a month ago she argued she has the moral high ground and Trump's response was to focus on the problems in the economy. If the recession starts to hit hard enough late this year, Trump will win, and he will tell Hillary and Bill, "Its the economy stupid!"

    Isolato, July 6, 2016 at 2:18 pm

    It is a SAD day when a President of the US cheers for an "extremely careless" leaker after being the most aggressive prosecutor of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act ever. Can I haz my money back?

    Kokuanani, July 6, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance?

    Can we hope for that to happen to Clinton? [Why not?]

    Can a president operate without having a security clearance?

    3.14e-9, July 6, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance?

    "Mere mortals" get indicted. Here is the complaint filed in U.S.A v. Bryan Nishimura, July 24, 2015:

    The United States Attorney charges: THAT BRYAN H. NISHIMURA, defendant herein, from on or about January 2007 through April 2012, while deployed outside of the United States on active military duty with the United States Navy Reserve in Afghanistan and thereafter at his residence located in the County of Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, being an officer and employee of the United States, specifically: a United States Navy Reserve Commander, and, by virtue of his office and employment as such, becoming possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, specifically: CLASSIFIED United States Army records, did knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at his residence in the County of Sacramento, an unauthorized location, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924(a), a Class A misdemeanor.

    voteforno6, July 6, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    Since the classification program falls under the President by law, it is impossible for a President to not have a security clearance.

    Pookah Harvey, July 6, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Clinton supporters seem to feel the fat lady has sung but it might be they are only hearing someone who is slightly chunky. From Politico:

    On the same day that the FBI announced that the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server is likely to conclude without any charges, a federal appeals court issued a ruling that could complicate and prolong a slew of ongoing civil lawsuits over access to the messages Clinton and her top aides traded on personal accounts.

    In a decision Tuesday in a case not involving Clinton directly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that messages contained in a personal email account can sometimes be considered government records subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.

    Apparently Hillary's problems with the FOIA cases will worsen.

    [Jul 08, 2016] Buck To Comey Did You Rewrite Federal Law

    Jul 07, 2016 | YouTube

    Rep. Ken Buck questions FBI Director James Comey about his insertion of the term "willfully" into 18 U.S. Code § 1924. Comey says he "imputes" the term in line with the Department of Justice's history/tradition of enforcing the statute.

    The above clip is taken from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's hearing regarding Hillary Clinton's criminal email conduct.

    Also see

    [Jul 08, 2016] The Clinton Email Probe and the Question of Gross Negligence

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...Mr. Comey also referenced a more obscure provision of the Espionage Act that has little to do with intent or state of mind, but rather makes it a crime to disclose classified information through "gross negligence." ..."
    "... But the crime of "gross negligence" in the Espionage Act doesn't appear to require proof of any intentional mishandling of documents, according to Stephen I. Vladeck , a national security scholar at the University of Texas. ..."
    "... Specifically, the law makes it a felony to permit classified information relating to national defense to be "removed from its proper place of custody" through gross negligence. ..."
    "... Why are you focusing on the gross negligence aspect? ..."
    "... Where is the removal from the proper place of custody? I've seen nothing in any legal analysis in this paper that talks about it. Is the presence of classified material on a private server of one who is authorized to have it equivalent to such a removal? ..."
    "... She was specifically not authorized to have a private server. ..."
    "... "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained SECRET information at the time; and eight contained CONFIDENTIAL information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification." ..."
    "... "We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account." ..."
    "... Making an argument for the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness" is the sort of semantic hair-splitting that Hillary Clinton ought to have been compelled to do in court - in the same way that her husband prevaricated over "what the meaning of the word 'is' is," shortly before he lost his law license. ..."
    Jul 05, 2016 | WSJ

    ...Mr. Comey also referenced a more obscure provision of the Espionage Act that has little to do with intent or state of mind, but rather makes it a crime to disclose classified information through "gross negligence."

    That provision of the Espionage Act, the primary law governing the handling of classified information, could require at least proof that the offender knew the classified information disclosed could harm the United States or benefit a foreign power if it got into the wrong hands.

    But the crime of "gross negligence" in the Espionage Act doesn't appear to require proof of any intentional mishandling of documents, according to Stephen I. Vladeck, a national security scholar at the University of Texas.

    Specifically, the law makes it a felony to permit classified information relating to national defense to be "removed from its proper place of custody" through gross negligence.

    What would constitute a degree of recklessness that rises to gross negligence? Mr. Vladeck offered an example of accidentally leaving a briefcase stuffed with classified national security secrets on a busy sidewalk in Washington, D.C.

    ... ... ...

    Charles Silva

    Why are you focusing on the gross negligence aspect?

    Where is the removal from the proper place of custody? I've seen nothing in any legal analysis in this paper that talks about it. Is the presence of classified material on a private server of one who is authorized to have it equivalent to such a removal?

    Lee Hartwig

    @Charles Silva She was specifically not authorized to have a private server.

    Clifford Crouch

    @Michael Piston

    "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained SECRET information at the time; and eight contained CONFIDENTIAL information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification."

    -FBI Director James Comey, July 5, 2016

    "We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

    -James Comey, July 5, 2016

    Making an argument for the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness" is the sort of semantic hair-splitting that Hillary Clinton ought to have been compelled to do in court - in the same way that her husband prevaricated over "what the meaning of the word 'is' is," shortly before he lost his law license.

    [Jul 07, 2016] Why the FBI concluded Hillary Clintons email practices did not rise to the level of criminal charges -

    Hillary coped her emails and gave all of the to her private lawyer, who has no security clearance, on the USB stick. That's alone qualifies for gross negligence.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton also used the department's secure email system for transmitting classified information, but the FBI found that some of the regular communications with her staff on the personal server involved facts and details that she should have known were classified. In a few cases, the emails bore markings to indicate they contained classified information. ..."
    "... Stewart Baker, a top national security lawyer in the Bush administration, called Comey's statement "pretty damning for Secretary Clinton, even if the facts don't make for an impressive criminal case. He suggests that she should have been, or arguably could still be, subjected to 'security or administrative sanctions.' What he doesn't say, but what we can infer, is that she ran those incredible risks with national security information because she was more worried about the GOP reading her mail than of Russian or Chinese spies reading it. That's appalling," he said. ..."
    "... HIllary lied about her servers, she lied about sending classified information, she lied about the re-classification of confidential, secret and SAP documents. Some two hours after Comey's announcement, she and Obama took off on Air Force One for a rally together. ..."
    "... But a new security regimen is dawning for those who hold security clearances. According to the FBI, they are now free to transfer data between secure and non-secure networks without punishment, as long as the INTENT is not to harm the United States. ..."
    "... A retired FBI agent on Fox said this : The Comey conference was to take the heat off of Lynch - because if the FBI had just been quiet with their results, and it would have been Lynch who came out and said...No charges - AFTER the Phoenix scandal, people would really be skeptical. end - ..."
    "... Of course this took AG-LL off the hook. NOW - for all of this to fall in place? Had to be some meetings beforehand - AG - FBI and Whitehouse general council - 3 US government lawyers colluding this event - to make SURE they have jobs the next 4 years and the GRATITUDE of Potus Hillary. ..."
    "... Corrupt? I would not go that far...let's just say DIRTY. ..."
    "... "Gross negligence" is the standard under 18 U.S.C., section 793-f. FBI Director Comey said Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless" in her handling of highly classified information. What's the difference, other than semantics, between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless?" ..."
    "... Hillary's emails may be great confirmation of Hillary's war role in the Mid-east and even Ukraine. However, more to the point they confirm for all Democrats that Hillary's agenda is the Neo-con one of Geo. W. Bush's handlers from PNAC, Chicago School of Economics, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland. (The Neo-con/Neo-liberal company includes Larry Summers, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) She is not a run of the mill hawk like John McCain, she is a New World Order marionette just as Geo W was. She needs to be dumped as she is beholden to anti-democratic values of elitism. ..."
    "... Bill Kristol is attacking Donald Trump because his candidate is Hillary. ..."
    "... This was historical. Law enforcement does not make decisions on prosecution. That is left to prosecutors. Law enforcement are fact finders who should have presented the case to a career professional prosecutor to make a decision. ..."
    "... The question is, why was well established policy and protocol violated and the case not presented to a prosecutor for a decision? Ask any local D.A. If they reject a case, they write a "reject" documenting their rationale. In a very public or complicated case, that reject is written in great detail regarding each and every potential charge. ..."
    "... The Obama Administration has prosecuted more people under the same WW I espionage act than all other administrations COMBINED. Comey has prosecuted a person under this act for a 21-word email .not 30,000 destroyed emails. ..."
    "... Everybody knows this was fixed. The examples of similar incidents, putting people in jail, are coming out of the shadows. It is time to vote the career politicians out of office and take our country back. ..."
    "... NSA has copies of every email sent to/from US, & likely most others, for last 10+ years. So they have all 30,000+ of the emails she deleted. ..."
    "... When in the Navy I saw a LT. career destroyed for leaving a top secret safe open over night. We did not know who maybe got in. The assumption by NCIS was that someone did enter and Top Secret information was taken. He was prosecuted for maybe forgetting and Clinton no prosecution for being dumb? ..."
    LA Times

    "It's just not a crime under current law to do nothing more than share sensitive information over unsecured networks," said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas. "Maybe it should be, but that's something for Congress to decide going forward."

    John M. Deutch, another former CIA director, narrowly avoided a misdemeanor charge for having taken hundreds of top secret files home on his laptop computer. He was pardoned by Clinton before charges were filed.

    ... ... ...

    Hillary Clinton also used the department's secure email system for transmitting classified information, but the FBI found that some of the regular communications with her staff on the personal server involved facts and details that she should have known were classified. In a few cases, the emails bore markings to indicate they contained classified information.

    However, investigators did not find evidence she knowingly or intentionally disclosed government secrets or that she exposed secrets through gross negligence. Clinton's apparent interest was in maintaining her privacy.

    ... ... ...

    Stewart Baker, a top national security lawyer in the Bush administration, called Comey's statement "pretty damning for Secretary Clinton, even if the facts don't make for an impressive criminal case. He suggests that she should have been, or arguably could still be, subjected to 'security or administrative sanctions.' What he doesn't say, but what we can infer, is that she ran those incredible risks with national security information because she was more worried about the GOP reading her mail than of Russian or Chinese spies reading it. That's appalling," he said.

    knox.bob.xpg

    No amount of facts, no amount of evidence, and no amount of lies will change the minds of supporters of Hillary Clinton. Her coronation was pre-determined. Ideology is more important to her supporters than the quality of the candidate. While brash, Trump nailed it yesterday. The fix was in and the optics played out.

    HIllary lied about her servers, she lied about sending classified information, she lied about the re-classification of confidential, secret and SAP documents. Some two hours after Comey's announcement, she and Obama took off on Air Force One for a rally together.

    Obama would have never done this if Comey's decision was to seek criminal charges. Presidential travel is not spur of the moment, it is carefully planned weeks in advance. So what happened here ? I believe Comey knew that DOJ would not seek criminal charges against her despite the overwhelming evidence of gross negligence.

    Comey "fried" her yesterday and now she will be tried in the court of public opinion. There are simply some people who believe that global warming, income inequality, and transgender bathrooms are more important than ISIS, our economy, terror, or national debt.

    unclesmrgol

    Hillary has been freed from any punishment, for some animals are more important than others.

    But a new security regimen is dawning for those who hold security clearances. According to the FBI, they are now free to transfer data between secure and non-secure networks without punishment, as long as the INTENT is not to harm the United States.

    That is the new standard, and a mighty fine one it is -- right?

    SandyDago

    A retired FBI agent on Fox said this : The Comey conference was to take the heat off of Lynch - because if the FBI had just been quiet with their results, and it would have been Lynch who came out and said...No charges - AFTER the Phoenix scandal, people would really be skeptical. end -

    That seems very obvious at this point...The FBI does not do - what James Comey did yesterday. No comment is how they roll - Yet we get a play by play yesterday.

    Of course this took AG-LL off the hook. NOW - for all of this to fall in place? Had to be some meetings beforehand - AG - FBI and Whitehouse general council - 3 US government lawyers colluding this event - to make SURE they have jobs the next 4 years and the GRATITUDE of Potus Hillary.

    Corrupt? I would not go that far...let's just say DIRTY.

    Chris Crusade

    "Gross negligence" is the standard under 18 U.S.C., section 793-f. FBI Director Comey said Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless" in her handling of highly classified information. What's the difference, other than semantics, between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless?"

    lon.ball

    Hillary's emails may be great confirmation of Hillary's war role in the Mid-east and even Ukraine. However, more to the point they confirm for all Democrats that Hillary's agenda is the Neo-con one of Geo. W. Bush's handlers from PNAC, Chicago School of Economics, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland. (The Neo-con/Neo-liberal company includes Larry Summers, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) She is not a run of the mill hawk like John McCain, she is a New World Order marionette just as Geo W was. She needs to be dumped as she is beholden to anti-democratic values of elitism.

    Bill Kristol is attacking Donald Trump because his candidate is Hillary. (See this article in this issue.) So, it is not about Democrat vs. Republican. The new political dichotomy is Centralization (corporatism, totalitarian, collectivism) vs. Personal Constitutional freedom. I am a lifelong Democrat and Sanders man who is "never Hillary" for good reason. I cannot sit by idly and watch as our national Democracy continues to devolve into world fascism with the Neo-cons. Hillary is a traitor to the Nation and to the late great Democratic Party.

    It is time for the old right and old progressive left to unite for preservation of the US Constitution and personal freedom. Never Hillary; never New World Order!" less

    tommy501

    This was historical. Law enforcement does not make decisions on prosecution. That is left to prosecutors. Law enforcement are fact finders who should have presented the case to a career professional prosecutor to make a decision.

    The question is, why was well established policy and protocol violated and the case not presented to a prosecutor for a decision? Ask any local D.A. If they reject a case, they write a "reject" documenting their rationale. In a very public or complicated case, that reject is written in great detail regarding each and every potential charge.

    Something's fishy.

    andytek2

    @tommy501 he didn't make a prosecutorial decision he only said that no reasonable prosecutor would file charges.

    DennisWV

    The Obama Administration has prosecuted more people under the same WW I espionage act than all other administrations COMBINED. Comey has prosecuted a person under this act for a 21-word email .not 30,000 destroyed emails.

    Everybody knows this was fixed. The examples of similar incidents, putting people in jail, are coming out of the shadows. It is time to vote the career politicians out of office and take our country back.

    Outside the Herd

    NSA has copies of every email sent to/from US, & likely most others, for last 10+ years. So they have all 30,000+ of the emails she deleted.

    FBI & O knew months ago what was in all of them, & delayed looking away until primaries were clinched. Which was also crooked, ask Bernie's peep's.

    Andre-Leonard

    "A second law makes it a crime to "remove" secret documents kept by the government or to allow them to be stolen through "gross negligence."

    Funny how they went after Edward Snowden for the very same thing. Yet no one in their 'right' mind expected a Justice Department led by Obama to allow for Billary to be indicted. It's all about favorites here and justice is 'not' really blind.

    kenwrite9

    When she was in foreign countries she should have known that those countries spy on American officials. I now that, why she did not is strange. When in the Navy I saw a LT. career destroyed for leaving a top secret safe open over night. We did not know who maybe got in. The assumption by NCIS was that someone did enter and Top Secret information was taken. He was prosecuted for maybe forgetting and Clinton no prosecution for being dumb?

    [Jul 06, 2016] FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook by Andrew C. McCarthy

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18) ..."
    "... The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. ..."
    "... It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. ..."
    "... Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we've decided she shouldn't be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. ..."
    "... To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case. ..."
    National Review

    Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was "extremely careless" and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

    In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

    ... ... ...

    It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged.

    Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States.

    Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we've decided she shouldn't be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey's claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI.

    To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

    [Jul 04, 2016] The Roots of Hillarys Infatuation with War

    Notable quotes:
    "... The truth is that the pretext for military intervention was almost as thin in Yugoslavia as it was in Libya. ..."
    "... SANCTIONS HAVE been the favorite smart weapon of both Clintons. Iraq was the target country for Bill in the 1990s, as Iran would be for Hillary starting in 2009. The point of sanctions is to inflict pain, in response to which (it is hoped) the people will blame their government. The point is therefore also to create the conditions for regime change. Neither of the Clintons seems to have absorbed a central lesson of the Amnesty International Report on Cuba in 1975–76: that the "persistence of fear, real or imagined, of counterrevolutionary conspiracies" bore the primary responsibility for "the early [Cuban] excesses in the treatment of political prisoners"; and that "the removal of that fear has been largely responsible for the improvements in conditions." Both Clintons have felt pressed to perform supererogatory works to show that liberals can be tough. For Mrs. Clinton, there is the additional need-from self-demand as much as external pressure-to prove that a female leader can be tougher than her male counterpart. ..."
    "... Those sentences are notable for a historical omission and a non sequitur. The NATO expansion that began under George H. W. Bush, was enhanced in the presidency of Bill Clinton and continued under George W. Bush and Obama, was not a widely appreciated moderate policy, as Mrs. Clinton implies. The policy was subject to skeptical challenge from the first, and one of its sharpest critics was George F. Kennan. (He described it, coincidentally, as "a tragic mistake.") Leaving aside the abridgment of history, there is a disturbing logical jump in Clinton's dismissal of the challenge regarding NATO. The gratitude expressed by newly admitted member states does nothing at all to "refute" the fact that Vladimir Putin, along with many Western diplomats, thought the post–Cold War expansion of a Cold War entity was a hostile policy directed provocatively against Russia in its own backyard. ..."
    "... Her sentences about NATO could have been written by Tony Blair; and this explains why at least three neoconservatives-Eliot A. Cohen, Max Boot and Robert Kagan, in ascending order of enthusiasm-have indicated that a Clinton presidency would be agreeable to them. She is a reliable option for them. ..."
    "... Her comparison of Putin to Hitler in March 2014 and her likening of Crimean Russians to Sudeten Germans were reminiscent, too, of the specter of Munich evoked by an earlier secretary of state, Dean Rusk, to defend the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1965-the kind of tragic mistake that Hillary Clinton seems prepared to repeat for the most laudable of humanitarian reasons. ..."
    Jun 29, 2016 | The National Interest

    An incorrigible belief in the purity of one's motives is among the most dangerous endowments a politician can possess.

    ... ... ...

    Clinton gave two pages to the war in her memoir Living History. She sympathized there with the burden of responsibility borne by President Johnson for "a war he'd inherited," which turned out to be "a tragic mistake." Johnson is her focus: the man of power who rode a tiger he could not dismount. On a second reading, "mistake" may seem too light a word to characterize a war that destroyed an agrarian culture forever and killed between one and three million Vietnamese. "Mistake" is also the word that Hillary Clinton has favored in answering questions about her vote for the Iraq War.

    Like every Democrat who has run for president since 1960, Clinton sometimes talks as if she wished foreign policy would go away. A president's most important responsibility, she agrees, is to strengthen the bonds of neighborhood and community at home, to assure a decent livelihood for working Americans and an efficient system of benefits for all. Yet her four years as secretary of state-chronicled in a second volume of memoirs, Hard Choices-have licensed her to speak with the authority of a veteran in the world of nations. War and diplomacy, as that book aimed to show, have become an invaluable adjunct to her skill set. Clinton would want us to count as well a third tool besides war and diplomacy. She calls it (after a coinage by Joseph Nye) "smart power." Smart power, for her, denotes a kind of pressure that may augment the force of arms and the persuasive work of diplomacy. It draws on the network of civil society, NGOs, projects for democracy promotion and managed operations of social media, by which the United States over the past quarter of a century has sought to weaken the authority of designated enemies and to increase leverage on presumptive or potential friends. Smart power is supposed to widen the prospects of liberal society and assist the spread of human rights. Yet the term itself creates a puzzle. Hillary Clinton's successful advocacy of violent regime change in Libya and her continuing call to support armed insurgents against the Assad government in Syria have been arguments for war, but arguments that claim a special exemption. For these wars-both the one we led and the one we should have led-were "humanitarian wars." This last phrase Clinton has avoided using, just as she has avoided explaining her commitment to the internationalist program known as "Responsibility to Protect," with its broad definition of genocide and multiple triggers for legitimate intervention. Instead, in a Democratic primary debate in October 2015, she chose to characterize the Libya war as "smart power at its best."

    The NATO action to overthrow Muammar el-Qaddafi, in which Clinton played so decisive a role, has turned out to be a catastrophe with strong resemblances to Iraq-a catastrophe smaller in degree but hardly less consequential in its ramifications, from North Africa to the Middle East to southern Europe. The casus belli was the hyperbolic threat by Qaddafi to annihilate a rebel force in Benghazi. His vow to hunt down the rebels "like rats" door to door could be taken to mean a collective punishment of inhabitants of the city, but Qaddafi had marched from the west to the east of Libya, in command of an overwhelming force, without the occurrence of any such massacre, and the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence assigned low credibility to the threat. Clinton took more seriously an alarmist reading of Qaddafi by Bernard-Henri Lévy, Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron, Susan Rice and Samantha Power, and chose to interpret his threat as a harbinger of "genocide."

    Landler, in his book Alter Egos on the Clinton-Obama relationship, joins the consensus that has lately emerged from the reporting of Patrick Cockburn, Anne Barnard and other journalists on the ground. "Libya," Landler writes, "has descended into a state of Mad Max–like anarchy"; the country is now "a seedbed for militancy that has spread west and south across Africa"; it "has become the most important Islamic State stronghold outside Syria and Iraq"; "it sends waves of desperate migrants across the Mediterranean, where they drown in capsized vessels within sight of Europe." Clinton's most recent comments, however, leave no doubt that she continues to believe in the healing virtue of smart power. The belief appears to be genuine and not tactical.

    FOLLOW HER definition a little further and a host of perplexities arise. Cyber war could presumably be justified as a use of smart power, on the Clinton model, since it damages the offensive capabilities of a hostile power in an apparently bloodless way. Shall we therefore conclude that the deployment of the Stuxnet worm against Iran's nuclear program was an achievement of smart power? Or consider a related use that would disrupt the flow of water or electricity in a city of three million persons controlled by a government hostile to the United States-an action aimed at stirring discontents to spur an insurrection. Could that be called smart power? We approach a region in which terminological ingenuity may skirt the edge of sophistry; yet this is the rhetorical limbo in which a good deal of U.S. policy is conceived and executed.

    Clinton also plainly has in view the civil associations that we subsidize abroad, and the democracy-promotion groups, funded indirectly through USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and other organizations. The nonviolent protests that turned bloody in Tahrir Square in Cairo, and in the Maidan in Kiev, received indications of American support by means both avowed and unavowed-a fact acknowledged by Victoria Nuland (assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs) when in December 2013 she said that more than $5 billion had been spent on democracy promotion in Ukraine since 1992. If the story of the Syrian Civil War is ever fully told, we are likely to discover that the early "liberal" or "moderate" rebels were encouraged in their misreading of U.S. intentions through social-media messaging approved by forces within the U.S. government.

    In Ideal Illusions-a study of the history of NGOs, the international culture of rights and U.S. foreign policy-James Peck noticed how the responsibilities of the caretakers of human rights had expanded after the 1970s "from prisoners of conscience to the rights of noncombatants to democratization to humanitarian intervention." It is the last of these elements that completes the R2P package; and Hillary Clinton is among its warmest partisans. The Western powers have a moral obligation to intervene, she believes, especially when that means guarding the rights of women and assuring the welfare of the neediest children. Her mistakes in the cause have been not tragic like President Johnson's in Vietnam but, as she sees them, small, incidental and already too harshly judged. One ought to err on the side of action, of intervention. And military intervention in this regard bears a likeness to the "community intervention" that may save the life of a child in an abusive family.

    The bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 were, among other things, an experiment to prove the neoconservative strategy of "force projection." The experiment did not work out as planned. By contrast, the test for liberal interventionists was Kosovo, and popular memory has abetted the legend that Kosovo was a success. Thus Anne-Marie Slaughter was able to write in a tweet regarding the Munich Security Conference of February 2014: "Contrast b/w Serb-Kosovo panel this morning & ME panel now at #msc50 so striking; in Balkans US was willing to ACT w/ diplomacy AND force." Recall that, in order to create the nation of Kosovo, NATO acted against the nation of Yugoslavia with smart power whose leading articulation was seventy-seven days of bombing. The satisfied pronouncements on Kosovo and Libya that emanate from liberal interventionists show a striking continuity. As a director of policy planning in Clinton's State Department, Slaughter had written to her boss three days after the start of the NATO bombing of Libya: "I have NEVER been prouder of having worked for you."

    The truth is that the pretext for military intervention was almost as thin in Yugoslavia as it was in Libya. There, too, genocide was said to be in progress-the slaughter of tens of thousands of ethnic Albanians-but the reports were chimerical. In First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia, David Gibbs concluded that approximately two thousand had been killed before the NATO bombing; whereas, during the bombing itself and in retaliation for it, Serbian security forces killed approximately ten thousand. Given the status of the episode in liberal mythology, the treatment of Kosovo in Living History is oddly minimal: less than a paragraph, all told, scattered over several chapters. Living History was published in 2003; and it seems possible that Clinton had an inkling of the mob violence that would break out in March 2004 in the nationwide pogrom against the Serbs of Kosovo-violence that would lead in early 2016 to the construction of tent cities in the capital, Pristina, and the firing of tear gas canisters in parliament to protest the abridgment of the political rights of the remaining ethnic minority. The aftermath of the Kosovo intervention has recently entered a new chapter. "How Kosovo Was Turned Into Fertile Ground for ISIS" was the astute headline of a New York Times story by Carlotta Gall, on May 21, 2016. Gall's opening sentence offers a symptomatic tableau:

    "Every Friday, just yards from a statue of Bill Clinton with arm aloft in a cheery wave, hundreds of young bearded men make a show of kneeling to pray on the sidewalk outside an impoverished mosque in a former furniture store."

    SANCTIONS HAVE been the favorite smart weapon of both Clintons. Iraq was the target country for Bill in the 1990s, as Iran would be for Hillary starting in 2009. The point of sanctions is to inflict pain, in response to which (it is hoped) the people will blame their government. The point is therefore also to create the conditions for regime change. Neither of the Clintons seems to have absorbed a central lesson of the Amnesty International Report on Cuba in 1975–76: that the "persistence of fear, real or imagined, of counterrevolutionary conspiracies" bore the primary responsibility for "the early [Cuban] excesses in the treatment of political prisoners"; and that "the removal of that fear has been largely responsible for the improvements in conditions." Both Clintons have felt pressed to perform supererogatory works to show that liberals can be tough. For Mrs. Clinton, there is the additional need-from self-demand as much as external pressure-to prove that a female leader can be tougher than her male counterpart.

    Landler's account suggests that neither the Iran nuclear deal nor the restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba would have been likely to occur in a Hillary Clinton presidency. When President Obama announced the thaw with Cuba in December 2014, he said that the United States "wants to be a partner in making the lives of ordinary Cubans a little bit easier, more free, more prosperous." Clinton, by contrast, warned that the Cuban regime should not mistake the gesture for a relaxation of hostility; and on a visit to Miami in July 2015, she threw in a characteristic warning and proviso: "Engagement is not a gift to the Castros. It's a threat to the Castros." She thereby subverted the meaning of Obama's policy while ostensibly supporting the measure itself.

    "Superpowers Don't Get to Retire" was the title and message of a New Republic essay by Robert Kagan, published in May 2014, about the time it became clear that President Obama would not be confronting Russia over its annexation of Crimea and would disappoint the neoconservative appetite for regime change in Syria. Writing in Hard Choices of the eastward expansion of NATO, Clinton concurred:

    "In the wake of Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in early 2014, some have argued that NATO expansion either caused or exacerbated Russia's aggression. I disagree with that argument, but the most convincing voices refuting it are those European leaders and people who express their gratitude for NATO membership."

    Those sentences are notable for a historical omission and a non sequitur. The NATO expansion that began under George H. W. Bush, was enhanced in the presidency of Bill Clinton and continued under George W. Bush and Obama, was not a widely appreciated moderate policy, as Mrs. Clinton implies. The policy was subject to skeptical challenge from the first, and one of its sharpest critics was George F. Kennan. (He described it, coincidentally, as "a tragic mistake.") Leaving aside the abridgment of history, there is a disturbing logical jump in Clinton's dismissal of the challenge regarding NATO. The gratitude expressed by newly admitted member states does nothing at all to "refute" the fact that Vladimir Putin, along with many Western diplomats, thought the post–Cold War expansion of a Cold War entity was a hostile policy directed provocatively against Russia in its own backyard.

    It would do no harm to her persuasiveness if Clinton admitted a degree of truth in the case made by her opponents, whether on the Libya war, the advisability of repeating that experiment in Syria, or the innocent design of propagating democracy that drove the expansion of NATO. An incorrigible belief in the purity of one's motives is among the most dangerous endowments a politician can possess. Her sentences about NATO could have been written by Tony Blair; and this explains why at least three neoconservatives-Eliot A. Cohen, Max Boot and Robert Kagan, in ascending order of enthusiasm-have indicated that a Clinton presidency would be agreeable to them. She is a reliable option for them.

    Her comparison of Putin to Hitler in March 2014 and her likening of Crimean Russians to Sudeten Germans were reminiscent, too, of the specter of Munich evoked by an earlier secretary of state, Dean Rusk, to defend the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1965-the kind of tragic mistake that Hillary Clinton seems prepared to repeat for the most laudable of humanitarian reasons.

    David Bromwich is Sterling Professor of English at Yale University. He is the author of The Intellectual Life of Edmund Burke: From the Sublime and Beautiful to American Independence (Belknap Press, 2014).

    [Jul 03, 2016] Obama Will Need His Oratory Powers to Sell Globalization by MARK LANDLER

    Notable quotes:
    "... The case for ambitious trade deals, Dr. Prasad said, is that they allow the United States to set the rules for its dealings with other countries, and to wield greater geopolitical influence. Yet those arguments are easily overshadowed by the simple, if dubious, assertion that the losses to the American economy from these deals are greater than the benefits. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    When President Obama travels to North Carolina and Europe this week, he will press an argument that could define foreign policy in the last six months of his presidency: that Americans and Europeans must not forsake their open, interconnected societies for the nativism and nationalism preached by Donald J. Trump or Britain's Brexiteers.

    Few presidents have put more faith than Mr. Obama in the power of words to persuade audiences to accept a complex idea, whether it is the morality of a just war or the imperfect nature of American society. Yet countering the anti-immigration and anti-free-trade slogans in this election year will require all of his oratorical skills.

    Mr. Obama road-tested his pitch over the last two weeks in two friendly venues: Silicon Valley and Canada. This week, he will take the case to North Carolina, a swing state that has been hard hit by the forces of globalization, and to a NATO meeting in Poland, where the alliance members will grapple with the effects of Britain's vote to leave the European Union, known as Brexit.

    In Warsaw, Mr. Obama will sit next to Britain's lame-duck prime minister, David Cameron, whose political career was ended by his miscalculation over holding the referendum on European Union membership. But first, in Charlotte, N.C., he will campaign with Hillary Clinton, his former secretary of state and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who reversed her position on Mr. Obama's Asian trade deal, formally called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, after many in her party turned sharply against free trade.

    "President Obama has made a valiant attempt to build support for freer trade," said Eswar S. Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University. "But the arguments in favor of free trade lack rhetorical and political resonance, especially amidst a heated political campaign."

    The case for ambitious trade deals, Dr. Prasad said, is that they allow the United States to set the rules for its dealings with other countries, and to wield greater geopolitical influence. Yet those arguments are easily overshadowed by the simple, if dubious, assertion that the losses to the American economy from these deals are greater than the benefits.

    [Jun 28, 2016] Obama family role in Indonesian genocide

    Notable quotes:
    "... united snake orchestrated the 1965 genocide on Chinese indons, [later Clinton called Suharto the executioner 'our kind of guy' .] then instigated the 1989 pogrom [including mass rapes of Chinese girls]. ..."
    Jun 25, 2016 | www.moonofalabama.org

    denk | Jun 25, 2016 11:04:51 AM | 98

    facists reunited.

    united snake orchestrated the 1965 genocide on Chinese indons, [later Clinton called Suharto the executioner 'our kind of guy' .] then instigated the 1989 pogrom [including mass rapes of Chinese girls].

    once again united snake has roped in its fascists buddies in Jakarta for another 'open season' on Chinese people.
    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/06/25/obama-family-role-indonesian-genocide-protected-muslim-radicals.html

    [Jun 19, 2016] Syria - Russian Surprise Attack Blows Up Kerrys Delaying Tactic

    Notable quotes:
    "... Its so sad how the western presstitutes try and work this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79jQSYQYcW0 Russia seems to have the war part covered while Syria is bringing the diplomatic punch into focus .... ..."
    "... Unadulterated BS. As for Obama (see 6) the committee man (he was elected for that role), he is caught between a rock and a hard place. Ukraine was and is an absolute disaster - nothing worked out as wished. (Some may enjoy Helmer, who sometimes must be taken with a dose of salt, linked below, MH17, etc. This war is being fought on 2 fronts, Ukr. + Syria.) ..."
    "... Although the US seems to have gotten tough(er) on ISIS in recent months, there are indications that this is just more smokescreen. The Assad must go! Coalition has merely changed tactics. They still support their extremist proxy army(s) (as demonstrated by recent resupply and pleas for Russia to avoid bombing) . ..."
    "... Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright: What good is a proxy army if you don't use it? ..."
    "... Obama is a willing and very capable participant in the 'con'. This has been proven in the realm of domestic affairs as well as foreign affairs. james has it right when he says: "this good cop/bad cop (obama/brennan) routine is a pile of bullshite". ..."
    "... The Saudis and its allied are too stupid to realize that they have been taken on a ride. Turkey is on the verge of crumbling as Erdogan keeps attacking the USA and Egypt and has not solve the issue with Israel on Hamas and the defunct Moslem Brotherhood. ..."
    "... Yes, I suppose it is entirely possible that this "schism" between Obama and the Pentagon is just theatrics, optics, useful in declaring helplessness when "policies" are undone or contradicted ... Obama as victim of palace infighting. ..."
    "... "Turkey on the verge of crumbling ..." ..."
    "... Egypt has placed the MB on the terror list and has become allied with Saudi Arabia and UAE. Qatar is isolated for its support of the MB. Erdogan is between a rock and a hard place, its foreign policy has been a disaster. Seeking to restore relations with Russia. The intelligence community of Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia have joined assets in the Levant. Al Nusra on the Golan must be defeated, the UK/US training camps of rebels in Jordan must be neutralized to fight in the southern corridor to Damascus. ..."
    "... To remove any ambiguity about the status of the Free Syrian Army, a representative was present at this year's Herzliya Conference. This annual conference is dedicated to issues relating to Israel's Security. Netanyahu and high level Israeli Military Intelligence leaders state they prefer ISIS to Assad. ..."
    "... War criminal Obama was the lead advocate for bombing Syrian government a few years ago, thats until the UK Parliament put a temporary stop to it. So any credit given to Obama by b , or anyone else is ludicrous. LUDICROUS. The destruction of Libya still gets Obama mitigation ? ..."
    "... In 2016 we have the batsh*t crazy appointed government bureaucrats siding with the sole interests of a foreign country. Circle talking seems to be the normal state of affairs at State, Executive and MSM. PBS has gone full Karl Marx. Congress has an 16% approval rating, 80% disapproval, and 4% no opinion [1]. So I guess Congress doesn't really matter? And as far as our military command goes, when you can use 'sold out' and 'son of a bitch' in the same sentence, we, as a nation might have a major problemo. ..."
    "... Actually, Putin has said that their intervention in Syria is in Russia's strategic interests - making much the same argument that Bush did wrt al Queda: we need to fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here . Russia doesn't want to see extremist control of another failed state like Libya. ..."
    "... Clearly there is an ongoing battle in the Obama Administration between Mostly the pentagon (at least some part of it) and the CIA (most part of it). Obama is well aware of this. ..."
    "... Obama's Strategy has been to isolate Russia Politically and to shift the main focus of United State Towards Asia however the unexpected resistance of Russia and Syria wasn't forecast by his administration and part of the Deep state. Now part of the heads in the pentagon and the Obama administration want out of this proxy war against Russia as the World and mainly the US public becomes more and more aware of the real nature of the war ongoing in Syria. The heart of the matter is that The members of the oligarchy that rule the united states through revolving doors between the government , their law firms, foundations, banks and corporations can't afford to lose Syria for obvious reason. ..."
    "... "But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria." ..."
    "... I haven't watched or listened to that PBS tripe ever . But considering that PBS is 90% corporate funded, I find it hard to accept your assertion ... it is merely a corporate/permanent government psy-op to keep the intellectually and morally challenged sedated. ..."
    "... Obama's Syria SNAFU was always destined to boil down to Yankees playing Russian Roulette - with Russia. They're probably beginning to realise that playing cat and mouse loses a lot of its appeal when the cat starts getting ready to eat you. ..."
    "... Hillary's so predictably evil, and he's so officially 'unpredictable' that he's the natural focal point of the selection circus. It's too bad only one of them can lose. ..."
    "... Confirmation of other reports ... ..."
    "... Obama and his Administration is a collection of lawyers, political pseudo-"scientists", journos etc. They are very good at promoting suicidal social policies but do not and cannot operate with actual operational categories--briefings by CIA or Pentagon (granted that they reflect a reality on the "ground", which is a question) are not designed to teach some Ivy League lawyer fundamentals of international relations, strategy, operational art etc. They merely distill a very complex geopolitical reality to a several catch phrases which could be understood by people of such qualities as W. (his military briefings papers contained headers with Bible excerpts, supposedly applicable to current situation) or Obama, who has no clue on how to assess the world around himself. ..."
    "... In relation to Russia what Obama has in mind is beaten to death cliche of Afghanistan (obviously without studying that war) with which he wants to impress Russians, who, meanwhile fought two bloody wars against Wahhabi terrorists on own territory and, somehow, do know, unlike Obama or US liberal political class, what does it take to deal with this huge issue. In the end, during last War in Chechnya US media loved to misuse this very term (quagmire) and completely forgot to mention that Chechnya today is, actually, pretty reliable anti-terrorism entity in Russia. Now, add here most of US "elites" and a population being absolutely oblivious to real war and voila'. You have people speaking in platitudes and ignorant cliches. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    The U.S. is unwilling to stop the war on Syria and to settle the case at the negotiation table. It wants a 100% of its demands fulfilled, the dissolution of the Syrian government and state and the inauguration of a U.S. proxy administration in Syria.

    After the ceasefire in Syria started in late February Obama broke his pledge to separate the U.S. supported "moderate rebels" from al-Qaeda. In April U.S. supported rebels, the Taliban like Ahrar al Sham and al-Qaeda joined to attack the Syrian government in south Aleppo. The U.S.proxies broke the ceasefire.

    Two UN resolutions demand that al-Qaeda in Syria be fought no matter what. But the U.S. has at least twice asked Russia not to bomb al-Qaeda. It insists, falsely, that it can not separate its "moderates" from al-Qaeda and that al-Qaeda can not be attacked because that would also hit its "moderate" friends.

    The Russian foreign minster Lavrov has talked wit Kerry many times about the issue. But the only response he received were requests to further withhold bombing. Meanwhile al-Qaeda and the "moderates" continued to break the ceasefire and to attack the Syrian government forces.

    After nearly four month Kerry still insists that the U.S. needs even more time for the requested separation of its proxy forces from al-Qaeda. Foreign Minister Lavrov recently expressed the Russian consternation:

    The Americans are now saying that they are unable to remove the 'good' opposition members from the positions held by al-Nusra Front, and that they will need another two-three months. I am under the impression that there is a game here and they may want to keep al-Nusra Front in some form and later use it to overthrow the [Assad] regime," Lavrov said at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

    The bucket was full and Kerry's latest request for another three month pause of attacking al-Qaeda was the drop that let it overflow. Russia now responded by hitting the U.S. where it did not expect to be hit:

    Russian warplanes hit Pentagon-backed Syrian fighters with a barrage of airstrikes earlier this week , disregarding several warnings from U.S. commanders in what American military officials called the most provocative act since Moscow's air campaign in Syria began last year.

    The strikes hit a base near the Jordanian border, far from areas where the Russians were previously active, and targeted U.S.-backed forces battling the Islamic State militants.
    ...
    These latest strikes occurred on the other side of the country from the usual Russian operations, around Tanf, a town near where the borders of Jordan, Iraq, and Syria meet.
    ...
    The Russian strike hit a small rebel base for staging forces and equipment in a desolate, unpopulated area near the border. About 180 rebels were there as part of the Pentagon's program to train and equip fighters against Islamic State.

    When the first strikes hit, the rebels called a U.S. command center in Qatar, where the Pentagon orchestrates the daily air war against Islamic State.

    U.S. jets came and the Russian jets went away. The U.S. jets left to refuel, the Russian jets came back and hit again. Allegedly two U.S. proxy fighters were killed and 18 were wounded.

    Earlier today another such attack hit the same target.

    This was no accident but a well planned operation and the Russian spokesperson's response makes the intend clear:

    Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov appeared to confirm the attack Friday, telling reporters it was difficult to distinguish different rebel groups from the air.

    Translation: "If you can not separate your forces from al-Qaeda and differentiate and designate exclusively "moderate" zones we can not do so either ."

    The forces near Tanf are supported by U.S. artillery from Jordan and air power via Iraq. British and Jordan special operations forces are part of the ground component (and probably the majority of the "Syrian" fighters.) There is no al-Qaeda there. The Russians know that well. But they wanted to make the point that it is either separation everywhere or separation nowhere. From now on until the U.S. clearly separates them from AQ all U.S. supported forces will be hit indiscriminately anywhere and anytime. (The Syrian Kurds fighting the Islamic State with U.S. support are for now a different story.)

    The Pentagon does not want any further engagement against the Syrian government or against Russia. It wants to fight the Islamic State and its hates the CIA for its cooperation with al-Qaeda and other Jihadi elements. But John Brennan, the Saudi operative and head of the CIA, still seems to have Obama's ear. But what can Obama do now? Shoot down a Russian jet and thereby endanger any U.S. pilot flying in Syria or near the Russian border? Risk a war with Russia? Really?

    The Russian hit near Tanf was clearly a surprise. The Russians again caught Washington on the wrong foot. The message to the Obama administration is clear. "No more delays and obfuscations. You will separate your moderates NOW or all your assets in Syria will be juicy targets for the Russian air force. "

    The Russian hits at Tanf and the U.S. proxies there has an additional benefit. The U.S. had planned to let those forces move north towards Deir Ezzor and to defeat the Islamic State in that city. Eventually a "Sunni entity" would be established in south east Syria and west Iraq under U.S. control. Syria would be split apart.

    The Syrian government and its allies will not allow that. There is a large operation planned to free Deir Ezzor from the Islamic State occupation. Several hundred Syrian government forces have held an isolated airport in Deir Ezzor against many unsuccessful Islamic State attacks. These troops get currently reinforced by additional Syrian army contingents and Hizbullah commandos.A big battle is coming. Deir Ezzor may be freed within the next few month. Any U.S. plans for some eastern Syrian entity are completely unrealistic if the Syrian government can take and hold its largest eastern city.

    The Obama administration's delaying tactic will now have to end. Russia will no longer stand back and watch while the U.S. sabotages the ceasefire and supports al-Qaeda.

    What then is the next move the U.S. will make?

    Posted by b on June 18, 2016 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

    Jackrabbit | Jun 18, 2016 11:42:32 AM | 2
    b:
    But John Brennan, the Saudi operative and head of the CIA, still seems to have Obama's ear.
    Please don't be an Obama apologist b. Isn't it clear by now that Obama is not the peace-loving progressive that he pretends to be?
    paul | Jun 18, 2016 11:42:53 AM | 3
    Putin needs to send a message to Israel that Russia will no longer tolerate Israeli bombing raids in Syria.
    Edomac | Jun 18, 2016 12:06:12 PM | 4
    Line in the sand now for Israel it's about time.
    harrylaw | Jun 18, 2016 12:16:30 PM | 5
    Many pundits have argued that there is no military solution in Syria. I disagree, a military solution is the only one possible and it must be decisive. How is it possible for Saudi Arabia to supply and finance thousands of proxy forces to destroy a fellow Arab state, and still claim to be fighting terrorism. Syria and Iran need to take the gloves off and use their own special forces or better still encourage proxy forces of their own [unattributed of course]to cripple the Saudi economy with various 'incidents' at Ras Tamara oil port. "An assault on Ras Tanura, however, would be vastly more serious. As much as 80% of the near 9m barrels of oil a day pumped out by Saudi is believed to end up being piped from fields such as Ghawar to Ras Tanura in the Gulf to be loaded on to supertankers bound for the west". https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/03/saudiarabia.oil
    This would have the benefit of killing two birds with one stone, the fall of one of the most obnoxious regimes known to mankind and with it the cessation of funding for schools of terrorism throughout the world and with it Assads vision of a secular Syrian state as a role model for the rest of the Middle East.
    WorldBLee | Jun 18, 2016 12:23:55 PM | 6
    @Jackrabbit at 2: Of course Obama is not progressive or peace loving. Only an idiot would argue that he is. But what b is saying is that Obama is weak reed who can be bent depending on which faction has his attention. He both wants to overthrow Assad and to avoid getting pulled into an expensive battle, in my opinion, and in any given week may issue contradictory policies. But it seems he sides more with the CIA than the Pentagon, which is dangerous in this case.
    Terry | Jun 18, 2016 12:44:12 PM | 7

    Seems as though the pressure is on ...this vid Skype presentation by Syrian presidential adviser Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, to GAFTA (Global Alliance for terminating al Qaeda) conference in Washington, June 2016. is well worth the listen to .

    Its so sad how the western presstitutes try and work this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79jQSYQYcW0 Russia seems to have the war part covered while Syria is bringing the diplomatic punch into focus ....

    Au | Jun 18, 2016 12:50:42 PM | 8
    @2 It's always been clear to me that he is not some tremendous beacon of peace for Syria but the alternative was McCain and he definitely wanted and still wants more w/ ever a burning yearning for absolute overt total war against Syria.

    It's tough to tell who Obama listens to; Ben Rhodes? Saudi's (most def) but is it just simply as a sorry for the iran deal or closer ties? The u.s. deep state (i think so but they seemed pretty pissed at him) . . i think he just expected things to go as they did in libya or perhaps as the 2012 dia memo stated, the plan all along was to create a sliver of a sunni state and for the u.s. in that case the objective is coming along whether a kurdistan (hopefully) or a caliphate (hope to god not)... is it a fly trap strategy that'll turn in to a caliphate? hell idk it's going to be insane w/ hillary.

    ALberto | Jun 18, 2016 12:54:31 PM | 9
    Just a reminder. Russia, Syria and Iran have a 'mutual defense treaty' that states an attack on one is an attack on all ...

    http://www.examiner.com/article/the-russia-iran-syria-mutual-defense-treaties-the-western-media-missed

    ALberto | Jun 18, 2016 1:10:20 PM | 10
    June 18, 2016 - You cannot make this stuff up ...

    "On Friday, Defense Secretary Ash Carter called out Russia for bombing a Syrian rebel group that's backed by the U.S.

    Since last year, American and Russian warplanes have shared the skies over Syria while supporting different sides in the civil war. Moscow backs the Assad dictatorship; the U.S. is arming rebels who've been trying to overthrow it.

    The attack by Russian fighter bombers on American-backed opposition forces appeared to be deliberate and to ignore repeated U.S. warnings."

    Once again our so called Department of Defense displays its 'Kindergarten logic' by condemning Russia for acting within the parameters of International Law.

    quote source - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ignores-warnings-bombs-u-s-backed-syrian-rebel-group/

    Noirette | Jun 18, 2016 1:13:27 PM | 11
    harrylaw at 5, yes, say. They state 'no military solution is possible' because they want a political transition right now. In short, they want the opposing parties to just lie down and die or go off and play WoW or watch Mad Men or sumptin'. Unadulterated BS. As for Obama (see 6) the committee man (he was elected for that role), he is caught between a rock and a hard place. Ukraine was and is an absolute disaster - nothing worked out as wished. (Some may enjoy Helmer, who sometimes must be taken with a dose of salt, linked below, MH17, etc. This war is being fought on 2 fronts, Ukr. + Syria.)

    Read in the Swiss Press (no idea if true) that di Mistura is fed up with the lot of them, implied he will throw in the towel. Not that a return to the negotiating table is realistic, that ship has now sailed into the stormy night, the US can't try that move again, nor will the Russians be so compliant next time (imho.) So that is one thing the US won't do (?).. (b's question.) The rubber is going to hit the road on this one. It will be fought out in the corridors of power in Washington first. Putin has been in speech very conciliatory recently to show the usual 'good will'..

    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=15859

    Jackrabbit | Jun 18, 2016 1:37:26 PM | 13
    b:
    What then is the next move the U.S. will make?
    I will hazard a guess. But first, we should not think that the U.S. will act alone. Direct confrontation with Russia is (of course) too risky.

    As I wrote in an earlier comment (includes timeline) , the San Bernandino attack occurred soon after the downing of the Russian airliner on October 31st 2015. This was the first attack against the US despite the US having (supposedly) bombed ISIS for over a year and engaged in a $500 million program to train anti-ISIS fighters.

    The long delay in responding to USA's anti-ISIS activities sharply contrasts with the quickness with which ISIS had responded to Russia's intervention. This leads to the question of whether the San Bernandino attack was (hastily) arranged to blunt any attempt to associate USA with the proxy army of Sunni extremists.

    Although the US seems to have gotten tough(er) on ISIS in recent months, there are indications that this is just more smokescreen. The Assad must go! Coalition has merely changed tactics. They still support their extremist proxy army(s) (as demonstrated by recent resupply and pleas for Russia to avoid bombing) .

    The recent Orlando shooting better establishes ISIS's hate for USA and thereby distances USA/CIA from ISIS. This distancing may simply be misdirection that allows ISIS to carry out spectacular attack(s) against Russian interests. That it pre-dates attacks on Russian interests merely shows that they learned from the San Bernandino experience (where a lack of previous attacks raised suspicions) .

    Note:

    1) The San Bernandino attackers had visited Saudi Arabia and the wife had lived there. They were well established in the USA and drew little if any suspicion. They could have attacked months before or after the time that they actually did attack.

    2) The Orlando attacker had also visited Saudi Arabia. The background of the wife is (as yet) not well understood. She was born in USA but her last name ("Salman") is the same as the Saudi royal family (I'm not sure how relevant that is) . It is now clear that she had some knowledge of the plans of her husband.

    3) Both the San Bernandino and Orlando (SB&O) attackers had a young child. As a 'young family' they would be less likely to draw suspicion. Were the SB&O attackers really "radicalized via the Internet"? "ISIS-inspired"? "Lone wolf"? Or, were they 'deep cover' operatives?

    4) The FBI has caught/entrapped many potential attackers that were "radicalized over the Internet" but they are invariably clueless and incapable.

    5) AFAIK, "ISIS-inspired" attackers in Paris and Brussels didn't have young children and middle-class lifestyle.

    Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright: What good is a proxy army if you don't use it?

    Jackrabbit | Jun 18, 2016 1:43:31 PM | 14
    WorldBLee @6:
    Obama is a weak reed
    Obama is a willing and very capable participant in the 'con'. This has been proven in the realm of domestic affairs as well as foreign affairs. james has it right when he says: "this good cop/bad cop (obama/brennan) routine is a pile of bullshite".

    virgile | Jun 18, 2016 1:57:06 PM | 15
    In public the US criticizes and threatens Russia. In private I think that the Pentagon is more than happy to see Russia blowing up these "moderates" that have become polluted by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and also Turkey.

    Using Russia, the USA is giving a good lessons to these 'allies' countries that dare stand against the USA shift on Iran. They are becoming increasingly terrified by their powerlessness.

    This has always been the USA double game in the ME: Caress and stab in the back. The Saudis and its allied are too stupid to realize that they have been taken on a ride. Turkey is on the verge of crumbling as Erdogan keeps attacking the USA and Egypt and has not solve the issue with Israel on Hamas and the defunct Moslem Brotherhood.

    The tacit agreement between Kerry and Lavrov on crushing the rebels, islamist or not, is very clear.

    Susan Sunflower | Jun 18, 2016 2:10:09 PM | 16
    Posted by: virgile | Jun 18, 2016 1:57:06 PM | 15

    Yes, I suppose it is entirely possible that this "schism" between Obama and the Pentagon is just theatrics, optics, useful in declaring helplessness when "policies" are undone or contradicted ... Obama as victim of palace infighting.

    I was noticing how they no longer bother to state objectives to justify our actions (and/or inactions) ... Omar Mateens demand that we "stop bombing Afghanistan" made me wonder if we actually were bombing there, who and what and why ...
    Juan Cole/Center from investigative journalism: US still in Conventional War in Afghanistan via . . . Drones? . My impression that our main mission in Afghanistant was "not leaving" ...

    ALberto | Jun 18, 2016 2:18:27 PM | 17
    PBS TV is running a piece on the military draft. Giving a historical perspective dating back to George Washington's request for a draft during the Revolutionary War to the present.

    While stationed at Great Lakes Naval station in 1967 I noticed that all of e gate guards were US Marines. This was during Nam. I asked one Marine how he managed to pull such a plum assignment. He told me that he had been drafted into the Marines. His tour was for two years. He was told that being a draftee he would not serve in a combat unit as a draftee and not an enlistee 'he could not be trusted.'

    Let the fragging begin.

    karlof1 | Jun 18, 2016 2:34:25 PM | 18
    The Outlaw US Empire's behavior regarding the UNSC resolution that al-Qaeda be attacked no matter what proves the Empire's support for that terrorist group absolving its citizens from paying taxes to support terrorism since doing so is against the law. Is my logic sound, or should I rephrase?
    Oui | Jun 18, 2016 2:47:29 PM | 20
    "Turkey on the verge of crumbling ..."

    Egypt has placed the MB on the terror list and has become allied with Saudi Arabia and UAE. Qatar is isolated for its support of the MB. Erdogan is between a rock and a hard place, its foreign policy has been a disaster. Seeking to restore relations with Russia. The intelligence community of Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia have joined assets in the Levant. Al Nusra on the Golan must be defeated, the UK/US training camps of rebels in Jordan must be neutralized to fight in the southern corridor to Damascus.

    Oui | Jun 18, 2016 2:53:45 PM | 21
    It must be the US supported Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) heading towards Deir ez-Zor, a crucial cross-roads for Islamic State between Raqqa and Anbar province in Iraq. The U.S. will do all to help establish an enlarged Sunni enclave as a gift for its Arab patrons. A bit of Syria should suffice as punishment for Assad and allies.

    Onslaught on ISIS: Syrian Army enters Raqqa province as Kurds, rebels advance | RT |
    ISIS Sanctuary Map – ISW (May 25, 2016)

    mik | Jun 18, 2016 2:56:33 PM | 22
    Seems like you missed you missed the big news for today:

    On Putin´s order, Sergei Shoigu, the Russian defence minister visited Bashar al Assad and the Kmeimim base.
    That most certainly mean s that something big will be announced next week. Stay tuned...

    jayc | Jun 18, 2016 3:13:17 PM | 24
    The Helmer piece on MH17 is interesting. I remember reports that the Australians were prepared to send troops into the area, but if the Dutch were planning the same thing then it was a NATO op in all probability. The utter hysteria that had been unleashed in the Western media at the time would have provided the cover for such bold move. The desired result would not have necessarily been immediate war with Russia, but certainly the instantaneous creation of cold war standoff and militarization which has been happening incrementally instead. This could be considered similar to the sarin attack in Syria, blamed on Assad, with the hasty response of quickly regime-changing the country, which also was called off (and the policy continued incrementally since). This highlights the centrality of false-flag events to realize policy, particularly to those favouring rapid game-changing moves. It is very possible that the next POTUS will be faced with a false-flag atrocity in the Baltics or mid-east early in the first term, with an attendant bold move offered as response.
    woogs | Jun 18, 2016 3:13:35 PM | 25
    Lol ..... Putin does a Nuland on Kerry.

    "U.S. jets came and the Russian jets went away. The U.S. jets left to refuel, the Russian jets came back and hit again. Allegedly two U.S. proxy fighters were killed and 18 were wounded.

    Earlier today another such attack hit the same target."

    Putin seems quite adept at appearing weak (even to his supporters), then BAM!! IMO, this is not a one-off. No reason to fly clear across Syria to 'make a statement', though it was a helluva statement!

    I expect more of the same, with Russia going back to its original strategy, which worked quite well. So much for Obama's foreign policy (don't do stupid shit).

    Mina | Jun 18, 2016 3:14:29 PM | 26

    Thanks Terry for the Bouthaina Shaaban speech. The most amazing are the questions after the 30 mn speech. A dozen of female hyenas talking non-sense! At some stage one of them is clearly becoming hysterical. Hard to believe they are simply ill-informed. Most of these people are on pay-list, for sure.
    It is relieving to see a Muslim woman talking naturally, unveiled, in the middle of Ramadan. Shaaban is really strong to manage to keep her calm.
    Oui | Jun 18, 2016 3:28:52 PM | 27
    Sergei Shoigu Inspects Khmeimim Airbase in Syria

    At the Khmeimim airbase, the General of the army Sergei Shoigu inspected the accommodation of personnel and issues of providing with all types of support, and also met with Russian pilots performing combat missions to destroy the terrorist infrastructure in Syria and military units for the protection and security of the air base. The head of the Russian military tested the combat duty at the command post of the air defense group, and also the starting positions of anti-aircraft missile system S-400, which is stationed at the air base," stated the message of the Defense Ministry.

    Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin said that maintaining Syria's integrity must be the top priority and warned that the disintegration of the Middle Eastern country would be a "destabilizing factor not only for the region, but for the whole world."

    "We must act carefully, step by step, aiming to establish trust between all sides to the conflict," the Russian president said, adding that a new and effective government could be formed in Syria once this trust is finally built. A political process is the only way to reach peace, Putin said, stressing that Syrian President Bashar Assad "also agrees to such a process."

    Минобороны России

    Minister of Defence General of the Army Sergei ‪#‎ Shoigu ‬ ordered the Chief of the Russian Centre for reconciliation of opposing sides Lieutenant General Sergei ‪#‎Chvarkov‬ to build up negotiations with heads of administrations and armed formation commanders on joining national truce process.

    Mina | Jun 18, 2016 3:52:12 PM | 30
    Saturday night snuff movie on FB! Death for real!! So cool, ain't it?
    Moloch is making cash tonigt!
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36566635
    paulmeli | Jun 18, 2016 3:59:22 PM | 32
    I have a great deal more respect for Russian leadership than I do American.

    This coming from a 70 yr old American 'exceptionalist'. Sad.

    Yonatan | Jun 18, 2016 4:11:08 PM | 33
    To remove any ambiguity about the status of the Free Syrian Army, a representative was present at this year's Herzliya Conference. This annual conference is dedicated to issues relating to Israel's Security. Netanyahu and high level Israeli Military Intelligence leaders state they prefer ISIS to Assad.

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/fsa-commander-takes-part-herzliya-conference/

    Jack Smith | Jun 18, 2016 4:27:24 PM | 36
    b, an excellent piece, if what you alleged were true! It's now or never. The regime in Washington must be stop. If not now, when? You cannot trust Obomo, Hillary, Trump or Bernie, regardless who is in the WH.
    james | Jun 18, 2016 4:50:27 PM | 38
    @7 terry.. ditto mina's comment @26 - thanks for sharing that video... pretty enlightening how thick the propaganda is inside the usa for them to question Syrian presidential adviser Dr Bouthaina Shaaban in the manner they do... her comment at 49 minutes in is pretty strong and clear..
    tom | Jun 18, 2016 4:52:42 PM | 39
    War criminal Obama was the lead advocate for bombing Syrian government a few years ago, thats until the UK Parliament put a temporary stop to it. So any credit given to Obama by b , or anyone else is ludicrous. LUDICROUS. The destruction of Libya still gets Obama mitigation ?

    But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria. What kind of fool would invite humanities worst enemy, as well as Russia's biggest enemy, into a conflict where they oppose each other. Grotesque stupidity.

    Jack Smith | Jun 18, 2016 4:54:33 PM | 40
    Lets be clear there are meetings behind closed doors among players, we are just speculating. While Syria might be the main focus point, Kiev continues bombing Separatists in Donbass, Venezuela in the blinks of anarchy. In joint military exercises off India's east coast, China and Russia's warships watching war game between US, Japan and India...

    Here something you got to watch: TeleSurTV: Media Review: The World According to Seymour Hersh: Part Two

    http://videos.telesurtv.net/en/video/557704/media-review-557704

    Grieved | Jun 18, 2016 5:00:58 PM | 41
    I loved this story. I am somewhat in awe of how the Russians have handled their Syrian presence, and the gains they make with every move. Did they have the moral weight 6 months ago to destroy US assets and perhaps US citizens on the ground in Syria? It seems certain that they do now. They seem to have tested all the players in the US establishment and discovered none who can stand up to them.

    What will the US do next? On past performance, all it can do is lie, cheat and steal, but all this within the paradigms set by Russia and the UN. One assumes that Russia's command has every permutation of treachery war-gamed already, with contingency moves in place. I suggest popcorn.

    It is to the benefit of world peace that the Syrian part of the war between Russia and the US proceed as slowly and deliberately as possible. With every day that passes Russia becomes militarily stronger and US military force continues to atrophy without renewal, while its policy-making remains frozen with no intellectual refreshment or inventiveness.

    Putin and his team are such astonishingly mature peacemakers that every provocation or twitch of malice by the US is net with calm. The global effort continues to allow the US to sink to its knees with as much grace as can be managed. So far, nobody has had to nuke the US, and for this I'm grateful. There is one good and final slapping that the US has to take in public before its time is over, and I yearn for the day, but I think it's far off yet, somewhere in a single-digit range of years.

    bbbb | Jun 18, 2016 5:16:13 PM | 42
    @39 Russia doesn't want a quagmire, nor does it want Western Sanctions. If Syria wasn't a militarily weak and spent force, things would probably go a lot smoother. Instead, outsiders are having to fight outsiders, and Russia and Iran are not tier-1 allies for whatever reason. Russia and China have never shown much defense against western aggression against 'partner' countries as it is, so Syria has been quite a stretch.

    For Iran, Hezbollah and Syrians, Syria is the battle of a lifetime, but for Russia, it's maybe a bargaining chip, or a something less, or something more.. we just don't know. All we can do it wait and see what happens, for we'll never truly know what Russia's intentions in the region are until after the fact.

    I personally want the 'evil' side to be thwarted on all fronts, as it's akin to a cancer that will destroy the host (Syria and its society) unless it's excised. There are multiple ways of accomplishing it, but there are multiple ways of failing as well. I guess that's why I'm glad I'm here making opinions, rather than being in any sort of command position. I just hope that the next administration in Washington will be sick of this business, but unfortunately seems more or less to be only one side that probably won't win(Trump)

    lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 5:28:16 PM | 44
    Hello everyone I heard That France was building a military base near kobane. Is that true ? Can someone knowledgeable in the matter or b shed some light on this news ?
    ALberto | Jun 18, 2016 5:37:24 PM | 45
    At the least during Nam we were given the 'Domino Theory' which, if you could consume enough alcohol, made perfect sense. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident! Where a country without a Navy attacked our Navy. Where do I enlist!

    In 2016 we have the batsh*t crazy appointed government bureaucrats siding with the sole interests of a foreign country. Circle talking seems to be the normal state of affairs at State, Executive and MSM. PBS has gone full Karl Marx. Congress has an 16% approval rating, 80% disapproval, and 4% no opinion [1]. So I guess Congress doesn't really matter? And as far as our military command goes, when you can use 'sold out' and 'son of a bitch' in the same sentence, we, as a nation might have a major problemo.

    Just me opinion

    [1] - http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

    dahoit | Jun 18, 2016 6:14:46 PM | 48
    I think people should note that this is all Russia black eyeing as collusion with Assad the evil dictator,and it all is about the upcoming election,where Trump,contrary to certain misinfo agents here,supports Russias efforts and promises to try and get along with the neolibcons enemies, who will be ejected from their positions by an American nationalist administration.All these creeps have been installed by the shrub.The HB and Obomba,all American zeros.

    And look at the Olympic blanket judgement on innocent Russian athletes, more propaganda and demonization.

    jfl | Jun 18, 2016 6:43:57 PM | 49
    @48 dahoit

    I haven't heard anything from Trump since Hillary's apotheosis, actually a little before. Has he stopped talking? Or has the corporate media just stopped publishing him? Obama, Kerry, the 50 dancing diplomats ... all that stuff seems made to order for Trump to roll over.

    Jackrabbit | Jun 18, 2016 7:02:33 PM | 50
    bbbb @42:
    For Iran, Hezbollah and Syrians, Syria is the battle of a lifetime, but for Russia, it's maybe a bargaining chip ...
    Actually, Putin has said that their intervention in Syria is in Russia's strategic interests - making much the same argument that Bush did wrt al Queda: we need to fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here . Russia doesn't want to see extremist control of another failed state like Libya.
    lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 7:05:52 PM | 51
    Clearly there is an ongoing battle in the Obama Administration between Mostly the pentagon (at least some part of it) and the CIA (most part of it). Obama is well aware of this.

    Obama's Strategy has been to isolate Russia Politically and to shift the main focus of United State Towards Asia however the unexpected resistance of Russia and Syria wasn't forecast by his administration and part of the Deep state. Now part of the heads in the pentagon and the Obama administration want out of this proxy war against Russia as the World and mainly the US public becomes more and more aware of the real nature of the war ongoing in Syria. The heart of the matter is that The members of the oligarchy that rule the united states through revolving doors between the government , their law firms, foundations, banks and corporations can't afford to lose Syria for obvious reason.

    On the geopolitical scale The control of the silk Road and Pipeline is of primary importance especially the latter if the us wants to efficiently keep its grip on Europe for the next 30 years.France and mainly Germany could turn to Russia as noted by the willing of many member of their oligarchy and this would be a near devastating blow for the US empire.To take an example Europe is more or less today what India was for Great Britain back before the end of world war two.It might be difficult accepting or believing that one country in the near east such as Syria could old such a role in the destiny of an empire but that's exactly it.Syria is in our current present the country where channel all the opposition to the new world order made in America and if it wasn't for the inability of The States to wage a war against Russia a world war Three-this time without proxy-would be in the making.

    The 50 high ranking diplomats,working for the department of state, asking Kerry to take over the Syrian state military in order to destroy the Islamic state wouldn't disagree with that. For those of you who know how to read Spanish this is the link reading of the desire of this high ranking diplomats http://www.telesurtv.net/news/Piden-funcionarios-de-Washington-derrocar-al-gobierno-sirio--20160617-0004.html .

    The Good news is that I have never seen the united States leads a war against adversaries of the same caliber able to efficiently strike back to them (with the exception of japan) as the main lead...Remember It is the Russians who defeated Germany not the US..everything else is just propaganda.The US is more of empire that uses trickery and the weaknesses of its adversaries to forward its agenda more than anything else;otherwise they always ends up negotiating. I will probably be proven wrong at some point but not by the Russians as of now.

    Oui | Jun 18, 2016 7:38:57 PM | 52
    @tom

    "But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria."

    No he didn't .... UN resolution was approved under Medvedev.

    lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 8:36:21 PM | 53
    @dahoit

    I can't believe there is people still believing in politician more so when they have been proven liars time and time again.I am all for the welcoming of a saviour and providential man but anyone doing a serious background check (as should any voter) on trump knows the man is a crook .I mean I understand the desire for hope but it shouldn't blind us.

    Trump is just an Obama from the left and that is about it.The Deep state has gotten stronger since the Kennedy's Assassination and is unlikely to release its grip on Syria knowing its geostrategic necessity to the empire.

    Trump will never be ruling the show on the main strategies of the empire, never, unless he wants himself dead. The only thing that will defeat the US empire in Syria is Russian will nothing short of that. Unless The States are able to pull some magic tricks unknown to us at that point. For one thing certain a war is very unlikely (although many want it)against such a mighty foe as Russia-for now.

    The story printed out by many mainstream newspapers on Bill Clinton advising Trump on phone to run as a candidate should give anyone pause as to the hidden scheme behind politic and the trump and Clinton family friendship.Yet Some people still believe trump is an opposition to the system. That boggles the mind.Really.The only reason I can find explaining this attitude in someone knowledgeable of the trickery of the States is political correctness (quiet powerful actually) or blindness and irrational hope....now some say faith is irrational...however I was not expecting to see it having such large part in modern politics.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

    Macon Richardson | Jun 18, 2016 9:20:58 PM | 54
    ALberto @ 45 You say that "PBS has gone full Karl Marx". I haven't watched or listened to that PBS tripe ever . But considering that PBS is 90% corporate funded, I find it hard to accept your assertion ... it is merely a corporate/permanent government psy-op to keep the intellectually and morally challenged sedated.
    Robert Roth | Jun 18, 2016 10:08:06 PM | 55
    Regarding who Obama listens to, a good analysis is Bob Parry on The State Department's Collective Madness, https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/17/the-state-departments-collective-madness/.

    A piece in today's Wall Street Journal indicates that despite the growing pressure, Obama means to stick by his policy of limited intervention. Of course he's being pig-headed in insisting "Assad must go," but what he's doing beats full-scale US invasion of Syria, "no-fly" zones and similar madness favored by Hillary and likely to lead to WW III although, as John Pilger puts it, WW has already started; on the other hand, it hasn't yet gone thermonuclear, and I see that as a distinct advantage.

    juliania | Jun 18, 2016 10:59:14 PM | 56
    Thank you Grieved, in particular for reminding us as follows:

    ". . .malice by the US is met with calm. The global effort continues to allow the US to sink to its knees with as much grace as can be managed."

    This was well illustrated at the opening of the St. Petersburg economic conference. Pointed questions about political candidates were countered by Putin in a deft manner that left no doubt of his assessment of the 'leading' candidates, without calling anyone a hitler or any suggestion of interference in the US political process. I don't believe Putin is any fonder of Trump than he is of Ms. Clinton - he stated he'll work with whomever comes out on top (my words) and had kind words to say for Bill - not for his policies but for his encouragement of Putin early on. Very diplomatic, and wise.

    Where have our wise politicians gone? We did have a few once. Couldn't we please just sink to our knees gracefully? The world would love us if we did. Here - I'll be first. (Sinks to knees.) After all, tonight is the night of Pentecost and Sunday we do the magnificent kneeling prayers for the first time since before Easter.

    It's a good time to kneel.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 18, 2016 11:33:28 PM | 57
    Obama's Syria SNAFU was always destined to boil down to Yankees playing Russian Roulette - with Russia. They're probably beginning to realise that playing cat and mouse loses a lot of its appeal when the cat starts getting ready to eat you.
    PavewayIV | Jun 19, 2016 12:26:40 AM | 60
    lebretteurfredonnant@44 - I'm not really knowledgeable in the matter, but I have broadband and type fast for what it's worth.

    Little detail is known about the base, but it may be the former Syrian Army Mishtenur/Mushtannour Hill Military Base shown on wikimapia here . The location is just the flat top of Mishtenur Hill (just south of Kobane) with a bulldozed revetment around the periphery. No idea what the Syrian Army used it for - it may have been a simple observation post with a few artillery pieces (long gone). There are no structures on the hilltop other than a commercial radio tower and a few shacks at the northern edge. The hilltop itself isn't much more than 200m x 600m - not large enough for a fixed-wing airstrip but plenty of room for helicopters and a small contingent of French Special Forces. The Kurds probably have a few people there as headchopper lookouts/snipers.

    The Mishtenur Hill location should be considered speculative - I only recall a couple of mentions in english-language Kurdish press. It makes sense to put it there, but who knows.

    Months ago when the U.S. was building its 'secret' base at the Rmelian airstrip , there were rumors of a second 'U.S. base' being constructed somewhere around Kobane, but nothing was heard after that. Not sure if that rumor was related to the potential Mishtenur Hill location the French may be using.

    The Kurds and Kurdish Press have been very tight-lipped about these bases for obvious reasons, so I wouldn't expect to ever see much on them. CNN had a crew run out to Rmeilan so we know it exists and was being worked on, but they were not allowed on the 'base' and couldn't see much over the protective berms surrounding it. There are no pictures or video of the current state. I would imagine the French SF base - wherever it ends up - will remain shrouded in mystery as well.

    If you're doing any on-line searches, keep in mind that these locations have proper Turkish/Kurdish/Arabic names, not 'english' ones. There may be half-a-dozen variations on the derived english name used in various media sources as was the case for Rmeilan.

    V. Arnold | Jun 19, 2016 12:28:50 AM | 61
    paulmeli | Jun 18, 2016 3:59:22 PM | 32
    I have a great deal more respect for Russian leadership than I do American.

    I'll second your comment; this coming from a self exiled 71 yo American radical.

    Joanne Leon | Jun 19, 2016 1:20:31 AM | 63
    This is very, very alarming and I get a strong sense it's about a lot more than separating rebels from AQ. I also wonder who is really at that base in Tanf.

    Have to also keep in mind the daily escalation of hostility around the NATO meetings leading up to the Warsaw summit.

    Putin did a press conf at the end of the St Petersburg econ summit and a Canadian press exec asked about NATO troops deploying to their border. He gave a long answer about US walking away from a missile treaty that had kept the world from serious global war for 70yrs, etc. Had a lot to say about missiles. I wonder.

    From The Hague | Jun 19, 2016 1:26:06 AM | 64

    @49 jfl
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-17/something-going-%E2%80%93-and-its-worse-you-thought

    bbbb | Jun 19, 2016 2:24:34 AM | 66
    Here's something to keep in mind as all of this goes on

    http://energyskeptic.com/2016/emerging-threats-of-resource-wars-u-s-house-hearing/

    DANA ROHRABACHER, California. We import 750,000 tons of vital minerals and material every year. An increasing global demand for supplies of energy and strategic minerals is sparking intense economic competition that could lead to a counterproductive conflict.

    A ''zero sum world'' where no one can obtain the means to progress without taking them from someone else is inherently a world of conflict.

    Additional problems arise when supplies are located in areas where production could be disrupted by political upheaval, terrorism or war.

    jfl | Jun 19, 2016 3:53:38 AM | 67
    @49 fth

    Thanks. Actually I'd read that one. I rarely read anything of Justin Raimondo's at aw.com, but I read that one for some reason. It's the run down for those who haven't been paying attention, I thought. Let me look again ...yeah, it's not the Republican candidate (yet) talking about it, but for that one cryptic comment, it's Justin Raimondo talking about it, and he ain't running for president. Of course he's write-in candidate, as are about 200 million of the rest of us.

    But that is just the kind of a pitch that Trump needs to make, has to make really, to keep from being steamrolled by the DNC machine and all the monied interests to whom its sold-out and who are consequently supporting it. Trump is pretty well-free of supervision by the Republicrat party and he needs something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what the Demoblicans are trying to make the election about. He could get a lot of attention, and possibly support, from the antiwar right and left, he could pick up Bernie's betrayed ... if he went after not only the sheer misanthropy of it all but the tawdriness, the treachery, the self-dealing of the neo-cons ... at least he could bring all that into the open. Make the neo-cons, their wars and the MIC a topic in the contest. He made a good start with his remarks on Russian and Putin. I think it's his most promising row to hoe.

    But I haven't heard much at all from Trump himself lately, he seems to be 'thinking' ... lining up money, more likely, and tailoring his message accordingly. He's not interested in 'investing' whatever money he actually has in a political campaign. He took money from Adelson, has neo-cons on his payroll.

    Hillary's so predictably evil, and he's so officially 'unpredictable' that he's the natural focal point of the selection circus. It's too bad only one of them can lose.

    I'm going to write-in a candidate, and I hope that millions more of us will as well. If the write-in/none-of-the-above/spoiled-ballot total exceeded that of either of these two sorry characters we'd be off and running ourselves.

    b | Jun 19, 2016 6:07:10 AM | 73
    The Russian defense ministry confirms my take. The attack was intended to push the U.S. to documented separation:

    Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation

    Due to appeal of the American party, representatives of the Russian an US defence departments held videoconference on implementing the Memorandum on preventing incidents while performing military operations in the airspace of Syria dating October 20, 2015.

    The American party has informed the Russian one about alleged premeditated strike by the Russian Aerospace Forcers on detachments of the Syrian opposition in the south of Syria on June 16, 2016 in despite of appeals of the US.

    Representatives of the Russian Defence Ministry explained that the object, which had suffered bombardment, was located more than 300 km far from borders of territories claimed by the American party as ones controlled by the opposition joined the ceasefire regime.

    The Russian Aerospace Forces operated within the agreed procedures and forewarned member states of the US-led coalition about the ground targets to strike on. The American party has not presented coordinates of regions of activity of opposition controlled by the US. This caused impossibility to correct actions of the Russian aviation.

    Therefore, actions by the Russian party have been carried out in strict observance of the Joint Russian-American statement and the Memorandum.

    Moreover, within last few months, the Russian defence department has been suggesting compiling a joint map with actual information about location of forces active in Syria. However, there has been no significant progress reached.

    The parties exchanged their opinions in a constructive manner. They were aimed at strengthening cooperation in fighting against terrorist formations in Syria and preventing all incidents while performing military operations in the territory of Syria

    So - either cooperated, or get your "assets" annihilated. Let's see what the U.S. will come up with ...

    From The Hague | Jun 19, 2016 6:10:52 AM | 74
    @ jfl | 67
    Ok.
    Trump seems consistent in his ideas: Don't mess in other countries, don't provoke Russia, only secure US-borders.
    Now I see the article I gave isn't from Tyler Durden, but from Justin Raimondo.
    Harry | Jun 19, 2016 6:37:50 AM | 76
    @V. Arnold | 75

    Case and point - when Ukie nazis were shelling Donbass cities, resistance went into offensive and broke through the nazis and made them run, Putin forced the resistance to stop immediately, under the gunpoint (literally*). Ukies returned to allowed by Russia front lines right on the outskirts of Donbass cities, and started using artillery and mortars on them again, then Putin acted angry about it.

    The choices we have:
    a) Putin made a cold calculated deal with his "Western partners" and let it happen, and then acted angry on TV for public perception.
    b) Putin couldnt foresee it as he is stupid.

    So which is it? I'm pretty sure everyone here will agree Putin is anything but stupid, which leaves us with option a)

    *Idealistic Donbass resistance leaders who wanted to continue offensive and at the very least push nazis away from the cities, were removed by Russia. Either under blackmail and death threats (like Strelkov), or literally assassinated them (like Batman and others). Follow the history and facts, Russia's leadership arent idealist do-gooders as some like to imagine. Just because they are against even bigger evil like US, doesnt make Russia saintly.

    V. Arnold | Jun 19, 2016 7:02:29 AM | 77
    Harry | Jun 19, 2016 6:37:50 AM | 76
    Just because they are against even bigger evil like US, doesnt make Russia saintly.

    Well, if your comparing the U.S. and Russia for saintly-ness; Russia wins, hands down.
    Again; the differences are chess to checkers; I just like and enjoy Pres. Putin's style; a class act under duress.
    I'm glad you recognise the U.S. as the greater evil (by orders of magnitude).

    MadMax2 | Jun 19, 2016 7:18:05 AM | 78
    @48 dahoit

    Demonisation...? What do you mean...?

    Whitehall fears Russian football hooligans had Kremlin links

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jun/18/whitehall-suspects-kremlin-links-to-russian-euro-2016-hooligans-vladimir-putin?CMP=fb_gu

    Harry | Jun 19, 2016 7:26:52 AM | 79
    @V. Arnold | 77

    Putin is leaps and bounds ahead of someone like Obama, there is no question. However I respect other resistance leaders even more, who are greater class acts, dont betray alies and are under much greater duress than Putin ever experienced, like Nasrallah, Khameinei (before nuke deal) and especially Assad. There is much to admire about them.

    V. Arnold | Jun 19, 2016 7:31:51 AM | 80
    Harry | Jun 19, 2016 7:26:52 AM | 79

    No argument there; but all of the above (including Putin) are facing annihilation from/by the hegemon.
    It's the main reason I fear war is immanent.
    The insanity is palpable, no?

    From The Hague | Jun 19, 2016 8:56:30 AM | 82
    @ Harry | 81

    I already posted that in #64
    and jfl reacted in #67

    In the article a remarkable fragment about Gen. Michael Flynn:

    The Washington Post, in its mission to debunk every word that comes out of Trump's mouth, ran an article by Glenn Kessler minimizing the DIA document, claiming that it was really nothing important and that we should all just move along because there's nothing to see there. He cited all the usual Washington insiders to back up his thesis, but there was one glaring omission: Gen. Michael Flynn, who headed up the DIA when the document was produced and who was forced out by the interventionists in the administration. Here is what Flynn told Al-Jazeera in an extensive interview:

    Al-Jazeera: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?

    Flynn: I think the administration.

    Al-Jazeera: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

    Flynn: I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

    Al-Jazeera: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

    Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."

    Of course, Glenn Kessler and the Washington Post don't want to talk about that. Neither do the Republicans in Congress, who supported aid to the Syrian rebels and wanted to give them much more than they got. They're all complicit in this monstrous policy – and they all bear moral responsibility for its murderous consequences.

    Gen. Flynn, by the way, is an official advisor to Trump, and is often mentioned as a possible pick for Vice President.

    Oui | Jun 19, 2016 10:19:09 AM | 85
    Confirmation of other reports ...
    Western states amass forces in Syria | Southfront|

    Rumors are growing that Germany is set to deploy special operation forces in Northern Syria in order to assist the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces that has laid a siege on the strategic ISIS-controlled city of Manbij . Reports look realistic amid a series of deployments by different Western states.

    The US built a base in an abandoned airport in the Syrian Kurdish region Hasakah in 2015 and American troops have been participating in clashes against ISIS near Manbij since May 2016.

    France's Defense Ministry admitted the presence of its special forces on the ground in Syria on June 9. French troops have reportedly built a military base near the city of Kobane and are participating in clashes with ISIS along with SDF and US units.

    Meanwhile, UK special forces operating on the front line alongside rebels in Syria near the Jordanian border. They participate in direct clashes, provide training and manage of the opposition group, called " New Syrian Army ."

    jflk | Jun 19, 2016 10:25:47 AM | 86
    @74 fth, 'Trump seems consistent in his ideas: Don't mess in other countries, don't provoke Russia, only secure US-borders.'

    Trump Says Britain Should Leave EU

    "I would personally be more inclined to leave, for a lot of reasons like having a lot less bureaucracy," he told the Sunday Times. "But I am not a British citizen. This is just my opinion."

    The billionaire businessman also told the newspaper that he would seek to have good relationships internationally if he were elected president in November, including with David Cameron. The British Prime Minister has in the past called Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States "divisive, stupid and wrong".

    Trump also said that if he became president he would try to improve the trade deals the U.S. has with China, and work more closely with Russia and that could include co-operating with Russia in the fight against Islamic State.

    The only thing with quotes is the first, the rest is 'old' news, isn't it? "try to improve the trade deals the U.S. has with China, ... work more closely with Russia ... co-operating with Russia in the fight against Islamic State" That's the kind of stuff that draws a line between himself and Hillary, the harridan horde, and the 50 dancing diplomats. I think that's the vein I would mine if I were The Donald. But I'm not. As I'm sure you've noticed.
    harrylaw | Jun 19, 2016 10:26:04 AM | 87
    Wayoutwest@84 John McCain has already advocated for man pads to be supplied to the US "good terrorists". The Russians can handle that situation simply by flying higher. The unknown repercussions are a different matter. Ben Gurion airport the only International airport in Israel and the hub of its commerce and tourist industry, some analysts say the closure of Ben Gurion for an extended period of time could wreck the Israeli economy. All the Israelis need is a few manpads operating a few miles from Ben Gurion airport or even the threat thereof of bringing down civilian airliners should concentrate the mind. Remember just one wayward missile fired by Hamas, which landed 1 mile from the airport was enough for the FAA to cancel all flights into and out of Ben Gurion.
    okie farmer | Jun 19, 2016 10:30:33 AM | 88
    Russia Dismantles the Myth of the American Navy's Invincibility
    ~~~
    Russian hypersonic weapons

    The main Russian hypersonic weapon are derived from space glider Yu-71 (Project 4202), which flew during tests at a speed of 6000-11200 km/h over a distance of 5,500 km at a cruising altitude below 80,000 m, receiving repeated pulses from a rocket engine to climb, execute maneuvers and cornering trajectory. It is estimated that the glider is armed with warheads that are spatially independent, with autonomous guidance systems similar to the air-ground missiles Kh-29 L/T and T Kh-25 (which provides a probable deviation of 2-6 m). Although it may take nuclear warheads, the space glider will be armed with conventional warheads and will be powered by a rocket launched normally from nuclear-powered Russian submarines.
    ~~~
    Hypersonic concept for a war

    The new Russian military doctrine states that an attack on the American invasion fleet is to be executed in three waves, three alignments, thus preventing American expeditionary naval groups from positioning themselves near the Russian coast of the Baltic Sea. The first wave of hypersonic weapons, consisting of space gliders arranged on Russian nuclear-powered submarines under immersion in the middle of the Atlantic, starts fighting US naval expeditionary groups as they start crossing the Atlantic to Europe. The American naval groups need 7-8 days to cross the Atlantic; the plane Il-76MD-90A has a maximum flight distance of 6300 km and can be powered in the air, reaching the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in a few hours.
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44902.htm

    Oui | Jun 19, 2016 10:34:27 AM | 89
    @tom @Harry @From The Hague

    Putin and Medvedev spar over UN resolution on Libya - March 2011
    Medvedev imposes sanctions on Libya | RT – Aug. 2011

    Oui | Jun 19, 2016 10:42:38 AM | 91
    @FTH | #90

    It was Medvedev's call to abstain at the UNSC on Libya ... power of the president. Putin did not agree.

    okie farmer | Jun 19, 2016 10:47:48 AM | 92
    Associated Press 6/19/2016
    Russia says US failed to provide Syrian opposition locations
    MOSCOW - The Russian military on Sunday rejected the Pentagon's accusations that it had deliberately targeted U.S.-backed Syrian opposition forces, arguing the U.S. had failed to warn about their locations.

    Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, said the area targeted in the strike was more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) away from locations earlier designated by the U.S. as controlled by legitimate opposition forces.

    The Pentagon said it held a video conference Saturday with the Russian military to discuss Russian air strikes Thursday on the At-Tanf border garrison, which targeted Syrian opposition forces fighting the Islamic State group.

    "Russia's continued strikes at At-Tanf, even after U.S. attempts to inform Russian forces through proper channels of ongoing coalition air support to the counter-ISIL forces, created safety concerns for U.S. and coalition forces," it said in a statement.

    Konashenkov retorted that the Russian military had warned the U.S. in advance about the planned strike, but the Pentagon had failed to provide coordinates of legitimate opposition forces, "making it impossible to take measures to adjust the Russian air force action."

    He added that the Russian military had proposed months ago to share information about locations of various forces involved in military action in Syria to create a comprehensive map, but the Pentagon hasn't been forthcoming.

    okie farmer | Jun 19, 2016 11:24:47 AM | 94
    OT (Full Article)
    Turkey border guards 'shot Syrian children' - monitors

    Turkish border guards have shot dead at least eight Syrians, including four children, who were trying to cross into Turkey, activists say.

    A further eight people were injured, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group.

    The shooting took place at a border crossing north of the Syrian town of Jisr al-Shugour, which is controlled by jihadist groups.

    Turkey has repeatedly denied its guards shoot at Syrians crossing the border.

    More than 2.5 million Syrians who fled the war have taken refuge in Turkey. Turkey has now closed its borders to Syrians.

    The Associated Press news agency quoted a senior Turkish official as saying: "We are unable to independently verify the claims" regarding the shooting, but said authorities were investigating.

    As well as four children, three women and a man were also killed, the Observatory said.

    Other Syrian opposition groups put the death toll at 11.

    Since the beginning of 2016, nearly 60 civilians have been shot while trying to flee across the border from Syria into Turkey, the Observatory says.

    Noirette | Jun 19, 2016 12:42:47 PM | 95
    IMHO the political solution just doesn't exist, because most of the fighters are likely foreigners who don't give a sh!t about Syria or Syrians. bbb @ 23.

    I have read that there are about 30-40K of them, a large number (?) imho, because one tends to underestimate the mayhem well-organised small groups can cause in a fractured, now extremely vulnerable, shattered, society.

    One of the problems for the pro-Assad side, I read, is that once some or many opponents are killed others just show up!

    This last argument is faulty, because while the West likes to paint these forces as either: ideologically/religiously motivated by IS, or even politically-nationally in the sense of a 'New Caliphate', or, alternatively, as rebels against a corrupt despotic national order (freedom-fighters against Assad.)

    All descriptions miss the mark (there might be some slivers of truth in the sense of 'rationalisations'…)

    The bulk of them are mercenaries, imho, lost young men who are paid, regain agency, can send money to families, participate in a cause, and experience soldered group-think and communal 'being,' violent life to perpetrate barbaric acts on occasion, particularly against villagers, women, all would be repressed at home. Their pay is collapsing, at least halved (IS has been fractured and various income streams have become dodgy, oil for ex., support for losers always plummets) and so they leave, the hook becomes less glam, etc. Death also more certain. This one jihad is no longer *that* attractive.

    Yes, these fighters don't give a sh*t about Syrians. They are fighting their 'own' war against the all the West (their enemy indeed), and therefore against Assad as afforded the opportunity. 'Islamist' forces *instrumentalised*, not a new move or flash news..the contradictions are ignored.

    The fighters are patsy-cum-proxy forces, expendable. No seat at the High Table for them.

    A more informed, better picture of the forces on the ground ? .. ??

    SmoothieX12 | Jun 19, 2016 1:35:42 PM | 96
    @13
    Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright: What good is a proxy army if you don't use it?

    Obama and his Administration is a collection of lawyers, political pseudo-"scientists", journos etc. They are very good at promoting suicidal social policies but do not and cannot operate with actual operational categories--briefings by CIA or Pentagon (granted that they reflect a reality on the "ground", which is a question) are not designed to teach some Ivy League lawyer fundamentals of international relations, strategy, operational art etc. They merely distill a very complex geopolitical reality to a several catch phrases which could be understood by people of such qualities as W. (his military briefings papers contained headers with Bible excerpts, supposedly applicable to current situation) or Obama, who has no clue on how to assess the world around himself.

    In this case the term "quagmire" is merely a simulacra produced by US media (this part Obama understands) to represent a huge number of military and political factors which influence achieving objectives of any campaign (or war) and which require addressing by professionals -- this is NOT Modus Operandi by US top political "elite".

    In relation to Russia what Obama has in mind is beaten to death cliche of Afghanistan (obviously without studying that war) with which he wants to impress Russians, who, meanwhile fought two bloody wars against Wahhabi terrorists on own territory and, somehow, do know, unlike Obama or US liberal political class, what does it take to deal with this huge issue. In the end, during last War in Chechnya US media loved to misuse this very term (quagmire) and completely forgot to mention that Chechnya today is, actually, pretty reliable anti-terrorism entity in Russia. Now, add here most of US "elites" and a population being absolutely oblivious to real war and voila'. You have people speaking in platitudes and ignorant cliches.

    Grieved | Jun 19, 2016 2:39:37 PM | 97
    @ Noirette #95 - Thank you for putting into words the diminishing appeal of being mercenaries for the losing side.

    It's an important dynamic that extends throughout the world and across many fields, not just in local battles by fighters with guns. It's a way in which wars are lost without being obvious at first. It parallels the way in which the US is losing its war against Russia and China in so many ways that are not completely obvious.

    The US military is losing to Russia. The US dollar is losing to the Shanghai Gold Exchange. But neither Russia nor China have any reason to overpower the US in either of these fields, not today at least. Meanwhile, on the sidelines, all the mercenary instincts of players in all fields and all nations and with all interests are finely attuned to the quiet calculation of which side is winning or losing.

    And out of the blue at times we see moments of disaffection - the UK of all allies, against the wishes of its sponsor the US, joins the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, because being on the winning side in some areas matters more than staying with the loser.

    It takes time to create critical mass and tipping points, but we can see the pot coming to the boil if we want to.

    bored muslim | Jun 19, 2016 3:02:52 PM | 99
    @5 Harrylaw,

    Yes, if only the Yemeni army and Houthi's had ballistic missiles capable of reaching Saudi oil facilities. Remember, Saudi's Shiite minority live right on top of its vast oil fields.

    [Jun 18, 2016] 51 US Diplomats Urge Strikes Against Assad in Syria

    51 neocons warmongers, who need to be send to Afghanistan for some on site learning. Nuland's birds of feather try to get worm places in Hillary new administration, playing on her war hawk tendencies... Those "diplomats" forgot about the existence of Saudis and other theocracies which are much more brutal and less democratic, viewing woman as domestic animals. These are dark times for American foreign policy. the easy part is to depose Assad. But what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows?
    Notable quotes:
    "... These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster? ..."
    "... Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian civil war? ..."
    "... This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. ..."
    "... You are pushing the world closer to war. ..."
    "... what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees. ..."
    "... Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily. ..."
    "... It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries. The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's. ..."
    "... This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their 2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk. ..."
    "... Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency) pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs. ..."
    "... My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan. ..."
    "... These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed. A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor is it in the United States' interest for there to be one. ..."
    "... That's the same class of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. ..."
    "... Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring order to the world. ..."
    "... Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era. ..."
    "... Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex. ..."
    "... This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. ..."
    "... If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip. ..."
    "... Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria? Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to 1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq. ..."
    "... The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006, yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now, you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20, ..."
    "... In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead. ..."
    "... The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at risk. ..."
    "... We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually, their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive war without any cause - for the USA! ..."
    "... This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees. ..."
    "... Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad state of affair. ..."
    "... Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years, we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows? ..."
    "... Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize president; who wasn't). ..."
    "... The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk). More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War. ..."
    "... The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself "what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft memo does not address." ..."
    "... I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers. ..."
    "... Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right. ..."
    "... Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME. ..."
    "... Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS! ..."
    "... As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department. ..."
    "... My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve the mess in the ME. ..."
    "... It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried. If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors. ..."
    "... US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30 years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power of Sunni supremacists after each act. ..."
    "... Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed 400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this astounding stupidity. ..."
    "... This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3. ..."
    "... Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. ..."
    "... Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins, she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help us! ..."
    "... First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists. Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one. ..."
    "... The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. ..."
    "... I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos, death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will be killed. ..."
    The New York Times

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 16 hours ago

    These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster?

    A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended. When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."

    We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate another Iraq.

    Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago

    Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian civil war?

    Here's a helpful hint:

    If they have beards down to their belt buckles and seem to be hollering something about Allah, those are the guys the neocons support.

    If they're recently shaved and wearing Western attire, in other words, if they look like anyone you might bump into on a US city street, those are the people the neocons call the enemy.


    Retroatavist,
    DC 10 hours ago

    This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. It's as if we hadn't forgotten the endless horrible mess they got us and the rest of the world into by breaking Iraq and destroying all its institutions with the insane de-baathification policy. And it all started with a similar steady drumbeat for war throughout the mid and late '90s and up to the 2003 disastrous invasion. Did we not learn anything? Really: Whose interest would an open US war against Assad really serve, and what predictable outcome would be in the US's strategic favor?

    Robert Sawyer, New York, New York 14 hours ago

    How many among the 51 are members of "Hillary's Legions, " the same geniuses responsible for the unqualified success we achieved in Libya?

    Gennady, Rhinebeck 16 hours ago

    Stop this irresponsible reporting. You are pushing the world closer to war. Humanitarian support is all we should bring to the Syrian people, regardless of which side they are on.

    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC

    These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster?

    A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended. When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."

    We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate another Iraq.

    Alyoshak, Durant, OK

    Isn't Congress supposed to declare war, and the President command our armed forces when such declarations occur? But what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees. But no, these casualties have nothing to do with our attempts at regime change, No!, the blame for them lies squarely upon Assad for not scooting out of town immediately and submissively when the U.S. decided it was time for him to go. So now we're supposed to double-down on a deeply immoral and flawed strategy? How many more Syrians' lives must be ruined to "save" them from Assad?

    Everyman, USA 16 hours ago

    Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily.

    Dan, Alexandria 16 hours ago

    It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton.

    I am grateful to President Obama for resisting this foolishness, but make no mistake, no matter who gets into office in January, the kind of farcical, counterproductive, unrealistic "limited engagement" advocated by these so-called diplomats will be our future. Clinton is champing at the bit for it, and Trump is too weak to do anything but go along with it.

    Clark M. Shanahan, Oak Park, Illinois 16 hours ago

    Sadly, they'll most likely have a more accommodating commander and chief with HRC.

    The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries. The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's.

    This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their 2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk.

    Paul Cohen, is a trusted commenter Hartford CT 15 hours ago

    Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency) pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs.

    Nixon carried on this bombing for peace strategy to insane war crime level. This heavy reliance on military force over a diplomatic solution has never worked. It didn't work for our knee-jerk response to 9/11 by immediately resorting to military force without first thinking through the consequences. We are now into our 15th year of aggression against the Muslim World. The time is long past due to question our failed policy and seek an alternative solution.

    Bud, McKinney, Texas 16 hours ago

    My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan.

    Abu Charlie, Toronto, Ontario 14 hours ago

    These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed. A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor is it in the United States' interest for there to be one.

    AR, is a trusted commenter Virginia 15 hours ago

    How undiplomatic. I don't care that these people are diplomats and that many of them probably have impeccable academic pedigrees with degrees from the usual suspects such as the Ivy League schools, SAIS, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and Kennedy. That's the same class of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. Obama is correct to ignore these people, who more often than not are possessed by the notion of American Exceptionalism. Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring order to the world.

    Let this be made clear: Any escalation of American involvement in Syria will be interpreted as 1) an attempt to enhance the national security of Israel, 2) a means of benefiting the revenue stream of the American military industrial complex, or 3) both. Only the most naive and foolish people, since the absolutely disastrous events of 2003, would be inclined to believe that American military intervention in Syria is motivated mainly by humanitarian impulses.

    Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era.

    Robert Roth, NYC 14 hours ago

    Everyone closes their eyes and imagines all the bloodshed they will prevent by all the bloodshed they will cause.

    Samsara, The West 16 hours ago

    Have Iraq and Libya taught these State Department officials NOTHING??

    Simon, Tampa 15 hours ago

    The neo-cons who love regime change that never works. Let us examine their track record:

    Iraq - a mess and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
    Libya - now an anarchist state infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
    Yemen - bombing and murdering thousands of innocents and Al Qaeda.

    Syria, the only secular Arab state, destroyed and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda. The only reason Syria hasn't completely fallen apart is thanks to Assad and his Sunni dominated army, Iran, and the Russians. So of course, these neo-cons want to complete the job at the behest of the money they will be getting from the Saudis and the other Gulf States.

    Don't worry you warmongering greedy neocon, Hillary Clinton is one of you and will be president soon enough.

    Title Holder, Fl 15 hours ago

    Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex.

    Andrea, New Jersey 15 hours ago

    This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. Syrians and Russians can not split hairs on the battlefield.

    If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip.

    Jett Rink, lafayette, la 15 hours ago

    Here's the thing most people don't get about ISIS. They thrive on us being involved in the Middle East. They are willing to kill other Muslims in order to keep us involved. As long as we are there, terrorism will persist, over there and here too. They are playing us like chumps. They use our tendency to knee-jerk reactions against us. They're out smarting us at every juncture.

    Of course it's human nature to want to help people in such dire straights. But that's exactly what ISIS wants, and correctly predict, that we'll do. So as long as they out-think us, they'll continue to win.

    If you want to help the innocent people caught in the cross-hairs of ISIS, the best thing we could possibly do is pack up and leave. There'll be some more carnage, but eventually the backlash from within will force them to stop the wrecking and killing. Many people will die, but in the end, the tally would be far fewer.

    Their goal is to keep us engaged. Ours should be to get out! As long as we stay, they win. And that's how they're able to convince long-wolf's to strike us here, even when here is home to them too.

    Joane Johnson, Cleveland, Ohio 15 hours ago

    Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria? Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to 1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq.

    The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006, yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now, you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20,

    In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead.

    Bev, New York 16 hours ago

    Yes the war machine wants more wars. Who will take the place of the evil Assad? We have removed a number of evil dictators in that area of the world and all it has done is sap our resources, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, made millions hate us, and created vacuums of power which are then filled with Saudi-assisted ISIS - AND profited our war machine (that's the important part!) We need less involvement in the Mideast, not more. Bring them all home and start transitioning from a war economy to an economy that serves the American citizens here.

    ME, Toronto 13 hours ago

    Thank goodness Obama kept his head and didn't (and hopefully won't) listen to such crazy advice. To call the signers "diplomats" is a real stretch. It seems that somewhere back in time various U.S. "diplomats" decided that they have the right to decide who and what the government should be in various jurisdictions throughout the world. Of course this is motivated by purely humanitarian concerns and love of democracy and not the self-interest of the U.S., as in having a friendly government in place. As despicable as some governments are, the lessons over many years now should be that military strikes are just as (maybe more) likely to produce something bad as anything good. Better to talk and try to influence the development of nations through positive reinforcement (as Obama has done in Iran). Undoubtedly this is a slow and somewhat frustrating process but that is something real "diplomats" should be good at. If this process had been pursued in Syria we would all be better off today and especially the Syrian people.

    Mitchell, New York 16 hours ago

    I assume these people at State also believe in the Tooth Fairy. The fantasy of "moderate" rebels who will be grateful to us after they depose a tyrant and put in a fair democratic government that takes into account all of our Western ideals and freedoms is so unrealistic that these people at State need to find a job where their last words are, "Can I supersize that for you?" Our involvement in the Middle East displacing despots and replacing them with chaos has been the biggest disaster in foreign policy in many decades. Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and even Syria (remember the line in the sand?). We should join with Russia in destroying ISIS and use our leverage to push Assad to make some level of concessions.

    Dan, Sandy, UT 15 hours ago

    Here we go again. The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at risk.

    Second thought, as stated by a political comedian/satirist, let the Middle East take its own trash out.
    I couldn't agree more.

    blackmamba, IL 16 hours ago

    Since 9/11/01 only 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on the military of any American armed force. They have been ground to emotional, mental and physical dust by repeated deployments. Getting rid of Arab dictators has unleashed foreign ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational civil wars that cannot be resolved by American military power.

    Assad is an Arab civil secular dictator. Just like many of Americas Arab allies and unlike those American Arab allies who are Islamic royal fossil fuel tyrants. But Assad is an Alawite Shia Muslim allied with Russia. The alternatives to Assad are al Qaeda, ISIL and al Nusra. Diplomats need to stick to diplomacy.

    Jo Boost, Midlands 16 hours ago

    This situation is not that simple.

    There is not -as people in Washington who know better have told for years now- one big bad wolf called Assad preying and devouring all poor little peaceful lambs (who, accidentally, have been armed to their teeth by a certain Ms. Clinton and her Saudi friends - even with poison gas which was, then, blamed on the said Assad).
    We have here a follow-up civil war to the (also US started) one in Libya.

    Let us just look at International Law, as understood since the Nuremberg Trials:

    We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually, their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive war without any cause - for the USA!
    But a great cause for Saudi "Royals" whose cousins had been thrown out of Iraq, which is good enough cause, in Arab customs, for a bloody feud and revenge.
    The same applies to Syria, and could one, therefore, still wonder why ISIL was so well equipped for the follow-up (envisaged) invasion?

    Libya was a danger for Saudi Autocrates, because a secular Arab country with such a living standard from fair distribution of oil wealth would be a dangerous advertisement for a Mother of All Arab Springs in the desert.

    So, we have one side with interest - and one without any - but the latter does the dirty work. Is there more than one tail that wags the US dog?

    Bonnie Rothman, NYC 13 hours ago

    How brilliant---not! And what do these 50 people expect to happen if and when Assad falls, chaos prevails and ISIS rushes in? Not to mention the immediate nasty confrontation with Putin. This isn't 1941 and big Armies and big bombs are useless, USELESS against ISIS which operates like cancer cells in the human body. And the last time we toppled a tyrant we midwived the ISIS group which is funded by the Saudis which is funded by our own use of oil. Don't you dopes ever read history and see the "whole" problem? Sheesh.

    Prof. Jai Prakash Sharma, is a trusted commenter Jaipur, India. 16 hours ago

    Given the complexity of the Syrian crisis and the multipower stakes involved in Syria, it would be foolish for the US to direct its unilateral military fury at toppling the Assad regime ignoring its fall out and the military financial cost to the US itself, specially when except for meeting the common challenge and threat of the ISIS no direct national interests are at stake for the US in Syria. The state department's dissenting memo to the President seems an attempt by the vested interests to further complicate President Obama's Middle East policy that's on the right track following the Iran deal.

    Dennis Sullivan, NYC 16 hours ago

    This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees.


    Rudolf, New York 7 hours ago

    Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad state of affair.

    pat knapp, milwaukee 16 hours ago

    Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years, we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows?

    Mike Edwards, Providence, RI 16 hours ago

    In what way do the views of the State Department officials in ISIS differ from those in the US State Department who signed this memo?

    Recent terrorist attacks in France and the US have been inspired by ISIS, not Mr. Assad. ISIS is our enemy right now. Let Mr. Assad do what he can to eliminate them.

    And haven't we learnt that the removal of a head of State, be it in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya does not lead to an improvement; it actually causes an outright deterioration.

    Finally, please let's also do away with this twaddle about "moderate" forces being present in the Middle East, ready to enact our fantasy of what a peaceful Middle East should be like. They don't exist in the Middle East. Ask the Israelis. Those moderates that do exist seem to serve one purpose, which is to hand over the weapons supplied to them by the West to the terrorists.

    I wish the signatories would have had the guts to spell it out. The Middle East is home to a number of weal nations, a situation the stronger ones don't wish to correct. The only solution would be for the West to take over the running of those countries and provide for their policing and defense, as once the West leaves, a vacuum is created allowing terrorist groups to proliferate.

    I doubt there is any appetite in the West for such a cause.

    Donald, Yonkers 16 hours ago

    Interesting how these " moderate" Syrian rebels so often fight alongside al Nusra.

    The death toll in Syria is as high as it is because the rebels have outside help, Somehow no one in the American mainstream, including the NYT, ever points this out. Incidently, note how the NYT always uses the largest estimates for the death toll-- quite different from what they did in Iraq.

    Nick Metrowsky, is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado 17 hours ago

    Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize president; who wasn't).

    So, guess what? The US starts bombing Syria, Assad will use human shields. ISIS is already using human shields. So, the US will have more innocent blood on their hands. Of course, the US follows through with these diplomats idea, ISIS, and their allies, will increase the risk of terrorism attacks in the US. More mass shootings and bombings.

    Of course, in an election year, the political rhetoric will be pushed up a notch between the two wonderful people now running for president. Both who are more than willing to love the diplomat's idea to show they are "strong". Mr. Obama may or may not follow through, but he hand may be forced. Clinton or Trump will go after him, as both would pull the trigger first and ask questions later.

    But, rest assured,. if you feel that a terrorist is lurking around each corner now, just wait until the US decides that getting in the middle of the Syrian civil war is some warped good idea.

    Diplomacy can be messy, as can politics.

    Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago

    The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk). More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War.

    For five years the US has been promoting Muslim extremists in Syria that move with fluidity between the ranks of ISIL, al Nusra, al Qeada, etc. There are no reliable "moderates" in Syria. The best hope for a stable Syria lies only with Bashar Assad, the secular Western-trained optometrist (and his J.P. Morgan investment banker wife, Asma), who has kept Syria stable and free of terrorists for decades.

    To end the killing in Syria, and to defeat ISIL, the US should immediately stop arming and funding the Islamic jihadists trying to overthrow the Assad government and join with Russia to support Assad's military in regaining control over all Syrian territory and borders.

    CT View, CT 17 hours ago

    The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself "what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft memo does not address."

    Why on earth would we support deposing a secular dictator who has multi-ethnic multi-religious support in favor of a non-secular/ie religious leadership that has no moderates...remember we tried to train vetted moderates, we found about 2 dozen and gave up on the program after half were killed and the rest defected to the radicals WITH THE WEAPONS WE SUPPLIED. Perhaps, since the military is anti-intervention and these diplomats are pro-intervention, the diplomats can take the front line...would that change their opinion?

    Gimme Shelter, 123 Happy Street 17 hours ago

    I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers. Do they think the National Security Council hasn't considered all options with respect to the use of air power to affect the political situation in Syria? Do they think the President is unaware of the what is required to stem the humanitarian crisis? How certain are they that their recommendations will lead to their desired outcome? Do they not realize their actions undermine the commander in chief in effectively addressing these issues?

    Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right.

    Wayne, Lake Conroe, Tx 7 hours ago

    Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME.

    Chagrined, La Jolla, CA 10 hours ago

    Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS!

    Real Americans don't want any more squandered blood and treasure in wars in the Middle East!

    It is sad that our tax dollars pay the salaries for these insidious State Department war mongering fools. How many neocons are among them?

    The war in Syria is tragic as was the war in Iraq. Even more tragic would be more squandered American blood and treasure.

    Fifteen hundred American Jews joined the IDF terrorists to commit the "Gaza Genocide." Perhaps they will volunteer to go to Syria.??

    President Obama has the intellect, sophistication and morals not to repeat the mistakes of the Bush administration. These State Department rank and file are obviously attempting to undermine him just as many members of congress attempted to undermine him by supporting Netanyahu and Israel during the Iran Diplomacy debate. Betraying America has become sport for so many insidious ingrates. America deserves better!

    xtian, Tallahassee 11 hours ago

    As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department.

    So these 51 mid-level diplomates want to bomb a bit more, and that is going to do what????? And how will that bring peace to that region of the world? Oh, and by the way, the Department of Defense is not in agreement with that course of action. How wonderful.

    My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve the mess in the ME.

    David Henry, Concord 17 hours ago

    War is easy to do. Ask "W."

    Lives matter! These "diplomats" should be fired.

    Yinka Martins, New York, NY 17 hours ago

    It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried. If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors.

    PKJharkhand, Australia 7 hours ago

    US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30 years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power of Sunni supremacists after each act.

    Jai Goodman, SF Bay Area 7 hours ago

    These "diplomats" should instead be urging US to pressure Turkey and Saudi to stop supporting terrorists in the region. Both Al Nusra and ISIS. That'll be the right step.

    Thank you.

    cml, pittsburgh, pa 10 hours ago

    How many of these are the same (or same sort) of "wise" men that advised ignoring our weapon's inspectors and invading Iraq? They're living inside an echo chamber. In a world of imperfect choices I would prefer Assad to the Nusra Front or ISIL, as apparently our president does as well.

    Lawrence, Washington D.C. 15 hours ago

    How many of those 51 diplomats haves served in front line units and seen combat? How many have their children in uniform? They wouldn't allow it.
    Each bombing mission costs more than a million dollars, and we live in a nation of Chiraq and Orlando.
    We have more pressing needs at home, and you can't fix stupid mixed with superstition, topped with hatred.
    These diplomats want to continue to strap suicide vests on the rest of us, while they sip champagne.
    Out now, no more of our children wasted for corporate profits.

    John, San Francisco 15 hours ago

    50 employees? There are approximately 24,000 employees in the state department. That's 0.002833%. Not really a significant voice. Don't listen.


    Vanessa Hall, is a trusted commenter Millersburg MO 13 hours ago

    Reminds me of those 47 idiots in the House who signed on to the warmonger Tom Cotton's treasonous letter.

    John Townsend, Mexico 15 hours ago

    Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed 400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this astounding stupidity.

    Hobart, Los Angeles, CA 7 hours ago

    This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3.

    rice pritchard, nashville, tennessee 12 hours ago

    Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. Apparently no regime that does not knuckle under to the U.S. war machine is "fair game". This turmoil is sending millions of refugees fleeing their homeland, many trying to swamp Europe, but the arm chair warriors in the diplomatic corps, Congress, Wall Street, and the military contractors still cry for more intervention, more bombing, more blockades, more invasions, etc.! Sheer madness! The more America meddle in the Middle East the worse things become and unrest and fighting spread. Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins, she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help us!

    xmas, Delaware 13 hours ago

    HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST????? When people demand an invasion of a foreign country, can they please add the total cost of the bill to their request? Instead of saying "we need to invade," can they say, "I want your support to spend $1.7 trillion for invading this other country for humanitarian reasons. Oh, by the way, sorry, about all the cuts to domestic spending. We just don't have the money." We spent $1.7 TRILLION on Iraq. $1.7 TRILLION. I can think of several things I would have preferred to spend a fraction of that on. I'm sure you can too.

    Robert G. McKee, Lindenhurst, NY 12 hours ago

    This is a very interesting development within the walls of the State Department. There seems to be much enthusiasm for escalating war in the Middle East. My only question is does this enthusiasm extend to the deaths and maiming of these same State Department officials' children and grandchildren? Or do they propose that other people's children should die pursuing their high ideals in this endless and fruitless religious civil war in Syria?

    Kathy, Flemington, NJ 13 hours ago

    First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists. Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one.

    Rebecca Rabinowitz, . 13 hours ago

    The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. We have "been there, done that" countless times, at the cost of our precious military blood and treasure, and incurring the enmity of hundreds of millions of people. I empathize with the frustration of these State Department employees - but apparently, they do not recall our overthrow of the Shah of Iran when it suited our "cause du jour," or our fraudulent "domino theory" in Vietnam, or the hard reality that no one has ever successfully invaded or "governed" Afghanistan, not to mention being able to battle ideology with weapons. The President has already presided over significant mission creep in the Iraq cesspool left by the Cheney-Bush neo-con crowd. His judicious caution is to be lauded when it comes to Syria. Are these mid-level State Department employees advocating a war against Vladimir Putin?

    Yngve Frey, Sweden 12 hours ago

    I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos, death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will be killed.

    The only way will probably be to work with Russia and force other opposition groups to sign a peace agreement. Then we should arrange an intensive training course for US diplomats as well as Syrian leaders: "There is no final truth: we have to learn the art of tolerance and accept to live in a society where people you don't agree with also can live."

    [Jun 18, 2016] Why Did 51 American State Department Officials Dissent Against Obama and Call for Bombing Syria?

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He is the author of 18 books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press, 2012), The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013) and the forthcoming The Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016). Originally published at Alternet ..."
    "... Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama was forced to call off the attack on Syria on 30 August 2013 because General Dempsey informed him that the British defence lab at Porton Down had analysed environmental samples from the Ghouta chemical attack and had established that the sarin was "kitchen sarin" that could not have come from Syrian military stocks. Hersh reports that Dempsey effectively threatened Obama by warning him that he would testify to Congress (and would prime them to ask the question) on what he had told Obama. Hersh names Sir Peter Wall, then the head of the British army, as the officer who had briefed Dempsey on Porton Down's findings. ..."
    "... I vividly recall how irate Obama was during that Rose Garden press conference when he backed down from bombing Syria. He was not pleased. Attempting to rewrite the historical record doesn't wash for anyone with a memory of the Kerry statement about chemical weapons and the alacrity with which Lavrov responded. Obama was boxed in, and he didn't like it one bit. ..."
    "... If she had any involvement in this it certainly shows her contempt for Obama just a few days after he endorsed her and while the FBI investigation still plods on. Beyond that, I think the cable directly reflects the power of the Israeli lobby and the perceived benefits of a destroyed Syria. ..."
    "... We make out that the national security apparatus taken as a system - and singling out the rare exceptions, who help the country by whistleblowing, leaking, and throwing bureaucratic obstacles in the way of the bad craziness - is corrupt to the bone. Also too insane. And that both characteristics are rewarded, and that individuals who display them tend to rise to the top. ..."
    "... That the State Dept should be populated by neocons seems a logical consequence of the political leadership assigned to it. ..."
    "... The story of the arrest in May 2013 of the Nusra Front sarin procurement team in Turkey, and the prosecutors' report completed in July 2013, was no longer a "bombshell" when reported by Hersh and raised by Turkish opposition MPs. A careful reading of Hersh's articles shows that this report was available to US Defence Intelligence agencies by summer 2013. Two other lines of evidence were available to US and UK intelligence agencies by summer 2013 that pointed to sarin production by the opposition. ..."
    "... but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla of sentience on Obama's part ..."
    "... But in the world of those who wish to keep their jobs as good lap dogs to the Beltway conventional wisdom and not so accurate facts, ..."
    "... Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and from op-ed pages he demands Congress buy more weapons. There's a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans work, writes Robert Parry. ..."
    "... If you'll allow a bit of speculation, I would argue that this push for war was created because it creates opportunities to loot the US treasury. It is of course backed by the ideology of US supremacy and invincibility which allows these people push for war against Russia. ..."
    "... Its is pretty horrifying that professional diplomats could sign something so simpleminded, even within the context of neocon policy. ..."
    "... Victoria Nuland could not have instigated the neo-nazi coup in Ukraine without her superiors' knowledge and approval. I still wonder who told L. Paul Bremer that disbanding the Iraqi Army before disarming its soldiers was a good idea. When asked about it Bush acted as if he never actually heard about it. ..."
    "... Interesting War Nerd podcast#36 featuring American Conservative writer Kelley Vlahos. The basic claim is that the US security state which includes the State Dept., the MIC and the various think tanks and Universities surrounding Washington DC has produced dynastic clans which suck money from the defense budgets to fund lavish lifestyles. These 51 players are merely cheer leading for more war because there is simply not enough money in peace to keep the generational Ponzi going in luxury. ..."
    "... Seems Cheny and Rumsfeld were successful stocking the State Dept shelves with career neocon bureaucrats. ..."
    "... I've finally put my finger on why I will not vote for HRC. HRC is the embodiment of the notion that "ends justify the means". You cannot believe this and believe in the law … ethics … morality … at the same time. ..."
    "... There have been rumblings over the years that many of the coalitions in the current Syria conflict are the result of countries competing for a Natural Gas pipeline between the Middle East and Europe: ..."
    "... the old-guard professionals left, a new breed of aggressive neoconservatives was brought in, the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Robert McFarlane, Robert Kagan and Abrams. After eight years of Reagan and four years of George H.W. Bush, the State Department was reshaped into a home for neocons[…] ..."
    "... As the 1990s wore on, the decimation of foreign policy experts in the mold of White and Derian left few on the Democratic side who had the courage or skills to challenge the deeply entrenched neocons. Many Clinton-era Democrats accommodated to the neocon dominance by reinventing themselves as "liberal interventionists," sharing the neocons' love for military force but justifying the killing on "humanitarian" grounds.[…] ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    By Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He is the author of 18 books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press, 2012), The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013) and the forthcoming The Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016). Originally published at Alternet

    Close to half a million people are dead in Syria, as the country falls further and further into oblivion. Data on the suffering of the Syrians is bewildering, but most startling is that the Syrian life expectancy has declined by over 15 years since the civil war started. On the one side, ISIS holds territory, while on the other a fratricidal war pits the Assad government against a motley crew of rebels that run from small pockets of socialists to large swathes of Al Qaeda-backed extremists. No easy exit to this situation seems possible. Trust is in short supply. The peace process is weak. Brutality is the mood.

    What should America do? In the eyes of 51 U.S. diplomats who still haven't grasped the negative outcomes of the disastrous wars launched since 2002, the solution is to bomb the world into America's image. In an internal dissent cable addressed to Barack Obama, seasoned diplomats have urged airstrikes on the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

    ... ... ..

    Why did the diplomats write their dissent now, and why was it leaked to the press? A former ambassador, with deep experience in the Middle East, told me it was an error to leak the cable.

    "Someone decided to leak it," he said, "for whatever irrational reason, an action as blatantly incorrect as it is most certainly politically and diplomatically counterproductive."

    pmr9 , June 18, 2016 at 6:27 am

    "Obama did not strike Syria in 2013 because he recognized, correctly, that the Russians, Chinese and most of the major countries of the Global South (including India) deeply opposed regime change"

    This version of events gives undeserved credit to Obama. Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama was forced to call off the attack on Syria on 30 August 2013 because General Dempsey informed him that the British defence lab at Porton Down had analysed environmental samples from the Ghouta chemical attack and had established that the sarin was "kitchen sarin" that could not have come from Syrian military stocks. Hersh reports that Dempsey effectively threatened Obama by warning him that he would testify to Congress (and would prime them to ask the question) on what he had told Obama. Hersh names Sir Peter Wall, then the head of the British army, as the officer who had briefed Dempsey on Porton Down's findings.

    On 29 August 2013 the UK Joint Intelligence Committee had reported to the Prime Minister, in a summary that was made available before the House of Commons debate on war with Syria, that there was "no evidence for an opposition CW capability" and "no plausible alternative to a regime attack scenario". It is clear from Hersh's report (and other sources that corroborate it) that this was misleading, and that officials in UK Defence Intelligence were aware, as were the Russians, that the Ghouta attack was a false flag using sarin produced by the opposition. To mislead the House of Commons is "contempt of Parliament" a crime against the British constitution that the House has powers to investigate and punish. Unfortunately no MP and no journalist has been prepared to ask the relevant questions.

    James Levy , June 18, 2016 at 6:53 am

    Excellent comment. Nevertheless, Obama deserves some credit, as the sad tale of General Shinseki and the invasion of Iraq shows. Obama had to listen to reason, and actually did. This is an incredibly low bar for praise, but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla of sentience on Obama's part.

    Would such a warning stop Clinton? Would it stop Trump if his ego was tied up in such a venture? I doubt it.

    pretzelattack , June 18, 2016 at 7:36 am

    it's very plausible that clinton coordinated the leak, as the article suggests. save us, cthulhu.

    juliania , June 18, 2016 at 10:27 am

    I vividly recall how irate Obama was during that Rose Garden press conference when he backed down from bombing Syria. He was not pleased. Attempting to rewrite the historical record doesn't wash for anyone with a memory of the Kerry statement about chemical weapons and the alacrity with which Lavrov responded. Obama was boxed in, and he didn't like it one bit.

    sleepy , June 18, 2016 at 10:17 am

    If she had any involvement in this it certainly shows her contempt for Obama just a few days after he endorsed her and while the FBI investigation still plods on. Beyond that, I think the cable directly reflects the power of the Israeli lobby and the perceived benefits of a destroyed Syria.

    Lambert Strether , June 18, 2016 at 12:51 pm

    > What do we as American citizens make out of 51 diplomats proposing war?

    We make out that the national security apparatus taken as a system - and singling out the rare exceptions, who help the country by whistleblowing, leaking, and throwing bureaucratic obstacles in the way of the bad craziness - is corrupt to the bone. Also too insane. And that both characteristics are rewarded, and that individuals who display them tend to rise to the top.

    Kudos to President Obama, which I very rarely say, for not being deked by these guys.

    John Merryman , June 18, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    That the State Dept should be populated by neocons seems a logical consequence of the political leadership assigned to it.

    John Merryman , June 18, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Wasn't Baal an Assyrian deity? One which drew a bad rap for being opposed to our own preferred God of the Israelites. In which case, not likely one to promote bombing Syria.

    pmr9 , June 18, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    The story of the arrest in May 2013 of the Nusra Front sarin procurement team in Turkey, and the prosecutors' report completed in July 2013, was no longer a "bombshell" when reported by Hersh and raised by Turkish opposition MPs. A careful reading of Hersh's articles shows that this report was available to US Defence Intelligence agencies by summer 2013. Two other lines of evidence were available to US and UK intelligence agencies by summer 2013 that pointed to sarin production by the opposition.

    1. a report to the UNSG from Mokhtar Lamani, the UN Special Representative in Damascus, that the Nusra Front was bringing nerve agent through the border from Turkey.

    2. analyses by Porton Down and its Russian counterpart of environmental samples from two incidents in March 2013, showing that the agent was "kitchen sarin".

    This has been discussed in some detail on Pat Lang's blog. By summer 2013 it was clear to US and UK defence intelligence staff that a false flag operation using sarin was being planned, and that their civilian counterparts were at least tacitly colluding with this. The analysis of samples from Ghouta and the use of the results to threaten Obama appears to have been a last-minute effort to block the use of this to start a war

    MikeNY , June 18, 2016 at 9:55 am

    but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla of sentience on Obama's part

    +1

    "We had to destroy the village in order to save it". I marvel that there is anything still standing in Syraqistan; from the pictures I see, it looks like a gravel quarry. And now blowback has metastasized into domestic mass-shootings, sufficient to stain the Mississippi red; we wring our national hands in a Hamlet-like production of anguish and earnestness, and then change precisely NOTHING about how we conduct our affairs. We are insane.

    tegnost , June 18, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    Nor did hillary fight the nazi's, she has, however, viewed the atrocities for which she is largely responsible on tv and seemed quite pleased (wondering where the trump thing came from, I thought the discussion was about A.S.?). Nice of me to mention each of them once, gives a sense of balance or something. And your final sentence, you could put either name and corresponding gender identity there, both statements would be true. Googed robert kagan/Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and found this article that was interesting it's from 2014 so it's funny how events then rhyme with events currently. Never heard of the publication before but found it interesting, bonus points for featuring debate footage between richard dawkins and john lennox
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/08/the-people-vs-former-trotskysts-neo-bolsheviks-and-intellectual-whores
    I'd be interested in your views on this

    jawbone , June 18, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Friday's PBS NewHour demonstrated in a segment with Judy Woodruff and Margaret Warner that the program is remarkably good at "catapulting the propaganda", in this case that Assad's government used chemical weapons to kill a thousand of his own people. Factually, most of the dead were supporters of the government, which, if Assad ordered such an attack, would have made it even more evil. And only by knowing the actual facts about the chemicals involved does it belie the initial US assertions that Assar was responsible.

    In due time, it was made known to those who read and retain information that, indeed, it was not an attack by the Syrian government, that the chemical signatures indicated "kitchen sarin," as pmr9's quote about Gen. Dempsey and results from the British defense lab at Porton Down showed.

    But in the world of those who wish to keep their jobs as good lap dogs to the Beltway conventional wisdom and not so accurate facts, Margaret Warner made a special point of saying that Obama had backed down on enforcing his promise to go after Assad if Syria used chemical weapons.

    After a video quote from Obama, Warner immediately repeated the now discounted charge.

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: A red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.

    MARGARET WARNER: But after a regime chemical attack killed more than 1,000 Syrians in August 2013, the president didn't launch military strikes, nor step up arming the Syrian rebels. ….

    She's not the only public broadcast reporter to say exactly the same thing. It's now become one of those zombie lies: Nothing can keep them down.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/state-department-officials-push-for-military-intervention-in-syria/

    The segment isn't very long, and the sad and worried expression on Warner's face at the end, where she talks about how sincere the signers of the letter are, is well worth looking at. And wondering about how they do it - how do they keep repeating lies?

    Probably because no one calls them on it, no one who matters. And everyone they talk to repeats the same untruths.

    Sheesh.

    tony , June 18, 2016 at 6:52 am

    Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and from op-ed pages he demands Congress buy more weapons. There's a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans work, writes Robert Parry. A Family Business of Perpetual War

    If you'll allow a bit of speculation, I would argue that this push for war was created because it creates opportunities to loot the US treasury. It is of course backed by the ideology of US supremacy and invincibility which allows these people push for war against Russia.

    PlutoniumKun , June 18, 2016 at 7:37 am

    Its an interesting article, but (not I assume the authors fault) doesn't actually answer the question. I'd always assumed that the diplomatic corps was significantly more pragmatic and anti-military intervention than other arms of the US foreign policy establishment, but this would seem evidence otherwise. Its is pretty horrifying that professional diplomats could sign something so simpleminded, even within the context of neocon policy. It doesn't say much for the quality of people involved. Perhaps its not just the military that has been degraded by a decade and a half of the war on terror, it may well be degrading the quality of people attracted to, and recruited by, all elements of the government establishment.

    The other explanation – and its not all that encouraging – is that this is simply an attempt by a certain level of diplomats to say 'hey, its not our fault'. But I would have thought they would have picked a different target for their complaints than Obama if that was the case. It does seem more likely that this is a deliberate attempt by the Samantha Power/Hilary wing of the establishment to stake a claim to the high ground.

    Procopius , June 18, 2016 at 8:16 am

    A lot of what I've seen over the last few years only makes sense if I believe the State Department is the last bastion of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). There is no acknowledged strategy in Syria, no end game, no way to tell when/if we've won, except regime change. The CIA and the Pentagon seem to be backing different factions who are hostile to each other and both seem to be providing weapons to ISIS (perhaps, but not certainly, unintentionally). Victoria Nuland could not have instigated the neo-nazi coup in Ukraine without her superiors' knowledge and approval. I still wonder who told L. Paul Bremer that disbanding the Iraqi Army before disarming its soldiers was a good idea. When asked about it Bush acted as if he never actually heard about it.

    art guerrilla , June 18, 2016 at 9:53 am

    "A former ambassador told me that many of the diplomats have great fealty to Hillary Clinton. Could they have leaked this cable to boost Clinton's narrative that she wanted a more robust attack on Damascus as early as 2012? Is this a campaign advertisement for Clinton, and a preparation for her likely Middle East policy when she takes power in 2017?"

    um, there is your answer right there, plutonium, all the rest is inside-inside baseball bullshit…

    besides essentially using their gummint positions in an unusual calculated political manner, i am sure all these knob-polishers are simply jockeying for positions in Empress Cliton the First's reign of Empire… pass the soma, please…

    DJG , June 18, 2016 at 10:50 am

    Yes: And the use of the world fealty astounds me. Fealty, as in feudal relations? As in clientelism? These people shouldn't be allowed near foreign policy at all. Fealty indeed.

    JTMcPhee , June 18, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    But they dedicate themselves and bend all their efforts toward getting themselves into these positions where they get to use the wealth and credulity of ordinary people to "advance," and I use that word quite advisedly given where it's taking all of us, their interests and friends and agendas…

    Not man of the rest of us, who might be interested in survival and sustainability and comity and all that, have the skills, schooling, connections and inclination to take part in the fokking Great Game, in all its parts and parameters…

    ex-PFC Chuck , June 18, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    Speaking of fealty, this from John Robb of Global Guerillas a few days ago.

    craazyboy , June 18, 2016 at 11:58 am

    There's a simple solution, however. Congress can cut the State Dept. budget to zero.

    There's an old saying, "If you stop paying them, they stop showing up for work."

    wellclosed , June 18, 2016 at 7:40 am

    It is a pathetic sign of our times that the narrative of the " Fabulous 51 " has any traction at all, when such perspective is so demonstrably flawed. Pat Lang (and too few others) has been chronicling this neocon "Borg" delusion for quite some time – not unlike efforts here with respect to orthodox neo-econs, libertards, etc. It was pretty easy to assume, as the Kennedy administration must have, the outcome of belligerent threats against the evil Ruskies when they were way beyond their capacities in Cuba. But to threaten a modern, very militarily capable state with Neocon Wargasm Regime Change – – is truly insane. They really do have WMDs – like the ones only we have ever used.

    tegnost , June 18, 2016 at 9:50 am

    Hey, cmon, we've get the f-35, think of the boost to gdp when the russkis shoot down one or ten of those overweight video game platforms! We need some more heros like pat tillman (not dissing tillman, but the people who tried to use his good name for their own bitter ends), you know, to garner support for our noble casus belli.

    twonine , June 18, 2016 at 7:42 am

    Per Ray McGovern (RT interview this AM), the 51 are bucking for a promotion with the prospective new boss.

    grizziz , June 18, 2016 at 9:00 am

    Interesting War Nerd podcast#36 featuring American Conservative writer Kelley Vlahos. The basic claim is that the US security state which includes the State Dept., the MIC and the various think tanks and Universities surrounding Washington DC has produced dynastic clans which suck money from the defense budgets to fund lavish lifestyles. These 51 players are merely cheer leading for more war because there is simply not enough money in peace to keep the generational Ponzi going in luxury.

    JTMcPhee , June 18, 2016 at 10:53 am

    Once upon a time, even some editor at the WaPo let a little corner of the seraglio tent get lifted:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-scandal-puts-four-star-general-lifestyle-under-scrutiny/2012/11/17/33a14f48-3043-11e2-a30e-5ca76eeec857_story.html

    And of course you have a recent general officer who out-grabbed himself, selling very top secret Navy info on for money, prostitutes etc. to a guy nicknamed "Fat Leonard." Was allowed to plead to the lesser offense of lying to investigators. Bullshit, Just fokking bullshit. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/10/us-navy-admiral-pleads-guilty-to-lying-to-investigators-in-fat-leonard-bribery-case.html

    An enlisted guy in my unit in Vietnam got drunk, convinced himself he could fly an Army Sioux helicopter. Started it, got it up out of the revetment, then when setting back down caught the left skid on the 4 foot high revetment wall and crashed it. He was court-martialed, jailed at Long Binh, busted to permanent E-1, denied even a discharge, and may still be paying off the $125,000 the Army said that broke-down chopper was worth on that E-1 pay. How many tiers of "justice" in "the system?"

    Sam Adams , June 18, 2016 at 7:57 am

    Seems Cheny and Rumsfeld were successful stocking the State Dept shelves with career neocon bureaucrats.

    John , June 18, 2016 at 8:00 am

    Regardless of the motivations first of the message itself and secondly of its purpose, my first thought was that the Clinton camp directly or indirectly was behind it. But it is such a ham fisted ploy; you would have to be a political idiot, wouldn't you? Then I recalled the other boneheaded moves and dismissed it.

    ArkansasAngie , June 18, 2016 at 8:12 am

    I've finally put my finger on why I will not vote for HRC. HRC is the embodiment of the notion that "ends justify the means". You cannot believe this and believe in the law … ethics … morality … at the same time.

    HRC is no Gandhi.

    False flags
    Circumventing laws

    Slippery slope? HRC has her skis on and her goggles down.

    That is change I do not believe in.

    ex-PFC Chuck , June 18, 2016 at 8:18 am

    See also Pat Lang's post on this yesterday. As is the case with Naked Capitalism, the comment threads there are worth thorough reads as well as the posts. The consensus there seems to be that it demonstrates the success of the neo-con infiltration of the State Department, the signers' utter lack of experience in understanding of the military and warfare, and finally the results of the demise of DoS's area expertise in the Middle East.

    afisher , June 18, 2016 at 9:17 am

    I agree. I would add that Victoria Nuland has been in DC with week being grilled (/s) by Congress.

    JTMcPhee , June 18, 2016 at 10:55 am

    "Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the People for a New American Century or any other neoconservative group? I remind you that you are under oath to testify truthfully to Congress…"

    Carolinian , June 18, 2016 at 8:21 am

    Cutting to the chase.

    A former ambassador told me that many of the diplomats have great fealty to Hillary Clinton.

    Hugo Chavez joked that you would never have a coup in Washington because it has no US embassy. But it does have the State Department itself and it now appears they are using their partners in the press to help shape the coming regime change in our own country. How long before Vicky appears out on the Mall, giving out cookies?

    Ignim Brites , June 18, 2016 at 8:43 am

    Maybe the notion is that bombing the Assad military would provoke a military confrontation with Russia in Syria but more importantly in Eastern Europe. This will bolster the case for NATO which will face increased scrutiny in the upcoming POTUS campaign.

    Cry Shop , June 18, 2016 at 9:33 am

    Circulating the cable to get signatures is probably Clinton's attempt to push the Overton Window on Obama's dime, but leaking the cable was probably a jerk on Obama's chain for "leaking" their concerns to Carl Bernstein, which was covered on NC earlier this month.

    Top Democrat officials are TERRIFIED that Hillary campaign IS IN FREEFALL! – Carl Bernstein

    Mark John , June 18, 2016 at 9:48 am

    The leak is ridiculous and ham-handed, but that is nothing new.

    I hope we will all keep in mind what starts these wars and keeps them alive, as well as global warming and wealth inequality. THE PROFIT MOTIVE.

    Harold , June 18, 2016 at 9:49 am

    This whole election is like a military coup.

    redleg , June 18, 2016 at 11:13 am

    Corporate. The military would have some kind of plan for afterward. HRC and the Clintonian daleks see the election itself as the end game.

    NYPaul , June 18, 2016 at 9:52 am

    Questions, questions.

    Seems to me like C.I.C. Clinton just can't wait another 6 months to start blowing the world up. I, too, believe Hillary is behind this gang of 51's insubordinate pronouncement. It's got her signature, intemperance and incompetence, written all over it. And, where's the current S.O.S. Cat, Kerry, while the Foggy Bottom mice are stirring this very dangerous Vladimir cauldron? So, maybe Obama kinda wishes he waited a little longer with his demented endorsement, "I don't think there's ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.".

    Harold , June 18, 2016 at 10:19 am

    Is it true that State Dept. employees are investing in Ukrainian utilities?

    oho , June 18, 2016 at 10:38 am

    yesterday morning, the NYT headlined its site w/this story. then anti-war/anti-neocon comments and upvotes flooded.

    by lunch this story was buried well below the fold.

    Automated analytics downgrading an unread story? Or an editorial decision by someone "surprised" that even the NYT bobbleheads don't buy the Neo-Con lies?

    nothing but the truth , June 18, 2016 at 10:45 am

    these guys are sending a "hire me" signal to goldman sachs and other (((tribe))) operations.

    Chauncey Gardiner , June 18, 2016 at 11:00 am

    Since they disagree with this president's policies, the honorable course of action by these 51 State Department employees would be to resign. Absent that, I believe the president can require their resignations.

    steelhead23 , June 18, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Bingo. It strikes me as analogous to holding a seance at church for seasoned diplomats to lobby for war. The stumbling block is that the document itself followed existing protocol for dissent. Its release to the public is the fire-able offense. I wonder if Obama is investigating.

    Denis Drew , June 18, 2016 at 11:43 am

    So Al Qaeda takes over Syria; so what? Al Qaeda would not kill half a million Syrians! !!! Once Al Qaeda takes over a country it is on its way to becoming a large bureaucratic entity - more inherently conservative. What are they going to do, declare war on the US; throw their government behind crashing airliners? The specter of a million US boots on the ground would squash that. We do have a reputation for that sort of thing going back to Korea.

    My view of the world is the Rick Steves, Anthony Bourdain view - not their ideology (if any) but the Marshall McLuhan/medium-is-the-message view. It's just land and people - people like us.

    If Obama cared about the Iraqi people he would have/could have gotten our reverse Saddam, Maliki, under control and coerced him in the direction of greater inclusion of the Sunni into a new coalition - instead of terrorizing them and forcing them into the open arms of ISIS. Ditto for arming and training the vast majority of innocents. We could have identified most people (the vast majority) that's not hard, and worked with them.

    We could have tried to do both. But, as usual, Obama doesn't care.

    craazyboy , June 18, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    One real problem is they set up terrorist training camps, similar to the Taliban in Afgan. These are then organized terrorists they send out elsewhere in the world, even the USofA, if they can sneak past the TSA in airports.

    However, Saddam never did that and neither did Assad. So our State Dept's strategy seems to be give terrorists a training ground so they can export a trained and organized terrorist network around the world. And this is after we've had at least 15 years to observe how it works. Note that the reason we felt we had to go into into Afgan originally was that the Taliban was running terrorist training camps.

    Not to mention arming these "moderate Arabs" to overthrow Assad.

    jawbone , June 18, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Another real problem is how Al Q tend to terrorize the captive populations, especially the females.

    craazyboy , June 18, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    I guess we could call that the worser of two evils?

    JimTan , June 18, 2016 at 11:57 am

    There have been rumblings over the years that many of the coalitions in the current Syria conflict are the result of countries competing for a Natural Gas pipeline between the Middle East and Europe:

    http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/is-the-fight-over-a-gas-pipeline-fuelling-the-worlds-bloodiest-conflict/news-story/74efcba9554c10bd35e280b63a9afb74

    I genuinely hope that our current state of foreign relations is not filled with actors following a 'Realist' school of thought:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)

    Ultimately who knows, but this might be one motivation behind 51 diplomats calling for the bombing of Syria.

    JimTan , June 18, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    International relations following Machiavelli and Hobbes is a very bad thing.

    Carolinian , June 18, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    Robert Parry – with sources inside the State Dept. – offers up some insight on this story

    But the descent of the U.S. State Department into little more than well-dressed, well-spoken but thuggish enforcers of U.S. hegemony began with the Reagan administration. President Ronald Reagan and his team possessed a pathological hatred of Central American social movements seeking freedom from oppressive oligarchies and their brutal security forces.[…]

    As the old-guard professionals left, a new breed of aggressive neoconservatives was brought in, the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Robert McFarlane, Robert Kagan and Abrams. After eight years of Reagan and four years of George H.W. Bush, the State Department was reshaped into a home for neocons[…]

    As the 1990s wore on, the decimation of foreign policy experts in the mold of White and Derian left few on the Democratic side who had the courage or skills to challenge the deeply entrenched neocons. Many Clinton-era Democrats accommodated to the neocon dominance by reinventing themselves as "liberal interventionists," sharing the neocons' love for military force but justifying the killing on "humanitarian" grounds.[…]

    when Obama entered the White House, he faced a difficult challenge. The State Department needed a thorough purging of the neocons and the liberal hawks, but there were few Democratic foreign policy experts who hadn't sold out to the neocons. An entire generation of Democratic policy-makers had been raised in the world of neocon-dominated conferences, meetings, op-eds and think tanks, where tough talk made you sound good while talk of traditional diplomacy made you sound soft.

    More here–all good.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/17/the-state-departments-collective-madness/

    Personally I'd say "blame it on Reagan" is a good all purpose explanation for current ills. This response also takes in the Dems since they so often knuckled under to the Gipper.

    Gaylord , June 18, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    The MIC must be pushing for more gravy to buoy the fake economy. This Empire based on greed, exploitation and chaos will take the whole of life down with itself.

    oh , June 18, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    I wonder if this memo is really meant to the legacy of the current administration by showing how it resisted the efforts of the hawks?

    Sluggeaux , June 18, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    All this foreign policy discussion is a bit over my head, but couldn't the leaked "dissent" have come from the White House ?

    Isn't it most likely that Obama's concern for his "legacy" is going to make him want to out HRC and her grossly incompetent sycophants and cronies at State as the Bomb-Baby-Bomb crowd who goaded him to the brink of war with Russia over Syria based on faulty false-flag intelligence?

    [Jun 17, 2016] Know-Nothing Diplomats Prepare For Hillarys War On Syria

    Looks like State Department became a paradise for neocons. Protest of diplomats is typical trick used by State Departement during color revolution. That actually means this "color revolution" trick came to the USA. Our presidents come and go, Republican or Democrat, but our Strangeloves remain permanent employees of State Department. .
    Notable quotes:
    "... The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent Syrian Kurdistan. ..."
    "... A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons. I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal memo by mid-level bureaucrats. ..."
    "... The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys ..."
    "... The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth - it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue. ..."
    "... For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by Kurdish media reports , he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate Kurdish state. ..."
    "... The whole Syria nightmare was planned from the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006 because Assad was so broadly popular in the country and "the region." Can't have that so a strategy was drummed up: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596 ..."
    "... I'm sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets. ..."
    "... http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the "moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already. ..."
    "... So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever. ..."
    "... A preview on America's future strategies? http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL.pdf ..."
    "... The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything, promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end. ..."
    "... As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's getting ready to cash in his chips. ..."
    "... I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin, Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con plan. ..."
    "... Israeli bombed military base in Homs province with impunity from S400 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.723701 ..."
    "... There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel: STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/ ..."
    "... On the bright side, maybe the 50 signatures are just trying to get noticed by the Clinton transition crew. ..."
    "... The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role. ..."
    "... i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement is retarded. ..."
    "... How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of real situation in American politics, economy and military. ..."
    "... I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of the world. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships. ..."
    "... At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we have... ..."
    "... This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo? It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist. The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy corporate mouthpiece. ..."
    "... We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia rejoining Turkey: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950326000441 ..."
    "... These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers, etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington, DC. ..."
    "... Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus. ..."
    "... How many of these diplomats were bribed by Saudi Arabia? ..."
    "... This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees. ..."
    "... Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs. ..."
    "... There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie). ..."
    "... might the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some version of R2P ..."
    "... State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan. The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" ..."
    "... So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion page on their site. ..."
    "... Counterpunch had a great article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/the-case-for-not-voting-in-defense-of-the-lazy-ungrateful-and-uniformed/ ..."
    "... And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground." ..."
    "... No respect for R2P warriors at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. ..."
    "... For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia, supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has been made... ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-officials-fear-saudi-collapse-if-new-prince-fails-n593996 ..."
    "... "Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear, and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected to terror groups like Al Qaeda. ..."
    "... What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef? ..."
    "... Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust? ..."
    "... Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups that were funding terrorism? ..."
    "... the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article on the top of the front page . ..."
    "... One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria." ..."
    "... It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous it's bullshit. ..."
    "... Wonder how many of these 51 war mongers were appointed by Hillary. ..."
    "... The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid. There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises, rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable. ..."
    "... kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening fast enough. ..."
    "... The difference between Hillary and ISIS: the latter "takes" the head of enemies, Hillary "gives" head to donors. Forgive the graphic. ..."
    "... 50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? ..."
    "... Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully behind much of the world. ..."
    "... So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists, at war all against all. ..."
    "... The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light as has been portrayed. ..."
    "... Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats. ..."
    "... I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or whatever their boilerplate. ..."
    "... No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony. Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits of challenge/ response in a military confrontation. ..."
    Moon of Alabama

    There are at least 51 stupid or dishonest "diplomats" working in the U.S. State Department. Also - Mark Lander is a stupid or dishonest NYT writer. The result is this piece: Dozens of U.S. Diplomats, in Memo, Urge Strikes Against Syria's Assad

    WASHINGTON - More than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical of the Obama administration's policy in Syria, urging the United States to carry out military strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the country's five-year-old civil war.

    Note that it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates" who on April 9 broke the ceasefire in Syria by attacking government troops south of Aleppo. They have since continuously bombarded the government held parts of Aleppo which house over 1.5 million civilians with improvised artillery.

    Back to the piece:

    The memo, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times by a State Department official , says American policy has been "overwhelmed" by the unrelenting violence in Syria. It calls for "a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process."
    ...
    The names on the memo are almost all midlevel officials - many of them career diplomats - who have been involved in the administration's Syria policy over the last five years, at home or abroad. They range from a Syria desk officer in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to a former deputy to the American ambassador in Damascus.

    While there are no widely recognized names, higher-level State Department officials are known to share their concerns. Mr. Kerry himself has pushed for stronger American action against Syria, in part to force a diplomatic solution on Mr. Assad.

    ...

    The State Department officials insisted in their memo that they were not "advocating for a slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia," but rather a credible threat of military action to keep Mr. Assad in line.

    These State Department loons have their ass covered by Secretary of State Kerry. Otherwise they would (and should) be fired for obvious ignorance. What "judicious" military threat against Russian S-400 air defense in Syria is credible? Nukes on Moscow (and New York)?

    In the memo, the State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Islamic State because it would bolster moderate Sunnis , who are necessary allies against the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

    Would these "diplomats" be able to name even one group of "moderate Sunnis" in Syria that is not on the side of the Syrian government? Are Ahrar al-Sahm and the other U.S. supported groups, who recently killed 50 civilians out of purely sectarian motives when they stormed the town of Zara, such "moderate Sunnis"?

    These 50 State Department non-diplomats, and the stinking fish head above them, have obviously failed in their duty:

    • "Diplomats" urging military action do nothing but confirm that they do not know their job which is diplomacy, not bombing. They failed.
    • These "diplomats" do not know or do not want to follow international law. On what legal basis would the U.S. bomb the Syrian government and its people? They do not name any. There is none.
    • To what purpose would the Syrian government and the millions of its followers be bombed? Who but al-Qaeda would follow if the Assad-led government falls? The "diplomats" ignore that obvious question.

    The NYT writer of the piece on the memo demonstrates that he is just as stupid or dishonest as the State Department dupes by adding this paragraph:

    [T]he memo mainly confirms what has been clear for some time: The State Department's rank and file have chafed at the White House's refusal to be drawn into the conflict in Syria .

    How is spending over $1 billion a year to hire, train, arm and support "moderate rebels" against the Syrian government consistent with the claim of a U.S. "refusal to be drawn into the conflict"?

    It is obvious and widely documented that the U.S. has been fueling the conflict from the very beginning throughout five years and continues up to today to deliver thousands of tons of weapons to the "moderate rebels".

    All the above, the "diplomats" letter and the NYT writer lying, is in preparation of an open U.S. war on Syria under a possible president Hillary Clinton. (Jo Cox, the "humanitarian" British MP who was murdered yesterday by some neo-nazi, spoke in support of such a crime.)

    The U.S. military continues to reject an escalation against the Syrian government. Its reasonable question "what follows after Assad" has never been seriously answered by the war supporters in the CIA and the State Department.

    Unexpected support of the U.S. military's position now seems to come from the Turkish side. The Erdogan regime finally acknowledges that a Syria under Assad is more convenient to it than a Kurdish state in north-Syria which the U.S. is currently helping to establish:

    "Assad is, at the end of the day, a killer. He is torturing his own people. We're not going to change our stance on that," a senior official from the ruling AK Party told Reuters, requesting anonymity so as to speak more freely.

    "But he does not support Kurdish autonomy. We may not like each other, but on that we're backing the same policy ," he said.

    Ankara fears that territorial gains by Kurdish YPG fighters in northern Syria will fuel an insurgency by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has waged an armed struggle in Turkey's southeast for three decades.

    The Turks have suddenly removed their support for their "Turkmen" proxies fighting the Syrian government in Latakia in north west Syria. Over the last few days the "Turkmen" retreated and the Syrian army advanced . It may soon reach the Turkish border. Should the Latakia front calm down the Syrian army will be able to move several thousand troops from Latakia towards other critical sectors. The Turkish government, under the new Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, is now also sending peace signals towards Russia.

    The situation in Syria could rapidly change in favor of the Syrian government should Turkey change its bifurcating policies and continue these moves. Without their Turkish bases and support the "moderate rebels" would soon be out of supplies and would lack the ability to continue their fighting. The Russians and their allies should further emphasize the "Kurdish threat" to advance this Turkish change of mind.

    The race to preempt a Hillary administration war on Syria, which the "diplomats" memo prepares for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side win.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 17, 2016 1:43:36 AM | 1
    This is the Yankees trying to pretend that they're still exceptionally invincible, in order to conceal the fact that they never were. One only need look at all the tentative tiptoeing around China & Russia to see that they're trying to convince themselves that Russia and China are run by people as loony and disconnected as the self-seducers in charge of AmeriKKKan Foreign Policy.

    SmoothieX got it 100% right in the previous thread..

    Roitan | Jun 17, 2016 2:22:17 AM | 2
    "The names on the memo are almost all medeival offiCIAls ..."

    There, fixed it for you. Enjoying the calm before the Goldman Sturm, the takeover of the US Executive in 2017 for the Final Solution on liberating the Fifth Quintile's Last Free Life Savings, and plunging the globe into a New Dark Ages: Trump or Clinton, allatime same-same.

    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 2:36:19 AM | 3
    The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent Syrian Kurdistan.

    The FSA Sunnistan plan has been going down the tubes for months. With the imminent fall of the last few FSA strongholds, the State Department has gone berserk with their latest standoff bombing memo 'leak' nonsense. A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons. I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal memo by mid-level bureaucrats.

    The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys. This almost works, but not completely. For what it's worth, I don't think the Pentagram cares at all about an independent Syrian Kurdistan, unifying the cantons or who gets what land/resources, as long as it's taken from ISIS. When ISIS is wiped out, the SDF will cease to exist and the SF guys will leave. The SDF and especially the YPG/YPJ will NOT ever be incented to provoke or go to war with Assad after ISIS is gone. That's a problem for the State Department and CIA

    The neocon State Department and CIA - normally at odds with the Pentagon's increasing reluctance to get involved at all - are taking this opportunity to agitate for an independent Kurdistan. This is done by funding the Kurdish PYD political party which purports to speak for all Kurds. The State Department and CIA also fund the PYD's growing Asayish thug secret police 'enforcers'. The PYD took control of Rojava by throwing out all the other political parties last year and crowning itself the King of all Syrian Kurds. But most Kurds don't trust the PYD, figuring that either Assad or the U.S. is really pulling the strings. The Kurds agree with the original PYD ideology, but not its current land/resource-grabbing frenzy NOR the kind of independent Kurdistan the PYD is suggesting. They want more rights and control of their affairs, but they do not want an actual or de facto independent Syrian Kurdistan.

    The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth - it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue.

    For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by Kurdish media reports , he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate Kurdish state. The U.S. State Department does NOT want Rojava to be part of Syria or the Syrian State and spins the Assad/Kurd relation as antagonistic in the MSM. This is the 'Plan C' Syrian partition scheme. Hopefully, the average Kurd can see through their scheming and will not follow the dictates of a usurped PYD to go to war with Syria for their independence. They would be better off dumping and outlawing the PYD completely and working with the new Syrian government on the future AFTER ISIS (and hopefully without any U.S. State Department and CIA).

    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 3:45:06 AM | 4

    Finally!
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-strike-idUSKCN0Z306L
    Russia strikes U.S.-backed rebels in Syria: U.S. official

    Felicity | Jun 17, 2016 3:55:04 AM | 5
    The whole Syria nightmare was planned from the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006 because Assad was so broadly popular in the country and "the region." Can't have that so a strategy was drummed up: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596

    Your assessment above is a supremely eloquent assessment and a scream for sanity to return. Thank you so very much for your always illuminating writings.

    Laguerre | Jun 17, 2016 5:17:21 AM | 7
    re 3 Paveway.

    I think you're quite right. That corresponds with what I've thought for some time. I'm sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets.

    Penelope | Jun 17, 2016 5:20:17 AM | 8
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the "moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already.

    "Yet, even as Syria's military clashes with the West's proxies, the United States, Britain, and France have begun moving in Special Forces soldiers to assist in the mission of destroying the Syrian government, a mission that Israeli, Jordanian, and Turkish officers have joined in as well. That is, of course, despite the fact that Russian Special Forces are on the ground fighting on the side of the Syrian military.

    "Likewise, both the United States and Russia are busy building military bases in the northern regions of Syria to use as staging grounds for new operations."

    tom | Jun 17, 2016 5:31:31 AM | 9
    So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever.

    Since B is not mentioning it, he might as well not mention that the French terrorist invaders along with the already US terrorists, and possibly German invaders will be occupying parts of Syria.

    Oh, but that's alright because Putin invited the evil minions of the Us empire into Syria, you know, because the bad PR opportunity is a much better outcome then world War three.

    Nicola | Jun 17, 2016 5:37:58 AM | 10
    A preview on America's future strategies? http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL.pdf
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 5:47:50 AM | 11
    The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything, promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end.

    As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's getting ready to cash in his chips.

    It looks to be more of the same, until they really do go after Russia, when it will be all over for all of us. I can't imagine that they really believe they can get away with this, but this bunch is all 'mid-level', 'just following orders', it won't be 'their fault' and that's the level they're working at. The people calling the tune think they can play the real world as they do their fake financial world, making up new rules as they go along, as they redefine success after each of their serial failures.

    Talk about boiled frogs. How in the hell have we let it get this far?

    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 6:00:26 AM | 12
    @9 Tom

    I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin, Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con plan. This letter may be, as b says, a measure of theneo-cons' fear that it will all be over for 'their guys' in Syria by 21 January. If that were to come to pass, Vladimir Putin will have had a big hand in it.

    harrylaw | Jun 17, 2016 7:40:46 AM | 13
    Nicola @10 from your link 'Extending American power' I had to laugh at this... 4. "All of which provides the basis for our strong belief
    that the United States still has the military, economic,
    and political power to play the leading role in pro
    -tecting a stable rules-based international order". 'Rules based',ha, the US is the leading regime change state, acting always contrary to International law to benefit its hegemonic ambitions. All five veto wielding powers and their friends are above International law for all time. Thankfully, Russia and China cannot be threatened militarily and will confront the monstrous US designs in Syria, once the head choppers are defeated the victors should move against the real source of terrorism in the region, Saudi Arabia and the various GCC satraps. b's article above is excellent and is echoed in this piece in Antiwar.com http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/06/16/something-going-worse-thought/
    Kalen | Jun 17, 2016 8:50:40 AM | 14
    There are other worrying development in Syroi a namely changing of Riusssian attitude to Assaad. First Lavrov said that Russia is not Syrian government ally, they just fight terrorists together. An obvious nonsense.

    And now this.

    Israel, following several similar air raids in previous months just bombed SAA installation in Homs province, in the middle of Syria just 45 second flight of S400 rockets located in latakia, while Netanyahu was smiling with Putin in Moscow.

    Israeli bombed military base in Homs province with impunity from S400 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.723701

    Can you explain WTF? All of that while IDF artillery provides cover for ANF commanded by formed ISIL commander in Golan Heights foothills,

    There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel: STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/

    Michael | Jun 17, 2016 9:14:54 AM | 15
    On the bright side, maybe the 50 signatures are just trying to get noticed by the Clinton transition crew.
    Yul | Jun 17, 2016 9:17:33 AM | 16
    @ b Come on, U.S. military have a role to play in helping to export American values . Even with threats, Assad told Powell to "get lost". This interview says a lot about the US of A: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/04/a-conversation-with-colin-powell/305873/
    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 9:52:11 AM | 18
    15,000 FSOs, 51 signed the doc.
    SmoothieX12 | Jun 17, 2016 10:09:54 AM | 20
    @10
    A preview on America's future strategies?

    This is not preview nor is it a strategy, since strategies are based on more or less professional and realistic, I may add, assessments of the outside world. I do not have any recollection of any serious US doctrinal (policy or military wise) document in the last 20 years written from the position of comprehensive situational awareness--this is a non existent condition among most of US current "power elites". The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role. They simply have no qualifications for that and are nothing more than a bunch of ideologues and propagandists from Ivy League humanities degree mill. Back to "preview"--it is a dominant ideology of "exceptionalism" which afflicted US "elites" today, this document is just another iteration of this ideology.

    jason | Jun 17, 2016 10:11:33 AM | 21
    i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement is retarded. Of course, many of those speak from ignorance of what's really going on, but the knee-jerk suspicion of US Syria policy & these FSO dickheads seems a good sign.
    SmoothieX12 | Jun 17, 2016 10:25:16 AM | 22
    @Kalen
    There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel:

    It is exactly the other way around. How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of real situation in American politics, economy and military. In other words -- they know how to count and see who pulls the strings. And then there is another "little tiny" factor--Israelis know damn well who won WW II in Europe. It matters, a great deal.

    dahoit | Jun 17, 2016 10:38:36 AM | 23
    12; I'm amazed at your unflagging obsession in stating Trump will be a pushover for the Ziomonsters.:)
    TG | Jun 17, 2016 10:49:55 AM | 24
    Interesting as always.

    I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of the world. I say this not because I am psychic, but because that is her unambiguous record.

    Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships.

    This November I'm going for the wild-card who at least sounds rational (if you listen to what he actually proposes, and not his style) and has a track record of actually being pragmatic, over certain doom.

    At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we have...

    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 10:57:48 AM | 25
    Kalen is a bit of a troll.
    h | Jun 17, 2016 11:04:23 AM | 26
    This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo? It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist. The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy corporate mouthpiece.

    If an article does not link to an original source OR quotes only 'anon sources' be skeptical. Journalism, especially alt news journalists, site original sources AND try like hell to get sources to go on the record.

    My apologies in advance if I'm being offensive to our generous host. That is not my intent. Rather, it's venting a long held frustration I've had with the division within corporate newsrooms who are there solely to sell the readers the news, even if it's made up out of thin air.

    Denis | Jun 17, 2016 11:17:36 AM | 27
    Yeah . . .agree 90%. Here are some minor details that need to be tidied up, and a couple thoughts.

    1.

    b: it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates" who on April 9 broke the ceasefire in Syria.

    This is not quite accurate. Resolution 2254 exempted al Nusra from the cease-fire, not sure about al Sham and whatever others you are referring to. If they were excluded from the cease-fire, then they couldn't break it.

    2.
    The NYT writer is Mark Landler, not Lander. If you're going to accuse him of being stupid or dishonest, you want to get the name right. Mark Lander, whoever he is, might have a pack of bulldog lawyers.

    3.
    I don't see in Landler's article a link to the memo or a list of the people who signed it. Someone needs to publish that list of signatories to preserve the record of who the DOS idiots are.

    4.
    We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando.

    Les | Jun 17, 2016 11:19:27 AM | 28
    Trump makes reference to this article in blaming Obama and Clinton for Orlando attack

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/14/hillary-clinton-received-secret-memo-stating-obama-admin-support-for-isis/

    SitoAurora | Jun 17, 2016 11:23:30 AM | 29

    Saudi Arabia rejoining Turkey: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950326000441

    WorldBLee | Jun 17, 2016 11:36:33 AM | 30
    Thanks for sharing your outrage, b. I completely agree. I have been ranting about this all morning and it's good to see someone else stating the case so the rest of us don't feel isolated in our anger at this vicious and dangerous stupidity. These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers, etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington, DC.
    M | Jun 17, 2016 11:45:35 AM | 31
    CIA .... YPG .... ALNUSRA.... FSL , all these acronyms are so confusing , how about considering the level of sanity and intelligence of these groups ( which is probably below that of a wounded flea .... ) why not call them Scoobidoos vs the Syrian Army

    so the article would go something like this :

    In the memo, the Scoobidoos State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Scoobidoos because it would bolster moderate Scoobidoos, who are necessary allies against the group, also known as Scoobidoos .

    :)

    shargash | Jun 17, 2016 11:54:36 AM | 32
    I thought it was a "cessation of hostilities" not a case fire. The difference is not trivial, and State Department employees should know the difference. The signers are either incompetent or evil (not mutually exclusive, of course).
    5 dancing shlomos | Jun 17, 2016 12:07:16 PM | 33
    dont think landler is stupid. dishonest and deceiving would be my say. he is a nyt's jew writing, maybe lying, regarding syria. NYT: only news acceptable to jews. sometimes, many times we have to make up stories and facts to (maybe) fit.

    cant find any of the dissenting names.

    like to know how many are jew if story not total fake

    then there is the political hatchet job on the russian track/field olym team.

    Mike Maloney | Jun 17, 2016 12:26:08 PM | 34
    I think the key takeaway is b's last two sentences: "The race to preempt a Hillary administration war on Syria, which the 'diplomats' memo prepares for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side win."

    Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus.

    Whether during or shortly after Hillary's first 100 days in office, U.S. military engagement with Libya and Syria will likely be significantly greater than it is now.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 12:26:55 PM | 35
    thanks b and thanks to some of the posters here too - paveway, smoothie and a few others..
    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 12:46:59 PM | 36
    This is the exact reason the Ministers of Defense of Syria, Russia and Iran held meeting in Teheran just recently. My assumption is they are planning on rolling up the acres, so to speak in Syria. All before the new POTUS comes to office. Also, Hezbollah just announced it's sending in reinforcements to the battlefield. All this while the Chinese continue to sleep. Sigh.
    Edward | Jun 17, 2016 1:10:22 PM | 37
    How many of these diplomats were bribed by Saudi Arabia?
    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:16:44 PM | 38
    @3, paveway.

    The Kurds are the last great hope for the oil and especially natural gas pipelines dream from the GCC to Europe, but still, Israel is not happy. They wanted a branch-off pipeline for themselves. Also Jordan was to get a small branch-off too. Israel is no more than a parasite, look up the definition. It's exact. Turkey would benefit economically due to transit fees. That's why the Turks are so heavily involved. Turkey, who's economy is done for due to Chinese cheap products swamping the M.E; is crashed. Jordan is broke (hence they allow the head choppers to be trained on their territory). The U.S is the overlord who wants this project to be implemented so as to deny Russia the European market (see Saudia too).

    Netanyahu has visited Russia 3-4 times (not sure)to dissuade Putin on his support for Bashar ( who said yes to the Friendship pipeline- Running from Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria..to the Mediterranean thru to Greece, Europe). No other World leader makes that many visits is such a short time to another capital. Netanyahu obviously failed in his endeavor, as the Russians are familiar with these Zionist snakes very well. All they have to look at is the genocide perpetrated by said Zionists in their very own 20th Century history. I even read that Putin irked Netanyahu when Putin offered him back the Pale of Settlement if they wanted to make the smart choice. Beautiful if true. Probably wishful thinking tho.

    Anyways, Israel runs the U.S State Department(see, the Crazies in the Basement). They don't call it Foggy Bottom for nothing. Must be foggy now due to too many employess smoking bongs in the downstairs cafeteria, hence the ridiculous memo. Also the writer of the memo is most certainly another member of the chosen tribe.

    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:24:16 PM | 39
    @11, jfl,

    Yes, a 'Night of the Broken Glass' or 'Night of the Long Knives' is much needed to save Humanity essentially. But don't hope for it. Congress, Capital Hill leaders , MSM heads and head anchors, most everybody in the Whit house(except the kitchen staff) would have to be rounded up.

    The only hope would have been the U.S Military Officer Corp. before the great purges post 9-11. Now it's I'm possible. God help the American people and the World.

    bored muslim | Jun 17, 2016 1:32:08 PM | 40
    @20, smoothie,

    This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees.

    Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs.

    jawbone | Jun 17, 2016 1:41:07 PM | 41
    Re: Mike M @ 24 --

    There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie).

    Seven months. If Russia lends more of its strength, is it possible to gain the territory and hold it to the point that, oh, the West's illegal bases will have to close down? Or might the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some version of R2P

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 1:49:25 PM | 44
    State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan. The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"
    sejmon | Jun 17, 2016 2:15:32 PM | 45
    #12 jfl - Thanks..VVP/LAVROV know what they doing
    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 2:56:22 PM | 46
    So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion page on their site. They seem to feel that working for them immerses you in a 'Culture of Leadership'. I guess the 'Culture of Chaos and Death' theme, although more neocon-appropriate, was shot down in favor of tempting potential employees with the possibility of more power and control.

    Offered for your enjoyment and/or revulsion: Congratulations on taking the first step towards your new career!

    Picture Hillary watching streaming video of Stevens get whacked in Benghazi when you read through that list of Leadership and Management Principles.

    rg the lg | Jun 17, 2016 3:17:01 PM | 47
    There are times the depressing mood on MoA is mitigated by some of the rather classic spelling errors. I sometimes wonder if they might be intentional in order to lighten the mood?

    Or not ...

    Counterpunch had a great article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/the-case-for-not-voting-in-defense-of-the-lazy-ungrateful-and-uniformed/

    I think maybe (maybe, I think) this is also good advice regarding posting to blogs, or not?

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 3:39:15 PM | 49
    June 17, 2016 - You cannot make this stuff up ...

    In the inner halls of Pentagramagon nothing succeeds financially like serial designed failure ...

    KABUL, Afghanistan - "The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan has submitted his first three-month assessment of the situation in the war-torn country and what it's going to take to defeat the Taliban, a U.S. military official has told The Associated Press.

    And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground."

    source - http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2016/06/16/afghanistan-nicholson-commander-pentagon-report-war/85972056/

    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 3:59:47 PM | 52
    No respect for R2P warriors at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. Jo Cox as former Oxfam executive was moved by the same massacres of Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Darfur.

    Unwittingly (?) the R2P argument was used by the Obama White House to intervene in Libya and Syria. The US took R2P a step further to force regime change which is illegal by International law. See George Bush and Tony Blair to white-wash the cruelty of torture, rendition, Abu Ghraib, extrajudicial assassinations, etc, etc.

    Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford was an apprentice of John Negroponte in Baghdad, Iraq.

    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 4:00:47 PM | 53
    White Supremacist Hate Crime

    No political motive about the Brexit discussion ... a local incident waiting to happen for more than a decade.

    Thomas Mair a Long Time neo-Nazi of National Alliance

    paul | Jun 17, 2016 4:08:30 PM | 54
    If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams. Russia has clearly allied itself closely to Israel and Nato in Syria. Some kind of sanctions relief deal must be in the works. Syria will be split up soon. Assad is a dead man.

    For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia, supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has been made...

    Les | Jun 17, 2016 4:23:28 PM | 55
    Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-officials-fear-saudi-collapse-if-new-prince-fails-n593996
    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 4:41:44 PM | 56
    "Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear, and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected to terror groups like Al Qaeda. If that sounds like a serious accusation, you're damn right it is."

    "The three questions are very simple, very straightforward, and, frankly, anybody can research the answers themselves. They are:

    1) What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef?

    2) Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust?

    3) Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups that were funding terrorism?"

    source - http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/15/roger-stone-three-questions-huma-abedin-hillary-wont-answer/

    ALberto | Jun 17, 2016 4:49:33 PM | 57
    paul @54

    "If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams."

    Interesting opinion? If you made a list of democratically elected Presidents and National Leaders the US/GB/ISR axis have terminated you will fill a book. From Patrice Lumumba to Hugo Chavez the list goes on and on. Could you supply me with a list of National Leaders that Russia under Putin has terminated?

    PavewayIV | Jun 17, 2016 4:54:52 PM | 58
    State Dept: 'No Plans' to Make Public Memo Urging Strikes on Syrian Gov't
    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - US Department of State has no plans to make public an internal memo calling for the United States to take military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, US Department of State spokesperson John Kirby said in a briefing on Friday. "There's no plans to make it public," Kirby stated when asked when the State Department would release the dissent letter.

    Furthermore, Kirby said there will be no investigation as to how the letter ended up in the public domain.

    By 'public domain', Kirby means on some writer's desk at the NYT, never to be seen by the unwashed masses. To be fair, the State Department's "Dissent Memo" program is supposed to be confidential even within the State Department itself to encourage its use. Mark Landler said in his article that a draft of it was leaked by 'a State Department official' to the NYT. So some skepticism of the existence or eventual submission of the actual memo is warranted. Not that Landry is lying or hasn't verified it, but the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article on the top of the front page .

    Mina | Jun 17, 2016 5:08:46 PM | 60
    Nyt participating in these pressures is coordinated with medecins sans frontiere announcing today that they ll refuse eu money to protest on the treatment of refugees and with recent surge in french and uk msm of so called white helmets exclusive pictured
    Laguerre | Jun 17, 2016 5:24:14 PM | 61
    re 60 mina

    I've not fully understood the refusal of médecins sans frontieres of European funding. It's a major source, I think. They've gone American, I suppose.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 5:24:58 PM | 62
    @ why bother engaging people who change their handle and say the same thing over again?
    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2016 5:27:58 PM | 63
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-cable-idUSKCN0Z3087

    Obama, despite dissent on Syria, not shifting toward strikes on Assad

    The U.S. administration sought on Friday to contain fallout from a leaked internal memo critical of its Syria policy, but showed no sign it was willing to consider military strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces called for in the letter signed by dozens of U.S. diplomats.

    Several U.S. officials said that while the White House is prepared to hear the diplomats' dissenting viewpoint, it is not expected to spur any changes in President Barack Obama's approach to Syria in his final seven months in office.

    One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria."

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 17, 2016 5:32:25 PM | 64
    Posted by: paul | Jun 17, 2016 4:08:30 PM | 54

    It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous it's bullshit.

    lysias | Jun 17, 2016 6:01:45 PM | 66
    Mid-level bureaucrats trying to establish a case for being promoted when and if Hillary becomes president.
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 6:27:23 PM | 67
    @55 Les, 'Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay'

    The Prince is in the Oval office. Looks like the Houthi currency has tanked , Obama is going to ( try to ) pay off in Assad 's?

    South Front's map is finally up to date? Eisenhower follows Truman into the Mediterranean.

    Vollin | Jun 17, 2016 6:37:47 PM | 68

    Wonder how many of these 51 war mongers were appointed by Hillary.

    james | Jun 17, 2016 7:08:01 PM | 69
    How about know-nothing state dept spokespeople preparing for assad to leave to be replaced by isis?
    Oui | Jun 17, 2016 7:10:10 PM | 70
    @Laguerre
    MSF: Nothing remotely humanitarian about EU policies

    The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid. There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises, rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable.

    Last week the European Commission unveiled a new proposal to replicate the EU-Turkey logic across more than 16 countries in Africa and the Middle East.

    These deals would impose trade and development aid sanctions on countries that do not stem migration to Europe or facilitate forcible returns, rewarding those that do. Among these potential partners are Somalia , Eritrea , Sudan and Afghanistan – four of the top ten* refugee generating countries.

    Barbara | Jun 17, 2016 7:35:09 PM | 71
    kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening fast enough. How many others are in the works? I'm running-out-of-patience waiting for the regime change anyone with 1/2 a brain wants, right here in the U.S. Regime Change US. It's our turn. I just read Putin's speech at the St. Petersburg Int'l Forum. He must have used the word "cooperation" at least 20 times. We need such a great leader. Terroristic turds like kerry and co. belong in jail.
    metni | Jun 17, 2016 7:50:24 PM | 72
    The difference between Hillary and ISIS: the latter "takes" the head of enemies, Hillary "gives" head to donors. Forgive the graphic.
    steelhead23 | Jun 17, 2016 7:53:07 PM | 73
    50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? Isn't it enough that this "peaceful" nation arms the world and places economic "pressure" on those nations that displease her to the point of causing millions to die - do we really have to "kill the village to save it?" Yes, I agree, each and every one of those "career diplomats" should be looking for other work. They have not merely lost their way, they have lost their minds. My contempt for them is manifest, as is my contempt for the entire MIC. That those trained in diplomacy should send such a despicable petition illuminates the deep corrupting influence of American Exceptionalism - a force for the kind of nationalism Germany endured 1933-45. Idiots.

    Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully behind much of the world. My objection is that belief in exceptionalism leads to moral decay. It is the functional equivalent of the 19th Century preachers who endorsed slavery, who preached that negroes carried the mark of Cain, etc. Whites were God's chosen. The pseudo-righteousness that preaching created in believers was largely responsible for America's Civil War. Americans will be better people, with a better society, if we dispel this myth immediately. We're OK, you're OK. Then we could have peace. Wouldn't that be nice?

    Enrique Ferro | Jun 17, 2016 7:58:26 PM | 74
    So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists, at war all against all. The Queen of Chaos, indeed, loves these scenarios. Especially because her quick attack as first thing should she win the White House would shut the mouths of her critics wanting her prosecuted for her crooked political and business corruption. But she and her State Department surrogates would be in for a surprise: Russian and Syrian defences would not remain silent. And afterwards, what would be left? How would the Exceptionalist who "gets things done" proceed?
    jfl | Jun 17, 2016 8:28:15 PM | 75
    The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light as has been portrayed.

    Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats.

    I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or whatever their boilerplate.

    Releasing their names might give us the means to track the 5th column as it winds its way through 'our' government, and that must be prevented at all costs. Think it might lead through Hillary? Seems no doubt here.

    Jay M | Jun 17, 2016 8:30:36 PM | 77
    No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony. Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits of challenge/ response in a military confrontation.

    [Jun 15, 2016] Sanders: "We have to replace the current Democratic National Committee leadership

    Notable quotes:
    "... shouldn't ..."
    "... Liberals, unsurprisingly like conservatives, are neoliberals. The left is not. One of the nicer clarifications of the 2016 election so far as been the emergence of this distinction, which the Democrat Establishment will doubtless to haze over. Dayen's attending the Phoenix meeting, and writes: ..."
    "... A lot of liberals are not even aware that they are neolioberals-so effective the morphing has been: ..."
    "... Yes, this is astonishing to me. I threw away my Obama T-shirt years ago but I didn't recognize that there is a Corporate Psy-Ops underway to install Hillary Clinton until this year. I was aware of Neo-Cons back in 2003. But, I wasn't aware of the neo-liberal campaign to crucify the disenfranchised from Greece to mid-America. Deregulation, privatization, free movement of people and capital plus non-stop wars and the resulting chaos are their tools of subjugation and pillaging. ..."
    "... If corporate media wins and the Neo's stay in control, this will become violent. ..."
    "... Agree PP. If and when the "party platform" becomes the litmus test for EVERY party member, then it will serve a unifying purpose. As it stands right now, the REAL party platform is neo-liberalism all day, every day. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    The Trail

    "Hillary ushers her guest to the door. 'We're going to be a great girl squad,' she says, squeezing Warren's hand. 'It will be so easy to beat this airhead. I bet he doesn't even know what Cafta is. Sorry to cut this short. I need to call Tim Kaine. But I will dictate a nice tweet about you'" [MoDo, New York TImes (Carolinian)]. This is very funny. Dowd seems to have returned to form, however temporarily.

    "Clinton, Sanders Hold 'Positive' Meeting After DC Primary" [Talking Points Memo]. "The Clinton statement said that the two talked about 'unifying the party,' but the Sanders statement did not, as NBC News noted." The results of that meeting - attendees Clinton, Podesta, Mook, Sanders, Jane Sanders, Devine - seem to be quite closely held; no leaks that I've encountered as of this writing. Readers? Oh, and it's crossed my mind that "positive" corresponds to "a full and frank exchange of views" in diplospeak. Clever of Sanders to, in essence, give the Clinton campaign a hard deadline by scheduling a video speech for his supporters tomorrow; Sanders will deliver the speech from Vermont, and there are no travel advisories for reporters (here's the tweet for an RSVP, which sadly requires a mobile phone).

    "Bernie Sanders's Democratic Party reforms focus on things that would've helped Bernie Sanders win" [Philip Bump, WaPo]. Oh! Oh! Sanders wants to win! Oh my goodness! This from the guy who thought he had a scoop and a gotcha when the Sanders average contribution jumped from $27 to $29. A good politician wants to win. Sanders is a pretty good politician, considering that he started from zero money and zero name recognition. There seems to be a general assumption in the Beltway that the left shouldn't have any operational skill, shouldn't hire professional staff, shouldn't have any money. Not that they don't; they shouldn't. Hopefully, the Sanders campaign has changed that.

    "Will Hillary Clinton sacrifice Wasserman Schultz to appease Bernie Sanders?" [Orlando Sun-Sentinel]. Depends on what DWS has on Clinton, I guess. Sanders: "We have to replace the current Democratic National Committee leadership. We need a person at the leadership of the DNC who is vigorously supporting and out working to bring people into the political process. Yeah, I know political parties need money. But it is more important that we have energy, that we have young people, that we have working lass [sic (!!)] people who are going to participate in the political process and fight for their kids and for their parents."

    "As the sun set over the capital city, which had the unpleasant distinction of voting after every other state and territory in the country, it was easy to forget how close the 2016 presidential contest came to going sideways for Democratic Party elders" [NBC]. " They had so carefully cleared the way for Clinton to be their next leader. But if a few votes had gone differently in Iowa's exceptionally tight caucus, or if Bernie Sanders had run a more effective campaign in Nevada, the insurgent could have given Clinton a real run for her money." As it were.

    "Will Bernie Sanders Win the Platform?" [David Dayen, The New Republic (GF)]. "Because of the unusually high stakes-and scrutiny-that's come with Sanders's focus on the platform, the hearings that continue this week in Phoenix (with St. Louis and Orlando to follow) have become a kind of public trial on the party's future. If the first week's hearings were any indication, stakeholders are signaling to Clinton that the party's sins of the past will no longer be tolerated." Dayen, unfortunately, confused liberals with the left. Liberals, unsurprisingly like conservatives, are neoliberals. The left is not. One of the nicer clarifications of the 2016 election so far as been the emergence of this distinction, which the Democrat Establishment will doubtless to haze over. Dayen's attending the Phoenix meeting, and writes:

    Listening to the first two days of testimony, I was struck by the witnesses' desire to wake up the political establishment to realities outside the Beltway. Multiple experts and ordinary people testified that the U.S. economy simply isn't working for most of its citizens. And they pointed to some interesting root causes. For example, Sabrina Shrader, Vice President of West Virginia Healthy Kids and Families, blamed oligopolistic electricity companies in her state for high heating costs. "One runs the northern part and another runs the southern part," she said.

    If only the Czar knew? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

    "Bernie Sanders's Down-Ballot Effect" [The Atlantic]. On Lucy Flores. We'll see!

    "Millennials Rage Against the Machine (and Lose)" [Roll Call].

    1. Brindle

      So true. A lot of liberals are not even aware that they are neolioberals-so effective the morphing has been:

      "Liberals, unsurprisingly like conservatives, are neoliberals. The left is not. One of the nicer clarifications of the 2016 election so far as been the emergence of this distinction,"

      Reply
      1. VietnamVet

        Yes, this is astonishing to me. I threw away my Obama T-shirt years ago but I didn't recognize that there is a Corporate Psy-Ops underway to install Hillary Clinton until this year. I was aware of Neo-Cons back in 2003. But, I wasn't aware of the neo-liberal campaign to crucify the disenfranchised from Greece to mid-America. Deregulation, privatization, free movement of people and capital plus non-stop wars and the resulting chaos are their tools of subjugation and pillaging.

        An electoral civil war being waged right now. If corporate media wins and the Neo's stay in control, this will become violent.

      1. YankeeFrank

        Well that was quick. The "Vichy Left" is already plotting to co-opt our revolution and make it palatable to the corrupt DNC leadership and its oligarchic backers.

        1. YankeeFrank

          Huge irony of course being the conceit that the 20-something Millennials who backed Bernie's medicare-for-all, $15/hr min wage, etc., etc., are somehow the mid-90's retreads here and not Clinton and the decrepit and corrupt DNC.

        1. cwaltz

          The pro and con of this particular generation is their cynicism. I wish the DNC lots of luck convincing them to join and stay simply by putting something in their platform like they've done with my generation(and yes I suspect it took me considerably longer than it will probably take my kids to quit the Democratic party.)

          I'm sure the Bernie supporters are going to get graphics, I'm almost as sure that the pretty words will mean fairly little.

      1. grayslady

        The guy who wrote this is a member of a think tank called New America. David Brooks is a member of the Board of Directors. Can we just stop linking to anything from the NYT? The Grey Lady doesn't have a shred of credibility left.

            1. Archie

              Agree PP. If and when the "party platform" becomes the litmus test for EVERY party member, then it will serve a unifying purpose. As it stands right now, the REAL party platform is neo-liberalism all day, every day. (As one of the clever commenters here put it: Eat shit and like it! Or go to bed hungry.)

              It has been the case,since at least the 60s, that politicians regard average citizens as just not smart enough to understand all the nuances of government. Therefore, we should just let the politicians do what they know is "right" and go on about our daily lives. I have been pissed off at this condescending attitude my entire adult life. All of us 90% ers (at least) have been in an abusive relationship with our national and state governments for as long as I care to remember. Every time I have made a contribution to Bernie's campaign, I have sent a personal message that indeed, I do not see this election to be about "Bernie", but for the first time in way, way too long, Bernie has called out the bullshit in that relationship and that is why I support him.

              Hopefully enough others have urged him on for similar reasons and he feels the Bern in all of us. Maybe I'm setting myself up for another Charlie Brown moment, but all I'm looking for at this point is for Bernie to do the right thing. He has spoken much truth to power in this primary cycle, and he has experienced both the brute force of the establishment and the love and sincerity of his supporters. I am only a couple of years younger than Bernie and if it were me, I'd take the f##kers down. This is a defining moment in history and I sense that Bernie knows that. Senate committee chairmanships, etc., are meaningless in the face of the neo-liberal assault that is TPP and TTIP. This is the real end game, imho.

              Reply
    1. Vatch

      The party has failed half of the people who typically vote Democratic. And those are the people who are supporting Bernie.

      Actually, the party has also failed a significant fraction of the people who voted for Hillary Clinton. They should have voted for Sanders, but they didn't know eanough about him (because of the media blackout), or they just continued on auto-pilot and voted for a familiar name. A few might have been voluntarily ignorant (sports, Dancing with the Stars, etc.), but those people usually don't vote in primaries.

    [Jun 12, 2016] Is Trump the lessee evil ? So-called progressive groups have sold out in siding with Clinton

    Is Hillary doomed? Probably considerably mor e Hillary "No passaran" progressives will vote for Trump...than Nevertrumpers republicans will vote for Hillary...
    Notable quotes:
    "... I think the entire point of this article is the absolute truth. In a Trump vs. Clinton race, their is no progressive candidate. ..."
    "... Clinton has pretty much shown herself to be against the masses and for the plutocrats. She lives in a bubble of the super-wealthy and has a disgusting political record of lying, corruption and scandal. She and Bill use political power for whatever idiotic purpose they see fit. They buy the black vote outright through welfare programs that actually keep the black population in the gutter instead of real reforms. ..."
    "... For HRC, the world of politics is merely a world where she can attain her ideal amount of control and power over others. Trump may be a narcissistic asshole, but he doesn't reach this level of sociopathic tendency. He is also completely clueless in politics, which is actually a good thing. ..."
    "... Mark, Politico IS part of corporate media - if you believe otherwise, I've got some lovely swampland in Florida to sell you. ..."
    "... Arthur, if the Green Party gets 5% of the vote, they get federal funding and automatic ballot access - it's a far more attractive option than voting for one evil to stop another form of evil. Using the scary Republican boogeyman didn't work for John Kerry, and it won't work for $Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... I'll vote for Trump over Clinton (if Bernie doesn't get the nomination). More important than even those points above (and 20 others I've researched) I can sum it up so: Trump = maybe war Clinton = war for sure ..."
    "... Clinton wants more ME war. Syria for sure. Maybe Iran. ..."
    "... Trump is vacuous policy free blowhard. Clinton is a war-mongering, duplicitious, corrupt sociopath. Which is worse? Given that choice, she is not the lesser of two evils. ..."
    "... So this is what our political system has given us. The Republican who is involved in fraud litigation on both coasts, and is perhaps involved in up to 3,500 civil cases. Then there is Clinton. Do I believe that she used a private e-mail server to avoid transparency and FOIA? Yes. Do I believe that there was/is a "pay to play" relationship between wealthy corporations, governments and the Clinton Foundation? The circumstantial evidence to me is pretty compelling. Do I think that her foreign policy in places like Honduras, Haiti, and Libya (among others) is misguided? Yes. Do I think that she is too cozy with the big banks? Yes. Do I think that she changes a policy position based on political expediency? Again, yes. ..."
    "... Sanders supporters are already starting to move onto the next step with brandnewcongress.org in an effort to elect more progressives into the legislature. ..."
    "... The biggest chunk of Sanders voters that will go to Trump are the less ideological voters who may agree with Trump on trade and little else, but who despise Clinton and see her as another dishonest, globalist politician, and who more than anything want to shake up both parties in Washington. ..."
    "... HRC is a horrible, self-enriching, dishonest, pandering power hungry politician who is going to lose in November due to an unlikely coalition of Americans who are just fed up with the status quo. ..."
    "... Clinton is an islamophobic racist and viciously anti-Palestinian. She's also a vehement Russophobe. She has no problems with unleashing mass slaughters of innocents so that her friends in big business can increase their already bloated profits. Vote for her by all means. But don't pretend to be a progressive or to speak for progressives. You are not. ..."
    "... Yves Smith sums it up perfectly and we are witnessing this political process in many Western nations, a process whereby much of the electorate is sick and tired of 'neoliberalism' and the greed it sponsers and espouses. For us Brit's, we feel much the same about the Blair's as many in the USA think about the Clinton clan, that is they are greedy buggers more concerned with the depth of their own pockets than their own citizens. Oh, and then we have to add the social justice warrior BS to everything. ..."
    "... As for foreign policy, we'll at least Trump has no blood on his hands and you Clinton suppoters cannot say that of Shrillary I'm afraid to say, who'd welcome WWIII if it meant more coin for her and the elite! ..."
    "... The question remains: why should we progressives accept a Democratic Party that has sold its soul to the 1%? And if we don't accept this, then how does a corrupt party get fixed or replaced? In other words, where is the party to represent the 99%? ..."
    "... So as a lifelong active progressive my question remains - and its not whether Trump supporters are morons - its what alternative do we have to build a corruption-free political movement for the 99% if Sanders is not elected? We should at least separate out the symptoms from the root causes. Perhaps that is too radical of a notion for you, but that will help us figure out where to go next. ..."
    "... Arthur C. Hurwitz LOL. I actually have been working in the trenches for many decades. While that doesn't give me a pipeline to the truth, I at least know an armchair progressive when i see one. I could easily say to you that you have swallowed the Kool aid of "anyone but Trump." But that goes nowhere. ..."
    "... Voting for Trump is an insult to Bernie and all he stands for. It makes no sense at all to vote for Trump to send a message that the Dems are corrupt; it sends the message that the Dems are not corrupt enough! ..."
    "... Why the hell did this article leave out the Green Party as an option??? The Green Party is as Progressive as Bernie. If your conscience won't allow you to vote for Hillary, make your vote count and vote Green. Don't give the GOP a mandate! ..."
    www.politico.com
    Dianne McCarthy . Jun 1, 2016 4:30pm
    So-called progressive groups have sold out in siding with Clinton. Many of these groups have received donations from the Clintons and others are simply too afraid of the DNC's power. Still others like Barney Frank are as corrupt as Clinton is. Lastly, are the ignorant pragmatists who believed the tripe of Bernie's inelectability. With all the cheating going on, Bernie is very close, despite the best efforts of the corporate media, the DNC and Clinton's other attack dogs. My bottom line against her, is that she is a pathological liar, just like Ftrump, so how can anyone believe a word she says?

    Pairc Chuil · Jun 2, 2016 6:06am Works at MassGen

    I won't be voting Trump but won't be voting Clinton either. I've just recently left the Democratic party after having served on committees, volunteered, donated, and canvassed for Democratic candidates my entire voting life. But oligarchy is a bridge too far for me. And yes, I'm highly educated and will vote for Bernie or Green in the GE.

    Brooke Doris ,

    No smart progressive in their right mind would ever vote for Trump. That would mean abandoning all their principles. Pure drivel.

    Gail Newman

    Not true. Trump is more liberal than Hillary in very important areas.

    Dianne McCarthy · Works at Currently Underemployed

    Anyone voting for #ChickenTrump is NOT progressive...really stupid article. "Smart" people understand that #SleazyTrump is just as corrupt as # NeverClinton . He has bragged about buying politicians and has lied and flip-flopped just as much as she has. His racist, sexist and xenophobic comments are deplorable, whether he really believes them or is just pandering to the yokels. His foreign policy naivete and warmongering comments allude to his being, just as bad as #NeverHillary on continuing war. His ignorance of climate change is ridiculous and his comments on it, totally irresponsible. Finally, anyone who votes for a lesser of evils is still voting for evil, to paraphrase Jerry Garcia. Pragmatism is not necessarily intelligence. I'll vote my conscience which is either Bernie or Jill.

    Brian Jennings · Metropolis, Illinois

    Arthur C. Hurwitz , Fracking? War? Workers organizing? Labeling food? Etc...Hillary is not a progressive , she is a Republican.
    I do not want her or Trump picking SCOTUS judges.......

    I think the entire point of this article is the absolute truth. In a Trump vs. Clinton race, their is no progressive candidate.

    Arthur C. Hurwitz

    The problem here is that as much as they might be dissatisfied with the status quo, even justifiably, they lack the awareness that everything could be much worse. Sanders betrayed the most important ideal from his Brooklyn Socialist Jewish background and that is that Fascism is the greatest threat to humanity....

    David Jan West · Northwestern University

    America today is absolutely nothing like Germany post WWI. Please read some history. Comparing Trump to Hitler is like comparing an Orange to Hitler. Our society is not nearly as racist. Our society is thousands of times more diverse than Germany. And, our nationalistic pride is pretty much nowhere these days. I find that more Americans hate America, as in the Government and the corporate culture, than they do a single race. We are not reeling from a disatrous war in which we lost a 3rd of our population and lost a generation of men (and on that point, Obama is the most militaristic president America has ever seen in terms of expanding military budgets and powers, and length of warfare).

    Clinton has pretty much shown herself to be against the masses and for the plutocrats. She lives in a bubble of the super-wealthy and has a disgusting political record of lying, corruption and scandal. She and Bill use political power for whatever idiotic purpose they see fit. They buy the black vote outright through welfare programs that actually keep the black population in the gutter instead of real reforms. They used presidential pardons to get Fillipino votes in New York when Hillary was running for Senate in New York. They have amassed an insane amount of money that should be impossible for a strictly politics couple, have been caught in inside trading schemes, gifting schemes, etc.

    For HRC, the world of politics is merely a world where she can attain her ideal amount of control and power over others. Trump may be a narcissistic asshole, but he doesn't reach this level of sociopathic tendency. He is also completely clueless in politics, which is actually a good thing. Because, the worst people in history are not the idiots, they are those who are smart, ambitious, but have a twisted morality.

    Hitler was not stupid in any way. He nearly managed to pull off eradicating the Jewish and other minority populations in Europe and successfully defeated and invaded the surrounding countries. Stalin was similarly quite astute and dangerously successful. He held Soviet Russia and a good half of Europe in a vicelike grip for 30 years and killed millions in the process. Trump can barely manage to keep his head combed over. I think America will manage just fine.

    Kristin Marie

    More like many progressives will vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party - god forbid another progressive option be mentioned in corporate media.

    Kristin Marie

    Mark, Politico IS part of corporate media - if you believe otherwise, I've got some lovely swampland in Florida to sell you.

    Arthur, if the Green Party gets 5% of the vote, they get federal funding and automatic ballot access - it's a far more attractive option than voting for one evil to stop another form of evil. Using the scary Republican boogeyman didn't work for John Kerry, and it won't work for $Hillary Clinton.

    Gail Newman

    America is a feudal country calling itself a democracy. We evicted feudalism when the nations united in a treaty called the Articles of Confederation. We reinforced that decision after the Constitution, when voter enfranchisement exploded. We were returned to feudalism in 1819 when the Supreme Court through out our Constitutional Republic and replaced it with a Common Law government with itself at the head, serving as dictator (sharing a throne) as well as the nation's God (decider of morality). We don't know that because in America, students in public schools are taught provable lies about our history.

    Bernie is about ending feudalism. Hillary serves the feudal lords and aristocrats. #NeverHillary. If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I'll vote Jill Stein because my state doesn't allow write-ins that would threaten the status quo. If I lived in a blue or swing state, I would vote Trump.

    Jack Albrecht · Lamar University

    I'm an early 50's (I) ex-pat living in Austria. I own 3 flats and have my own company. I've got mine. We've already got democratic socialism here. My son starts university next year. It will cost me nothing additional (just one example).

    I'll vote for Trump over Clinton (if Bernie doesn't get the nomination). More important than even those points above (and 20 others I've researched) I can sum it up so:
    Trump = maybe war
    Clinton = war for sure

    Last year Austria had 85k asylum applications. That is 1% of the population. In. One. Year.

    Clinton wants more ME war. Syria for sure. Maybe Iran. Europe's governments are being destabilized because the people don't when the flood of refugees will end. With Clinton, it is sure to increase. She'd destablize the entire EU, the US's biggest trading partner, just to satisfy her blood lust. Watch the video of "We came, we saw, he died" as Clinton laughs about Ghaddafi's lynching. Disgusting.

    Trump is vacuous policy free blowhard. Clinton is a war-mongering, duplicitious, corrupt sociopath. Which is worse? Given that choice, she is not the lesser of two evils.

    Nadeem Ahmed · Works at Salesforce

    This is one of the dumbest things ever written in the history of man. Every single issue that was written about ignores reality. Obamacare for one - it passed with 1 vote - 1 vote. If they had done single payer it was a snowball in hell. Neither President Obama or President Clinton were dicatators - they needed congress and the senate to get thigs done. If Sanders were somehow to become Presidnet - how in the name of all that is holy will he get single payer through congress and the Senate? At this point the author is dilusional. Significant progress was made under both presidencies. The long arch of history has bended towards justice. The idea that progress is not incremental ignores, common sense, reality and truth. To beleive otherwise is just a way to rationalize you mysogony.

    Fiasco Linguini · Junior Assistant Flunky / Peon at The Galactic Empire

    You make some fair points until you assert that true Progressives who are fed up with our corrupt system are all mysogynists. That's stupider than the article we both dislike. You undermine yourself when you say stupid shit like that.

    Regan Farr Gonzalez · Gig Harbor, Washington

    Insightful article; thank you. The knee-jerk talking points and highly aggressive pushback by Clinton supporters here is a startlingly clear example of how this interesting phenomenon affects our ability to choose: http://billmoyers.com/story/voting-with-their-stone-age-brains/

    Mike Wood · Trout Lake, Washington

    As a 59 year old male with a graduate degree, five grandkids and a professional career, I cannot and will not vote for Hillary Clinton for all the reasons listed in the article. The Bern movement is the wake up call. So wake up. The only obstacle to a more fair and just economy is the Dems who won't get on board. Trump is not the enemy. He is a sideshow. Clinton and all she stands for is the real enemy of meaningful change.

    Bill Bartlett · Indiana University

    On the political spectrum I consider myself a Progressive. Am I one of the "smartest?" I don't know. Yves' blog "Naked Capitalism" is on my daily reading list. There is an important point being overlooked in all of this. It's not just Donald Trump that's part of this election, it's the rest of the Republican party. Here's my take on what a Trump presidency may be like. Like most of his business ventures, the Trump presidency will be merely a brand applied to the broader Republican agenda. Reporting is that Trump is looking for someone to do the parts of the job that he doesn't want to do. Like public policy. He'll rely on the likes of Newt Gingrich (who the author cited earlier) to advise him. Grover Norquist famously said "We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it." Trump will be such a president. A puppet like GW Bush was.

    A Trump election will also mean that the House would definitely remain in GOP hands, and possibly the Senate. If that is true, it's "game over." McConnell would not hesitate to abolish the filibuster. And we'll get every horrible policy that they push now. The ACA (Obamacare) while imperfect, does manage to get more Americans into healthcare. Absent the ACA the worst abuses of the health insurers will return. Policy rescission, denial of coverage, double digit rate increases year after year. Will the Republicans offer an alternative? Not likely. Will Attorney General Chris Christie pursue action against "bathroom laws?" Will he take up voting rights cases? Will Secretary of State Jeff Sessions or John Bolton work for peace? What will happen with the Paris climate accord? Although inadequate IMO, it has at least united the world to start taking action. What will happen with the Iran nuclear agreement? The US may withdraw, but the others will not, isolating us with Israeli warmongers. Despite his public pronouncements, Trump will rubber stamp free trade deals. He will be persuaded by his GOP cohorts that these are actually good for average Americans. And then there is the Supreme Court. The court is effectively nine robed kings and queens whose word is law and they cannot be challenged. Trump has promised more Scalias. The next two vacancies could easily be the liberals Ginsberg and Breyer. Do we want Scalias, young Scalias, in those chairs?

    So this is what our political system has given us. The Republican who is involved in fraud litigation on both coasts, and is perhaps involved in up to 3,500 civil cases. Then there is Clinton. Do I believe that she used a private e-mail server to avoid transparency and FOIA? Yes. Do I believe that there was/is a "pay to play" relationship between wealthy corporations, governments and the Clinton Foundation? The circumstantial evidence to me is pretty compelling. Do I think that her foreign policy in places like Honduras, Haiti, and Libya (among others) is misguided? Yes. Do I think that she is too cozy with the big banks? Yes. Do I think that she changes a policy position based on political expediency? Again, yes.

    But the answer to those issues is not to hand the reins of government to a dangerous, unbalanced, narcissist like Trump and the ghouls in the Republican party. I'd rather that Sanders, and his supporters mobilize with other progressives in Congress (Warren, Franken, Brown, Ellison just to name a few) and keep her on a more progressive path. Sanders supporters are already starting to move onto the next step with brandnewcongress.org in an effort to elect more progressives into the legislature.

    In the meantime we need to stay strong and vote against trade agreements that harm Americans. Withhold support for cabinet members that come from corporate boardrooms.

    Vote against changes/cuts to programs like Social Security and Medicare. Propose legislation to accomplish the goals that will benefit the majority of Americans. Constantly, consistently, and relentlessly push the President to do the right thing. Will we win all of these battles, no. But at least they will be the right battles and we will win some of them.

    Peter Meyer

    I disagree with the premise that true liberals will vote for Trump in large numbers. The biggest chunk of Sanders voters that will go to Trump are the less ideological voters who may agree with Trump on trade and little else, but who despise Clinton and see her as another dishonest, globalist politician, and who more than anything want to shake up both parties in Washington.

    About 1/3 of Bernie voters will vote for Trump, 1/3 for HRC and 1/3 won't vote at all. HRC is a horrible, self-enriching, dishonest, pandering power hungry politician who is going to lose in November due to an unlikely coalition of Americans who are just fed up with the status quo.

    Alexander Sebastian Ruiz · Austin, Texas

    Doug Von This author claims that most of their followers would either sit out or vote for Trump over Hillary during this election because they are both just as bad. Racism exists among all races. But Trump has made it clear that his racism does not extend towards two very specific categories: White and Christian. Therefore those with the least to lose by him winning an election during this season are people who fall under both of those banners. Not all Whites are racists and I believe this person is exaggerating about their following, but their argument leads me to the conclusion that they are White. I know several people of different races who are just as unimpressed by Clinton, some outright hating her, but, and this is unfortunate for the way this election has played out, they will vote for Clinton because its become a matter of how their basic rights could be curtailed under a Trump Presidency, not just our coutry's very problematic financial systems.

    John Giles

    Clinton is an islamophobic racist and viciously anti-Palestinian. She's also a vehement Russophobe. She has no problems with unleashing mass slaughters of innocents so that her friends in big business can increase their already bloated profits. Vote for her by all means. But don't pretend to be a progressive or to speak for progressives. You are not.

    Chris Rogers · "The Boss" at My Own Business Institute

    There seem to be some seriously deluded Clinton nutters posting on this story, but fact remains Yves Smith sums it up perfectly and we are witnessing this political process in many Western nations, a process whereby much of the electorate is sick and tired of 'neoliberalism' and the greed it sponsers and espouses. For us Brit's, we feel much the same about the Blair's as many in the USA think about the Clinton clan, that is they are greedy buggers more concerned with the depth of their own pockets than their own citizens. Oh, and then we have to add the social justice warrior BS to everything.

    I'm proud I worked for a Jeremy Corbyn election victory within the UK's Labour Party last year - a honest man like Sanders, both of whom represent a threat to the status quo, and as such, much maligned by neoliberals and the media. Still, the revolution will come and business as usual is now not an option, unless you want your homes three feet under water due to global warming, that's if you are lucky to have a roof over your head. As for foreign policy, we'll at least Trump has no blood on his hands and you Clinton suppoters cannot say that of Shrillary I'm afraid to say, who'd welcome WWIII if it meant more coin for her and the elite!

    Mark Anderlik · Union organizer at Union

    Arthur C. Hurwitz The question remains: why should we progressives accept a Democratic Party that has sold its soul to the 1%? And if we don't accept this, then how does a corrupt party get fixed or replaced? In other words, where is the party to represent the 99%?

    Arthur C. Hurwitz

    Mark Anderlik It isn't about what you accept or don't accept. It is what there is and the actually to be realized potential outcomes. If the Democratic Party "sold its soul" or not. It still is far more progressive on many issue than Trump and the Republican Party will ever be. Moreover, a President Trump will be a disaster for our country and for many of its citizens, and of course, the world. If you can't see that, you obviously don't know anything about the rise of Fascism in Europe during the 1930's.

    Mark Anderlik · Union organizer at Union

    Arthur C. Hurwitz You need to reread this article. Seriously. It is not a call for progressives to vote for Trump. And Yves is no "nutjob," far from it. I am a daily reader of her blog and I learn way more about finance, economics and politics from a progressive perspective that from many "progressive" news shows on MSNBC and the like.

    The point is it is precisely because of corrupt politicians like Clinton, and many parts of the Democratic Party, that fascist politicians like Trump have and will emerge. I am a Sanders supporter and will never vote for Trump. But if you can't see Trump's emergence as a true fascist candidate has at its root the corruption and hypocrisy of the "progressive" parties, then you are not seeing what is before your eyes. Read a little Chomsky if you want to open your eyes. We are now witnessing today a re-emergengce of fascism - one also almost won in Austria, and others are also emerging in the "advanced" countries.

    And it is, in the end, what you and I, and millions of others, do and don't accept. That is the very core of real progressive politics - that a better world can be made for all people (and other living things) through conscious, intentional, and collective human action.

    So as a lifelong active progressive my question remains - and its not whether Trump supporters are morons - its what alternative do we have to build a corruption-free political movement for the 99% if Sanders is not elected? We should at least separate out the symptoms from the root causes. Perhaps that is too radical of a notion for you, but that will help us figure out where to go next.

    Mark Anderlik · Union organizer at Union

    Arthur C. Hurwitz LOL. I actually have been working in the trenches for many decades. While that doesn't give me a pipeline to the truth, I at least know an armchair progressive when i see one. I could easily say to you that you have swallowed the Kool aid of "anyone but Trump." But that goes nowhere.

    I also know what vision I have for a better society is supremely relevant for how I decide to act in this crazy time. Yes, not only do I believe in the vision of "by the people and for the people" I also believe that it is the only effective way of creating a better world for the 99%. I find it difficult to see what you would fight for, besides the right to post smarmy commentary to avoid fascism. Prove me wrong. Tell us your vision of how we get to a political party that is corruption-free that serves the interests of the 99%.

    Fiasco Linguini · Junior Assistant Flunky / Peon at The Galactic Empire

    Voting for Trump is an insult to Bernie and all he stands for. It makes no sense at all to vote for Trump to send a message that the Dems are corrupt; it sends the message that the Dems are not corrupt enough!

    And withholding your vote is not defiance, it's surrender!

    Why the hell did this article leave out the Green Party as an option??? The Green Party is as Progressive as Bernie. If your conscience won't allow you to vote for Hillary, make your vote count and vote Green. Don't give the GOP a mandate!

    Julian Castor

    Bernie and Trump coming up in 2016 is no coincidence.

    Their unexpected political success is simply a result of the appallingly -- and consistently -- egregious performance by both major parties and their ruling elites.

    Yancey Tobias · University of Delaware

    Excellent perspective from the consistently clear eyed Smith------i have been saying the same thing since the campaign started. There is no way any progressive should vote for Clinton---she simply is not progressive nor morally credible.

    [Jun 11, 2016] Gaius Publius Puerto Rico Democratic Party Reduced Primary Votes to 8% of What Was Expected

    This is not a Democratic Party. Far from that. This is party of neoliberal bottom feeders
    naked capitalism
    By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . Originally published at at Down With Tyranny . GP article here

    Just three facts and a video. You can add them up as easily as I can.

    1. Puerto Rican officials expected 700,000 people to vote in the 2016 Democratic primary. Think Progress, from a much longer article :

    [A]n estimated 700,000 Puerto Ricans will vote this Sunday[.]

    That's a lot of voters.

    The Democratic Party cut the number of polling places by two-thirds, from more than 1500 to less than 500. In addition, because there were two simultaneous elections - one for local officials and one for the presidential race - voters had to go to two separate locations if they wanted to cast both ballots. Then the Party cut the voting hours, the window of time during which any voting could be done.

    A longer clip from the same Think Progress article (my emphasis):

    In early May, Puerto Rico's Democratic Party announced that more than 1,500 polling places would be available for the island's June 5 Democratic primary. A few weeks later, they slashed that number to just over 430 - a reduction of more than two thirds.

    In 2008, the island's last competitive Democratic primary, there were more than 2,300 polling places.

    Some are warning of long lines and voters left unable to access the ballot box, as an estimated 700,000 Puerto Ricans will vote this Sunday, and polling places will only be open from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m . .

    Worse, many voters will have to visit two separate locations to cast ballots in the presidential primary and the local primaries held the same day. Voter turnout and engagement has for years been much higher on the island than in the 50 U.S. states, but these changes may present too heavy a burden for low-income residents who lack transportation options or who need to work.

    Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are up in arms about the polling place reductions, calling it a "fix" and drawing parallels to Arizona's disastrous primary . Arizona's most populous county closed two-thirds of its polling locations ahead of its April primary, forcing some voters to wait in line more than six hours to cast a ballot.

    They got the result they wanted .

    3. The number of votes actually cast in the Democratic presidential primary totaled just over 60,000 . If my math is correct, that about 8% of the expected total, or a voter suppression rate of 92%. Again, the Puerto Rico Democratic Party, all good loyal Democrats I'm sure, suppressed 92% of their own vote, by reducing voting locations and hours.

    Why? You decide. My answer? Too much democracy for the "Democratic" Party.

    ... ... ...

    How corrupt is the current leadership, top to bottom, of many of the arms of the Democratic Party? Looks like "very" to me. The willingness to corrupt the process seems to exist at many of the state and county committees as well. (It's not a conspiracy if you don't have to tell the county committeewoman what to do, if she already knows, in other words, when and where to stick in the knife.)

    How determined is the Democratic Party to commit seppuku on a national electoral stage? Same answer. Flying high on hubris usually lead to a crash landing. Pride and a fall.

    For more on the situation in Puerto Rico, check out this short video, made just before the election.

    Looks like the Clinton-led Democratic Party isn't even trying to hide this stuff any more. Looks like they don't think they need to.


    flora , June 8, 2016 at 10:06 am

    Clinton practiced her ground game in Haiti and Ukraine.

    Jim Haygood , June 8, 2016 at 1:17 pm

    Jeb! offered some helpful tips too, from his successful Florida effort in 2000.

    All in the family!

    marym , June 8, 2016 at 10:20 am

    Final vote count still not reported for Puerto Rico. CBS and CNN showing the same vote counts, CBS calling it 59% reporting, CNN 69%

    TheCatSaid , June 8, 2016 at 10:29 am

    I learned a lot from this short clip linked by NC reader Bev.

    I learned more from the full video at trustvote.org The RICO lawsuit filed by Bob Fitrakis and Cliff Arnebeck deserves attention. They are highly experienced election lawyers. Their evidence and legal strategy is explained in the video.

    The new report "Fraction Magic" at blackboxvoting.org has more bombshells.
    And the recent Greg Palast revelations about the issues with the NPP ballots in CA.

    AND–short video clips from many of the top experts in US election fraud are at lawyer Bob Fitrakis' website . These are all people with lengthy experience documenting election irregularities of many kinds, including but not limited to the tactics for voter disenfranchisement used in Puerto Rico.

    And guess what–the election consultant hired by Trump was a key player in past election irregularities.

    Since the late 1990s in many (most?) places we have not had true elections, we've had competitions in vote rigging by multiple parties and interests, using a wide range of tactics and technology.

    Bev , June 8, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    To TheCatSaid from TheDogHowled-Bev, so true. And, Bev Harris has more bomshells: I am going there now, but to let you know some of your links do not work. It's time to get back our democracy from the criminals rigging our elections.

    Wasn't the last protest at a Trump rally, which usually promotes violence against protesters, this time instead had protesters turning violent against Trump backers, found out later to be Clinton's people? Isn't that correct? There is your preview of how these anti-democracy, authoritarian leaders intend to win as TheCatSaid, by rigging the vote in many ways, accusing each other of rigging and violence, and by beating the crap out of each other, a la brown shirts. NO.

    To all sports fans, the following will change our future for the better by rescuing our democracy and our kids.

    With some few edits, via: http://www.forums.mlb.com/discussions/Chicago_Cubs/General/ml-cubs/1?tsn=77&tid=443191&redirCnt=1&nav=messages
    The GOP's new plan for voter suppression

    via: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/05/28/democratic-primaries-is-clinton-leading-by-3-million-votes/
    Democratic Primaries: Is Clinton leading by 3 million votes?
    Richard Charnin

    BREAKING NEWS: Election Attorney Cliff Arnebeck filed a major RICO racketeering lawsuit June 6, 2016 against the voting machine companies whose code that fractionalized votes and so delegate distribution was found by Bev Harris ( http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/
    Fraction Magic – Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers ), and against the media that was complicit in covering up the crime of election theft by adjusting the exit polls to match the fraudulent voting machine counts which was found by Richard Charnin and Beth Clarkson ( http://showmethevotes.org/ ).

    This is a Very Strong RICO lawsuit involving State and Federal Courts, involving current and past election crimes, that importantly involves ALL THE STATES, that means Illinois, Cub fans, for the collection of evidence to determine the correct vote counts, and delegate counts.

    Arnebeck says that by the time of the Republican Convention which is before the Democratic Convention, that this RICO racketeering lawsuit will have changed history, and the minds of politicians and the public so that the true winner, Bernie Sanders, will be demanded. What a great legacy.

    See the short video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IAJ5fAm3Cs
    http://trustvote.org/

    PROTECTING OUR ELECTIONS
    Bob Fitrakis, Cliff Arnebeck and Lori Grace
    ..

    NYT, Ap and other media are reporting that Hillary has "clinched" the nomination. They, having jumped the shark, want to tell you how she did it. Now they can tell a judge how they did it because the media have been RICOed.

    Attorney Cliff Arnebeck says it does not matter what the media says or Hillary Clinton says, the law, this RICO case will prevail. This will save our Democracy.

    Today is a great day. Today is the beginning of getting our democracy back.

    Thanks to all election integrity people who so trust regular people to create a better future for us all, that you fight for a democracy. What a great day.

    snip

    Please spread this important RICO event all around everywhere. Because, I think the media will have a hard time reporting that they have been sued for racketeering. We will have to report widely.

    RUKidding , June 8, 2016 at 10:33 am

    We're supposed to feel victorious that Maggie Thatcher, uh, Hillary Clinton allegedly "won" the D Primary all fair and square. To suggest that shenanigans happened means that I'm a putative Bernie Bro who is clearly clueless, stupid, worthless and should STFU.

    Oh well. C'est la vie. Hillary was certainly bound to be inevitable this time around by hook or by CROOK.

    IMO, the PTB were much more worried about Bernie Sanders than Trump. Clinton? Eh, Hillary's their fair haired girl. The rightwing noise machine may vent and spew about Clinton, but pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Clinton's the poodle of Wall St, the Hedgies, the MIC. CHA CHING!!

    The masses can content themselves with the glass ceiling allegedly having been broken. Whoopee.

    different clue , June 9, 2016 at 12:18 am

    The TIFFANY glass ceiling. The Tiffany Glass Ceiling that Upper Class feminists of privilege want the rest of us to care about even though we are dealing with Cinder Block Ceilings of our own.

    Pepe Aguglia , June 8, 2016 at 10:46 am

    Although Bernie never had a chance of getting the nomination (not because he couldn't win enough votes but because the party would have never nominated him even if he had won every single state primary), he has performed a great public service by exposing what a sordid farce the Democratic party is. For this, I am eternally grateful to the Bernster. It is now clear for all to see, if there was any doubt previously, that We the People will never be able to overthrow the plutocracy until we drive a stake through the Democratic Party's heart and stick a fork in its bloated carcass.

    YankeeFrank , June 8, 2016 at 11:07 am

    Yes, the greatest betrayer of a cause is all too frequently the guy right next to you. The one who says he is on your side. The "liberals" were always going to be the revolution's most dangerous foes.

    I visited that extremely mixed bag of a blog "lawyersgunsandmoney" yesterday just to see how they'd been covering the Dem primary and was not let down at all. They attempted to skewer Yves' politico piece with glib and snide inline comments that fell completely flat, but I think my favorite comment was when the author of the piece used Obama's recent words on expanding social security as proof that the Dem establishment is becoming more progressive. I mean, there is room for argument about tactics for moving the Dems to the left, but if we are going to pretend that Obama hasn't spent the past 7 years trying to gut social security in order to "save" it, and that his recent empty words signify anything more than a pathetic 11th hour attempt to get in front of the revolution and call it his parade, then our worldviews are just fundamentally irreconcilable.

    jhallc , June 8, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    I saw that yesterday and having never been to that site before and given the site's name, I had a very different expectation about it's leanings. I immediately realized they were shilling for Hillary. Wonder how Warren Zevon would feel about his lyrics being used for neoliberal propoganda.

    YankeeFrank , June 8, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    The site is definitely mixed tho, not all bad. What confuses me the most is their hostility to those who see incrementalism as a fraud, but I guess thats because they truly think its the only thing that works (history be damned). I remember I lost patience with them when they started celebrating Janet Yellen's appointment over Larry Summers. I pointed out that while she is better than him she is still a complete neoliberal tool and wont change anything. They couldn't handle that apparently. Honestly, when it comes to econ they don't know what they don't know. Its a major blind spot for them esp. given Obama's major betrayals have been economic.

    Still, Erik Loomis' posts on labor history are very interesting.

    NotoriousJ , June 8, 2016 at 11:23 pm

    Zevon would not have been amused. However, he may have given permission to use his lesser known classic "my shit's fucked up" – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHDdqubE7zQ

    Carla , June 8, 2016 at 11:48 am

    "he has performed a great public service by exposing what a sordid farce the Democratic party is. For this, I am eternally grateful to the Bernster."

    Not to take anything away from Bernie, but Obama has been doing this for the last seven and a half years!

    Punxsutawney , June 8, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    Indeed, the over the top TPP/TTIP shilling makes me want to puke.

    Steve C , June 8, 2016 at 1:26 pm

    But he's so smooth. And he's such a great husband and father. And he's friends with JayZee and Beyoncé. How could such a nice young man be lying to us about the TPP?

    polecat , June 8, 2016 at 5:06 pm

    nothing 'nice' about him, save his smooth, conniving words --

    jfleni , June 8, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    Although it's early yet, after the right, royal, hosing Bernie has gotten since he started, he should realize that Doctor Stein is progressing well on getting Greens on all state ballots, and consider carefully her offer to run with them.

    A presidential election has much less room for the slimy tricks we have seen so much of, and the turd Democrats will be flushed down the toilet of history, as Bernie puts his program into action.

    AnEducatedFool , June 8, 2016 at 11:03 am

    I am still numb. My anger will come back later today but there is no effective outlet in this part of the country other than the internet.

    Morning Joe was comparing Sanders to RFK especially after seeing the crowds in Puerto Rico then California. Instead of assassinating Sanders they simply stole the election. I think Sanders will pull a move similar to Jerry Brown in 1992.

    It also looks like Warren will get the nod for VP so the Democrats can have two former Republicans running for President and the Libertarians will have two former Republicans and the Republicans will have a former Democrat running on their ticket.

    I do not think that people realize that Elizabeth Warren is hated by dedicated Bernie supporters. Only a fraction of the 25% that say they will not vote for Clinton will change their mind based on Warren. Many others will vote for Stein, Johnson and in competitive states they may vote for Trump just to keep her out of office.

    And the media, the fucking media, they are going to point to that absurd "foreign policy" speech as the turning point for Clinton.

    pretzelattack , June 8, 2016 at 11:24 am

    so if we want the closest thing to a democrat we have to vote republican? i'm so confused. i'm looking for somebody that didn't support reagan, the iraq war or the trade treaties.

    Carla , June 8, 2016 at 11:50 am

    Vote for Jill Stein.

    pretzelattack , June 8, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    she is the closest to me politically, but right now i'm thinking what is the most effective way to pry off the suckers of the vampire squid, and some of the criticisms of the green party i've read on nc make me wonder–long term we have to have another party, agreed. put me in the "8 more years of this neoliberal bullshit is a disaster" camp.

    Optic , June 8, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    I just started following this site a couple of days ago. I'm curious to hear what are some of the criticisms of the green party that have been voiced here.

    redleg , June 8, 2016 at 12:55 pm

    Very little downticket ground game, for starters.

    flora , June 8, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    In my state the Green Party isn't on the presidential ballot.
    My state's recognized presidential parties are the Democratic Party, Libertarian Party, and Republican Party.

    In my state the rules are:
    "To obtain official recognition in[my state], party organizers must submit a petition that contains signatures of voters registered in the state and abides by the petition regulations outlined in [my state's] law. The total number of valid signatures required for a successful petition is equal to 2 percent of the total votes cast for all candidates for governor in the most recent general election for governor.
    "There are two requirements for recognized political parties to maintain their official status with the state. At each general election for national and state offices, parties must: (a) nominate a candidate for at least one office that is elected statewide (e.g., governor, commissioner of insurance or state treasurer), and (b) at least one such candidate of the party must receive at least 1 percent of the total votes cast in the election for that office ."

    Voting for Stein as a write-in won't have any effect on the Green Party's viability as competitive party. There's a lot of dogged groundwork that would need to be done, that hasn't been done, and from what I see isn't being done in my state. Other states may have done that work and I'd love to see a Green elected to congress from one of those states, or elected to state office in one of those states.

    Unorthodoxmarxist , June 8, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    As a longtime Green, former candidate and professional campaign manager, I have to say that developing a "ground game" for downticket races is extremely difficult when you are not running as a Democrat/Republican and have little support from the professional orgs that usually provide cash or people (PACs/Labor). We've often done well with what we have, but until there's a serious break from the Dems and those people who have wasted their time for decades trying to reform that party come over to us in a serious way, the left will continue to spin its wheels.

    bob , June 8, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    The history of the greens is a good start for any reform minded individual. It shows just how much work is required, and where.

    Hint- It ain't twitter.

    Steve C , June 8, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    Passage of instant runoff voting in Maine in November would be a sea change for the Greens and other third parties. Unless there is something wrong with this particular referendum, this is something NCers should follow and support.

    jrs , June 8, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    yes

    lyman alpha blob , June 8, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    Worked with the Greens in my state until I discovered that they were unorganized and corrupt. That last one was the deal-breaker for any further involvement from me. They'd cooperate with the right wing to stick it to the Dems which is a very stupid strategy if you're looking for more progressive outcomes. Stealing clean election funds to run unviable candidates didn't sit well with me either.

    Carla , June 8, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    Vote third parties to help them maintain ballot access. We're going to need them.

    washunate , June 8, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    The foreign policy speech is an interesting marker in another way, though. Through the primary season, there was some effort to downplay Clinton's hawkishness, to distance her from the neoconservatives, to ridicule Sanders on trying to make foreign policy distinctions.

    That speech put that effort to rest. She openly embraced the war on terror specifically and the whole neoconservative interventionist mindset more generally.

    Teejay , June 8, 2016 at 9:56 pm

    I'm a "dedicated Bernie supporter" and I don't "hate" Warren. She's fandamtastic and it would be a colossal waste of her talent to have her VP.
    She has far more power in the Senate than she would have as VP. Heh may be the abbreviation really stand for veal pen.

    ladycurmudgeon , June 8, 2016 at 10:20 pm

    I don't dislike Warren. I thought the reason they might pick her as VP candidate is to neutralize her. She is active in the Sen. VP goes to funerals.

    different clue , June 9, 2016 at 12:23 am

    I must not be a DEDicated Bernie supporter because Warren is not hated by me. I hope she stays in the Senate and keeps doing her focused work against certain FIRE sector perpetrators and cover-lending regulators.

    It would be a shame if she accepted the VP nomination with Clinton. The SS Clinton is a ship I would rather see Warren NOT go down with.

    Otis B Driftwood , June 9, 2016 at 8:53 am

    I respect and admire Warren, but adding her to the ticket won't make a difference for me in November. Indeed, quite the opposite as she is/would be more effective as a senator than veep. #NeverTrump #NeverHIllary #NoneOfTheAbove

    TheCatSaid (aka "TheCatSquid") , June 8, 2016 at 11:12 am

    OMG, OMG, OMG. I've just watched this short video clip of Bev Harris explaining what was discovered in just recent months.

    I've never heard the story in this way and seen the time line. It started by looking at local elections, and uncovered something HUGE in the last few months.

    This affects thousands of voting jurisdictions in the USA. (And outside the USA, too–wherever this popular vote tabulating software is used, by a range of voting machine companies.)

    And now we'll have to listen to political analysts trying to figure out why X candidate did so well or so poorly in location ABC. If you watch this video (and the other videos at the Fitrakis link above, too) you'll see that our election results do not necessarily have any relation to actual votes.

    No matter how much I thought I knew about election irregularities, this is shocking . It is widespread . We should be talking about election fraud–and doing something about it–instead of wasting our time trying to understand what are fictionalized election results.

    Edward Qubain , June 8, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    After watching that disgusting video I feel like everyone should just publicly declare their votes and compare a public tally with the electronic voting results.

    hunkerdown , June 8, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    Blockchains are good for something.

    TheCatSaid , June 8, 2016 at 8:43 pm

    Preserving voter anonymity is important for a host of reasons. It's one of the reasons electronic voting is maybe impossible to do well.

    What works well is hand-counting paper ballots in public (with multiple observers who are concerned citizens–not election staff) in the precinct location where they were cast. It's also really fast!

    Another solution is to scan all the actual ballots at the voting precinct and make them available to the public online so anyone who wants to can count & check the results for themselves.

    Receipts are worse than nothing–potential for selling your vote, and doesn't guarantee your vote was counted the same way it was cast. Any solution has to enable observers to monitor ALL the ballots, not just their own.

    Lambert Strether , June 8, 2016 at 10:49 pm

    All very true. The additional nice thing about hand counting paper ballots in public is that it's an opportunity for civic conviviality, at least afterward. I remember the Quebec referendum - 6 million population, votes counted in an evening, and some chicanery promptly exposed. Very much unlike this country!

    Edward Qubain , June 8, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    Ordinarily voting should be anonymous. I am thinking here about what citizens can do when they think their vote has been stolen and the crooked government will not investigate the problem. Where I live the voting is electronic and there is no paper ballot as far as I can tell. If, say, there was a precinct where there was evidence of cheating and the public wanted to do something they could attempt to compile a public tally of how people voted and compare it with the electronic results. Even an incomplete list could reveal a problem.

    Edward Qubain , June 8, 2016 at 11:32 am

    It is not obvious to me why fewer voting locations translates into a Clinton win. The locations would need to be chosen to favor Clinton voters over Sanders voters. More details are needed.

    At the rate this sorry campaign is going, only millionaires and T.V. pundits will be able to vote.

    Tertium Squid , June 8, 2016 at 11:47 am

    This isn't Clinton v. Sanders anymore. This is about the sort of participation the party wants from American citizens.

    flora , June 8, 2016 at 11:50 am

    Clinton wins the early mail-in votes. Suppress the day-of votes to make sure the mail-in votes count the most. And if that still doesn't work stop the counting and have the MSM declare her the winnah!

    flora , June 8, 2016 at 11:51 am

    adding: first time voters almost never do mail-in voting.

    TheCatSaid , June 8, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    Also, mail-in / absentee ballots are one of the easiest ways to perpetrate fraud.

    If you look at the Bev Harris clip, where she reads out the specifications of the coding job, they include attaching a unique bar code for every specific voter. (Strictly illegal but there you go.) The code allowing for weighting each race (and each voter, or each demographic–as specific as you like) makes it possible to weight multiple races across multiple districts in seconds .

    The code in question is in use in the tabulating computers (the ones that accumulate the results from various machines and jurisdictions) all over the country.

    Edward Qubain , June 8, 2016 at 1:19 pm

    " attaching a unique bar code for every specific voter"

    Wow– so much for having an anonymous ballot.

    Edward Qubain , June 8, 2016 at 1:17 pm

    Hi flora,

    That makes sense but is it enough to explain such a lopsided Clinton vote?

    Arizona Slim , June 8, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    That is what happened here in AZ. The Hillster won the mail-in votes and then there was massive suppression on primary day.

    hunkerdown , June 8, 2016 at 3:07 pm

    "Disqualify, defeat, put the Party back together later" - didn't think she meant us, did we?

    TheCatSaid , June 8, 2016 at 8:49 pm

    "It is not obvious to me why fewer voting locations translates into a Clinton win. The locations would need to be chosen to favor Clinton voters over Sanders voters."

    Yes, that's exactly what happened. When voting machine numbers are reduced, it is done in carefully chosen locations to achieve a specific goal.

    Ironically, the first time I tried to vote, as a university student, there were long lines and after more than an hour I had to leave because I had something that I could not miss. At the time I had no idea this kind of thing could have happened deliberately.

    In the current primary, my mother showed up to vote and found out the voting location had changed, but she hadn't been notified. It was too late in the day for her to find out and get to the new location. It never occurred to her that this kind of thing could have been deliberate.

    This kind of thing can be devastatingly effective. Puerto Rico is an exaggerated version of a tactic that's been used by both parties for 16 years or more.

    TheCatSaid , June 8, 2016 at 8:54 pm

    I should have clarified better. By reducing the machines most acutely in the poorest, most crowded areas Sanders' share of the vote was impacted more than Clinton's. I saw a video talking about this some days before the actual primary. The reduction in poll opening hours also impact the poorest voters the most, the implication being that those were the voters trending towards Sanders.

    Lambert Strether , June 8, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    "I saw a video." Oh.

    different clue , June 9, 2016 at 12:30 am

    For charges this severe about a problem this serious, we need to be able to demonstrate that the video you saw is a "real" video rather than an "O'keefe" video.

    dc , June 8, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    The Vulture Vote

    NYPaul , June 8, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    Not meant to be absurd or perfectly analogous,

    but,

    just as the National Socialist German Worker's Party couldn't be reformed

    neither can

    The Democrats or Republicans.

    Walk away, start anew

    Lambert Strether , June 8, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    700,000 vs. 60,000?

    Let it never be said the Democrat Party is not effective!

    cassandra , June 8, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    Although TheCatSaid mentioned him above, unsung but deserving investigative reporter Greg Palast , deserves mention on his own. In addition to the CA shenanigans, he has been documenting election fraud on a continuing basis for over a decade. Don't be put off by his sensationalist style. Many of his revelations are truly unique; see, for example, his comparison of BP's operations in the Caspian in Ajerbaijan with the Gulf of Mexico fiasco.

    TheCatSaid , June 8, 2016 at 8:36 pm

    You're right. Palast has done amazing investigative work on many crucial issues.
    * His revelations about the fracking accidents in the Caspian that preceded the Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf were damning (in order to get the license to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP had lied on its application by stating that they had not had any accidents)
    * His uncovering of the deliberate negligence and economic interests that led to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina
    * His detailed work on vote purging in Florida and elsewhere

    His saucy style belies the devastating amount of detail he routinely uncovers.
    And he is absolutely fearless.

    Teejay , June 8, 2016 at 10:14 pm

    I am put off my his sensationalistic style. It hurts his credibility. He covers important issues which I applaud him for. Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a Nick Danger sketch.

    digi_owl , June 8, 2016 at 6:29 pm

    The banana republic has come home to roost

    ballard , June 9, 2016 at 2:41 am

    "What some people don't understand is that the privatization of the surveillance state, the collection of all your information like phone calls, emails, Tweets, comments online, communication in your car, communication in your home, Facebook turning on the mic on your phone so they can listen to you throughout the day all this information is USED by someone.

    One way they may use it, could be to figure out how you are going to vote. And that may determine whether or not your name is "mistakenly" left off a voter role when you go to cast your vote."

    More from Scott Creighton on the California election fraud:

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/california-election-fraud/

    Luis E. Pacheco , June 9, 2016 at 5:59 pm

    Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States. We cannot vote for the president. We have no vote in Congress, supposedly only 'voice'. So the very notion of participating in the primaries for people for whom we are not allowed to actually vote, is the height of hypocrisy.

    [Jun 10, 2016] Lets make make the Democratic party pay for their neoliberal orientation, luxuriant insularity and hubris

    Notable quotes:
    "... If they focused on party building efforts that would result in actual political power - such as winning effective state legislative blocs outside their safety demographics (who don't show up for them as it is), or running a strong gubernatorial campaign in a state like, say, Oregon that garnered lots of attention from potential supporters, they'd be in a much stronger position to begin building more than a mixed medley of long-time dedicatees, but to attract (as Sanders has) progressive Democrats, Independents, and others to the prospect of a national party with something to show for itself. ..."
    "... On the other hand, the threat of voting for Trump over Clinton, or simply not voting for Clinton, does send a very strong message that, if they fail to take it seriously, will instill the 'fear of God' in the party (as well as further seriously piss them off). ..."
    "... Sitting still for corporate malfeasance is exactly the "bad faith" by which people are rejecting the Establishment candidates. ..."
    "... I would suggest, as hunkerdown did, that Sanders should realize there's no honor among thieves. As per usual, the establishment often leverages a person's "integrity" for their own aims. ..."
    "... Hillary is a murderer (by proxy of course), a liar, a receiver of bribes - the so-called "Queen of Chaos". That's not the sort of person you ever, in good conscience, support. ..."
    "... Clinton is a predator and her operation exists to assimilate progressives like Sanders and his supporters by using their good intentions and faith in humanity against them. Installing his lieutenants on party platform committees or paying lip service to a $15 minimum wage is all in a day's work considering Clintonistas have no intention of following through on any ideological construct outside the ever increasing accumulation of wealth and power. ..."
    "... If Sanders fights Trump and "supports" Hillary by raising his own money for downticket Dems like Canova, and in addition does stuff like stumping against fracking and for single payer in Colorado, that might not be so bad. ..."
    "... I think that Yves also made a superb point in her essay - those of us who have been reading NC have developed a far more sophisticated (I would even say 'principled') opposition to the kind of neoliberal incrementalism that Clinton personifies. ..."
    "... "Incrementalism" -> "excrementalism." Fixed it for ya. ..."
    "... Yeah Obama pretty much laid the once potent "but the Supreme Court ZMOG!!!" argument to rest for good when he nominated a Republican. I mean what's even the point of voting Democrat at this juncture? ..."
    "... A Clinton candidacy would be toxic for Dem. candidates down the whole ballot. Hillary is trying to win over scared/disgusted republicans to vote for a corporatist anti-Trump, despite their years of anti-Clinton conditioning. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    DaGraDix
    Relax, you're not being attacked, you don't need to accuse Yves of hypocrisy just because she disagrees with you over reasons she provided.

    Initially, back in 2014, when Bernie began publicly floating the idea of a presidential run, my thought was that it would be more beneficial for progressive issues if he remained in the Senate. His campaign has radically altered that opinion.

    However, compare what Sanders has accomplished with the prospect of a Green party alternative. What Yves is proposing is building precisely the kind of foundation that Sanders has, that has allowed him to build a threateningly effective campaign. Sanders has a long and strong record of legislative achievements, and it showcases his moral compass and political acumen. The Green party has no national legislative record, they have no major state-level achievements (the environmentalist movement does), and they don't have a national party organization.

    It is politically very possible for the Green party to win 1 or 2 seats in the Senate, in places that favor them (northwest, northeast). If the Green party dedicated themselves to electoral victories that put party members on the national stage, and if they took a page from Bernie's legislative playbook, getting workable legislation in as amendments to larger bills, then they would have a basis for persuading voters that they are an actual alternative. If they focused on party building efforts that would result in actual political power - such as winning effective state legislative blocs outside their safety demographics (who don't show up for them as it is), or running a strong gubernatorial campaign in a state like, say, Oregon that garnered lots of attention from potential supporters, they'd be in a much stronger position to begin building more than a mixed medley of long-time dedicatees, but to attract (as Sanders has) progressive Democrats, Independents, and others to the prospect of a national party with something to show for itself.

    This isn't selling out to the status quo, nor is separate from building out of Bernie's campaign a resilient and persisting political bloc. It can be a very important part of that. I don't read Yves' critique as perpetuating a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeatism, but as pointing out what the Green party should do to begin to change the status quo. Isn't it defeatist to just vote for a party that can't possibly win in the state it currently exists in? On the other hand, the threat of voting for Trump over Clinton, or simply not voting for Clinton, does send a very strong message that, if they fail to take it seriously, will instill the 'fear of God' in the party (as well as further seriously piss them off).

    I live in California. I am voting for Bernie next week. I will not vote for Hillary if she's the nominee in the General. I'll vote for Jill Stein, but I know that that will be little more than a symbolic protest vote. I disagree with the Rumsfeldian framed argument that it is a less risky bet to support the putatively unknown unknown and make the Democratic party pay for their luxuriant insularity and hubris. However - as that is the way Politico edited the message of Yves' article - I understand and respect the argument.

    You don't need to accept "lesser evilism" in order to put forward a sensible critique and proposal for a party that doesn't have a real chance at this point.

    hunkerdown

    Sitting still for corporate malfeasance is exactly the "bad faith" by which people are rejecting the Establishment candidates. I'd suggest taking account of the bad faith of the Democratic National Committee and other Party organs in dealing with him, no more than a token of satisfice, and going his own way to defeat Trump without providing aid or comfort to Hillary.

    openvista, June 3, 2016 at 11:35 am

    I would suggest, as hunkerdown did, that Sanders should realize there's no honor among thieves. As per usual, the establishment often leverages a person's "integrity" for their own aims.

    Hillary is a murderer (by proxy of course), a liar, a receiver of bribes - the so-called "Queen of Chaos". That's not the sort of person you ever, in good conscience, support.

    That's not to say Trump is preferable. If the binary choice is lose-lose, isn't it possible to have more than one enemy in a given Presidential election?

    openvista, June 5, 2016 at 10:36 am

    I agree that Sanders is the rarest of forms, a sincere politician. I don't see ambition or graft behind any motivation of his to support Clinton, assuming that's the outcome. At worst, it would be naivety.

    If we take him at his word, he thinks of Clinton as a decent public servant with differing ideas. Perhaps, he's less sincere than we think. But, assuming that is his take on her, he has greatly under-estimated his adversary and that can only end badly for him at least as far as the nomination is concerned.

    Clinton is a predator and her operation exists to assimilate progressives like Sanders and his supporters by using their good intentions and faith in humanity against them. Installing his lieutenants on party platform committees or paying lip service to a $15 minimum wage is all in a day's work considering Clintonistas have no intention of following through on any ideological construct outside the ever increasing accumulation of wealth and power.


    Lambert Strether, June 3, 2016 at 10:51 pm

    If Sanders fights Trump and "supports" Hillary by raising his own money for downticket Dems like Canova, and in addition does stuff like stumping against fracking and for single payer in Colorado, that might not be so bad.

    I can see scenarios where Clinton, from her corrupt perspective, will rue the day that Sanders "supported" her. And if they try to muzzle him, that won't work out real well.


    Steeeve, June 2, 2016 at 11:59 am

    I will continue to support and hopefully vote for Bernie Sanders. In the event he's not the nominee I will happily vote for Jill Stein as I did in 2012 – she has the strongest platform – similar to Sanders but including what I consider to be a fundamental requirement to win my vote: "End the wars and drone attacks, cut military spending by at least 50% and close the 700+ foreign military bases that are turning our republic into a bankrupt empire." I was initially reluctant to support Sanders for the lack of inclusion of a plank along these lines. Ending quagmires is at least a step in the right direction. But a conversation about economic injustice is severely lacking without a strong statement on the MIC such as Stein's.


    Liz Buiocchi, June 2, 2016 at 11:55 am

    The only way that gridlock will end is with Sanders in the White House, at least one branch of Congress in Democratic hands, and members of the other house sufficiently scared of voters that they try to represent the interests of the 99%–in other words, a revolution. I don't know how that happens with the media so complicit in the "Hillary is the nominee" narrative, but I can hope.

    I'm another 50-something white life-long liberal who has come to the conclusion that voting for Trump is the lesser of some great evils. I'm somewhat relieved to know that I'm not the only one–it feels like it goes against everything I stand for, but I just can't vote for Clinton, nor will I refuse to vote in protest.

    HotFlash, June 2, 2016 at 3:26 pm

    A-yup. Trump at least says (or said on at least one occasion) that we should get out of the Middle East. Which makes him better than Hillary. And he has not *to date* committed any war crimes (I have standards, and one of them is that I will not vote for a war criminal).

    But I still don't understand why it has to come down to Trump or Hillary. Can't we just have Bernie?

    DWBartoo, June 3, 2016 at 9:30 am

    One wonders, Watt4Bob, should Trump emerge triumphant as President-elect, just how long it would take for the Clintons and other neoliberal Democrats to suck up to him? Hillary would have us believe that she considers Trump evil incarnate even as Clinton's daughter and Trump's daughter are friends who, very likely, do not see the others parent(s) as any sort or kind of meaningful threat or existential danger.

    One is certain that the Clinton team, if Trump wins, will find the means and the "intestinal fortitude" to "work"with him for the bettterment of incrementalism everywhere.

    Frankly, a Trump presidency would offer the Democratic party a most wonderful opportunity to reveal "where" the party really, and actually "stands" and what they really are willing to "stand" and fight for somehow I doubt that genuine humanity and actual reason would stand much of a chance against continuing, perpetual war and continued "security dominance", as foreign and domestic policy preference.

    The essential purpose of "public service", in the United States of Depravity, today, is to enrich oneself and protect the Divine Right of Money.

    DW

    willnadauld, June 2, 2016 at 8:55 pm

    White working class, almost college educated here. Reading almost exclusively Yves for eight years. I feel I owe Yves,Lambert and the regular posters here a giant thank you for giving me a viable perspective from which to judge the actions of politicians, and the complicit media in destroying democracy completely. I inhabit the bubble of truth that you folks create, and I am greatly disturbed by the comments at politico. I understand generalized stupidity, and laziness, but the complete disconnect from reality I encounter whenever I venture from my truth bubble still amazes me. People have forgotten how to read, and how to think. I like Bernie. I will vote Trump over Biden in November. Elizabeth would never sell us all that far down the river. Shes kind of like team blues Paul Ryan that way. What the hell, maybe Michelle should run.

    Roger Smith, June 2, 2016 at 11:41 pm

    Seconded, one of the reasons. I've always scoffed at the "we're going downhill" or general end times mentality, favoring instead that it was just moving laterally and depressingly, but this season and the environment this site provides has helped me see the frailty of this society. It is fragile, we are approaching a point of no return, and people still won't read the damn signs.


    Pat, June 2, 2016 at 10:54 am

    One of the reasons con games are successful beyond the greed of humans is that people do not like to admit they have been fooled/taken in/played. Denial is deeply ingrained in humans.

    My own personal observation is that her most zealous of supporters are either the newest converts or the ones desperately trying to avoid their growing realization that they have been a patsy. I really do believe we are seeing a whole lot of the latter among the reactions to ideas like this article or questions like 'where is your evidence that Trump is more evil than Clinton? I can list the following things that are actual actions by Clinton along with HER ever shifting rhetoric, you can list what?'

    Vatch, June 2, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Obama fooled me in 2008, so I voted Green in 2012. I will not let either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump fool me in 2016, and although I still hope that somehow Bernie Sanders will be the Democratic nominee, I expect to vote Green again in 2016.

    readerOfTeaLeaves, June 2, 2016 at 1:10 pm

    I didn't read the comments, but you may want to consider that a good portion of them may very well be from paid commenters. I think that Yves and Lambert look dimly on such practices.

    I think that Yves also made a superb point in her essay - those of us who have been reading NC have developed a far more sophisticated (I would even say 'principled') opposition to the kind of neoliberal incrementalism that Clinton personifies.

    Hence, the Politico commenters don't grasp the economic fraud and bogus theories that are driving a lot of public policy disasters. On the upside, even my electrician and manufacturing relatives have started asking some very probing questions about economics in the US.

    Lambert Strether, June 2, 2016 at 2:41 pm

    "Incrementalism" -> "excrementalism." Fixed it for ya.

    Phil, June 6, 2016 at 5:56 am

    Since the IMF's "Neoliberalism Oversold" a few weeks ago I've been watching google trends for neoliberalism some increase, which is good. Also amusing that VT is the state that searches that the most. http://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl=en-US&q=/m/0n29_&geo=US&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT%2B5&tz=Etc/GMT%2B5&content=1

    Kurt Sperry, June 2, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Yeah Obama pretty much laid the once potent "but the Supreme Court ZMOG!!!" argument to rest for good when he nominated a Republican. I mean what's even the point of voting Democrat at this juncture? They hate their base, and swoon over billionaires and Republicans. I'd probably be cheering on the Republican to humiliate Clinton on if it weren't Trump, and even as much as I despise Trump I hardly care whether he or Hillary wins. That's how horrible the Democrats are now.

    Skip Intro, June 3, 2016 at 3:49 am

    You are not alone. A Clinton candidacy would be toxic for Dem. candidates down the whole ballot. Hillary is trying to win over scared/disgusted republicans to vote for a corporatist anti-Trump, despite their years of anti-Clinton conditioning. Meanwhile the democrats stay home and progressive independents stay home and a new generation of Americans learn powerlessness.

    [Jun 10, 2016] In 2009 it was immediately obvious Obama was a complete and total fraud and he has governed center right because he has a neocon much like Bush 11 and Clinton were

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers. ..."
    "... Oh, come on. Lots of people have covered this at length. The country was petrified when Obama took office. He had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and the House. He could has passed anything he wanted. It was his own Robert Rubin holdover, bank friendly neoliberal Larry Summers, who argued for a smaller stimulus and bullied Christine Romer, whose modeling called for more. He could have passed real health care reform and didn't. ..."
    "... Obama has governed center right because he has a center right world view. Presidents have enormous bully pulpits. They can move the Overton window if they choose to. He didn't make an effort because that is what he believes. I saw that with his disappointing first inauguration speech. He has even failed to do things that were entirely within his power, like his promised "first action" of his Administration of closing Gitmo. ..."
    "... However, come 2009 it was immediately obvious Obama was a complete and total fraud ..."
    "... With the help of the IM, by mid-2009 I fully understood that Obama was a continuation of Bush, and Bush was a continuation of Clinton. ..."
    "... ike Clinton and Bush, Obama has done nothing but aggressively push this country, and the world, to the FAR right… by embracing a Global Corporate/Mafia/Neoliberal/Neocon 'New World Order' that exclusively privileges the 5% capitalist class over the 95% working class. ..."
    "... You admit "Bill Clinton took the Democratic Party in a neoliberal direction"… but don't see that Obama did the exact same thing? How is that possible? ..."
    "... NO WAY, NEVER EVER KILLERY. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Yves Smith Post author

    Huh? Obama has not moved the US to the left. He had the opportunity to come down hard on Wall Street and didn't. He even engineered a second huge bailout for Wall Street, in the form of the "get out of liability almost free" card of the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement. He is keen to implement trade deals that would be huge wins for multinationals at the expense of national sovereignity, including the ability of the US to regulate product safety, financial services, and the environment. His Presidency has seen profit share of GDP rise to record levels, and a "recovery" where the 1% gained at the expense of everyone else.

    Google "Jane Hamsher" and "veal pen". Obama from the very start of his presidency targeted well funded leftist groups and got them defunded, systematically.

    Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers. He made promises to raise the minimum wage that he failed to act on. His Supreme Court picks were centrist at best. His Department of Justice has been soft on anti-trust, soft on elite white collar crime. He's routinely used the Republicans as an excuse to do what he wanted, which was to govern center-right. He'd regularly concede 75% of what they asked for as his opening gambit. And then he'd move further right to get bills passed.

    Yves Smith Post author

    Oh, come on. Lots of people have covered this at length. The country was petrified when Obama took office. He had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and the House. He could has passed anything he wanted. It was his own Robert Rubin holdover, bank friendly neoliberal Larry Summers, who argued for a smaller stimulus and bullied Christine Romer, whose modeling called for more. He could have passed real health care reform and didn't.

    He similarly could have passed real financial services industry reform and didn't. Dodd Frank was weak tea and had many of its provisions kicked over for study and later rulemaking, which was designed to let the industry have another go at watering it down. Danny Tarullo at the Fed singlehandedly has been a more effective force for reform than the Obama Administration.

    The Obama administration enabled the taking by bank servicer of millions of homes when investors in those securitizations preferred modifications.

    And please tell me what Obama has done in terms of improvements in consumer rights. The only thing I can think of is the CFPB's proposed rulemaking on mandatory arbitration. The only reason we got that is basically due to how Elizabeth Warren started up the CFPB, by creating a solid culture that held up over time. And he gave her that job with the hope she'd screw it up, not succeed. She had become a huge thorn in Timothy Geithner's side and they wanted to take her down a peg. But that plan backfired.

    We wrote at GREAT length at the time how the FCIC was designed to do a crappy job and it did. By contrast, Ronald Reagan formed the Brady Commission to investigate the 1987 crash ten days after it happened, had it staffed with serious people, not lightweights like Phil Angildes (well meaning but out of his depth) and a subpoena process that guaranteed that no real investigation could or would be done. Obama reappointed Ben Bernanke, a Bush holderover who represented a continuation of the Greenspan policies that led to the crisis and bailed out the banks, imposed no executive or board changes, and did not pump for reform. By contrast, the Bank of England was much tougher with banks and fought tooth and nail for a Glass-Steagall type breakup of banks (it was stymied by the UK Treasury and got a partial win).

    Gay rights? You mean Obama's weak and late endorsement of gay marriage? That's not legal action.

    And the ACA was not "reform" but a program for more rent extraction by pharma and insurers. Did you manage to miss that the biggest groups funding the Obama campaign were the financial services industry, tech, and the medical/industrial complex?

    It strengthened the position of insurers, and allows for profit levels that were higher than the industry enjoyed before the bill was passed. Obama never tried to sell single payer (in fact, his operatives targeted groups that advocated it), and was never serious about a public option. He took that off the table and got no concession from the other side. You never give a free concession in bargaining, ever. He just didn't want people talking about it any more.

    The ACA has harmed a lot of people. Everyone I know who has to get a policy under the ACA is worse off. It is a nightmare for self employed people and people with erratic incomes. The only real benefit has been Medicaid expansion. And the ACA is going into a death spiral anyhow.

    You really need to get out and deal with facts, not Democratic party/Administration PR.

    More generally, you are selling the line "Obama was constrained." Bollocks. Obama has governed center right because he has a center right world view. Presidents have enormous bully pulpits. They can move the Overton window if they choose to. He didn't make an effort because that is what he believes. I saw that with his disappointing first inauguration speech. He has even failed to do things that were entirely within his power, like his promised "first action" of his Administration of closing Gitmo.

    The success of the Sanders campaign, despite the MSM efforts to first ignore it and then ridicule it, shows how strong public support is for true progressive positions. If the Administration had gone in that direction, it would have had public opinion behind it and the media would have fallen in line.

    I suggest you read:

    Felix_47

    Thank you for saying the obvious. And thank you for the Politico article which formulated my view as well and I am easily in the 1%, white, over educated and travelled, male and in the sixth decade. And I have mailed in my vote for Bernie. However in the cafeteria today one of the workers was talking about how he thought Bernie would kill in in CA and I reminded him he needed to vote since he was for him and his comment scared me…….He said he would vote for Bernie in the general but that he was registered as an independent because he does not believe in any of the parties and that he could not vote for Bernie……..but he said it did not matter…..unfortunately our precariate is not necessarily fully aware of the hoops required to vote…..and I am certain he is not alone…..there are many that want Bernie but just don't have it together to be able to vote for him.

    Waldenpond

    Yes, I just posted this…. 40% of NPPs that claimed to want to vote for Sanders just sent in their NPP ballots. They simply did not bother to request a D ballot.

    Lambert Strether
  • Print this out and put it on the fridge, if you have a fridge.
  • (I'd also add that prosecuting banksters for accounting control fraud was under Obama's control at Justice, and would have been wildly popular across the political spectrum. Instead we got "I stand between you and the pitchforks."
  • Waldenpond

    Your back on memeorandum….which is pro-Clinton, ignore/excoriate Sanders today (well, most days)

    I did not read any of them, just the highlight that pops up….

    LGM… the people you know are 'dumb'
    DeLong is sorry he ever linked to you….
    Echidne of the Snakes… rotting, stinking something or other and your commenters are not representative of the D party.

    Steve in Dallas

    Yikes… "Barack Obama, a transformational figure, has moved the US back to the left – as much as possible"???

    At 45yo in late 2007 I was a "political naif"… still trusting the mainstream media. However, the Murdoch/FOX takeover of the WSJ pushed me to the internet… to follow the 'big crash'. Independent media sites like NakedCapitalism were so obviously and infinitely better to anything in the MSM I quickly was begging family/friends/everybody… "Please turn off the MSM. I learned more in one month reading the IM than I learned reading the WSJ daily for 20 years! The MSM is total garbage and totally corrupt"… BOYCOTT the MSM.

    Regarding Obama? All through 2008 I followed the IM election coverage, listened to his and Michael's campaign speeches. The message was clear… Obama was going to stop the out-of-control criminal banksters and Wall Streeters… AND stop the crazed out-of-control war criminals… MUCH more than Hillary! However, come 2009 it was immediately obvious Obama was a complete and total fraud. He immediately surrounded himself with the exact same economic and war criminals from the Clinton and Bush administrations. With the help of the IM, by mid-2009 I fully understood that Obama was a continuation of Bush, and Bush was a continuation of Clinton.

    Like Clinton and Bush, Obama has done nothing but aggressively push this country, and the world, to the FAR right… by embracing a Global Corporate/Mafia/Neoliberal/Neocon 'New World Order' that exclusively privileges the 5% capitalist class over the 95% working class.

    1) You admit "Bill Clinton took the Democratic Party in a neoliberal direction"… but don't see that Obama did the exact same thing? How is that possible?

    2) Even more audaciously disingenuous… "Clinton – pushed by progressive supporters – would continue that transformation". Bill's a neolib and Hillary is not? How is that possible?

    3) Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama were all consistent at creating your list of problems… "social justice issues, living wages, reversal of supply-side economic policy, protecting Social Security and other government agencies from privatization, and ending the Citizens United campaign finance regime… Supreme Court justice… Senate to provide its advice and consent"… and Hillary is here to fix those problems?

    4) To me your post sounds like just another TINA (there is no alternative) threat from the 5% telling the working class 95% slobs to back down and just take what they're given.

    I'm totally 100% with Yves' description of NC readers… NO WAY, NEVER EVER KILLERY.

    Thank you so much Yves… we/I love you!!!

    [Jun 10, 2016] This despicable, corrupt Clinton-style neocon Obama

    Notable quotes:
    "... He is keen to implement trade deals that would be huge wins for multinationals at the expense of national sovereignty, including the ability of the US to regulate product safety, financial services, and the environment. ..."
    "... His Presidency has seen profit share of GDP rise to record levels, and a "recovery" where the 1% gained at the expense of everyone else. ..."
    "... Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers. ..."
    "... He made promises to raise the minimum wage that he failed to act on. ..."
    "... His Supreme Court picks were centrist at best. ..."
    "... His Department of Justice has been soft on anti-trust, soft on elite white collar crime. ..."
    "... He's routinely used the Republicans as an excuse to do what he wanted, which was to govern center-right. ..."
    "... He'd regularly concede 75% of what they asked for as his opening gambit. And then he'd move further right to get bills passed. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Yves Smith Post author

    Huh? Obama has not moved the US to the left. He had the opportunity to come down hard on Wall Street and didn't. He even engineered a second huge bailout for Wall Street, in the form of the "get out of liability almost free" card of the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement.

    He is keen to implement trade deals that would be huge wins for multinationals at the expense of national sovereignty, including the ability of the US to regulate product safety, financial services, and the environment.

    His Presidency has seen profit share of GDP rise to record levels, and a "recovery" where the 1% gained at the expense of everyone else.

    Google "Jane Hamsher" and "veal pen". Obama from the very start of his presidency targeted well funded leftist groups and got them defunded, systematically.

    1. Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers.
    2. He made promises to raise the minimum wage that he failed to act on.
    3. His Supreme Court picks were centrist at best.
    4. His Department of Justice has been soft on anti-trust, soft on elite white collar crime.
    5. He's routinely used the Republicans as an excuse to do what he wanted, which was to govern center-right.
    6. He'd regularly concede 75% of what they asked for as his opening gambit. And then he'd move further right to get bills passed.

    [Jun 07, 2016] Symbolic End To Farcical Democratic Primary Anonymous Super-Delegates Declare Winner Through Media Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Any night that you have a primary or caucus, and the media lumps the superdelegates in-that they basically polled by calling them up and saying who are you supporting -- they don't vote until the convention. And so, they shouldn't be included in any count." ..."
    "... Yet the AP and other media continued to do so. Why? It's just blatant bias from the ostensibly neutral mainstream media for the status quo candidate Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... This is a paper that's supposed to represent and inform Californians. There's only one word that comes to mind: disgusting . Particularly so when you see the polling numbers for independents in California: ..."
    "... Superdelegates exist solely to manipulate voters through the media. Something that has happened consistently throughout the primary. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Jun 7, 2016 4:25 PM Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    I bet this poll had a lot to do with the decision to call democratic race for Hillary. They're scared. #VoteBernie pic.twitter.com/lSFP7ZG1T8

    - Christie Sparrow (@sparrows1981) June 7, 2016

    Last night, Associated Press – on a day when nobody voted – surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization's survey of "superdelegates": the Democratic Party's 720 insiders, corporate donors and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.

    This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization – incredibly – conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it's only fitting that their nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward and undemocratic sputter.

    That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance – rallying behind a Wall-Street-funded, status-quo-perpetuating, multi-millionaire militarist – is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.

    – Glenn Greenwald, writing at The Intercept

    Last night, the American public witnessed the most egregious example of mainstream media malpractice of my lifetime. By declaring Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee based on the pledges of superdelegates who have not voted, and will not vote until the convention on July 25th, the Associated Press performed a huge disservice to American democracy on the eve of a major primary day, in which voters from the most populous state in the union (amongst others) head to the polls. If you are a U.S. citizen and you aren't outraged by this, there's something seriously wrong with you.

    In this post, I have three objectives. First, I will set the stage by explaining how incredibly sleazy the move by the AP was. Second, I will outline the preposterous and unjustifiable nature of having superdelegates in the first place. Third, I will attempt to convince all true Bernie Sanders supporters to commit themselves to never supporting Hillary Clinton. Let's get started.

    1. Journalistic Malpractice

    Let's start with the Associated Press , which I have lost every single ounce of respect for. The "news" organization is now the most discredited entity in journalism as an result of what it did. Some are excusing its public betrayed as merely "trying to get a scoop" and call the race over before the other networks on Tuesday night. Personally, I think that's only a small factor in what happened.

    I've noticed for months now, that the AP from the very beginning was including super delegates in a way that was intentionally misleading. For example, this is how the graphics to their "delegate tracker" appear:

    Notice that the big, bold numbers to the left representing the total, includes superdelegates who have not yet voted. There can be absolutely no doubt that the AP is being intentionally misleading by doing this, and is committing journalistic malpractice. How can I be so sure? Let's take a look at this video clip from CNN aired earlier this year.

    As you saw, Luis Miranda, the Communications Director at the Democratic National Committee, specifically told Jake Tapper that it is wrong to include superdelegates in the tally total for the Democratic primary. There can be no other interpretation. He said:

    "Any night that you have a primary or caucus, and the media lumps the superdelegates in-that they basically polled by calling them up and saying who are you supporting -- they don't vote until the convention. And so, they shouldn't be included in any count."

    Yet the AP and other media continued to do so. Why? It's just blatant bias from the ostensibly neutral mainstream media for the status quo candidate Hillary Clinton.

    That should be enough to turn the U.S. population away from these organizations forever. Yet there's more. In calling the nomination for Hillary, the Associated Press had to get commitments from a few more super delegates. They achieved that feat yesterday evening (mind you, they still haven't actually voted), and they kept the names anonymous. Yes, you read that right.

    Of course, it wasn't just the AP , it was virtually all mainstream media proclaiming the same thing in a unified chorus. Indeed, they seemed to relish in it. Particularly inexcusable was reporting from the LA Times. As Wall Street on Parade noted :

    Particularly outrageous was the unethical conduct of the largest newspapers in California, where 1.5 million new voters have registered since January 1. California is an open primary, meaning Independents can vote. That fact, together with the massive new voter registrations and the tens of thousands who have turned out for Sanders' rallies, was signaling a potential upset for Clinton in the state. That would not only be embarrassing but could lead to defections among the superdelegates prior to the Convention in July.

    The Los Angeles Times, which calls itself "the largest metropolitan daily newspaper in the country, with a daily readership of 1.4 million," was one of the most egregious in their reporting. After running the headline "Hillary Clinton Clinches Nomination in a Historic First," it then ran an article that asked in the headline: "After AP calls nomination for Clinton, will voters still turn out Tuesday?"

    This is a paper that's supposed to represent and inform Californians. There's only one word that comes to mind: disgusting . Particularly so when you see the polling numbers for independents in California:

    So let's recap. The Associated Press and virtually all other mainstream media declared Hillary Clinton the winner of the Democratic primary on the eve of a huge voting day with 694 pledged delegates at stake. They declared her the winner on a day in which no American primaries or caucuses were held, and via word of mouth from a handful of anonymous superdelegates. I don't know what to call that, but it's certainly not journalism.

    2. Superdelegates as a Concept is Preposterous

    I've read all the arguments and spin and there's simply no reasonable justification for having superdelegates other than to manipulate the voting public via "delegate tracker" graphics such as what is used by the AP in order to always show Hillary Clinton with a big lead irrespective what's actually happening on the ground. While Clinton has certainly won more pledged delegates thus far, the voting public has been intentionally manipulated from day one via the use of superdelegates.

    As the Sanders campaign pointed out last night:

    Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination. She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then. They include more than 400 superdelegates, who endorsed Secretary Clinton 10 months before the first caucuses and primaries and long before any other candidate was in the race.

    Think about that for a second. 400 superdelegates pledged their loyalty to Hillary 10 months before any voters had a chance to make their opinions heard. These superdelegates have not switched based on the desires of the voters in their states, and their early loyalty oaths allowed the media to manipulate the public from day one by including these lopsided figures.

    How lopsided are they? With a vast majority of the primaries completed, here's the math.

    Pledged delegates

    Clinton: 1,812
    Sanders: 1,521

    Superdelegates

    Clinton: 571
    Sanders: 48

    Anyone else see a problem with that? While Clinton still has a comfortable lead in pledged delegates, she is slaughtering him in superdelegates. We can draw two important conclusions from this reality.

    1. Superdelegates do not proportionately represent the will of the voters.
    2. Superdelegates exist solely to manipulate voters through the media. Something that has happened consistently throughout the primary.

    The fact that superdelegates exist solely to manipulate voters should be perfectly clear at this point. Perfect proof of this can be seen in the incomprehensible answer DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz gave to why they exists:

    [Jun 06, 2016] Got privacy If you use Twitter or a smartphone, maybe not so much

    www.pcworld.com
    May 18, 2016

    PCWorld

    You're probably giving away more than you think

    The location stamps on just a handful of Twitter posts can help even low-tech stalkers find you, researchers found.

    The notion of online privacy has been greatly diminished in recent years, and just this week two new studies confirm what to many minds is already a dismal picture.

    First, a study reported on Monday by Stanford University found that smartphone metadata-information about calls and text messages, such as time and length-can reveal a surprising amount of personal detail.

    To investigate their topic, the researchers built an Android app and used it to retrieve the metadata about previous calls and text messages-the numbers, times, and lengths of communications-from more than 800 volunteers' smartphone logs. In total, participants provided records of more than 250,000 calls and 1.2 million texts.

    The researchers then used a combination of automated and manual processes to understand just what's being revealed. What they found was that it's possible to infer a lot more than you might think.

    A person who places multiple calls to a cardiologist, a local drug store, and a cardiac arrhythmia monitoring device hotline likely suffers from cardiac arrhythmia, for example. Based on frequent calls to a local firearms dealer that prominently advertises AR semiautomatic rifles and to the customer support hotline of a major manufacturer that produces them, it's logical to conclude that another likely owns such a weapon.

    The researchers set out to fill what they consider knowledge gaps within the National Security Agency's current phone metadata program. Currently, U.S. law gives more privacy protections to call content and makes it easier for government agencies to obtain metadata, in part because policymakers assume that it shouldn't be possible to infer specific sensitive details about people based on metadata alone.

    This study, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests otherwise. Preliminary versions of the work have already played a role in federal surveillance policy debates and have been cited in litigation filings and letters to legislators in both the U.S. and abroad.

    It takes as few as eight tweets to locate someone

    Researchers at MIT and Oxford University, meanwhile, have shown that the location stamps on just a handful of Twitter posts can be enough to let even a low-tech snooper find out where you live and work.

    Though Twitter's location-reporting service is off by default, many Twitter users choose to activate it. Now, it looks like even as few as eight tweets over the course of a single day can give stalkers what they need to track you down.

    The researchers used real tweets from Twitter users in the Boston area; users consented to the use of their data and also confirmed their home and work addresses, their commuting routes, and the locations of various leisure destinations from which they had tweeted.

    The time and location data associated with the tweets were then presented to a group of 45 study participants, who were asked to try to deduce whether the tweets had originated at the Twitter users' homes, workplaces, leisure destinations or commute locations.

    Bottom line: They had little trouble figuring it out. Equipped with map-based representations, participants correctly identified Twitter users' homes roughly 65 percent of the time and their workplaces at closer to 70 percent.

    Part of a more general project at MIT's Internet Policy Research Initiative, the paper was presented last week at the Association for Computing Machinery's Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

    "Many people have this idea that only machine-learning techniques can discover interesting patterns in location data, and they feel secure that not everyone has the technical knowledge to do that," said Ilaria Liccardi, a research scientist at MIT's Internet Policy Research Initiative and first author on the paper. "What we wanted to show is that when you send location data as a secondary piece of information, it is extremely simple for people with very little technical knowledge to find out where you work or live."

    Twitter said it does not comment on third-party research, but directed users to online information about its optional location feature.

    [Jun 03, 2016] The Wall Street Journal had an article yesterday saying that Hillary might not be the nominee

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Wall Street Journal had an article yesterday saying that Hillary might not be the nominee, ..."
    "... For damn sure parachuting someone in ahead of him in line would be the death of the Democratic party, and good riddance. And good riddance to Al Gore, who wouldn't even fight his own election battle. He's as fake a standard bearer as Elizabeth Warren. ..."
    "... Plus Bernie supporters don't support Bernie because he's a Democrat, they support him because of what he is campaigning about. A replacement head bolted onto the decapitated Clinton campaign would never in a zillion years be for anything Sanders is for, and we're not stupid enough to believe it would be. ..."
    "... This is surely the year the skull beneath the skin of both political parties gets revealed. ..."
    "... Several months ago I was having a political discussion with my youngest brother and he asked me what my best and worst case scenarios were. I told him that the best case scenario was the implosion of both legacy parties. The worst case scenario was some sort of constitutional crisis emerging. I had negligently never considered the possibility that both could occur. ..."
    "... This is about jobs. The DNC employs a whole slew of Beltway careerists, both directly and indirectly, who will be out of a job if Sanders becomes President. These careerists believe that they are entitled to the jobs they hold, and that someone like Sanders should never be allowed to take their jobs away. There is a great debate going on right now about how the American people can be lied to, and told that it's not about these jobs, but is rather "for the good of the country". But do not be fooled. It is about these jobs. ..."
    "... Now THOSE are the sort of entitlements that I'd like to see done away with !! Let the careerists live on the street in appliance boxes, for all I care it would serve them right -- ..."
    "... The idea that the Dems think they are still a force to reckon with when less than one-third of the voters self-identify as a Dem is ludicrous. ..."
    "... less than one-third of the voters self-identify as a Dem ..."
    "... Yes, and something else. Half the country doesn't vote, which means the Democrats comprise about one-sixth of eligible voters, with Republicans even fewer. Which means that one-third of the population controls the only two viable political vehicles in the country. ..."
    "... Our political duopoly represents just a tiny slice of the spectrum. This is an ultra-conservative system designed to ensure stability in a well-functioning democratic republic that is responsive to the people. But we now live in an oligarchy and our hijacked, corrupted political duoploly only serves the oligarchs. ..."
    "... I see much of American politics since the mid-20th as a struggle between two philosophies (or extremes) of the ruling and wealthy elite. One advocates a "squeeze the proles until they bleed to death" approach, while the other is smart enough to realize, "we need them happy enough to prevent violent revolution, or they'll try to kill us all, which is bad for business". And the former approach has gained too much ground, so we're seeing the public heating towards their boiling point. ..."
    "... With the ruling classes' reluctance to yield any of their ever-growing, ever-concentrated wealth to the masses, I worry that they'll try war as a distraction next. The War on Terror has mostly flopped by this point, but it can be used as stage setting for what comes next. Either a "real" war against China and/or Russia, or an orders of magnitude upswing in domestic terrorism and strife. (I wonder who would be good for getting such violence started, without tarnishing the reputation of the ruling class even further ) ..."
    "... Trump's problem are his negatives, which are so extreme that only Hillary Clinton could compete on that field, and secondly the likely ephemerallity of the outsider status his whole persona is marketed on. As he is embraced by the GOP establishment, his outsider appeal will become smothered by its embrace. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, there's someone for whom millions of people have actually cast a ballot, and those people are going to lose their sh!t if Debbie Wasserman Schultz tries to pull off a coup and toss Sanders on the trash heap. ..."
    "... Her pardoning herself is the only real protection she can count on. Obama has a legacy as such as it is. He can't handle blanket pardons, and the House will be GOP regardless (here's to DWS and Pelosi). They will investigate the Clintons regardless of who the next President is. ..."
    "... It may be that the FBI has a digital image of that boil from the backup copy of the server that Platte River (seems to have) accidentally put in the cloud. ..."
    "... Don't miss "Brexit: The Movie" Should be mandatory watching for every politician around the globe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqzcqDtL3k ..."
    "... Short vid of Jill Stein making way to much sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NjkCfjU-FY&feature=youtu.be ..."
    "... In fact, I had to show them polls of Bernie beating Trump by a way wider margin than Hillary to convince them otherwise. That just goes to show you how successful the Clinton PR machine (not to mention a complicit media) has been at pushing her narrative. Even if people want Bernie to win and strongly dislike her, the general feeling seems to be that she is inevitable. ..."
    "... That assumes the AG declined to prosecute, or otherwise blocked the charges. That doesn't clear HRC, so no double jeopardy. What's to stop a Republican House and Senate from conducting their own investigation (starting with evidence leaked by the FBI) and impeaching her? ..."
    "... Beware, he speaks with forked tongue!! He never says what he means, nor means what he says. ..."
    "... Look, Bernie sees the problem and offers solutions. Trump just sees the problem. Hillary denies that a problem even exists. ..."
    "... Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR) was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. ..."
    "... The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. ..."
    "... In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging. There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent real people in favor of useless eater rich. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Elliot , June 1, 2016 at 4:32 pm

    The Wall Street Journal had an article yesterday saying that Hillary might not be the nominee, and while DNC faithful want us all to assume that if that happened, it would not be Sanders, that's emphatically not what the rest of the US will assume, nor, I think, stand for.

    For damn sure parachuting someone in ahead of him in line would be the death of the Democratic party, and good riddance. And good riddance to Al Gore, who wouldn't even fight his own election battle. He's as fake a standard bearer as Elizabeth Warren.

    Plus Bernie supporters don't support Bernie because he's a Democrat, they support him because of what he is campaigning about. A replacement head bolted onto the decapitated Clinton campaign would never in a zillion years be for anything Sanders is for, and we're not stupid enough to believe it would be.

    ~~~~

    Trump's been involved in some 3.5K lawsuits, he only wrote his check to the Veterans' charity the day the reporter grilled him about stiffing them, his TrumpYours University taught cheating and scorched earth sales tactics, he wants to sell off the public lands, privatize Social Security, etc etc ad infinitum. He is emphatically not what Bernie supporters are looking for, either.

    This is surely the year the skull beneath the skin of both political parties gets revealed.

    Archie , June 1, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    I agree with you 1000% Elliot. Several months ago I was having a political discussion with my youngest brother and he asked me what my best and worst case scenarios were. I told him that the best case scenario was the implosion of both legacy parties. The worst case scenario was some sort of constitutional crisis emerging. I had negligently never considered the possibility that both could occur.

    Peter Bernhardt , June 1, 2016 at 10:13 pm

    Hear hear!

    Benedict@Large , June 1, 2016 at 4:27 pm

    This is about jobs. The DNC employs a whole slew of Beltway careerists, both directly and indirectly, who will be out of a job if Sanders becomes President. These careerists believe that they are entitled to the jobs they hold, and that someone like Sanders should never be allowed to take their jobs away. There is a great debate going on right now about how the American people can be lied to, and told that it's not about these jobs, but is rather "for the good of the country". But do not be fooled. It is about these jobs.

    At the end of the day, there may be some scraps left over, and should they fall from the table, the quick among us will certainly be allowed to have them. Thank you very much for voting. See you again in four years.

    tegnost , June 1, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    On the bright side, they'll be eligible for food stamps and medicaid

    polecat , June 1, 2016 at 10:11 pm

    Now THOSE are the sort of entitlements that I'd like to see done away with !! Let the careerists live on the street in appliance boxes, for all I care it would serve them right --

    grayslady , June 1, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    I'm with you, Katiebird. If there's one thing this campaign year has shown, it's that "we the people" are as powerful as we choose to be. There really is no one else in D.C. who is as decent as Bernie. No one. I've maintained for some time that the Democrats are already dead as a party; they've just been refusing to recognize it.

    The Repubs have been clearly shown to be a dead party–first through the Tea Party, and now through this election. The question is whether or not the Dems want to survive as a party.

    If they do, Bernie is their only hope. They are in denial now–they think Bernie voters are Dems. They aren't. It all depends on how forcefully Bernie delegates and voters are willing to make their case that it's Bernie or Bust. The idea that the Dems think they are still a force to reckon with when less than one-third of the voters self-identify as a Dem is ludicrous.

    wbgonne , June 1, 2016 at 8:38 pm

    less than one-third of the voters self-identify as a Dem

    Yes, and something else. Half the country doesn't vote, which means the Democrats comprise about one-sixth of eligible voters, with Republicans even fewer. Which means that one-third of the population controls the only two viable political vehicles in the country.

    Our political duopoly represents just a tiny slice of the spectrum. This is an ultra-conservative system designed to ensure stability in a well-functioning democratic republic that is responsive to the people. But we now live in an oligarchy and our hijacked, corrupted political duoploly only serves the oligarchs.

    Ranger Rick , June 1, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    That Cohen quote is choice, in more ways than one. "I am afraid of my fellow Americans."

    You know, I'm used to hyperbole during an election year ("my opponent is literally Satan Himself!") but this is genuinely alarming. I'm reminded of a (paraphrased) quote from an online discussion:

    "When the revolution for the people, by the people comes, 'the people' are not going to be your people. They are the homeless, the jobless, the uneducated, the rural. They are the butt of your redneck jokes and elided in your 'urban youth' euphemisms. And they hate you, no matter how much you claim to be on their side, because you have not suffered as they have."

    Jason , June 1, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    I see much of American politics since the mid-20th as a struggle between two philosophies (or extremes) of the ruling and wealthy elite. One advocates a "squeeze the proles until they bleed to death" approach, while the other is smart enough to realize, "we need them happy enough to prevent violent revolution, or they'll try to kill us all, which is bad for business". And the former approach has gained too much ground, so we're seeing the public heating towards their boiling point.

    (I personally think Trump is nothing but a con-man trying to ride the resentment as a shortcut to putting himself in the big chair, but I can empathize with those so desperate they see no better alternative to bloody revolution.)

    With the ruling classes' reluctance to yield any of their ever-growing, ever-concentrated wealth to the masses, I worry that they'll try war as a distraction next. The War on Terror has mostly flopped by this point, but it can be used as stage setting for what comes next. Either a "real" war against China and/or Russia, or an orders of magnitude upswing in domestic terrorism and strife. (I wonder who would be good for getting such violence started, without tarnishing the reputation of the ruling class even further )

    Once the Next War has begun (domestic or foreign doesn't matter, as long as its bigger and scarier to everyone) it will be blamed for all sorts of ills and used to justify excesses of the worst sort for the better part of a generation. (I doubt it has ever occurred to Our Dear Rulers that the public might not go along with their Next War, or that it may not play out according to their plans.)

    Praedor , June 1, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Would THIS war do the trick?

    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=15751

    JerseyJeffersonian , June 1, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    Yeah, nobody is listening at all to President Putin and the wider Russian policy and military establishments as they warn, attempt diplomacy, and give the clearest possible indication by the actions of their military that they feel themselves seriously – very seriously – threatened by the aggressive actions on their borders by the US and the NATO pink poodles.

    Probably, The Moustache of Understanding, Thomas Friedman, would consider this to be no problem for him, his family, and the US. So what if Romanians, Poles, whatever, die? The conflict would remain contained to Central Europe, right? Think of the propaganda opportunities. They're just dizzying. Get Vicky, Samantha, Michele on the job, stat!

    But you know what? If those harridans set foot in Central Europe, they would be in serious danger of being lynched by the terrified peoples of those nations with whose lives they so casually dice, and rightly so. Playing with matches in a dynamite factory is to be discouraged, and that is all that these fools seem capable of.

    Some people seem mystified by why the Russians have pulled some of their air assets out of Syria while the outcomes of the war are still in doubt. Well, they're being redeployed back to Russia against the need to throw them into combat against the US and the NATO pink poodles (who seem to love to sidle up to Russia and lift their legs to piss on their President and their national security; talk about your stoopid dogs). So, no, there is no mystery here at all. Things have gotten dead serious now that these missiles are actually being deployed, and no longer being dissimulated as being directed against possible lunatic Iranian aggression; their true target, always known for anyone with two neurons to spark against one another, is Russia. As opposed to past invasions from the west, when their nation is threatened by hypersonic missiles, there is no strategic depth provided by the landmass of Russia. The Russians know this all too well, and they are not blowing smoke here. Finally, President Putin has learned that he has no "partners", one of his favorite phrases in the past when referring to the west, with whom to have a serious dialogue. Instead, he has only that callow jackass Obama and the compliant dwarves of Europe leering at him, and ipso facto, no one with whom dialogue is possible.

    As they say here in Southern New Jersey when the Pine Barrens are dry as tinder, we have a Red Flag Warning, and a forest fire is an imminent danger. The consequences of such a localized event are as nothing compared to the dire danger into which our western fools are blithely tripping.

    God save us all.

    Kurt Sperry , June 1, 2016 at 5:59 pm

    Trump's problem are his negatives, which are so extreme that only Hillary Clinton could compete on that field, and secondly the likely ephemerallity of the outsider status his whole persona is marketed on. As he is embraced by the GOP establishment, his outsider appeal will become smothered by its embrace. He will get endorsements from mainstream partisans that will actually be counterproductive, he will need to regularly produce more outrageous statements to retain an outsider cred and each will alienate off another chunk of his support. The *only* possible way Trump wins is vs. a damaged Hillary, I don't see him even beating a barely legitimate Plan B like Biden.

    Anne , June 1, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    Sometimes I think that people are forgetting that these are people who have never, ever given up; Hillary Clinton is an eyelash away from being nominated for the highest office in the land, she's survived countless investigations, scandals, humiliations. She's withstood everything from hearings to vile sexist and misogynist taunts and labels. She swallowed her pride and sold what was left of her soul for a promise she could move into the White House in January, 2017.

    And you think she's possibly going to step down now?

    No. That doesn't happen unless she has a real medical issue she can't hide (she'd have to collapse in a very public venue – otherwise, I think whatever medical issues she has remain hidden), there is some sort of family tragedy, or the pus-filled boil that is the nexus between her public office and the Clinton Foundation gets popped in an undeniably damning way before the convention.

    And then what? The only people who want Biden are the insiders; if there was that much love for Biden out among the electorate, he would not have been stashed where his mouth could do the least amount of damage. Meanwhile, there's someone for whom millions of people have actually cast a ballot, and those people are going to lose their sh!t if Debbie Wasserman Schultz tries to pull off a coup and toss Sanders on the trash heap.

    I think the only fair/decent/small-d Democratic way to do this is to release delegates from their pledges and hold as many votes as it takes to get a nominee. If that's Sanders on the first ballot or the second or the tenth, fine. If it's Gore or Biden or Kerry on the 15th ballot at 5:30 in the morning, well, maybe that's okay, too. As long as it's a participatory process and not an end-run, back-door wheel-and-deal, complete with threats and "incentives" operation, the voters might go along with it and not take to the streets with the torches and pitchforks.

    But here's the thing: can't speak for anyone else, but I have seen nothing so far in this election season that gives me any confidence that such an event would be conducted in an ethical, moral manner. And if they decide to substitute their own corrupt judgment for what should be allowed to be the will of the people, they will have only themselves to blame for it being Trump's porcine fingers on the bible come inauguration day.

    NotTimothyGeithner , June 1, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Her pardoning herself is the only real protection she can count on. Obama has a legacy as such as it is. He can't handle blanket pardons, and the House will be GOP regardless (here's to DWS and Pelosi). They will investigate the Clintons regardless of who the next President is.

    ambrit , June 1, 2016 at 4:02 pm

    Something to look forward to! Porcine Maquillage, Trump style! Some of the recent pictures suggest that someone is already putting lipstick on.

    PlutoniumKun , June 1, 2016 at 4:58 pm

    You are certainly right that she would fight tooth and nail against it, but I think if it is put as an issue of 'you are likely going to prison, but take the noble option and you get a pardon' (while passing over the whiskey and revolver), could do the trick. Even the Clintons could not stand up against a delegation of the party saying 'its this or massive public humiliation'. The classic example was of Margaret Thatcher, who only released her grip on power when one by one each senior cabinet member went in to her and said 'its over'.

    Interestingly, I've been looking at some betting sites – they only give odds for three Dems for president – Hilary, Bernie and Biden (at a surprising 33/1).

    Lambert Strether Post author , June 1, 2016 at 10:23 pm

    > the pus-filled boil that is the nexus between her public office and the Clinton Foundation

    It may be that the FBI has a digital image of that boil from the backup copy of the server that Platte River (seems to have) accidentally put in the cloud.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , June 1, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    Don't miss "Brexit: The Movie" Should be mandatory watching for every politician around the globe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqzcqDtL3k

    jo6pac , June 1, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    Short vid of Jill Stein making way to much sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NjkCfjU-FY&feature=youtu.be

    Kurt Sperry , June 1, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    If Bernie isn't on my ballot, Jill Stein is who I'll be voting for. Again.

    She's excellent, much better than Clinton or obviously Trump, I agree with her on 90% of her positions. If voting *for* someone rather than *against* someone is how democracy should work (and I would argue so) then it would be a waste of my vote to spend it on anyone else. Conservatives should consider Gary Anderson for the same reasons. These minor parties need to reach the 5% threshold to get ballot access and matching funding, I think it's an excellent cause to support just to have a greater diversity in the US political system. Shame on the people who are trying to scare you into voting for someone you don't believe in instead of voting your actual beliefs, it's not right to do.

    Nickname , June 1, 2016 at 4:17 pm

    I can't help but find it extremely wise of Bernie never to take the bait on that email question because it would inevitably only be used against him and the narrative would then be that he was "backtracking" on when he said that he didn't want to discuss them.

    And anyhow, he probably knows that he doesn't need to join the chorus for that story to stay hot. Though I hope and presume that this is a focal talking point if and when he courts superdelegates.

    On another note, I live in Sweden and the topic of the election came up with some friends tonight and my friends – all of whom would like to see Bernie be president – all seemed to think that Clinton was a stronger candidate (as in more people favored her) against Trump. In fact, I had to show them polls of Bernie beating Trump by a way wider margin than Hillary to convince them otherwise. That just goes to show you how successful the Clinton PR machine (not to mention a complicit media) has been at pushing her narrative. Even if people want Bernie to win and strongly dislike her, the general feeling seems to be that she is inevitable.

    diptherio , June 1, 2016 at 4:26 pm

    Somebody mentioned Trump pińatas the other day. Here ya go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a5JBxZICas

    Trump is the new best-seller, replacing El Chapo.

    Lambert Strether Post author , June 1, 2016 at 10:25 pm

    I wonder if the pińatas are made in China, like the Trump masks.

    EGrise , June 1, 2016 at 4:29 pm

    Re: tarhairbabyball – what if Clinton manages to drag things out long enough to get not just the nomination, but the White House?

    That assumes the AG declined to prosecute, or otherwise blocked the charges. That doesn't clear HRC, so no double jeopardy. What's to stop a Republican House and Senate from conducting their own investigation (starting with evidence leaked by the FBI) and impeaching her? Nothing that I can see: pardoning herself on her first day in office would mean exactly nothing to the GOP. And if there's evidence of revealing the identities of agents or protecting the backers of the Benghazi plot, an impeachment will have a lot more public support than one over an extra-marital affair.

    But further down that road, what if there was some question of negligence or malfeasance by her boss, the president? What would stop congress from going after ex-president Obama? "What did the (ex-)president know and when did he know it?" Talk about tarnishing a legacy.

    So am I barking up the wrong tree here, or is the above part of the Dem/BHO decision calculus?

    tegnost , June 1, 2016 at 5:04 pm

    investigations could provide a smokescreen for all of their darker designs ..

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 1, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    A few exceptional people thrive under investigation. No mere mortals can come even close that kind of omnipotence.

    Lambert Strether Post author , June 1, 2016 at 10:41 pm

    The Republicans could certainly impeach her, and I bet some of them are champing at the bit to do so (even the ones not enthusiastic about Trump).

    However, they tried that once with Bill Clinton and failed (very much because of their personal defects, but also because of their defects as a party). I would bet on their failing again, simply because the Benghazi hearings were such a cluster, at least so far as constructing a coherent narrative.

    Bob , June 1, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    Thousands of voters in limbo after Kansas demands proof they're American
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-votingrights-kansas-insight-idUSKCN0YN4AQ

    marym , June 1, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    President Obama Proposes Expanding Social Security Benefits

    Speaking at a high school in Elkhart, Indiana, Obama noted there are some Americans who don't have retirement savings and those who might not be able to save money because they are unable to pay the bills.

    " . not only do we need to strengthen its long term health, it's time we finally made Social Security more generous and increased its benefits so today's retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement that they have earned."

    Apparently he was just keeping his powder dry .

    tegnost , June 1, 2016 at 5:07 pm

    chained cpi, actions speak louder than words .could be considered proof that he's concerned about his legacy?

    Amateur Socialist , June 1, 2016 at 5:16 pm

    Has anybody asked Madame Secretary what she thinks of this proposal?

    Archie , June 1, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    Beware, he speaks with forked tongue!! He never says what he means, nor means what he says.

    Left in Wisconsin , June 1, 2016 at 6:41 pm

    That is about the funniest/saddest thing I have read this year.

    Mo's Bike Shop , June 1, 2016 at 7:36 pm

    "strengthen its long term health"

    A rise in payroll taxes. I'll leave the rest for others who want to play.

    marym , June 1, 2016 at 8:27 pm

    Sanders Applauds Obama Support for Expanding Social Security

    PALO ALTO, Calif. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday applauded President Barack Obama's support for expanding Social Security by asking the "wealthiest Americans to contribute a little bit more."

    Sanders urged Hillary Clinton to back legislation endorsed by leading Democrats and seniors' advocates to strengthen the retirement program.

    "I applaud President Obama for making it clear that it is time to expand Social Security benefits," Sanders said. "Millions of seniors, disabled veterans and people with disabilities are falling further and further behind on $10,000 or $11,000 a year Social Security," he added.

    Amateur Socialist , June 1, 2016 at 5:01 pm

    Is Elizabeth Holmes broke?

    sd , June 2, 2016 at 4:42 am

    Ouch. That's gotta be leaving skid marks.

    edmondo , June 1, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    "Trump has taught me to fear my fellow Americans" [Richard Cohen, WaPo]. " I always knew who Trump was. It's the American people who have come as a surprise."

    I guess he thought they would never fight back?

    Look, Bernie sees the problem and offers solutions. Trump just sees the problem. Hillary denies that a problem even exists.

    If you are treading water economically just trying to get by and are hoping for someone, anyone to pin your hopes on, why the hell would it be Hillary? November is going to be very interesting and not in a good way.

    aliteralmind , June 2, 2016 at 8:15 am

    Insightful candidate summaries.

    optimader , June 1, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    This will be a good summer read for the election season
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/review/the-romanovs

    Praedor , June 1, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    So Richard Cohen now fears American voters because of Trump.

    Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR) was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies.

    Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist.

    In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging. There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent real people in favor of useless eater rich.

    Make the people into commodities, endanger their washes and job security, impose austerity, and tale in floods of refugees. Of COURSE Europeans stay leaning fascist.

    readerOfTeaLeaves , June 1, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    Lambert, for the good of the order, something from out of an old bookmarked file, Bernie Sanders filibustering Obama's tax cuts in Dec 2010. Watching this, what Bernie is doing is totally consistent with his economic analyses going back years:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syBBzXixioc

    Incredible.
    Truly amazing to watch today.

    Back in 2010, he was pointing out to the US Senate that one single tax cut for the Walton family would pay for money for disabled Vets and Seniors. Just incredible.

    Lambert Strether Post author , June 1, 2016 at 10:44 pm

    But Federal taxes don't pay for Federal spending, so Sanders boxed himself in.

    John k , June 2, 2016 at 3:42 am

    It is not possible for any politician to push that concept, the electorate expects taxes to pay for spending no matter how important the spending is. So all of his proposals are pay as you go, otherwise he presents the neoliberals with an easy target.
    Even if by some miracle he gets the bully pulpit he will have to be circumspect. Change out the fed, get Mmt types appointed, let them take the lead in educating the public. This would be a long tarm campaign.
    Meanwhile he is boxed in by the 98% of the public that think they know how our economy works.

    EGrise , June 1, 2016 at 7:48 pm

    Just remembered an interview at the end of April with Seymour Hersh ( This is Hell! podcast ) where the interviewer asks how much HRC influenced BHO in the Libyan bombing campaign and what that might say about a Hillary Clinton administration. Here's what Sy said in response (transcript mine):

    "You don't need me to answer that question. I can tell you, I'm not done reporting about that. There's a lot more to that than meets the eye. But, uh I'm in to something. So I don't want to be coy with you. But there's no question that, just based on the emails that have been released [ ] she was much more aggressive about it."

    Listening to it, one gets the impression that he just did not want to talk about HRC. Would love to know what Hersh knows, and what he's up to now.

    Lambert Strether Post author , June 1, 2016 at 10:45 pm

    I love the "This is Hell" podcast, and I remember the Hersh interview specifically; Hersh is very, very funny.

    Yves Smith , June 2, 2016 at 12:39 am

    The NYT Sunday Magazine cover story, Top Gun, gives chapter, book and verse of how Hillary outmaneuvered Obama on Libya.

    Pat , June 1, 2016 at 8:26 pm

    So a financial analyst whose expertise is the Middle East has told CNBC who Saudi Arabia wants to be President. Three guesses and the first two don't count

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/01/heres-who-saudi-arabia-want-as-the-next-us-president-oil-analyst.html

    Pat , June 1, 2016 at 8:29 pm

    More from CNBC: Trump will be President. The author's last mistake: not guessing how bad Hillary Clinton's campaign would be.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/01/i-was-wrong-trump-will-be-the-next-president-commentary.html

    Cry Shop , June 1, 2016 at 9:09 pm

    http://nautil.us/blog/alienation-is-killing-americans-and-japanese

    Tends to fit in with my experience as an expat in both nations that they are both insular cultures and generally hostile to new comers, though at least the young generations in both countries seem to be breaking away from this behavior.

    Synoia , June 1, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    but economists face a fundamental challenge with respect to innovation

    I read the article. Not a mention of Chaos theory.

    This is the best they can do: Economy Is a Highly Dynamic System That Can Go Far From Equilibrium and Become Trapped in Sub optimal States. (Sub Optimal for Who one could ask/)

    The Economy is a Chaotic System where Equlibria are Unpredictable, both in time and position.

    Jim Haygood , June 1, 2016 at 10:16 pm

    Bryan Pagliano to take the Fifth in Judicial Watch deposition next week.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bryan-pagliano-fifth-amendment-223796

    What immunity was he granted already? It's a secret.

    Unfortunately, young Bryan's refusal to cooperate only bolsters the justification for compelling testimony from the 'beest herself.

    What are Californians and New Jerseyans to make of this? Assume the worst, comrades. And you'll still be underestimating how bad it is.

    Cleaning out the Augean stables was child's play compared to decontaminating the Clintons' noisome racketeering empire.

    Lambert Strether Post author , June 1, 2016 at 10:47 pm

    Is it typical for Federal prosecutors to grant immunity without a grand jury having been empaneled?

    Waldenpond , June 1, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    Recent polling has Sanders within 2 in CA but it could get glitchy as CA news was reporting the State has 85% of indies not requesting a D ballot. If you are registered undeclared, you must request a D ballot or you automatically receive one without the Presidential candidates. The number of already returned undeclared ballots was not listed which would have been useful.

    Voting takes persistence. A regular voter had to make two requests to be switched to D. Still did not receive a D ballot and had to contact again for another ballot. I think people just give up.

    Jim Haygood , June 1, 2016 at 10:37 pm

    "if you are registered undeclared, you must request a D ballot or you automatically receive one without the Presidential candidates"

    Kinda like joining a craft beer club, and receiving a shipment of O'Doul's because you failed to declare a preference between IPA and porter.

    Gotcha [suckah]

    Lambert Strether Post author , June 1, 2016 at 10:49 pm

    Why, it's almost as if they're trying the suppress voters!

    sd , June 2, 2016 at 3:59 am

    NPP voters may bring their Vote By Mail ballot to their polling place and exchange it for a Democratic Party primary ballot. If they do not have their Vote by Mail ballot, and have not used their Vote by Mail ballot, they may still vote on a provisional ballot.

    If they are just registered as NPP and do not use Vote by Mail, they just simply request the Democratic Party ballot at their polling place.

    And yes, it has been extremely confusing and not well publicized.

    aab , June 2, 2016 at 4:46 am

    Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. I got trained this week as a Los Angeles County poll worker. NPP people get separate crossover ballots for each of the three parties they can crossover to. So you don't exchange it for a Democratic party ballot, you exchange it for (or simply receive upon first request) an NPP Crossover Democratic ballot. It's got a separate little design on top and everything.

    Also, if you are brand new voter, you have to bring your ID with you to the polling place, or you may be forced to use a provisional ballot - I couldn't tell whether that was a Los Angeles county thing, or a state thing.

    Oh, and rumors are flying that a) Hillary people are going around claiming to be Bernie volunteers, gathering up completed Vote By Mail ballots from people at home and then presumably dumping them (as was done in Oregon); and b) that the state did not print enough NPP Crossover Democratic ballots, and will run out, possibly before election day. Given that our Secretary of State is known to be corrupt and a Clinton backer, these both seem like plausible tactics, in a huge state where county registrars have a lot of autonomy and almost 75% of the votes will be Vote By Mail. But I have no idea whether there is evidence for either. Given how the election theft and media propaganda on Clinton's behalf has been systematic and blatant, people's paranoia rachets up daily, as their trust in institutions sinks. Nice work, Clintonland. That won't be a problem going forward at all.

    On the bright side, we were told that the LA registrar will count every valid provisional ballot, no matter what the percentages are. Again, I don't know if that's true in other counties. But I've had numerous interactions with the registrar staff, and they seem genuinely committed to doing the right thing and helping people vote, regardless of whom they're voting for.

    The problems with people accidentally registering as American Independent Party (a far right party, and you can't crossover from that to Dem, only from NPP to AIP or Dem) and people mistakenly thinking they can write Bernie in on NPP ballots (nope) instead of exchanging gives me heartburn. But then, CNN, MSNBC et al. will announce she's clinched the nomination (again, not possible) right when most people get off work and head to the polls, so there are just SO MANY WAYS to screw with people.

    JCC , June 1, 2016 at 10:28 pm

    On Gracie Slick and "White Rabbit'; the Rolling Stones did it earlier with "Mother's Little Helper", I think. Not quite the same message, but it definitely addressed parents'drug use vs what they expected out of their children.

    "Things are different today,"
    I hear ev'ry mother say
    Cooking fresh food for a husband's just a drag
    So she buys an instant cake and she burns her frozen steak
    And goes running for the shelter of a mother's little helper
    And two help her on her way, get her through her busy day
    Doctor please, some more of these
    Outside the door, she took four more
    What a drag it is getting old

    (My mother hated that song)

    Jim Haygood , June 1, 2016 at 10:49 pm

    One Californian to another:

    Well she's not the prettiest girl in the world
    I know she's not the smartest one too
    But she's always there and I know she cares
    And I know that her heart is true

    Well ain't it amazin', Gracie
    How much I love you
    I been all over the world but no other girl
    Ever thrilled me the way that you do

    - Buck from Bakersfield

    cripes , June 2, 2016 at 1:28 am

    The Lame Duck In Chief supports increasing Social Security

    In other news, Obama Library's volunteer board hires subcontractor that employs minimum-wage undocumented workers without benefits to polish presidential bust Made in China.

    Have we mentioned lately what an a**hole Obama is?

    Lambert Strether Post author , June 2, 2016 at 11:52 am

    Can't find the link. Got one?

    [Jun 02, 2016] The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while

    Notable quotes:
    "... The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. ..."
    "... "the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis" while the fedgov spends north of 5 percent of GDP on global military dominance. We're the Soviets now, comrades: shiny weapons, rotting infrastructure. ..."
    "... This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint. People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it. ..."
    "... They think a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot. You also have the more gullible fundis who have actually deluded themselves into thinking the man who is ultimate symbol of hedonism will deliver them from secularism because he says he will. Authoritarians who seek solutions through strong leaders are usually the easiest to con because they desperately want to believe in their eminent deliverance by a human deus ex machina. ..."
    "... The Society of the Spectacle ..."
    "... Time to frighten the elites. Trump will have to deliver something to all those supporters if he becomes President, but what that could, or might be, who could possibly say. That will be his problem. If he fails Blake's ' fearful symmetry ' could be very fearful indeed. ..."
    "... Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government. You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government. ..."
    "... yea it's a start but something really needs to be done about either jobs or incomes, it's far more central to people lives. I know sanders has some ideas but it was never given enough emphasis. Or keep wondering why trump still appeals to people – they are misguided of course, but nonetheless, he does promise a lot that he can never deliver that may appeal to people – like bringing back jobs. ..."
    "... Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left. ..."
    "... This is why hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade. ..."
    "... In the U.S., nearly all of the Republican politicians fit into this category, and a substantial number of Democrats, too. Here's a list of some of the more prominent Democrats: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/democrats-who-voted-for-fast-track Not all of the Senators are up for re-election, of course. You can also find more Democrats in this category by looking for Hillary Clinton supporters among the super delegates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016 ..."
    "... If you read "Barbarians at the Gate" what was most striking is that companies that get destroyed are PROFITABLE – but it is MORE profitable for a few to strip mine them. In the religion of economics, God has forgotten them We use certain metrics that says this increases GDP, and therefore it MUST be done – like the character in Harry Potter whose name can never be uttered, we can never, ever speak of the distribution of the vaunted GDP. As I've said many times, inequality is a political choice. I fear our system has been so thoroughly infiltrated by the self absorbed that it is now impossible for any meaningful reform. ..."
    "... Re Methland, we live in rural US and we got a not-very-well hidden population of homeless children. I don't mean homeless families with children, I mean homeless children. Sleeping in parks in good weather, couch-surfing with friends, etc. I think related. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    naked capitalism

    The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke.

    Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand).

    The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. /

    DJG , June 2, 2016 at 9:53 am

    ChiGal: Agreed. Here in Edgewater, the houses are suddenly going for unheard-of prices. We locals joke that it has to be drug money: Who else can afford to turn a two-flat into a single-family palazzo with six bedrooms?

    Yet every morning, as I head out for the daily cup of coffee, the main streets (Clark) are covered in a layer of trash. Infrastructure is decaying–obviously so, as the streets flood after each rain.

    On my forays downtown, I notice trash everywhere. (Much of it the detritus of the upper-middle-class in the form of restaurant clamshells, Starbucks paper cups, bottles from micro-breweries, and so on.)

    Conversely, a walk along Clark in Rogers Park is an entry into economic devastation, dozens of empty stores.

    And then the sixty shootings over the holiday weekend. A city in decline, but addled by its own boosterism and by the weird local idea that the corruption is somehow appealing and quaint.

    Jim Haygood , June 2, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    "the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis" while the fedgov spends north of 5 percent of GDP on global military dominance. We're the Soviets now, comrades: shiny weapons, rotting infrastructure.

    Today in San Diego, the Hildabeest will deliver a vigorous defense of this decadent, dying system.

    Mary Wehrheim , June 2, 2016 at 8:32 am

    This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint. People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it.

    They think a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot. You also have the more gullible fundis who have actually deluded themselves into thinking the man who is ultimate symbol of hedonism will deliver them from secularism because he says he will. Authoritarians who seek solutions through strong leaders are usually the easiest to con because they desperately want to believe in their eminent deliverance by a human deus ex machina.

    Plus he is ostentatiously rich in a comfortably tacky way and a TV celebrity beats a Harvard law degree. And why not the thinking goes the highly vaunted elite college Acela crowd has pretty much made a pig's breakfast out of things. So much for meritocracy. Professor Harold Hill is going to give River City a boys band.

    abynormal , June 2, 2016 at 8:50 am

    The spectacle's externality with respect to the acting subject is demonstrated by the fact that the individual's own gestures are no longer his own but rather those of someone else who represents them to him. The spectator feels at home nowhere, for the spectacle is everywhere.
    Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle

    templar555510 , June 2, 2016 at 9:09 am

    Time to frighten the elites. Trump will have to deliver something to all those supporters if he becomes President, but what that could, or might be, who could possibly say. That will be his problem. If he fails Blake's ' fearful symmetry ' could be very fearful indeed.

    uahsenaa , June 2, 2016 at 9:58 am

    Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government. You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government.

    In other words, the MSM's fear is the clearest sign to these voters that their political revolution is working. Since TPTB decided peaceful change (i.e. Sanders) was a non-starter, then they get to reap the whirlwind.

    Robert Coutinho , June 2, 2016 at 9:10 am

    Some of those who have commented here need to explain, in detail, with well-thought-out and backed-up plans, just how they would change the system that we currently have in place. I believe it needs to change. I have read quite a few ideas (some of them probably fairly good) on what to change and how to change it. However, it is very easy to complain about a problem. It is fairly easy to destroy things in the name of disliking the problem. It is, however, often quite difficult to fix the problem.

    flora , June 2, 2016 at 9:30 am

    What are your ideas?

    JEHR , June 2, 2016 at 9:38 am

    It's funny, but as an outsider it seems to me you already have the beginnings of a solution (which you may not recognize) in the role that Bernie Sanders is playing in your politics right at this moment. Getting money out of politics, free public university, single-payer health care and taking care of the bankers comprise some of Sanders' platform which would go a long way in changing the system. There will be fireworks, though, when it happens.

    DJG , June 2, 2016 at 10:00 am

    JEHR: Well, you must not be too much of an outsider, in that you give the correct diagnosis. The U S of A should start with some better policies and with less of the celebrity politics that has gotten us into this swamp.

    Also: Progressive taxation. How revolutionary! Make the liberal elites and the rightwing elites pay taxes. Likewise, penalize companies for maintaining offshort accounts–as in revoking their corporate status, which can be done.

    jrs , June 2, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    yea it's a start but something really needs to be done about either jobs or incomes, it's far more central to people lives. I know sanders has some ideas but it was never given enough emphasis. Or keep wondering why trump still appeals to people – they are misguided of course, but nonetheless, he does promise a lot that he can never deliver that may appeal to people – like bringing back jobs.

    Bud in PA , June 2, 2016 at 9:40 am

    Well said

    Rhondda , June 2, 2016 at 9:49 am

    Lambert has a dozen ideas posted over at Corrente. Good, practical stuff. Take a look.

    Vatch , June 2, 2016 at 10:44 am

    http://www.correntewire.com/the_12_point_platform_0

    The only thing that really needs to be added to this very good list is a concerted effort to encourage effective family planning. There are far too many people on Earth, and this is very dangerous.

    Dave , June 2, 2016 at 11:04 am

    There are all good ideas. However, population growth undermines almost all of them. Population growth in America is immigrant based. Reverse immigration influxes and you are at least doing something to reduce population growth.

    How to "reverse immigration influxes"?

    • Stop accepting refugees. It's outrageous that refugees from for example, Somalia, get small business loans, housing assistance, food stamps and lifetime SSI benefits while some of our veterans are living on the street.
    • No more immigration amnesties of any kind.
    • Deport all illegal alien criminals.
    • Practice "immigrant family unification" in the country of origin. Even if you have to pay them to leave. It's less expensive in the end.
    • Eliminate tax subsidies to American corn growers who then undercut Mexican farmers' incomes through NAFTA, driving them into poverty and immigration north. Throw Hillary Clinton out on her ass and practice political and economic justice to Central America.

    I too am a lifetime registered Democrat and I will vote for Trump if Clinton gets the crown. If the Democrats want my vote, my continuing party registration and my until recently sizeable donations in local, state and national races, they will nominate Bernie. If not, then I'm an Independent forevermore. They will just become the Demowhig Party.

    Jack Heape , June 2, 2016 at 10:00 am

    Here's a start

    1. Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal.
    2. Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks.
    3. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders.
    4. Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts the number of doctors.
    5. Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation.
    6. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry.
    7. Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development.
    8. Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour.
    9. Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official.
    10. Free public education including college (4 year degree).

    DJG , June 2, 2016 at 10:01 am

    Yes to all ten points. Thanks.

    Jessica , June 2, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    Some additional ideas:
    1) High tax levels on natural monopolies or treat them as utilities or nationalize them. This means, for example, Microsoft Windows and Office, Facebook.
    2) Require that all platforms for work be non-profit worker co-ops with capped management salaries. This means, for example, Uber, Lyft, perhaps AirBnB, and the like.
    Also, if we cut the defense budget by 50% (which would be an excellent idea), it is important to provide genuine alternative opportunities for current and would-have-been soldiers and defense workers. That includes training too. This point could be pivotal for gaining and retaining the support of the kinds of folks who often don't vote or vote Republicans while progressives wonder why, the "what ever happened to Kansas" working class vote.

    Jessica , June 2, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    On a more general level, we need to
    1) Find a way to reward intellectual work but also turn the information loose for further use. (Rather than using copyrights/patents to cripple usage of the information or leaving intellectual work unpaid for and crippling motivation.)
    2) Restore integrity to the top 20%.
    One thing that would help is to create a strong social consensus that respects those who profit from genuine creativity but despise those who profit by gaming the system or taking advantage of others. For example, Apple's creation of the iPod or iPad should be rewarded. Apple's profiting from super low wages at plants in China (the ones with the nets to catch would-be suicides), should punished and looked at the way we look at child molesters.

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 10:01 am

    Prosecute the banksters and restore the rule of law and everything else will fall into place is one great idea. Lawlessness is how neoliberalism is taking over

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 10:11 am

    It's become a free for all to steal from citizens around the world, blessed by central banks and bought governments.It's become such a game for "them" that they reward with huge bonuses those that get away with stealing the most. Neoliberalism is no rich crooks ever going to jail. Poor Madoff, should have been a politician with get a out of jail free card. He didn't play it the neoliberal way so he was punished.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 11:44 am

    +1, when I'm accused of hating corporations or presented with TINA I simply point out that policy got us here and policy can get us out. This, along with all the effort the parties have put into the concept of the "unitary executive" and you can see why they're petrified of bernie.

    sharonsj , June 2, 2016 at 10:23 am

    Ideas are nice. We all know what they are. But nothing will happen unless people get off their duffs and take to the streets. I have read that the elites only change their behavior when frightened by very, very large crowds, preferably carrying pitchforks.

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 10:56 am

    Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 11:56 am

    This is why hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade.

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 12:35 pm

    Totally agree tegnost, no more democratic neoliberals -- Patty Murray (up for re-election) and Cantwell are both trade traitors and got fast track passed.

    Sluggeaux , June 2, 2016 at 9:13 am

    Two things are driving our troubles: over-population and globalization. The plutocrats and kleptocrats have all the leverage over the rest of us laborers when the population of human beings has increased seven-fold in the last 70 years, from a little over a billion to seven billions (and growing) today. They are happy to let us freeze to death behind gas stations in order for them to compete with other oligarchs in excess consumption.

    This deserves a longer and more thoughtful comment, but I don't have the time this morning. I have to fight commute traffic, because the population of my home state of California has doubled from 19M in 1970 to an estimated 43M today (if you count the Latin American refugees and H1B's).

    Vatch , June 2, 2016 at 11:04 am

    Thank you for mentioning the third rail of overpopulation. Too often, this giant category of problems is ignored, because it makes people uncomfortable. The planet is finite, resources on the planet are finite, yet the number of people keeps growing. We need to strive for a higher quality of life, not a higher quantity of people.

    Enquiring Mind , June 2, 2016 at 9:14 am

    Name names. Who are the current neoliberals that are up for election, or are standing for re-election? Or is the list just too long or obvious?

    Rhondda , June 2, 2016 at 9:52 am

    I think it's more like who aren't neoliberalsNeocons/

    Vatch , June 2, 2016 at 11:09 am

    In the U.S., nearly all of the Republican politicians fit into this category, and a substantial number of Democrats, too. Here's a list of some of the more prominent Democrats: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/democrats-who-voted-for-fast-track Not all of the Senators are up for re-election, of course. You can also find more Democrats in this category by looking for Hillary Clinton supporters among the super delegates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

    Many of them are not elected officials, and not all of the elected officials are up for re-election. But House members are always up for re-election, unless they retire or lose in a primary.

    paul whalen , June 2, 2016 at 9:19 am

    America has always been a country where a majority of the population has been poor. With the exception of a fifty five year(1950-2005) year period where access to large quantities of consumer debt by households was deployed to first to provide a wealth illusion to keep socialism at bay, followed by a mortgage debt boom to both keep the system afloat and strip the accumulated capital of the working class, i.e. home equity, the history of the US has been one of poverty for the masses. Further debt was foisted on the working class in the form of military Keynesianism, generating massive fiscal deficits which are to be paid for via austerity in a neo-feudal economy.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/28/the-myth-of-the-middle-class-have-most-americans-always-been-poor/

    jrs , June 2, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    I think that is closer to the truth, U.S. style capitalism produces poverty, always has, always will, actually capitalism does pretty much. But some small section of the population – the college educated, and the white union members, did have it better and are angry at what they lost.

    fresno dan , June 2, 2016 at 9:56 am

    "Those mill jobs were well paid and the workers could buy houses, cars, and had pensions. One of my brothers works for a paper mill that should have been world competitive through his retirement, but it's been wrecked by a series of private equity owners, starting with Cerberus, and in now in bankruptcy."

    ========================

    If you read "Barbarians at the Gate" what was most striking is that companies that get destroyed are PROFITABLE – but it is MORE profitable for a few to strip mine them. In the religion of economics, God has forgotten them We use certain metrics that says this increases GDP, and therefore it MUST be done – like the character in Harry Potter whose name can never be uttered, we can never, ever speak of the distribution of the vaunted GDP. As I've said many times, inequality is a political choice. I fear our system has been so thoroughly infiltrated by the self absorbed that it is now impossible for any meaningful reform.

    TedWa , June 2, 2016 at 11:03 am

    Above the law demi-god banksters (I call them financial terrorists) are re-creating the world in their own image. Thank Obama and Holder for placing them above the law.

    jrs , June 2, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    Why were they well paid though? Just because of a tight labor market or because of unions? If it's the latter sooner or later even all those Trump supporters are going to have to admit that only leftist movements like the labor movement actually work.

    Dave , June 2, 2016 at 10:21 am

    Americans cannot begin to reasonably demand a living wage, benefits and job security when there is an unending human ant-line of illegals and legal immigrants willing to under bid them.

    Only when there is a parity or shortage of workers can wage demands succeed, along with other factors.

    From 1925 to 1965 this country accepted hardly any immigrants, legal or illegal. We had the bracero program where Mexican males were brought in to pick crops and were then sent home to collect paychecks in Mexico. American blacks were hired from the deep south to work defense plants in the north and west.

    Is it any coincidence that the 1965 Great Society program, initiated by Ted Kennedy to primarily benefit the Irish immigrants, then co-opted by LBJ to include practically everyone, started this process of Middle Class destruction?

    1973 was the peak year of American Society as measured by energy use per capita, expansion of jobs and unionization and other factors, such as an environment not yet destroyed, nicely measured by the The Real Progress Indicator.

    Solution? Stop importing uneducated people. That's real "immigration reform".

    Now explain to me why voters shouldn't favor Trump's radical immigration stands?

    RUKidding , June 2, 2016 at 11:06 am

    Maybe, but OTOH, who is it, exactly, who is recruiting, importing, hiring and training undocumented workers to downgrade pay scales??

    Do some homework, please. If businesses didn't actively go to Central and South America to recruit, pay to bring here, hire and employ undocumented workers, then the things you discuss would be great.

    When ICE comes a-knocking at some meat processing plant or mega-chicken farm, what happens? The undocumented workers get shipped back to wherever, but the big business owner doesn't even get a tap on the wrist. The undocumented worker – hired to work in unregulated unsafe unhealthy conditions – often goes without their last paycheck.

    It's the business owners who manage and support this system of undocumented workers because it's CHEAP, and they don't get busted for it.

    Come back when the USA actually enforces the laws that are on the books today and goes after big and small business owners who knowingly recruit, import, hire, train and employee undocumented workers you know, like Donald Trump has all across his career.

    tegnost , June 2, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    This is the mechanism by which the gov't has assisted biz in destroying the worker, competition for thee, but none for me. For instance I can't go work in canada or mexico, they don't allow it. Policy made it, policy can change it, go bernie. While I favor immigration, in it's current form it is primarily conducted on these lines of destroying workers (H1b etc and illegals combined) Lucky for the mexicans they can see the american dream is bs and can go home. I wonder who the latinos that have gained citizenship will vote for. Unlikely it'll be trump, but they can be pretty conservative, and the people they work for are pretty conservative so no guarantee there, hillary is in san diego at the tony balboa park where her supporters will feel comfortable, not a huge venue I think they must be hoping for a crowd, and if she can't get one in san diego while giving a "if we don't rule the world someone else will" speech, she can't get one anywhere. Defense contractors and military advisors and globalist biotech (who needs free money more than biotech? they are desperate for hillary) are thick in san diego.

    RUKidding , June 2, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    I live part-time in San Diego. It is very conservative. The military, who are constantly screwed by the GOP, always vote Republican. They make up a big cohort of San Diego county.

    Hillary may not get a big crowd at the speech, but that, in itself, doesn't mean that much to me. There is a segment of San Diego that is somewhat more progressive-ish, but it's a pretty conservative county with parts of eastern SD county having had active John Birch Society members until recently or maybe even ongoing.

    There's a big push in the Latino community to GOTV, and it's mostly not for Trump. It's possible this cohort, esp the younger Latino/as, will vote for Sanders in the primary, but if Clinton gets the nomination, they'll likely vote for her (v. Trump).

    I was unlucky enough to be stuck for an hour in a commuter train last Friday after Trump's rally there. Hate to sound rude, but Trump's fans were everything we've seen. Loud, rude, discourteous and an incessant litany of rightwing talking points (same old, same old). All pretty ignorant. Saying how Trump will "make us great again." I don't bother asking how. A lot of ugly comments about Obama and how Obama has been "so racially divisive and polarizing." Well, No. No, Obama has not been or done that, but the rightwing noise machine has sure ginned up your hatreds, angers and fears. It was most unpleasant. The only instructive thing about it was confirming my worst fears about this group. Sorry to say but pretty loutish and very uninformed. Sigh.

    Bob Haugen , June 2, 2016 at 10:35 am

    Re Methland, we live in rural US and we got a not-very-well hidden population of homeless children. I don't mean homeless families with children, I mean homeless children. Sleeping in parks in good weather, couch-surfing with friends, etc. I think related.

    [May 31, 2016] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering

    en.wikipedia.org

    mikedow. 3d ago

    Ambrose Bierce lost much public cachet when he predicted(?) McKinley would meet with a bullet, as some believed his words were assumed as justification by the assassin.

    From his "Devil's Dictionary":

    WAR, n. A by-product of the arts of peace. The most menacing political condition is a period of international amity. The student of history who has not been taught to expect the unexpected may justly boast himself inaccessible to the light. "In time of peace prepare for war" has a deeper meaning than is commonly discerned; it means, not merely that all things earthly have an end-that change is the one immutable and eternal law-but that the soil of peace is thickly sown with the seeds of war and singularly suited to their germination and growth. It was when Kubla Khan had decreed his "stately pleasure dome"-when, that is to say, there were peace and fat feasting in Xanadu- that he heard from afar Ancestral voices prophesying war.

    One of the greatest of poets, Coleridge was one of the wisest of men, and it was not for nothing that he read us this parable. Let us have a little less of "hands across the sea," and a little more of that elemental distrust that is the security of nations. War loves to come like a thief in the night; professions of eternal amity provide the night.

    His entry just previous to this is for:

    WALL STREET, n. A symbol of sin for every devil to rebuke. That Wall Street is a den of thieves is a belief that serves every unsuccessful thief in place of a hope in Heaven...

    I have a copy of his book "Tales of Soldiers and Civilians"; it's like reading a depressive version of Edgar Allen Poe, all foreboding and involving some supernatural force. Perhaps that's all he could find to explain the madness of the Civil War.

    [May 30, 2016] A fractured Democratic Party threatens Clinton's chances against Trump

    naked capitalism

    UPDATE "A fractured Democratic Party threatens Clinton's chances against Trump" [WaPo].

    Sanders himself has made harder-to-argue cases [as opposed to election fraud] against the Democratic primaries. The truncated debate schedule struck supporters of both candidates as unfair, something the party seemed to acknowledge by tacking on more of them in March and April. Although Clinton is on track to win a majority of pledged delegates, Sanders has suggested that early support for Clinton among superdelegates, the party leaders and elected officials who get an automatic convention vote but are not bound by their state's popular vote created a barrier no candidate could scale.

    This reminds me of Albert O. Hirschman's "Exit, Voice, and Loyalty" formulation. The Democrats have given Sanders supporters zero to no reason for loyalty, so the remaining options are voice and exit. Can the Clinton camp craft a deal that will allow Sanders voters a voice within the party? I think they neither wish to, nor can (vague noises about platform wording are to "voice" as watching a meeting is to chairing a meeting). Hence, exit. Here, the classic Democratic response has been "They have no place to go." However, Sanders has funding independent of the Democratic Party, and he also has his "list" (assuming the Democrat insiders using NGP VAN haven't stolen it). So for the first time, there's a real chance of creating a place for the left to go. The new situation Sanders created has impaled the Democrat establishment on the horns of a big dilemma: Craft a deal with a party faction they despise (a deal which, more to the point, will break some important rice bowls if it's any kind of deal at all), or craft no deal and go for moderate Republican votes; I argue the Iron Law of Institutions - not to mention neoliberal ideological compatibility and class interest - will impel the Democrat Establishment to do the latter; hence, exit for Sanders. Nevertheless, the Establishment's dilemma causes them genuine pain, and hence the sudden spittle-flecked explosion of Acela-riding, loyalist rage, none of which takes account of the realpolitik, or resolves the situation in any way.

    UPDATE "Does Bernie Sanders want to be the Ralph Nader of 2016?" [Dana Milbank, WaPo]. The insurgent Sanders couldn't, even if he wanted to be. The insurgent Nader commanded what, 4% of the vote? Sanders commands 45%, after a process skewed against him, whose views point to a possible future for the Democrat Party. Incidentally, there's a message in an order-of-magnitude growth in support for Democrat insurgents, if the party Establishment would open its ears. (And don't talk to me about Florida: 306,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush. Democrats lost election 2000, and nobody else.)

    "After winning more than 60 percent of the pledged delegates through March 1st, Clinton is now likely to lose the majority of pledged delegates awarded between March 2nd and June 14th - a two and a half month period that makes up roughly the final two-thirds of the Democratic nominating process" [HuffPo]. Why those favorability ratings are important

    [May 30, 2016] Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict

    Wrapped in the flag neocon bottom feeders like Hillary (and quite possibly Trump, although this article is from Guardian which is a fiercely pro-Clinton rag) might eventually destroy this nice country.
    Notable quotes:
    "... the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
    "... Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know anything about war ourselves. ..."
    "... As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk ..."
    "... The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of constant war. This is a stupid idea. ..."
    "... It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician calling for more of those deaths. ..."
    "... And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is? ..."
    "... The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed" ..."
    "... Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair. ..."
    "... When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works out. ..."
    "... we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans and flag waving. ..."
    "... "Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict " How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there. ..."
    "... So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
    "... It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives. ..."
    "... So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course, then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading. ..."
    "... John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won, the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check Soviet expansion. ..."
    "... Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that "idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. ..."
    "... Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually prefer to keep their views under wraps. ..."
    "... Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer. ..."
    "... I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary. The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell. ..."
    May 28, 2016 | theguardian.com

    As America marks Memorial Day, politicians should spare us the saber-rattling and reserve some space for silence

    ... ... ...

    The times are such that fantasy war-mongering is solidly mainstream. We've seen candidates call for a new campaign of "shock and awe" (Kasich), for carpet-bombing and making the desert glow (Cruz), for "bomb[ing] the shit out of them" (Trump), for waterboarding "and a hell of a lot worse" (Trump again), and for pre-emptive strikes and massive troop deployments (Jeb). One candidate purchased a handgun as "the last line of defense between Isis and my family" (Rubio), and the likely Democratic nominee includes "the nail-eaters – McChrystal, Petraeus, Keane" among her preferred military advisers, and supports "intensification and acceleration" of US military efforts in Iraq and Syria. Yes, America has many enemies who heartily hate our guts and would do us every harm they're able to inflict, but the failures of hard power over the past 15 years seem utterly lost on our political class. After the Paris attacks last December, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard suggested that a force of 50,000 US troops deployed to Syria, supported by air power, would crush Isis in short order, leading to the liberation of Fallujah, Mosul, and other Isis strongholds. "I don't think there's much in the way of unanticipated side-effects that are going to be bad there," opined Kristol – funny guy! – who back in 2002 said that removing Saddam Hussein "could start a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy".

    ... ... ...

    "A night of waking," as Bierce tersely described it years later. The sheer volume and accuracy of ordnance made this a new kind of war, a machine for pulping acres of human flesh. Regardless of who was winning or losing, shock-and-awe was the common experience of both sides; Confederate and Union soldiers alike could hardly believe the things they were doing and having done to them, and when Bierce turned to the writer's trade after the war, some fundamental rigor or just plain contrariness wouldn't let him portray his war in conventionally heroic terms. In his hands, sentimentality and melodrama became foils for twisted jokes. Glory was ambiguous at best, a stale notion that barely hinted at the suicidal nature of valor in this kind of war. A wicked gift for honesty served up the eternal clash between duty and the survival instinct, as when, early in the war, Bierce and his fellow rookies come across a group of Union dead:

    How repulsive they looked with their blood-smears, their blank, staring eyes, their teeth uncovered by contraction of the lips! The frost had begun already to whiten their deranged clothing. We were as patriotic as ever, but we did not wish to be that way.

    ... ... ...

    Black humor sits alongside mordantly cool accounts of battles, wounds, horrors, absurd and tragic turns of luck. There are lots of ghosts in Bierce's work, a menagerie of spirits and bugaboos as well as hauntings of the more prosaic sort, people detached in one way or another from themselves – amnesiacs, hallucinators, somnambulists, time trippers. People missing some part of their souls. Often Bierce writes of the fatal, or nearly so, shock, the twist that flips conventional wisdom on its back and shows reality to be much darker and crueler than we want to believe. It's hard not to read the war into much of Bierce's writing, even when the subject is ostensibly otherwise. He was the first American writer of note to experience modern warfare, war as mass-produced death, and the first to try for words that would be true to the experience. He charted this new terrain, and it's in Bierce that we find the original experience that all subsequent American war writers would grapple with. Hemingway and Dos Passos in the first world war; Mailer, Heller, Jones and Vonnegut in the second world war; O'Brien, Herr and Marlantes in Vietnam: they're all heritors of Bierce.

    It's not decorative, what these writers were going for. They weren't trying to write fancy, or entertain, or preach a sermon; they weren't writing to serve a political cause, at least not in any immediate sense. One suspects that on some level they didn't have a choice, as if they realized they would never know any peace in themselves unless they found a way of writing that, if it couldn't make sense of their war, at least respected it. Words that represented the experience for what it was, without illusion or fantasy. Words that would resist the eternal American genius for cheapening and dumbing down.

    .... ... ...

    ...unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing.

    Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know anything about war ourselves. We know the fantasy version, the movie version, but only that 1% of the nation – and their families – who have fought the wars truly know the hardship involved. For the rest of us, no sacrifice has been called for: none. No draft. No war tax (but huge deficits), and here it bears noting that the top tax rate during the second world war was 90%. No rationing, the very mention of which is good for a laugh. Rationing? That was never part of the discussion. But those years when US soldiers were piling sandbags into their thin-skinned Humvees and welding scrap metal on to the sides also happened to coincide with the heyday of the Hummer here at home. Where I live in Dallas, you couldn't drive a couple of blocks without passing one of those beasts, 8,600 hulking pounds of chrome and steel. Or for a really good laugh, how about this: gas rationing. If it's really about the oil, we could support the troops by driving less, walking more. Or suppose it's not about the oil at all, but about our freedoms, our values, our very way of life – that it's truly "a clash of civilizations", in the words of Senator Rubio. If that's the case, if this is what we truly believe, then our politicians should call for, and we should accept no less than, full-scale mobilization: a draft, confiscatory tax rates, rationing.

    Some 3.5 million Americans fought in the civil war, out of a population of 31 million. For years the number killed in action was estimated at 620,000, though recent scholarship suggests a significantly higher figure, from a low of 650,000 to a high of 850,000. In any case, it's clear that the vast majority of American families had, as we say these days, skin in the game. The war was real; having loved ones at risk made it real. Many saw battles being fought in their literal backyards. Lincoln himself watched the fighting from the DC ramparts, saw men shot and killed. The lived reality of the thing was so brutally direct that it would be more than 50 years before the US embarked on another major war. To be sure, there was the brief Spanish-American war in 1898, and a three-year native insurgency in the Philippines, and various forays around the Caribbean and Central America, but the trauma of the civil war cut so deep and raw that the generation that fought it was largely cured of war. Our own generation's appetite seems steadily robust even as we approach the 15th anniversary of the AUMF, which, given the circumstances, makes sense. As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk

    Bierce survived his own war, barely. Two weeks after writing to a friend "my turn will come", and one day before his 22nd birthday, he was shot in the head near Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia. The sniper's ball broke his skull "like a walnut", penetrating the left temple, fracturing the temporal lobe and doglegging down and around behind his left ear, where it stayed. Head shots in that era were almost always fatal, but Bierce survived not only the initial wound, but an awful two-day train ride on an open flatcar to an army hospital in Chattanooga.

    He recovered, more or less. Not the easiest personality to begin with, Bierce showed no appreciable mellowing from his war experience. His life is an ugly litany of feuds, ruptures, lawsuits, friends betrayed or abandoned, epic temper tantrums and equally epic funks. He was a lousy husband – cold, critical, philandering – and essentially abandoned his wife after 17 years of marriage. His older son shot himself dead at age 16, and the younger drank himself to death in his 20s; for his own part, Bierce maintained a lifelong obsession with suicide. In October 1913, after a distinguished, contentious 50-year career that had made him one of the most famous and hated men in America, Bierce left Washington DC and headed for Mexico, intending to join, or report on – it was never quite clear – Pancho Villa's revolutionary army. En route, dressing every day entirely in black, he paid final visits to the battlefields of his youth, hiking for miles in the Indian summer heat around Orchard Knob, Missionary Ridge, Hell's Half-Acre. For one whole day at Shiloh he sat by himself in the blazing sun. In November he crossed from Laredo into Mexico, and was never heard from again, an exit dramatic enough to inspire a bestselling novel by Carlos Fuentes, The Old Gringo, and a movie adaptation of the same name starring Gregory Peck.

    Late in life, Bierce described his military service in these terms:

    It was once my fortune to command a company of soldiers – real soldiers. Not professional life-long fighters, the product of European militarism – just plain, ordinary American volunteer soldiers, who loved their country and fought for it with never a thought of grabbing it for themselves; that is a trick which the survivors were taught later by gentlemen desiring their votes.

    About those gentlemen – and women – desiring votes: since when did it become not just acceptable but required for politicians to hold forth on Memorial Day? Who gave them permission to speak for the violently dead? Come Monday we'll be up to our ears in some of the emptiest, most self-serving dreck ever to ripple the atmosphere, the standard war-fantasy talk of American politics along with televangelist-style purlings about heroes, freedoms, the supreme sacrifice. Trump will tell us how much he loves the veterans, and how much they love him back. Down-ticket pols will re-terrorize and titillate voters with tough talk about Isis. Hemingway, for one, had no use for this kind of guff, as shown in a famous passage from A Farewell to Arms:

    There were many words that you could not stand to hear and finally only the names of the places had dignity. Certain numbers were the same way and certain dates and these with the names of the places were all you could say and have them mean anything. Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene beside the concrete names of villages, the numbers of roads, the names of rivers, the numbers of regiments and the dates.
    caravanserai , 2016-05-31 01:46:32
    The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of constant war. This is a stupid idea.

    Even if Saddam had WMDs, he still had nothing to do with 9/11. The politicians are very good at finding new scapegoats and switching the blame. A bunch of Saudis attacked the US on 9/11 so invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden moves to Pakistan so pretend you don't know where he is. Some European terrorists kill other Europeans so Hillary wants to invade Syria. The assumption seems to be that all Muslims are the same, it does not matter where you kill them.

    JohnManyjars , 2016-05-31 01:12:38
    Fantastic writing...shame Murika won't listen to any of it.

    charlieblue

    Reading the comments and conversations below, I found myself sickened and saddened by how many of my fellow Americans can read a considered and well written article like this and imagine it is a partisan screed.

    It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician calling for more of those deaths.

    lattimote, 2016-05-30T13:08:53Z
    "Endless war," but it's not only attacks against other nations, it's a war against civil liberties thus leading to a state in which, whistle blowers, folks who poke holes in the government's 911 theory or complain about military operations in the China Sea may be considered unpatriotic, maybe worse.
    Dubikau
    A friend recently asked, "What's the big deal about wars? I'v seen them on TV lots of times. They have nothing to do with me." Alas, a generation or two after a devastating conflict, it seems people forget. The lessons of history are unknown or irrelevant to the ignorant, the horror beyond imagination. That the clown, Trump, has made it this far is a living horror movie. As Emerson said about someone:

    "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."

    He's a liar and a joke. Neither friends nor enemies can take him seriously and he is unpredictable.

    Bellanova Nova
    Excellent article.

    We must start talking seriously about Trump's pathology guarantees conflict and chaos, and should he get elected, an escalation of an endless war. The ramifications of his incurable and uncontrollable character defect in a political leader are dire and people should be educated about them before it's too late: https://medium.com/@Elamika/the-unbearable-lightness-of-being-a-narcissist-251ec901dae7#.xywh6cceu

    Philip Lundt
    As a veteran I have to ask you Ben: who gave you "permission to speak for the violently dead?"

    A lot of people love Donald Trump. It's not because they are racists warmongers, ignorant, misinformed or stupid. Veterans overwhelmingly support Donald trump. Go ahead call us racists and warmongers too.

    And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is?

    villas1
    Bravo. War is a racket.
    olman132 -> villas1
    As practiced in the US, certainly. The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat.
    Jim Given
    When your'e putting your life at risk in a war zone wondering if you're going to make it back home, there's damned little discussion about politics. Whatever your reasons might have been for signing on the dotted line, all that matters then is the sailor, soldier, marine or airman standing beside you. It's discouraging, although painfully predictable, to read so few comments about veterans and so many comments about divisive politics.
    Mshand
    Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed"
    USApatriot12
    Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair.

    talenttruth

    For over 30 years, Americans have been carefully "programmed" 24/7, by deliberate Fear / Fear / Fear propaganda, so we would believe that the entire world is full of evil, maniacal enemies out to "get us."

    Of course there always ARE insane haters out there, who are either jealous of America's wealth, or who (more sophisticated than that) resent America's attempt to colonize-by-marketing, the entire world for its unchecked capitalism. Two sides of the same American "coin." Those who are conscripting jobless, hopeless young men overseas to be part of an equally mad "fundamentalist" army against America ~ benefit hugely FROM our militarism, which "proves their point," from their warped perspective.

    Thus do the (tiny minority) of crazy America-haters out there (who we help create WITH our militarism), serve as ongoing Perfectly Plausible Proof for Paranoia ~ the fuel for 24/7 fear/fear/fear propaganda. And who benefits from that propaganda? Oh wait, let us all think on that. For five seconds.

    In 1959, Republican war hero and President Dwight David Eisenhower warned us against combining the incentives of capitalism with the un-audited profitability of wars: the "military industrial complex." But in we Americans' orgy of personal materialism since the 1960's, we all forgot his warning and have let that "complex" take over the nation, the world, all our pocketbooks (53% or more of our treasury now goes to "defense" ~ what a lying word THAT is).

    Answer? It it the 1-percent, crazily Wealth Hoarder super-rich who (a) profit insanely from Eternal War and who now own (b) America's so-called "free press" (ha ha), the latter of which now slants all news towards Threat, Fear, and War, again, 24/7. And now that "their" Nazi Supreme Court has ruled that "money" = free speech, that same of sociopathic criminal class ALSO is coming to own politics. Welcome to fully blooming Corporate Fascism, folks.

    bullypulpit

    In his book "1984" George Orwell wrote, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." Have we fallen so far that we are living that nightmare without question? When we hear the voices of politicians, with those on the political right being the most egregious offenders, clamoring for war, we must not forget the cost. Not just in terms of treasure, but especially of the blood spilled by our men and women in uniform. Ask, "Are the causes they are being asked to fight...and die...for, worthy of the sacrifice?"

    Jim Given -> bullypulpit

    I'm afraid that yes, we actually have fallen that far. The Patriot Act is the quintessential example. Who could possibly oppose something called The Patriot Act?

    Jim Given -> bullypulpit

    The War on Terror, another fine example. What, you oppose fighting terrorists? The language stifles (reasoned) dissent. It's brilliant, really.

    Tom Farkas

    Every year I get an uncomfortable sensation around Memorial Day. I know why now thanks to this article. I didn't serve in the armed forces. Not for want. I was a post Vietnam teenager. The armed forces were a joke during the Carter years and the US was in the middle of detante with the USSR. Nothing to fight about and the word terrorist was still a few years away from being reinvented. My Dad was a decorated veteran of the police action in Korea. He lost his best friend there. He rarely talked about it. He and I sat on the couch watching the fall of Saigon on TV. He silently cried. It was all for not. All those lives, all that misery, all for nothing but power and glory. He knew it and I've known it since but just couldn't put a finger on it. Thanks for this article.

    talenttruth -> Tom Farkas

    Tom, what a beautiful post. My husband and I (recently married after we were finally "allowed" to, just like "real people"), are both Vietnam veterans (we had to "hide" in order to serve). And I had majored in college in "U.S. Constitutional History," then worked worked (ironically!) in the advertising "industry" (the Lie Factory) for enough years to see how America, business and our society actually works, INSTEAD of "constitutionally."

    My self-preoccupied generation sleepwalked from the 1960's until now, foolishly allowing the super-rich to gradually make nearly every giant corporation dependent on military contracts.

    Example? The European Union has openly subsidized its aircraft manufacturer, Airbus. But here, in the USA ~ that would be "socialism," and so Boeing was forced instead (in order to compete) to rely on military contracts ("military welfare.") They're both "government subsidization," but ours is crooked.

    So what do we get when all corporations "must have" ongoing Business, in order to keep their insatiable profits rolling in? Eternal War. And its "unfortunate side effects" - maimed veterans, dead soldiers, sailors and airmen, and the revolting hypocrisy of "Memorial Day."

    On that day, we pay "respect" to those who died serving the Military Marketing Department for America's totally out of control, unchecked capitalism, which only serves the overlords at the top.

    Sorry to sound so grim, but I did not serve my country, to have it thus stolen.

    Barclay Reynolds

    When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works out.

    Jim Given -> Barclay Reynolds

    Failure to care for our veterans is a national disgrace. Thanks for your service brother.

    SusanPrice58 -> Barclay Reynolds

    I agree. While I'm sure that most of these charities try to do well, it always makes me angry to think about why the need for charities to care for veterans exists. If we are determined to fight these wars - then every citizen should have to have deep involvement of some sort. Raise taxes, ration oil, watch footage of battles, restore the draft - whatever. Instead, we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans and flag waving.

    Tom Wessel

    "Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict "

    How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there.

    gwpriester
    The obscene amount of money the US pays just on the interest on the trillions "borrowed" for the Afghanistan and Iraq adventures would fix most that is wrong with the world. Bush & Cheney discovered if you don't raise taxes, require financial sacrifices, and do not have a draft, that you can wage bogus wars of choice for over a decade without so much as a peep of protest from the public. It is sickening how much good that money could do instead of all the death and destruction it bought.
    AllenPitt
    "So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing."

    EXACTLY!

    OZGODRK

    It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives.

    So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course, then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading.

    MOZGODRK -> arrggh

    But you are missing the entire point. Trump is NOT advocating the conflict; he is advocating that we TALK to our enemies, so his lack of combat experience is a moot point.

    On the other hand, the Clintons, the Alzhe...er, Albright, and the Samantha Power-Tripp are all totally kosher with sending millions to die, knowing that they themselves will not experience a nanosecond of hot cognitive experience.

    caravanserai

    John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won, the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check Soviet expansion.

    Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that "idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. Following the difficult wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. is less certain of its global role. Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually prefer to keep their views under wraps. Trump seems to be proposing something completely different.

    Rescue caravanserai
    Trump is not proposing anything different. His foreign policy is the same as the establishment. He is not anti-war, nor more hawkish than Obama or Clinton. Trumps FP is unilateral i.e. The US will go it alone without the UN or anyone else, attack any country he feels is threatning, without paying attention to intl. law, or "political correctness" as he calls it, i.e. the US will kill and torture as many ppl as it feels like to feel safe, and pay no attention to the Geneva Conventions. Other statements about his intended FP, that the msm calls shocking, has already been done, i.e. bomb the crap out of people, kill families of terrorists, waterboarding and much worse. These have been common policies since 9/11 & before. Another policy is to steal Iraq's oil. This has been de facto US FP in the Middle East since Eisenhower. The difference is that Trump says it outright. He makes subtext into the text.
    Falanx
    I agree with the overall point of this article... but focusing on the GOP and Trump, detracts from its otherwise valid points. What about Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, Obama and Hillary? Especially Hillary ("We came, We saw, He died") who evidently considers herself a latter day Caesar. The plain fact is that the US was conceived as a warmongering nation. Everyone else in the world understands this.
    DanInTheDesert
    Wow. What a fantastic article . This is what we need in the era of twitter journalism -- a long think piece. Thank you.[*]

    Having said that I have disagree with the conclusion -- we have just a little over a week to avoid a forced choice between two hawks. The chances are slim but not impossible -- be active this weekend. Phonebank for Sanders. Convince a Californian to show up and vote.

    PrinceVlad

    Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer.

    Kenarmy -> PrinceVlad

    "Donald Trump would deploy up to 30,000 American soldiers in the Middle East to defeat the Islamic State, he said at Thursday night's debate."
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-iraq-syria-220608#ixzz49yJWQras

    30,000? More like 300,000! The 30,000 will be the dead and wounded. But hey, Trump went to a military academy high school, and thus he has a military background ("always felt that I was in the military" because he attended a military boarding school)- http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/donald-trump-military-service-213392#ixzz49yKU9awC

    PrinceVlad -> Kenarmy

    I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary. The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell.

    [*] and if anyone is reading who deals with such things -- y'all need to accept paypal or bitcoin so I can subscribe. Who uses their credit card online anymore?

    [May 30, 2016] Secret Text in Senate Bill Would Give FBI Warrantless Access to Email Records

    Notable quotes:
    "... Actually, you can hide nothing, and anything you said, wrote, or plausibly thought can and will be held against you at a time convenient for the Security State to whip it out if they have their way. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    JerseyJeffersonian , May 27, 2016 at 11:28 am

    In related developments ( in the matters of legitimacy, and most especially, control ) here are two links:

    https://theintercept.com/2016/05/26/secret-text-in-senate-bill-would-give-fbi-warrantless-access-to-email-records/

    My comment on this in an email to others…

    Amendment IV [1791]

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Obviously, this paints our (overblown) liberties with an over-wide brush, and the Wise Solons of our Senate know just how to get around this superannuated and flawed conceptual framework. Just ignore this amendment. You've got nothing to hide, right , so what are you worried about? Actually, you can hide nothing, and anything you said, wrote, or plausibly thought can and will be held against you at a time convenient for the Security State to whip it out if they have their way.

    C'mon, it's an Empire now, and it plays by its own rules, and is not to be chained to some fossilized, starry-eyed claptrap from the Enlightenment. Sheesh.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/05/26/special-operations-troops-assaulted-downtown-tampa-all-to-thunderous-applause/

    And my comment in that email on this matter…

    Wait, military special forces from over a dozen countries are running an exercise in the supposedly sovereign territory of the United States? What, is this the transnational elite's super-special SWAT team taking off the wraps? And Idiot America loves it. The Founding Fathers weep, just as they do concerning that first item.

    Let those malcontents from Green Day whine about the Idiocracy…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1BS7XnEZqc

    [May 30, 2016] Red Hot Jingoism, With a Side of Apple Pie

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Peruse, if you will, this sabre-rattling pile of poop . Coming on the heels of recent articles which warn that the west sees a nuclear war as both winnable and possible , even probable, and the conviction that a new western strategy is the attempt to initiate a Kremlin palace coup by Russian nationalist hardliners fed up with Putin's squishiness because he will not respond more aggressively to NATO provocations on Russia's doorstep, it's hard not to conclude that the west has lost its mind. If the fear of a planet-devastating nuclear war – in which the two major world nuclear powers pull out all the stops in an unrestricted attempt to annihilate one another – no longer holds our behaviors in check…what's scarier than that?

    We seriously need to persuade our leaders, in the strongest terms, that they cannot talk smack like that. It might seem funny to you to hear a senior government official from the country that fabricated a case for war so it could destroy its old enemy, Saddam Hussein, and lay waste to his country and people, prattling on about 'the rules-based international order', just as if the United States recognizes any limitations on its application of raw power, anywhere on the globe, in its own interests. It's quite true that whenever the USA wants to start a war with someone, it first makes out a case that this is a situation in which it must act. And even its critics would have to acknowledge that it is damned good at this sort of fakery, and has come a long way since one of its premiere PR firms – Hill & Knowlton – coached the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States through her performance as a make-believe Kuwaiti nurse devastated by Saddam's forces' make-believe plundering of a Kuwaiti hospital, something which did not happen. It did, however, strike precisely the right responsive chord in public anger and disgust to kick off Gulf War I. Both wars against Iraq got off the ground on entirely fabricated scenarios calculated to get the rubes all in a lather to do the right thing. To hear a self-righteous assrocket like Ashton Carter maunder on about the rules-based international order, considering the United States encouraged the military campaign by the Ukrainian government to kill its own citizens in a blatant violation of the very core principles of the imaginary rules-based international order…why, it's a little like listening to Imelda Marcos teaching a seminar on how to take care of your shoes so they'll last a long time and you won't have to buy more. I have to say, it just… it makes me mad.

    What has really brought us to this point in the history of the Big Blue Marble is that despite the progress we've made together since the end of the Cold War, the indispensable and exceptional nation has in recent years tried by various means to overthrow the government of Russia, without success. It has tried incentivizing and supporting opposition movements, and got most of its NGO's kicked out of the country for its pains. It has tried sexual politics, hoping to mobilize the world's homosexuals against 'Putin's draconian anti-gay laws', only to have the effort fall flat. It has tried open economic warfare, which worked just long enough for President Obama to take credit for it , then Russian counter-sanctions made European businesses wish they had never heard of President Obama . Shortly after that, Russia began to muscle in on US agricultural markets ; a startlingly lifelike performance for a dying country. It looks like everything that has been tried in the effort to send Russia down for a dirtnap has failed. What's left? They're running out of war-alternative regime-change efforts.

    And what has made Washington suddenly so cocky with the nuclear stick? Could it be that its European-based missile defense system has just gone live ? After all Obama's waffling, after his backing away from the missile defense the hawks wanted, in the winding-down days of his presidency he re-committed to it, and the site in Romania has started up, with great fanfare. Washington continues to insist, tongue in cheek, that the system is not and cannot be targeted against Russia's nuclear deterrent, but for what other purpose could it be there? The rogue-missiles-from-Iran canard is pretty much played out. It seems pretty clear that Washington figures its interceptors (the Standard series SM3) give it a potential first-strike capability, which would – in theory – see Washington's unalerted launch taking out most of Russia's ICBM's in their silos, and the forward-based interceptors taking out the few missiles that avoided Washington's hammer-blow. If they don't believe that, why the sudden nuclear-weapons nose-thumbing?

    If they do believe that, it's a big mistake. First of all, where the USA relies on a nuclear triad deterrent – land-based, air-deployable and seaborne nuclear missiles – Russia adds a fourth leg; mobile Transporter/Erector/Launcher (TEL) vehicles which have a demonstrated off-road capability, so that they could be most anywhere. The USA could not be sure of hitting all Russia's land-based missiles before launch. Then there is the sea-based component, in SSBN's, ballistic-missile submarines. The BOREI Class carries the Bulava missile. Each of the 20 missiles can carry up to 10 MIRV warheads of 150 kilotons yield. The USA is already worried that it is falling behind Russia and China in submarine capability. Finally, Russia has the 'dead hand' system, which is an automatic program that will launch all undestroyed fixed-site missiles even if everyone in Russia is dead.

    ... ... ...

    This is an existential battle for Russia. No amount of conciliatory gestures will buy it peace, and the United States is determined to push it off the edge of the world. With NATO surrounding it, even if it disbanded its military and plowed all its croplands into flowerbeds, the west would still pretend to see it as a threat, and would foment internal discord until it broke apart. Russia's leaders know this. Its people know this. Strutting up and down the border and waving the NATO flag is not going to make Russia get scared about 'consequences', and kneel in the dirt. NATO's fundamental problem is that it understands neither the Russian character or the true circumstances in the country, preferring to rely on rosy estimates presented by its think tanks.

    The biggest 'consequence' of this dick-waving and posturing is that we are back where we were in 1947.

    Patient Observer , May 24, 2016 at 10:16 am
    Mark, a very timely and well-written post! The red hot approaching white hot rhetoric is unnerving to the sane. Yet, there is virtually no chance of a successful US first strike for the reasons you mentioned. If some breakthrough in ABM technology were to occur that could be quickly retrofit to existing installations then a strategic imbalance could occur. I suppose Russia must assume that is the US thinking so such a worst-case scenarios needs to be part of their strategic planning.

    We had Star Wars back in the 80's designed to render Soviet missiles useless. Yet any competent scientist or engineer could determine that it was ALL BS. A favorite story was that a scientist indicated an anti-missile laser system they were working on had achieve 10 to the 7th power output (don't remember the units) but they needed to reach 10 to the 14th power output. An eager politician reported to the administration that all they needed was TWO of the lasers to shoot down Soviet missiles.

    So, my take is that the US rhetoric is based on two possibilities – one that you mentioned is that everything else has failed so why not give war a chance. The Russians, being substantially saner that the West, and knowing the horrors of war, could back down in deference to the survival of humanity. The other ploy could be to induce Russia into another arms race to bankrupt their economy. This later strategy, if it is the case, would have been formulated from the widely mistaken belief that the 80's Star Wars eventually forced the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is the danger of using sustained propaganda indiscriminately, your own side may end up believing it.

    One last thought is that no one foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union. By poking around enough, perhaps the West thinks something can trigger a similar cascade of events resulting in the collapse of Russia. Its sort of magical thinking without basis in reality but its good enough for politicians and think tanks. Just keep Gorbachev out of Russia:)

    Your warning about how the West, having given up on a liberal revolution, would now like a nationalistic coup in Russia was spot on. Nothing could be worse for Russia than engaging in a tit-for-tat battle with the West. The Russian strategy seems to be working quite nicely as its economy adjusts to life without the West, it outsmarts the Empire at every turn and the Eurasian Union proceeds.

    Northern Star , May 24, 2016 at 1:12 pm
    Depending on how things go in November….one must remember that Santa Coup could come down the White House chimney….
    et Al , May 24, 2016 at 2:08 pm
    …everything else has failed so why not give war a chance
    ####

    John Lennon would have wept. Genius PO! Genius!

    It looks like we all agree that the US is at loose ends. So far all its plans have come to naught, so trying a little bit of everything in the hope that something magical will happen (as noted), is a massive indictment on US governmental institutions. Damned stubborn Russians.

    [May 26, 2016] Out of the Cold War? by Caroline Dorminey

    Notable quotes:
    "... The basic foreign policy here is one of liberal hegemony-and it has two dimensions to it. The first is that we're bent on militarily dominating the entire globe-there's no place on the planet that doesn't matter to the indispensable nation, we care about every nook and cranny of the planet and we're interested in being militarily dominate here, there, and everywhere. That's the first dimension. The second dimension is we're deeply committed to transforming the world-we're deeply committed to making everybody look like us. ..."
    "... Without a strategic rethink in U.S.-Russian relations, Mearsheimer warned that Russian paranoia and sense of vulnerability could ignite conflict. When asked about the biggest foreign policy mistake of the last 25 years, Mearsheimer first said Iraq, and then added the crisis in Ukraine and the resulting destabilization of U.S.-Russian relations: "If you take a country like Russia, that has a sense of vulnerability, and you push them towards the edge, you get in their face, you're asking for trouble." ..."
    May 23, 2016 | theamericanconservative.com
    "CKI Vice President William Ruger began by posing the question: "Has there been a coherent theme to U.S. foreign policy over the last 25 years?" In response, Mearsheimer dove into a description of liberal hegemony over the last two decades, which essentially amounts to the U.S. being involved everywhere to avoid a problem popping up anywhere. He argued that the U.S. undertook this commitment to direct globalization and proceeded to muck up the Middle East and Europe. To most people, this sounds a lot like a vestige of post-Cold War triumphalism:

    The basic foreign policy here is one of liberal hegemony-and it has two dimensions to it. The first is that we're bent on militarily dominating the entire globe-there's no place on the planet that doesn't matter to the indispensable nation, we care about every nook and cranny of the planet and we're interested in being militarily dominate here, there, and everywhere. That's the first dimension. The second dimension is we're deeply committed to transforming the world-we're deeply committed to making everybody look like us.

    ... ... ...

    Without a strategic rethink in U.S.-Russian relations, Mearsheimer warned that Russian paranoia and sense of vulnerability could ignite conflict. When asked about the biggest foreign policy mistake of the last 25 years, Mearsheimer first said Iraq, and then added the crisis in Ukraine and the resulting destabilization of U.S.-Russian relations: "If you take a country like Russia, that has a sense of vulnerability, and you push them towards the edge, you get in their face, you're asking for trouble."

    [May 23, 2016] Sanders draws blood in war with Democratic leaders by David Cay Johnston

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bernie Sanders secured his first concession from the Democratic establishment on Monday when the Democratic National Committee agreed to grant his supporters greater representation on its convention platform committee. ..."
    "... Sanders is rapidly revealing that his nomination battle against Hillary Clinton represents just one front in his wider-reaching war on the Democratic Party's entrenched leadership ..."
    www.politico.com

    POLITICO

    Bernie Sanders secured his first concession from the Democratic establishment on Monday when the Democratic National Committee agreed to grant his supporters greater representation on its convention platform committee.

    ... ... ...

    Sanders is rapidly revealing that his nomination battle against Hillary Clinton represents just one front in his wider-reaching war on the Democratic Party's entrenched leadership, and that the other fights - from Washington, D.C. to Nevada, to Wyoming - are about to get far more attention.

    ...But the Vermont senator - long perceived by many of his Democratic colleagues as a gadfly - is stepping up his assault on the party's way of doing business.

    ... ... ...

    [May 21, 2016] The 10 Most Disturbing Snowden Revelations

    February 11, 2014 | pcmag.com

    This time last year, no one knew Edward Snowden. But by the end of 2013, his name was on every top 10 list, and the revelations contained with the NSA documents he leaked have inspired today's "The Day We Fight Back" protests.

    For a while the information contained with the leaked documents took a backseat to the cultural impulse to dissect Snowden as a celebrity-his Reddit posts about sex and Cosmo asking "What the hell is Edward Snowden's girlfriend thinking right now?" Then Sunday talk shows debated whether Snowden was a was fink, traitor, whistleblower, or spy - as the elusive former contractor made an escape to Russia worthy of a spy-thriller chase scene.

    But the Snowden documents contained serious information. Since June, we have learned about a variety of NSA programs, including PRISM, a multilayered, multiagency program that mines the data of suspected terrorists, as well as that of anyone even marginally associated with them. And the information that has been released is reportedly just a fraction of what exists.

    Still, we have about eight months worth of data dumps, information that has prompted the promise of action from the White House, bills in the Congress, and today's "Day We Fight Back" protest, which is calling on people around the globe to protest NSA surveillance on the Web and in person. Below, we look back at some of the most alarming revelations from Edward Snowden thus far.

    1. The NSA intercepts deliveries According to documents published by German newspaper Der Spiegel, the NSA uses a tactic called "method interdiction," which intercepts packages that are en route to the recipient. Malware or backdoor-enabling hardware is installed in workshops by agents and the item then continues on its way to the customer.
    2. The NSA can spy on PCs not connected to the Internet Der Spiegel also published a document from an NSA division called ANT, which revealed technology the NSA uses to carry out operations, including a radio-frequency device that can monitor and even change data on computers that are not online.
    3. Phone companies must turn over bulk phone data In April, Verizon was ordered to hand over telephony metadata from calls made from the United States to other countries over the course of three months. The metadata included originating and terminating phone numbers, mobile subscriber identity numbers, calling card numbers, and the time and duration of calls. The secretive nature of the FISA court that made the request for data, however, meant that Verizon and other companies could not discuss the data requests.
    4. The NSA hacked Yahoo and Google data centers In October, The Washington Post accused the NSA of secretly monitoring transmissions between the data centers of Internet giants Yahoo and Google. Both companies denied giving the NSA permission to intercept such traffic. Google's Eric Schmidt called the move "outrageous," if true, while Yahoo moved to encrypt its data after the revelation.
    5. The NSA collects email and IM contact lists Hundreds of thousands of contact lists are collected by the NSA in a single day, The Washington Post also revealed. While the targets are outside of the United States, the scope of the collection means that info from U.S. citizens is inevitably included.
    6. RSA created a backdoor into its encryption software at the NSA's request In December, Reuters reported that the NSA paid RSA $10 million to create a "back door" in its encryption products, which gave the NSA access to data protected by RSA products like Bsafe. RSA denied the report, but the revelation prompted speakers to bow out of this month's RSA Conference.
    7. The NSA eavesdrops on the phone calls of world leaders. The U.S. government's friends and family calling plan reportedly extends to the content of calls, including tapping into German Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone calls from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Berlin. The news prompted German officials to consider creating their own Internet.
    8. The NSA knows how many pigs you've killed in Angry Birds. The Flappy Bird flap may be bigger, but last month, The New York Times reported that the NSA and British intelligence teamed up to collect and store user data generated by "dozens of smartphone apps," including popular games like Angry Birds. Rovio denied it, but anti-surveillance activists still defaced the developer's website.
    9. The NSA engages in industrial espionage. The U.S. government has framed the NSA's activities as necessary to keeping citizens safe, but Snowden said on German television, "If there's information at Siemens that's beneficial to U.S. national interests-even if it doesn't have anything to do with national security-then they'll take that information nevertheless."
    10. Tech companies cooperated with the NSA and then were asked not to talk about it. Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, and Apple were all named in the PRISM documents and struggled with how to talk to the public about it because of gag orders.

    wguerrero

    Big brother is watching us all.

    [May 20, 2016] Nearly all German corporations/large companies funded the NSDAP rise and were complicit with the Nazi war and Holocaust machine and received the benefits of slave Labor

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ford werke built trucks for the Germans up until the end of the war. And Prescott Bush (father and grandfather to POTUS 41 & 43) had his assets frozen and seized for trading with the enemy. ..."
    "... Nearly all German corporations/large companies (they funded the parties rise) were complicit with the Nazi war and Holocaust machine and received the benefits of free (to them) slave Labor (reminds me of the US prison Labor system) and the seizure of capital assets in conquered countries. ..."
    "... Being and oligarch or a faceless Corporation certainly has it's benefits, especially if there are any "scary" communists (or terrorists) around. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    ambrit , May 19, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    I G Farben isn't alone in Holocaust related evilness. Check out IBMs' part, through their German subsidiary, in making the efficiency of the "Final Solution" feasible. Figures for the liquidation of "undesirables" were available to the New York headquarters of IBM in nearly real time.

    As the war wound down, special units attached to the U.S.Army secured and protected IBM 'assets' in Germany, mainly the hardware and specialists who ran things.

    See: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/documents/pdf/HistoryofIBMDataProcessing.pdf

    The best source I find is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

    human , May 19, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    Operation Paperclip

    RP , May 19, 2016 at 7:22 pm

    Ford werke built trucks for the Germans up until the end of the war. And Prescott Bush (father and grandfather to POTUS 41 & 43) had his assets frozen and seized for trading with the enemy.

    But what do I know, I'm just a little prole with no Ivy league credentials. I should just trust my betters.

    By all means, go ahead, coronate another .01%er Oligarch to be President. Worked great so far.

    HBE , May 19, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    Nearly all German corporations/large companies (they funded the parties rise) were complicit with the Nazi war and Holocaust machine and received the benefits of free (to them) slave Labor (reminds me of the US prison Labor system) and the seizure of capital assets in conquered countries.

    What happened to them and their leaders. Not much, some were broken up (IG farben) some leaders spent a short stint in prison (alfried Krupp) but nearly all of the largest were allowed to immediately or eventually (Krupp) go on their merry way, so we could "stop communism".

    So the very people that funded and were integral to the Nazi party having the funds and ability to rise and benefited most, were slightly scolded at most.

    Being and oligarch or a faceless Corporation certainly has it's benefits, especially if there are any "scary" communists (or terrorists) around.

    [May 12, 2016] Screw The Next Generation Anonymous Congressman Admits To Blithely Mortgaging The Future With A Wink A Nod

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Most of my colleagues are dishonest career politicians who revel in the power and special-interest money that's lavished upon them." ..."
    "... "My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything." ..."
    "... "Fundraising is so time consuming I seldom read any bills I vote on. Like many of my colleagues, I don't know how the legislation will be implemented, or what it'll cost." ..."
    "... " Voters are incredibly ignorant and know little about our form of government and how it works." ..."
    "... "It's far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification." ..."
    "... "We spend money we don't have and blithely mortgage the future with a wink and a nod. Screw the next generation." ..."
    "... Best line in the God Father. "Their Saps, They fight for other people". Sounds like pop talking. God damn right that's Pop talking. Come here you. ..."
    "... The only function of a bureaucracy is to perpetuate the bureaucracy. ..."
    "... Trump is getting so much attention because the citizenry doesn't know how the govt was designed to work, and is looking for a "leader" to fix things up. ..."
    "... The power lies in Congress, by design, appropriately so, as it most closely represents the will of the People. And therein lies the eleventh-hour problem. ..."
    "... This book will be exposed as a hoax. It is doubtless a compilation of quotes from multiple Congrees-critters over the years. I doubt any of these assholes would risk exposure in this manner. They don't have the guts. ..."
    May 12, 2016 | Zero Hedge

    A shockingly frank new book from an anonymous Democratic congressman turns yet another set of conspiracy theories into consirpacy facts as he spills the beans on the ugly reality behind the scenes in Washington. While little will surprise any regular readers, the selected quotes offered by "The Confessions Of Congressman X" book cover sheet read like they were ripped from the script of House of Cards... and yet are oh so believable...

    A devastating inside look at the dark side of Congress as revealed by one of its own! No wonder Congressman X wants to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. His admissions are deeply disturbing...

    "Most of my colleagues are dishonest career politicians who revel in the power and special-interest money that's lavished upon them."

    "My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything."

    "Fundraising is so time consuming I seldom read any bills I vote on. Like many of my colleagues, I don't know how the legislation will be implemented, or what it'll cost."

    The book also takes shots at voters as disconnected idiots who let Congress abuse its power through sheer incompetence...

    " Voters are incredibly ignorant and know little about our form of government and how it works."

    "It's far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification."

    And, as The Daily Mail so elqouently notes, the take-away message is one of resigned depression about how Congress sacrifices America's future on the altar of its collective ego...

    "We spend money we don't have and blithely mortgage the future with a wink and a nod. Screw the next generation."

    "It's about getting credit now, lookin' good for the upcoming election."

    Simply put, it's everything that is enraging Americans about their government's dysfunction and why Trump is getting so much attention.

    10mm

    Best line in the God Father. "Their Saps, They fight for other people". Sounds like pop talking. God damn right that's Pop talking. Come here you.

    SidSays

    "My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything."

    The only function of a bureaucracy is to perpetuate the bureaucracy.

    chunga

    The shining city on a hill is chock full of assholes like this. They've run out of other people's money for this purpose so bad, generations to come are screwed. Unless of course they are all stamped away and their bullshit repudiated.

    The scummiest scum of humans go into politics.

    Cabreado

    "and why Trump is getting so much attention."

    No, that is perilously false.

    Trump is getting so much attention because the citizenry doesn't know how the govt was designed to work, and is looking for a "leader" to fix things up.

    I've been pecking away for years that the attention must be on Congress. No takers here at ZH either, for the most part.

    Again... a finally corrupt and defunct Congress is what must be dealt with post haste, and a "Trump" or any other will not be the answer to changing the trajectory.

    The power lies in Congress, by design, appropriately so, as it most closely represents the will of the People. And therein lies the eleventh-hour problem.

    financialrealist

    I've said it time and again. Just today I posted "our entire system is based on subjective financial asset valuations to support the needs of today with no consideration of tomorrow". Politicians and their money grubbing corporate assholes thought of future generations don't transcend beyond their own line of sight. We do not have a government or system for the people. We have a government who's sole purpose is to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. Burn the fucker down

    Captain Willard

    This book will be exposed as a hoax. It is doubtless a compilation of quotes from multiple Congrees-critters over the years. I doubt any of these assholes would risk exposure in this manner. They don't have the guts.

    [May 11, 2016] Bush Wrecked the GOP Long Before Trump Appeared

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the remarkable things about this election is the sheer intensity of hostility to Trump from many of the same movement conservatives who shrugged at Bush's far more serious betrayals and failures. Many movement conservatives have been much more horrified by Trump's momentary political success over a few months than they were by the real, costly, staggering failures of governance under the Bush administration over a period of eight years. Bush certainly drove some conservatives and Republicans into vocal opposition, including those of us here at TAC, but there seem to be many, many more on the right that thought Bush could practically do no wrong but have been driven into fits by nothing more than Trump's nomination. ..."
    "... People that now panic about incipient caudillismo and the dangers of a nationalist demagogue didn't care when Bush expanded the security state, trampled on the Constitution, or launched an unnecessary war of aggression, and people that yawned at the steady expansion of government and creation of new unfunded liabilities under Bush are now supposedly alarmed by Trump's lack of fidelity to the cause of limited government. They correctly identify many of Trump's flaws, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that the party was already killed (or at least severely wounded) years ago during the disastrous Bush era. It was that period of incompetence and ideologically-driven debacles that shattered the GOP, and for the last seven years the vast majority of die-hard Trump foes have refused to recognize that and have chosen to learn nothing from it. They lost to Trump, but the part they can't accept is that they deserved to lose because of their role in enabling the GOP's past failures. Now they're touting their abandonment of the wreckage they helped to create as if they deserve applause for running away from their own handiwork. If it weren't so serious, it would be quite comical. ..."
    www.dailykos.com

    Daily Kos

    Blogger driftglass writes- The Well-Thumbed History and Plainsong Lore...of our Fucked Up Modern Age :
    The cheapest laugh down here in the Liberal cheap seats continues to be the hilarious "evolution" of the indignation of Conservatives who are watching their monster run away with their party. Since no one listens to us and no one cares what we think, we here on the Left find ourselves oddly blessed with the greatest and most dangerous freedom of all: we are free to remember the past in country where almost everyone else-especially the wealthy and powerful-are expending enormous energies denying the past. Ten years ago it was an act of unalloyed heresy and disloyalty bordering on treason to even hint that George W. Bush was not the Greatest Fucking President in Modern History. Six years ago, it was sheer folly-whistling into a hurricane-to suggest that the Tea Party was not, in fact a sudden and spontaneous uprising of otherwise-politically-virginal patriots, but was instead a massive wingnut rebranding scam designed to get millions of bigots and meatheads off the hook for volubly supporting the Worst Fucking President in Modern History. But now, as America's Conservative brain wizards flail around looking for someone or something onto which they can lay off the blame for the rise of Donald McRonald, look what is suddenly no longer verboten. [...] And my oh my, look at what version of American history is no longer a heresy so disqualifying that the media dare not speak its name (from The American Conservative ):
    Bush Wrecked the GOP Long Before Trump Appeared By DANIEL LARISON ... One of the remarkable things about this election is the sheer intensity of hostility to Trump from many of the same movement conservatives who shrugged at Bush's far more serious betrayals and failures. Many movement conservatives have been much more horrified by Trump's momentary political success over a few months than they were by the real, costly, staggering failures of governance under the Bush administration over a period of eight years. Bush certainly drove some conservatives and Republicans into vocal opposition, including those of us here at TAC, but there seem to be many, many more on the right that thought Bush could practically do no wrong but have been driven into fits by nothing more than Trump's nomination. People that now panic about incipient caudillismo and the dangers of a nationalist demagogue didn't care when Bush expanded the security state, trampled on the Constitution, or launched an unnecessary war of aggression, and people that yawned at the steady expansion of government and creation of new unfunded liabilities under Bush are now supposedly alarmed by Trump's lack of fidelity to the cause of limited government. They correctly identify many of Trump's flaws, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that the party was already killed (or at least severely wounded) years ago during the disastrous Bush era. It was that period of incompetence and ideologically-driven debacles that shattered the GOP, and for the last seven years the vast majority of die-hard Trump foes have refused to recognize that and have chosen to learn nothing from it. They lost to Trump, but the part they can't accept is that they deserved to lose because of their role in enabling the GOP's past failures. Now they're touting their abandonment of the wreckage they helped to create as if they deserve applause for running away from their own handiwork. If it weren't so serious, it would be quite comical.

    If you are a Liberal living in America you are a pariah in your own land who has lived to see almost every one of your ostracizing blasphemies slowly, quietly become a widely accepted and largely uncontroversial fact of everyday life.

    Every blasphemy except one-that the Left has been right about the Right all along. Because if Important People ever dared to start saying that out loud in Important Places, the entire system would implode.

    [May 11, 2016] Bush Wrecked the GOP Long Before Trump Appeared

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the remarkable things about this election is the sheer intensity of hostility to Trump from many of the same movement conservatives who shrugged at Bush's far more serious betrayals and failures. Many movement conservatives have been much more horrified by Trump's momentary political success over a few months than they were by the real, costly, staggering failures of governance under the Bush administration over a period of eight years. Bush certainly drove some conservatives and Republicans into vocal opposition, including those of us here at TAC, but there seem to be many, many more on the right that thought Bush could practically do no wrong but have been driven into fits by nothing more than Trump's nomination. ..."
    "... People that now panic about incipient caudillismo and the dangers of a nationalist demagogue didn't care when Bush expanded the security state, trampled on the Constitution, or launched an unnecessary war of aggression, and people that yawned at the steady expansion of government and creation of new unfunded liabilities under Bush are now supposedly alarmed by Trump's lack of fidelity to the cause of limited government. They correctly identify many of Trump's flaws, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that the party was already killed (or at least severely wounded) years ago during the disastrous Bush era. It was that period of incompetence and ideologically-driven debacles that shattered the GOP, and for the last seven years the vast majority of die-hard Trump foes have refused to recognize that and have chosen to learn nothing from it. They lost to Trump, but the part they can't accept is that they deserved to lose because of their role in enabling the GOP's past failures. Now they're touting their abandonment of the wreckage they helped to create as if they deserve applause for running away from their own handiwork. If it weren't so serious, it would be quite comical. ..."
    www.dailykos.com

    Daily Kos

    Blogger driftglass writes- The Well-Thumbed History and Plainsong Lore...of our Fucked Up Modern Age :
    The cheapest laugh down here in the Liberal cheap seats continues to be the hilarious "evolution" of the indignation of Conservatives who are watching their monster run away with their party. Since no one listens to us and no one cares what we think, we here on the Left find ourselves oddly blessed with the greatest and most dangerous freedom of all: we are free to remember the past in country where almost everyone else-especially the wealthy and powerful-are expending enormous energies denying the past. Ten years ago it was an act of unalloyed heresy and disloyalty bordering on treason to even hint that George W. Bush was not the Greatest Fucking President in Modern History. Six years ago, it was sheer folly-whistling into a hurricane-to suggest that the Tea Party was not, in fact a sudden and spontaneous uprising of otherwise-politically-virginal patriots, but was instead a massive wingnut rebranding scam designed to get millions of bigots and meatheads off the hook for volubly supporting the Worst Fucking President in Modern History. But now, as America's Conservative brain wizards flail around looking for someone or something onto which they can lay off the blame for the rise of Donald McRonald, look what is suddenly no longer verboten. [...] And my oh my, look at what version of American history is no longer a heresy so disqualifying that the media dare not speak its name (from The American Conservative ):
    Bush Wrecked the GOP Long Before Trump Appeared By DANIEL LARISON ... One of the remarkable things about this election is the sheer intensity of hostility to Trump from many of the same movement conservatives who shrugged at Bush's far more serious betrayals and failures. Many movement conservatives have been much more horrified by Trump's momentary political success over a few months than they were by the real, costly, staggering failures of governance under the Bush administration over a period of eight years. Bush certainly drove some conservatives and Republicans into vocal opposition, including those of us here at TAC, but there seem to be many, many more on the right that thought Bush could practically do no wrong but have been driven into fits by nothing more than Trump's nomination. People that now panic about incipient caudillismo and the dangers of a nationalist demagogue didn't care when Bush expanded the security state, trampled on the Constitution, or launched an unnecessary war of aggression, and people that yawned at the steady expansion of government and creation of new unfunded liabilities under Bush are now supposedly alarmed by Trump's lack of fidelity to the cause of limited government. They correctly identify many of Trump's flaws, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that the party was already killed (or at least severely wounded) years ago during the disastrous Bush era. It was that period of incompetence and ideologically-driven debacles that shattered the GOP, and for the last seven years the vast majority of die-hard Trump foes have refused to recognize that and have chosen to learn nothing from it. They lost to Trump, but the part they can't accept is that they deserved to lose because of their role in enabling the GOP's past failures. Now they're touting their abandonment of the wreckage they helped to create as if they deserve applause for running away from their own handiwork. If it weren't so serious, it would be quite comical.

    If you are a Liberal living in America you are a pariah in your own land who has lived to see almost every one of your ostracizing blasphemies slowly, quietly become a widely accepted and largely uncontroversial fact of everyday life.

    Every blasphemy except one-that the Left has been right about the Right all along. Because if Important People ever dared to start saying that out loud in Important Places, the entire system would implode.

    [May 06, 2016] The claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny

    Muammar al-Qaddafi was an easy target. Oil was the goal. Everything else is describable attempt to white wash the crime.
    Notable quotes:
    "... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
    "... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
    "... Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight ..."
    "... As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun ..."
    "... on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
    "... Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own. ..."
    "... For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale". ..."
    "... But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC. ..."
    "... This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on." ..."
    "... the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability. ..."
    "... What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them. ..."
    "... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    thevorlon -> newyorkred , 2016-05-06 17:59:00

    Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!

    At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD

    Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! Starts with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these corrupt political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial system but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total control of the society).

    John Kennedy -> Allan Burns , 2016-05-06 17:35:46
    She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail.
    Ilupi Ilupi -> EagleOMC , 2016-05-06 17:05:43
    Establishment baby.
    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation, 2016-05-06 09:53:20
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/04/07/was-there-going-to-be-a-benghazi-massacre /

    "As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny.

    Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight. "

    "If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims on this score than it was for previous administrations.

    As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun."

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:50:28
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure

    So no, we should have not intervened.

    "David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 .

    What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.

    Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.

    For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale".

    But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC.

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation , 2016-05-06 09:40:10
    Libya:

    An interesting article. Note I trust Cockburn as a journalist.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-arab-spring-reported-and-misreported-foreign-intervention-in-libya-and-the-last-days-of-colonel-a6992726.html

    "Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.

    This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation, 2016-05-06 09:34:01
    And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people? Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.

    So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.

    Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.

    the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.

    Kevin P Brown -> MeereeneseLiberation, 2016-05-06 09:33:31
    "was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"

    You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides.

    You had Dostum with the Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum was an animal worse than the Taliban.

    What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.

    So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum, perhaps things would have been different.

    We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people. The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides, he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the participation in the elections).

    "And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."

    Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides. I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there were rules and they could survive the rules.

    But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:

    http://www.d3systems.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/AAPOR-2012-Taliban-Reconciliation-John-Richardson.pdf

    "Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%) of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."

    ""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""

    77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.

    Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood an not Karzai)

    My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused. Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.

    Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene.

    [May 05, 2016] Nuland Tells Cyprus To Cut Russian Ties – Pressures Anastasiades To Accept Nato Plan For Turkish Troops In Cyprus

    Notable quotes:
    "... After 25 years of not seeming to car at all, now the US wants to make the problem worse by polishing apples for Erdogan for some reason I really cannot fathom. Cui bono indeed. ..."
    "... Looks pretty clear cut to me. Turkey is an ally. Russia most definitely not. Turkey could use somewhere to store all that surplus ME oil they've been buying. The USA(Nuland) can even kick in a few bucks for infrastructure. It all makes sense. Win-Win all around. ..."
    "... That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about HRClinton's vaunted foreign-policy experience. That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about Obama, American exceptionalism, and this supposedly scandal-free administration. And the Democratic elites want to get all snotty about Trump? ..."
    "... I am really really worried about how aggressive our foreign policy is, and this remarkable essay shows how dangerous our policy with respect to Russia can be. ..."
    "... Where Neocons like Nuland go, death and destruction follow in their wake. Look at Ukraine. ..."
    "... Instead we might already be into a countdown on a shooting war with Russia. This wouldn't just rally all Americans to the imperial cause, it was also force President Trump to rely on his nationalistic traits. ..."
    May 4, 2016 | nakedcapitalism.com

    Yves here. We were one of the few sites to follow the brutal handling of the Cyprus banking system when one of its major banks got wobbly in 2013. Cyprus was demonized as a money laundering center , when its main sin was that it served as a conduit for inbound investment into Russia, including investment by large, well-recognized companies. The reason for structuring investments via entities in Cyprus was that that enabled them to be subject to British law, which investors greatly preferred to relying on Russian law and courts. Cyprus thus has a significant amount of its economy dependent on lawyers and bankers to structure these deals. The ECB lowered the boom and forced bail-ins, which were more severe than they needed to be by virtue of one of the major banks being restructured in a way that led to a significant subsidy to a Greek bank that bought some of its operations. In other words, while something may well have needed to be done with the Cyprus banks, the brutality of the operation was driven by geopolitics, not the professed reasons.

    The geopolitical angle of the West's meddling in Cyprus a bit more obvious in this John Helmer sighting.

    By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

    The US is intensifying the pressure on Cyprus to accept a secret NATO plan to keep Turkish forces on the island.

    Victoria Nuland, the State Department official in charge of regime change in Russia and Ukraine, met for talks last week with the President of Cyprus, Nicos Anastasiades, and with Turkish Cypriot figures. The State Department and US Embassy in Nicosia have kept silent on what was said. A well-informed Cypriot source reports Nuland "was in Cyprus to pre-empt any likelihood of future deepening in relations with Russia. Anastasiades may not want to, but he may have no other option." A second Cypriot political source said: "[Nuland] will try to blackmail him. I'm not sure how he will react."

    lyman alpha blob, May 4, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Greece isn't happy about the Turks in Cyprus, period.

    I was in Greece about 25 years ago when poppy Bush was president and paid a visit. That was the first glimpse I had of US power first hand – there were hundreds of suits talking into their sleeves lining the major route through Athens taken by the Bush motorcade. The whole city was essentially shut down and I couldn't believe that the US could project that kind of power in a foreign country. Later while I was at the Thessalonike airport coincidentally at the same time Bush was there, our flight was delayed due to a bomb threat presumably directed at Bush. Never did find out if it was a real bomb or not.

    Don't remember the ostensible reason for the Bush visit to Greece but I do remember the Greeks wanting the question Bush about the Turks occupying Cyprus and if the US would help end it. I remember thinking Bush probably doesn't even know where Cyprus is but even if he did, the US wasn't interested and weren't going to do a damn thing about it.

    After 25 years of not seeming to car at all, now the US wants to make the problem worse by polishing apples for Erdogan for some reason I really cannot fathom. Cui bono indeed.

    craazyboy, May 4, 2016 at 10:39 am

    Looks pretty clear cut to me. Turkey is an ally. Russia most definitely not. Turkey could use somewhere to store all that surplus ME oil they've been buying. The USA(Nuland) can even kick in a few bucks for infrastructure. It all makes sense. Win-Win all around.

    ambrit, May 4, 2016 at 11:26 am

    Poor Cyprus. We might as well revive the Crusader Kingdom of Cyprus. Are there any Lusignans alive today?

    John Wright , May 4, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    Here is a recent comment I made that includes Nuland and her immediate family.

    Note that the establishment's candidate HRC "remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes"

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/open-thread-debacle-for-us-iraq-policy-as-protesters-seize-parliament-in-green-zone.html#comment-2589491

    DJG , May 4, 2016 at 3:16 pm

    That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about HRClinton's vaunted foreign-policy experience. That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about Obama, American exceptionalism, and this supposedly scandal-free administration. And the Democratic elites want to get all snotty about Trump?

    After the streaming of the video-assassination of Osama bin Laden of the last few days, and after this maneuver, which is assassination of a small and vulnerable state, I respect George Orwell even more as a voice of prophecy.

    apber , May 5, 2016 at 7:35 am

    With Nuland, the ultimate neocon, we get WWIII in a Clinton Presidency. The key to Trump will be his proposed cabinet, VP, advisors etc. If nary a dual citizen neocon or a Goldman Treasury Secretary, we may have a chance; otherwise Trump will be outed as just another globalist stooge.

    TheCatSaid , May 4, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    Are the oil discoveries off of Cyprus (announced in 2014) be part of the geopolitics discussed here? Cyprus made an agreement with Greece & Egypt according to the Guardian .

    ltr , May 4, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    I am really really worried about how aggressive our foreign policy is, and this remarkable essay shows how dangerous our policy with respect to Russia can be.

    RBHoughton , May 4, 2016 at 11:00 pm

    Resuscitating the Turkish part of Cyprus may be a great money-maker for Ms Nuland's friends. You can wander though entire deserted towns and villages. Everyone's voted with their feet and land can be had at a fraction of its cost in the south. It used to have the added advantage of being immune to extradition requests (remember Polly Peck?) but I am unsure if that continues.

    This looks like another aspect of Erdogan's vice-like grip on the reproductive glands of the European Commission and ECB. It really is quite funny to see the two countries directing EU policy these days are USA and Turkey.

    Punxsutawney , May 4, 2016 at 11:04 pm

    Where Neocons like Nuland go, death and destruction follow in their wake. Look at Ukraine.

    EoinW , May 5, 2016 at 8:47 am

    I have been thinking that the NeoCon response to a Trump Presidency will be assassination. Naturally an assassination blamed on some left wing fanatic – will the next Oswald please stand up! Could it be, however, that the NeoCons recognize their problem isn't Trump, it's the people supporting Trump and their anti-establishment views? In that case, the only way to whip them into line is falling back on the most tried and true form of of social conditioning: nationalism/patriotism. Perhaps it won't be a countdown to knock off Trump before January. Instead we might already be into a countdown on a shooting war with Russia. This wouldn't just rally all Americans to the imperial cause, it was also force President Trump to rely on his nationalistic traits.

    I wonder if the NeoCons could be that clever. They have succeeded in running the most powerful country in the world for 15 years in spite of countless disasters. Maybe they are clever enough to achieve their next great misadventure, one ending in nuclear war.

    [May 03, 2016] Gaius Publius Hillary Clinton Won New York, But Her Image Is Underwater

    Notable quotes:
    "... Much more comfortable [running against Clinton] and I think everyone that has analyzed this knows that Hillary Clinton is in the ditch. We don't know how far in the ditch she's going to go but she's not doing well. She's not even winning ..."
    "... The DemParty would rather lose with Clinton than win with Sanders. Just as the RepParty would rather lose with Cruz than win with Trump. ..."
    "... If she was a rationally thinking human being she would have taken the hint when she got beaten by Obama in '08. Actually she should never have run in '08. Her basic conundrum is: how can she claim to be an empowered strong woman when ALL of her power is derived from the fact she was married to a prez and stuck through him through all his problems with many "other women". ..."
    "... I don't care if she sleeps with other women – the fact that she's in bed with Wall Street is way more troubling. ..."
    "... And the sad part is with Hillary we're probably going to miss the O-bomber when he's gone. ..."
    "... she's a devout Ayn Randian, carries a grudge, gets extremely angry, doesn't have any idea of what the difference between truth and lies is, and has a sense of self-entitlement as wide as the Atlantic Ocean. ..."
    "... The Democratic machine hates Sanders even more than it hates Trump and the Republicans. They hate everything he stands for. ..."
    "... They would rather see Trump win than Sanders. He asks too many inconvenient questions. Trump can be handled, like Reagan or Bush II. ..."
    "... there's obvious downside to pissing off a well-connected major political and financial player with a long memory, as opposed to a candidate with few lucrative contacts whose second act after his big swing for the fences is a probably quiet retirement. ..."
    "... As several people have pointed out, a win with Sanders is the second (or third) best outcome for the establishment. So far, the best-case scenario is still in the bag if they stick with her, and in jeopardy if they don't. It's delusional to think Sanders has a chance with them, even moreso than the Clinton supporters in 2008 who thought they could engineer an upset over Obama with convention procedures. ..."
    "... So how did Hillary Clinton beat out the popular Senator Bernie Sanders in New York State where he was born and raised? Where he was drawing rallies of tens of thousands of supporters in the week before the primary? Where his ground game had the engaged support of thousands of members of the Working Families Party and Occupy Wall Street activists? The system was rigged to guarantee the outcome just as the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington guarantees that looting the little guy remains a lucrative business model on Wall Street. ..."
    "... I confess to feeling despair for the survival of human civilization, of humanity and all complex life on Earth. The proximate reason for this is the theft of the New York Democratic primary by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. As for the fraud itself, it is a now familiar litany: Flipped registrations, machine switched votes, massive voter roll purges and much more. Consider just one illustrative example: Brooklyn. Brooklyn is run by the Kings County Democratic Party. A Chicago Mayor Dick Daley style political machine is in complete charge. Nothing happens there by accident. All "accidents" are carefully planned! And a lot of "accidents" occurred on primary election day there! Taken together these add up to election FRAUD. ..."
    "... HRC and Bill are the Macbeths of US politics. They should have quit with their hundreds of millions while they were ahead. Hillary may win the election but she'll lose the war. They will have so many scandals to deal with they won't know what hit them. ..."
    "... Bern in Hellary, Clintons! ..."
    "... president who was a one term president ..."
    naked capitalism

    Those numbers have no influence on the state-by-state results but offer a window into both the success of Sanders in generating enthusiasm and Clinton's inability to capitalize on all her political advantages . Since October, when her candidacy began rising again after several months of controversy about her use of a private email server, she has been on a downward slide. Her lead over the senator from Vermont has dropped from what was then a 31-point advantage to the current two points .

    Meanwhile, her negative ratings have been rising and now outweigh her positives by 24 points , according to the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll. That makes her seen no more favorably than Cruz is. Her only salvation is that Trump's net negative is minus 41. Sanders, meanwhile, has a net positive of nine points - although it's fair to say that one reason for that is that he has received far less in the way of attacks from Republicans or scrutiny from the media than Clinton has. [This last is standard Clinton camp spin; conventional explanation until shown otherwise]

    Clinton's image is at or near record lows among major demographic groups. Among men, she is at minus 40. Among women, she is at minus nine. Among whites, she is at minus 39. Among white women, she is at minus 25. Among white men, she is at minus 72. Her favorability among whites at this point in the election cycle is worse than President Obama's ever has been, according to Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who conducted the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll with Democratic pollster Peter Hart.

    Minority voters have been the linchpin of Clinton's nomination strategy and were a key to her success in New York. Among African Americans nationally, the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll shows her with a net positive of 51 points. But that's down 13 points from her first-quarter average and is about at her lowest ever. Among Latinos, her net positive is just two points , down from plus 21 points during the first quarter.

    Reince Priebus earlier described the Clinton candidacy as " in the ditch ":

    "Much more comfortable [running against Clinton] and I think everyone that has analyzed this knows that Hillary Clinton is in the ditch. We don't know how far in the ditch she's going to go but she's not doing well. She's not even winning," Priebus said.

    different clue , April 22, 2016 at 3:28 pm

    The DemParty would rather lose with Clinton than win with Sanders. Just as the RepParty would rather lose with Cruz than win with Trump.

    And since Trump is stronger against the RepParty than Sanders is against the DemParty, Trump will very likely be nominated while Sanders very likely won't. So in a situation of Trump vs. Clinton, many people will face an agonizing choice.

    Now . . . if the ReParty nominates Cruz or someother branded establishment ReParty member, then Clinton will likely win.

    EndOfTheWorld , April 22, 2016 at 7:12 am

    If she was a rationally thinking human being she would have taken the hint when she got beaten by Obama in '08. Actually she should never have run in '08. Her basic conundrum is: how can she claim to be an empowered strong woman when ALL of her power is derived from the fact she was married to a prez and stuck through him through all his problems with many "other women". Plus, her personality, voice, cackle, even the mere sight of her is repulsive to many people. Another thing that will have to be dealt with during the general is: is she or is she not gay? Voters will certainly be curious about that.

    edmondo , April 22, 2016 at 8:26 am

    I don't care if she sleeps with other women – the fact that she's in bed with Wall Street is way more troubling.

    ambrit ,April 22, 2016 at 9:58 am

    +1

    crittermom , April 22, 2016 at 10:49 am

    +100

    thoughtful person , April 22, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    +1000

    aliteralmind , April 22, 2016 at 4:19 pm

    +100,000

    Elizabeth , April 22, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    +500,000

    Steve , April 22, 2016 at 9:32 pm

    +$675,000

    Ensign Nemo , April 24, 2016 at 3:49 am

    +$153,000,000

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/

    JoeK , April 22, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    I think a lot about a person's character is revealed by their laugh; hers is mirthless and mean, perfectly consonant with her generally strident tone of voice. Obama may be as narcissistic and have run for the office as much for the sake of trophy-seeking, but at least his voice doesn't grate.

    oh , April 22, 2016 at 4:04 pm

    oh really?

    jrs , April 22, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    It grates on me, as does his condescending words, his face etc.. But that's because of who he is. See he might objectively be judged as a fairly good looking guy but, who can't even see that anymore given his evil. And the sad part is with Hillary we're probably going to miss the O-bomber when he's gone.

    Josquin , April 22, 2016 at 6:47 pm

    Clinton's quite rational. She's also smart, logical, and perceptive. On the other hand, she's a devout Ayn Randian, carries a grudge, gets extremely angry, doesn't have any idea of what the difference between truth and lies is, and has a sense of self-entitlement as wide as the Atlantic Ocean.

    This is her election. She doesn't care if she brings down the entire corrupt edifice of her own party, as reconfigured under the administration of her husband, as long as she gets the nomination. And if that puts the Dems out in the wilderness long enough for them to realize they need to return to being the party of the unions, the minorities, the working classes? Great.

    But my bet is that first, for however long it takes, if they lose they'll blame it on Sanders and all those groups they used to support, and now spit on.

    Richard Smith , April 22, 2016 at 7:42 am

    Gaius is right about the numbers and the trends. But even if Hillary's numbers plummet to catastrophic levels –to below Trump, which could happen if he cleans up his act as he is setting out to do right now - don't hold your breath for the DNC to nominate the only obvious potential winner, Bernie Sanders.

    The Democratic machine hates Sanders even more than it hates Trump and the Republicans. They hate everything he stands for. He's a socialist (of a mild sort). The Dems and Repubs are all plutocrats. They would rather see Trump win than Sanders. He asks too many inconvenient questions. Trump can be handled, like Reagan or Bush II.

    phil , April 22, 2016 at 11:18 am

    It's also worth noting that comparisons between Clinton and Sanders say nothing about the matchup between Clinton and whatever emerges from the GOP swamp. Approval ratings are more relevant, but are still an unreliable proxy, and even they show her competitive once the GOP candidates wreck the curve.

    Picking Clinton, IOW, has no serious downside if you're worried about beating a GOP Presidential candidate. However, there's obvious downside to pissing off a well-connected major political and financial player with a long memory, as opposed to a candidate with few lucrative contacts whose second act after his big swing for the fences is a probably quiet retirement.

    As several people have pointed out, a win with Sanders is the second (or third) best outcome for the establishment. So far, the best-case scenario is still in the bag if they stick with her, and in jeopardy if they don't. It's delusional to think Sanders has a chance with them, even moreso than the Clinton supporters in 2008 who thought they could engineer an upset over Obama with convention procedures.

    Bev , April 22, 2016 at 11:57 am

    Americans know that our political system is completely rotten. Just two days ago, NBC News published the results of a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. It found the following: "Nearly seven-in-10 registered voters say they couldn't see themselves supporting Republican frontrunner Donald Trump; 61 percent say they couldn't back fellow Republican Ted Cruz; and 58 percent couldn't see themselves voting for Democratic favorite Hillary Clinton."

    Above quote from: http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/04/new-york-does-elections-like-it-does-wall-street-with-its-finger-on-the-scale/

    New York Does Elections Like It Does Wall Street: With Its Finger on the Scale
    By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: April 20, 2016

    Consistent with numerous other polls, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll also found that "just 19 percent of all respondents give Clinton high marks for being honest and trustworthy." So how did Hillary Clinton beat out the popular Senator Bernie Sanders in New York State where he was born and raised? Where he was drawing rallies of tens of thousands of supporters in the week before the primary? Where his ground game had the engaged support of thousands of members of the Working Families Party and Occupy Wall Street activists? The system was rigged to guarantee the outcome just as the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington guarantees that looting the little guy remains a lucrative business model on Wall Street.


    via Richard Charnin https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=1476097125

    Those states marked in yellow on the spreadsheet indicate Fraud. There are a lot of states that were stolen.

    Maybe Sanders is saving up all this brilliant evidence from Richard Charnin and others to use in any contested fight for the nomination. I think it could be powerful leverage that could undo the blatant theft of votes, theft of democracy by Party leaders. Perhaps

    https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/ny-democratic-primary-more-frustration/

    NY Democratic Primary: More Frustration
    Richard Charnin

    As always, the final CNN exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote.

    http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/NY/Dem

    View the Early Exit Poll vs. Final (matched to recorded vote) vs. True Vote

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=1433317684
    snip

    The UNADJUSTED exit poll indicated a close race. Hillary led by just 52-48%, an 11.8% discrepancy from the recorded vote. There were 1391 respondents and a 2.6% exit poll Margin of Error. Clinton led by a whopping 62-38% in the vote count with 33% of precincts reporting.

    At 9:03 pm, there were 1307 exit poll respondents, Clinton led the actual count by 680-622 (52.0-47.6%). With just 84 additional respondents (1391 total), Clinton's lead increased to 802-589 (57.7-42.3%). She had 122 additional respondents and Sanders had 33 fewer.

    How can Clinton gain 122 of 84 respondents? How can Sanders' total drop? They can't. It is mathematically impossible. Therefore the final vote has to be impossible as well. . The exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote with impossible adjustments.
    snip

    In 2014, NY voter registration was 49D-24R-27I. The split was 85D-15I in the exit poll, which (as always) was forced to match the 57.9-42.1% recorded vote.

    Assuming primary voting was proportional to registration, the split would have been 65D-35I and the race would have been a tie. If Clinton had 58% of Democrats, Sanders won the election by 52.5-47.5%.
    snip

    Assuming that Sanders' 48% exit poll was accurate, he must have won the election due to thousands of suppressed votes. Sanders True Vote = 48% exit poll + suppressed vote.

    Let's assume that 5% of registered voters (400,000) were disenfranchised and Sanders had 75%. Then he had 52.9% assuming his 48% exit poll share.
    snip

    Sanders' exit poll share declined in the recorded vote in 18 out of 19 primaries.
    The probability: P=1-binomdist(17,19,.5,true) = 0.000038 = 1 in 26,000.
    .

    This information needs updating. It shows that there is already a very big difference between those states which have Caucuses with open public evidence of head/hand counts or paper ballots hand counted vs those in Primaries using the abusive evidence-free/evidence-hidden e-voting/e-scanning machines:

    Democratic Primaries (and Caucuses)

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit?pref=2&pli=1

    Sanders Average Vote Shares: 66% in 12 Caucuses
    (My note: with Real Public Evidence);
    41% in 20 Primaries
    (Evidence Hidden or Removed with those voting machines for the purpose of stealing democracy)

    .

    We need to correct this now. Because it may be now or never.

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bernie-or-Extinction-by-Michael-Byron-Bernie-Sanders_Bernie-Sanders-2016-Presidential-Candidate_Bernie-Sanders-Presidential-Campaign_Civilization-160421-594.html

    Bernie or Extinction.
    By Michael Byron

    I confess to feeling despair for the survival of human civilization, of humanity and all complex life on Earth. The proximate reason for this is the theft of the New York Democratic primary by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. As for the fraud itself, it is a now familiar litany: Flipped registrations, machine switched votes, massive voter roll purges and much more. Consider just one illustrative example: Brooklyn. Brooklyn is run by the Kings County Democratic Party. A Chicago Mayor Dick Daley style political machine is in complete charge. Nothing happens there by accident. All "accidents" are carefully planned! And a lot of "accidents" occurred on primary election day there! Taken together these add up to election FRAUD.

    Malcolm MacLeod, MD , April 22, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    Bev: I didn't understand a lot of the numbers in your link, but I
    certainly caught the drift, and appreciated your comment.

    Bas , April 22, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    Really.

    a candidate with few lucrative contacts whose second act after his big swing for the fences is a probably quiet retirement.

    don't think so, and Clinton v. GOP win depends on which party is more adept at election theft at this point.

    susan the other , April 22, 2016 at 11:24 am

    i also think there is an internal battle going on among the plutocrats there are those who want single payer health care for instance. we know that's not hillary's faction, so it could be trump's pals. There must be a consensus among some of the uneasy rich that if they can't resuscitate social equality they are history because they need society in order to function – they all know everything is dysfunctional now. The worst dysfunction is our deprivation: no health care, only welfare for insurance & drug companies; failing educational system; bankrupt retirement funds; no jobs; etc. The people are putting up better resistance to the takeover of the world by the neoliberals in Europe but only because they have vetted socialist societies. What Hillary and her pals concocted is an almost unbelievable disaster. Their solution seems to be more deprivation, more war, with no solution in sight for inequality. And lastly, Hillary does not even recognize the situation – she pretends things are just fine – all we have to do is protect our "rights" – are you for real, Hill?

    Left in Wisconsin , April 22, 2016 at 1:28 pm

    There are lots of capitalist firms that would be better off with single payer, and lots of business people that would be happy to see McD's, Wal-mart, etc. finally pay some of the true cost of their low wages, and to see the vig for Big Pharma and Big Health (Un)Care shrink.

    Malcolm MacLeod, MD , April 22, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    Left: I've been preaching for years that single payer is the only option, plus
    making medical education far less expensive. I went to school in the old
    days before student loans and all that crap, and I wasn't forced to increase
    my income to pay off debts. Europe has the correct idea.

    ScottS , April 22, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    Right on, Susan. I've long said single payer will come from Republicans. Only Nixon could go to China.

    Plus, if they repeal Obamacare, what else but single payer would they replace it with?

    jrs , April 22, 2016 at 7:04 pm

    Yea but even if they would benefit from single payer and they might, it's hard to say they'll ever be on board for full employment. Slack in the labor market is how wages are kept low, you just keep the slack within a certain range that for us will guarantee there will be losers, and for them will guarantee there aren't enough of them for violent revolution. Then you blame the losers such a system necessarily creates for their fate.

    So the interest of some oligarchs might sometimes coincide with ours, but don't count on it. And at a certain point I wonder how much good free healthcare will do if you bankrupt everyone with expensive rents or something instead (so many means of rent extraction, so little time!). Although it is a less inhumane way of keeping people enslaved than for their very healthcare.

    Thor's Hammer , April 22, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    Susan, I agree that not all plutocrats are mentally retarded ogres. And some may prefer a functioning social order over the immediate opportunity to suck the last blood out of the present one.

    The Malignant Overlords- the Banksters, Frackers and War Party purveyors of weapons of Death- that have dominated US policy for decades have found the perfect candidate in Killary. She is a known commodity that will do their bidding instantly at the sound of a briefcase full of $100 dollar bills being opened. Many Overlords may have loyalty to the Republican party much as they do to the football team of their Alma Mater, but they can't help but understand the value of having a President like Obama or Killary who present themselves as a progressive man or woman of the people while delivering policies that benefit only them.

    Why should they back a social misfit like Ted Cruz whom everybody he has ever worked with hates? Or an unpredictable wild card like Trump who occasionally says things that send chills up their spine? Withdraw from NATO? A Defense Department organized to defend America rather than enforce subservience to the Empire and maximize costs of new weaponry? Build things in the US instead of using much cheaper slave labor overseas? What a frightening idea.

    Much better to support a Trojan Horse "Democrat." even if they have too many Jewish lawyers at their fund raising banquets.

    Fiver , April 23, 2016 at 3:53 am

    No question she was the ideal candidate, or they'd not, through the magic of DNC/Beltway 'consensus' have anointed her the first woman President in 2016 back in 2008 – no doubt some cruddy deal done at that time.

    How the key power players managed to delude themselves into believing their own manufactured narrative vis a vis pretty much everything this century could totally fall apart without consequences is indeed amazing – so much so that half of me thinks this seeming outbreak of 'democracy' is itself scripted, that is, there was a conscious decision taken to allow Sanders and 'the people' to be 'given a hearing in the court of public opinion' justified by the easy collective assumption Clinton would make short work of Sanders' silly un-American ideas. That Clinton was an imperfect vehicle, a flawed instrument, obviously so to us, would surely have been evident to at least some people with considerable power, one of whom happens to hold a Go Directly To Jail card.

    Set 'em up, Joe. Got a little story, you oughtta know .

    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/22/backing-bernies-bold-vision-biden-knocks-hillarys-no-we-cant-mantra

    nippersdad , April 22, 2016 at 7:59 am

    Something not noted in the article but seems relevant here is that Bill cannot seem to keep his foot out of his mouth. Yesterday he blamed millennials for the lack of wage inflation in recent years. Keeping in mind that many of them weren't old enough to vote in the 2010 mid-terms even if they wanted to, the unbroken wage curve of the last thirty years puts this lie to rest alone.

    He is not making any friends either.

    ambrit , April 22, 2016 at 10:02 am

    I'm wondering if he secretly wants her to lose.

    perpetualWAR , April 22, 2016 at 10:59 am

    Are you kidding? That predator wants to find another lonely intern in the Oval Office.

    Waldenpond , April 22, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    No, he's just that bitterly entitled. Do you not see how rich and powerful they are even out of office? How dare he be denied. They are the same when the peasants are pleasant, they don't mind temporarily having to slum, but if they are even mildly questioned, their body language, voice, etc change. Watch their hands clench, jaws tighten, they both lean back. The strain to maintain and can never do it.

    Pavel , April 22, 2016 at 8:04 am

    If the DNC give the nomination to HRC (which of course is extremely likely despite the poll numbers above) then they are signing their own death warrant.

    There is a small risk to them that Bernie would run 3rd party (he could cite all the obvious shenanigans of the DNC and HRC as justification, and he could raise the money).

    If Trump is the Republican nominee, we know he isn't afraid to go after Hillary and Bill on their many scandals, and they can't easily go after him on financial or morality scandal reasons - and he has no political baggage like NAFTA or the anti-black crime bill to defend.

    Most likely HRC would win (just) but she will be thoroughly tarnished and battered by the Trump campaign, and will be inaugurated as the least-liked, least-trusted President in recent history. The Sanders supporters will detest her and we know the Repubs hate her with a passion, and will pursue various investigations. (The Clinton Slush Foundation clearly has a few unexploded bombs waiting to be found.)

    The country will be in political gridlock for another 4 years. The DNC will have lost all credibility and good will, and a third party will come about. And none too soon.

    HRC and Bill are the Macbeths of US politics. They should have quit with their hundreds of millions while they were ahead. Hillary may win the election but she'll lose the war. They will have so many scandals to deal with they won't know what hit them.

    ambrit , April 22, 2016 at 10:03 am

    With a viable Third Candidate, the election could go to the House. Then, all bets are off.

    redleg , April 23, 2016 at 1:54 pm

    1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election might be relevant.
    Two putrid major party candidates were nominated, and Jessie Ventura became governor. It wasn't just celebrity- he was a much better option compared to Skip Humphrey and Norm (f'n) Coleman.

    Ian , April 22, 2016 at 10:13 am

    I think that our sociopathic elite are looking to finalize the end of democracy by finishing off the TPP, TTIP and TiSA within her first term. Then all chance of a peaceful resolution are out the door and Supranational Government is established. Hillary is end game in this stage of society.

    Mossack Fonseca , April 22, 2016 at 11:14 am

    You may be onto something here. The wheels really do seem to be coming off. If the major systemic reactions to neoliberalism as embodied in Trump and Sanders do not produce a result that leads to some sort of acceptable homeostasis the current game is up. Something new has to emerge to control the forces at play. The long powerful illusions of American exceptionalism and ideological purity are failing–we just don't really have much of a shared ethos anymore. Without some major swing of the pendulum in the direction of reform, I don't see it holding up much longer. Even the average Joe is catching on.

    AnEducatedFool , April 22, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    I will be shocked if Warren is not offered the VP spot by Clinton. I do not know if she would take it but it is the perfect play by Clinton's team. She can pull over the Bernie supporters that are do not hold Ma against Warren.
    Clinton will also have a great narrative in our identity politics driven world.
    Convincing Warren to take on the VP position will also neuter her politically. Its a win win for Corporate Democrats.
    I just hope that Warren has some backbone but something had to be promised her for Warren to not come out and endorse Sanders.

    John Wright , April 22, 2016 at 9:02 am

    In my view, Trump "trumps" Hillary in a Trump vs Hillary election.

    After his treatment by the Republican Elite, Trump will not feel loyalty to the Republican party and will not be beholden to them for staffing and intellectual guidance as was George W. Bush.

    He has a far more open mind regarding the need for overseas military operations than "Hawk Hillary" and perhaps will not see every foreign "deal" as requiring a military intervention..

    He also might be more skeptical of the value of the financial industry to America's well-being than Hillary.

    And with Trump disdainful of both the Democratic and Republican elite, he might actually help the great unwashed who are largely ignored by both party leaders except at election time.

    He won't build the wall.

    If Trump were truly interested in restricting the flow of low wage immigrants he would push to enforce E-verify and employer sanctions, which would raise the price of low wage labor and would actually bring money into the US Treasury while avoiding the expense of a wall,.

    After all, Trump's properties are more profitable with cheaper labor.

    But I'd much rather have Bernie, someone who has been in public service for many years and yet has profited so little from the experience he had credit card debt to help with his daughter's and niece's weddings.

    ambrit , April 22, 2016 at 10:09 am

    I look to who each candidate picks as 'advisors' for various subjects. No one can be a genius polymath politician; at least I've not spotted one. So, 'advisors' are needed to make the wheels go around. For example, when Lil' Barry chose the Neo Cabal for his advisors early on, I knew he was a crook.
    As everyone here knows by now; watch what 'they' do, not what 'they' say.

    marym , April 22, 2016 at 10:49 am

    Important point. Trump's foreign policy advisors:
    Boston Globe

    [

    Keith] Kellogg, a former Army lieutenant general, is an executive vice president at Virginia-based CACI International, a Virginia-based intelligence and information technology consulting firm with clients around the world. He has experience in national defense and homeland security issues and worked as chief operating officer for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad following the invasion of Iraq.

    [Joe]Schmitz served as inspector general at the Department of Defense during the early years of George W. Bush's administration and has worked for Blackwater Worldwide.

    Democracy Now!

    JEREMY SCAHILL: Yeah, Joseph Schmitz was the Pentagon inspector general under Donald Rumsfeld, and he didn't really inspect much of anything. He was a big cheerleader, actually, for many of the most kind of excessive policies of Rumsfeld and the Pentagon in the post-9/11 world. And when Schmitz left the DOD, he became an executive at Blackwater. And Joseph Schmitz is a-you know, is a radical Christian supremacist. He is a member of the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta and really is sort of a-you know, has a neo-crusader worldview. And I'm choosing those words carefully. I mean, that's-he is definitely a radical Christian supremacist.
    And he was an enthusiastic fan of Erik Prince and Blackwater, and he goes and he joins that company. And, you know, this is a guy, though, who-when I was researching him for the Blackwater book, he wrote a series of letters to the editor of conservative newspapers-Washington Times and others-in the '90s. He was a fanatical opponent of abortion.

    American Conservative (!!)

    [Walid] Phares is a former Romney adviser, and selecting him as an adviser reflects just as poorly on Trump as it did on Romney. Leon Hadar has described him in TAC as a neoconservative and "an academic who was involved with right-wing Christian militia groups during the Lebanese civil war," but that doesn't do full justice to Phares' record of bad judgment and alarmist rhetoric about foreign threats. As McKay Coppins reported shortly after Romney named Phares as an adviser, "Throughout his career as a pundit, he has warned that some Muslims are plotting a secret takeover of American institutions with the end goal of imposing Sharia."

    knowbuddhau , April 22, 2016 at 11:50 am

    Joseph Schmitz is also linked to anti-Indian and anti-Muslim efforts.

    Trump Foreign Policy Advisor Tied to Montana Anti-Tribal Efforts
    IREHR (Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights)
    April 19, 2016

    Trump Advisor Joseph Schmitz Promotes Anti-Indian and Anti-Muslim Bigotry, Calls for End to the Vote for People Receiving Public Assistance

    Lawrence Kogan is closely allied with the anti-Indian Citizens Equal Rights Alliance (CERA). CERA aims to terminate tribes and abrogate treaties between the United States and Indian Nations. Kogan hired longtime CERA leader Elaine Willman to assist with the case and has spoken at multiple events with the group's leaders. Kogan and Schmitz's brief in the anti-CSKT lawsuit gained infamy for alleging that the dam transfer could allow the Turkish government and terrorists to obtain nuclear materials and poses a threat to national security. Rejecting the lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras referenced the brief's "somewhat perplexing arguments regarding the Turkish Government's involvement with Native Americans," concluding that "counsel for Plaintiffs conceded that no such evidence has been submitted relating to the Plaintiffs' alleged economic harm." (See American Lands Council and the Anti-Indian Movement). Kogan and Willman have continued to press the CSKT-Muslim terrorist conspiracy theory in 2016 (See Bigoted Nationalism and CERA-allied Attorney Tours).

    Waldenpond , April 22, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Trump surrounds himself w/loons. I'm in CA so I get to vote for Stein but if I was in a swing state I would lean Trump. Four years of orange tinted embarrassing hell rather than 8 years of savvy entrenched hell.

    With Clinton all of the deck chairs are assigned. With Trump, the chairs get scrambled and it will be an opportunity for the majority but I don't see anyone in the pipeline. Sanders candidacy advantage is he's on tape on issues for so many years.

    Roger Smith , April 22, 2016 at 9:19 am

    If Clinton v. Trump is the finality I think voting for Trump creates the best path for 3rd party emergence on the left. At that point (after a floozy democratic primary and all of their past injustices) the Democrats will need to be hammered down, humiliated, and put in their place. As they occupy so little of the left these days, weakening them creates an even greater "space" on the spectrum for others to occupy. The Republicans certainly are not going to move over.

    Vote Trump, but keep the progressive revolution momentum alive and organized.

    I really want a new progressive party with the finch as its mascot.

    Roger Smith , April 22, 2016 at 9:19 am

    If Clinton v. Trump is the finality I think voting for Trump creates the best path for 3rd party emergence on the left. At that point (after a floozy democratic primary and all of their past injustices) the Democrats will need to be hammered down, humiliated, and put in their place. As they occupy so little of the left these days, weakening them creates an even greater "space" on the spectrum for others to occupy. The Republicans certainly are not going to move over.

    Vote Trump, but keep the progressive revolution momentum alive and organized.

    I really want a new progressive party with the finch as its mascot.

    Pavel , April 22, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    Given that the USA (certainly) and possibly the world will go to hell if either HRC or Trump wins, I'd choose Trump if only for the novelty and to teach the frigging Clintons they can't buy and steal an election.

    Trump will scare the shit out of the rest of the world but he seems a bit less likely to start more wars in Syria, the Ukraine, and elsewhere.

    Barmitt O'Bamney , April 22, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    Fair point. ROTW was over the Moon about Obama, and then look what happened. In looney bin moron colonies like The Guardian they're still aswoon over Bush in blackface. They would have a falling down fit over us electing Trump, but with no more real insight than they showed in 2008. I still can't see myself actually pulling the lever for Trump, or voting for any Republicans because Bern in Hellary, Clintons! I just want my third party option now, please, ready or not.

    Alex morfesis , April 22, 2016 at 9:31 am

    $hillary milhous Clinton (if she does not walk away from the nomination process) will be remembered as the "my turn" president who was a one term president and the last democratic party president

    Are the democratic party apparatchiks so blind they can not see they could lose wholesale in 2018 and never recover ?

    Actually maybe the theft of the nomination will be a good thing will expose the democratic party and what it is today, helping push the door open for "other"(non-republican) opportunities

    NotTimothyGeithner , April 22, 2016 at 11:48 am

    There are a few issues at play.

    -The Clintonistas need Hillary. Who would hire Begala, Brazille, and Carville based on their career outside of being attached to the 1992 election? Any prominent Democrat from the last ten years has worn out their welcome. They need Hillary. Obama will be an ignored figure.
    -Buyers remorse with Obama who ushered in the destruction of the Democratic congress and party at the local level.
    -Clinton myths. The Clintons are brilliant politicians who won in an era of GOP dominationfor example ignoring the Democrats controlled Congress an much of the state and local governments before Clinton ran everything into the ground.
    -I dont want to limit it to Clintonistas, but Sanders despite numerous Infrastructure and financial challenges has mounted a challenge Hillary Clinton. All the money spent on Democratic strategists was essentially wasted. If Sanders had a little more money at the beginning this could be a very different race, but Sanders didn't need David Brock or to pay Dick Morris $5 million. The whole kabuki theatre of politics is at risk. Sanders much like the 50 state strategy undermine the need for the "Democratic strategist."

    optimader , April 22, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    president who was a one term president
    if she is elected , fwiw I don't think she'll last a complete term

    david lamy , April 22, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    A massive protest against Former First Lady Hillary R Clinton's nomination is a terrific idea!
    However, remember the astonishingly low level of news coverage of the massive DC and NYC anti-invasion protests before our wonderful Iraq adventure.
    However, if first you don't succeed, try, try again!
    My thoughts are already turning to logistics: Can we get enough of us there that it becomes impossible to access the convention site?

    grayslady , April 22, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    The idea is not to get arrested by blocking access–at least not for the superdelegates, who we want to flip to Bernie, and the masses of Bernie's elected delegates! Imagine how satisfying it would be to hoist the superdelegates on their own petard!

    I think if we start the idea now, vans and buses can be organized, places to stay, signed petitions for those who can't attend, etc. Bernie is truly a once-in-a-lifetime candidate (certainly for those of us who are older). I just can't see giving up without bringing all of our numbers to bear.

    Gaylord , April 22, 2016 at 12:54 pm

    I have to keep reminding people that Bernie is not The Savior and no one can save us now. Remember that Obama was thought to be that, but he turned into another messenger of the MIC. The TBTF Empire is doomed to dig its own grave and take the rest of the world with it. This ship is going down and there is not the slightest "hope" for "progressive" "change" to prevent it.

    Waldenpond , April 22, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Yep. There is a huge irreparable tear in the hull and the ship is no longer listing, it's gone vertical. At this point it's a matter of trying to limit the predation of the sharks and trying to find the last bits of humanity to appreciate like a sunrise while clinging to the side of a raft boat.

    Heliopause , April 22, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    The chance that Bernie will be the nominee is about zero. Barring an unforeseen deus ex machina from the Justice Dept. it will be Clinton, and even given the unforeseen scenario the party brass would be as likely to draft Biden or something similar as let Bernie win.

    tegnost , April 22, 2016 at 4:48 pm

    This seems to be an unreasonably pessimistic viewpoint. I stand behind my long held belief that if dems want the presidency then they'd best get behind bernie because even the gods will be unable to propel his primary opponent to victory in the general.

    Heliopause , April 22, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    The question is, which do they want more, the White House or to keep the party in the hands of their country club pals? Since the vast majority of party operatives are in the same orbit as HRC I tend to think it's the latter. This is America after all and anyone even a smidgen to the left of Barack Obama is considered out of bounds.

    Barring the unforeseen it will be Clinton. As bad as she is she would still beat Trump in the general and probably Cruz. The other wild card is if the GOP manages to nominate someone other than those two, in which case HRC and the Dem party will be in trouble.

    tegnost , April 22, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    I just want them to wake up one morning and say "I'm a republican, and it's ok.". One long term problem of lumping republicans into the evil camp has been a reluctance of some republicans to be able to come out and be themselves for fear of ostracism. One benefit of course would be a less harsh republican party. And are you sure she will beat trump in the general? She should be running against trump in the republican primary. And considering the track record of the foreseen (polls,etc ) , "barring the unforeseen" is about as likely as keeping the tide from going out. Bernie by a length in the last furlong.

    Pat , April 22, 2016 at 11:26 pm

    I'd love that too. Unfortunately the Democratic Party is now where former Republicans go to continue their career. While I may consider Lincoln Chaffee largely to the left of Clinton's real position, the fact is that neither that former Republican or Clinton and their positions are welcome in the Grand Old Party anymore. Hell they are eating people we considered to be far right even a decade ago for lunch. And the exiles don't seem to be willing to form the Reformed Republican Party as long as the Clintons/DLC/Third Way/New Dems welcome them so eagerly into the Democratic Party.

    Heliopause , April 23, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    Yes, Clinton will beat Trump in the general (barring the unforeseen). He's even more widely loathed than she is and current polling shows him with a yuuuuuge deficit to make up.

    The unforeseen might include the GOP somehow nominating someone other than Trump. Cruz is also widely despised and would probably lose to Clinton, although he might stand a slightly better chance than Trump. A Romney/Kasich/Ryan/McCain type would be a solid favorite against her but first the GOP has to figure out how to finesse such an outcome.

    The unforeseen might also include serious allegations stemming from the e-mail investigation. Obviously there is no way for us to know what might be in those thousands of e-mails so anything we say here is sheer speculation, but my best guess is that Clinton will not face serious consequences in regard to that. I wouldn't be wishing upon a star for that one if I were you, but you never know what might happen.

    tegnost , April 23, 2016 at 7:08 pm

    Where did you get your crystal ball from? Give me some numbers why clinton will beat trump with certainty.? At best hillary has a chance to beat trump but it certainly does not fall into the category of likely.. Could the unforeseen be total abandonment by sanders supporters? Major hurricanes revealing weak support structure? Market crash? oil skyrocketing to $140/bbl? As I said the unforeseen of course will happen, and the hillary titanic will have zero maneuverability, even now they can't take criticism. The emails may not get her indicted, but what if it just disgusts people? Cruz/hillary_clinton. and we could get pres. stein, that would be unforeseen. You can lie, cheat, steal, and propagandize your way to a hillary nomination and she will face a great chance of losing, while sanders wins in almost any scenario if he can get past the upper crust of the democrat party.

    Heliopause , April 23, 2016 at 9:19 pm

    Look up the popular poll aggregators - RealClearPolitics or Huffpost-Pollster - and look up both the general election hypothetical matchups and favorability ratings of the candidates. Trump's got a yuuuuuge problem; almost everybody has already formed an opinion about him and it's overwhelmingly negative. Clinton's favorables are poor, too, but quite a bit better than Trump's, and she wins all the hypothetical matchups as well.

    Most Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton. The number who will not is probably not terribly different from the number of Republicans who would rather vote for Clinton than Trump. Please keep in mind that as disliked as Clinton is, Trump is disliked even more.

    When I speak of the unforeseen I'm trying to keep to the at least minimally plausible. It's possible that Clinton will treat Bernie so poorly at the convention that she will cause a major schism, but she's not that stupid and I don't consider it likely. It's possible that the e-mails contain something truly deplorable, but most politicians aren't stupid enough to put such things in writing, and even if she did she still has the firewall of Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch. The GOP might pull a fast one and nominate someone who could dispatch Clinton, but they have a potential civil war problem of their own if they try that. So any of those things could happen, but I try to keep my expectations realistic. That's just me.

    "sanders wins in almost any scenario if he can get past the upper crust of the democrat party."

    Yes, but one of my points all along is that the upper crust would rather lose an election than cede any power at all to someone as left as Bernie.

    Bernie still has a chance, but it's tiny. The real progress is still down the road. The tide is turning but the interests are extremely entrenched and it's going to take some time.

    Yves Smith Post author , April 23, 2016 at 10:31 pm

    The sample at our large Sanders readership says your assumption is wrong: the overwhelming majority of Sanders voters will not vote for Clinton, particularly after the series of dirty election tricks, with New York as a particularly appalling spectacle. They will stay home, vote for Trump, write in Sanders, or vote for Jill Stein. And you discount the percentage that will vote Republican to punish the Democratic party. I know, for instance, of grad of a top school who is the son of Mexican farm workers who will vote for Trump if Sanders is not in the general. That is how deep the antipathy for Clinton is among Sanders voters.

    I would never ever vote for Clinton.

    Heliopause , April 24, 2016 at 4:51 pm

    I don't know what my limit on links is here, but here's a good one to start with:
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/no_trump_no_show_for_33_of_gop_voters

    Bottom line is, more GOP voters say they will not vote for Trump than Dem voters say they will not vote for Clinton. Other polling reveals basically the same thing.

    I'm not sure why you are citing personal anecdotes and a blog comment section as evidence of anything, since obviously neither are remotely representative of a large voting population.

    Yes, the Clinton's are opportunists and machiavellian political operators. We've known this for decades and so has the larger public. They're still going to vote for her over Trump, who is more despised than she is. That's just what the polling shows I'm afraid. She's not winning any elections here but a little blog is not the whole country.

    As I've said from the start, there are still ways that it could slip away from her, but none of them appear to be high probability. And believe me when I tell you that I take zero pleasure in the thought of HRC as President. But one has to be realistic. I'll add, don't let what I'm saying dissuade anybody from voting in a primary if they have the opportunity and desire to do so, the game now would be to get as many delegates into the convention as possible as leverage on events there, not the tiny chance that Bernie can still outright win this thing. This is an intelligent, educated, and adult readership here that I think can handle the facts without discouragement.

    Fiver , April 24, 2016 at 4:28 am

    Have to agree with Yves – Dems are in for a mighty shock if they believe most current Sanders supporters will fall into line rather than sit it out:

    For Sanders to even be where he is represents a major strategic error by senior Dems in not recognizing the political reality of the public mood and not moving to squash him early; or he is roughly where some other senior strategists wanted, perhaps unknown to Bernie i.e., Sanders provides a good show proving democracy still 'works', that progressives voices are heard, that the Party is open and change will come when it comes with Madame Clinton; or possibly a combo of both, with Sanders undertaking his part with a totally unexpected degree of relish that has infuriated Clinton. In other words, either fallibility is fully at play here, in which case a Sanders victory is not such an unimaginable stretch – or Sanders has some important support we don't know about.

    To my mind, progressives should go for it now with as much focus, clarity of purpose and gusto as eclipses all prior efforts. However it got here, the chance has been presented, his name is on the ballot, and he articulates the priority of addressing 3 of the great issues of the day: peace versus war; working stiff versus Wall Street; re-vamped social safety net. Big change is possible when the people know what they want, and what they want is not remotely extravagant, greedy or anything – just a decent arrangement for all.

    Waldenpond , April 22, 2016 at 10:58 pm

    Sanders running as an independent.

    Sawant's idea:

    http://www.socialistalternative.org/2016/04/17/kshama-sawant-petitioning-bernie-run-independent/

    [If electing a Republican is really Bernie's main concern, there is no reason he could not at least run in the 40+ states where it's absolutely clear the Democratic or Republican candidate will win, while not putting his name on the 5-10 closely contested "swing states." This could still allow for a historic campaign if linked to building a new party for the 99% and laying the foundation for an ongoing mass political movement to run hundreds of left candidates for all levels of government, independent of corporate cash.]

    This would work. I don't care about the D party so someone else could list the drawbacks. It satisfies Sanders position of protecting Clinton but the movement continues. How does he turn it down?

    teri , April 23, 2016 at 7:26 am

    I wonder why the Sanders campaign doesn't bring up the fact that in '08, Obama lost NY to Hillary Clinton by a wider margin than Sanders just did. (Leaving aside the, ahem, "voting issues"). And that at this same point in the race, Obama had fewer delegates than Sanders does right now. Also, in the end, it was the super-delegates switching their votes at the convention that won Obama the nomination.

    It's obvious why the media won't reminisce about the '08 election, but why won't Sanders bring it up?

    TheCatSaid , April 23, 2016 at 10:20 pm

    Sanders remains focused on the issues. Maybe he is right. Talking about the many election irregularity issues would immediately dissipate the focus, energy and educating functions of his key messages. The media blackout continues, so people are only learning more about him shortly before each primary/caucus. If the conversation were to shift to disputes about the tempting election irregularities–horrific as they are–the clarity of what he stands for would be lost.

    At least Sanders is telling supporters he needs them to be observers at the polls. This recent interview with Harvey Wasserman touches on just a few of the kinds of problems.

    [May 01, 2016] What is the Democratic Party Good For Absolutely Nothing

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reaganites showed the way. However, "Clintonites," the Clintons themselves and other "new" Democrats, put the Reaganite vision into practice. ..."
    "... In America these days, Reaganites think of it, Clintonites do it. Rank and file Republicans, insofar as they think at all, believe in it; rank and file Democrats don't like it, but let it happen. ..."
    "... Were the United States more of a (small-d) democracy, that would be the end of the story – and of the Clintons. But there is almost nothing democratic about American politics. It therefore looks like the neoliberal era will be hanging on for a while longer, an unloved encumbrance to human progress and wellbeing. ..."
    "... And, as the global hegemon goes, so go the countries it dominates. For the time being, the change so many yearn for is not quite at hand. Even so, there are reasons to hope: American politics is changing – in ways that could, before long, cause the neoliberal world order to fall. ..."
    "... Thanks to Trump, there is another wrinkle to add onto the Hegelian story: that Reason has a sense of humor. Hegel had men like Julius Caesar and Napoleon in mind. But the latest world historical figure, the Donald, is the very antithesis of figures like that: he is an over the top real estate tycoon, reality TV star, and all-around buffoon. ..."
    "... Hegel thought that opposites are integrally related. Democrats and Republicans certainly are. It is hardly surprising, therefore that the Democratic Party may also be on the brink of becoming undone or, failing that, of changing beyond recognition. ..."
    "... This might seem unlikely now that Hillary Clinton's victory over Bernie Sanders is practically assured. But the Sanders campaign, whatever becomes of it, introduced a destabilizing element into American politics. The Democratic Party may not yet be on the brink of destruction, but there is no telling what Reason has in store. ..."
    "... It was enough for me that the twenty-first century versions of New Deal-Great Society liberalism that the two of them had in mind is better by far than anything we Americans, with our bought and paid for pro-business political parties and our servile corporate media, had any right to expect. My beef with Bernie was just that he was too Clinton-friendly. No doubt, Warren is as well. ..."
    "... ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
    Apr 29, 2016 | Conterpunch

    Think of Republicans and despair for the human race. Even the ones who otherwise seem morally and intellectually sound champion political views straight out of Morons R'Us.

    However, Democrats are worse - not morally or intellectually, of course; and neither are their views worse. But within the matrix of our semi-established two party system, Democrats do the most harm.

    The Democratic Party is, by default, the political voice of organized labor and of social movements that fight for racial and gender equality, environmental sanity, and other worthy causes. Democrats can therefore do what Republicans cannot: integrate the victims of the status quo into a political consensus that serves and protects those who benefit most from it – the "one percent," the "billionaire class." They are good at this.

    The generally accepted name for the socially atomizing, inequality-generating, environmentally reckless version of late capitalism practiced and promoted in developed countries over the past four decades is "neoliberalism." For most Americans, as for most people around the world, neoliberalism has become Enemy Number One.

    Republicans support neoliberal policies and practices more fervently than Democrats do. But, for putting them into practice, Democrats leave Republicans standing in the dust.

    The American version of neoliberal theory and practice was concocted by Republicans and others who flocked into the Reagan administration decades ago; call them "Reaganites."

    The villainous old Gipper, Ronald Reagan, had little to do with it himself; he was never much of a thinker or visionary or policy wonk. But, in the United States, the name has stuck. It applies not only to neoliberals of the Reagan era, but to their successors as well.

    Reaganites showed the way. However, "Clintonites," the Clintons themselves and other "new" Democrats, put the Reaganite vision into practice.

    In America these days, Reaganites think of it, Clintonites do it. Rank and file Republicans, insofar as they think at all, believe in it; rank and file Democrats don't like it, but let it happen.

    By now, though, nearly everyone who does not benefit egregiously from the neoliberal world order is fed up with its consequences. In public opinion, the Reaganite-Clintonite era has run its course.

    Were the United States more of a (small-d) democracy, that would be the end of the story – and of the Clintons. But there is almost nothing democratic about American politics. It therefore looks like the neoliberal era will be hanging on for a while longer, an unloved encumbrance to human progress and wellbeing.

    And, as the global hegemon goes, so go the countries it dominates. For the time being, the change so many yearn for is not quite at hand. Even so, there are reasons to hope: American politics is changing – in ways that could, before long, cause the neoliberal world order to fall.

    The Republican Party is destroying itself. This has been in the works for a long time, but the Trump phenomenon has pushed the process along, and changed its nature.

    A facetious later-day Hegelian might say of this that the Cunning of Reason is at work.

    Hegel thought that History becomes increasingly rational and therefore intelligible through the deeds of world historical figures, great men (always men) acting out their passions and interests. He insisted, however, that this only becomes apparent in retrospect. In this case, Reason's cunning is on display even as events unfold.

    Thanks to Trump, there is another wrinkle to add onto the Hegelian story: that Reason has a sense of humor. Hegel had men like Julius Caesar and Napoleon in mind. But the latest world historical figure, the Donald, is the very antithesis of figures like that: he is an over the top real estate tycoon, reality TV star, and all-around buffoon.

    Hegel thought that opposites are integrally related. Democrats and Republicans certainly are. It is hardly surprising, therefore that the Democratic Party may also be on the brink of becoming undone or, failing that, of changing beyond recognition.

    This might seem unlikely now that Hillary Clinton's victory over Bernie Sanders is practically assured. But the Sanders campaign, whatever becomes of it, introduced a destabilizing element into American politics. The Democratic Party may not yet be on the brink of destruction, but there is no telling what Reason has in store.

    Were the Democratic Party to vanish from the face of the earth, it would certainly not be missed, except by deluded liberals who think, for example, that Hillary is one of the good guys, and that her "experience" – as an official wife, a feckless Senator, and the worst Secretary of State in modern times – has taught her how to get worthwhile things done.

    Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there are people who believe that, alarmingly many of them. Democrats buy snake oil at Morons R'Us too.

    Enter Bernie

    At first, Elizabeth Warren was the Great Progressive Hope. She had one obvious advantage over Bernie: Team Hillary couldn't play the gender card against her. But she said she wouldn't run, and she meant it.

    Sanders therefore came to occupy the space that might otherwise have been hers.

    It was plain to progressives of nearly all stripes, from Day One, that, if nothing else, Sanders' candidacy would help reintroduce "socialism" - the word, if not the idea – back into the American lexicon. This couldn't hurt, and might actually do some good. A Warren candidacy would not have had the same effect.

    Otherwise, between Warren and Sanders, it was, as far as anyone could tell, a wash.

    One argument against Bernie was that his campaign would redound ultimately to the benefit of Hillary's because it would keep progressive voters on board long enough for them to be coopted into the Clintonized Democratic Party's mainstream. Another was that, on all but economic matters, his views were standard Democratic Party fare. The same arguments would likely have been deployed against Warren, had she decided to run.

    I, for one, didn't much care. It was enough for me that the twenty-first century versions of New Deal-Great Society liberalism that the two of them had in mind is better by far than anything we Americans, with our bought and paid for pro-business political parties and our servile corporate media, had any right to expect. My beef with Bernie was just that he was too Clinton-friendly. No doubt, Warren is as well.

    Nevertheless, I decided long ago that, if Bernie was still in the running by the time I had a chance to vote in the primaries, that I would vote for him – if only because a vote for Bernie would be a reasonably principled and effective way to protest the coronation of Clintonism's (neoliberalism's) reigning Queen.

    Earlier this week, I made good on that decision. My state, Maryland, disgraced itself more fulsomely than the others voting that day - except Rhode Island. But even before last Tuesday, a Sanders victory was very nearly a mathematical impossibility.

    For a few months, though, it did seem that a vote for Bernie could be more than just a protest vote; that he could win the nomination and therefore the presidency.

    And it still seems that the "huge" crowds coming to Bernie's rallies and feeling the Bern are part of something a lot bigger. The differences from the Occupy movements of 201l are significant, but the vibe is much the same.

    Oddly, leftists were less skeptical of Occupy Wall Street and its clones than of the Sanders campaign, especially at first. I certainly was.

    This was odd because Occupy lacked a political focus – electoral or otherwise. One didn't have to be a committed Leninist to understand that this made it more than usually difficult for Occupy militants to figure out what to do next.

    It was also plain that, without a more defined political orientation, the Occupy movements would be easily swept aside when the Forces of Order decided that the time to repress them had come, and when the campaign to reelect Barack Obama started sucking up all the air.

    And so it was that Occupy burned out shortly after it got started.

    Even so, it seemed, at the time, that Occupy's bottom up structure and disregard of electoral politics was its strength. Also, the movement awakened a long dormant spirit of resistance - in much the way that Black Lives Matter now does.

    Therefore, it wasn't so strange, after all, that Occupy's flaws didn't seem quite as objectionable as the shortcomings of the Sanders campaign did in the days before it became clear that Bernie was on to something.

    Unlike Occupy Wall Street, the Sanders campaign does have a focus and a structure; it is, and could only be, a top-down electoral campaign of the familiar kind. This is its weakness, of course. But it is also what has enabled it to reach more people and to change consciousness more profoundly than the Occupy movements ever could.

    Much the same could be said for Sanders' decision to run as a Democrat. Technically, he had always been an Independent. He was, however, an Independent who caucused with the Democrats in the House and Senate, and who generally voted the way a Democrat would. His change in party affiliation was therefore of little substantive consequence.

    However, it was consequential strategically. Had Bernie run as an Independent, he would not have been included in debates, and he would be even more ignored by corporate media than he has been. Also, he would have had to waste money, time and effort just gaining ballot access.

    Running as an Independent, he would almost certainly end up doing even less well than Ralph Nader did, running on the Green Party ticket sixteen years ago. Nader won a whopping 2.74% of the popular vote.

    On the down side, though, by running as a Democrat, Sanders is strengthening the Democratic Party. And were he actually to win the nomination, he would have no choice but to cede at least some power over his campaign to that wretched party's leaders. They would also demand a role in his administration.

    Sanders' decision to run as a Democrat may not quite rise to the level of a Faustian bargain; he has not had to sell his soul – not yet, anyway. But it comes close.

    At the same time, by running as a Democrat, Sanders has done a lot of good. He has shown that it is possible to finance a Presidential campaign without relying on "the billionaire class" or Super PACs, or nefarious lobbyists. And he has moved the center of gravity in the Democratic Party to the left.

    Thanks to the Sanders campaign, even Hillary is now talking the talk. Of course, in her case, it is only talk; when there is no longer anything in it for her, she will revert back to form. But, in politics, even insincere and opportunistic words can have beneficial consequences in both the short and long term.

    Pundits used to say that the Sanders campaign was doomed to fail; now that it has very nearly done so, they are saying it again. This seems right; the institutional Democratic Party and the corporate media that supports it defeated Sanders, just as everyone expected they would.

    But failure was not inevitable. Were it not for New York State's election rules, which disenfranchised large numbers of potential Sanders voters, and for the Democratic Party machines that the Clintons concocted or took over during the past decade and a half, Sanders might have been able to sustain the momentum he brought into the New York primary by winning there. He would then have been well positioned to give the Clinton juggernaut a run for its money in the "Acela primaries" and in the others to come.

    Hillary was never the inevitable nominee, just the most likely one. Unfortunately, this time, the facts bore the probabilities out.

    In the end, though, her victory may be a blessing in disguise. For reasons I will mention presently, the Democratic nominee this year has always been sure to prevail against Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. But, barring a successful and profound "political revolution," he or she would then have as hard a time governing as Obama has had.

    In Obama's case, racism made the problem worse. But Republican obstinacy will not go away just because the color of the Democrat in the White House next year will be white.

    Republicans went after Obama mainly on domestic matters; they were fine with his drones and "targeted killings," his deportations, his war on whistle-blowers and his assaults on privacy rights.

    We can expect Republicans to thwart Hillary at every turn too, except perhaps when she warmongers and otherwise promotes Obama-style murder and mayhem. Even more than was the case under Obama, we should be grateful that she will seldom get her way: being clueless and inept, she has a knack for making everything she works on worse.

    Indeed, before long, even Obama will be looking good. Expect too that, as the consequences of Hillary's blundering unfold, many current Hillary supporters will wise up and turn on her in much the way that LBJ's supporters turned on him half a century ago.

    We will never know for sure how a President Sanders would fare. On the one hand, the man is a straight shooter; even Republicans can respect him for that. But capitalists who feel their power and privileges threatened fight back viciously. Because they own almost the entire political class, a "democratic socialist" who means what he says would not be likely to be cut much slack.

    Sanders is faulted for being an "idealist" and a "dreamer." This is nonsense; what he proposes – retrieving and then building upon progress made in the middle decades of the last century - is eminently doable, provided there is the political will. Countries less wealthy than ours do similar things all the time.

    But finding the political will would not be easy. Republicans would be an obstacle, of course; but Democrats would be a problem too.

    Even if his candidacy would generate enough excitement and voter turnout for Democrats to win control of the Senate and the House, as happened when Obama ran in 2008, Congress would still be in the hands of base and servile flunkies who toe the line for their corporate paymasters. The Democratic Congress Obama contended with during his first two years in office is a case in point.

    Let Hillary deal with problems like that. Bernie can serve the people better in other ways.

    Who's Afraid of Donald Trump?

    High on the list of nonsensical things that foolish liberals believe is the idea that because Hillary is a "centrist," she is more electable than anyone further to her left.

    This belief is like the old notion that after a heart attack or major surgery, patients should have complete bed rest as they recover. This seems commonsensical, but the idea is demonstrably false.

    In this case, though, it is clear as can be that Hillary is going to shellac Trump (or Cruz) in November. Sanders would do the same – in all likelihood by a larger margin.

    Even a people capable of venerating Ronald Reagan and reelecting George W. Bush in 2004, after it had become plain to anyone with half a brain how devastating his war against Iraq already was, would not put their country – and its nuclear weapons – in Trump's (tiny) hands. The Donald cannot win – no way.

    To be sure, there is a fair chance that Trump is not nearly the racist, nativist and Islamophobe that he pretends to be. He played that part on TV, though; and he won't be able to live it down.

    America is not yet a majority-minority nation - but it is getting there, demographically and in spirit. Therefore anyone nowadays whose public persona resembles that of, say, George Wallace circa 1971 cannot win an election that is not confined, as Republican primaries mostly are, to out of sorts white people.

    Moreover, if Trump is the Republican nominee, he will not only have to contend with the Clintons and their hapless minions; he will have the Republican Party, what's left of it, against him as well.

    The swords are already drawn. The Old Guard is mobilized against Trump because he threatens their hold over their Grand Old Party. Libertarians, theocrats and other self-described "conservatives" are against him too - because they realize that, despite his bluster, he is emphatically not one of them.

    It is likely, in fact, that Trump would run to Hillary's left on most issues – trade, foreign affairs, infrastructure development, jobs programs, holding Wall Street banksters and other corporate criminals accountable, and so on.

    Nevertheless, liberals say that, like her or not, Hillary is the lesser evil; and conclude, on that account, that she merits their support.

    There is no point now in going back over the case against lesser evil voting, except to note that one of the timeworn arguments – that it is not always clear who the lesser evil is - is especially relevant in a Clinton vs. Trump matchup.

    But, in this instance, lesser evil considerations are moot: Trump cannot win in November, period, full stop.

    There is polling data that suggests that Bernie would have done a lot better than he did in recent primaries were voters more confident that a Democrat, any Democrat, would trounce Trump (or Cruz).

    In the years to come, as the horror that is Hillary becomes apparent even to those who are now somehow able to enthuse over her candidacy, we will all have cause to regret that debilitating imperviousness to evidence that afflicts Republicans and Democrats alike.

    Whither Bernie?

    Jesse Jackson folded the Rainbow Coalition into the Democratic Party after the 1988 primary season. Because he wanted to be a player, he squandered an enormous opportunity.

    If Bernie follows suit, it will nullify much of the good his campaign has done.

    Sanders seems less cooptable than Jackson. Nevertheless, every indication so far is that he will follow Jackson's lead.

    That it could come to this has been the great fear all along, and the main reason for faulting Sanders for running as a Democrat. Containing progressive uprisings is what Democrats do.

    In principle, what got going under the aegis of the Sanders campaign could survive and even flourish without him. There is no denying, though, that, in the short run, it will help mightily if Bernie stays on board.

    For that to happen, he will have to become more like Donald Trump. Liberal pundits and faux progressives are already busily telling one and all that this would not please them one bit. No surprise there!

    When Republican grandees treat the Donald badly, as they have been doing relentlessly from the moment that it became clear that his campaign was more than just a joke, he has fought back with verbal retorts designed to cut them down - supplemented with barely concealed calls for violence.

    Behind his words, however, there is, as everybody knows, the threat of exit. Trump could bolt, taking large swathes of the Republican base with him.

    The institutional Democratic Party has treated Sanders badly too, notwithstanding their fear that, if they go too far, his supporters will also bolt, regardless what Sanders tells them or what he himself chooses to do.

    They want to keep as many Sanders backers on board as they can, not because they are afraid that Trump will win in November - that isn't going to happen – but for the sake of down ticket Democrats. To have any chance of taking over the Senate, the House and vulnerable State Houses, they know that they will need to keep the people feeling the Bern active and enthused.

    Their thoroughly justifiable fear is that, without Bernie, most of them will just sit the election out.

    There is no obvious way to prevent this. With Hillary at the head of the ticket, the temptations of quiescence are too strong not to prevail.

    But all is not lost; not by any means. It may be impossible now for Americans opposed to neoliberalism to elect a President who is not part of the problem; but, thanks to the Sanders campaign, there has never been a more propitious moment for doing something even more worthwhile – changing the face of American politics by building a genuinely leftwing political party.

    This is why the first order of business now must be to convince Bernie to join with those of us who would swim through vomit before voting for any Clintonite, much less the exceptionally inept and very dangerous "Madam Secretary."

    This won't be easy. Bernie is too nice. It doesn't help either that liberal pundits back the Democratic Party, as we know it, a thousand percent.

    Even so, many Sanders supporters are sure to find their way to the Greens - voting, as I probably will yet again, for Jill Stein.

    On economic matters and other domestic issues, Stein offers essentially what Sanders does; on foreign affairs, she offers a lot of what anti-imperialists don't like about Sanders' views.

    With these considerations in mind – and with a Democratic victory in the Presidential contest assured – a vote for Stein ought to be a no brainer for the vast majority of Sandersnistas, especially those who live in the forty or so states whose electoral votes might as well have been assigned four years ago.

    But the Greens have been going nowhere for as long as anyone can remember, and they are not even good for drawing protest votes. In 2012, when I would tell people, including some who follow election news closely, that I voted for Jill Stein, the response I would often get is: "Jill who?" This year is looking no different.

    Nevertheless, thanks to decades of perseverance, the Greens do have ballot status in more states than any other "third party." It is theoretically possible for them to assemble enough Electoral College votes actually to elect a President.

    But their candidates are frozen out of media coverage. The media's malign neglect of Sanders turned out to be not quite fatal, because, by challenging Clinton so successfully, his campaign was undeniably newsworthy; and because, running as a Democrat, he couldn't be entirely ignored. Stein can and will be ignored; diluting the value even of the protest votes she receives.

    However, were she and Bernie to join together, neither would stand a chance of being elected President, but the Greens would become a force to be reckoned with. This idea is one of many being floated ( link: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/21/the-undemocratic-primary-why-we-need-a-new-party-of-the-99/ ). It is far from clear, though, that Bernie has the will, or that the Greens have the means, to make it happen.

    Now is therefore a time to be thinking hard and fast about what is to be done.

    It is also a time to be thinking about how a genuinely leftwing party could win over Democratic politicians whose hearts are in the right place, but who, for the time being, have no choice but to make common cause with Clintonites. There are only a few brave souls like that at the national level; at the state and local levels, there are many more.

    Predictably, though, calls for party unity are already become deafening. They should be rebutted whenever possible, and otherwise ignored.

    If the party the Clintons did so much to move to the right is harmed by defections, so much the better.

    There are Democrats who do good work at the local and even the state level; at the national level, the good ones could probably all fit, as they say, in one taxi, with room left over for luggage.

    Arguably, the rest do some good just by being there - keeping Republicans at bay. That consideration aside, today's Democratic Party is good for nothing at all - at the national level and, with a few exceptions, further down the line.

    The GOP is a wreck. This is outstanding news. A similarly damaged Democratic Party would be an enormously salutary development too, an achievement of truly historic importance.

    ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

    [Apr 24, 2016] Why Democrats Are Becoming the Party of the 1 Percent

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives, entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent of the 1 percent has risen dramatically , more than trebling since 1980. ..."
    "... It's not dispassionate analysis that causes Chuck Schumer to waffle on the carried-interest tax loophole, Hillary Clinton to argue for raising the cap on H-1B visas, or Maria Cantwell to rally support for the Export-Import Bank. The more rich people that a party attracts, the more that the party must do to stay attractive. ..."
    "... In a world of Trump_vs_deep_state and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites, both economic and cultural, ..."
    "... Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as they are already promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative. ..."
    Vanity Fair
    The Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives, entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent of the 1 percent has risen dramatically, more than trebling since 1980. Traditionally, though, the Republican Party has been seen as the better friend to the wealthy, offering lower taxes, fewer business regulations, generous defense contracts, increased global trade, high immigration, and resistance to organized labor. It's been the buddy of homebuilders, oil barons, defense contractors, and other influential business leaders.

    Trump_vs_deep_state changes the equation. If homebuilders face workplace crackdowns on illegal hiring, their costs go up. If defense contractors see a reduced U.S. military presence in Asia and Europe, their income goes down. If companies that rely on outsourcing or on intellectual property rights see their business model upended by discontinued trade agreements, they face a crisis. Sure, many rich people hate Obamacare, but how big a deal is it compared to other things they want: more immigration, sustained and expanding trade, continued defense commitments? Clintonism, by comparison, starts to look much more appealing.

    All good, say some Democrats. The more people that Trump_vs_deep_state scares away, the broader and more powerful the liberal-left coalition will be. But nobody offers their support without expecting something in return. It's not dispassionate analysis that causes Chuck Schumer to waffle on the carried-interest tax loophole, Hillary Clinton to argue for raising the cap on H-1B visas, or Maria Cantwell to rally support for the Export-Import Bank. The more rich people that a party attracts, the more that the party must do to stay attractive.

    In a world of Trump_vs_deep_state and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites, both economic and cultural, while Republicans would become the party of the working class. Democrats would win backing from those who support expanded trade and immigration, while Republicans would win the support of those who prefer less of both. Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as they are already promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative.

    The combination of super-rich Democrats and poor Democrats would exacerbate internal party tensions, but the party would probably resort to forms of appeasement that are already in use. To their rich constituents, Democrats offer more trade, more immigration, and general globalism. To their non-rich constituents, they offer the promise of social justice, which critics might call identity politics. That's one reason why Democrats have devoted so much attention to issues such as transgender rights, sexual assault on campus, racial disparities in criminal justice, and immigration reform. The causes may be worthy-and they attract sincere advocates-but politically they're also useful. They don't bother rich people.

    [Apr 24, 2016] Ron Paul on the Military-Industrial Complex's Role in US Militarism from Latin America to Europe

    Notable quotes:
    "... Speaking of the US putting more troops in Europe near the Russian border, Paul notes that he doesn't think "they have strong evidence that the Russians are about to roll in tanks." Instead, a motivation for the military build-up, Paul says, is "stirring up troubles to justify more military expenditures." ..."
    The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
    Speaking last week with host Scott Horton on the Scott Horton Show, three-time presidential candidate and former Republican member of the US House of Representatives Ron Paul discussed the military-industrial complex's role in US militarism across the world, including in Latin America and Europe.

    After Horton introduced Paul as "the greatest American hero," Paul and Horton entered a fascinating discussion of US foreign policy. Their wide-ranging discussion concerns matters including US intervention in Iraq and Ukraine, a potential "Brexit" - exit of Great Britain from the European Union (EU), and Paul's preference for free trade over international trade deals that Paul says put in place "managed trade to serve the interests of some special interests."

    Addressing the influence of the military-industrial complex, Paul comments in the interview on examples in Europe and Latin America.

    Speaking of the US putting more troops in Europe near the Russian border, Paul notes that he doesn't think "they have strong evidence that the Russians are about to roll in tanks." Instead, a motivation for the military build-up, Paul says, is "stirring up troubles to justify more military expenditures."

    Paul also comments on the military-industrial complex when he discusses how a dispute over which company would profit from its helicopters being used in the US government's "Plan Columbia" was resolved by sending both companies' helicopters to Latin America for use in the drug war effort.

    Listen to Paul's complete interview here.

    Listen through the end of the interview and you will hear Horton's strong praise for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity (RPI). Paul founded RPI in 2013 after retiring from the House of Representatives. Says Horton:

    Check out the Ron Paul Institute at ronpaulinstitute.org. They put out great antiwar propaganda all day long seven days a week - the great Dan McAdams, Dr. Paul, Adam Dick and others there at the Ron Paul Institute, ronpaulinstitute.org.
    Read here Paul's April 10 editorial "As Ukraine Collapses, Europeans Tire of US Interventions" discussed in the interview.
    Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Apr 24, 2016] Why Democrats Are Becoming the Party of the 1 Percent

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives, entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent of the 1 percent has risen dramatically , more than trebling since 1980. ..."
    "... It's not dispassionate analysis that causes Chuck Schumer to waffle on the carried-interest tax loophole, Hillary Clinton to argue for raising the cap on H-1B visas, or Maria Cantwell to rally support for the Export-Import Bank. The more rich people that a party attracts, the more that the party must do to stay attractive. ..."
    "... In a world of Trump_vs_deep_state and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites, both economic and cultural, ..."
    "... Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as they are already promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative. ..."
    Vanity Fair
    The Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives, entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent of the 1 percent has risen dramatically, more than trebling since 1980. Traditionally, though, the Republican Party has been seen as the better friend to the wealthy, offering lower taxes, fewer business regulations, generous defense contracts, increased global trade, high immigration, and resistance to organized labor. It's been the buddy of homebuilders, oil barons, defense contractors, and other influential business leaders.

    Trump_vs_deep_state changes the equation. If homebuilders face workplace crackdowns on illegal hiring, their costs go up. If defense contractors see a reduced U.S. military presence in Asia and Europe, their income goes down. If companies that rely on outsourcing or on intellectual property rights see their business model upended by discontinued trade agreements, they face a crisis. Sure, many rich people hate Obamacare, but how big a deal is it compared to other things they want: more immigration, sustained and expanding trade, continued defense commitments? Clintonism, by comparison, starts to look much more appealing.

    All good, say some Democrats. The more people that Trump_vs_deep_state scares away, the broader and more powerful the liberal-left coalition will be. But nobody offers their support without expecting something in return. It's not dispassionate analysis that causes Chuck Schumer to waffle on the carried-interest tax loophole, Hillary Clinton to argue for raising the cap on H-1B visas, or Maria Cantwell to rally support for the Export-Import Bank. The more rich people that a party attracts, the more that the party must do to stay attractive.

    In a world of Trump_vs_deep_state and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites, both economic and cultural, while Republicans would become the party of the working class. Democrats would win backing from those who support expanded trade and immigration, while Republicans would win the support of those who prefer less of both. Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as they are already promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative.

    The combination of super-rich Democrats and poor Democrats would exacerbate internal party tensions, but the party would probably resort to forms of appeasement that are already in use. To their rich constituents, Democrats offer more trade, more immigration, and general globalism. To their non-rich constituents, they offer the promise of social justice, which critics might call identity politics. That's one reason why Democrats have devoted so much attention to issues such as transgender rights, sexual assault on campus, racial disparities in criminal justice, and immigration reform. The causes may be worthy-and they attract sincere advocates-but politically they're also useful. They don't bother rich people.

    [Apr 23, 2016] My support for Obama evaporated as it became apparent that, rather than fighting for civil rights, he was doubling down on Bush/Cheneys totalitarian approach to all issues of security

    Notable quotes:
    "... This question contains one truly huge assumption: that liberals actually support Obama and Clinton. My support for Obama evaporated as it became apparent that, rather than fighting for civil rights, he was doubling down on Bush/Cheney's totalitarian approach to all issues of security. ..."
    "... The only time I've really thought he was fighting for anything was against Hillary during the latter part of his first nominating process. Since then he's been fairly spineless. ..."
    "... The Clintons have never been liberal. They're all about taking the safe middle of the road; they'd never take on the corporate interests because they want their donations just like the right wing. ..."
    "... If you want to find liberals, find folks like me that are at least interested in Sanders. Or at least initiate political conversations on your own. Educate yourself on the issues that are important to you and start talking with the people around you. ..."
    www.quora.com

    This question contains one truly huge assumption: that liberals actually support Obama and Clinton. My support for Obama evaporated as it became apparent that, rather than fighting for civil rights, he was doubling down on Bush/Cheney's totalitarian approach to all issues of security. His incessant compromises with GOP on health-care during his first year or two left us with an ACA that is somewhat better than nothing but falls dramatically far short of what it should have been; and the compromises were just tricks, the GOP intended to stonewall it from the beginning.

    His FCC's actions on net neutrality were essential but don't outweigh his failings on liberty, privacy, and other issues. His failures to respond to the Bundy family's two armed insurrections are typical of his passive afraid-of-the-backlash approach to just about everything.

    His administration is complicity embedded with the Content Ownership industry to eliminate the fair-use exception to copyright law. The only time I've really thought he was fighting for anything was against Hillary during the latter part of his first nominating process. Since then he's been fairly spineless.

    Only reason I don't usually air these concerns publicly is the scandalous amount of racism and sheer hatred in the heart of the GOP's nut-job opposition.

    The Clintons have never been liberal. They're all about taking the safe middle of the road; they'd never take on the corporate interests because they want their donations just like the right wing.

    ... ... ... ...

    If you want to find liberals, find folks like me that are at least interested in Sanders. Or at least initiate political conversations on your own. Educate yourself on the issues that are important to you and start talking with the people around you.

    [Apr 19, 2016] Yahoo bastards attack Sanders by Rick Newman

    So Bernie is the poorest of all candidates, but Rick Newman stresses that his Tax rate is lower then the rest. But how you can compare 27 million with 200K in annual income. Those are different weight categories and it would be travesty of justice is Clinton paid less. In any case selling Demoicratic Party to Wall Street pays well. Much like in case of Judas Iscariot Bill Clinton got his thirty silver coins (aka millions in annual income) for betrayal of the Roosevelt's New Deal.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton speeches: $10.5 million ..."
    "... Bill Clinton speeches: $9.7 million ..."
    "... Ted and Heidi Cruz are wealthy, though not in the neighborhood of the Trumps or Clintons. The couple earned $1.2 million in 2014, when Heidi Cruz was still working as a Goldman Sachs money manager. ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    At least one presidential candidate pays a lower tax rate than the average American

    Here are the 2014 income and tax numbers for four of the five presidential candidates (Donald Trump hasn't released his returns). All of these figures are for husband and wife filing jointly:

    Source: Candidate web sites, IRS. Note: National averages are preliminary data for 2014.

    Source: Candidate web sites, IRS. Note: National averages are preliminary data for 2014.

    Here's a breakdown of the Clintons' gross income, not counting deductions, in 2014:

    • Hillary Clinton speeches: $10.5 million
    • Bill Clinton speeches: $9.7 million
    • Bill Clinton consulting: $6.4 million
    • Hillary Clinton book royalties: $5.6 million

    Various adjustments bring the Clintons' total AGI lower, and then there are nearly $5.2 million in itemized deductions. Those deductions include $2.8 million for state and local income taxes, $104,000 in real-estate taxes and $42,000 in mortgage interest – the amount of annual interest you might pay on a $1 million mortgage.

    The couple also donated $3 million to the Clinton Foundation, which is a nonprofit, so the gift counts as a charitable donation. Because of a limit on the value of deductions they could claim, the Clintons' exemptions topped out just under $5.2 million.

    ... ... ...

    Ted and Heidi Cruz are wealthy, though not in the neighborhood of the Trumps or Clintons. The couple earned $1.2 million in 2014, when Heidi Cruz was still working as a Goldman Sachs money manager. She took leave starting last year, while her husband was campaigning, so the family's income will probably be lower for 2015. The couple paid the highest effective tax rate of any presidential candidate, at 36.7%, because their amount of itemized deductions were relatively small. With only two pages from the return, it's hard to tell why there weren't more deductions.

    [Apr 19, 2016] Yahoo bastards attack Sanders by Rick Newman

    So Bernie is the poorest of all candidates, but Rick Newman stresses that his Tax rate is lower then the rest. But how you can compare 27 million with 200K in annual income. Those are different weight categories and it would be travesty of justice is Clinton paid less. In any case selling Demoicratic Party to Wall Street pays well. Much like in case of Judas Iscariot Bill Clinton got his thirty silver coins (aka millions in annual income) for betrayal of the Roosevelt's New Deal.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary Clinton speeches: $10.5 million ..."
    "... Bill Clinton speeches: $9.7 million ..."
    "... Ted and Heidi Cruz are wealthy, though not in the neighborhood of the Trumps or Clintons. The couple earned $1.2 million in 2014, when Heidi Cruz was still working as a Goldman Sachs money manager. ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    At least one presidential candidate pays a lower tax rate than the average American

    Here are the 2014 income and tax numbers for four of the five presidential candidates (Donald Trump hasn't released his returns). All of these figures are for husband and wife filing jointly:

    Source: Candidate web sites, IRS. Note: National averages are preliminary data for 2014.

    Source: Candidate web sites, IRS. Note: National averages are preliminary data for 2014.

    Here's a breakdown of the Clintons' gross income, not counting deductions, in 2014:

    • Hillary Clinton speeches: $10.5 million
    • Bill Clinton speeches: $9.7 million
    • Bill Clinton consulting: $6.4 million
    • Hillary Clinton book royalties: $5.6 million

    Various adjustments bring the Clintons' total AGI lower, and then there are nearly $5.2 million in itemized deductions. Those deductions include $2.8 million for state and local income taxes, $104,000 in real-estate taxes and $42,000 in mortgage interest – the amount of annual interest you might pay on a $1 million mortgage.

    The couple also donated $3 million to the Clinton Foundation, which is a nonprofit, so the gift counts as a charitable donation. Because of a limit on the value of deductions they could claim, the Clintons' exemptions topped out just under $5.2 million.

    ... ... ...

    Ted and Heidi Cruz are wealthy, though not in the neighborhood of the Trumps or Clintons. The couple earned $1.2 million in 2014, when Heidi Cruz was still working as a Goldman Sachs money manager. She took leave starting last year, while her husband was campaigning, so the family's income will probably be lower for 2015. The couple paid the highest effective tax rate of any presidential candidate, at 36.7%, because their amount of itemized deductions were relatively small. With only two pages from the return, it's hard to tell why there weren't more deductions.

    [Apr 10, 2016] Senator Warren to Senate Republicans; If you do not like the choice of being shot or taking poison, then "Do Your Job"

    Apr 09, 2016 | Angry Bear
    A question to Senator Lindsey Graham by "The Daily Show's" Trevor Noah asking why he endorsed Cruz for the Republican Presidential candidate over Trump. Earlier, Noah ran a clip of Graham stating it was a choice between getting shot or being poisoned and the reasoning for the choice of Cruz was there may be "an antidote." What a lackluster answer and field of Republican candidates for the Presidency. The last seven years of this administration's congressional support has been rife with actions by Republicans to obstruct any action by this President. After all of the obstructionism, the electorate has had enough and has chosen some who may not be favored by the establishment.

    Senator Elizabeth Warren delivered a message to her fellow Republican Senators as detailed in The Boston Globe, "Do Your Job." The Senator chastises the Republican members of the Senate for seven years of blocking anything to come before them as sponsored by President Obama (If you can not get into The Boston Globe to read her message, you may want to try Common Dreams.)

    "through artificial debt ceiling crises, deliberate government shutdowns, and intentional confirmation blockades, Senate Republicans have acted as though the election and reelection of Obama relieved them of any responsibility to do their jobs. Senate Republicans embraced the idea that government shouldn't work at all unless it works only for themselves and their friends. The campaigns of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are the next logical outgrowth of the same attitude - if you can't get what you want, just ignore the obligations of governing, then divert attention and responsibility by wallowing in a toxic stew of attacks on Muslims, women, Latinos, and each other."

    The most current crisis started in 2013 where the Republican Senate has stalled the process of judicial appointments to the higher courts enough so, it forced the then in majority Democrats to change the rules of filibuster in order to move along 3 appointments to the COA. Do not forget Senator McConnell's pledge to make Barack Obama a one term president and the meeting after President Obama's first election by key Republicans to block every move made by the then fledgling President. In 2015, the Republicans gained control of the Senate and judicial appointments have ground to a halt. And the same is occurring with Barack Obama's appointment of Merrick Garland.

    But is Merrick the only one? "Amy Howe at Scotus Blog would say no.

    A Summary by Amy Howe:

    March 13, 1912, President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911.

    President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916; January 28, 1916 Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916 and John Clarke was confirmed 10 days after being nominated on July 14, 1916 after Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court to run (unsuccessfully) for president.

    On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939.

    On November 30, 1987, Republican President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell and was confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate.

    On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and he served until October 15, 1956. With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957.

    It should not have to be a choice between a bullet or poison; but, the Republicans have spread so much of their conniving obstructionism with the sabotage of anything in Government today, it has left the people in anger, angry at a Congress which does not do the job to which it is elected. They will pick the poison over the gun shot to get things moving again.

    [Apr 10, 2016] http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2008_06_01_archive.html

    www.calculatedriskblog.com

    Second, most of the complaints that Bernie has are that media, not the Clintons, are giving him a good going over. In a way, this is a compliment since six months ago they were ignoring him and they are now are treating him serious candidate who may become President in January. (Of course I wish they would give Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Paul Ryan the same treatment.)

    PK's column was hard on Bernie and Bernie's campaign ("losing its ethical moorings"), but he was writing it as a political columnist who wants a Democrat elected President in November and was criticizing Bernie and his gang for recycling right memes against Clinton.

    Finally, if Bernie does win upsets in the next few states, he is going to want Clinton supporters, particularly women and minorities to come out and vote for him. Calling a woman "unqualified to be President" and trashing President Obama's tenure in office as a "sell out" to the Banks and that the Affordable Care Act is as bad as the Republicans say it is. http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/obamacare-embarrasses-right.html

    Finally, the Green Lanternism of Jeffrey Sachs and all the other Bernie supporters is really astounding. Somehow electing just the right person as President will cause Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the Koch Brothers to run up the white flag and say we will do whatever you ask. Gobsmacking.

    Reply Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:11 AM Peter said in reply to sherparick... "Somehow electing just the right person as President will cause Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the Koch Brothers to run up the white flag and say we will do whatever you ask. Gobsmacking."

    Nobody is saying that. Sanders's campaign is based on the idea that we need a political revolution.

    Reply Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:23 AM Reg said in reply to sherparick... "Somehow electing just the right person as President will cause Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the Koch Brothers to run up the white flag and say we will do whatever you ask. Gobsmacking."

    Actually that's Hillary's line. "Getting things done" because "experience." Sanders is very clear that electing a new face to the Oval Office isn't going to cut it. Thus his "political revolution" - which means that Democrats need to get off their duffs in ways we have yet to see. And that's after Obama's "social movement" strategy - which disappeared as an independent force once he made it safely into the White House. OFA was neutered and folded into the party establishment. And lost any steam it might have had while the Tea Party took over the "activist" space. Big mistake. Bernie won't let that happen to his network, even assuming he doesn't get the nomination. Sanders has a vision and a strategy, Hillary has a personal ambition.

    Reply Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:35 AM Jeff Fisher said in reply to Reg ... Is Sanders using his campaign machine to induce a political swing in offices below the presidency? Reply Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:49 AM Peter said in reply to Jeff Fisher... He's trying to generate enthusiasm and draw more people into the political process which means a higher voter turnout.

    When he began the campaign he was at 3 percent in the polls. At that time he should have been focused on inducing a political swing in offices below the presidency?

    Reply Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:53 AM Chris G said in reply to Peter... If he convinces people that they can run as New New Dealers that alone would make his candidacy a success.
    We need to break the "Please, Republicans, don't hurt us." mindset. Conservatives and right wingers have been wrong about EVERYTHING for the past 50 years. Time to go on the offensive against them. Reply Friday, April 08, 2016 at 01:35 PM JF said in reply to Chris G ... Yes, wrong for quite a while. Economics too.

    Loanable funds theories means we need to favor capital formation and protect it from markets using tax codes and other policies (like the funding of tax cuts with payroll tax increases).

    Simply ignoring the fact that banks create credit/money (which means capital can form at the stroke of the banks' pens).

    Ignoring the plain fact that trade has distributional effects that have social effects that are real.

    Missing a concern about the concentration of wealth and control over income flows as you watch the national fisc transfer bonds to the already wealthy as you tear up the tax bills they alteady had. . .

    Votes need to be cast!

    Reply Saturday, April 09, 2016 at 05:19 AM Reg said in reply to Jeff Fisher... He's been very much part of the DSCC fundraising machinery - and been attacked for it by the Clinton camp as a hypocrite because a lot of "big money" donors show up for the kind of DSCC fundraising Sanders participates in. But he doesn't personally have the network the Clintons have among big donors and is focusing his current campaign's own efforts on the primary. Of course Hillary is able to distribute more, which likely drives a lot of the endorsement patterns - can't be too close to the Clintons if you are a traditional Dem pol. IMHO where we will see the difference is in how he uses this growing network to build organization for the future, having drawn in a lot of new energy. Reply Friday, April 08, 2016 at 11:56 AM Rune Lagman said in reply to Jeff Fisher... Bernie on top of the ticket will do way more, for down-ballot races, than any amount of Wall-Street money brought by Hillary.
    Reply Friday, April 08, 2016 at 04:34 PM dd said in reply to sherparick... I guess that the single largest bailout, 467.2 billion to Citi just went down the memory hole.
    Reply Friday, April 08, 2016 at 11:22 AM Rune Lagman said in reply to sherparick... "... will cause Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the Koch Brothers to run up the white flag ..."

    Absolutely not, Bernie's revolution will run rough-shod over them. Anyone believes that Hillary can talk sense to these guys is smoking something awful strong. They need to be defeated at the Polls; and Bernie can do that; Hillary can't.

    Reply Friday, April 08, 2016 at 04:29 PM likbez said in reply to sherparick... For all practical purposes Hillary is a warmongering neocon. As such she in a Republican, not a Democrat.

    Think about it.

    Reply Friday, April 08, 2016 at 09:54 PM dd said... Yes, wall street was at the heart of the scams and that is the only reason for the bailouts or have we all forgotten Treasury Secretary and former Goldman CEO Paulson on bended knee?

    [Apr 10, 2016] Writing a Blank Check on War The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... with legislators largely consigned to the status of observers, presidents pretty much wage war whenever, wherever, and however they see fit. ..."
    www.theamericanconservative.com
    by Andrew J. Bacevich

    Let's face it: in times of war, the Constitution tends to take a beating. With the safety or survival of the nation said to be at risk, the basic law of the land-otherwise considered sacrosanct-becomes nonbinding, subject to being waived at the whim of government authorities who are impatient, scared, panicky, or just plain pissed off.

    The examples are legion. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln arbitrarily suspended the writ of habeas corpus and ignored court orders that took issue with his authority to do so. After U.S. entry into World War I, the administration of Woodrow Wilson mounted a comprehensive effort to crush dissent, shutting down anti-war publications in complete disregard of the First Amendment. Amid the hysteria triggered by Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order consigning to concentration camps more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans, many of them native-born citizens. Asked in 1944 to review this gross violation of due process, the Supreme Court endorsed the government's action by a 6-3 vote.

    More often than not, the passing of the emergency induces second thoughts and even remorse. The further into the past a particular war recedes, the more dubious the wartime arguments for violating the Constitution appear. Americans thereby take comfort in the "lessons learned" that will presumably prohibit any future recurrence of such folly.

    Even so, the onset of the next war finds the Constitution once more being ill-treated. We don't repeat past transgressions, of course. Instead, we devise new ones. So it has been during the ongoing post-9/11 period of protracted war.

    During the presidency of George W. Bush, the United States embraced torture as an instrument of policy in clear violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Bush's successor, Barack Obama, ordered the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen, a death by drone that was visibly in disregard of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Both administrations-Bush's with gusto, Obama's with evident regret-imprisoned individuals for years on end without charge and without anything remotely approximating the "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Should the present state of hostilities ever end, we can no doubt expect Guantánamo to become yet another source of "lessons learned" for future generations of rueful Americans.

    ♦♦♦

    Yet one particular check-and-balance constitutional proviso now appears exempt from this recurring phenomenon of disregard followed by professions of dismay, embarrassment, and "never again-ism" once the military emergency passes. I mean, of course, Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which assigns to Congress the authority "to declare war" and still stands as testimony to the genius of those who drafted it. There can be no question that the responsibility for deciding when and whether the United States should fight resides with the legislative branch, not the executive, and that this was manifestly the intent of the Framers.

    On parchment at least, the division of labor appears straightforward. The president's designation as commander-in-chief of the armed forces in no way implies a blanket authorization to employ those forces however he sees fit or anything faintly like it. Quite the contrary: legitimizing presidential command requires explicit congressional sanction.

    Actual practice has evolved into something altogether different. The portion of Article I, Section 8, cited above has become a dead letter, about as operative as blue laws still on the books in some American cities and towns that purport to regulate Sabbath day activities. Superseding the written text is an unwritten counterpart that goes something like this: with legislators largely consigned to the status of observers, presidents pretty much wage war whenever, wherever, and however they see fit. Whether the result qualifies as usurpation or forfeiture is one of those chicken-and-egg questions that's interesting but practically speaking beside the point.

    This is by no means a recent development. It has a history. In the summer of 1950, when President Harry Truman decided that a U.N. Security Council resolution provided sufficient warrant for him to order U.S. forces to fight in Korea, congressional war powers took a hit from which they would never recover.

    Congress soon thereafter bought into the notion, fashionable during the Cold War, that formal declarations of hostilities had become passé. Waging the "long twilight struggle" ostensibly required deference to the commander-in-chief on all matters related to national security. To sustain the pretense that it still retained some relevance, Congress took to issuing what were essentially permission slips, granting presidents maximum freedom of action to do whatever they might decide needed to be done in response to the latest perceived crisis.

    The Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 offers a notable example. With near unanimity, legislators urged President Lyndon Johnson "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression" across the length and breadth of Southeast Asia. Through the magic of presidential interpretation, a mandate to prevent aggression provided legal cover for an astonishingly brutal and aggressive war in Vietnam, as well as Cambodia and Laos. Under the guise of repelling attacks on U.S. forces, Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon, thrust millions of American troops into a war they could not win, even if more than 58,000 died trying.

    To leap almost four decades ahead, think of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 as the grandchild of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. This document required (directed, called upon, requested, invited, urged) President George W. Bush "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons." In plain language: here's a blank check; feel free to fill it in any way you like.

    ♦♦♦

    As a practical matter, one specific individual-Osama bin Laden-had hatched the 9/11 plot. A single organization-al-Qaeda-had conspired to pull it off. And just one nation-backward, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan-had provided assistance, offering sanctuary to bin Laden and his henchmen. Yet nearly 15 years later, the AUMF remains operative and has become the basis for military actions against innumerable individuals, organizations, and nations with no involvement whatsoever in the murderous events of September 11, 2001.

    Consider the following less than comprehensive list of four developments, all of which occurred just within the last month and a half:

    • In Yemen, a U.S. airstrike killed at least 50 individuals, said to be members of an Islamist organization that did not exist on 9/11.
    • In Somalia, another U.S. airstrike killed a reported 150 militants, reputedly members of al-Shabab, a very nasty outfit, even if one with no real agenda beyond Somalia itself.
    • In Syria, pursuant to the campaign of assassination that is the latest spin-off of the Iraq War, U.S. special operations forces bumped off the reputed "finance minister" of the Islamic State, another terror group that didn't even exist in September 2001.
    • In Libya, according to press reports, the Pentagon is again gearing up for "decisive military action"-that is, a new round of air strikes and special operations attacks to quell the disorder resulting from the U.S.-orchestrated air campaign that in 2011 destabilized that country. An airstrike conducted in late February gave a hint of what is to come: it killed approximately 50 Islamic State militants (and possibly two Serbian diplomatic captives).

    Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Libya share at least this in common: none of them, nor any of the groups targeted, had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.

    Imagine if, within a matter of weeks, China were to launch raids into Vietnam, Thailand, and Taiwan, with punitive action against the Philippines in the offing. Or if Russia, having given a swift kick to Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, leaked its plans to teach Poland a lesson for mismanaging its internal affairs. Were Chinese President Xi Jinping or Russian President Vladimir Putin to order such actions, the halls of Congress would ring with fierce denunciations. Members of both houses would jostle for places in front of the TV cameras to condemn the perpetrators for recklessly violating international law and undermining the prospects for world peace. Having no jurisdiction over the actions of other sovereign states, senators and representatives would break down the doors to seize the opportunity to get in their two cents worth. No one would be able to stop them. Who does Xi think he is! How dare Putin!

    Yet when an American president undertakes analogous actions over which the legislative branch does have jurisdiction, members of Congress either yawn or avert their eyes.

    In this regard, Republicans are especially egregious offenders. On matters where President Obama is clearly acting in accordance with the Constitution-for example, in nominating someone to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court-they spare no effort to thwart him, concocting bizarre arguments nowhere found in the Constitution to justify their obstructionism. Yet when this same president cites the 2001 AUMF as the basis for initiating hostilities hither and yon, something that is on the face of it not legal but ludicrous, they passively assent.

    Indeed, when Obama in 2015 went so far as to ask Congress to pass a new AUMF addressing the specific threat posed by the Islamic State-that is, essentially rubberstamping the war he had already launched on his own in Syria and Iraq-the Republican leadership took no action. Looking forward to the day when Obama departs office, Senator Mitch McConnell with his trademark hypocrisy worried aloud that a new AUMF might constrain his successor. The next president will "have to clean up this mess, created by all of this passivity over the last eight years," the majority leader remarked. In that regard, "an authorization to use military force that ties the president's hands behind his back is not something I would want to do." The proper role of Congress was to get out of the way and give this commander-in-chief carte blanche so that the next one would enjoy comparably unlimited prerogatives.

    Collaborating with a president they roundly despise-implicitly concurring in Obama's questionable claim that "existing statutes [already] provide me with the authority I need" to make war on ISIS-the GOP-controlled Congress thereby transformed the post-9/11 AUMF into what has now become, in effect, a writ of permanent and limitless armed conflict. In Iraq and Syria, for instance, what began as a limited but open-ended campaign of air strikes authorized by President Obama in August 2014 has expanded to include an ever-larger contingent of U.S. trainers and advisers for the Iraqi military, special operations forces conducting raids in both Iraq and Syria, the first new all-U.S. forward fire base in Iraq, and at least 5,000 U.S. military personnel now on the ground, a number that continues to grow incrementally.

    Remember Barack Obama campaigning back in 2008 and solemnly pledging to end the Iraq War? What he neglected to mention at the time was that he was retaining the prerogative to plunge the country into another Iraq War on his own ticket. So has he now done, with members of Congress passively assenting and the country essentially a prisoner of war.

    By now, through its inaction, the legislative branch has, in fact, surrendered the final remnant of authority it retained on matters relating to whether, when, against whom, and for what purpose the United States should go to war. Nothing now remains but to pay the bills, which Congress routinely does, citing a solemn obligation to "support the troops." In this way does the performance of lesser duties provide an excuse for shirking far greater ones.

    In military circles, there is a term to describe this type of behavior. It's called cowardice.

    Andrew J. Bacevich is the author of America's War for the Middle East: A Military History , which has just been published by Random House.

    Copyright 2016 Andrew J. Bacevich

    [Apr 10, 2016] Government Hackers, Inc.

    April 6, 2016 | The American Conservative
    The revelation that an Israeli firm cracked the iPhone raises questions about state-corporate espionage.

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) court battle with Apple over the security system in place on iPhones appears to be over. But some experts in the communications security community are expressing concern because of the

    Bureau's unwillingness to reveal what exactly occurred to end the standoff.

    According to government sources speaking both on and off the record, the FBI succeeded in breaking through the Apple security measures with the assistance of an unidentified third party. The technique used was apparently not a one-off and is transferable as the Bureau has now indicated that it will be accessing data on a second phone involved in a murder investigation in Arkansas and is even considering allowing local police forces to share the technology. That means that the FBI and whatever other security and police agencies both in the U.S. and abroad it provides the information to will have the same capability, potentially compromising the security of all iPhones worldwide.

    The breakthrough in the case leads inevitably to questions about the identity of the company or individual that assisted the Bureau. It means that someone outside government circles would also have the ability to unlock the phones, information that could eventually wind up in the hands of criminals or those seeking to disrupt or sabotage existing telecommunications systems.

    No security system is unbreakable if a sophisticated hacker is willing to put enough time, money and resources into the effort. If the hacker is a government with virtually unlimited resources the task is somewhat simpler as vast computer power will permit millions of attempts to compromise a phone's operating system.

    In this case, the problem consisted of defeating an "Erase Data" feature linked to a passcode that had been placed on the target phone by Syed Farook, one of the shooters in December's San Bernardino terrorist attack. Apple had designed the system so that 10 failures to enter the correct passcode would lock the phone and erase all the data on it. This frustrated FBI efforts to come up with the passcode by what is referred to as a "brute force" attack where every possible combination of numbers and letters is entered until the right code is revealed. Apple's security software also was able to detect multiple attempts after entry of an incorrect passcode and slow down the process, meaning that in theory it would take five and a half years for a computer to try all possible combinations of a six-character alphanumeric passcode using numbers and lowercase letters even if it could disable the "Erase Data" feature.

    Speculation is that the FBI and its third party associate were able to break the security by circumventing the measure that monitors the number of unsuccessful passcode entries, possibly to include generating new copies of the phone's NAND storage chip to negate the 10-try limit. The computer generated passcodes could then be entered again and again until the correct code was discovered. And, of course, once the method of corrupting the Erase Data security feature is determined it can be used on any iPhone by anyone with the necessary computer capability, precisely the danger that Apple had warned about when it refused to cooperate with the FBI in the first place.

    Most of the U.S. mainstream media has been reluctant to speculate on who the third party that aided the FBI might be but the Israeli press has not been so reticent. They have identified a company called Cellebrite, a digital forensics company located in Israel. It is reported that the company's executive vice president for mobile forensics Leeor Ben-Peretz was recently in Washington consulting with clients. Ben-Peretz is Cellebrite's marketing chief, fully capable of demonstrating the company's forensics capabilities. Cellebrite reportedly has worked with the FBI before, having had a contract arrangement entered into in 2013 to provide decryption services.

    Cellebrite was purchased by Japanese cellular telephone giant Suncorporation in 2007 but it is still headquartered and managed from Petah Tikva, Israel with a North American office in Parsippany, New Jersey and branches in Germany, Singapore and Brazil. It works closely with the Israeli police and intelligence services and is reported to have ties to both Mossad and Shin Bet. Many of its employees are former Israeli government employees who had worked in cybersecurity and telecommunications.

    If Cellebrite is indeed the "third party" responsible for the breakthrough on the Apple problem, it must lead to speculation that the key to circumventing iPhone security is already out there in the small world of top level telecommunications forensic experts. It might reasonably be assumed that the Israeli government has access to the necessary technology, as well as Cellebrite's Japanese owners. From there, the possibilities inevitably multiply.

    Most countries obtain much of their high grade intelligence from communications intercepts. Countries like Israel, China, and France conduct much of their high-tech spying through exploitation of their corporate presence in the United States. Israel, in particular, is heavily embedded in the telecommunications industry, which permits direct access to confidential exchanges of information.

    Israel has in fact a somewhat shady reputation in the United States when it comes to telecommunications spying. Two companies in particular-Amdocs and Comverse Infosys-have at times dominated their market niches in America. Amdocs, which has contracts with many of the largest telephone companies in the U.S. that together handle 90 percent of all calls made, logs all calls that go out and come in on the system. It does not retain the conversations themselves, but the records provide patterns, referred to as "traffic analysis," that can provide intelligence leads. In 1999, the National Security Agency warned that records of calls made in the United States were winding up in Israel.

    Comverse Infosys, which dissolved in 2013 after charges of conspiracy, fraud, money laundering and making false filings, provided wiretapping equipment to law enforcement throughout the United States. Because equipment used to tap phones for law enforcement is integrated into the networks that phone companies operate, it cannot be detected. Phone calls were intercepted, recorded, stored, and transmitted to investigators by Comverse, which claimed that it had to be "hands on" with its equipment to maintain the system. Many experts believe that it is relatively easy to create an internal cross switch that permits the recording to be sent to a second party, unknown to the authorized law-enforcement recipient. Comverse was also believed to be involved with NSA on a program of illegal spying directed against American citizens.

    Comverse equipment was never inspected by FBI or NSA experts to determine whether the information it collected could be leaked, reportedly because senior government managers blocked such inquiries. According to a Fox News investigative report, which was later deleted from Fox's website under pressure from various pro-Israel groups, DEA and FBI sources said post-9/11 that even to suggest that Israel might have been spying using Comverse was "considered career suicide."

    Some might argue that collecting intelligence is a function of government and that espionage, even between friends, will always take place. When it comes to smartphones, technical advances in phone security will provide a silver bullet for a time but the hackers, and governments, will inevitably catch up. One might assume that the recent revelations about the FBI's capabilities vis-ŕ-vis the iPhone indicate that the horse is already out of the stable. If Israel was party to the breaking of the security and has the technology it will use it. If the FBI has it, it will share it with other government agencies and even with foreign intelligence and security services.

    Absent from the discussion regarding Apple are the more than 80 percent of smartphones used worldwide that employ the Google developed Android operating system that has its own distinct security features designed to block government intrusion. The FBI is clearly driven by the assumption that all smartphones should be accessible to law enforcement. The next big telecommunications security court case might well be directed against Google.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Apr 10, 2016] Russias Lethal Military vs. Americas Third Offset Who Wins

    Junk article, interesting comments.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Actually, he upgraded his army after Georgia launched a surprise blitzkrieg operation on S. Ossetia, killing UN-mandated Russian peacekeepers and a few hundred sleeping Ossets, with or without a wink and a nod from the US. Verdict's still out on that last one. You'll have to wait for Karl Rove's posthumous memoirs for that insight. ..."
    "... Another silly "what if" article. A conflict between Nato and Russia will very quickly go nuclear. Nobody wins. Taking the three tiny Baltic countries into Nato was an incredibly stupid move. The purpose was purely to provoke Russia. They can't be defended without going nuclear. They will be lost forever. Nato gains nothing except the claim of being the victim. ..."
    "... The NATO-bloc spends about a trillion dollars each year on the military -- as much as is spent by all other countries in the world combined, and an order of magnitude more than what Russia spends. ..."
    "... If NATO is defending "Freedom", as we're told, then why does it require such a titanic amount of force and money? If U.S.-style "Freedom" is such a good thing, if this Exceptional "Freedom" is something that every sane person wants, then why does it take so much force to impose this "Freedom" on people ? ..."
    "... NATO is selling death and destruction, repackaged as "Freedom and Democracy". Ask what is inside the pretty package! -- then you will understand why this "Freedom" is such a hard sell. ..."
    "... The Baltic leaders are just milking NATO, with their constant 'threat alerts'. And NATO milks them right back. It's a symbiotic milk maid festival. ..."
    April 8, 2016 | The National Interest Blog
    Mark, 2 days ago
    Just typical propaganda to justify endless billions for a nonexistent threat. ,you have to be a brainwashed neocon idiot or have stock in defense corporations or likely both to believe Russia has any interest in invading anyone. How would we feel if Russia moved missiles and troops to our borders?

    iberaldisgust -> Mark , link

    Ukraine ..... so much for brain washed .....
    Robert Duran -> liberaldisgust , link
    What about Ukraine?
    Nawaponrath -> liberaldisgust, a day ago
    Yes US funded riots that kicked out a democratically elected government
    Brian -> Nawaponrath , a day ago
    What's wrong with that?

    You lost - get over it.

    You should be use to it by now since all of your former allies have either joined NATO or want to join NATO as protection against Russia.

    You see - we actually don't have to do anything to convince nations to work with us - we just let Russia act the way it normally acts and the rest falls into place.

    I'm fond of saying that Putin is our best man in Russia. We couldn't ask for a better ally in helping us dismantle Russia.

    R.W. Emerson II -> Brian , a day ago
    Actually, it's the hack politicians who join NATO as protection against the people.

    The people oppose the politicians in these "Democracies", but that doesn't seem to matter.

    * "Over 10,000 Participate in Anti-NATO Rally in Serbia" , Sputnik News , 27 Mar 2016

    * "'Neutrality is Beautiful': Majority of Finns Want to Stay Away From NATO" , Sputnik News , 30 Jan 2016

    Brian -> Mark , link
    Then we can tell Putin that he doesn't need to modernize his upgrades? Ok - you tell your comrades to stand down and we'll do the same.
    Sinbad2 -> Brian , link
    The Russians do defense, the US is invader uno numero.
    Michael DeStefano -> Brian , a day ago
    Russia should stand down where exactly?
    Nawaponrath -> Brian , a day ago
    He upgraded his army after US funded regime change in Ukraine get your facts right
    Michael DeStefano -> Nawaponrath , a day ago
    Actually, he upgraded his army after Georgia launched a surprise blitzkrieg operation on S. Ossetia, killing UN-mandated Russian peacekeepers and a few hundred sleeping Ossets, with or without a wink and a nod from the US. Verdict's still out on that last one. You'll have to wait for Karl Rove's posthumous memoirs for that insight.
    Nawaponrath -> Michael DeStefano , an hour ago
    You are right and Georgia was armed and trained by US and instigated by US to attack Russia and what happened it took Russia 5 days to defeat the well armed US backed Georgians and this is an indicator how the US will fare against a war with Russia - FULL RETREAT
    Brian -> Michael DeStefano , a day ago
    Oh, the story is that Russia invaded Georgia lands.

    I'm glad Russians were killed. Good.

    Michael DeStefano -> Brian , a day ago
    Well, we already know you're a psychopath. No need to repeat yourself ad nauseam.
    Ted Jebb -> Brian , link
    Brian you really don't know what you are talking about. I doubt you ever have left your neighborhood let alone the state. You talk down about Russia and how great the American military is. But then again like all talk it is just talk. In a real war Russia has many more nukes then we do. They kept their nuclear program up while ours has fallen. Should a real war happen all you will see Brian is flashes of of light everywhere and that will be the end. GET IT WAKE UP !!!
    Brian -> Nawaponrath , a day ago
    And we did it without firing a shot....

    Another win for the U.S.A.

    Not our fault that most of your former allies/republics prefer the U.S. to Russia.

    Heh heh.

    Vasya Pypkin -> Brian , a day ago
    Good. Now you gotta feed them ;)
    Michael DeStefano -> Brian , a day ago
    Without firing a shot? Apparently, you missed the right sector snipers in the Hotel Ukraina, the Azov battalion civilian massacres in Mariupol and the Odessa holocaust, eh?

    But we know, you loved every bullet of it. Psychopaths are as psychopaths do.

    And BTW, speak for yourself. This 'we' thing is delusional. If 'we' met, you'd understand that quick enough.

    Brian -> Michael DeStefano , a day ago
    The Russians brought it upon themselves with their history of bullying...

    Your neighbors will continue to hate you, and we don't need to do anything about it.

    I'll be happy to send a donation to Ukraine so they can buy more defensive weapons - the more Russians that invade their land, the more body bags they can send back to Russia.

    Sinbad2 -> Brian , link
    The US is the bully, and you will pay the price, big time.
    Michael DeStefano -> Brian , a day ago
    The Ukrainians brought it upon themselves, sir. You obviously share in that endearing Ukrainian trait to blame everyone but yourself for the consequences of your actions. Next time, try to keep your banderite fascist ideologues at bay and maybe you'll learn something about those 'European values' that Poroshenko seems to like to lecture the Europeans about, if that ain't a hoot in itself.
    Ted Jebb -> Brian , link
    Alright keyboard commando Brian time for your cookies and milk. Then you will need to return to your padded cell !!!
    Vin -> Mark , link
    nonexistent?

    What just happened in Syria?
    What about the untraceable subs Russia has that can knock out our aircraft carries easily? PS: Iran has one and we lost track of it shortly after they purchased it from Russia.
    What about the large number of nuclear weapon Russia has and has used this threat in an offensives manor lately?

    Are you the type of person who leaves his front door unlocked when you go to work?
    Just type up your SS#, Credit Cards, and Name for us please...along with you address since you do not believe in preventive measures to safeguard yourself.

    Nawaponrath -> Vin , a day ago
    What about US bombing Syria before Russia intervene 4 years before killing at least 300,000 civilians
    James Johnson -> Vin , link
    You keep burning the fascist candlestick at both home and abroad your going to get burned.
    JB 1969 -> Vin , a day ago
    The untraceable diesel electric are very short range by ocean going standard AND become more visible it they need to approach the target (The hope to submerge, sit and have a vessel pass very close).
    Michael DeStefano -> Vin , a day ago
    Oh God, get a dozen cartons of worry beads and geriatric diapers off Amazon and leave the bullcrap where it belongs.
    Che Guevara , a day ago
    The Baltics and Poland should take an example from Finland. Finland has managed to avoid conflict with Russia, without any help from the U.S. or NATO. Threats of imminent Russian invasion are fairy tales.
    strayshot -> Che Guevara , a day ago
    Up until they show up on your doorstep asking for a cup of sugar...... and your surrender of the property.
    Che Guevara -> strayshot , a day ago
    Are you from Finland?
    Ex Pat , link
    Another silly "what if" article. A conflict between Nato and Russia will very quickly go nuclear. Nobody wins. Taking the three tiny Baltic countries into Nato was an incredibly stupid move. The purpose was purely to provoke Russia. They can't be defended without going nuclear. They will be lost forever. Nato gains nothing except the claim of being the victim.
    liberaldisgust -> Ex Pat , link
    I doubt that it would " Quickly go Nuclear " as once that line is crossed as you say there is no winner ...... on any level ....
    Jose Luiz Costa Sousa -> Ex Pat , a day ago
    MY CONGRATULATIONS FOR YOU OPINION WHICH IS MY OPINION. I AM A PROFESSIONAL ARMY OFFFICER. YOUR OPINION IS THE CORRECT AND THE REAL ONE. ALL THOSE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHATEVER STRENGTH AND KIND OF TROOPS OR WEAPONS NATO MIGTH HAVE WHEREVER... WITHIN EUROPE IS SIMPLY SILLY...

    I THINK ANY ARMY OFFICER KNOWS WHAT YOU JUST TOLD... SO EITHER ALL THIS SHIT AROUND WHOM, WHAT AND WHERE TO DEPLOY MILITARY POWER TO STOP THE RUSSIANS IS JUST TO HAVE THE STUPID EUROPEANS SPENDING MORE MONEY BUYING USA WEAPONS OR IF NATO BELIEVES WHAT THEY ARE DOING... THEN THE GENERALS IN CHARGE ARE JUST DONKEYS ... AND I APOLOGIZE TO DONKEYS... OF COURSE ANY VERY FIRST MILITARY ACTION FROM RUSSIA EITHER TO DEFEND ITSELF FROM A NATO/ USA ATTACK OR TO CARRY OUT A PRE EMPTIVE ATTACK WILL BE IMMEDIATELY NUCLEAR... MORE THAN THAT IT WILL BE GLOBAL.... NOT ONLY AGAINST EUROPE... THE MAIN TARGET WILL BE USA AND ITS MILITARY BASES AROUND THE WORLD... AND OF COURSE EUROPE... SO CONVENCIONAL MILITARY MEANS IN SUCH A CONTEXT THEY SHALL BE BASICALLY TROOPS AND EQUIPMENT ABLE TO OPERATE IN A NUCLEAR AND NBQ ENVIRONMENT.

    Sinbad2 -> Jose Luiz Costa Sousa , link
    Which Army?
    Sinbad2 -> Ex Pat , link
    Russia wouldn't have to go nuclear to defeat Europe, so if it does go nuclear, it will be the US that pushes the button.
    As the Russian army would be in Europe, the US would nuke Europe.
    strayshot -> Ex Pat , a day ago
    "Taking the three tiny Baltic countries into NATO was an incredibly stupid move."

    I disagree. Americas' Principles have always stressed spreading Freedom & Liberty as far as possible. Where "we" Americans went wrong was not electing leadership who understood this principle.

    I can agree with the Far Left on one thing: Europeans need to bring their military strength back up. It's obvious that my country (USA) is headed down a path of isolationism. A pity, really. Has the Europeans learned to value each other as equals...... or will ancient rivalries tear them apart?

    R.W. Emerson II -> strayshot , a day ago
    The NATO-bloc spends about a trillion dollars each year on the military -- as much as is spent by all other countries in the world combined, and an order of magnitude more than what Russia spends.

    If NATO is defending "Freedom", as we're told, then why does it require such a titanic amount of force and money? If U.S.-style "Freedom" is such a good thing, if this Exceptional "Freedom" is something that every sane person wants, then why does it take so much force to impose this "Freedom" on people ?

    If I invent something that people want -- a better mouse-trap, say -- do I have to bomb people into buying my product? Do I have to use "police" armed with tanks and machine-guns to round people up and force them into the store where my mouse-trap is sold?

    Real freedom is something that sells itself. Freedom is something to live for, not something to kill and be killed for. We develop freedom by exercising our rights, not by turning other countries into rubble!

    NATO is selling death and destruction, repackaged as "Freedom and Democracy". Ask what is inside the pretty package! -- then you will understand why this "Freedom" is such a hard sell.

    Nawaponrath -> strayshot , a day ago
    Freedom & Liberty via bombs in invasion! Democracy only when US puppet will win otherwise regime change like in Syria and in the past many other countries
    Sinbad2 -> strayshot , link
    BS, the US is a tyrant.
    Donald Neuland -> strayshot , a day ago
    your reply is silly and stupid. Principles never won anything. You are one of those pedantic liberals who think we (but, of course, not you) need to save everyone. Reality says most would rather give up than fight themselves.
    David James -> Donald Neuland , a day ago
    I agree with principles (They should not be underestimated!) however I think as Americans we are going to have to be a bit more pragmatic going forward.
    Brian -> Donald Neuland , a day ago
    As the big bad bully in Europe, it would be in your benefit if the U.S. stayed out of things.

    Too bad your former republics and allies prefer the U.S. to Russia.

    R.W. Emerson II -> Brian , a day ago
    The politicians prefer the U.S. to Russia, perhaps. But I'm not sure that the same can be said of the people.
    A referendum on the future of the Soviet Union was held on 17 March 1991. The question put to voters was: "Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?"

    Russia SFSR:
    Choice .......... ------Votes . -----%
    For .............. 56,860,783 .. 73.00
    Against .......... 21,030,753 .. 27.00
    Invalid ........... 1,809,633 ...... -
    Total ............ 79,701,169 . 100.00
    Reg., Turnout ... 105,643,364 .. 75.44

    Ukrainian SSR:
    Choice .......... ------Votes . -----%
    For .............. 22,110,899 .. 71.48
    Against ........... 8,820,089 .. 28.52
    Invalid ............. 583,256 ...... -
    Total ............ 31,514,244 . 100.00
    Reg., Turnout .... 37,732,178 .. 83.52

    Source: Nohlen & Stöver, "Soviet Union Referendum, 1991 , wikipedia , 14 Oct 2015

    -- "Soviet Union referendum, 1991" , US Wow

    A similar referendum was held 22 years later, by Gallup. In the 2013 Gallup poll , people in countries formed by the Soviet dissolution said, by a two-to-one margin, that they were worse off than before the Soviet break-up .

    But it doesn't matter, of course, what the people think. The "West" -- the U.S. Empire -- decided that the Soviet Union was bad, and the rulers/bankers/gangsters of the "West" know what is best for everyone everywhere . That's because the rulers/bankers of the U.S. Empire are Exceptional, Enlightened and Inherently Superior. They were Born Without Sin, their intentions are Pure and Holy, and they Know More Than God.

    Zero -> Donald Neuland , a day ago
    "Reality says most would rather give up than fight themselves."

    That much is certainly true...

    Michael DeStefano -> strayshot , a day ago
    It was foolish. How did Finland survive as a neutral country? If anyone had any justification for joining NATO after WWII, it was certainly Finland, yet it prospered undisturbed, even benefiting from Russia trade.

    The Baltic leaders are just milking NATO, with their constant 'threat alerts'. And NATO milks them right back. It's a symbiotic milk maid festival.

    Peter Tam -> Ex Pat , link
    If that happened the Iranian will inherit the world
    jimdeim -> Peter Tam , a day ago
    No no one would when fallout kills everyone. Fact is if they just blew us up and we never fire one nuke, world ends from fallout.

    [Apr 10, 2016] Why David Cameron Went Neocon by Freddy Gray

    Notable quotes:
    "... Cameron's attempts to look perspicacious in foreign affairs only show him once again to be over impulsive and delusional-proof once again that the prime minister's foreign policy is, as General Richards had put it, "more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft." ..."
    February 22, 2016 |
    FAR FROM BEING an example of successful intervention, however, Libya has turned into a study in how the West makes things worse. It is now a failed state, a vast ungoverned space. The World Food Program says that 2.4 million Libyans are in need of humanitarian assistance; the country's population is 6.2 million. Its economy is at one quarter of its capacity. Instead of fostering democracy in the Maghreb, Libya has become a breeding ground for Islamist terror-security analysts call it "Scumbag Woodstock"-and a springboard for the refugee crisis into Europe. Towards the end of 2015, Abdullah al-Thani, one of Libya's competing prime ministers, wrote to Philip Hammond, Cameron's foreign secretary, offering to cooperate against ISIS and the people-smuggling rackets that bring so many migrants across the Mediterranean into Europe. He didn't receive a reply.

    The Cameroons ignore the reality of Libya in favor of congratulating themselves on a job well done. As one Cabinet minister put it to the journalist Matthew D'Ancona, "whenever things get bad, and the press are saying what a rubbish government we are, I remind myself that there are people alive in Benghazi tonight because we decided to take a risk." In a Christmas interview with the Spectator magazine, Cameron insisted that

    "Libya is better off without Qaddafi. What we were doing was preventing a mass genocide. Then, as you say, the coalition helped those on the ground to get rid of the Qaddafi regime and it's very disappointing that there hasn't been an effective successor regime."

    Yet the idea of an imminent Libyan genocide in 2011 seems to have been exaggerated. The International Crisis Group concluded by the end of that year: "There are grounds for questioning the more sensational reports that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators, let alone engaging in anything remotely warranting use of the term 'genocide.'"

    Moreover, Cameron's insistence that his intervention saved lives-when in the long run, it did not-and his use of word "disappointing" is telling. It suggests a near pathological unwillingness to accept mistakes. To admit failure in Libya would be to undermine the prime minister's judgment, and he can't have that. He would rather blame Libyans for not taking their big shot at democracy. This stubbornness seems to have driven him to be hawkish over Syria. Cameron and his friends want to recapture some of the magic they felt when they rid the world of a tyranny. It doesn't matter whether Britain is tackling Assad, or attacking Assad's enemy. It doesn't even matter that Britain is making a pathetically insignificant contribution. What counts is that the Tory top brass can feel they are fighting the good fight. When it comes to international statesmanship, the Cameroons prefer West Wing–style fantasy to realpolitik.

    Cameron is aware of this criticism, which is why he has tried to pretend that he had thought through his latest adventure in Syria. But his strategy didn't stand up to much scrutiny. The prime minister's office issues a document claiming that while the immediate motive for airstrikes was to degrade ISIS, there was a medium-term plan to work with seventy thousand "Syrian opposition fighters on the ground who do not belong to extremist groups." This was an obvious fudge to suggest that destroying ISIS did not mean propping up Assad; that a third force existed in Syria, one which could be brought to the fore, with Western help. Unfortunately for democrats everywhere, this idea seems based on wishful thinking. Experts maintain that the armed opposition to Assad is dominated by ISIS, as well as the Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and the equally Islamist Ahrar al-Sham. The smaller rebel groups might be labeled moderate, but they are able to operate only with the blessing of the jihadists. Besides, as journalist Patrick Cockburn, citing Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi of the Middle East Forum, writes, these groups "commonly exaggerate their numbers, are very fragmented and have failed to unite, despite years of war."

    Cameron's attempts to look perspicacious in foreign affairs only show him once again to be over impulsive and delusional-proof once again that the prime minister's foreign policy is, as General Richards had put it, "more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft."

    [Apr 04, 2016] Vietnam War at 50 Have We Learned Nothing by Ron Paul

    Notable quotes:
    "... When President George HW Bush invaded Iraq in 1991, the warhawks celebrated what they considered the end of that post-Vietnam period where Americans were hesitant about being the policeman of the world. President Bush said famously at the time, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all." ..."
    "... Last month was another anniversary. March 20, 2003 was the beginning of the second US war on Iraq. It was the night of "shock and awe" as bombs rained down on Iraqis. Like Vietnam, it was a war brought on by government lies and propaganda, amplified by a compliant media that repeated the lies without hesitation. ..."
    ronpaulinstitute.org

    The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

    Last week Defense Secretary Ashton Carter laid a wreath at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington in commemoration of the "50th anniversary" of that war. The date is confusing, as the war started earlier and ended far later than 1966. But the Vietnam War at 50 commemoration presents a good opportunity to reflect on the war and whether we have learned anything from it.

    Some 60,000 Americans were killed fighting in that war more than 8,000 miles away. More than a million Vietnamese military and civilians also lost their lives. The US government did not accept that it had pursued a bad policy in Vietnam until the bitter end. But in the end the war was lost and we went home, leaving the destruction of the war behind. For the many who survived on both sides, the war would continue to haunt them.

    It was thought at the time that we had learned something from this lost war. The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 to prevent future Vietnams by limiting the president's ability to take the country to war without the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional declaration of war. But the law failed in its purpose and was actually used by the war party in Washington to make it easier to go to war without Congress.

    Such legislative tricks are doomed to failure when the people still refuse to demand that elected officials follow the Constitution.

    When President George HW Bush invaded Iraq in 1991, the warhawks celebrated what they considered the end of that post-Vietnam period where Americans were hesitant about being the policeman of the world. President Bush said famously at the time, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all."

    They may have beat the Vietnam Syndrome, but they learned nothing from Vietnam.

    Colonel Harry Summers returned to Vietnam in 1974 and told his Vietnamese counterpart Colonel Tsu, "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield." The Vietnamese officer responded, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

    He is absolutely correct: tactical victories mean nothing when pursuing a strategic mistake.

    Last month was another anniversary. March 20, 2003 was the beginning of the second US war on Iraq. It was the night of "shock and awe" as bombs rained down on Iraqis. Like Vietnam, it was a war brought on by government lies and propaganda, amplified by a compliant media that repeated the lies without hesitation.

    Like Vietnam, the 2003 Iraq war was a disaster. More than 5,000 Americans were killed in the war and as many as a million or more Iraqis lost their lives. There is nothing to show for the war but destruction, trillions of dollars down the drain, and the emergence of al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    Sadly, unlike after the Vietnam fiasco there has been almost no backlash against the US empire. In fact, President Obama has continued the same failed policy and Congress doesn't even attempt to reign him in. On the very anniversary of that disastrous 2003 invasion, President Obama announced that he was sending US Marines back into Iraq! And not a word from Congress.

    We've seemingly learned nothing.

    There have been too many war anniversaries! We want an end to all these pointless wars. It's time we learn from these horrible mistakes.

    [Apr 02, 2016] The Rebellion Will Not Go Away

    www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/31/2016 21:55 -0400

  • Bernie Sanders
  • Great Depression
  • Authored by Gaius Publius via DownWithTyranny.com,

    The Sanders- and Trump-led (for now) political rebellion is not going to go away. There are only two questions going forward:

  • Will it remain a political rebellion, one that expresses itself through the electoral process, or will it abandon the electoral process as useless after 2016?
  • Will it be led by humanitarian populism from the left, or authoritarian populism from the right?
  • Why is this rebellion permanent, at least until conditions improve ? Because life in the U.S. is getting worse in a way that can be felt by a critical mass of people, by enough people to disrupt the Establishment machine with their anger. And because that worsening is seen to be permanent.

    Bottom line, people are reaching the breaking point, and we're watching that play out in the 2016 electoral race.

    Yes, It Is a Rebellion

    There's no other way to see the Sanders and Trump surges except as a popular rebellion, a rebellion of the people against their "leaders." If one of them, Sanders or Trump, is on the ballot in November running against an Establishment alternative, Sanders or Trump, the anti-Establishment candidate, will win. That candidate will cannibalize votes from the Establishment side.

    That is, Sanders will attract a non-zero percentage of Trump-supporting voters if Cruz or Paul Ryan runs against him, and he will win. By the same token, Trump will attract a non-zero percentage Sanders-supporting voters (or they will stand down) if Clinton runs against him, and she will lose to him.

    (In fact, we have a good early indication of what percentage of Sanders supporters Clinton will lose - 20% of Sanders primary voters say they will sit out the general election if Clinton is the candidate, and 9% say they will vote for Trump over Clinton. By this measure, Clinton loses 30% of the votes that went to Sanders in the primary election.)

    If they run against each other, Sanders and Trump, Sanders will win. You don't have to take my word for it (or the word of any number of other writers ). You can click here and see what almost every head-to-head poll says. As I look at it today, the average of the last six head-to-head polls is Sanders by almost 18% over Trump. In electoral terms, that's a wipeout. For comparison, Obama beat McCain by 6% and Romney by 4% .

    Note that Sanders is still surging, winning some states with 80% of the vote (across all states he's won, he averages 67% of the vote), while Trump seems to have hit a ceiling below 50%, even in victory. The "socialist" tag is not only not sticking, it's seen positively by his supporters. And finally, just imagine a Trump-Sanders debate. Sanders' style is teflon to Trumps', and again, I'm not alone in noticing this.

    Whichever anti-Establishment candidate runs, he wins. If both anti-Establishment candidates face off, Sanders wins. The message seems pretty clear. Dear Establishment Democrats, you can lose to Sanders or lose to Trump. Those are your choices, and I'm more than happy to wait until November 9 to find out what you chose and how it turned out. Not pleased to wait, if you choose wrongly, but willing to wait, just so we're both aware of what happened.

    The Rebellion Is Not Going Away

    I won't be happy with you though, Establishment Democrats, if you choose badly. And I won't be alone. Because even if you succeed with Clinton, Establishment Democrats, or succeed in giving us Trump in preference to giving us Sanders, the rebellion is not going away.

    If you look at the Trump side , it's easy to see why. Are wages rising with profits? No, and Trump supporters have had enough. (They don't quite know who to blame, but they're done with things as they are.) Will they tolerate another bank bailout, the one that's inevitable the way the banks are continuing to operate? They haven't begun to tolerate the last one . They already know they were screwed by NAFTA. What will their reaction be to the next trade deal, or the next, or the next? (Yes, it's not just TPP; there are three queued up and ready to be unleashed.)

    Trump supporters, the core of them, are dying of drugs and despair , and they're not going to go quietly into that dark night. The Trump phenomenon is proof of that.

    On the Sanders side , the rebellion is even clearer. Sanders has energized a great many voters across the Democratic-independent spectrum with his call for a "political revolution." But it's among the young, the future of America, that the message is especially resonant. For the first time in a long time, the current generation of youth in America sees itself as sinking below the achievements of their parents.

    The Guardian :

    US millennials feel more working class than any other generation

    Social survey data reveals downshift in class identity among 18-35s, with only a third believing they are middle class

    Millennials in the US see themselves as less middle class and more working class than any other generation since records began three decades ago, the Guardian and Ipsos Mori have found.

    Analysing social survey data spanning 34 years reveals that only about a third of adults aged 18-35 think they are part of the US middle class. Meanwhile 56.5% of this age group describe themselves as working class.

    The number of millennials – who are also known as Generation Y and number about 80 million in the US – describing themselves as middle class has fallen in almost every survey conducted every other year, dropping from 45.6% in 2002 to a record low of 34.8% in 2014. In that year, 8% of millennials considered themselves to be lower class and less than 1% considered themselves to be upper class.

    Of course, that leads to this:

    The large downshift in class identity among young adults may have helped explain the surprisingly strong performance in Democratic primaries of the insurgent presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has promised to scrap college tuition fees and raise minimum wages.

    Will those voters, so many of them self-described "independents," return to the Democratic Party? Only if the Party offers them a choice they actually want. If the Party does not, there will be hell to pay on the Democratic side as well. America is making them poorer - Establishment Democratic policies are making them poorer - and they're done with it. The Sanders phenomenon is proof of that.

    Will the Very Very Rich Stand Down?

    The squeeze is on, and unless the rich who run the game for their benefit alone decide to stand down and let the rest of us catch our breath and a break, there will be no letting up on the reaction . What we're watching is just the beginning. Unless the rich and their Establishment enablers stand down, this won't be the end but a start, and just a start.

    I'll identify the three branches to this crossroad in another piece. It's not that hard to suss out those three paths, so long as you're willing to look a few years ahead, into the "middle distance" as it were. The ways this could play out are limited and kind of staring right at us.

    But let's just say for now, America faces its future in a way that hasn't happened since the Great Depression, another period in which the Constitution was rewritten in an orderly way (via the political process). Which means that for almost every living American, this is the most consequential electoral year of your life.

    I know. I'm not happy about that either.

    TeamDepends

    You folks in the big cities have about three months to GTFO.

    Casanova , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 21:58

    Rebellion? What rebellion? We are CURSED with a curse >> http://wp.me/p4OZ4v-3z

    wee-weed up , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:14

    Let's hope all those elites in power who are to blame for their selfish needs causing our great country going completely down the toilet will have a chance to finally meet their favorite lamppost with a little rope in a nice gentle breeze.

    Lurk Skywatcher , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:22

    they will fake an alien invasion or some such and put us all under lock and key. we will either willingly give them complete control over us or they will take it forcefully. they are playing for all the chips, while the vast majority of sheeple don't even realize they are in the game. i hope to hold my own and dont expect anything more of anyone else at this stage, let alone an organized rebellion that will deal to those most at fault for our collective hellhole.

    greenskeeper carl , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:30

    I kind of agree with this guy, in a round about sort of way. If an economic collapse brought on by socialism and central planning in inevitable, might as well have a socialist/central planner in charge. No better way to show people why that shit doesn't work. It would also be useful to point to the left and say "see, I fucking told you so. this shit doesn't work"

    Muh Raf , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:39

    Paraphrasing Crocodile Dundee "That's not a rebel, this is a rebel..." Robert Morrow interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNf6q-THvTE

    animalogic , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 23:48

    Hey Carl....What "socialism" ??

    What "central planning" ? Shit, there's a PLAN ?? Who would've guessed....beyond the obvious plan of the 1% to gorge on the flesh of all the rest...

    And as for your "the left", I'd sooner believe in fairy's living at the bottom of the garden... (Of course, you probably think all the PC wankers are a genuine "left" ....yer, lol).

    eatthebanksters , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 00:24

    Obozo pretends there is no problem as he recites fraudulent info from the Fed...meanwhile the people on Main Street see through the bullshit. The Obozo Administration is a propaganda sham...he just wants the Fed to hold it together for him until the elections.

    conscious being , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 01:13

    peddelin' fiction.

    doctor10 , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 01:13

    as paradoxical as its seems, Fed.gov's only real option is actually The Donald. He's the only one with potential to stay the rapid slide in Fed.gov's legitimacy and mandate to unite the states.

    any other president will get to preside over internal disintegration

    the harder they grasp, the faster the brass ring slides through their greedy fingers

    Reagan bought that crowd another 20 years; Trump can get them another 10-15 if they shut up and elect him

    Government need... , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 23:09

    Trump has shown nothing of the substance he would need philosophically/charasmatically to buy this USA another 20 years. Based on what I've seen, he's a relatively harmless blowhard narcissist. And relative to 1980, this USA is FAR, FAR, FAR more fractured across several critical dimensions. Further, this polarization has been happening since the late 70s, and I cant perceive the catalyst for an ideologic harmonization. We are past the event horizon, in a strange environment where the rule of law is largely suspended. The fundamental of free market economics ('risk-free rate of return') has also been fixed by .gov in an effort to support, nay increase price inflation. The Constitution as it relates to individual liberties has been eviscerated. There is no turning back. A lot of suffering lies ahead. We are walking into the valley of the shadow of death. When you are lost, a compass can help you find the way. But when you throw away the compass (rule of law, Consitutional liberties, focus on excellence of thoughts), THERE CAN BE NO RETURN.

    conscious being , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 01:11

    Trump sucks. Anybody saying otherwise is as dillusional as all those Obummer voters everyone, now, loves to goof on. Who has room for another serving of hope and change? Lucy pulls the football away again, but Charlie Brown never learns.

    Doctor10 hits the mark.

    PTR , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:51

    You folks in the big cities have about three months to GTFO.

    Paging Snake...Snake. Please pick up the red courtesy automatics.

    Hail Spode , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:51

    Good. But rebellion alone is not enough. Anger at a corrupt system is not enough. We must know what the goals are, what we are trying to change and why. What should this system be replaced with and why?

    What it should be replaced with: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B0GACAQ

    Why : http://www.amazon.com/Localism-Defended-between-Anarchy-Central/dp/0996239006/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid =

    PoasterToaster , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:10

    So that's the take from the disaffected Democrat voter, eh? It's nice they are being forced to confront reality in the same way the Republicans are, but to think that Trump voters are dying from drugs and despair while not acknowledging the same state of affairs in their own side is silly.

    Still not quite ready to lower themselves to the same level as the rest of us. Humanitarian Left indeed.

    Skiprrrdog , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:14

    Ted Cruise is the Zodiac Killer...

    Clowns on Acid , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:17

    What about the illegals...? 40MM of them? What about the muslims? Oh yeh...they will all become productive members of society...

    Ms. Erable , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:24

    They can most definitely help to increase productivity - the ones that don't self-deport can help fertilize the non-GMO crops.

    the.ghost.of.22wmr , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:37

    A wise man on ZH once said Europe would be *in flames* before America even farted.

    Well, Europe is *in flames* and it's not yet summer.

    TheEndIsNear , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 00:02

    You ain't seen nothing yet.

    STP , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 00:05

    Let me fix that "they are the reproductive members of our society..."

    Bill of Rights , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:18

    They've managed to turn the office of the President as well as the election process in this Country into nothing but douchebaggery fact is the whole circus bores the shit out of me at this stage....kill each other fighting for the ( 1 ) more food for me.

    monad , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 01:48

    Thats the psyop, son. DYOH.

    Change your domain. Don't buy in easy but do attend your local civic events. Adapt.

    the.ghost.of.22wmr , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:22

    As I have said before, I don't necessarily see Trump at the finish line.

    Trump's ass-kissing speech to the AIPAC Israhell crowd on 3/21 did not impress me or bode well for world peace!

    conscious being , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 00:46

    As of this point, two zionist ideologues have logged in to downvote your sacriledge. Golf clap for the zionists, responding true to form.

    Kirk2NCC1701 , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:29

    If Trump gets burned/stabbed by the GOP-E, his supporters have a moral duty to vote Anti-Establishment, by voting for Sanders.

    Because, by then, the curtain will gave been pulled back and everyone can stop pretending. At that point, only a hard reset will work, and the only person to bring it about sooner than later, is Sanders.

    "The enemy of my enemy is my Ally " -Kirk

    Freddie , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:52

    I actually think Bernie has a better chance at avoiding the steal then Trump has.

    The GOP-e and RNC plus Bushes/Romney are in full theft mode and will do anything to steal it or elect Hillary.

    Sir John Bagot Glubb , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:57

    Sanders is probably a nice man who means well but his entire philosophy is based on envy. He may be Anti-establishment now but if he were elected, he's too weak and lacking in depth not to give into the Establishment. Trump may be too. The pressure would be beyond unbearable for a normal human being.

    I would only vote for Sanders to accelerate the Great Reset as other bloggers on here have said. But an added feature of supporting naive Bernie is Democrats might finally get the blame for all the destruction that they have caused, not the least of which is destroying the greatest country that ever was and probably ever will be.

    [Apr 02, 2016] Google builds a permanent profile on you and stores it at their end. 

    www.zerohedge.com

    PoasterToaster Thu, 03/31/2016 - 23:43 | 7389203

    You can't just clear a cookie. Google builds a permanent profile on you and stores it at their end. They use a variety of means to do this, such as taking your MAC address and every other bit transmitted on the internet and linking it to a database they have built that records your popular searches and clicks.

    This is how people get filter bubbled and steered; dirty internet searches. A clean search would see actual societal interests and trends instead of the contrived ones pushed by the State narrative. It's also part of the meta- and direct data that goes into secret profiles in the "intelligence community".

    They think they can use this trendy (yet largely mythical) Big Data to create a precrime division. It's also nice to have dirt on the whole country in case anyone gets out of line and challenges the aristocracy.

    wee-weed up

    Yep, war has always been the best automatic "go to" solution to deflect attention away from elite politician's gross malfeasance.

    [Apr 02, 2016] The Rebellion Will Not Go Away

    www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/31/2016 21:55 -0400

  • Bernie Sanders
  • Great Depression
  • Authored by Gaius Publius via DownWithTyranny.com,

    The Sanders- and Trump-led (for now) political rebellion is not going to go away. There are only two questions going forward:

  • Will it remain a political rebellion, one that expresses itself through the electoral process, or will it abandon the electoral process as useless after 2016?
  • Will it be led by humanitarian populism from the left, or authoritarian populism from the right?
  • Why is this rebellion permanent, at least until conditions improve ? Because life in the U.S. is getting worse in a way that can be felt by a critical mass of people, by enough people to disrupt the Establishment machine with their anger. And because that worsening is seen to be permanent.

    Bottom line, people are reaching the breaking point, and we're watching that play out in the 2016 electoral race.

    Yes, It Is a Rebellion

    There's no other way to see the Sanders and Trump surges except as a popular rebellion, a rebellion of the people against their "leaders." If one of them, Sanders or Trump, is on the ballot in November running against an Establishment alternative, Sanders or Trump, the anti-Establishment candidate, will win. That candidate will cannibalize votes from the Establishment side.

    That is, Sanders will attract a non-zero percentage of Trump-supporting voters if Cruz or Paul Ryan runs against him, and he will win. By the same token, Trump will attract a non-zero percentage Sanders-supporting voters (or they will stand down) if Clinton runs against him, and she will lose to him.

    (In fact, we have a good early indication of what percentage of Sanders supporters Clinton will lose - 20% of Sanders primary voters say they will sit out the general election if Clinton is the candidate, and 9% say they will vote for Trump over Clinton. By this measure, Clinton loses 30% of the votes that went to Sanders in the primary election.)

    If they run against each other, Sanders and Trump, Sanders will win. You don't have to take my word for it (or the word of any number of other writers ). You can click here and see what almost every head-to-head poll says. As I look at it today, the average of the last six head-to-head polls is Sanders by almost 18% over Trump. In electoral terms, that's a wipeout. For comparison, Obama beat McCain by 6% and Romney by 4% .

    Note that Sanders is still surging, winning some states with 80% of the vote (across all states he's won, he averages 67% of the vote), while Trump seems to have hit a ceiling below 50%, even in victory. The "socialist" tag is not only not sticking, it's seen positively by his supporters. And finally, just imagine a Trump-Sanders debate. Sanders' style is teflon to Trumps', and again, I'm not alone in noticing this.

    Whichever anti-Establishment candidate runs, he wins. If both anti-Establishment candidates face off, Sanders wins. The message seems pretty clear. Dear Establishment Democrats, you can lose to Sanders or lose to Trump. Those are your choices, and I'm more than happy to wait until November 9 to find out what you chose and how it turned out. Not pleased to wait, if you choose wrongly, but willing to wait, just so we're both aware of what happened.

    The Rebellion Is Not Going Away

    I won't be happy with you though, Establishment Democrats, if you choose badly. And I won't be alone. Because even if you succeed with Clinton, Establishment Democrats, or succeed in giving us Trump in preference to giving us Sanders, the rebellion is not going away.

    If you look at the Trump side , it's easy to see why. Are wages rising with profits? No, and Trump supporters have had enough. (They don't quite know who to blame, but they're done with things as they are.) Will they tolerate another bank bailout, the one that's inevitable the way the banks are continuing to operate? They haven't begun to tolerate the last one . They already know they were screwed by NAFTA. What will their reaction be to the next trade deal, or the next, or the next? (Yes, it's not just TPP; there are three queued up and ready to be unleashed.)

    Trump supporters, the core of them, are dying of drugs and despair , and they're not going to go quietly into that dark night. The Trump phenomenon is proof of that.

    On the Sanders side , the rebellion is even clearer. Sanders has energized a great many voters across the Democratic-independent spectrum with his call for a "political revolution." But it's among the young, the future of America, that the message is especially resonant. For the first time in a long time, the current generation of youth in America sees itself as sinking below the achievements of their parents.

    The Guardian :

    US millennials feel more working class than any other generation

    Social survey data reveals downshift in class identity among 18-35s, with only a third believing they are middle class

    Millennials in the US see themselves as less middle class and more working class than any other generation since records began three decades ago, the Guardian and Ipsos Mori have found.

    Analysing social survey data spanning 34 years reveals that only about a third of adults aged 18-35 think they are part of the US middle class. Meanwhile 56.5% of this age group describe themselves as working class.

    The number of millennials – who are also known as Generation Y and number about 80 million in the US – describing themselves as middle class has fallen in almost every survey conducted every other year, dropping from 45.6% in 2002 to a record low of 34.8% in 2014. In that year, 8% of millennials considered themselves to be lower class and less than 1% considered themselves to be upper class.

    Of course, that leads to this:

    The large downshift in class identity among young adults may have helped explain the surprisingly strong performance in Democratic primaries of the insurgent presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has promised to scrap college tuition fees and raise minimum wages.

    Will those voters, so many of them self-described "independents," return to the Democratic Party? Only if the Party offers them a choice they actually want. If the Party does not, there will be hell to pay on the Democratic side as well. America is making them poorer - Establishment Democratic policies are making them poorer - and they're done with it. The Sanders phenomenon is proof of that.

    Will the Very Very Rich Stand Down?

    The squeeze is on, and unless the rich who run the game for their benefit alone decide to stand down and let the rest of us catch our breath and a break, there will be no letting up on the reaction . What we're watching is just the beginning. Unless the rich and their Establishment enablers stand down, this won't be the end but a start, and just a start.

    I'll identify the three branches to this crossroad in another piece. It's not that hard to suss out those three paths, so long as you're willing to look a few years ahead, into the "middle distance" as it were. The ways this could play out are limited and kind of staring right at us.

    But let's just say for now, America faces its future in a way that hasn't happened since the Great Depression, another period in which the Constitution was rewritten in an orderly way (via the political process). Which means that for almost every living American, this is the most consequential electoral year of your life.

    I know. I'm not happy about that either.

    TeamDepends

    You folks in the big cities have about three months to GTFO.

    Casanova , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 21:58

    Rebellion? What rebellion? We are CURSED with a curse >> http://wp.me/p4OZ4v-3z

    wee-weed up , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:14

    Let's hope all those elites in power who are to blame for their selfish needs causing our great country going completely down the toilet will have a chance to finally meet their favorite lamppost with a little rope in a nice gentle breeze.

    Lurk Skywatcher , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:22

    they will fake an alien invasion or some such and put us all under lock and key. we will either willingly give them complete control over us or they will take it forcefully. they are playing for all the chips, while the vast majority of sheeple don't even realize they are in the game. i hope to hold my own and dont expect anything more of anyone else at this stage, let alone an organized rebellion that will deal to those most at fault for our collective hellhole.

    greenskeeper carl , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:30

    I kind of agree with this guy, in a round about sort of way. If an economic collapse brought on by socialism and central planning in inevitable, might as well have a socialist/central planner in charge. No better way to show people why that shit doesn't work. It would also be useful to point to the left and say "see, I fucking told you so. this shit doesn't work"

    Muh Raf , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:39

    Paraphrasing Crocodile Dundee "That's not a rebel, this is a rebel..." Robert Morrow interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNf6q-THvTE

    animalogic , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 23:48

    Hey Carl....What "socialism" ??

    What "central planning" ? Shit, there's a PLAN ?? Who would've guessed....beyond the obvious plan of the 1% to gorge on the flesh of all the rest...

    And as for your "the left", I'd sooner believe in fairy's living at the bottom of the garden... (Of course, you probably think all the PC wankers are a genuine "left" ....yer, lol).

    eatthebanksters , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 00:24

    Obozo pretends there is no problem as he recites fraudulent info from the Fed...meanwhile the people on Main Street see through the bullshit. The Obozo Administration is a propaganda sham...he just wants the Fed to hold it together for him until the elections.

    conscious being , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 01:13

    peddelin' fiction.

    doctor10 , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 01:13

    as paradoxical as its seems, Fed.gov's only real option is actually The Donald. He's the only one with potential to stay the rapid slide in Fed.gov's legitimacy and mandate to unite the states.

    any other president will get to preside over internal disintegration

    the harder they grasp, the faster the brass ring slides through their greedy fingers

    Reagan bought that crowd another 20 years; Trump can get them another 10-15 if they shut up and elect him

    Government need... , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 23:09

    Trump has shown nothing of the substance he would need philosophically/charasmatically to buy this USA another 20 years. Based on what I've seen, he's a relatively harmless blowhard narcissist. And relative to 1980, this USA is FAR, FAR, FAR more fractured across several critical dimensions. Further, this polarization has been happening since the late 70s, and I cant perceive the catalyst for an ideologic harmonization. We are past the event horizon, in a strange environment where the rule of law is largely suspended. The fundamental of free market economics ('risk-free rate of return') has also been fixed by .gov in an effort to support, nay increase price inflation. The Constitution as it relates to individual liberties has been eviscerated. There is no turning back. A lot of suffering lies ahead. We are walking into the valley of the shadow of death. When you are lost, a compass can help you find the way. But when you throw away the compass (rule of law, Consitutional liberties, focus on excellence of thoughts), THERE CAN BE NO RETURN.

    conscious being , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 01:11

    Trump sucks. Anybody saying otherwise is as dillusional as all those Obummer voters everyone, now, loves to goof on. Who has room for another serving of hope and change? Lucy pulls the football away again, but Charlie Brown never learns.

    Doctor10 hits the mark.

    PTR , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:51

    You folks in the big cities have about three months to GTFO.

    Paging Snake...Snake. Please pick up the red courtesy automatics.

    Hail Spode , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:51

    Good. But rebellion alone is not enough. Anger at a corrupt system is not enough. We must know what the goals are, what we are trying to change and why. What should this system be replaced with and why?

    What it should be replaced with: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B0GACAQ

    Why : http://www.amazon.com/Localism-Defended-between-Anarchy-Central/dp/0996239006/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid =

    PoasterToaster , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:10

    So that's the take from the disaffected Democrat voter, eh? It's nice they are being forced to confront reality in the same way the Republicans are, but to think that Trump voters are dying from drugs and despair while not acknowledging the same state of affairs in their own side is silly.

    Still not quite ready to lower themselves to the same level as the rest of us. Humanitarian Left indeed.

    Skiprrrdog , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:14

    Ted Cruise is the Zodiac Killer...

    Clowns on Acid , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:17

    What about the illegals...? 40MM of them? What about the muslims? Oh yeh...they will all become productive members of society...

    Ms. Erable , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:24

    They can most definitely help to increase productivity - the ones that don't self-deport can help fertilize the non-GMO crops.

    the.ghost.of.22wmr , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:37

    A wise man on ZH once said Europe would be *in flames* before America even farted.

    Well, Europe is *in flames* and it's not yet summer.

    TheEndIsNear , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 00:02

    You ain't seen nothing yet.

    STP , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 00:05

    Let me fix that "they are the reproductive members of our society..."

    Bill of Rights , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:18

    They've managed to turn the office of the President as well as the election process in this Country into nothing but douchebaggery fact is the whole circus bores the shit out of me at this stage....kill each other fighting for the ( 1 ) more food for me.

    monad , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 01:48

    Thats the psyop, son. DYOH.

    Change your domain. Don't buy in easy but do attend your local civic events. Adapt.

    the.ghost.of.22wmr , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:22

    As I have said before, I don't necessarily see Trump at the finish line.

    Trump's ass-kissing speech to the AIPAC Israhell crowd on 3/21 did not impress me or bode well for world peace!

    conscious being , Fri, 04/01/2016 - 00:46

    As of this point, two zionist ideologues have logged in to downvote your sacriledge. Golf clap for the zionists, responding true to form.

    Kirk2NCC1701 , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:29

    If Trump gets burned/stabbed by the GOP-E, his supporters have a moral duty to vote Anti-Establishment, by voting for Sanders.

    Because, by then, the curtain will gave been pulled back and everyone can stop pretending. At that point, only a hard reset will work, and the only person to bring it about sooner than later, is Sanders.

    "The enemy of my enemy is my Ally " -Kirk

    Freddie , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:52

    I actually think Bernie has a better chance at avoiding the steal then Trump has.

    The GOP-e and RNC plus Bushes/Romney are in full theft mode and will do anything to steal it or elect Hillary.

    Sir John Bagot Glubb , Thu, 03/31/2016 - 22:57

    Sanders is probably a nice man who means well but his entire philosophy is based on envy. He may be Anti-establishment now but if he were elected, he's too weak and lacking in depth not to give into the Establishment. Trump may be too. The pressure would be beyond unbearable for a normal human being.

    I would only vote for Sanders to accelerate the Great Reset as other bloggers on here have said. But an added feature of supporting naive Bernie is Democrats might finally get the blame for all the destruction that they have caused, not the least of which is destroying the greatest country that ever was and probably ever will be.

    [Mar 29, 2016] Is Trump Right About NATO Zero Hedge

    www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

    I am "not isolationist, but I am 'America First,'" Donald Trump told The New York times last weekend. "I like the expression."

    Of NATO, where the U.S. underwrites three-fourths of the cost of defending Europe, Trump calls this arrangement "unfair, economically, to us," and adds, "We will not be ripped off anymore."

    Beltway media may be transfixed with Twitter wars over wives and alleged infidelities. But the ideas Trump aired should ignite a national debate over U.S. overseas commitments - especially NATO.

    For the Donald's ideas are not lacking for authoritative support.

    The first NATO supreme commander, Gen. Eisenhower, said in February 1951 of the alliance: "If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed."

    As JFK biographer Richard Reeves relates, President Eisenhower, a decade later, admonished the president-elect on NATO.

    "Eisenhower told his successor it was time to start bringing the troops home from Europe. 'America is carrying far more than her share of free world defense,' he said. It was time for other nations of NATO to take on more of the costs of their own defense."

    No Cold War president followed Ike's counsel.

    But when the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the breakup of the Soviet Union into 15 nations, a new debate erupted.

    The conservative coalition that had united in the Cold War fractured. Some of us argued that when the Russian troops went home from Europe, the American troops should come home from Europe.

    Time for a populous prosperous Europe to start defending itself.

    Instead, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush began handing out NATO memberships, i.e., war guarantees, to all ex-Warsaw Pact nations and even Baltic republics that had been part of the Soviet Union.

    In a historically provocative act, the U.S. moved its "red line" for war with Russia from the Elbe River in Germany to the Estonian-Russian border, a few miles from St. Petersburg.

    We declared to the world that should Russia seek to restore its hegemony over any part of its old empire in Europe, she would be at war with the United States.

    No Cold War president ever considered issuing a war guarantee of this magnitude, putting our homeland at risk of nuclear war, to defend Latvia and Estonia.

    Recall. Ike did not intervene to save the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956. Lyndon Johnson did not lift a hand to save the Czechs, when Warsaw Pact armies crushed "Prague Spring" in 1968. Reagan refused to intervene when Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski, on Moscow's orders, smashed Solidarity in 1981.

    These presidents put America first. All would have rejoiced in the liberation of Eastern Europe. But none would have committed us to war with a nuclear-armed nation like Russia to guarantee it.

    Yet, here was George W. Bush declaring that any Russian move against Latvia or Estonia meant war with the United States. John McCain wanted to extend U.S. war guarantees to Georgia and Ukraine.

    This was madness born of hubris. And among those who warned against moving NATO onto Russia's front porch was America's greatest geostrategist, the author of containment, George Kennan:

    "Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking."

    Kennan was proven right. By refusing to treat Russia as we treated other nations that repudiated Leninism, we created the Russia we feared, a rearming nation bristling with resentment.

    The Russian people, having extended a hand in friendship and seen it slapped away, cheered the ouster of the accommodating Boris Yeltsin and the arrival of an autocratic strong man who would make Russia respected again. We ourselves prepared the path for Vladimir Putin.

    While Trump is focusing on how America is bearing too much of the cost of defending Europe, it is the risks we are taking that are paramount, risks no Cold War president ever dared to take.

    Why should America fight Russia over who rules in the Baltic States or Romania and Bulgaria? When did the sovereignty of these nations become interests so vital we would risk a military clash with Moscow that could escalate into nuclear war? Why are we still committed to fight for scores of nations on five continents?

    Trump is challenging the mindset of a foreign policy elite whose thinking is frozen in a world that disappeared around 1991.

    He is suggesting a new foreign policy where the United States is committed to war only when are attacked or U.S. vital interests are imperiled. And when we agree to defend other nations, they will bear a full share of the cost of their own defense. The era of the free rider is over.

    Trump's phrase, "America First!" has a nice ring to it.

    greenskeeper carl

    Trumps statements are true, but don't go far enough. Since the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, there is no reason for NATO to exist, or especially for us to be a part of it. We gain nothing except the promises to go to nuclear war with Russia, even over a shitshow country like turkey, who shot down a fucking Russia plane.

    It would also be interesting to see what happens to the welfare states of Western Europe if they were forced to pay for all this shit, or the US left all together.

    SteveNYC

    Surely Trump is not so stupid to believe that we are being "had" by the Europeans in regards to the collective NATO defense budget? Surely he understands NATO is merely a captive audience for arms sales ex USA?

    Surely he understands that by paying "more than our share" we are utilizing it to push a fucked up agenda abroad with the complicity of those who are "not paying their share"?

    Come on Donald......get with the program.

    Canadian Dirtlump

    In a manner of speaking he's right. Other countries don't pay their fair share of the expenses. However, the size and scope of what exists now is orders of magnitude TOO BIG. So everyone else shouldn't pay more, the US should scale back and spend WAY less.

    That is what will get someone killed. Scaling back at all and therefore costing any private predatory military supplier / contractor money..

    Duc888

    NATO should have been disbanded when USSR was toppled. It's that simple. It's a fucking MIC jobs program now. Let Europe sink or swim on it's own.

    skepsis101

    Something extraordinary has taken place in the last few weeks.

    More and more old-time Republican stalwarts and leaders have laid their voices bare, if not defending Donald Trump, then for certain excoriating the three decade long NeoLib/NeoCon pact that is strangulating American sovereignty and paving the way for a NWO. Paul Craig Roberts, as always, was perhaps the first. But now David Stockman (Reagan's Budget Director), Peggy Noonan (Reagan's speechwriter), Patrick Buchanan (another Reaganite and erstwhile Republican curmudgeon), Robert Bennett (Reagan's head of the Department of Education), and perhaps many more that I am not aware of are coming out of the closet.

    It is almost as though Trump's 'take-no-prisoners' ethos, and getting away with it and media and political correctness be damned, is actually creating enough breathing space for others to say what's been on their mind but have been too frightened to speak out about. Well spoken, known, and credible voices are pushing back. This could be a snowball careening downhill turning into an avalanche. If enough of these folks keep emerging from dark corners they could well provide Trump with a political phalanx that diminish the probabliity of something as outrageous as stealing the nomination or even assassination.

    One thing is for certain. A civil war is taking place already, and its in the Republican Party.

    alexcojones

    Smedley Butler would never have the USA in such a criminal organizations.

    But then Wall Street and the City of London, plus the Vatican and Tel Aviv call ALL the shots here in 'Murica

    DCon

    Only 725 bases

    Hillary can double that

    http://www.kelebekler.com/occ/bas_gb.htm

    MrBoompi

    Maybe NATO will come to rescue and save the US from the likes of Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz.

    Batman11 , Tue, 03/29/2016 - 15:58

    The thing is Europe doesn't need any defence.

    The Putin bogeyman, well if we keep our closet doors shut I am sure we will be OK without any military spending at all.

    Russian paranoia is an American thing and we never got into that "checking under the bed for Reds" thing in Europe.

    Well maybe we will need some spending after the US turned Afghanistan and the Middle East into terrorist training centres.

    NATO is just US sponsored interference and we could all do without it.

    Come on Trump the world will get on much better without US military spending causing problems.

    Freddie , Tue, 03/29/2016 - 15:58

    NATO? The USA and European nations cannot even protect their borders from invasion. End NATO. It is only good for genocide against small unarmed countries.

    [Mar 24, 2016] Brussels 'Terrorism' - Gladio at its Finest by Joaquin Flores

    Notable quotes:
    "... This type of 'terrorism' fits other well established models that are characterized as a 'strategy of tension', and these historically were planned and executed by assets of US-NATO military intelligence themselves, as part of the Gladio program. ..."
    "... So we have to divide between military ISIS - that army of mercenaries, misled youth, drug addicts, ex-prisoners, and religious fanatics on the one hand, backed by Turkey and Gulf monarchies, from the 'ISIS' that is more like Al Qaeda - specially trained intelligence and security assets with knowledge of electronics, bomb making, counter-security/penetration, etc. - who are directly controlled by CIA/Mossad/MI6 and Saudi security and Pakistani ISI. ..."
    "... The US-NATO intelligence program, through Gladio has long time assets in Europe, and the last year has been reminiscent of a time during the Cold War when this strategy of tension reached its peak in Europe during the 1970's. ..."
    March 23, 2016 | Fort Russ

    Editorial


    Words always fail to speak to the human tragedy component of yesterday's 'terrorist' attacks, and my words cannot adequately address them either.

    Moreover, it seems in poor judgment to specifically lament over one criminal tragedy, when such criminal tragic events are so rampant around the world, and are often the product of US-NATO operations globally.

    The terrorist attacks in Belgium are a direct part of US-NATO's plans to perpetuate war and instability, and destabilization anywhere that the US senses hesitation to fully support its plans.

    I have not yet seen evidence that the individuals who pulled off these attacks have any connection to any of the named or known 'terrorist' networks. What I have read so far as a Kurdish media sources claiming that ISIS had claimed responsibility.

    For those linking these attacks to the known and documented ISIS/FSA members/soldiers that have now decided to seek 'refuge' in Europe from the way which they created, I would say that while it is possible that any such individuals who came as refugees in the recent wave could have been used in these attacks, such assets already existed and lived in Europe for an indeterminably long time.

    There is a link, however, between the 'refugee' crisis and these terrorist attacks, - and that is that these are both components of the general destabilization of the middle-east and now, Europe. From a sociological and strategic point of view, it is difficult to imagine that such 'reverberations' were not foreseen, and therefore expected, and as such perhaps even viewed as desirable by the powers that be. Which powers that be do I speak of?

    This type of 'terrorism' fits other well established models that are characterized as a 'strategy of tension', and these historically were planned and executed by assets of US-NATO military intelligence themselves, as part of the Gladio program.

    It is unlikely in my view that ISIS, in the meaningful sense of the term, was behind this. Terrorist attacks such as this have a purpose for actual terrorist groups when they are linked with demands, a quid pro quo, release of prisoners, or some change in policy, recognition, or even a cash payment. They come after general warnings, and some inability of the terrorist group to get its demands met.

    At the same time we have another 'ISIS' or, if you will, Al Qaeda - as a western intelligence and operations program designed to attack targets designated by their US/NATO handlers.

    So we have to divide between military ISIS - that army of mercenaries, misled youth, drug addicts, ex-prisoners, and religious fanatics on the one hand, backed by Turkey and Gulf monarchies, from the 'ISIS' that is more like Al Qaeda - specially trained intelligence and security assets with knowledge of electronics, bomb making, counter-security/penetration, etc. - who are directly controlled by CIA/Mossad/MI6 and Saudi security and Pakistani ISI.

    These 'random' attacks serve no tactical purpose for an actual terrorist group in my view, and only increase the chances that European voters or citizens will support some action, direct or kinetic, against ISIS. So this does not serve ISIS's interests.

    The US-NATO intelligence program, through Gladio has long time assets in Europe, and the last year has been reminiscent of a time during the Cold War when this strategy of tension reached its peak in Europe during the 1970's.

    Then, as perhaps now, the goal was to push European citizens/voters into a hostile position against a generally described 'enemy' - then communism, today 'Islamicism/Islamism'.

    [Mar 13, 2016] Theres no such thing as imperialism-lite, Obama. Libya has shown that once again

    Notable quotes:
    "... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
    "... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
    "... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
    "... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
    "... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
    "... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
    "... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
    "... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
    "... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
    "... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
    "... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
    "... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
    "... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
    "... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
    "... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
    "... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
    "... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
    "... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
    "... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
    "... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
    "... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
    "... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
    "... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
    "... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
    "... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
    "... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
    "... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
    "... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
    "... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
    "... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
    "... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
    "... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
    "... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
    "... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
    "... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
    "... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
    "... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
    "... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
    "... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
    "... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
    "... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
    "... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    So Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.

    Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss and make up – to each other.

    Related: David Cameron was distracted during Libya crisis, says Barack Obama

    Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France, but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.

    Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in Libya . When a state attacks another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.

    America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.

    Related: The Guardian view on Libya: yet another messy frontier in the war on Isis | Editorial

    As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift. British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    Manveer95 , 2016-03-13 11:04:35

    I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor) he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.

    That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls" campaign.

    JaneThomas -> grauniadreader101 , 2016-03-13 10:59:42
    I take it that you do not think that the Guardian is making up such stories as these in dated order:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/01/libyan-revolution-battle-torn-families

    "People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/27/revolution-belongs-to-all-libyans
    We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/apr/27/sandstorm-libya-revolution-lindsey-hilsum-review
    Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/08/libyan-revolution-casualties-lower-expected-government
    The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate and moved to implement regime change.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country. Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and fighting has since raged across the country.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.

    It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
    Anthony J Petroff -> fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:46:41
    Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
    Ziontrain -> Monrover , 2016-03-13 00:25:45

    On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free rein in Benghazi?

    No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.

    Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest in the comparison there...

    Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.

    There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...

    Ziontrain , 2016-03-13 00:16:06
    I wonder what the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is thinking. "Oh god - we made the mother of all #$%ups"? Surely...
    fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:04:24
    After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.

    To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen.

    SUNLITE -> lestina , 2016-03-12 22:59:05
    Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion ..
    SUNLITE -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 22:39:23
    Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control..
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:36:33
    Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:34:20
    These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
    Anthony J Petroff , 2016-03-12 22:32:36
    ......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?

    It is completely illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with new clothes in our face.

    pierotg -> pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:23:48
    "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there?

    Syria has the misfortune to be somehow in the middle of a proposed natural gas pipeline ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline ) too ...

    Just add a couple of paragraphs Mr. Jenkins in order to complete your article which, I'm sorry to say, told me nothing I didn't know already .

    pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:00:04
    "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."

    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Clear and concise.
    Thank you Mr. Jenkins

    jdanforth -> coombsm , 2016-03-12 21:45:36
    The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
    skepticaleye -> ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 20:49:36
    The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:35:02

    Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after the demise of the USSR.

    Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:32:20
    No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
    coombsm -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 19:09:34
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline

    this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.

    IamBaal -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-12 18:36:40
    Don't forget the French "Philosopher" Bernard Henri-Levy

    Levy on the Libyan insurgents

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2011/0326/Bernard-Henri-Levy-War-in-Iraq-was-detestable.-War-in-Libya-was-inevitable

    "Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country

    Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?

    Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough, I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle of legitimacy.

    IamBaal -> FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-12 18:13:17
    You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    IamBaal -> TonyBlunt , 2016-03-12 18:11:45
    Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East.
    IamBaal -> Bilingual , 2016-03-12 18:09:37
    It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart.
    IamBaal -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-12 18:07:15
    The French led the way, with the French "Philosopher" Bernard-Henri Levy doing all the behind the scenes manipulation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2

    IamBaal , 2016-03-12 18:01:58
    Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they created.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    ID4352889 , 2016-03-12 15:31:41
    Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.

    Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years. There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.

    ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 15:07:56
    For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.

    However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.

    The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime change or "nation building".

    I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should be seen as a last resort.

    SomlanderBrit -> JustARefugee , 2016-03-12 15:05:53
    Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.

    China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break up of India in 1947? Korean War?

    But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..

    totemic , 2016-03-12 10:58:16

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    One culture?
    One outlook?
    Sounds all very Soviet.
    So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-12 10:45:56
    Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive, Obama used the reverend Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).

    Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat, all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.

    titorelli -> Histfel , 2016-03-12 10:25:33
    So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow. In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates, it's just more imperialist b.s.
    chaumont , 2016-03-12 08:21:52
    Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
    backtothepoint , 2016-03-12 07:00:41
    Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools and hospitals.

    No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West.

    Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).

    Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.

    The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'

    backtothepoint -> Nola Alan , 2016-03-12 06:44:38
    Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made the situation much worse.

    I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.

    It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.

    And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.

    And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production. After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.

    The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system, along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.

    As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the apocalypse will continue.

    Bosula , 2016-03-12 00:43:38
    Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
    wmekins , 2016-03-12 00:08:02
    This is what Cameron's promises are worth, after boasting how he helped to topple Gadaffi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_OFaE19myg
    enocharden -> honeytree , 2016-03-11 23:50:37
    Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.

    MissSarajevo , 2d ago

    Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time in as many months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues of those that gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think their halos are tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
    AssameseGuy87 , previous , 2016-03-11 22:34:48

    when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations

    So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).

    Mick James -> Andrew Nichols , 2016-03-11 22:25:02
    End of Roman empire 476 AD
    End of Byzantine Empire 1453 AD

    Happy days.

    JacobJonker , 2016-03-11 21:31:10
    The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con cum neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable of independent and rational thought.
    redleader -> Rudeboy1 , 2016-03-11 21:01:53
    The usual ways are carpet bombing (perhaps with incendiaries) or artillery bombardment (perhaps with phosphorus "shake and bake" shells).
    Bilingual -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 19:52:11
    Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...

    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.

    Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts with the Safavid empire.

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.

    Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street, be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja killed 5000. No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad bombings of cities and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to sectional violence.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen with mustard gas.
    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 18:55:47
    Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference" is helping IS.
    Mary Yilma , 2016-03-11 18:55:22
    It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the genocide?
    smush772 -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 18:45:30
    There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation is worse than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off than it was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster like you want to portray him.
    Serv_On -> Monrover , 2016-03-11 18:47:01
    Gaddafi wanted a United Africa
    and was pushing for oil trading for gold not dollars

    World would have been better

    zolotoy -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 18:05:53
    Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.

    As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.

    dragonpiwo -> pinarello , 2016-03-11 17:37:03
    Libya is sitting on a lake of oil also. I worked for an oil company there for a decade.
    Scratcher99 -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 17:36:32
    "When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "

    They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises, get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though. Frightening.

    patricksteen -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-11 17:15:07
    Wrong. American fighters flew 27% of the sorties - the rest were conducted by other NATO members and primarily by the British and the French.
    midnightschild10 , 2016-03-11 17:09:42
    Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live on.

    The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.

    Serv_On -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 17:08:19
    Iraq was an illegal war
    journeyinthewest -> kippers , 2016-03-11 17:06:14

    To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse, because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political class appears not to want to learn.

    I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary objective.

    If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with Boko Haram in Nigeria.

    EamonnStircock , 2016-03-11 16:37:40

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq

    The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
    JanePeryer , 2016-03-11 16:36:32
    Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious for me but if I did, it's what they are.
    B5610661066 -> WankSalad , 2016-03-11 16:23:10

    Describing the intervention in Libya as imperialism - 'lite' or otherwise - is ridiculous.

    The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism.

    Donald Mintz , 2016-03-11 16:21:59
    It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known that.
    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:21:31
    Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide evidence that the US record is not good.
    B5610661066 , 2016-03-11 16:20:50
    Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
    fanUS , 2016-03-11 16:20:16
    Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
    Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
    Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in a circus.
    NYbill13 -> NezPerce , 2016-03-11 16:19:43
    We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.

    Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.

    Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain. She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.

    Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?

    It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside source that proves Hillary did it.

    To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)

    My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?

    Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs, values or languages.

    I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed locals.

    Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!

    Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree, not possible.

    Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980 or so. No siree. Not in Europe .

    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:18:31
    jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But he didn't. Cameron lied.

    The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments intervened on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people had been killed before the NATO powers attacked.

    Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded (National Transitional Council figures).

    Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting what they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over Africa's rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias compete for power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources under the protection of private military contractors."

    sarkany -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:59:16
    any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage

    The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
    Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.

    The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers.

    The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already being fought on many fronts, as this article makes clear.

    Corrections -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:44:02
    When Dubya was POTUS, the EU wanted to create its own military force. The US insisted Nato be the only regional force. Just sayin'....
    Lafcadio1944 , 2016-03-11 15:33:46
    Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the going gets tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).

    I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it.

    The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.

    zkiwi , 2016-03-11 15:27:56
    The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the Taliban and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he can tootle off and play golf.
    fragglerokk -> fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:25:04
    here's a decent summing up of the state of play in Libya and Hilarys role in it

    http://chinamatters.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/libya-worse-than-iraq-sorry-hillary.html

    Anonymot , 2016-03-11 15:24:49
    Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government.

    America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.

    fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:21:07
    Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue) to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or 'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones there is zip we can do.

    Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.

    Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.

    previous -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 15:03:43
    "Not Syria"

    ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the Middle East that are collapsing today.

    Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.

    Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.

    NezPerce -> nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 15:00:09
    Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he would have been well defended.
    nofatebutwhatyoumake , 2016-03-11 14:50:24

    "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core. Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,

    nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 14:48:17
    President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However, it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional, failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.

    US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to death although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as he had sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.

    Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and murdered Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist elements of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling, snivelling faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim world for something that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.

    Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.

    Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in somebody's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.

    markdowe , 2016-03-11 14:46:54
    Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason. The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both Britain and France.
    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:42:30

    it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory.

    He wanted his Falklands moment .

    Taku2 , 2016-03-11 14:37:45
    Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite" to 'lesser and greater imperialism.

    Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would not have pulled their weight?

    So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back of the proverbial cigarette packet.'

    For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible destabilizing the region and the flames fanning farther afield.

    The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction?

    The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'

    Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath, because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?

    Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.

    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:35:04

    the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction

    I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.

    previous , 2016-03-11 14:32:31
    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost everyone else.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 14:25:27
    Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan because there was no peace?#*^..... Der

    We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.

    Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.

    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:05:15
    Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama. Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to cause more trouble than it was worth.

    As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans insisted the Europeans do it themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never been far from the surface in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory. Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction. The blame is mostly Cameron's as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron have a plan at all? If so it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming years.

    SHappens -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 14:03:29

    Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.

    Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict, one wonders.

    Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess

    Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.

    Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what I read today from his "confessions".

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 14:03:19
    Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground; getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not, there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars of intervention."
    ohhaiimark -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 13:53:27
    Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.

    Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money. They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they do as they are told economically.

    I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg. oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.

    I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love and hold dear.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:49:00
    We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.

    The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

    By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0qy9

    Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.

    He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?

    This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.

    pfbulmer , 2016-03-11 13:46:44
    What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.

    As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the UK --

    Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --

    It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment creating havoc ,is the best way to go .

    This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --

    Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole dune will crumble

    Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .

    They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .

    (Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large tribe !)

    Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .

    Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --

    It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy , the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --

    What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office door --

    No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation , no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense , not to touch this country with a barge pole ?

    The poor Libyan people will agree with him --

    The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks judgement --

    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 13:45:40
    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-11 13:45:06
    Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
    upthecreek -> Colossian , 2016-03-11 13:41:18

    Gaddafi who was openly threatening to massacre all rebels in Benghazi.

    Yes that was the narrative that Western media wanted to portray but in reality was not the reason Libya was attacked --

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:37:15
    Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist training camps to be a direct threat.

    What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.

    david119 , 2016-03-11 13:35:56
    Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence, jingoism and pure evil.
    What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we get it wrong almost all the time ?
    James Barker , 2016-03-11 13:29:27
    "Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
    Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
    John Smith -> AddisLig , 2016-03-11 13:26:33
    Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them into the stone age'.

    You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.

    * GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
    * For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
    * Unemployment - $ 730.
    * Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
    * For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
    * The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
    * At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
    * Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
    * Education and medicine are free.
    * Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
    * Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
    * For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
    * Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
    * For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
    * Rents - no.
    * No Fees for electricity for households!
    * Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
    * Real estate services are prohibited.
    * Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
    * Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
    * If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
    * Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country

    antipodes -> Jeshan , 2016-03-11 13:19:04
    The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
    Potyka Kalman , 2016-03-11 13:18:58
    A decent article as we could expect from the author.

    However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).

    It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like another Iraq.

    TatianaAD -> David Ellis , 2016-03-11 13:16:32
    When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
    antipodes -> MarkB35 , 2016-03-11 13:12:18
    Sorry!!!
    What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots of celebrity boobs and bums.
    The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years.
    NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
    If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
    Nothingness -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 13:04:10
    Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
    antipodes -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 12:57:20
    Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.

    Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below.
    http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf

    If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.

    SHappens , 2016-03-11 12:56:32
    In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.

    These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.

    BlackBlue1984 -> CABHTS , 2016-03-11 12:49:40
    Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win. Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas, but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
    tonall -> TidelyPom , 2016-03-11 12:46:45
    Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies.
    Newmacfan , 2016-03-11 12:25:21
    It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one that breaks out of the shoal?
    SalfordLass , 2016-03-11 12:24:58
    Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
    Scahill , 2016-03-11 11:52:53
    Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS

    Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear

    Newsel -> IntoTheSilence , 2016-03-11 11:50:06
    Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers.

    Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
    There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads of our children."

    "We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1 radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
    That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."

    The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31500382?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AMorning%20Brief&utm_campaign=2015_MorningBrief_New_America_PROMO

    SilkverBlogger , 2016-03-11 11:49:56
    The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it
    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 11:43:08
    The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.

    The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us more for our hypocrisy and double standards.

    The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.

    The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).

    The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.

    Jeshan , 2016-03-11 11:42:44
    Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime"

    Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.

    The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.

    FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-11 11:42:29

    In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.

    You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .

    Don't forget the French role .

    25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."

    28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone

    11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.

    14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention in Libya

    .

    19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined by coalition forces


    2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Chronology
    Sal2011 , 2016-03-11 11:41:36
    Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work, should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.

    Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery. Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold. Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical regimes, proven time and time again.

    WarrenDruggs -> KinoLurtz , 2016-03-11 11:41:07

    Gadaffi was on the verge of massacring an entire city of people

    Who needs well paid journalists when you can get this level of propaganda for free?

    DavidGW -> TruffleWednesday , 2016-03-11 11:40:31

    So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?

    Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off is not an option.

    Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no such thing.

    David Hart -> AmandaLothian , 2016-03-11 11:22:15
    There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.

    War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy experience".

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii /

    [Mar 13, 2016] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/12/five-foreign-policy-questions-us-election-candidates

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would betray Israel by SEEKING peace. ..."
    "... Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that 'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary. ..."
    "... The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent" ..."
    "... Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another "humanitarian intervention". ..."
    "... If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by "journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply flawed decision making warrants. ..."
    "... Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig, the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage Hillary has caused. ..."
    "... What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place? Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else, or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    jparmetler , 2016-03-13 08:44:03
    You are absolutely right as far as these five questions are concerned. Yet you forgot an important one: TTIP as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These so-called free trade agreements are a fatal threat to democracy as they invest more power in corporations than in parliaments and additionally they are detrimental to labour and the environment in the concerned countries.
    Robert Maxwell , 2016-03-13 02:59:28
    It's a good article and reflects some of the questions I've been having.

    My curiosity was aroused when the first CIA-directed drone killed its first victims, a terrorist leader and some comrades in Yemen years ago. I'd thought that the CIA's assassination of anyone in a foreign country was illegal. Evidently the rules have changed but I don't recall hearing about it.

    The media are always an easy target but lately I think their responsibility for our collective ignorance has increased. The moderators in the TV debates seem deliberately provocative. I can remember the first televised debate -- Kennedy vs. Nixon -- when both men soberly addressed the camera when answering questions of substance.

    The first interaction BETWEEN debators was a brief remark in 1980 by Reagan aimed at Jimmy Carter. "There you go again." Before then, the debates were sober and dignified, as in a courtroom. After that, the debates slowly slid into the cage fights they've become.

    I'm afraid I see the media as not setting the proper ground rules. Fox News is the absolute worst. The result is a continuous positive feedback loop in which we are gradually and unwittingly turned into those people who buy gossip tabloids at the supermarket checkout counter.

    BREAKING NEWS! HILLARY WETS BED UNTIL TWELVE YEARS OLD!

    If we wind up with one of these egomaniacal clowns in the White House, we'll deserve what we get.

    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-13 01:34:11
    here it is again Cruz: right now in Fox: Iran wants to kill us; 'Donald' wants to negotiate deals with Iran and Cuba. We don't negotiate with terrorists. By failing to note what Trump actually says and by pretending that Hillary is not a neocon - a subtle one to be sure - you are revising the facts. actually as the facts appear. think about it and be clear. the moderate Islam routine BY Cruz Rubio Kasich is not about islam. its about the supposed sunni supposed allies. like please. add some insight. at least a bit.
    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-13 01:20:33
    Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would betray Israel by SEEKING peace.

    Trump said he'd be even-handed for the purpose of negotitating a peace deal. the other candidates say - reading from a script, certainly not thinking - that the trick was to get Saudi Arabia and Turkey to fight ISIS. sure, except they wont. Their agenda is anti-Assad in the name of conservative sunni-ism. the moderate arab sheikdom theocracy routines IS part of the problem. frankly the other Repub candidates would flirt with nuking Iran. Iran must be part of the solution like it or not. Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that 'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary.

    michtom , 2016-03-12 20:10:53
    Isn't the reason for most foreign policy decisions that they will make money for the Military Industrial Complex?

    "Modernizing" nuclear weapons? Helping Saudi Arabia slaughter citizens of Yemen? Destabilizing multiple countries so that MORE weapons become "necessary" to deal with the instability?

    All the question should be framed on that basis: "Is there any reason to 'modernize' our nuclear weapons other than to enhance the bottom line of the companies involved, especially when we are supposed to be working against nuclear proliferation?"

    Powerspike michtom , 2016-03-12 22:29:01
    An excellent statement of reality - sometimes it needs saying.
    http://fff.org/2016/03/11/the-u-s-middle-east-killing-racket /
    normankirk , 2016-03-12 19:06:03
    Fantastic article, absolutely spot on. Its been a long wait , thank you.

    The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent"

    Democrats or Republicans alike, foreign policy is predicated on the American drive to maintain global dominance, whatever illegal murderous callous action it takes.

    Powerspike lorimerhotshot , 2016-03-12 21:56:21
    Try this website
    http://www.antiwar.com /
    Featherstone1 , 2016-03-12 17:41:16
    Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another "humanitarian intervention".

    Sanders should be pressed on Israel, and whether he can formally condemn the state for repeatedly breaking promises re: settlement on the West Bank and for committing war crimes during the Gaza strip conflict.

    Michronics42 , 2016-03-12 17:34:44
    If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by "journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply flawed decision making warrants. If democracy and transparency actually functioned in the media, Hillary would be exposed as a neocon, whose terrible policy decisions have led to one global disaster after another, fomenting terrorism. (Even the New York Times-which endorsed Hillary-detailed her disastrous decisions in Libya).

    Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig, the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage Hillary has caused.

    But, like her domestic policies-historically: from Clintonomics to mass incarceration; welfare reform; the war on drugs; education (especially in Arkansas); disastrous "free" trade agreements; rampant fascism in the form of corporatism; plus, the millions donated to her campaign from dark money super pacs; and her sham "foundation; Hillary continues to represent the worst that politics offers, both globally and domestically.

    And the list above also includes the devolution of the Democratic Party from FDR-like socialism to Clinton dominated corporate hacks, since Bill's election in 1992.

    Until Clinton, Inc is stopped from commanding allegiance from "democratic" politicians on everything from the macro to micro levels of Democratic Party matters, voters will continue to be denied a true forum for change.

    FraidyMan , 2016-03-12 16:46:27
    What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place? Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else, or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet.
    jokaz , 2016-03-12 16:34:27
    "Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's poorest.."
    Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes of KSA, we help them
    jokaz , 2016-03-12 16:34:27
    "Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's poorest.."
    Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes of KSA, we help them
    Bogdanich , 2016-03-12 16:01:59
    Hillary was the push behind the U.S. Participation in Ukraine, Syria and Libya. Just a pathological warlord. She appointed VIc Nuland as undersecretary of state for Gods sake. A neo-con. The people that brought us the Iraq war. If she's elected you will get more of the same in a big way as she will increase the force structure and the involvement.
    no1ban , 2016-03-12 15:55:05
    This is the kind of informative and vital article I am buying the Guardian to read and which these days is all too rarely printed.
    Hanwell123 no1ban , 2016-03-12 16:49:52
    Try the Independent, it is much more forthcoming about foreign affairs and doesn't just parrot the stock Neo conservative stance.
    alberto grieve , 2016-03-12 15:20:07
    It is futile to expect reason from people whose foreign policy education comes primarily from Hollywood. It used to be that 96 % of people in congress had never left the country, even less lived abroad with other people and learned a foreign language. The ignorance is truly amazing and it would be funny if these people were not those that decide what happens in the world.
    If the US keeps meddling in world affairs then the whole world should vote in their elections.
    MrConservative2016 David Ellis , 2016-03-12 14:45:33
    Don't exactly celebrate the US 'wag my tail' relationship with Wahhabi Arabia but on Syria, the only good option is to ally with President Assad and bomb out the Wahhabi infestation.
    knightpestle , 2016-03-12 14:26:03
    Libya is the dog that doesn't bark in the night in UK politics too.

    During the debate on bombing Syria, speaker after speaker alluded to the disastrous intervention in Iraq, for which the guilty parties are no longer in the house.

    But not one brought up the disastrous intervention in Libya, for which the guilty party was currently urging us into another intervention.

    Having an amateurish, inward-looking Labour party doesn't help, of course.

    The only people who have called Cameron out on Libya in the past year are Nigel Farage and Barack Obama. Ye gods.

    Kevin P Brown MrConservative2016 , 2016-03-12 14:35:03
    "According to the 24 February 2010 policy analysis "The Year of the Drone", released by the New America Foundation, the civilian fatality rate since 2004 is approximately 32%. The study reports that 114 reported UAV-based missile strikes in northwest Pakistan from 2004 to present killed between 830 and 1,210 individuals, around 550 to 850 of whom were militants."

    You can quibble about the exact number of civilians killed, but the moment you approve of your local police bagging bad guys even if your family gets killed then you can maybe make a comment.

    nnedjo , 2016-03-12 14:18:49

    Many human rights organizations have called them illegal, and retired military leaders have said they backfire, creating more terrorists than they kill.

    After reading " The Dron Papers " Edward Snowden came to the conclusion that drones do not really chase the terrorists, but they chase their mobile phones. Hence so many innocent victims, because who can guarantee that the mobile phone which was earlier in the possessions of some terrorist, is not now in the hands of entirely innocent people.
    So, in addition to many ethical questions about the use of drones, this raised another question on how much "high-tech killing" is indeed reliable.
    mothercourage , 2016-03-12 14:13:56
    Excellent article.
    Informative and quite rightly challenging.
    America is really running away with itself on who, where, how and why they attack.
    Britains 'special' relations with the US, should be curtailed, forthwith, because they have the audacity to now start pressuring us about the EU refferendum, too.
    Obama had the nerve to say that we were free loading on the back of "US might" and their attempts at "global order", his words. While neatly avoiding the questions you ask here, about their role in Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, drones etc., etc, etc.
    Britain should fight back with these facts and distance ourselves from this aggression.
    SergeantPave , 2016-03-12 14:10:37
    Hardly amazing. There's not one American in a thousand for whom these issues will determine their vote.
    jez37med SergeantPave , 2016-03-12 14:24:56
    quite right
    nnedjo , 2016-03-12 13:55:54

    While an enormous amount of time during this campaign has focused around the Iran nuclear deal, almost no attention has been given to any country that actually has nuclear weapons and what they plan to do with them over the coming years and decades.

    This is also a proof of the "schizophrenic" Obama-Clinton foreign policy. US administration is doing everything to solve the problem of the Iranian nuclear program, and at the same time doing everything to spoil relations with the other nuclear power in the world, Russia.
    The curiosity of its kind is that Russia, which is also affected by the US sanctions, helps US to resolve its dispute with Iran and suspend sanctions against this country. And not only that, but Russia agrees to relocate enriched uranium from Iran to its territory and thus provide a practical implementation of the agreement on the Iranian nuclear program.
    nnedjo , 2016-03-12 13:43:40

    yet the presidential candidates are almost never asked about why congress has not authorized the military action like the constitution requires.

    Yes, Trevor Timm also criticized this in some of his previous articles, as well as Ron Paul, who also often criticized Obama for this fact. It's completely unclear why Obama continues to rely on the two authorizations that George W. Bush has got from Congress "to punish the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks", and for "the destruction of Saddam Hussein's [non-existent] WMD". This is particularly unclear given that Obama himself came to power mainly due to his criticism of Bush's war adventures.

    It is possible that Obama does not have enough confidence that he can get authorization from the GOP dominant Congress to combat Isis in Syria and Iraq. However, by using authorizations for the old wars for something that has nothing to do with the new wars, Obama is not only acting illegally, but also provides an opportunity for the conclusion that he now supports Bush for the same thing for which he criticized him earlier, that is, for the Afghan and Iraq war.

    kattw Kevin P Brown , 2016-03-12 14:57:33
    'course I wouldn't approve. And I doubt most countries approve of being invaded (except for the folks who DO approve anyways).

    "The US must stop acting as the world police.' Great phrase. You hear it a lot. Totally insupportable. Here's the fundamental problem: the globe is a small place these days. Countries really are no longer isolated entities than can act with little to no impact on anybody else. What one does, others feel. And leadership is a thing - somebody will always lead. Right now, there are very few candidates for that. With the fall of imperial England, the US became the only real superpower left (other than Russia, which has since collapsed, and is busy trying to come back). Thus, whether it likes it or not, the US has a leadership role to play. If it abdicates that position, and does as you and so many other less-than-brilliant folks demand? Power abhors a vacuum. Most likely is that either Russia or China will take over the role currently played by the US. And if you think either of THOSE countries will do a better job than the US, well... enjoy your personal delusion.

    As for 'scratching heads and bleating' about intervention... we did not have to intervene. Said that before, saying it again, get it through your skull - we did not have to intervene. We could, in fact, totally disarm and just sit back and do nothing, anywhere. But. THIS WOULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES TOO. Seriously. Understand that. Doing nothing is doing something. Sitting out is still an action one can take. And it is INCREDIBLY likely that things would be WORSE in Libya right now had we not intervened. Not guaranteed, but likely.

    The situation sucks. It would have been great if it had all turned out better. It didn't. But it probably would have been worse had we made a substantially different choice. Yeah, sure, you could then pat yourself on the back, and pretend that at least the US wasn't responsible, but, well, as a certain red-and-blue clad superhero says, with great power comes great responsibility. The US has great power - if we didn't intervene, and horrible things happened, it'd be just as much our fault as it is now that we DID intervene, and bad things happened. Because it would have been in our power to stop it, and we didn't.

    [Mar 13, 2016] There's no such thing as imperialism-lite, Obama. Libya has shown that once again

    Notable quotes:
    "... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
    "... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
    "... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
    "... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
    "... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
    "... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
    "... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
    "... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
    "... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
    "... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
    "... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
    "... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
    "... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
    "... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
    "... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
    "... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
    "... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
    "... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
    "... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
    "... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
    "... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
    "... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
    "... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
    "... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
    "... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
    "... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
    "... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
    "... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
    "... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
    "... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
    "... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
    "... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
    "... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
    "... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
    "... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
    "... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
    "... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
    "... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
    "... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
    "... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
    "... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
    "... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
    "... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
    "... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    So Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.

    Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss and make up – to each other.

    Related: David Cameron was distracted during Libya crisis, says Barack Obama

    Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France, but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.

    Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in Libya . When a state attacks another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.

    America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.

    Related: The Guardian view on Libya: yet another messy frontier in the war on Isis | Editorial

    As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift. British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    Manveer95 , 2016-03-13 11:04:35

    I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor) he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.

    That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls" campaign.

    JaneThomas -> grauniadreader101 , 2016-03-13 10:59:42
    I take it that you do not think that the Guardian is making up such stories as these in dated order:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/01/libyan-revolution-battle-torn-families

    "People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/27/revolution-belongs-to-all-libyans
    We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/apr/27/sandstorm-libya-revolution-lindsey-hilsum-review
    Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/08/libyan-revolution-casualties-lower-expected-government
    The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate and moved to implement regime change.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country. Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and fighting has since raged across the country.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/libyas-arab-spring-the-revolution-that-ate-its-children
    With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.

    It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
    Anthony J Petroff -> fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:46:41
    Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
    Ziontrain -> Monrover , 2016-03-13 00:25:45

    On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free rein in Benghazi?

    No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.

    Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest in the comparison there...

    Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.

    There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...

    Ziontrain , 2016-03-13 00:16:06
    I wonder what the Nobel Peace Prize Committee is thinking. "Oh god - we made the mother of all #$%ups"? Surely...
    fairviewplz , 2016-03-13 00:04:24
    After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.

    To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen.

    SUNLITE -> lestina , 2016-03-12 22:59:05
    Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion ..
    SUNLITE -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 22:39:23
    Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control..
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:36:33
    Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 22:34:20
    These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
    Anthony J Petroff , 2016-03-12 22:32:36
    ......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?

    It is completely illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with new clothes in our face.

    pierotg -> pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:23:48
    "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there?

    Syria has the misfortune to be somehow in the middle of a proposed natural gas pipeline ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline ) too ...

    Just add a couple of paragraphs Mr. Jenkins in order to complete your article which, I'm sorry to say, told me nothing I didn't know already .

    pierotg , 2016-03-12 22:00:04
    "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."

    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Clear and concise.
    Thank you Mr. Jenkins

    jdanforth -> coombsm , 2016-03-12 21:45:36
    The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
    skepticaleye -> ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 20:49:36
    The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq.
    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:35:02

    Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after the demise of the USSR.

    Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-12 19:32:20
    No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
    coombsm -> buticomillas , 2016-03-12 19:09:34
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline

    this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.

    IamBaal -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-12 18:36:40
    Don't forget the French "Philosopher" Bernard Henri-Levy

    Levy on the Libyan insurgents

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2011/0326/Bernard-Henri-Levy-War-in-Iraq-was-detestable.-War-in-Libya-was-inevitable

    "Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country

    Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?

    Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough, I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle of legitimacy.

    IamBaal -> FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-12 18:13:17
    You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    IamBaal -> TonyBlunt , 2016-03-12 18:11:45
    Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East.
    IamBaal -> Bilingual , 2016-03-12 18:09:37
    It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart.
    IamBaal -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-12 18:07:15
    The French led the way, with the French "Philosopher" Bernard-Henri Levy doing all the behind the scenes manipulation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2

    IamBaal , 2016-03-12 18:01:58
    Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they created.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
    ID4352889 , 2016-03-12 15:31:41
    Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.

    Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years. There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.

    ID9108400 , 2016-03-12 15:07:56
    For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.

    However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.

    The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime change or "nation building".

    I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should be seen as a last resort.

    SomlanderBrit -> JustARefugee , 2016-03-12 15:05:53
    Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.

    China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break up of India in 1947? Korean War?

    But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..

    totemic , 2016-03-12 10:58:16

    Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing to do with politicians.

    One culture?
    One outlook?
    Sounds all very Soviet.
    So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-12 10:45:56
    Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive, Obama used the reverend Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).

    Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat, all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.

    titorelli -> Histfel , 2016-03-12 10:25:33
    So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow. In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates, it's just more imperialist b.s.
    chaumont , 2016-03-12 08:21:52
    Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
    backtothepoint , 2016-03-12 07:00:41
    Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools and hospitals.

    No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West.

    Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).

    Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.

    The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'

    backtothepoint -> Nola Alan , 2016-03-12 06:44:38
    Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made the situation much worse.

    I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.

    It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.

    And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.

    And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production. After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.

    The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system, along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.

    As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the apocalypse will continue.

    Bosula , 2016-03-12 00:43:38
    Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
    wmekins , 2016-03-12 00:08:02
    This is what Cameron's promises are worth, after boasting how he helped to topple Gadaffi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_OFaE19myg
    enocharden -> honeytree , 2016-03-11 23:50:37
    Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.

    MissSarajevo , 2d ago

    Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time in as many months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues of those that gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think their halos are tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
    AssameseGuy87 , previous , 2016-03-11 22:34:48

    when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations

    So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).

    Mick James -> Andrew Nichols , 2016-03-11 22:25:02
    End of Roman empire 476 AD
    End of Byzantine Empire 1453 AD

    Happy days.

    JacobJonker , 2016-03-11 21:31:10
    The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con cum neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable of independent and rational thought.
    redleader -> Rudeboy1 , 2016-03-11 21:01:53
    The usual ways are carpet bombing (perhaps with incendiaries) or artillery bombardment (perhaps with phosphorus "shake and bake" shells).
    Bilingual -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 19:52:11
    Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...

    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.

    Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts with the Safavid empire.

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.

    Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street, be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja killed 5000. No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad bombings of cities and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to sectional violence.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen with mustard gas.
    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 18:55:47
    Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference" is helping IS.
    Mary Yilma , 2016-03-11 18:55:22
    It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the genocide?
    smush772 -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 18:45:30
    There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation is worse than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off than it was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster like you want to portray him.
    Serv_On -> Monrover , 2016-03-11 18:47:01
    Gaddafi wanted a United Africa
    and was pushing for oil trading for gold not dollars

    World would have been better

    zolotoy -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 18:05:53
    Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.

    As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.

    dragonpiwo -> pinarello , 2016-03-11 17:37:03
    Libya is sitting on a lake of oil also. I worked for an oil company there for a decade.
    Scratcher99 -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 17:36:32
    "When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "

    They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises, get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though. Frightening.

    patricksteen -> JohnHawkwood , 2016-03-11 17:15:07
    Wrong. American fighters flew 27% of the sorties - the rest were conducted by other NATO members and primarily by the British and the French.
    midnightschild10 , 2016-03-11 17:09:42
    Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live on.

    The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.

    Serv_On -> SomlanderBrit , 2016-03-11 17:08:19
    Iraq was an illegal war
    journeyinthewest -> kippers , 2016-03-11 17:06:14

    To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse, because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political class appears not to want to learn.

    I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary objective.

    If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with Boko Haram in Nigeria.

    EamonnStircock , 2016-03-11 16:37:40

    America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq

    The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
    JanePeryer , 2016-03-11 16:36:32
    Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious for me but if I did, it's what they are.
    B5610661066 -> WankSalad , 2016-03-11 16:23:10

    Describing the intervention in Libya as imperialism - 'lite' or otherwise - is ridiculous.

    The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism.

    Donald Mintz , 2016-03-11 16:21:59
    It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known that.
    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:21:31
    Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide evidence that the US record is not good.
    B5610661066 , 2016-03-11 16:20:50
    Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
    fanUS , 2016-03-11 16:20:16
    Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
    Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
    Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in a circus.
    NYbill13 -> NezPerce , 2016-03-11 16:19:43
    We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.

    Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.

    Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain. She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.

    Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?

    It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside source that proves Hillary did it.

    To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)

    My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?

    Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs, values or languages.

    I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed locals.

    Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!

    Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree, not possible.

    Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980 or so. No siree. Not in Europe .

    willpodmore -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 16:18:31
    jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But he didn't. Cameron lied.

    The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments intervened on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people had been killed before the NATO powers attacked.

    Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded (National Transitional Council figures).

    Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting what they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over Africa's rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias compete for power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources under the protection of private military contractors."

    sarkany -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:59:16
    any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage

    The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
    Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.

    The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers.

    The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already being fought on many fronts, as this article makes clear.

    Corrections -> xyz123xyz321 , 2016-03-11 15:44:02
    When Dubya was POTUS, the EU wanted to create its own military force. The US insisted Nato be the only regional force. Just sayin'....
    Lafcadio1944 , 2016-03-11 15:33:46
    Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the going gets tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).

    I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it.

    The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.

    zkiwi , 2016-03-11 15:27:56
    The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the Taliban and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he can tootle off and play golf.
    fragglerokk -> fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:25:04
    here's a decent summing up of the state of play in Libya and Hilarys role in it

    http://chinamatters.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/libya-worse-than-iraq-sorry-hillary.html

    Anonymot , 2016-03-11 15:24:49
    Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government.

    America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.

    fragglerokk , 2016-03-11 15:21:07
    Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue) to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or 'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones there is zip we can do.

    Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.

    Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.

    previous -> thenewcat , 2016-03-11 15:03:43
    "Not Syria"

    ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the Middle East that are collapsing today.

    Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.

    Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.

    NezPerce -> nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 15:00:09
    Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he would have been well defended.
    nofatebutwhatyoumake , 2016-03-11 14:50:24

    "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.

    Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core. Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,

    nemesis7 , 2016-03-11 14:48:17
    President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However, it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional, failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.

    US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to death although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as he had sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.

    Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and murdered Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist elements of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling, snivelling faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim world for something that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.

    Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.

    Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in somebody's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.

    markdowe , 2016-03-11 14:46:54
    Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason. The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both Britain and France.
    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:42:30

    it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory.

    He wanted his Falklands moment .

    Taku2 , 2016-03-11 14:37:45
    Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite" to 'lesser and greater imperialism.

    Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would not have pulled their weight?

    So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back of the proverbial cigarette packet.'

    For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible destabilizing the region and the flames fanning farther afield.

    The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction?

    The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'

    Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath, because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?

    Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.

    FelixMyIcecream -> Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:35:04

    the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction

    I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.

    previous , 2016-03-11 14:32:31
    "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war."

    Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost everyone else.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 14:25:27
    Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan because there was no peace?#*^..... Der

    We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.

    Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.

    Hanwell123 , 2016-03-11 14:05:15
    Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama. Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to cause more trouble than it was worth.

    As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans insisted the Europeans do it themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never been far from the surface in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory. Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction. The blame is mostly Cameron's as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron have a plan at all? If so it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming years.

    SHappens -> jezzam , 2016-03-11 14:03:29

    Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.

    Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict, one wonders.

    Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess

    Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.

    Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what I read today from his "confessions".

    grauniadreader101 -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 14:03:19
    Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground; getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not, there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars of intervention."
    ohhaiimark -> PVG2012 , 2016-03-11 13:53:27
    Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.

    Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money. They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they do as they are told economically.

    I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg. oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.

    I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love and hold dear.

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:49:00
    We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.

    The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

    By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0qy9

    Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.

    He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?

    This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.

    pfbulmer , 2016-03-11 13:46:44
    What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.

    As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the UK --

    Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --

    It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment creating havoc ,is the best way to go .

    This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --

    Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole dune will crumble

    Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .

    They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .

    (Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large tribe !)

    Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .

    Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --

    It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy , the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --

    What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office door --

    No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation , no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense , not to touch this country with a barge pole ?

    The poor Libyan people will agree with him --

    The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks judgement --

    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 13:45:40
    1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the Saudis).

    2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?

    3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West. And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.

    4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well thanks to our lust for control over the region.

    mothersuperior5 , 2016-03-11 13:45:06
    Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
    upthecreek -> Colossian , 2016-03-11 13:41:18

    Gaddafi who was openly threatening to massacre all rebels in Benghazi.

    Yes that was the narrative that Western media wanted to portray but in reality was not the reason Libya was attacked --

    NezPerce , 2016-03-11 13:37:15
    Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist training camps to be a direct threat.

    What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.

    david119 , 2016-03-11 13:35:56
    Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence, jingoism and pure evil.
    What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we get it wrong almost all the time ?
    James Barker , 2016-03-11 13:29:27
    "Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
    Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
    John Smith -> AddisLig , 2016-03-11 13:26:33
    Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them into the stone age'.

    You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.

    * GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
    * For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
    * Unemployment - $ 730.
    * Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
    * For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
    * The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
    * At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
    * Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
    * Education and medicine are free.
    * Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
    * Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
    * For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
    * Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
    * For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
    * Rents - no.
    * No Fees for electricity for households!
    * Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
    * Real estate services are prohibited.
    * Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
    * Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
    * If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
    * Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country

    antipodes -> Jeshan , 2016-03-11 13:19:04
    The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
    Potyka Kalman , 2016-03-11 13:18:58
    A decent article as we could expect from the author.

    However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).

    It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like another Iraq.

    TatianaAD -> David Ellis , 2016-03-11 13:16:32
    When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
    antipodes -> MarkB35 , 2016-03-11 13:12:18
    Sorry!!!
    What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots of celebrity boobs and bums.
    The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years.
    NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
    If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
    Nothingness -> ohhaiimark , 2016-03-11 13:04:10
    Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
    antipodes -> JaneThomas , 2016-03-11 12:57:20
    Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.

    Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below.
    http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf

    If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.

    SHappens , 2016-03-11 12:56:32
    In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.

    These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.

    BlackBlue1984 -> CABHTS , 2016-03-11 12:49:40
    Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win. Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas, but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
    tonall -> TidelyPom , 2016-03-11 12:46:45
    Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies.
    Newmacfan , 2016-03-11 12:25:21
    It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one that breaks out of the shoal?
    SalfordLass , 2016-03-11 12:24:58
    Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
    Scahill , 2016-03-11 11:52:53
    Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS

    Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear

    Newsel -> IntoTheSilence , 2016-03-11 11:50:06
    Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers.

    Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
    There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads of our children."

    "We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1 radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
    That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."

    The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31500382?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2AMorning%20Brief&utm_campaign=2015_MorningBrief_New_America_PROMO

    SilkverBlogger , 2016-03-11 11:49:56
    The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it
    ohhaiimark -> Bilingual , 2016-03-11 11:43:08
    The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.

    The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us more for our hypocrisy and double standards.

    The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.

    The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).

    The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.

    Jeshan , 2016-03-11 11:42:44
    Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime"

    Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.

    The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.

    FelixMyIcecream , 2016-03-11 11:42:29

    In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.

    You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .

    Don't forget the French role .

    25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."

    28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone

    11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.

    14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention in Libya

    .

    19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined by coalition forces


    2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Chronology
    Sal2011 , 2016-03-11 11:41:36
    Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work, should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.

    Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery. Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold. Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical regimes, proven time and time again.

    WarrenDruggs -> KinoLurtz , 2016-03-11 11:41:07

    Gadaffi was on the verge of massacring an entire city of people

    Who needs well paid journalists when you can get this level of propaganda for free?

    DavidGW -> TruffleWednesday , 2016-03-11 11:40:31

    So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?

    Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off is not an option.

    Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no such thing.

    David Hart -> AmandaLothian , 2016-03-11 11:22:15
    There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.

    War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy experience".

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii /

    [Mar 12, 2016] Nearly 10 percent of Democratic Party Superdelegates Are Lobbyists

    Notable quotes:
    "... On July 25, these superdelegates will cast votes at the Democratic National Convention for whomever they want, regardless of primary and caucus outcomes. Democrats like to describe superdelegates as mostly elected officials and prominent party members, including President Obama and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. ..."
    "... But this group, which consists of 21 governors, 40 senators and 193 representatives, only makes up about a third of the superdelegates. Many of the remaining 463 convention delegates are establishment insiders who get their status after years of donations and service to the party. Dozens of the 437 delegates in the DNC member category are registered federal and state lobbyists, according to an ABC News analysis. ..."
    "... In fact, when you remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in seven of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level, according to lobbying disclosure records. ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... Americans of both parties fundamentally reject the regime of untrammeled money in elections made possible by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and other court decisions and now favor a sweeping overhaul of how political campaigns are financed, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. ..."
    "... The findings reveal deep support among Republicans and Democrats alike for new measures to restrict the influence of wealthy givers, including limiting the amount of money that can be spent by "super PACs" and forcing more public disclosure on organizations now permitted to intervene in elections without disclosing the names of their donors. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton holds a substantial edge among a particular and little-noticed kind of delegate to the Democratic National Convention: Superdelegates. ..."
    "... On July 25, these superdelegates will cast votes at the Democratic National Convention for whomever they want, regardless of primary and caucus outcomes. Democrats like to describe superdelegates as mostly elected officials and prominent party members, including President Obama and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter . ..."
    "... But this group, which consists of 21 governors, 40 senators and 193 representatives, only makes up about a third of the superdelegates. Many of the remaining 463 convention delegates are establishment insiders who get their status after years of donations and service to the party. Dozens of the 437 delegates in the DNC member category are registered federal and state lobbyists, according to an ABC News analysis. ..."
    "... In fact, when you remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in seven of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level, according to lobbying disclosure records. ..."
    "... That's at least 67 lobbyists who will attend the convention as superdelegates. A majority of them have already committed to supporting Hillary Clinton for the nomination. ..."
    "... Superdelegates are unique to the Democratic nominating process. Of the 4,763 delegates who will attend the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, 717 will be superdelegates - almost a third of the total required to win the nomination. ..."
    arly%2010%25%20Of%20Democratic%20Party%20Superdelegates%20Are%20Lobbyist

    When it comes to presidential primaries, there isn't a whole lot of "democracy" in the Democratic Party.

    By Michael Krieger | Liberty Blitzkrieg | March 11, 2016

    On July 25, these superdelegates will cast votes at the Democratic National Convention for whomever they want, regardless of primary and caucus outcomes. Democrats like to describe superdelegates as mostly elected officials and prominent party members, including President Obama and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

    But this group, which consists of 21 governors, 40 senators and 193 representatives, only makes up about a third of the superdelegates. Many of the remaining 463 convention delegates are establishment insiders who get their status after years of donations and service to the party. Dozens of the 437 delegates in the DNC member category are registered federal and state lobbyists, according to an ABC News analysis.

    In fact, when you remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in seven of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level, according to lobbying disclosure records.

    – From the ABC News article: The Reason Why Dozens of Lobbyists Will Be Democratic Presidential Delegates

    When it comes to presidential primaries, there isn't a whole lot of "democracy" in the Democratic Party.

    Last year, The New York Times published an article examining the American attitude toward the question of money in politics. This is what it found:

    Americans of both parties fundamentally reject the regime of untrammeled money in elections made possible by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and other court decisions and now favor a sweeping overhaul of how political campaigns are financed, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

    The findings reveal deep support among Republicans and Democrats alike for new measures to restrict the influence of wealthy givers, including limiting the amount of money that can be spent by "super PACs" and forcing more public disclosure on organizations now permitted to intervene in elections without disclosing the names of their donors.

    You might think the supposedly "liberal" Democratic Party would take this sort of thing to heart, but you'd be wrong. Not only is the super delegate system intentionally undemocratic, but a remarkable 9% of superdelegates are actually lobbyists.

    You just can't make this stuff up.

    From ABC News :

    Hillary Clinton holds a substantial edge among a particular and little-noticed kind of delegate to the Democratic National Convention: Superdelegates.

    On July 25, these superdelegates will cast votes at the Democratic National Convention for whomever they want, regardless of primary and caucus outcomes. Democrats like to describe superdelegates as mostly elected officials and prominent party members, including President Obama and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter .

    But this group, which consists of 21 governors, 40 senators and 193 representatives, only makes up about a third of the superdelegates. Many of the remaining 463 convention delegates are establishment insiders who get their status after years of donations and service to the party. Dozens of the 437 delegates in the DNC member category are registered federal and state lobbyists, according to an ABC News analysis.

    In fact, when you remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in seven of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level, according to lobbying disclosure records.

    That's at least 67 lobbyists who will attend the convention as superdelegates. A majority of them have already committed to supporting Hillary Clinton for the nomination.

    Of course they have.

    Superdelegates are unique to the Democratic nominating process. Of the 4,763 delegates who will attend the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, 717 will be superdelegates - almost a third of the total required to win the nomination.

    Meanwhile, former presidential candidate and current Democratic Party superdelegate, Howard Dean, shared his personal thoughts on democracy via Twitter the other day.

    [Mar 12, 2016] Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern: Obama Is 'Afraid' Of The CIA And The NSA

    Notable quotes:
    "... Brennan apologized to Senate leaders in July 2014 after CIA agents hacked Senate computers during a congressional investigation of the CIA's use of torture, but neither the torturers nor the hackers would face any consequences for their actions. ..."
    "... He also criticized Obama's drone program, noting that "[t]he Fifth Amendment prohibits any president or anyone else from killing anyone without due process," and dismissed the administration's legal justifications for the killings as a "lawyerly diversion from the truth." ..."
    www.mintpressnews.com

    McGovern says he believes the president can't hold either agency accountable for their violations of the law and human rights because of the power they hold over him.

    MUNICH - A former CIA analyst believes the CIA and National Security Agency have become so powerful that the president is afraid to act against them when they break the law.

    Ray McGovern retired from the CIA in 1990, following nearly 30 years of service to the agency. He was awarded the Intelligence Commendation Medal, which is given to agents who offer "especially commendable service" to the agency.

    Outraged over the CIA's open use of torture, he returned the medal in 2006 and became an antiwar activist. He was arrested in 2011 for a silent protest against a speech by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    In an interview published Monday by acTVism Munich, an independent media outlet, McGovern warned that U.S. intelligence agencies are too powerful to be held accountable, even by President Barack Obama. He explained:

    "I will simply say that he is afraid of them. Now I would have never thought that I would hear myself saying that the president of the United States is afraid of the CIA But he is. He's afraid of the NSA as well. How else to explain that the National Intelligence director, who lied under oath to his senate overseers on the 12th of March 2013, is still the director of National Intelligence?"

    Statements made under oath to Congress in 2013 by James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, in which he denied mass surveillance of Americans, were later revealed to be false by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. In 2014, some members of Congress, including California Rep. Darrell Issa , moved to have Clapper dismissed from his post, but their efforts were ultimately defeated.

    McGovern continued: "How else to explain that the head of CIA, John Brennan, who deliberately hacked the computers of the senate's intelligence community, that's supposed to be overseeing him, he's still in office?"

    Brennan apologized to Senate leaders in July 2014 after CIA agents hacked Senate computers during a congressional investigation of the CIA's use of torture, but neither the torturers nor the hackers would face any consequences for their actions. In January 2015, an internal CIA review board declared the hack had been a result of "miscommunication" and cleared all agents of wrongdoing.

    In the interview, McGovern lamented the fact that political leaders, including President George W. Bush and Obama, have given their approval to unconstitutional behavior by government officials:

    "Our bill of rights has been shredded. The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits the kind of activities the NSA is involved in domestically."

    He also criticized Obama's drone program, noting that "[t]he Fifth Amendment prohibits any president or anyone else from killing anyone without due process," and dismissed the administration's legal justifications for the killings as a "lawyerly diversion from the truth."

    "Not even George Bush claimed the right to kill American citizens without due process," McGovern said.

    Activism is one way to drive positive change and resist the erosion of Americans' civil liberties, he said.

    "You do what you know is good, because it's good, and then you have a certain peace of mind, saying, you've been an activist in a constructive way," he concluded.

    Watch "Interview with former CIA-Analyst: Ray McGovern" on acTVism Munich

    [Mar 12, 2016] President Obama's Interview With Jeffrey Goldberg on Syria and Foreign Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Obama is just another establishment drone like Bush and Clinton. If you already hate Wall Street then all these people are covered. Obama is a corporate lawyer who worked for Wall Street. Nothing new here to see. ..."
    "... Obama: pre-emptive strikes on Afghanistan, Libya, Syria--all of which have resulted in disasters like the growth of ISIS. Obama: Meets weekly to decide where the drones will kill people, without charge or trial (and without revealing who the targets are and what the success/failure was--and how much "collateral damage" there was in human lives.) Certainly the most lawless president we've had--and the most bloodthirsty. ..."
    "... "The most lawless president . . . and the most bloodthirsty?" One need not support Obama to know that he's not even close the most bloodthirsty, or lawless. I strongly recommend you study Nixon, LBJ, and Reagan. Then drop back to Eisenhower and Guatemala to wrap up the bloody evening. ..."
    "... I was counting all blood, not simply American blood, which is what I thought the original post was doing. I would also count proxies, such as the Contra, because American aid was essential to them. I would not count the aid Reagan covertly provided Iraq, because that war would have been long and horrid in any event. ..."
    "... The lawlessness question is more complex. Nixon and Reagan set up clandestine organizations that did not appear in any budget line, both of which performed illegal actions. (Nixon's was more serious because the Plumbers' actions related to domestic opponents.) ..."
    "... So are Yemen, Syria, Honduras and Ukraine ... all put in play during Obama's reign. But much of the credit goes to Hillary and the other war harpies in the Administration. Obama has tried to pull back from the brink. ..."
    "... Obama did nothing to de-escalate the conflict in the Ukraine. The "somewhat" means you don't have any clue at all. It has to to more with Putin not wanting to conquer the entire Ukraine. The Ukrainians could have been initially defeated, but holding them down would be impossible. ..."
    "... And the fact is the Foreign Policy Establishment is utterly mad; they're furious at Obama for not implementing their crazy militaristic schemes. Which is more or less the same story that Goldberg reports here in the Atlantic. ..."
    "... According to the State Department's neoCon Czarina for European Affairs, the US pumped $5 Billion into underwriting NGO agitation in Ukraine. Nuland herself was on the front-lines in the Maidan and picked out "our guy Yats" ... In fact, Congress has passed a motion to prevent further funds to the neo-Nazis in Kiev. ..."
    "... Syria was invaded by a jihadi army largely armed by the US (part of the Benghazi affair involved the US Ambassador shipping weapons seized from Qaddafi to the Syrian jihadis via Turkey) and funded by US allies in the Gulf monarchies and Turkey. ..."
    "... Russia - not "Putin" - is fighting to defend Syrians - not "Assad" - from terrorist aggressors. ..."
    "... Currently, about 4,000 fighters of the 25,000 estimated (by the US) in Latakia province have laid down their weapons. Most of these have been re-deployed back into their original territories alongside Syrian Arab Army support units. ..."
    "... That comes out to about 80% of the fighters in Syria are Al Qaida or ISIS-affiliated, and the *VAST* majority of these fighters are foreign mercenaries. ..."
    "... Acknowledgement of Obama's feckless, misguided foreign policy is not an endorsement of Bush's adventurism. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power are engaging in pure speculation that starting this CIA program a few months earlier would have had a different outcome. Why so? This is nothing more than wishful thinking. ..."
    "... Our real mistake was in not supporting the 2012 Geneva peace plan which called for post-civil war elections that would include Assad. We maintained an absolutist demand for 'Assad must go' so of course he and the people who depend on him, 50% to 60% of the population would soldier on. ..."
    "... American foreign policy has been a disaster since Kissinger. Neocons convinced many on the right it was a solid ideology. Many of you cheered when Reagan armed Al Qaeda, transferred weapons to Iran, terrorized Central/South America by arming death squads and displacing indigenous people to make way for large multinationals. And, to add insult to injury, you all cheered for Bush initiated torture on our soil (torture has been a tool for decades at black sites), created Guantanamo, started illegal wars, helped to foment a global economic system that is the equivalent of carpet bombing, especially as it relates to weaker or poorer countries; the list goes on. ..."
    "... You're not wrong about Obama. He has embraced the same insanity, although, not to the same extent. Neoconservatism needs to die but gullible fools in both parties seem to embrace the insanity when their guy is in charge. ..."
    "... Hillary supports the same ideology as Bush but you guys will pretend to hate her and Dems will now say her plans are great. It's Americans who allow this insanity to continue. ..."
    "... Afghans and Saudis including Bin Laden were first trained by the US, and then the UK. Read the link I attached, Carter started this mass bloodshed and he isn't the least repentant. Yeah, that sweet old peanut farmer is almost as bad as Hitler. Shucks. ..."
    "... Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west. ..."
    The Atlantic

    Obama said that to achieve this rebalancing, the U.S. had to absorb the diatribes and insults of superannuated Castro manqués. "When I saw Chávez, I shook his hand and he handed me a Marxist critique of the U.S.–Latin America relationship," Obama recalled. "And I had to sit there and listen to Ortega"-Daniel Ortega, the radical leftist president of Nicaragua-"make an hour-long rant against the United States. But us being there, not taking all that stuff seriously-because it really wasn't a threat to us"-helped neutralize the region's anti-Americanism.

    The president's unwillingness to counter the baiting by American adversaries can feel emotionally unsatisfying, I said, and I told him that every so often, I'd like to see him give Vladimir Putin the finger. It's atavistic, I said, understanding my audience.

    "It is," the president responded coolly. "This is what they're looking for."

    He described a relationship with Putin that doesn't quite conform to common perceptions. I had been under the impression that Obama viewed Putin as nasty, brutish, and short. But, Obama told me, Putin is not particularly nasty.

    "The truth is, actually, Putin, in all of our meetings, is scrupulously polite, very frank. Our meetings are very businesslike. He never keeps me waiting two hours like he does a bunch of these other folks." Obama said that Putin believes his relationship with the U.S. is more important than Americans tend to think. "He's constantly interested in being seen as our peer and as working with us, because he's not completely stupid. He understands that Russia's overall position in the world is significantly diminished. And the fact that he invades Crimea or is trying to prop up Assad doesn't suddenly make him a player. You don't see him in any of these meetings out here helping to shape the agenda. For that matter, there's not a G20 meeting where the Russians set the agenda around any of the issues that are important."

    Russia's invasion of Crimea in early 2014, and its decision to use force to buttress the rule of its client Bashar al-Assad, have been cited by Obama's critics as proof that the post-red-line world no longer fears America.

    So when I talked with the president in the Oval Office in late January, I again raised this question of deterrent credibility. "The argument is made," I said, "that Vladimir Putin watched you in Syria and thought, He's too logical, he's too rational, he's too into retrenchment. I'm going to push him a little bit further in Ukraine."

    Obama didn't much like my line of inquiry. "Look, this theory is so easily disposed of that I'm always puzzled by how people make the argument. I don't think anybody thought that George W. Bush was overly rational or cautious in his use of military force. And as I recall, because apparently nobody in this town does, Putin went into Georgia on Bush's watch, right smack dab in the middle of us having over 100,000 troops deployed in Iraq." Obama was referring to Putin's 2008 invasion of Georgia, a former Soviet republic, which was undertaken for many of the same reasons Putin later invaded Ukraine-to keep an ex–Soviet republic in Russia's sphere of influence.

    "Putin acted in Ukraine in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp. And he improvised in a way to hang on to his control there," he said. "He's done the exact same thing in Syria, at enormous cost to the well-being of his own country. And the notion that somehow Russia is in a stronger position now, in Syria or in Ukraine, than they were before they invaded Ukraine or before he had to deploy military forces to Syria is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of power in foreign affairs or in the world generally. Real power means you can get what you want without having to exert violence. Russia was much more powerful when Ukraine looked like an independent country but was a kleptocracy that he could pull the strings on."

    Obama's theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.

    "The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do," he said.

    I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic.

    "It's realistic," he said. "But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there's always going to be some ambiguity." He then offered up a critique he had heard directed against him, in order to knock it down. "I think that the best argument you can make on the side of those who are critics of my foreign policy is that the president doesn't exploit ambiguity enough. He doesn't maybe react in ways that might cause people to think, Wow, this guy might be a little crazy."

    "The 'crazy Nixon' approach," I said: Confuse and frighten your enemies by making them think you're capable of committing irrational acts.

    "But let's examine the Nixon theory," he said. "So we dropped more ordnance on Cambodia and Laos than on Europe in World War II, and yet, ultimately, Nixon withdrew, Kissinger went to Paris, and all we left behind was chaos, slaughter, and authoritarian governments that finally, over time, have emerged from that hell. When I go to visit those countries, I'm going to be trying to figure out how we can, today, help them remove bombs that are still blowing off the legs of little kids. In what way did that strategy promote our interests?"

    But what if Putin were threatening to move against, say, Moldova-another vulnerable post-Soviet state? Wouldn't it be helpful for Putin to believe that Obama might get angry and irrational about that?

    "There is no evidence in modern American foreign policy that that's how people respond. People respond based on what their imperatives are, and if it's really important to somebody, and it's not that important to us, they know that, and we know that," he said. "There are ways to deter, but it requires you to be very clear ahead of time about what is worth going to war for and what is not. Now, if there is somebody in this town that would claim that we would consider going to war with Russia over Crimea and eastern Ukraine, they should speak up and be very clear about it. The idea that talking tough or engaging in some military action that is tangential to that particular area is somehow going to influence the decision making of Russia or China is contrary to all the evidence we have seen over the last 50 years."

    ... ... ...

    A weak, flailing Russia constitutes a threat as well, though not quite a top-tier threat. "Unlike China, they have demographic problems, economic structural problems, that would require not only vision but a generation to overcome," Obama said. "The path that Putin is taking is not going to help them overcome those challenges. But in that environment, the temptation to project military force to show greatness is strong, and that's what Putin's inclination is. So I don't underestimate the dangers there." Obama returned to a point he had made repeatedly to me, one that he hopes the country, and the next president, absorbs: "You know, the notion that diplomacy and technocrats and bureaucrats somehow are helping to keep America safe and secure, most people think, Eh, that's nonsense. But it's true. And by the way, it's the element of American power that the rest of the world appreciates unambiguously. When we deploy troops, there's always a sense on the part of other countries that, even where necessary, sovereignty is being violated."

    TotoCatcher -> Whateveryousay

    Obama is just another establishment drone like Bush and Clinton. If you already hate Wall Street then all these people are covered. Obama is a corporate lawyer who worked for Wall Street. Nothing new here to see.

    Question -> TotoCatcher

    Establishment? I thought he was unqualified because he was a "junior Senator" and "community leader". Now he's establishment?

    So basically establishment has about as much meaning as "entitlement" - its definition varies entirely depending on who you're referencing?

    pp91303 -> Question

    Totocatcher is a leftist accusing Obama of being a wall street, "corporate lawyer". He wasn't. The right never said he was. So an ignorant leftist calls Obama a corporate crony and that is somehow an indictment of the right. Brilliant.

    Obama was a red diaper baby, who went to a racist and anti-American church in Chicago, who worked a few years for a scummy little law firm that represented leftist-subsidized-housing developers like Tony Rezco, and who previously worked as a community organizer.

    nubwaxer -> Whateveryousay

    mine's not a hate comment but the extreme right, all republicans it seems, think bush's preemptive or proactive militarized foreign policy is still the right approach. it's still the shoot, aim, oops quagmire approach and obama's careful and patient evolving approach drives them crazy.

    the problem seems to me our oversized military is so well trained and well armed with the newest gear, which of course keeps profits flowing to defense contractors, that since we have it we nee to use it constantly to keep its edge. president obama seems to have reluctantly accepted our endless war strategy, but to the great ire of the right has shifted away from a militarized foreign policy to a primarily diplomatic approach. i for one see great success in the iran nuclear deal and restoration of relations with cuba.

    of course there will be those whipped into mass hysteria and seething anger by the relentless right wing propaganda and i'll be gone before i have to read any of their comments.

    Tom Hoobler -> nubwaxer

    Obama: pre-emptive strikes on Afghanistan, Libya, Syria--all of which have resulted in disasters like the growth of ISIS. Obama: Meets weekly to decide where the drones will kill people, without charge or trial (and without revealing who the targets are and what the success/failure was--and how much "collateral damage" there was in human lives.) Certainly the most lawless president we've had--and the most bloodthirsty.

    Oscarthe4th -> Tom Hoobler

    "The most lawless president . . . and the most bloodthirsty?" One need not support Obama to know that he's not even close the most bloodthirsty, or lawless. I strongly recommend you study Nixon, LBJ, and Reagan. Then drop back to Eisenhower and Guatemala to wrap up the bloody evening.

    Oscarthe4th -> David Murphy

    Glad we agree on LBJ.

    I was counting all blood, not simply American blood, which is what I thought the original post was doing. I would also count proxies, such as the Contra, because American aid was essential to them. I would not count the aid Reagan covertly provided Iraq, because that war would have been long and horrid in any event.

    The lawlessness question is more complex. Nixon and Reagan set up clandestine organizations that did not appear in any budget line, both of which performed illegal actions. (Nixon's was more serious because the Plumbers' actions related to domestic opponents.)

    Obama, like most other presidents in messy wars, has expanded the president's power, and I fully agree that he has gone beyond what is constitutional. For the most part, however, it has not been covert. That reduces some elements of the danger his acts pose, but not all.

    screendummie -> Kimo Krauthammer

    No, the Arab Spring happened after Obama was president. The Arab Spring occurred in 2011, first in Tunisia and then elsewhere throughout North Africa and the Middle East. The uprisings in Libya and Syria happened a couple years after Obama was president. Libya is a complete mess and a declared failed state because of Obama.

    Sarastro92 -> screendummie

    So are Yemen, Syria, Honduras and Ukraine ... all put in play during Obama's reign. But much of the credit goes to Hillary and the other war harpies in the Administration. Obama has tried to pull back from the brink.

    screendummie -> Sarastro92

    Special operation troops are in Syria. This has been reported numerous times. There was even a Congressional grilling of a general on our troops training Syrian fighters with the revelation that a half billion was spent training of 3 or 4 Syrian fighters. The officer grilled was Centcom commander, General Lloyd Austin back last year. You're blatantly ignorant of what's going on in the world.

    screendummie -> Sarastro92

    I hope you don't really believe 50 U.S. troops are only in Syria. I bet it's far greater. You have to remember they get rotated out. More than 50 troops have been deployed to Syria if they're being rotated. The troops in Jordan are supporting the combat mission. How is that any different? I'm curious how those 50 troops in Syria are fed and supported. Do they bring it all in themselves, or are more U.S. troops crossing in and out of Syria on a daily basis? If you really believe there are 50 U.S. troops in Syria, then you're really kidding yourself.

    There are several thousand troops now in Iraq. Before it was just 300. No, I'm not buying the advisor claim one bit.

    Obama did nothing to de-escalate the conflict in the Ukraine. The "somewhat" means you don't have any clue at all. It has to to more with Putin not wanting to conquer the entire Ukraine. The Ukrainians could have been initially defeated, but holding them down would be impossible.

    Davis Pruett -> Sarastro92

    >>>And the fact is the Foreign Policy Establishment is utterly mad; they're furious at Obama for not implementing their crazy militaristic schemes. Which is more or less the same story that Goldberg reports here in the Atlantic.

    More-or-less the general disposition reported by Goldberg - but minus a vast trove of key facts which he purposefully distorts and obscures.

    Sarastro92 -> David Murphy

    Bull. According to the State Department's neoCon Czarina for European Affairs, the US pumped $5 Billion into underwriting NGO agitation in Ukraine. Nuland herself was on the front-lines in the Maidan and picked out "our guy Yats" ... In fact, Congress has passed a motion to prevent further funds to the neo-Nazis in Kiev.

    Syria was invaded by a jihadi army largely armed by the US (part of the Benghazi affair involved the US Ambassador shipping weapons seized from Qaddafi to the Syrian jihadis via Turkey) and funded by US allies in the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.

    The French and Brits are culpable. Putin has changed the whole dynamic leading to a ceasefire and the demise of ISIS in Syria. But the whole thing can blow up at anytime.

    Your problem is that you read the CNN- NY Times propaganda and think you know something.

    David Murphy -> screendummie

    Can't exclude Cameron and Sarkozy from guilt over Libya. They sent in some special forces, dropped a few bombs and then moved on to other things. The arab spring was a grass-roots attempt to bring about democracy, which failed sadly.

    elHombre -> Kimo Krauthammer

    Really? Libya, Syria and ISIS were "debacles" when Obama took office? Really?

    And 23 up votes? The revisionist rubes are out in force on this one.

    Kimo Krauthammer -> hyphenatedamerican

    Everywhere the US treads we leave chaos and increased radicalism. Time for the US to get out now and let Putin wipe put ALL the terrorist vermin, even those we have been backing.

    Davis Pruett -> hyphenatedamerican

    >>>Putin is not fighting terrorists, he is fighting for Assad. Not the same thing.

    Russia - not "Putin" - is fighting to defend Syrians - not "Assad" - from terrorist aggressors.

    Apparently, you missed the part where a few weeks ago Syria and Russia offered a ceasefire and complete amnesty to any "revolutionaries" who are not associated with Al Qaida or ISIS.

    Currently, about 4,000 fighters of the 25,000 estimated (by the US) in Latakia province have laid down their weapons. Most of these have been re-deployed back into their original territories alongside Syrian Arab Army support units.

    That comes out to about 80% of the fighters in Syria are Al Qaida or ISIS-affiliated, and the *VAST* majority of these fighters are foreign mercenaries.

    So, long story short:

    You don't know what you're talking about. You are factually wrong, and should be ashamed for sounding off in public about something you have no knowledge of.

    azt24 -> Question

    By every objective measure, Iraq was in better shape in 2009 vs. 2016. There was no ISIS, no Christian or Yazidi genocide, no slave markets in 2009, and violence was a tiny fraction of what it is today. These are just facts.

    As for picking 2009 for a start date, the article is titled The Obama Doctrine. The subject is Obama, the topic is politics.

    David Murphy -> azt24

    Iraq's problem now are largely self-inflicted. The Shia majority decided to oppress the Sunni, and Al Qaeda and ISIS are sunni. A simple resolution to ISIS in the ME would have been for the Iraq government to act as a national government being fair to all not a partisan Shia government. Iran has been active in Iraq since Bush's day. Obama could achieve little in that benighted country, which was in a far better state before Bush led the attack on it.

    elHombre -> nubwaxer

    Acknowledgement of Obama's feckless, misguided foreign policy is not an endorsement of Bush's adventurism.

    Only Obamadupes can fail to appreciate the risks of Obama's one-sided, ego-assuaging Iran fiasco and Cuba-courting.

    Defense contractors employ people, but you probably believe we don't need the jobs.

    You are, indeed, an Obama nubwaxer.

    azt24 -> rswfire

    " I feel President Obama isn't someone who really seeks the spotlight"

    Surely you jest. No President has been more in love with the sound of own voice, or more given to "I-me-mine-I-me-mine" when talking. Because it's always about him. Like when he explained to Bibi Netanyahu that he understood the Middle East because he was raised by a single mom.

    If Obama has quieted down in recent years, I can only suppose that it must have become obvious even inside the WH bubble that it wasn't working -- people have completely tuned Obama out.

    TotoCatcher

    The Atlantic is removing comments from most of the articles. Why? I won't read here if they don't bring comments back.

    This story is booooring. So I don't have much to comment on it. Obama was just another Bush who was just another Clinton. NEXT!

    chris chuba

    This article clearly states that we DID start to arm and equip the rebels after 'several months' in 2011 via a CIA program. It is a myth that we did nothing in Syria.

    What ended up happening is exactly what Obama feared would happen. The farmers and doctors were supplanted by the foreign Jihadist groups that Turkey and Saudi Arabia were sponsoring. This was inevitable and the only thing that could have prevented that was an actual invasion and occupation of Syria which I in no way, shape or form endorse.

    Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power are engaging in pure speculation that starting this CIA program a few months earlier would have had a different outcome. Why so? This is nothing more than wishful thinking.

    Our real mistake was in not supporting the 2012 Geneva peace plan which called for post-civil war elections that would include Assad. We maintained an absolutist demand for 'Assad must go' so of course he and the people who depend on him, 50% to 60% of the population would soldier on.

    Hurrya -> EnderAK12

    Are we sure that there was ever a free Syrian army? The Free Syrian Army was a media concept and never had a significant presence on the ground.

    Thermite -> EnderAK12

    We were supporting the Free Syrian Army since 2011. Basically when it started.

    gtiger -> EnderAK12

    You talk about the FSA as it's a viable entity. At best it's a loose alliance of rebel groups of widely differing ideology. It's Libya part II.

    Fresh -> Guyzer

    American foreign policy has been a disaster since Kissinger. Neocons convinced many on the right it was a solid ideology. Many of you cheered when Reagan armed Al Qaeda, transferred weapons to Iran, terrorized Central/South America by arming death squads and displacing indigenous people to make way for large multinationals. And, to add insult to injury, you all cheered for Bush initiated torture on our soil (torture has been a tool for decades at black sites), created Guantanamo, started illegal wars, helped to foment a global economic system that is the equivalent of carpet bombing, especially as it relates to weaker or poorer countries; the list goes on.

    You're not wrong about Obama. He has embraced the same insanity, although, not to the same extent. Neoconservatism needs to die but gullible fools in both parties seem to embrace the insanity when their guy is in charge.

    Hillary supports the same ideology as Bush but you guys will pretend to hate her and Dems will now say her plans are great. It's Americans who allow this insanity to continue.

    Innes Mizner -> hyphenatedamerican

    They called the Mujahadeen back then, and Carter then Reagan created them, armed them and trained them. Even a certain Bin Laden.

    Innes Mizner -> azt24

    Afghans and Saudis including Bin Laden were first trained by the US, and then the UK. Read the link I attached, Carter started this mass bloodshed and he isn't the least repentant. Yeah, that sweet old peanut farmer is almost as bad as Hitler. Shucks.

    Innes Mizner -> azt24

    I have already provided background information and proof he and his crew were trained in Scotland.

    I assumed this was well known in the US, I mean before you invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

    A lot of the other articles have been buried, but the BBC one is good, and if you give me a while I will dig out an SAS officer discussing this.

    The Afghan Mujahideen were deported from their southern Scottish, and northern English, training grounds after the Lockerbie bombing. Nobody suspects them of being the cause of that crash, the biggest terrorist atrocity in the UK to date, but they were under the flight path and they were terrorists/freedom fighters training to down Soviet planes, so they were instantly deported to avoid media attention.

    Innes Mizner -> hyphenatedamerican link
    No, I'm claiming that the original fundamentalist Islamic extremist terrorist Mujadeen recruited by the CIA by Carter included Bin Laden's bodyguards and other Saudis.

    I know that because I'm Scottish, they were trained in Scotland.

    Guerrillas who protect US terror attack suspect Osama bin Laden were trained in Scotland, it has been alleged.

    There used to be other more informative media links available, but it's more difficult for 'them' to 'retire' a widely linked BBC report.

    Innes Mizner -> hyphenatedamerican link
    No, I think that individual died before "Al Qaeda".

    Are you aware "Al Qaeda" is a name assigned by western security agencies, they just adopted the name after we named them that?

    This was written by the British foreign secretary at the time, Robin Cook, someone who had access to all the MI6 and NSA and CIA files:

    Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.
    Innes Mizner -> Fresh
    "American foreign policy has been a disaster since Kissinger"

    I agree with your post but I'd roll it back 20 years. Kissinger extended the Vietnam debacle and extended it to create Pol Pot. A lot of Reagan's problems were clearing up his mess, and failing.

    Eisenhower, FDR, those guys I admire. New Dealers who knew what war was.

    CharlieSeattle -> Innes Mizner
    Did ja ever wonder why Reagan gets the teary e/RINO "neocon" accolades and not Eisenhower?

    Lets see...

    Reagan embraced the Military Industrial Complex. Eisenhower warned America about the dangers of the MIC corrupting the US government.

    Reagan granted amnesty to 3.5 million illegal aliens. Eisenhower deported them all after WWII in Operation Wet back.

    Reagan administration was #6th worst scandalous, worse than Obama. Eisenhower administration was #23rd worst scandalous, only because of VP Nixon!

    Face it, if Eisenhower was running for office today, the Reagan RINO "neocons" would KILL HIM!

    I am very glad Trump is not like Reagan.

    .............Trump/Eisenhower in 2016

    veerkg_23 -> Innes Mizner
    Pol Pot was a Chinese thing. The US supported the Royalists, whoever they were, in Cambodia. Mao decided he wanted a piece because he fear Soviet domination so formed the Khmer Rouge. Didn't turn out so well.
    Innes Mizner -> veerkg_23
    To begin with the Khmer Rouge were a local Nazi group that emerged from the ashes of Kissenger's cross border bombing. Then after they'd wiped out a third of their population neighbouring Vietnam invaded, ejected them and then retreated in one of the few genuine examples of military humanitarian interventions.

    The Chinese did hate the Vietnamese, so that annoyed them. But it annoyed Reagan more, because you yanks also had a big hang up about Vietnam kicking your arse.

    So Reagan sent in the Green Berets to train Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in guerilla tactics - and supply them with funds, weapons and diplomatic cover.

    Then Iran-Contra broke, Reagan sacrificed Ollie North on that bonfire, withdrew the Green Berets from Cambodia, and instead persuaded Maggie Thatcher to send in the SAS to support the Khmer Rouge.

    Now say what you want about Thatcher, but she was never a liar. She sent the SAS in and boasted about her support for the Khmer Rouge on 'Blue Peter', a British childrens TV programme.

    None of that is widely known in the US, I know, but I can provide supporting links that prove what I've claimed here if you ask for any.

    Innes Mizner -> hyphenatedamerican
    Sigh.

    Stop me when you have have read enough of my links, or when you need an explanation. I can go on and on without mentioning Chomsky.

    Kris -> Innes Mizner link
    Thanks, Innes. If it's not too much trouble, I'd like a link or two to read more about this, particularly US involvement.
    Innes Mizner -> Kris link
    NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, Daniele Ganser, 2005 Cass Press.

    In yet another top-secret operation US Green Berets trained genocidal Khmer Rouge units in Cambodia after contact was established between Ray Cline, senior CIA agent and Steve Arnold, special adviser to US President Reagan. When the Iran Contra scandal got under way in 1983, President Reagan, fearing another unpleasant exposure, asked British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to take over. She sent the SAS to train Pol Pot forces. 'We first went to Thailand in 1984' senior officials of the SAS (British equivalent of CIA) later testified, 'The Yanks and us work together; we're close like brothers they didn't like it anymore than we did. We trained the Khmer Rouge in a lot of technical stuff', the officer remembers. 'At first they wanted to go into the villages and just chop people up. We told them go easy'. The SAS felt uneasy with the operation and a lot of us would change sides given half a chance. That's how

    Innes Mizner -> Kris
    The Long Secret Alliance: Uncle Sam and Pol Pot, John Pilger, Covert Action Quarterly Fall 1997

    Plus PDF

    [Mar 12, 2016] Edward Snowden Interview on Apple vs. FBI, Privacy, the NSA, and More

    Video... Go here for full transcript http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/02/25...
    Notable quotes:
    "... And he reminds us that governments also have unprecedented potential to surveil their populations at a moment's notice, without anyone ever realizing what's happening. ..."
    www.youtube.com

    "There's a very real difference between allegiance to country–allegiance to people–than allegiance to state, which is what nationalism today is really more about," says Edward Snowden. On February 20, the whistleblowing cybersecurity expert addressed a wide range of questions during an in-depth interview with Reason's Nick Gillespie at Liberty Forum, a gathering of the Free State Project (FSP) in Manchester, New Hampshire.

    FSP seeks to move 20,000 people over the next five years to New Hampshire, where they will secure "liberty in our lifetime" by affecting the political, economic, and cultural climate of the state. Over 1,900 members have already migrated to the state and their impact is already being felt. Among their achievements to date:

    getting 15 of their brethren in the state House, challenging anti-ridehail laws, fighting in court for outre religious liberty, winning legal battles over taping cops, being mocked by Colbert for heroically paying off people's parking meters, hosting cool anything goes festivals for libertarians, nullifying pot juries, and inducing occasional pants-wetting absurd paranoia in local statists.

    Snowden's cautionary tale about the the dangers of state surveillance wasn't lost on his audience of libertarians and anarchists who reside in the "Live Free or Die" state. He believes that technology has given rise to unprecedented freedom for individuals around the world-but he says so from an undisclosed location in authoritarian Russia.

    And he reminds us that governments also have unprecedented potential to surveil their populations at a moment's notice, without anyone ever realizing what's happening.

    "They know more about us than they ever have in the history of the United States," Snowden warns. "They're excusing themselves from accountability to us at the same time they're trying to exert greater power over us."

    In the midst of a fiercely contested presidential race, Snowden remains steadfast in his distrust of partisan politics and declined to endorse any particular candidate or party, or even to label his beliefs. "I do see sort of a clear distinction between people who have a larger faith in liberties and rights than they do in states and institutions," he grants. "And this would be sort of the authoritarian/libertarian axis in the traditional sense. And I do think it's clear that if you believe in the progressive liberal tradition, which is that people should have greater capability to act freely, to make their own choices, to enjoy a better and freer life over the progression of sort of human life, you're going to be pushing away from that authoritarian axis at all times."

    Snowden drews laughs when asked if he was eligible to vote via absentee ballot. "This is still a topic of...active research," he deadpans.

    But he stresses that the U.S. government can win back trust and confidence through rigorous accountability to citizens and by living up to the ideals on which the country was founded. "We don't want Russia or China or North Korea or Iran or France or Germany or Brazil or any other country in the world to hold us up as an example for why we should be narrowing the boundaries of liberty around the world instead of expanding them," says Snowden.

    Runs about 50 minutes.

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    0:00 - Edward Snowden, welcome to New Hampshire. Meet the Free State Project.

    0:53 - Apple vs. the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Why should strong encryption be legal?

    5:02 - Is privacy dead? Should we just get over it?

    10:48 - What would a legal and effective government surveillance program look like?

    14:53 - Could we have stopped the slide into mass surveillance? Shouldn't we have seen it coming?

    19:04 - How can government earn back the trust and confidence of the American people?

    21:40 - What's wrong with our political parties?

    24:27 - What are Snowden's political beliefs? Is he a libertarian?

    26:27 - How did Snowden educate himself? Is he helped or hurt by his lack of formal education?

    28:48 - Why did Snowden see bulk surveillance differently than his NSA co-workers?

    33:03 - Was the NSA involved in gathering evidence against Ross Ulbricht?

    35:39 - Will the government eventually give up fighting internet commerce? Or will they just change tactics?

    37:32 - How can Snowden advocate freedom from a place like Russia?

    41:00 - How should we teach children about the Internet?

    43:43 - Under what conditions would Snowden return to the United States?

    Go here for full transcript, downloadable versions, and more links and videos: http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/02/25...

    Produced by Todd Krainin and Nick Gillespie. Cameras by Meredith Bragg and Krainin.

    Visit http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/02/22... for full text, links, and downloadable versions. And subscribe to Reason TV to be notified when new videos are released.

    jabbermocky
    As an analytical thinker, communicator and recovering professional journalist, I can thoroughly appreciate Ed Snowden's take on the benefits of using pseudonyms when releasing potentially incendiary ideas to the greater population. Fairly sure we both know that no critical thinking goes unpunished in America these days. Mission 1: Stay safe!

    Michael O'Rourke

    Being a former Army Ranger I find it difficult to understand how Americans support the Right to bear Arms but not the Right of Free speech and Privacy of communication. all three amendments have equal rights. While I don't agree with how Snowden leaked the 1984 Surveillance Corporations, I'm glad he did. Sua sponte, Uncle Mike

    Robert Van Tuinen2

    I am. the government intentionally hid this information and discredited and fire previous whistleblowers. What he did was right and necessary.

    Q Queuenstein

    "We want a government that is...small...and legitimate". SPEAK FOR YOURSELF! GOVERNMENT IS THE OPPOSITE OF LEGITIMATE. Government is a monopoly on violent coercive force, no matter how small. "Representing the people" is impossible without perpetrating evil on a large percentage. Demand 100% voluntary interaction now. No government=no rulers. We are not a government of law when The Constitution is up for "interpretation". The government is the biggest breach of contract and coersive force ever perpetrated on people. It's historical existance does not argue for its continued existance. Think: zero coersion. Pessimistic? Me too, but look at the social change enabled by digital communication. Look at the Free State Project, Look at cryptography; We may at least find a piece of freedom in this world of coersion and distrust. Things are bad but we are bound to hit bottom. Please applause.j/k.

    robinbuster

    amazing! This person's value system, sense of morality, loyalty to humanity and liberty is admirable. The people are starving for politicians with that kind of ethos. I wish Ron Paul run for president. I kinda like Bernie Sanders most out of the options offered in this election.

    Vlad Ratzen2

    snowden said "im an engineer not a politican". when you listen to Ed Snowden, you must recognize that he is in fact a great philosopher.

    when i listen to his answers when he was asked about the apple case. the things he said are exactly right without a single flaw in his descriptions. he described every single aspect and he showed us by doing that, what the apple case is really all about.

    he points out: it is important to make sure that a goverment does not allow backdors in encryption, but we have also to accept the reality that we are simply unable to protect us against the NSA surveillance apparatus. again snowden talks about NSAs (in my opinion) the very dangerous ability to store all communication data in advance. by the way: Russ Tice said more then once "they store everything indefinitely".

    what Snowden said about the apple case destroys the sophisticated narrative the media has created on purpose to suggest that surveillance can be avoided somehow. there is a nice article on reason.com talking in detail about the Apple case, and how it was planned well in advance.

    if i had a single chance to ask mr snowden one question i would ask him "Mr Snowden, do you believe what the goverment has told us about 9/11"? i am sure there was enough time for mr snowden to listen to a guy named David Chandler, or to take a look at the movie "HYPOTHESIS" for example.

    it might be interesting to watch his reaction.

    Fork Unsa1

    If EVERY gubermant agency had ONE person with BALLS like Snowden and told the truth about tyranny the American people (not to be confused with it's slimeball government) would be on the good path to taking our Republic back. Those who perform unconstitutional tasks, or enforce unconstitutional laws against their fellow Americans are TRAITORS and the modern day equivalent to Hitlers SS.

    dman john2

    Edward Snowden is a gifted outlier, born with genius brain. How I wish to be born with such mind.

    [Mar 12, 2016] Edward Snowden Speaks Out: I will not be able to return form exile

    Video... on 12.30 some assessment of Hilary email scandals. he think that she should face criminal procecution for mishanding emails while being Secretery State...
    www.youtube.com

    UPDATE 9/05/2015: In a rare exclusive interview from Russia, Edward Snowden states he would come back to the United States if he was guaranteed a fair trial. A fair trial is unlikely says ex-whistle-blower, Daniel Ellsberg. He would not be allowed to confront his accusers. He would not be allowed to testify in front of a jury. It would be like a closed military tribunal, and he would be locked up with no detailed press coverage.

    tags: update, edward snowden, hillary clinton, whistle blower, NSA, barack obama

    [Mar 11, 2016] Ron Paul thinks that some of the top candidates want to carpet bomb the world

    www.mintpressnews.com

    ... ... ...

    Paul's criticism of the presidential contenders didn't stop with Sanders and Trump.

    "From a libertarian viewpoint, there is absolutely no meaningful difference between Hillary and Trump," he emphatically remarked. "I mean, they both support [the] military-industrial complex, the federal reserve, deficits, entitlements, invasion of our privacy."

    Indeed, Paul summarized the absurdity of the 2016 election platforms, saying, "It's super-nationalistic populism versus socialism. That is so remote from what we need to be doing - we need to be moving ourselves away from tyranny toward liberty."

    Asked if he would be endorsing any candidates, Paul explained there isn't a single person left in the race who fits libertarian ideals of limiting government and protecting individual liberties.

    "Some of the top candidates want to carpet bomb the world," he said, shaking his head in disbelief. "No, a libertarian can't endorse this authoritarian approach."

    leslymill • 4 days ago

    I was a Ron Paul delegate and he is wrong. Trump in NOT for allowing my property, town, county, state or country to be overrun by lawless un-American criminals. I agree Trump is not a liberty candidate in many many ways that have me concerned. I am afraid Trump is out for power as much as to make america great again. I hope we force him to be surrounded by strong minded Constitutional conservatives, cause he is a much better person to take the oath of office than Hitlery Clinton.I will always listen to Ron Paul he is wiser than I am but here I don't completely agree. He is just disgusted. I am disgusted because many of us see our country going down and know Ron was the only one to fix it. Now all we can do is influence candidates with his way of Paulatics.

    imsharon • 7 days ago

    I do like Ron Paul in spite of the fact that I do NOT agree with his summation in regard to "what we need to be doing". As to his belief that we need to be limiting government, Paul is more Conservative Republican than he spouts. In my view, limiting Government is exactly what the GOP is about...replacing it with Corporate Power and total Control of our country, which has already gained a strong foothold.

    colram -> imsharon • 5 days ago

    For his entire career, Ron Paul has fought for the power of individuals to determine their own fate, without control by governments or corporations. The GOP is owned by corporations just as the democratic party is. Time for them to lose the power.

    [Mar 10, 2016] War Is A Drug Images From The Eerie Syrian Ceasefire Zero Hedge

    www.zerohedge.com

    Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.
    Oxford University Press. (2015)
    www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296422.001.0001...

    Chin up, boys. Like Lt. Lockhart said in Full Metal Jacket: "In other words, it's a huge shit sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite."

    Life will not get any better, or at least much better, than it is already. And it's likely to get a whole lot worse tomorrow. There is true freedom in realizing that. The strength in personality is to grok the horrors of reality without retreating to the comfort of fantasy stories . Most aren't up to the task.

    "The irony of man's condition is that the deepest need is to be free of the anxiety of death and annihilation; but it is life itself which awakens it, and so we must shrink from being fully alive."
    -
    Ernest Becker
    The Denial of Death

  • Login or register to post comments
  • Father Thyme , |

    "A Civilization is a dominant community that imposes its beliefs upon all other communities by violence, which must involve the use of genocide; so any community that recoils from inflicting genocide will suffer genocide."

    Philip Atkinson www.ourcivilisation.com

    Its war. Who wins? The winner. For what that's worth.

    It's worth life. For what that's worth.

    Father Thyme , |

    It's not a bad thing...

    Humans are neither good nor bad. Really.

    The best essay I've ever seen on the philosophical question of good/evil comes from an anarchist...and you know what I think of anarchist. (Im still willing to learn from my lessors.)

    Are humans essentially good, or essentially evil? This is one of the most basic, perennial questions in philosophy. Many identify our individual answers to this question as determing our political spectrum - conservatives believe humans are inherently evil, and require strict rules to make them good, while liberals believe humans are inherently good, and must simply be free to act on such goodness. Both positions are unrealistic. Humans are products of evolution, and evolution is unconcerned with such abstractions as "good" or "evil." As Aristotle said, humans are social animals. We are neither "good" nor "evil." We are only inherently social.

    Thesis #5: Humans are neither good nor evil.
    The Thirty Theses
    http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jason-godesky-thirty-theses

    SteveNYC , |

    "How much can you know about yourself, if you've never been in a fight?"

    Father Thyme , |

    We're all in a fight, if you...

    "Think about it. We all start out the same way... a single sperm among 50 million other sperm, all desperate to get to one egg. To win. You, me, everyone else on the planet ever in history, we all won that 100-meter in-utero, winner-take-all race to mama's enchanted, life-giving egg. First prize? Life? Second prize? Death. Right. Now, you think we weren't throwing a few elbows? You think you weren't knocking a few other sperm over, stabbing 'em in the back just to get ahead, just to win? Thom, you don't win that kind of race without being an asshole. I mean, a huge asshole. Your problem is you think that assholes are some sort of anomaly, some sort of aberration. Nature is an asshole factory, my friend. If you exist, you're an asshole. You think, therefore you are, but you are, therefore you're an asshole."
    -
    Nature is an asshole making factory
    Happyish
    Showtime, 2015
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGjTHtPn_No

    new game , |

    merica is the destabilizing force , ongoing, as soon as order and boundries get established like wolves do, we will re-arrive on command from a secret message from our higher powers and stir the hornets nests. then we can claim democracy is in progress once again. now do you understand?

    THE SOLUTION IS... , |

    I am almost certain that at least some on the ground are more than aware of who orchestrated this nightmare (hell some probably get patched up in Israeli hospitals)...but I bet they are more concerned with the bastards shooting at them right now. However, it is certain that whatever the result of this mess, Israel has not made many new friends in the region...but once you realise that the whole purpose of Israel is to remain a weeping sore in the most resource rich region on earth everything starts to make sense.

    Israel is supposed to be a nightmare apartheid weapons testing ground murdering kids everyday. That way the Rothschild central bank owners in the three city states that comprise the City of London, Washington DC and the Vatican can extract resources from the surrounding countries for pennies on the dollar!!! The plan works perfectly when you think like a diabolical psychopath. If anything the poor Jewish people comprise a useful scapegoat that can at anytime be ditched and blamed once the resources in the region become depleted or the global economy moves beyond petroleum products. Israel is a vital lynchpin of the petrodollar like Saudi Arabia. I am actually quite sure that once supporting it is no longer profitable to the "west" it will be cut adrift. In fact, I believe that barring any Zionist plots, this process has already begun with the Iran deal. If oil becomes redundant or abundant in the next few centuries I actually expect the Israelis themselves will push for a peace deal before they get pushed into the sea. Any thoughts?

    THE SOLUTION IS... , |

    In fact, I would go so far as to say that Israel is a classic British colonial project. We British are renowned for transplanting foreigners into other peoples lands and hoovering up the resources that fall out of the inevitable bust up!! Just look at the Sri Lankan mess we made by importing Indians of a different religion to work the tea plantations...It caused a bloody nightmare for over a century whilst we extracted Ceylon's finest...It is kind of depressing when you think about how well it worked. Thankfully the Sri Lankans kicked us out once the jig was up but the damage it caused continued for decades after we left. Disgraceful really.

    TahoeBilly2012 , |

    Israel is a Rothchild backup State in case they ever got booted outta Europe.

    Kaleb , |

    Geepers, whose propoganda book did you pull this mess from? And as far as he US backing away from Israel, you're right on that one. But...its because of that Dangling Dingbat with a Loose Wingnut we got in DC and his slightly confused and murdering self destructing administration that's doing it. Not the "We the people" or is that "we the folk"

    [Mar 10, 2016] Dear Ms. Merkel, Be Careful What You Wish For Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... So now Greece has to accommodate ever more refugees because all borders close, something Greece cannot afford since the bailout talks left it incapable of even looking after its own people, while over the next ten days it can expect a surge of 'new' refugees to arrive from Turkey, afraid they'll be stuck there after a deal is done. Greece will become a "holding pen", and the refugees will be the livestock. A warehouse of souls, a concentration camp. ..."
    "... Refugees from war -torn countries are per definition not 'illegal'. What is illegal, on the other hand, is to refuse them asylum. So all the talk about 'illegal migrants' emanating from shills like Donald Tusk is at best highly questionable. The freshly introduced term 'irregular migrants' is beyond the moral pale. ..."
    "... In that same terminology vein, the idea that Turkey is a 'safe third country', as the EU so desperately wants to claim, is downright crazy. That is not for the EU to decide, if only because it has -again, immoral- skin in the game. ..."
    "... All this terminology manipulation, ironically, plays into the hands of the very right wing movements that Angela Merkel fears losing this weekend's elections to. They create a false picture and atmosphere incumbent 'leaders' try to use to hold on to power, but it will end up making them lose that power. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them… well, I have others."

    – Groucho Marx

    What is perhaps most remarkable about the deal the EU is trying to seal with Turkey to push back ALL refugees who come to Greece is that the driving force behind it turns out to be Angela Merkel. Reports say that she and temp EU chairman Dutch PM Mark Rutte 'pushed back' the entire EU delegation that had been working on the case, including Juncker and Tusk, and came with proposals that go much further than even Brussels had in mind.

    Why? Angela has elections this weekend she's afraid to lose.

    It's also remarkable that the deal with the devil they came up with is fraught with so many legal uncertainties -it not outright impossibilities- that it's highly unlikely the deal will ever be closed, let alone implemented. One thing they will have achieved is that refugees will arrive in much larger numbers over the next ten days, before a sequel meeting will be held, afraid as they will be to be pushed back after that date.

    They may not have to be so scared of that, because anything remotely like what was agreed on will face so many legal challenges it may be DOA. Moreover, in the one-for-one format that is on the table, Europe would be forced to accept as many refugees from Turkey as it pushes back to that country. Have Merkel and Rutte realized this? Or do they think they can refuse that later, or slow it down?

    Under the deal, Turkey seems to have little incentive to prevent refugees from sailing to Greece. Because for every one who sails and returns, Turkey can send one to Europe. What if that comes to a million, or two, three? The numbers of refugees in Turkey will remain the same, while the number in Europe will keep growing ad infinitum.

    * * *

    Sweet Jesus, Angela, we understand you have problems with the refugee situation, and that you have elections coming up this weekend, but what made you think the answer can be found in playing fast and loose with the law? And what, for that matter, do you expect to gain from negotiating a Faustian deal with the devil? Surely you know that makes you lose your soul?

    You said yesterday that history won't look kindly on the EU if it fails on refugees, but how do you think history will look on you for trying to sign a deal that violates various international laws, including the Geneva Conventions? You have this aura of being kinder than most of Europe to the refugees, but then you go and sell them out to a guy who aids ISIS, massacres Kurds, shuts down all the media he doesn't like and makes a killing smuggling refugees to Greece?

    Or are we getting this backwards, and are you shrewdly aware that the elections come before the next meeting with Turkey, and are you already planning to ditch the entire deal once the elections are done, or have your legal team assured you that there's no way it will pass the court challenges it will inevitably provoke?

    It would be smart if that's the case, but it's also quite dark: we are still talking about human beings here, of which hundreds of thousands have already died in the countries the living are fleeing, or during their flight (and we don't mean by plane), and tens of thousands -and counting, fast- are already stuck in Greece, with one country after the other closing their borders after the -potential- deal became public knowledge.

    So now Greece has to accommodate ever more refugees because all borders close, something Greece cannot afford since the bailout talks left it incapable of even looking after its own people, while over the next ten days it can expect a surge of 'new' refugees to arrive from Turkey, afraid they'll be stuck there after a deal is done. Greece will become a "holding pen", and the refugees will be the livestock. A warehouse of souls, a concentration camp.

    The circumstances under which these human beings have been forced to flee their homes, to travel thousands of miles, and now to try and stay alive in Greece, are already way below morally acceptable. Just look at Idomeni! You should do all you can to improve their conditions, not to risk making them worse. Where and how you do that is another matter, but the principle should stand.

    You should be in Greece right now, Angela, asking Tsipras how you can help him with this unfolding mayhem, how much money he needs and what other resources you can offer. Instead, Athens today hosts the Troika and Victoria "F**k the EU" Nuland. That is so completely insane it can't escape the protagonists themselves either.

    * * *

    Refugees from war -torn countries are per definition not 'illegal'. What is illegal, on the other hand, is to refuse them asylum. So all the talk about 'illegal migrants' emanating from shills like Donald Tusk is at best highly questionable. The freshly introduced term 'irregular migrants' is beyond the moral pale.

    As is the emphasis on using the term 'migrant' versus 'refugee' that both European politicians and the international press are increasingly exhibiting, because it is nothing but a cheap attempt to influence public opinion while at the same time throwing desperate people's legal status into doubt.

    What their status is must be decided by appropriate legal entities, not by reporters or politicians seeking to use the confusion of the terms for their own personal benefit. And numbers show time and again that most of the people (93% in February GRAPH) arriving in Greece come from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, all war-torn, and must therefore be defined as 'refugees' under international law. It is really that simple. Anything else is hot air. Trying to redefine the terminology on the fly is immoral.

    In that same terminology vein, the idea that Turkey is a 'safe third country', as the EU so desperately wants to claim, is downright crazy. That is not for the EU to decide, if only because it has -again, immoral- skin in the game.

    All this terminology manipulation, ironically, plays into the hands of the very right wing movements that Angela Merkel fears losing this weekend's elections to. They create a false picture and atmosphere incumbent 'leaders' try to use to hold on to power, but it will end up making them lose that power.

    * * *

    The funniest, though also potentially most disruptive, consequence of the proposed deal may well be that the visa requirements for the 75 million Turks to travel to Europe are to be abandoned in June, just 3 months away, giving them full Schengen privileges. Funny, because that raises the option of millions of Turkish people fleeing the Erdogan regime travelling to Europe as refugees, and doing it in a way that no-one can call illegal.

    There may be as many as 20 million Kurds living in Turkey, and Erdogan has for all intents and purposes declared war on all of them. How about if half of them decide to start a new life in Europe? Can't very well send them back to 'safe third country' Turkey.

    Be careful what you wish for, Angela.

    [Mar 10, 2016] Using a decent VPN for everything is rapidly becoming a must.

    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Jason , March 7, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    Using a decent VPN for everything is rapidly becoming a must. It probably won't protect you from the NSA, but it will do the job of protecting you from your own ISP.

    That you have to protect yourself from your ISP is becoming just one more part of the sad reality that is the modern United States.

    Reply

    NeqNeq , March 7, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    +1 to the VPNs.

    I would say Tor is about as good except that Google, Akami, and Cloudflare sites (cough NC cough) regularly block Tor exit nodes. Still, you get a little more hardening using Tor browser than other browsers (using defaults).

    bob , March 7, 2016 at 6:24 pm

    "Verizon Wireless" Even if it were possible to use a VPN with a phone, it would still be affected. It's a MITM (man in the middle) attack.

    The story talks about verizon wireless, not what would be called an ISP by most people- home internet. Fios, time warner, Comcast…etc

    Tor? Hahahahahahaha

    Jump right into that military intel briar patch, for security®.

    NeqNeq , March 7, 2016 at 6:53 pm

    Umm… I am not sure if you confusing VPN with something else, but yes. Its trivially easy to use VPN with almost any smartphone.

    As for Tor: i agree that State sponsor surveillance is still a risk, but as noted above, the topic was ISPs (and i mentioned websites). When you use a phone, your carrier acts as the ISP.

    Reply

    NeqNeq , March 7, 2016 at 7:02 pm

    Oh and for those who might care…

    The header with your unique identifier can be scrubbed out when your using a VPN. Verizon only sees that you "went" to the VPN address…all sites you visit see you as coming from the VPN address. Neither the two shall meet without further snooping (which is not covered by the injection Verizon does…that we know of).

    Pat , March 7, 2016 at 3:59 pm

    Damn, I knew I should have gone through the process to remove the drm from my e books. I might have to look into doing that immediately. But first I should check how my couple of nook newstand subscriptions will be handled.

    Whew, I have time. That is in the UK. Still a good warning shot over the bow…

    Benedict@Large , March 7, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    "… But U.S. critics say that could allow foreign companies to use the agreement to invalidate U.S. safety rules and regulations."

    One thing no one much mentions is that the TPP allows foreign corporations the ability to sue to invalidate regulations, but does not all local corporations the same. In this, TPP privileges foreign over local production, and ensures a race to the bottom on product place of origin.

    hunkerdown , March 7, 2016 at 7:40 pm

    "A Party may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their
    territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public
    or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid
    serious prejudice to nature or the environment, provided that such exclusion is not
    made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by its law."

    I thought I saw the word morality some place else in the TPP, but apparently, the IP chapter was the only place. Bad research on my part! In any case, beware the ratchet clauses and the enemies within, lest your health system become just "Canadian™" enough for the world market.

    [Mar 10, 2016] Do you remember five men being arrested by NYPD on 9-11 for filming and celebrating the attacks

    www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    Submitted by hedgeless_horseman on 03/08/2016 13:14 -0500

    disbelief
    - noun - dis·be·lief \?dis-b?-?l?f\
    : a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real.

    >

    I cringe every time I see a, "9-11 Never Forget," bumper sticker, t-shirt, or beer coozie. I sigh and say to myself, "How can you never forget what you never knew?"

    There are many conspiracy theories surrounding 9-11, but this article focuses on just one conspiracy fact. The FBI released the, "Five Dancing Israelis," that were arrested by the NYPD on 9-11 for filming and celebrating the attacks on the WTC and driving around in a van that tested positive for explosives. These were admitted Mossad agents working undercover in the USA.

    Here is an interesting exercise that I invite all zerohedge readers to try. The next several times that you engage someone in a conversation, preferably a politician running for office , ask the following questions.

    Do you remember anything about five Middle Eastern men being arrested by the NYPD on 9-11 for filming and celebrating the attacks on the WTC and driving around Manhattan in a van that tested positive for explosives...these were admitted foreign intelligence agents working undercover in the USA?

    In asking this question dozens of times, most recently in a conversation with two rabbis at one of the five Holocaust Museums in Texas, I have personally never, not once, had a person answer yes.

    However, if they do answer yes to you, then ask if they recall what nation the men were from. I would be shocked to hear any American say, "Israel."

    If they answer no, tell them they were Israeli Mossad agents, and ask if that helps them to remember.

    Again, I have never had anyone say that they knew anything about what I was talking about. Not once, not in any city, nor in any state of the USA. If the conversation does continue, what I do hear, almost exclusively, is utter disbelief that what I am saying is true.

    But it is true.

    Now, consider that since 9-11, the USA has invaded and occupied what was once the sovereign nation of Afghanistan for almost 15 years and counting, allegedly due to the role it played in 9-11. We have spent billions upon billions of dollars and killed tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands, in this war effort.

    A girl who was burned beyond recognition by a U.S. drone in Afghanistan and left for dead in a trashcan before she had to undergo reconstructive surgery. The chemicals in the missiles burn so hot they can light a tank on fire, but this is somehow different from the chemical warfare allegedly waged by our enemy...

    Hellfire thermobaric warhead using a metal augmented explosive charge is used primarily in urban warfare, against bunkers, buildings caves and other concealed targets. This warhead is designed to inflict greater damage in multi-room structures, compared to the Hellfire's standard or blast-fragmentation warheads. The Metal Augmented Charge or MAC (Thermobaric) Hellfire, designated AGM-114N, has completed rapid development cycle in 2002 and was deployed during OIF by US Marines Helicopters in Iraq. The new warhead contains a fluorinated aluminum powder that is layered between the warhead casing and the PBXN-112 explosive fill. When the explosive detonates, the aluminum mixture is dispersed and rapidly burns. The resultant sustained high pressure is extremely effective against enemy personnel and structures. The AGM-114N is designed for deployment from helicopters such as the AH-1W or UAVs such as the Predator drones.

    http://defense-update.com/products/h/hellfire.htm

    I hear that more US soldiers serving in Afghanistan now die from suicide than are killed by the Afghanis, in what is now the longest war in American history . Yet, we are now in our third Presidential election in the USA since 9-11 and the occupation of Afghanistan, and the candidates aren't talking about any of this, and the Fourth Estate sure as hell isn't asking any questions.

    Why?

    Don't you want to know how the Presidential candidates feel about the fact that the FBI released the Five Dancing Israelis? What about your congressmen and senators? Don't you want to know how our nation can imprison Afghanis in Guantanamo Bay, without trial, and torture them for information regarding 9-11... for more than a decade ...yet the FBI released the Five Dancing Israelis to fly back to Israel and do television interviews .

    If our politicians respond with disbelief, like everyone else I have ever asked, then what does that tell us?

    If nobody from the Fourth Estate ever asks them these questions, then what does that tell us?

    If you are afraid to engage people with this type of conversation, then please read my article: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-06/hedgelesshorsemans-revolutionar...

    Never forget: War is a racket!

    [Mar 09, 2016] Article Obama. Putin and the U.S. Election

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Russians have cooperated with the U.S. on the Iran deal and in trying to bring about a truce in Syria (their intervention was provoked by CIA "covert" weapons deals with jihadists against their ally Assad, the legally UN-recognized government), and in calming down the situation in Ukraine by a cease fire (another intervention initiated by the U.S.- E.U. role in overthrowing the legally elected government in that country and the installation of an ultraright-wing anti-Russian regime. ..."
    "... Cohen says the mass media in the U.S. attributes all these international problems to Russian aggression and to Putin's megalomania ["Putin's Russia"]. So while we play around with farcical political debates and a news media that misinforms rather than informs, Obama stealthily builds up the aggressive capabilities of U.S. imperialism and, consciously or unconsciously, further endangers the peace of the world and the future of humanity. ..."
    "... The Left is falling down on the job of warning the working class of the dangers it faces in the coming election. HRC has wrapped herself in the Obama legacy and will no doubt continue the march towards more wars and military adventures that the U.S. has embarked upon ever since Korea. The Republican candidates are no different in this respect. Whoever wins in November, the big losers will be the working class and the minorities who will continue to be abused and exploited by the U.S. ruling establishment. ..."
    "... This military build-up is part of the profit-generating foreign policy of the military-industrial complex. It justifies the transfer of billions of dollars in "defense" spending to the private coffers of the 1%. What are the chances that HRC will adopt a pro-peace agenda and come out against the U.S.- NATO build-up in Europe? Sanders is also weak on this issue but he can be more easily pressured to change, as cutting the military budget frees up money for the progressive changes to reduce income inequality that he favors and he is not beholden to the establishment. What is to be done? ..."
    Mar 07, 2016 | OpEdNews

    Why is Obama deliberately stirring up old Cold War tensions with Russia by ordering saber-rattling by the Pentagon and our puppet military alliance Nato? Professor Steven Cohen, writing in The Nation (2-29-16), says Obama is escalating the tensions with Russia in an unprecedented manner not seen since the days of Nazi Germany. These hostile actions are being basically ignored by the mass media and none of the presidential candidates in either party have addressed them in the debates except indirectly (Sanders and Clinton supporting NATO, Trump mentioning he wants to make a "deal" with Putin).

    The issue is Obama's decision to increase by 400% military expenditures and deployments on or near the Russian border by the U.S. and NATO. Such a huge concentration of Western military power on the Russian border has not been seen in modern times -- not even at the height of the Cold War. Cohen says Russia will have to respond by its own build-up including the positioning of advanced missiles. Thus the whole of Eastern Europe will become a tinderbox, increasing the probability of a regional war or worse if some minor incident flares up.

    This is, I might add, wholly unnecessary and reckless behavior on the part of Obama and his generals (the type of behavior a future President Cruz or Rubio are characterized of being capable of initiating). Why is this coming at the very time Russia is trying to de-escalate tensions with the U.S.?

    The Russians have cooperated with the U.S. on the Iran deal and in trying to bring about a truce in Syria (their intervention was provoked by CIA "covert" weapons deals with jihadists against their ally Assad, the legally UN-recognized government), and in calming down the situation in Ukraine by a cease fire (another intervention initiated by the U.S.- E.U. role in overthrowing the legally elected government in that country and the installation of an ultraright-wing anti-Russian regime.

    Cohen says the mass media in the U.S. attributes all these international problems to Russian aggression and to Putin's megalomania ["Putin's Russia"]. So while we play around with farcical political debates and a news media that misinforms rather than informs, Obama stealthily builds up the aggressive capabilities of U.S. imperialism and, consciously or unconsciously, further endangers the peace of the world and the future of humanity.

    The Left is falling down on the job of warning the working class of the dangers it faces in the coming election. HRC has wrapped herself in the Obama legacy and will no doubt continue the march towards more wars and military adventures that the U.S. has embarked upon ever since Korea. The Republican candidates are no different in this respect. Whoever wins in November, the big losers will be the working class and the minorities who will continue to be abused and exploited by the U.S. ruling establishment.

    The Left has, however, done its duty in one respect. There is a slight possibility the dire consequences enumerated above could be avoided or alleviated and that would be the election of Bernie Sanders as president. This event would open up progressive political action outside of the control of the establishment and could lead to a democratic renaissance in the U.S. The Left - Progressive movement has solidly backed Sanders (aside from some fringe elements). Unfortunately, the Left cannot agree on a Plan B. HRC's election would be a victory for the establishment and there is no third party that the Left is willing to unite behind.

    This military build-up is part of the profit-generating foreign policy of the military-industrial complex. It justifies the transfer of billions of dollars in "defense" spending to the private coffers of the 1%. What are the chances that HRC will adopt a pro-peace agenda and come out against the U.S.- NATO build-up in Europe? Sanders is also weak on this issue but he can be more easily pressured to change, as cutting the military budget frees up money for the progressive changes to reduce income inequality that he favors and he is not beholden to the establishment. What is to be done?

    Born Lake Worth, FL 1942. Educated FSU and Graduate Center CUNY. Currently teaching philosophy in NYC. Associate editor of Political Affairs online.

    [Mar 07, 2016] The Danger Of Media Blackout Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Of particular importance here is the term, "legitimate interests." With this term, the doctrine reveals that its goal is the suppression of other nations, regardless of whether their ambitions are reasonable or not. All that matters is US hegemony over the world. ..."
    "... Second, the sociopathic goals of those in power are a clear and present danger to the peace and well-being of the population. ..."
    "... "to combat and prevent Russian aggression." is merely NATO double-speak for... "To combat a Russian Counter-Attack to our First Strike to a National Coup. Bellarus is next. The boa-like encirclement of the USSR, er, I mean Russia , will continue." ..."
    "... Unfortunately for the war-makers, the game is up. More and more people have woken up to the lies. NATO has overplayed its hand, and its propaganda is just not believed any more. ..."
    "... WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. ..."
    "... The imperialism of the United States began well before Paul Wolfowitz. He's simply turned the tradition into one of perpetual warfare. When I think of Dantes nine circles of hell, I can't help but imagine him & Dick Cheney in the center. ..."
    "... We've been in a media blackout since November 22, 1963. ..."
    "... We had some dinner guests over, and the topic of the situation in Ukraine came up. I took the position that the US/EU helped stage the coup that tossed the elected government of Yanukovych, and that the current government is illegitimate, not to mention Nazi thugs. And that the trigger was Yanukovych intending to accept the Russian bail-out, turning his back on the punitive EU austerity program. I didn't even get into the US being pissed at Russia for blocking their Syrian/Assad regime change operation at the UN security council, and were intent on making Russia pay for their insolence. ..."
    "... Our guests were incredulous that I took that position, accusing me of falling for Russian propaganda. Their view is that it was a popular rebellion against a corrupt government, that Russia illegally and forcibly annexed Crimea, and that Russia continues to kill Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil. Any US involvement is/was for the good of the Ukrainian people. ..."
    "... Mission accomplished. And I don't see it changing. MSM blankets North America with western propaganda so thoroughly that otherwise intelligent people don't recognize it as such. Espousing an alternative worldview, and one gets labelled a conspiracy nut or a Putin sympathizer. Sooo Orwellian. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

    Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a press conference with about 150 journalists from around the world, including representatives of the western media.

    Mister Lavrov was brief and concise; however, the question period lasted for some two hours. A breadth of topics was discussed, including the re-convening of the Syrian peace talks in Geneva, diplomatic relations in Georgia and, tellingly, the increasingly fragile relations with the US. This has not been reported on in Western media.

    This followed close on the heels of reports (again, not to be found in Western media) that the US has quadrupled its budget for the re-armament of NATO in Europe (from $750 million to $3 billion), most of which is to be applied along the Russian border. The decision was explained as being necessary "to combat and prevent Russian aggression."

    It should be mentioned that this decision, no matter how rash it may be, is not a random incident. It's a component of the US' decidedly imperialist Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992. This doctrine, never intended for public release, outlined a policy of military aggression to assure that the US would reign as the world's sole superpower and, in so-doing, establish the US as the leader within a new world order. In part, its stated goal is,

    "[That] the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests."

    Of particular importance here is the term, "legitimate interests." With this term, the doctrine reveals that its goal is the suppression of other nations, regardless of whether their ambitions are reasonable or not. All that matters is US hegemony over the world.

    Clearly, relations are reaching a dangerous level. The Russian message has repeatedly been, "Stop, before it's too late," yet Washington has reacted by stepping up its threat of hegemony. If the major powers do not call "time out", world war could easily be on the horizon . Yet, incredibly, it appears that the Russian press conference has received zero coverage in the West. No British, French, German, or US television network has made a single comment. As eager as the Russians have been to get the word out as to their concerns, there has been a complete blackout of reporting it in the West.

    Russia Insider has published an article on the internet, but little else appears to be available.

    Today, the internet allows us to tap into information from every country in the world. Both official and non-official versions of the reports are available, if we know where to find them. And for those who have the time to do so, and take the time to do so, it's possible to stay abreast of The Big Picture, although, admittedly, it's a major undertaking to do so.

    Separating the wheat from the chaff is the greatest difficulty in this pursuit; however, as events unfold, a trend is being revealed – that the world is becoming divided with regard to information. In most of the world, there's an expanse of available information, but, increasingly, the US, EU, and their allies are revealing a pattern of information removal . Whatever does not fit the US/EU position on events never reaches the public.

    A half-century ago, this was the case in the USSR, China, and several smaller countries where tyranny had so taken hold that all news was filtered. The people of these countries had a limited understanding as to what was truly occurring in the world, particularly with regard to their own leaders' actions on the world stage.

    However, in recent decades, that tyranny has dissipated to a great degree and those countries that had been isolationist with regard to public information are now opening up more and more. Certainly, their governments still prefer that their press provide reporting that's favourable to the government, but the general direction has been toward greater openness.

    Conversely, the West – that group of countries that was formerly called "the Free World" – has increasingly been going in the opposite direction. The media have been fed an ever-narrower version of what their governments have been up to internationally.

    The overall message that's received by the Western public is essentially that there are good countries (the US, EU, and allies) and bad countries whose governments and peoples seek to destroy democracy. Western propaganda has it that these bad countries will not stop until they've reached your home and robbed you of all your freedoms.

    The view from outside this cabal is a very different one. The remainder of the world view the attacks by US-led forces (Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Syria, etc.) as a bid for world dominance. In examining the Wolfowitz Doctrine, this would seem to be exactly correct.

    This is not to say, however, that the people of the NATO countries are entirely on-board with this aggression. In fact, if they were allowed to know the ultimate objective of the NATO aggression, it's entirely likely that they would oppose it.

    And, of course, that's exactly the point of the blackout. A country, or group of countries, that seeks peace and fair competition, with equal opportunity for all, need not resort to a media blackout. The average citizen, wherever he may live, generally seeks only to be allowed to live in freedom and to get on with his life. Whilst every country has its Generals Patton, its Napoleons, its Wolfowitzes, who are sociopathically obsessive over world domination, the average individual does not share this pathology.

    Therefore, whenever we observe a nation (or nations) creating a media blackout, we can be assured of two things.

    First, the nation has, at some point, been taken over (either through election, appointment, or a combination of the two) by leaders who are a danger to the citizenry and are now so entrenched that they have little opposition from those remaining few higher-ups who would prefer sanity.

    Second, the sociopathic goals of those in power are a clear and present danger to the peace and well-being of the population.

    In almost all such cases, the blackout causes the population to go willingly along each time their leaders make another advance toward warfare. They may understand that they will be directly impacted and worry about the possible outcome but, historically, they tend to put on the uniform and pick up the weapon when the time comes to "serve the country."

    Trouble is, this by no means "serves the country." It serves leaders who have become a danger to the country. The people themselves are the country. It is they, not their leaders, who will go off to battle and it is they who will pay the price of their leaders' zeal for domination.

    Kirk2NCC1701

    "to combat and prevent Russian aggression." is merely NATO double-speak for... "To combat a Russian Counter-Attack to our First Strike to a National Coup. Bellarus is next. The boa-like encirclement of the USSR, er, I mean Russia , will continue."

    FIFY

    BarnacleBill ,

    Unfortunately for the war-makers, the game is up. More and more people have woken up to the lies. NATO has overplayed its hand, and its propaganda is just not believed any more.

    http://barlowscayman.blogspot.com/2016/01/nato-overplays-its-hand.html

    hedgeless_horseman ,

    WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of
    the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
    of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge
    fortunes.

    In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new
    millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That
    many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war
    millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

    How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench?
    How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of
    them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun
    bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were
    wounded or killed in battle?

    https://archive.org/stream/WarIsARacket/WarIsARacket_djvu.txt

    Proctologist ,

    The imperialism of the United States began well before Paul Wolfowitz. He's simply turned the tradition into one of perpetual warfare. When I think of Dantes nine circles of hell, I can't help but imagine him & Dick Cheney in the center.

    SillySalesmanQu... ,

    We've been in a media blackout since November 22, 1963.

    MedicalQuack ,

    It's called News Rigging, 60% of what you read is written by bots, so just spin one up and off you go and works good to create knock off news too, technology is smarter than most realize. One guy wrote 10k books with a bot and put them on sale at Amazon..

    http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2015/04/news-rigging-has-arrived-astroturf-and.html

    swmnguy,

    Wolfowitz is just an apologist for what's already been going on. So is Zbigniew Brzezinski. It's the same insane megalomania Kubrick skewered in "Dr. Strangelove." By this time it's gone on long enough the host is being drained dangerously low. But it's not anything new.

    VWAndy ,

    Banker wars and fiat games in a never ending cycle.

    rainingFrogs,

    Well this information removal strategy seems to be working quite well.

    We had some dinner guests over, and the topic of the situation in Ukraine came up. I took the position that the US/EU helped stage the coup that tossed the elected government of Yanukovych, and that the current government is illegitimate, not to mention Nazi thugs. And that the trigger was Yanukovych intending to accept the Russian bail-out, turning his back on the punitive EU austerity program. I didn't even get into the US being pissed at Russia for blocking their Syrian/Assad regime change operation at the UN security council, and were intent on making Russia pay for their insolence.

    Our guests were incredulous that I took that position, accusing me of falling for Russian propaganda. Their view is that it was a popular rebellion against a corrupt government, that Russia illegally and forcibly annexed Crimea, and that Russia continues to kill Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil. Any US involvement is/was for the good of the Ukrainian people.

    Mission accomplished. And I don't see it changing. MSM blankets North America with western propaganda so thoroughly that otherwise intelligent people don't recognize it as such. Espousing an alternative worldview, and one gets labelled a conspiracy nut or a Putin sympathizer. Sooo Orwellian.

    [Mar 07, 2016] Do We Need To Rebuild The Military by Ron Paul

    Notable quotes:
    "... What does "rebuild the military" mean? Has the budget been gutted? Have the useless weapons programs like the F-35 finally been shut down? No, the United States still spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. And the official military budget is only part of the story. The total spending on the US empire is well over one trillion dollars per year. Under the Obama Administration the military budget is still 41 percent more than it was in 2001, and seven percent higher than at the peak of the Cold War. ..."
    "... Russia, which the neocons claim is the greatest threat to the United States, spends about one-tenth what we do on its military. China, the other "greatest threat," has a military budget less than 25 percent of ours. ..."
    "... I would rebuild it in a very different way, however. I would not rebuild it according to the demands of the military-industrial complex, which cares far more about getting rich than about protecting our country. I would not rebuild the military so that it can overthrow more foreign governments who refuse to do the bidding of Washington's neocons. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better protect our wealthy allies in Europe, NATO, Japan, and South Korea. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better occupy countries overseas and help create conditions for blowback here at home. ..."
    "... No. The best way to really "rebuild" the US military would be to stop abusing the military in the first place. The purpose of the US military is to defend the United States. It is not to make the world safe for oil pipelines, or corrupt Gulf monarchies, or NATO, or Israel. Unlike the neocons who are so eager to send our troops to war, I have actually served in the US military. I understand that to keep our military strong we must constrain our foreign policy. We must adopt a policy of non-intervention and a strong defense of this country. The neocons will weaken our country and our military by promoting more war. We need to "rebuild" the military by restoring as its mission the defense of the United States, not of Washington's overseas empire. ..."
    "... Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute ..."
    March 6, 2016 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
    The Republican presidential debates have become so heated and filled with insults, it almost seems we are watching a pro wrestling match. There is no civility, and I wonder whether the candidates are about to come to blows. But despite what appears to be total disagreement among them, there is one area where they all agree. They all promise that if elected they will "rebuild the military."

    What does "rebuild the military" mean? Has the budget been gutted? Have the useless weapons programs like the F-35 finally been shut down? No, the United States still spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. And the official military budget is only part of the story. The total spending on the US empire is well over one trillion dollars per year. Under the Obama Administration the military budget is still 41 percent more than it was in 2001, and seven percent higher than at the peak of the Cold War.

    Russia, which the neocons claim is the greatest threat to the United States, spends about one-tenth what we do on its military. China, the other "greatest threat," has a military budget less than 25 percent of ours.

    Last week the Pentagon announced it is sending a small naval force of US warships to the South China Sea because, as Commander of the US Pacific Command Adm. Harry Harris told the House Armed Services Committee, China is militarizing the area. Yes, China is supposedly militarizing the area around China, so the US is justified in sending its own military to the area. Is that a wise use of the US military?

    The US military maintains over 900 bases in 130 countries. It is actively involved in at least seven wars right now, including in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and elsewhere. US Special Forces are deployed in 134 countries across the globe. Does that sound like a military that has been gutted?

    I do not agree with the presidential candidates, but I do agree that the military needs to be rebuilt. I would rebuild it in a very different way, however. I would not rebuild it according to the demands of the military-industrial complex, which cares far more about getting rich than about protecting our country. I would not rebuild the military so that it can overthrow more foreign governments who refuse to do the bidding of Washington's neocons. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better protect our wealthy allies in Europe, NATO, Japan, and South Korea. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better occupy countries overseas and help create conditions for blowback here at home.

    No. The best way to really "rebuild" the US military would be to stop abusing the military in the first place. The purpose of the US military is to defend the United States. It is not to make the world safe for oil pipelines, or corrupt Gulf monarchies, or NATO, or Israel. Unlike the neocons who are so eager to send our troops to war, I have actually served in the US military. I understand that to keep our military strong we must constrain our foreign policy. We must adopt a policy of non-intervention and a strong defense of this country. The neocons will weaken our country and our military by promoting more war. We need to "rebuild" the military by restoring as its mission the defense of the United States, not of Washington's overseas empire.


    Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Mar 07, 2016] Vijay Prashad The Foreign Policy of the 1%

    Notable quotes:
    "... This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation process of global capitalism & its "1%" class. ..."
    "... One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating, is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination economic empire is the goal. ..."
    "... The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see the whole electoral mirage for what it is. ..."
    "... Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing, especially the race war against the Arab people. ..."
    "... Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump? ..."
    "... Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept. It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show. What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing. ..."
    "... Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more acute. ..."
    "... why do American politicians become incontinent when they mention Saudi Arabia ..."
    "... recycling mechanism for capitalism ..."
    "... there is a suicidal death pact between the West and Saudi Arabia ..."
    "... Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. ..."
    "... For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism) has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru history 'The 99%'...). ..."
    "... So long as he rises to militarily protect "National Interests" abroad - read: imperial billionaire class interests - he's really one of them. ..."
    "... He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor. ..."
    "... Excellent discussion and lecture. A very important part of the 'due diligence' of democratic participation and research by the people. ..."
    therealnews.com
    SettingTheNarrative, link
    Be nice to have a book called "The Foreign Policy of the 1%". Maybe include references to GATT, TPP, oil wars as mentioned in the presentation.

    Other questions:

    1) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to Economic Hitman, John Perkins?
    2) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to conservative founders like Jeane Kirkpatrick?
    3) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to rise to Regan Revolution? Trump?

    ForDemocracy, link
    This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation process of global capitalism & its "1%" class.

    Deepest thanks to Vijay Prashad...and to others like professor Bennis (present in the audience)... whose in-depth analysis of the system can, if studied, contribute to putting the nascent 'political revolution' Bernie calls for...into a real democratic movement in this country. We are so woefully ignorant as 'members of the 99%'- it seems worst of all in America-- intentionally kept isolated from knowing anything about this country/corporation's 'foreign policy' (aka as Capitalist system policy or 'the 1% policy) that Bernie cannot even broach what Vijay has given here. But he at least opens up some of our can of worms, the interrconnectdedness of class-interests and the devastation this country's (and the global cabal of ) capitalist voracious economic interests rains upon the planet.

    The Mid-East is a product of Capitalism that will, if we don't recognize the process & change course & priorties, will soon overtake all of Africa and all 'undeveloped' (pre-Capitalist) countries around the globe--The destruction and never-ending blur of war and annihilation of peoples, cultures and even the possibility of 'political evolution' is a product of the profit-at-any-and-all-costs that is the hidden underbelly of a system of economics that counts humanity as nothing. It is a sick system. It is a system whose sickness brings death to all it touches... and we are seeing now it is bringing ITS OWN DEATH as well.

    The '99% policy' (again a phrase Prashad should be congratulated for bringing into the language) is indeed one that understands that our needs --the people's needs, not 'national interests' AKA capitalist corporate/financial interests --- are global, that peace projects are essentially anti-capitalist projects.... and our needs-to build a new society here in the U.S. must begin to be linked to seeing Capitalism as the root cause of so much suffering that must be replaced by true democratic awakening a- r/evolutionary process that combines economic and civic/political -- that we must support in every way possible. Step One: support the movement for changed priorities & values by voting class-consciously.

    Trainee Christian, link
    The 1% or the oligarchy have completely won the world, our only way to fight against such power is to abandon buying their products, take great care on who you vote for in any election, only people who have a long record of social thinking should be considers. They can be diminished but not beaten.
    Sillyputta, link
    One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating, is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination economic empire is the goal.

    The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see the whole electoral mirage for what it is.

    denden11, link
    All of what's been said about the elites, the one percent, has already been said many years ago. The conversation about the wealthy elites destroying our world has changed only in the area of how much of our world has and is being destroyed. Absolutely nothing else has changed, nothing else.

    Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing, especially the race war against the Arab people. Meanwhile, as we continue to speak the ocean is licking at our doorstep, the average mean temperature has ticked up a few notches and we are all completely distracted by which power hungry corporate zealot is going to occupy the office which is responsible for making our human condition even more dire. The circus that is this election is merely a ploy by the elites to make us believe that we actually do have a choice. Uh-huh; yet if I were to suggest what REALLY needs to be done to save the human race I would be in a court which functions only to impoverish those of us who try to speak the truth of our situation objectively. The 'Justice' system's only function is to render us powerless. Whether one is guilty or innocent is completely irrelevant anymore. All they have to do is file charges and they have your wealth. Good luck to all of us as we all talk ourselves to death.

    Vivienne Perkins -> denden11, link
    Dear denden11: You get gold stars in heaven as far as I'm concerned for telling the exact truth
    in the plainest possible terms. Bravissimo. "Talk/ing/ ourselves to death" is, I'm sorry to say, what we are doing. I've been working on these issues for forty years, looking for an exit from this completely interlocked system. I'm sorry to say I haven't seen the exit. I do understand how we have painted ourselves into this corner over the past 250 years (since the so-called Enlightenment), but without repentance on our part and grace on God's part, we're doomed because we all believe the Big Lies pumped into us moment by moment by Big Brother. And it's the Big Lies that keep us terminally confused and fragmented.
    Trainee Christian ->Vivienne Perkins link
    Well-done, you know the truth.
    dreamjoehill -> Vivienne Perkins link
    Don't Believe the Hype was an NWA rap anthem over twenty year ago. I always liked the shouted line, "And I don't take Ritalin!"

    Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump?

    In defeat, will Sander's campaign supporters radicalize or demoralize into apathy or tepid support for Hillary - on the grounds that she's less of an evil than Trumpty Dumbty?

    If not defeated, will Sanders and his campaign mobilize the People to fight the powers that be? Otherwise, he has no real power base, short of selling out on his domestic spending promises and becoming another social democratic lapdog for Capital- like Tony Blair.

    Vivienne Perkins -> dreamjoehill link
    Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept. It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show. What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing.
    dreamjoehill -> Vivienne Perkins link
    As material conditions change drastically for tens of millions of USAns, the old propaganda loses effect. New propaganda is required to channel the new class tensions. Still an opening may be created. People can't heat their homes with propaganda, the kids are living in the basement and grandpa can't afford a nursing home and he's drinking himself to death. That's the new normal, or variations on it for a lot of people who don't believe the hype anymore.

    Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more acute.

    Interesting times.

    WaveRunnerMN , link
    Great work Vijay...got my "filters" back on. Cut and pasted original comment below despite TRNN labeling of "time of posting" which is irrelevant at this point.

    Wow...now that I got my rational filters back on this was a great piece by Vijay and succinctly states what many of us who "attempt" to not only follow ME events but to understand not only the modern history by the motives of the major players in the region. Thanks for this piece and others...looking forward to the others.

    WaveRunnerMN -> WaveRunnerMN link
    Posted earlier while my mind was on 2016 election cycle watching MSM in "panic mode"

    Thought this was going to be a rational discussion on US foreign policy until the part on ? "Trumps Red Book". I had hoped to rather hear, "The Red Book of the American Templars" ...taking from the Knights Templar in Europe prior the collapse of the feudal system. I will say that Vijay's comment on Cruz was quite appropriate though it would also have been better to not only put it into context but also illustrate that Cruz's father Rafael Cruz believes in a system contrary to the founding ideals of the US Constitution: He states in an interview with mainstream media during his son's primary campaign that [to paraphrase] "secularism is evil and corrupt". Here is an excerpt of his bio from Wiki:

    "During an interview conducted by the Christian Post in 2014, Rafael Cruz stated, "I think we cannot separate politics and religion; they are interrelated. They've always been interrelated."[29] Salon described Cruz as a "Dominionist, devoted to a movement that finds in Genesis a mandate that 'men of faith' seize control of public institutions and govern by biblical principle."[30] However, The Public Eye states that Dominionists believe that the U.S. Constitution should be the vehicle for remaking America as a Christian nation.[31]"

    Fareed Zakaria interviewed a columnist from the Wall Street Journal today on Fareed's GPS program and flatly asked him [paraphrased], "Is not the Wall Street Journal responsible for creating the racist paradigm that Trump took advantage of "? Let us begin with rational dialogue and not demagogy. Quite frankly with regard to both Cruz and Trump [in context of the 2016 elections cycle] a more insightful comment would have been...Change cannot come from within the current electoral processes here in the US with Citizen's United as its "masthead" and "Corporations are people as its rallying cry"!

    Alice X link
    Thank you, a valuable piece. There are a number of takeaway quotes, but the ringer for me was from Ray McGovern (rhetorically):
    why do American politicians become incontinent when they mention Saudi Arabia

    Shortly thereafter Vijay Prashad in what he calls the Saudi post 1970s recycling mechanism for capitalism says:

    there is a suicidal death pact between the West and Saudi Arabia
    WaveRunnerMN ->Alice X link
    Not the West....just the F.I.R.E industries...driving the housing bubble; shopping malls; office buildings; buying municipal bonds [as they the municipalities bought and built prisons; jails; SWAT vehicles and security equipment (developed by the Israelis); and keeping the insurance companies afloat while AllState had time after Katrina to pitch their subsidiaries allowing these subsidiaries to file for bankruptcy]...now all the maintenance expense is coming due and cities and counties are going broke... along with the Saudi investments here in US.
    itsthethird link
    Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. What about the 99 percent? While populations simply need and want also income and investment security globally.

    What about populations in massive consumer debt for education, housing, etc. to fund one percent Growth. Laborers across globe are all in same boat simply labor for food without anything else to pass along to progeny but what is most important ethics. A world government established by corporatism advantage by authority of law and advantage all directed toward endless returns to oligarchy family cartels is not an acceptable world organization of division of resources because it is tranny, exclusive, extraction and fraudulent. Such madness does NOT float all boats.

    All this while oligarchs control Taxation of government authority and hidden excessive investment and fraud return taxation. While Governments in west don't even jail corporate criminals while west claims law is just while skewed in favor of protecting one percent, their returns on investment and investments. Billionaires we find in some parts of so called Unjust regions of world not yet on board with cartel game are calling out fraud that harms individuals and society aggressively.

    TEHRAN, Iran - An Iranian court has sentenced a well-known tycoon to death for corruption linked to oil sales during the rule of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the judiciary spokesman said Sunday.

    Babak Zanjani and two of his associates were sentenced to death for "money laundering," among other charges, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejehi said in brief remarks broadcast on state TV. He did not identify the two associates. Previous state media reports have said the three were charged with forgery and fraud.

    "The court has recognized the three defendants as 'corruptors on earth' and sentenced them to death," said Ejehi. "Corruptors on earth" is an Islamic term referring to crimes that are punishable by death because they have a major impact on society. The verdict, which came after a nearly five-month trial, can be appealed.

    sisterlauren link
    Looking forward to a transcript. I really enjoyed listening to this live yesterday.
    aprescoup link
    So when Bernie winds up on the regime change band wagon (of mostly leftist governments) and stays silent in the face of US aided and approved of coups (Honduras/Zelaya being the next most recent before Ukraine) while railing against the billionaire class on Wall Street and the neoliberal trade agreements, he's not only missing the elephant in the room; he's part of this elephant.
    ForDemocracy -> aprescoup link
    For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism) has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru history 'The 99%'...).

    And as all past power-elites have done, our '1%' has misread the age-old evolution of culture when an old system NO LONGER WORKS that makes freedom, imagination & rebellion more acceptable more attractive, more exciting and NECESSARY. Then, once energized BY NEED, DESIRE, and yes HOPE....change begins and can't be stopped like a slow-moving rain that keeps moving. As with past eras & past changes, in our own day this 'millennial plus 60's' powerful generational tide is JUST BEGINNING to feel our strength & ability. Turning what was supposed to be a globalist-coronation into what right now certainly seems like a step towards real change, towards building a recognition of the power, we 'the 99%' can --IF WE ACT WISELY & WITH COMMITTMENT begin the work of creating a new world.

    Criticising Bernie is criticizing the real way progress works...We need to get out of an ego-centric adolescent approach to human problem-solving, understand we need to keep our movement growing even if it doesn't look the WAY WE EXPECTED IT TO LOOK...keep clear on GOALS that Bernie's campaign is just a part of. The 'left' needs to recognize its our historic moment: to either move ahead or SELF-destruct.. Impatience needs to be replaced by a serious look down the road for our children's future. If we don't, the power elite of the System wins again (vote Hillary?? don't vote??). We need to take a breath & rethink how change really happens because this lost opportunity Is a loss we can no longer afford. The movement must be 'bigger than Bernie'.

    WaveRunnerMN -> aprescoup link
    I just hope he does not get forced to resign which the L-MSM is now beginning to parrot so Hillary can win given the huge turnouts the Repugs are getting in the primaries. I want to see four candidates at the National Convention...in addition to Third parties.
    itsthethird -> aprescoup, link
    No one can be elected Commander and Chief by stating they will not defend oligarchs interests as well as populations interests. We agree populations interests are negated and subverted all over earth . That cannot be changed by armed rebellion but it can be changed by electing electable voices of reason such as Sanders. Sanders will fight to protect populations and resist oligarchy war mongering while holding oligarchs accountable. Sanders will address corrupted law and injustice. Vote Sanders.
    Trainee Christian -> itsthethird, link
    You are probably correct in your thinking, but the real power will never allow any potential effective changes to the system that is. People who try usually end up dead.
    itsthethird -> Trainee Christian , link
    This is why we must as citizens become active players in government far greater then we are today, we must do far more then voting. We must have time from drudgery of earning a substandard wage that forces most to have little time for advancing democracy. Without such time oligarchs and one percent end-up controlling everything.

    We can BEGIN the march toward mountain top toward socializations which will promote aware individualizations. We don't expect we will advance anything without oppositions in fact we expect increased attacks. Those increased attacks can become our energy that unites masses as we all observe the insanity they promote as our direction. We merely must highlight insanity and path forward toward sanity. Nothing can make lasting change this generation the march will take generations. The speed advance only will depend on how foolish oligarchs are at attempts to subvert public awareness seeking change. As they become more desperate our movements become stronger. We must refrain from violence for that is only thing that can subvert our movement.

    aprescoup -> itsthethird link
    So long as he rises to militarily protect "National Interests" abroad - read: imperial billionaire class interests - he's really one of them.

    Maybe this will help:

    Vijay Prashad: The Foreign Policy of the 1% - http://therealnews.com/t2/inde...

    Johnny Prescott -> itsthethird link
    What exactly leads you to contend that Sanders is going to "resist oligarchy war mongering"?
    aprescoup -> sisterlauren link
    He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor.

    Instead he does the LOTE thing for the neoliberal-neocon party "D". That's just dishonest bullshit opportunism.

    Rob M -> aprescoup link
    Opportunism with good intent...I'll take that.
    jo ellis , link
    Do not receives daily email for a long time without clue why? so haven't in contact with TRN's daily report until subject video appears on youtube website. and impressed by the panelists's congregated pivotal works done thru all these years.
    Serenity NOW , link
    important lecture for those who want to better understand the crises of capitalism and globalization.
    William W Haywood , link
    Excellent discussion and lecture. A very important part of the 'due diligence' of democratic participation and research by the people.

    [Mar 07, 2016] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Murder Is Washington's Foreign Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington has a long history of massacring people, for example, the destruction of the Plains Indians by the Union war criminals Sherman and Sheridan and the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese civilian populations, but Washington has progressed from periodic massacres to fulltime massacring. From the Clinton regime forward, massacre of civilians has become a defining characteristic of the United States of America. ..."
    "... Washington is responsible for the destruction of Yugoslavia and Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and part of Syria. Washington has enabled Saudi Arabia's attack on Yemen, Ukraine's attack on its former Russian provinces, and Israel's destruction of Palestine and the Palestinian people. ..."
    "... In a recent article , Mattea Kramer points out that Washington has added to its crimes the mass murder of civilians with drones and missile strikes on weddings, funerals, children's soccer games, medical centers and people's homes. Nothing can better illustrate the absence of moral integrity and moral conscience of the American state and the population that tolerates it than the cavalier disregard of the thousands of murdered innocents as "collateral damage." ..."
    "... violence creates terrorists ..."
    "... The only possible conclusion is that under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama the US government has become an unaccountable, lawless, criminal organization and is a danger to the entire world and its own citizens. ..."
    ronpaulinstitute.org

    Washington has a long history of massacring people, for example, the destruction of the Plains Indians by the Union war criminals Sherman and Sheridan and the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese civilian populations, but Washington has progressed from periodic massacres to fulltime massacring. From the Clinton regime forward, massacre of civilians has become a defining characteristic of the United States of America.

    Washington is responsible for the destruction of Yugoslavia and Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and part of Syria. Washington has enabled Saudi Arabia's attack on Yemen, Ukraine's attack on its former Russian provinces, and Israel's destruction of Palestine and the Palestinian people.

    The American state's murderous rampage through the Middle East and North Africa was enabled by the Europeans who provided diplomatic and military cover for Washington's crimes. Today the Europeans are suffering the consequences as they are over-run by millions of refugees from Washington's wars. The German women who are raped by the refugees can blame their chancellor, a Washington puppet, for enabling the carnage from which refugees flee to Europe.

    In a recent article, Mattea Kramer points out that Washington has added to its crimes the mass murder of civilians with drones and missile strikes on weddings, funerals, children's soccer games, medical centers and people's homes. Nothing can better illustrate the absence of moral integrity and moral conscience of the American state and the population that tolerates it than the cavalier disregard of the thousands of murdered innocents as "collateral damage."

    If there is any outcry from Washington's European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassals, it is too muted to be heard in the US.

    As Kramer points out, American presidential hopefuls are competing on the basis of who will commit the worst war crimes. A leading candidate has endorsed torture, despite its prohibition under US and international law. The candidate proclaims that "torture works" - as if that is a justification - despite the fact that experts know that it does not work. Almost everyone being tortured will say anything in order to stop the torture. Most of those tortured in the "war on terror" have proven to have been innocents. They don't know the answers to the questions even if they were prepared to give truthful answers. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn relates that Soviet dissidents likely to be picked up and tortured by the Soviet secret police would memorize names on gravestones in order to comply with demands for the names of their accomplices. In this way, torture victims could comply with demands without endangering innocents.

    Washington's use of invasion, bombings, and murder by drone as its principle weapon against terrorists is mindless. It shows a government devoid of all intelligence, focused on killing alone. Even a fool understands that violence creates terrorists. Washington hasn't even the intelligence of fools.

    The American state now subjects US citizens to execution without due process of law despite the strict prohibition by the US Constitution. Washington's lawlessness toward others now extends to the American people themselves.

    The only possible conclusion is that under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama the US government has become an unaccountable, lawless, criminal organization and is a danger to the entire world and its own citizens.

    Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org.

    [Mar 03, 2016] Romney speech shows why Trump is winning

    Looks like neocons will attack Trump, fearing that he might expose their role in 9/11 and become an obstacle for their interventionalist foreign policy
    A civil war within Republican party officially stated. The party elite opens fight against the choice of rank-and-file members. Marco Rubio and Kasich are no longer running for president. They are running to keep Trump from being president.
    Notable quotes:
    Notable quotes:
    "... And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance. ..."
    "... In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. ..."
    "... Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign." ..."
    "... Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement. ..."
    "... Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight." ..."
    "... Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee. ..."
    www.politico.com

    It was a stirring call to arms for a strategic-voting retreat.

    And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance.

    Along the way, Trump has skated. In one remarkable statistic, Trump suffered less in attack ads through Super Tuesday than Romney's team hurled at Newt Gingrich in the final days in Florida alone in 2012. The Republican Party's top financiers are mobilizing now, with millions in anti-Trump ads expected in the next two weeks, but it may be too late to slow Trump after he has carried 10 of the first 15 contests, many of them by wide margins.

    In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. (Also, by not picking a single anti-Trump standard-bearer, Romney, who briefly considered running for president again in 2016, left slightly more open the door that might allow a contested convention to select him.)

    "He's playing the members of the American public for suckers," Romney said of Trump. "He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat."

    Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign."

    Romney ripped about Trump's business background, ticking off bankruptcies and abandoned efforts. "What ever happened to Trump Airlines?" he said. "How about Trump University? And then there's Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage?" "A business genius he is not," Romney said. Of Trump's varied stances on issues, Romney added, "Dishonesty is Donald Trump's hallmark."

    Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement.

    "Well said," tweeted Kasich.

    Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight."

    On Thursday, Trump hammered back on NBC's "Today" show: "Mitt Romney is a stiff."

    Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee.

    Said Justin Barasky, a spokesman for the super PAC dedicated to electing Hillary Clinton, understatedly, "Certainly, having a former Republican nominee go after him is not unhelpful."

    [Mar 03, 2016] Obamas Justice Department Just Gave Bryan Pagliano Immunity and Bernie Sanders the Presidency

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just given immunity by the Justice Department. According to The Washington Post ..."
    "... These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight. ..."
    "... Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano pleaded the Fifth , so this new development speaks volumes. ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything. ..."
    "... Thats not an assumption-its a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000 emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper. ..."
    "... The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the huge REAL as opposed to emails ..."
    "... Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even on this small fish. ..."
    "... It is not a tempest in a teapot. Only a federal judge can grant immunity, and this means they are seating a grand jury, prosecutors, whole nine yards. ..."
    "... With Donald Trump revving up his attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about. It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise. ..."
    "... Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges. ..."
    www.huffingtonpost.com
    Bernie Sanders's path to the presidency was never going to be easy. After surging in the polls and consistently proving America's political establishment wrong, Sanders won Colorado and other states on Super Tuesday. He still has a path to win the Democratic nomination via the primaries, but Bernie Sanders just won the presidency for another reason: Hillary Clinton's quest for "convenience."

    Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just given immunity by the Justice Department. According to The Washington Post, "The Clintons paid Pagliano $5,000 for 'computer services' prior to his joining the State Department, according to a financial disclosure form he filed in April 2009."

    First, this can't be a right-wing conspiracy because it's President Obama's Justice Department granting immunity to one of Hillary Clinton's closest associates. Second, immunity from what? The Justice Department won't grant immunity to anyone unless there's potential criminal activity involved with an FBI investigation. Third, and most importantly for Bernie Sanders, there's only one Democrat in 2016 not linked to the FBI, Justice Department, or 31,830 deleted emails.

    These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight.

    Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano pleaded the Fifth, so this new development speaks volumes. His immunity, at this point in Clinton's campaign, spells trouble and could lead to an announcement in early May from the FBI about whether or not Clinton or her associates committed a crime. As stated in The New York Times, "Then the Justice Department will decide whether to file criminal charges and, if so, against whom."

    ... ... ...

    In addition to born classified emails (emails that were classified from the start of their existence, undermining the claim that certain emails weren't classified when Clinton stored them on her server), as well as Top Secret intelligence on an unguarded server stored in her basement, Hillary Clinton has never explained the political utility of owning a private server.

    Why did Hillary need to own a private server?

    Aside from her excuse pertaining to convenience, why did Clinton need to circumvent U.S. government networks?

    ... ... ...

    There are most likely a number of reasons Clinton needed the server and Pagliano's immunity helps the FBI immeasurable in deciphering whether or not criminal intent or behavior is a part of their recommendation to the Justice Department. Pagliano's immunity is explained in a Washington Post piece titled Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server:

    The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton's private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

    The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

    As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.

    ... Spokesmen at the FBI and Justice Department would not discuss the investigation. Pagliano's attorney, Mark J. MacDougall, also declined to comment.

    "There was wrongdoing," said a former senior law enforcement official. "But was it criminal wrongdoing?"

    ... ... ...

    As for the issue of criminality, Detroit's Click on Detroit Local 4 News explains the severity of this saga in a piece titled DOJ grants immunity to ex-Clinton staffer who set up email server:

    Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton staffer who helped set up her private email server, has accepted an immunity offer from the FBI and the Justice Department to provide an interview to investigators, a U.S. law enforcement official told CNN Wednesday.

    With the completion of the email review, FBI investigators are expected to shift their focus on whether the highly sensitive government information, including top secret and other classified matters, found on Clinton's private email server constitutes a crime.

    .... Huma Abedin is also part of this email investigation, as stated in a CNN article titled Clinton emails: What have we learned?:

    The State Department is furthermore being sued for the emails of top aides, and for the tens of thousands of emails Clinton deemed personal and didn't turn over for review.

    At a hearing last week in one such lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said he's considering asking the State Department to subpoena Clinton, and aide Huma Abedin, in an effort to learn more about those emails...

    Clinton and her aides insist none of the emails she sent or received were marked as classified at the time they were sent, but more than 2,101 have been retroactively classified during the State Department-led pre-release review process.

    Whether or not the intelligence was classified at the time is irrelevant; there's already proof of born classified intelligence on Clinton's server. Former Obama official Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn believes Hillary Clinton should "drop out" of the race because of the FBI investigation.

    ... ... ....

    Tim Black

    Thank You HA Goodman! As a former Managerof Executive IT Services for an Obama Cabinet member I can say with total certainty this dangerous handling of government correspondence Hillary Clinton not only broke security protocols, she ripped them in half, stepped on them and did the 'Dab'. Based on the information provided no one's framing, stalking, shalacking or setting up the Clintons.

    This is the Clintons sabotaging The Clintons. I don't want to hear the cop outs "They're attacking me!". No Madame Secretary. You're attacking yourself. No Republicans necessary!

    Tab Pierce · Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

    AMEN TIM!!! I to worked for the government for 5 years as an email administrator. There is no way that she was not briefed and well versed in the protocols surrounding emails. If it had been me the FBI would have kicked down my door day one and I would be in jail. She should be held accountable to an even higher standard than you and I. She was the Secrtary of State for gods sake. Igorance is no excusse and on top of that is a lie.

    Malcolm Smith · Translator at Self-Employed

    O lord, they used an MS Exchange server that was naked on the internet to boot. Microsoft's pervasive OS presence in Government is all by itself a national security risk.

    Scott Laytart · Los Angeles, California

    I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything.

    This is not positive or negative for Clinton, other than the investigation part of this may be over (probably) before June. If charges are filed, that's most likely when it would happen. Or they may not... no one knows but the FBI/DoJ.

    Karen Teegarden
    No one should take anything H.A. Goodman writes seriously.

    Hillary has been asking for him to testify all along. What does immunity represent? Does it mean that either Pagliano (or Clinton) are accused of offenses? Quite the opposite. If the DOJ thought they had a case against Pagliano, they would not grant him immunity. In any event, for all the shrill attention that it will get, immunity for Bryan Pagliano will help move the Hillary Clinton email inquiry toward an end – and be one less thing for her to worry about.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/03/02/immunity-for-bryan-pagliano-will-help-end-the-hillary-clinton-email-inquiry

    Jyade Gloria Kardos · Author at Jyade Cythrawl
    Andy Stanton http://www.wnd.com/.../ex-u-s-attorney-hillary-case.../

    Thats not an assumption-its a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000 emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper.

    Trevor Mooney
    The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the huge REAL as opposed to emails
    Steve Smith · Attorney at Myself
    Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even on this small fish.
    Jyade Gloria Kardos · Author at Jyade Cythrawl
    http://www.wnd.com/.../ex-u-s-attorney-hillary-case.../
    Malcolm Smith, Translator at Self-Employed
    It is not a tempest in a teapot. Only a federal judge can grant immunity, and this means they are seating a grand jury, prosecutors, whole nine yards.

    Carl Gainsworth

    This is an important aspect of the campaign at this point. With Donald Trump revving up his attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about. It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise.
    Molly Cruz · Santa Cruz, Guanacaste, Costa Rica
    Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges. My God, if Merkel was being hacked, surely everyone else of note was also, both foreign and domestic. My question is, to whom were these questionably high intensity emails sent? Don't the recipients have a say in this? Everyone knows they're being watched.

    There are no exceptions I would think, least of all those searches useful for later political assassination. But those on the other end of these questionable emails must have some interest here, as they are involved.

    [Mar 03, 2016] Romney speech shows why Trump is winning

    Looks like neocons will attack Trump, fearing that he might expose their role in 9/11 and become an obstacle for their interventionalist foreign policy
    A civil war within Republican party officially stated. The party elite opens fight against the choice of rank-and-file members. Marco Rubio and Kasich are no longer running for president. They are running to keep Trump from being president.
    Notable quotes:
    Notable quotes:
    "... And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance. ..."
    "... In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. ..."
    "... Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign." ..."
    "... Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement. ..."
    "... Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight." ..."
    "... Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee. ..."
    www.politico.com

    It was a stirring call to arms for a strategic-voting retreat.

    And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance.

    Along the way, Trump has skated. In one remarkable statistic, Trump suffered less in attack ads through Super Tuesday than Romney's team hurled at Newt Gingrich in the final days in Florida alone in 2012. The Republican Party's top financiers are mobilizing now, with millions in anti-Trump ads expected in the next two weeks, but it may be too late to slow Trump after he has carried 10 of the first 15 contests, many of them by wide margins.

    In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. (Also, by not picking a single anti-Trump standard-bearer, Romney, who briefly considered running for president again in 2016, left slightly more open the door that might allow a contested convention to select him.)

    "He's playing the members of the American public for suckers," Romney said of Trump. "He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat."

    Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign."

    Romney ripped about Trump's business background, ticking off bankruptcies and abandoned efforts. "What ever happened to Trump Airlines?" he said. "How about Trump University? And then there's Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage?" "A business genius he is not," Romney said. Of Trump's varied stances on issues, Romney added, "Dishonesty is Donald Trump's hallmark."

    Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement.

    "Well said," tweeted Kasich.

    Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight."

    On Thursday, Trump hammered back on NBC's "Today" show: "Mitt Romney is a stiff."

    Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee.

    Said Justin Barasky, a spokesman for the super PAC dedicated to electing Hillary Clinton, understatedly, "Certainly, having a former Republican nominee go after him is not unhelpful."

    [Mar 03, 2016] Former US Marine President Obama should be tried for treason

    Notable quotes:
    "... a strategy of destabilizing all of the areas surrounding Israel, this includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This long-term goal is a part of a Greater Israel project, so in terms of sectarian divide you see happening in Iraq today it's actually all part of the very well designed plan to try and secure this fantasy goal of the Greater Israel project. ..."
    "... The last thing Israel or US wants is a strong Nasser-type leader, an Arab nationalist who will seriously ensure that the resources of that country are taken and protected and used for the benefit of the people – that's the last thing that the empire wants and Israel wants. ..."
    "... They're drunk on their own power, they are used to getting everything they want, they can buy anything and anyone that can be bought. This explains the corruption of virtually every government we can look at, and the policies do not reflect the interests of the people. They reflect, pure and simple, the interests of the bankers. ..."
    RT - SophieCo

    Sophie Shevardnadze:So I am here with activist Kenneth O'Keefe, it's really great to have you on our show. Kenneth, I know that you've led a human shield action in Iraq, right before the war started and then you were deported – do you follow what's going on in Iraq right now? For example, the November death toll was almost 1,000 and 2013 is the deadliest year since 2008. Why do you think the removal of Saddam hasn't improved the lives of Iraqis? – Or has it? I don't know…

    Kenneth O'Keefe: Well, I think if you really want to know the truth about the invasion in Iraq, there are clearly some incentives from the invasion: oil, securing oil was one of them, establishing prominent military bases in the region was another one, but the far less talked about reality is Israeli plans which made clear that the Balkanization of surrounding countries and particularly Iraq, if we go to Odid Yinon's plan for Israel in the 1980s, it lays out very clearly a strategy of destabilizing all of the areas surrounding Israel, this includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This long-term goal is a part of a Greater Israel project, so in terms of sectarian divide you see happening in Iraq today it's actually all part of the very well designed plan to try and secure this fantasy goal of the Greater Israel project.

    SS: Why would Israel benefit from an unstable Middle East, unstable Arab nations? Because what we see is that this instability actually is followed by fundamental Islam. People who are overthrown are either replaced by fundamentalist powers or there's just more sectarian violence that grows…

    KK: Yes, if would seem on the surface from a sane point of view that everything is going wrong, but in fact, when you fracture a country along sectarian divides, ultimately you weaken the country. The last thing Israel or US wants is a strong Nasser-type leader, an Arab nationalist who will seriously ensure that the resources of that country are taken and protected and used for the benefit of the people – that's the last thing that the empire wants and Israel wants. While you have these religious fundamentalist nutcases who are running around bombing and doing all sorts of stuff like that, you have a weakened, fractured country in Iraq, and that is the prerequisite for ultimately expanding Israel into a fantasy of a Greater Israel project. It doesn't seem sane and it's not sane because those who are trying to carry out these agendas are pure and simple psychopaths.

    SS: So you think that American administrations, one after another, have been following this plan for 30 years?

    KK: If you ask me how the world functions, then you have to understand one thing plain and simple – the head of the snake, the system of power is headed by the financial system. The bankers rule the Earth, through the private control of issuance of money, debt-based money which we all are supposed to pay. Ultimately with all of these things that they call "austerity" and whatnot, the bankers, basically, through the control of issuance of money which allows them to provide themselves with an infinite supply of money, means that they can buy anything and anyone that can be bought – so if we look at it, the vast majority of governments around the world, they are nothing more than puppets carrying out an agenda for the bankers, and the bankers at the top of this pyramid are, as I've said, plain and simple psychopath

    They're drunk on their own power, they are used to getting everything they want, they can buy anything and anyone that can be bought. This explains the corruption of virtually every government we can look at, and the policies do not reflect the interests of the people. They reflect, pure and simple, the interests of the bankers.

    SS: So if what you're saying is true, that governments obey the big banks and the big money, then it would really take the people and a revolution in each country that you have named to actually change things around. Do you really see revolution taking place in America, for example?

    KK: It's already happening. I'll give you a great example why I'm optimistic about things in America. You know that the president of the US, traitor that he is, is actually a constitutional lawyer? He actually has trained at the highest levels [of academia] in constitutional law. Do you know how obscene it is that somebody who was trained in constitutional law, giving himself the authority to execute anyone, anywhere, in any part of the planet with no jury, no trial, no conviction, nothing – this man is a dictator who has assigned himself the right to execute anyone, including US citizens. I am confident that at some point the American patriots, who seem to be in a bit of a coma and have been sleeping for a long time, are going to wake up soon and realize that when they took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the US, the president of the US also took that oath and has breached it so badly that he should be arrested and charged with treason right now – and ultimately all of the sycophants of the US Congress who pass things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA, again, completely a contrary to the US constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. These people need to be arrested, and a government needs to be put in place that actually honors the US Constitution, and I honestly believe that's going to happen, one way or another.

    ... ... ...

    SS: So you actually bring me to my next point, which is Syria. You're saying the allegations in the Western press that it wasn't Syria but Iran that was the actual goal, the final goal, are true. What happens now if Assad starts to look like he is finally achieving a decisive victory, how will the US respond, do you think?

    KK: Again, keep in mind that the real problem that Assad faces is that, well, yes, there are major human rights violations that happen in Syria and then in every other Arab country, and the US and the Western world – ultimately there are human rights violations of obscene levels, especially in the US. So they are in no position to talk about other leaders – our leaders, the US president can execute anyone, anywhere, anytime – and he does. So how can we talk about Bashar Al-Assad seriously and say that this man is a problem…

    SS: Oh, Kenneth, they will talk about that and [say] the world listens to the American president, that's the difference. They will talk about that, they keep talking about it. That was the whole purpose of why they wanted to overthrow Assad, because there were supposedly human rights violations in Syria.

    KK: The point that I'm making is that the US has given himself the authority to execute anyone, anywhere, anytime for any pretext, any bogus reason. Is that more of a problem to the world than Bashar Al-Assad? Of course it is! It's much more of a problem that the president of the US says he can execute anyone, anywhere anytime, and yet we're sitting here talking about Bashar Al-Assad which, granted, this man has committed crimes in Syria, there's no question of that. But when we look at the US president, when we look at Israel, we look at Britain – that alliance, this true Axis of Evil between these three countries. The amount of devastation that has occurred in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in other parts of world – Yemen, Pakistan – it's so devastating, I think its beggars belief that we as people can be conned into thinking that Bashar Al-Assad is the problem, or that Ahmadinejad was the problem. We are the problem; we in the West are the problem, especially the US government. It really is quite ridiculous that we get manipulated into saying, "Oh, we have to take care of this problem over there." The problem is in our own backyard, and we know this. We better take care of our dirty, filthy House of corruption. The US Congress is nothing but a den of traitors, the most sycophantic, disgusting traitors you can imagine, and the White House has got a dictator. This is a problem; this is a major problem, a much bigger problem than what's happening in Syria or Bashar Al-Assad.

    SS: Now, you have great knowledge and strong opinions about events in the Middle East. Iran has recently softened its attitude toward its opponent after decades of deadlock. Israel is annoyed. How do you see that developing?

    KK: I think it's a reflection of the sanity of people around the world who realize that any kind of attack on Iran is tantamount to initiating a full-scale Third World War, which of course could very well and almost inevitably would lead to a war with China and Russia. This is pure madness and those of us who've lost loved ones or who have served in combat like myself, and others who know the devastating cost of war, not just for the so-called "victor" – because the only victor really is the bankers, quite frankly – but even those who are supposedly on the winning side suffer greatly, and testimony to that fact aside from 1 million to 2 million dead in Iraq is the 22 American servicemen a day who are committing suicide because of the horrendous things that they were told to do in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. This policy, this shift in policy to actually resolve this conflict with Iran, this false conflict, in truth – is a reflection of the will of the people, if you ask me, who are starting to achieve their goal.

    SS: You think Netanyahu is bluffing, because I've spoken to a couple of Israeli parliamentarians, I've spoken to Israelis – and they all are for a strike.

    KK: No, I don't think he is bluffing, he is an absolute psychopath and he reflects the agenda for the powers that be in Israel. Each one of these players – Netanyahu, George W. Bush, Obama, Cameron – they are all puppets and they all are supposed to read a different script at different times, depending on what the agenda is. The agenda is shifting slightly. It looks like Israel and the people of Israel, the Jewish state of Israel, are like sheep being led into slaughter, because ultimately the policies of Israel are completely and totally unsustainable. Even the CIA said in 2009 that Israel would not even exist within 20 years. Henry Kissinger himself said it wouldn't exist in 10 years, and the reason why is because its policies are totally self-destructive. The puppet masters are quite happy to sacrifice the people of Israel, they are going to destroy themselves if they do attack Iran, because Iran can fight back and does have allies, and a lot of countries are sick and tired of Israel's threats to both its immediate neighbors and even the rest of the world. When we look at the Samson Option, I encourage people to Google "Samson Option" and look at the threat Israel has posed to the world if things don't go its way.

    SS: When you talk about the US, [it's] Israel's main supporter – but right now we see that it's kind of open to Iran as well, knowing, how much anxiety that raises among Israelis – what does it tell you about the US?

    KK: It tells me that people are beginning to realize their power. I think there are things that correlate – the approval rating for Barack Obama and the US Congress is as low as it's possible to get, somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 percent, 20 percent maximum. The people have come to a point where they are sick and tired of being lied to, they know they are being lied to, and when they see their so-called leaders try to cooperate with Israel and get another war that would lead to disastrous consequences for the region and for the US and every other person involved – they've had it. The reflection of the policies is indeed that of the people, it's the people who are sick and tired. I do see that there is some demarcation going on between Israel and the US, but this is because the power of people is rising - and as we saw on Syria, the Congress and the president were all basically saying, "The red line was crossed, blah-blah-blah," and this blatantly false flag attack in Ghouta in Syria has backfired, they were not able to carry out this agenda, and this is only empowering the people that much further.

    SS: So you think Iran should be allowed to develop its nuclear program?

    KK: I think it's absolutely hypocritical and insane that we would sit here and fixate on Iran and its supposed nuclear weapons program, which I don't believe exists, but nonetheless, who could blame Iran if they were developing nuclear weapons? If the US and the West taught any lessons to the rest of the world with the invasion and occupation of Iraq it was that Saddam Hussein was a fool for actually disarming, because by disarming all he did was make that much easier for the empire to come in and destroy the entire country. So the lesson we teach to the world is that the best way to defend yourself is to get yourself a nuclear weapon, and of course the biggest culprit of using nuclear weapons and producing nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction is my birth nation, the US, and I find it absolute insane that we sit here and talk about Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program when we know the US is producing every kind of weapon under this sun. It is spending more than any other military on the planet combined, and it's involved in more war, more death and more suffering than any other nation combined. And yet it's sitting there on a pedestal talking about other nations developing weapons of mass destruction? It is insane that we even allow them to do this, the first nation that needs to disarm without questions is the US, and the first nation to be charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity is my birth nation – the United States. Once we start seeing actions like this, then we'll know the people in positions of power are serious, because ultimately the rest of the world is sick and tired of the impunity and continuous threats of a Third World War. We've reached the point now when human beings around the planet are realizing we can't do this. We can't have a Third World War, this is not a game.

    SS: But you haven't answered my question – do you think Iran should be able to develop its nuclear program?

    KK: I think that every nation should disarm right now, every nation that has a weapons program should be inspected by a legitimate international body and those nations with the highest amount of WMDs, nuclear weapons should be the first ones to start disarming. When those nations start disarming, then I would say that the rest of the world will also have to show that it's disarming as well. While the US is able to maintain the largest military might in the history of the world and continues to use those weapons against all other countries, I only see it as a pure hypocrisy that the West would say that other countries can't have such things. I don't want any weapons in this world, but it's not right for us in the West and particular for the US to say that we can have all these weapons and for the rest of the world – we'll bomb you to the Stone Age if you even try to think to defend yourself. It's beyond hypocrisy, it's ridiculous. The US needs to disarm first, and the world needs to assist on that.

    SS: I've read in your blog that you said this world needs one thing above all others – and that's sanity. But doesn't sanity depend on what side of the argument you're on?

    KK: No, I think we were all sane when we were children and unfortunately what passes as education is actually an indoctrination and through indoctrination we've turned into really largely a bunch of dupes who've enslaved ourselves without even knowing it, but when you regain the capacity to think for yourself, to actually become human, it becomes very clear. For instance, if we look at these politicians who are historically lying to us, over and over and over again, and we realize that the war-making are absolutely inherently interested in perpetuating war, and if we look at the people in the positions of power, we see how they continuously reap major bonuses with the banks – they get bailouts to the tune of trillions and yet we're being told that we're not working hard enough, that we're in debt. All of these things combined lead us to the point when we reach a certain level of sanity, and realize: "You know what? This entire system does not represent me," and in fact every person on this planet is fighting the same enemy. That enemy uses the financial system to enslave all of us. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out; in fact more and more people are figuring this out. A point of sanity brings us to the point when we realize: "Enough, this is a game that cannot be played, we're risking our own collective suicide here and as a sane person I will not contribute in any way towards this never-ending policy of war which is leading us to the brink of destruction". This is not about being intelligent, this is about being sane first and foremost. The average person can understand this very easily.

    [Mar 01, 2016] Could Hillary Clinton Be a Sociopath?

    Notable quotes:
    "... I wonder if voters will be beguiled by Clinton's steely public persona-or if they'll look at the broken life of the victim, whom the attack left infertile for life? Will they remember that defense lawyer Hillary Clinton smeared the 12-year-old victim as a delusional seducer? ..."
    "... I fear that this story will go away. That Hillary will dodge this bullet as her husband dodged a credible charge that he actually, personally, raped a woman with his very own penis. ..."
    "... We still think that our country is a beautiful exception to the cruel calculus of politics, and expect that our leaders will be more than schemers skilled at clawing their way to power. Perhaps it's a lingering ghost of our Puritan forefathers who meant to found a "city on a hill," ..."
    "... We see an immaculately groomed, elite-educated person like Hillary Clinton who repeats all the pious phrases of humanitarian liberalism, and we cannot wrap our heads around the idea that she might be an icy, conscienceless sociopath. ..."
    "... But the best-selling expert on sociopaths, Dr. Martha Stout of Harvard, reminds us that some four Americans out of a 100 are in fact clinical sociopaths-people who simply do not experience empathy with their fellow human beings, who do not experience guilt. ..."
    "... Sociopaths experience horror stories-such as the story of a 12-year-old girl being brutally raped-the way you and I experience crossword puzzles. And one might very well chuckle and brag over how quickly one finished a crossword puzzle. ..."
    "... I have known a few such sociopaths in my life, and like most normal people I simply could not accept the evidence of my senses. Faced with their ruthless actions and habitual lies, I fell back on denial. I made excuses for their cruelties and believed their jaw-dropping lies. ..."
    Mar 01, 2016 | TheBlaze.com

    John Zmirak received his B.A. from Yale University in 1986, then his M.F.A. in screenwriting and fiction and his Ph.D. in English in 1996 from Louisiana State University. John Zmirak is author, most recently, of the upcoming book The Race to Save Our Century (with Jason Jones). His columns are archived at www.badcatholics.com.

    Will the scandal over Hillary Clinton's cynical, take-no-prisoners defense of a child rapist damage her chances at winning the White House?

    Can we choke down the fact that she willingly took on that rape case, then lied about it in print-as revealed by recently unearthed audio tapes? (Clinton wrote that she was assigned the case against her will; the tapes reveal that she took on the case as a personal favor, representing a rapist who seems to have calculated that a female attorney would help his chances.)

    Will women vote for a woman who used technicalities to get a brutal rapist less than a year in jail, then chuckled about the case to another lawyer? A lawyer who bragged how cleverly she had helped her client cheat justice?

    I wonder if voters will be beguiled by Clinton's steely public persona-or if they'll look at the broken life of the victim, whom the attack left infertile for life? Will they remember that defense lawyer Hillary Clinton smeared the 12-year-old victim as a delusional seducer? Will Hillary's campaign be dogged by women who have suffered the trauma of rape, picketing her speeches with signs that say, "Hillary Blames Victims"?

    I fear that this story will go away. That Hillary will dodge this bullet as her husband dodged a credible charge that he actually, personally, raped a woman with his very own penis.

    And I wonder how on God's earth that can happen-how any woman, or any man with a wife, daughter, or sister, can look at Hillary Clinton now without throwing up in his mouth. Are Americans morally deaf, dumb, and blind?

    No. I think that I've figured it out. It's not just that liberals will read the story and assume it's a baseless slander-not when the Daily Beast and ABC News are echoing the claims that appear on Fox. Not when you can read what the rape victim thinks of Hillary:

    "I would say [to Clinton], 'You took a case of mine in '75, you lied on me I realize the truth now, the heart of what you've done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing."

    Americans are not jaded cynics who expect their politicians to be moral monsters, on a par with stone-faced killers like Vladimir Putin. (Charles de Gaulle famously agreed with Nietzsche that "the State is a cold monster.")

    Americans are not so blasé about political evil-which is why we drove Richard Nixon out of power after Watergate, to the puzzlement of foreigners worldwide who took Nixonian "dirty tricks" for granted.

    We still think that our country is a beautiful exception to the cruel calculus of politics, and expect that our leaders will be more than schemers skilled at clawing their way to power. Perhaps it's a lingering ghost of our Puritan forefathers who meant to found a "city on a hill," or the faded echo of the Founding Fathers who warned that without virtuous citizens and upright leaders, our Republic would degenerate into just another squalid tyranny, like today's Venezuela.

    But we expect better.

    So when we are faced with evil, we are confused. We cannot quite believe it.

    We see an immaculately groomed, elite-educated person like Hillary Clinton who repeats all the pious phrases of humanitarian liberalism, and we cannot wrap our heads around the idea that she might be an icy, conscienceless sociopath. When we visualize a sociopath, we think of a leering loner who dresses up as a clown and murders children, or a late-term abortionist who collects fetal feet as trophies.

    But the best-selling expert on sociopaths, Dr. Martha Stout of Harvard, reminds us that some four Americans out of a 100 are in fact clinical sociopaths-people who simply do not experience empathy with their fellow human beings, who do not experience guilt.

    Brain scans of sociopaths have shown that when they are presented with photos that in normal humans provoke strong emotions, such as pictures of dead children or animals being tortured, the emotional centers in sociopaths' brains remain coolly inactive. Instead, what lights up is the part of their brains that in normal people gets active when they play chess. Sociopaths experience horror stories-such as the story of a 12-year-old girl being brutally raped-the way you and I experience crossword puzzles. And one might very well chuckle and brag over how quickly one finished a crossword puzzle.

    I have known a few such sociopaths in my life, and like most normal people I simply could not accept the evidence of my senses. Faced with their ruthless actions and habitual lies, I fell back on denial. I made excuses for their cruelties and believed their jaw-dropping lies.

    That seemed like the "Christian" thing to do. Of course it wasn't. It was just a lie I told myself, but choking it down was easier than facing the stark, appalling fact: That I had befriended a moral monster.

    My question for Americans is: Will we go ahead and elect one?

    John Zmirak is author, most recently, of the upcoming book "The Race to Save Our Century" (with Jason Jones). His columns are archived at www.badcatholics.com.

    [Feb 28, 2016] Republicans wage all-out war as Rubio and Cruz seek to destroy Trump

    The crisis of Republican Party then establishment no longer can control rank-and-file members reflects not only the crisis of neoliberalism as a social system, but might also reflect the fact that with 300 million of people the county became too big and too diverse to be governed from a single center of political power in non authoritarian ways. a Hillary v Trump scenario will bee a difficult choice for most Americans. A jingoistic sociopathic woman, essentially a puppet of financial oligarchy, who is a front for the neoliberal forces hell-bent of destroying Russia vs. a narcissistic person with zero political experience and vague set of ideas (but at the same time with more realistic foreign policy ideas at least).
    Notable quotes:
    "... I'm afraid this strategy will have the exact opposite effect. To Trump, an attack from Rubio or Cruz is a badge of honor. ..."
    "... 80% of young people are for Sanders. If he gets unfairly dumped, they will never forgive the Democrapic party. Both parties are in danger of losing the duopoly. ..."
    "... We're a divided country, living separate cultures over four time zones (mainland alone). We're a big big country with big big problems. I don't know how it will shake out, especially when the bills come due. I only wish we had the problems of a small European country that you can drive across in four hours. That's a luxury. ..."
    "... Hillary and Trump make Nixon look like a stand up guy. There is only one authentic, principled and electable candidate in the race. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with a positive national favorability rating. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is almost entirely a creation of the media. Most people don't realize it, but the media got addicted to him back in the early 1980, when he became one of the most flamboyant characters on the New York scene with a string of bimbos by his side, splashing around money, mostly not his, and creating the Trump brand, which he used to get into business with OPM (other people's money). ..."
    "... Sadly, this is exactly what America has become. Fox News, talk radio, lunatics and raving psychopaths, a cesspool of fear and hate. The candidates are what we have become. We're in a canoe headed for the waterfall and all we hear is "Paddle faster! Paddle faster!" What the American people will do in the end is anyone's guess. ..."
    "... Headline news says in Iran ... hardliners suffer defeat as reformists make gains ... And ... in the USA ...? hardliners on the rampage? O Tempora ... O Mores .... ..."
    "... I agree that the republican party is a despicable joke, but a look at the turnout suggests that they will very likely control the WH, senate, and increass their majority in the House. Its unfortunate, but that is definitely the way it looks right now! ..."
    "... "I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln." Pretty funny comment. They are all con artists. And Hillary can match them con for con. ..."
    "... Yup it's a shitfest all-round, the Dems debate schedule was so openly biased towards Hillary that it was comical but at least they were talking about substantive issues. ..."
    "... "Struggling Americans"? Since when has Rubio's ultra-corporate free market ideology recognised their struggle? What the fuck does he have to offer except rich man's You're OK I'M OK preaching? ..."
    "... Fuck off, Rubio -- We are going to vote Trump. ..."
    "... Trump is not Mussolini, his political, economic and social thinking has very little, if anything, in common with that man. He may be dangerous, but that doesn't mean he is a Fascist. ..."
    "... Yep, MIC depends on bankster puppets like Rubio and Clinton following their orders. Oh and the power of money is so persuasive. Bill Clinton is a very bright guy and he still repealed Glass Steagall under orders...... ..."
    "... The problem is that Rubio and Cruz are just as bad -- or worse. They're a bit more polished politically but they have the same awful mindset and espouse the same awful policies. ..."
    "... Anyway, ganging up on Trump is likely to backfire. Unlike most politicians Trump makes absolutely no attempt to hide who he is and what he stands for. People respect that even as they ignore that what he stands for is corporatism -- he's not the reincarnation of Hitler (as those two MX has-been described him), he's Mussolini. ..."
    "... I think Rubio and Cruz's attempts to destroy Trump will backfire. He can just say he is the outside being ganged up on by the establishment and how he "wont be pushed around just like America wont be pushed around anymore! blah blah". ..."
    "... The establishment will do and say anything to get Trump out. They have total control over all the others but not Trump. Donald is the only candidate who will do what's right for the country and the people and make America great again. TRUMP 2016 ..."
    "... Rubio seems power-mad. Another reason why he is deeply unsuitable to wield ultimate power. ..."
    "... As a democrat I am terrified and so too should all democrats be. Turnout so far has been down about 26% compared to 2008. The republicans on the other hand have seen an increase of almost the smae amount compared to their 2012 numbers! Thats a disaster waiting to happen in November. Turnout in primaries is one of the best indicators, if not the best, of what will happen in a general election. ..."
    "... Indeed. If I was American, a Hillary v Trump scenario would be mindscrewingly difficult to choose between. An evil woman who is a front for all the neoliberal forces out there. Or an evil man who is a complete moron and will drive America to its knees. ..."
    "... "Donald Trump is a liberal Republican" In the crazy world of Republican politics 2016 you're not wrong. You then drift of into a fantasy world where Trump actually wins the presidency. More people hate him than love him, with barely anything in-between. Plus they've only just started digging for dirt. ..."
    "... Guardian sub-heading: "Rubio attacks 'con artist' as Cruz links Trump to mafia" I link all of them to oligarchy, patriarchy and Christian jihadism. Admittedly, there are some conceptual overlaps there. ..."
    "... OMG Cruz, Rubio or Trump vs Hilary Clinton. Jeez, America. I got kids to care about - is that IT? ..."
    "... Rubio isn't what he presents himself as. Look at his voting record- http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Marco-Rubio-412491 Does that match up to the way he talks about his policies? I don't think so. ..."
    "... One "good" thing about Trump in this election is that he is clearly not a consultant-packaged candidate (like Rubio) or a fake (like Cruz), but Trump is a quintessentially amoral salesman. He pitches whatever the customers want to hear. Customers need to read the fine print before buying products from him. ..."
    "... Truth is both parties pander to the emotions -- the more frenzied the better it seems -- none of the candidates respect voters enough to discuss policy with anything even resembling depth. Politics is cotton candy in America, sprinkled with just enough cayenne to arouse burnt tongues. Oh what a tangled web we weave... ..."
    "... Unless she is indicted before the election. Then it might be problematic. Look up Spiro Agnew if you think investigations are all for show. ..."
    "... I can't stand Trump...but he seems to be better than Cruz & Rubio...the problem seems to be a politically bankrupt party disintegrating before our eyes... ..."
    "... Full blown panic mode now by the GOP establishment, as they belatedly realize they have a problem with no agreeable solution. ..."
    "... But let's notice one more time that all the discomfort about Trump as expressed by the GOP functionaries is centered around their suspicions that he may be a closet "liberal". They're worrying aloud about whether he'd support single-payer healthcare insurance, or refuse to vigorously oppose gay marriage or draconian positions on abortion. ..."
    "... Supporting war in Iraq was spectacularly I'll judged. ..."
    "... Trump's game seems to have been to use The Republican Party's machinery to boost himself, aware that his appeal to the populace is that he is counter the old guard, awaiting that old guard's attempt to ditch him and then becoming his own man with his own party. That would split the GOP's ranks; if, having only, say, half its voters so not winning this time, he will have sown the seed in his long game to win next time. ..."
    "... When Trump was still normal, he left The Reform Party because David Duke from the KKK had joined it. Now, he says doesn't know David Duke, not even the KKK!!!! ..."
    "... As Cruz desperately tries to salvage something before slithering under the exit door Rubio keeps insisting that he will keep receiving participation ribbons just for showing up and they will add up to victory. ..."
    "... Trump looks more and more like the mature actor in the room. From lunatic insider to the presumptive candidate for the republican party in about 6 months. Pretty impressive. The voters will flock to Trump, who in the end will do what all presidents do and screw the voters and support the rich. Both parties do it to the voters, but the voters never learn. ..."
    "... Hillary doesn't exist politically. It is a front for banks and foreign investments. A sham. ..."
    "... This is awesome, America is embarking on a long overdue conversation. The Republicans are now using tax returns to play the 1% card on Trump, yes they hate those richer than themselves as well as poorer. You wonder why they bother, and I'm sure some of them are. So hate it will be from the Republicans and 'love and kindness' from Hillary. It's mapping out. ..."
    The Guardian
    AnthonyFlack -> ryanpatrick9192, 2016-02-28 20:44:44
    Democratic party is not investing in voting drives this year because doing so would benefit Sanders, whereas a low voter turnout favors Clinton (who is increasingly unpopular and looks increasingly likely to lose the general).

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/dem-voter-registration-leading-turnout-article-1.2545420

    samwisehere, 2016-02-28 20:44:25
    I'm afraid this strategy will have the exact opposite effect. To Trump, an attack from Rubio or Cruz is a badge of honor.
    Nedward Marbletoe -> olman132, 2016-02-28 20:44:04
    Sanders was nearly tied with Clinton in delegates before South Carolina. So it's very close right now.

    80% of young people are for Sanders. If he gets unfairly dumped, they will never forgive the Democrapic party. Both parties are in danger of losing the duopoly.

    Robert Hoover -> Nedward Marbletoe, 2016-02-28 20:42:23
    Sorry. boys. It's a case of "too little, too late." Hopefully the Dems will not underestimate Trump like the GOP did. http://moronmajority.com/are-democrats-underestimating-trump-like-the-gop/
    JRWirth, 2016-02-28 20:39:56
    What everyone is glossing over, is that the country is too big and the politics have become too small. You have a special problem with the presidency in that the person who occupies it should embody the basic American ethos from Boston to Honolulu and from Miami to Anchorage. No one exists who can do this.

    We're a divided country, living separate cultures over four time zones (mainland alone). We're a big big country with big big problems. I don't know how it will shake out, especially when the bills come due. I only wish we had the problems of a small European country that you can drive across in four hours. That's a luxury.

    dig4victory, 2016-02-28 20:38:52
    Hillary and Trump make Nixon look like a stand up guy. There is only one authentic, principled and electable candidate in the race. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with a positive national favorability rating.
    WyntonK, 2016-02-28 20:37:08
    Donald Trump is almost entirely a creation of the media. Most people don't realize it, but the media got addicted to him back in the early 1980, when he became one of the most flamboyant characters on the New York scene with a string of bimbos by his side, splashing around money, mostly not his, and creating the Trump brand, which he used to get into business with OPM (other people's money).

    A lot of his revenues come from licensing out the Trump name out to various development ventures into which he doesn't contribute a penny, and which generate a large income that finances his extravagant lifestyle. He is basically a con man, always has been. The corporate media refrains from mentioning his four bankruptcies, despite inheriting a quarter of a billion dollars from his father. They media wants him to stay on the campaign scene till the end, because he is the largest entertainment story that have had in years, and covering his carnival act keeps generating great revenues for them.

    daniel1948 -> IMSpardagus, 2016-02-28 20:36:46
    Sadly, this is exactly what America has become. Fox News, talk radio, lunatics and raving psychopaths, a cesspool of fear and hate. The candidates are what we have become. We're in a canoe headed for the waterfall and all we hear is "Paddle faster! Paddle faster!" What the American people will do in the end is anyone's guess.
    Teebs, 2016-02-28 20:35:48
    Headline news says in Iran ... hardliners suffer defeat as reformists make gains ... And ... in the USA ...? hardliners on the rampage? O Tempora ... O Mores ....
    turn1eft -> Rialbynot, 2016-02-28 20:35:43
    Think how many billions are tied up in an establishment win. Trump will be taxing companies that move blue collar jobs out of the US. He will be a jobs president. I am really really suspicious of papers and parties like the Guardian and Labour that don't support this agenda.
    AlabasterCodefy -> Rialbynot, 2016-02-28 20:35:23
    Destroy Trump? CNN has placed Trump on hard rotation since mid-2015, to join their rolling Clinton love-in. They haven't reported on him so much as run his campaign. That would imply that they' re getting paid down the line.
    timnorfolk, 2016-02-28 20:35:11
    Let Trump build his walls along the Mexican and Canadian borders. Only when they are completed reveal they are intended to keep Americans in.
    ryanpatrick9192 -> deddzone, 2016-02-28 20:34:53
    I agree that the republican party is a despicable joke, but a look at the turnout suggests that they will very likely control the WH, senate, and increass their majority in the House. Its unfortunate, but that is definitely the way it looks right now!
    David Galbraith, 2016-02-28 20:33:28
    "I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln." Pretty funny comment. They are all con artists. And Hillary can match them con for con.
    Robert Jenkins -> Flugler, 2016-02-28 20:33:09
    Yup it's a shitfest all-round, the Dems debate schedule was so openly biased towards Hillary that it was comical but at least they were talking about substantive issues.

    The main thing that interests me though is the money still pouring into the GOP even though it's clear that the party has become unelectable.

    africanland123, 2016-02-28 20:30:06
    " Lincoln
    Marco Rubio

    Pressed on whether he could win in this week's elections, the 12-state "Super Tuesday" contest, Rubio said: "Sure. That's not the plan, by the way, but sure."

    "He then voiced anxieties that have coursed through the Republican party for months: "I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln."

    Calling the billionaire "a clown act" who is "preying on" struggling Americans, Rubio warned that..."

    "Struggling Americans"? Since when has Rubio's ultra-corporate free market ideology recognised their struggle? What the fuck does he have to offer except rich man's You're OK I'M OK preaching?

    Fuck off, Rubio -- We are going to vote Trump.

    JordiPujol -> martinusher, 2016-02-28 20:28:45
    I seem to recall that Benito embroiled Italy in fruitless war or two....

    Trump is not Mussolini, his political, economic and social thinking has very little, if anything, in common with that man. He may be dangerous, but that doesn't mean he is a Fascist.

    Flugler -> Rialbynot, 2016-02-28 20:20:05
    Yep, MIC depends on bankster puppets like Rubio and Clinton following their orders. Oh and the power of money is so persuasive. Bill Clinton is a very bright guy and he still repealed Glass Steagall under orders......

    ...

    martinusher, 2016-02-28 20:16:18
    The problem is that Rubio and Cruz are just as bad -- or worse. They're a bit more polished politically but they have the same awful mindset and espouse the same awful policies.

    A Trumpohpile told me that the reason he likes Trump (and possibly Sanders) is that neither of them are likely to end up embroiling us in yet more fruitless wars. I understand where he was coming from -- we've been conned so many times by the political establishment that voting is really choosing the lesser of evils. People are tired of this.

    Anyway, ganging up on Trump is likely to backfire. Unlike most politicians Trump makes absolutely no attempt to hide who he is and what he stands for. People respect that even as they ignore that what he stands for is corporatism -- he's not the reincarnation of Hitler (as those two MX has-been described him), he's Mussolini.

    ArdentSocialist, 2016-02-28 20:14:23
    I think Rubio and Cruz's attempts to destroy Trump will backfire. He can just say he is the outside being ganged up on by the establishment and how he "wont be pushed around just like America wont be pushed around anymore! blah blah".

    Trump will emerge the victor. I'm almost positive.

    Tim Osman, 2016-02-28 20:02:11
    The establishment will do and say anything to get Trump out. They have total control over all the others but not Trump. Donald is the only candidate who will do what's right for the country and the people and make America great again. TRUMP 2016
    janpcb -> maggie111, 2016-02-28 20:01:54
    Clinton: When i'm POTUS we will attack Iran!
    Trump : Let's work with Russia to destroy ISIS!
    Out of the two, i'm thinking Clinton is a total psychopath.
    Svalbard, 2016-02-28 19:58:15
    Rubio seems power-mad. Another reason why he is deeply unsuitable to wield ultimate power.
    ryanpatrick9192, 2016-02-28 19:57:27
    As a democrat I am terrified and so too should all democrats be. Turnout so far has been down about 26% compared to 2008. The republicans on the other hand have seen an increase of almost the smae amount compared to their 2012 numbers! Thats a disaster waiting to happen in November. Turnout in primaries is one of the best indicators, if not the best, of what will happen in a general election.

    If this trend doesnt change (and theres no reason to believe it will) then we are not only looking at a Republican controlled WH, but democrats will have almost no chance of regaining control of the Senate and they could even increase their majority in the House (which they are going to control no matter what happens)

    Big_Boss -> SuchArticleSoComment, 2016-02-28 19:55:48
    Indeed. If I was American, a Hillary v Trump scenario would be mindscrewingly difficult to choose between. An evil woman who is a front for all the neoliberal forces out there. Or an evil man who is a complete moron and will drive America to its knees.

    I think the best option is not to play

    xavierzubercock -> SPappas, 2016-02-28 19:41:13
    "Donald Trump is a liberal Republican" In the crazy world of Republican politics 2016 you're not wrong. You then drift of into a fantasy world where Trump actually wins the presidency. More people hate him than love him, with barely anything in-between. Plus they've only just started digging for dirt.
    funnynought, 2016-02-28 19:37:20
    Guardian sub-heading: "Rubio attacks 'con artist' as Cruz links Trump to mafia" I link all of them to oligarchy, patriarchy and Christian jihadism. Admittedly, there are some conceptual overlaps there.
    quilt, 2016-02-28 19:35:15
    OMG Cruz, Rubio or Trump vs Hilary Clinton. Jeez, America. I got kids to care about - is that IT?
    Texas_Sotol -> skepticaleye, 2016-02-28 19:30:20
    "amoral salesman" Very succinct character description!

    How about:

    A moral
    S elf-indulgent
    S alesman

    tuhaybey, 2016-02-28 19:22:10
    Rubio isn't what he presents himself as. Look at his voting record- http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Marco-Rubio-412491 Does that match up to the way he talks about his policies? I don't think so.
    skepticaleye, 2016-02-28 19:18:52
    One "good" thing about Trump in this election is that he is clearly not a consultant-packaged candidate (like Rubio) or a fake (like Cruz), but Trump is a quintessentially amoral salesman. He pitches whatever the customers want to hear. Customers need to read the fine print before buying products from him.
    ustanonlooker -> Doug Steiner, 2016-02-28 19:18:46
    Poorly educated and stupid. Sadly, that sums up the majority of Americans.
    Woops1gottasneeze, 2016-02-28 19:18:20
    Truth is both parties pander to the emotions -- the more frenzied the better it seems -- none of the candidates respect voters enough to discuss policy with anything even resembling depth. Politics is cotton candy in America, sprinkled with just enough cayenne to arouse burnt tongues. Oh what a tangled web we weave...
    chiefwiley -> PeteGr1, 2016-02-28 19:17:54
    Unless she is indicted before the election. Then it might be problematic. Look up Spiro Agnew if you think investigations are all for show.
    ajbsmurphy, 2016-02-28 19:17:43
    I can't stand Trump...but he seems to be better than Cruz & Rubio...the problem seems to be a politically bankrupt party disintegrating before our eyes...
    gunnison, 2016-02-28 19:17:40
    Full blown panic mode now by the GOP establishment, as they belatedly realize they have a problem with no agreeable solution.

    But let's notice one more time that all the discomfort about Trump as expressed by the GOP functionaries is centered around their suspicions that he may be a closet "liberal". They're worrying aloud about whether he'd support single-payer healthcare insurance, or refuse to vigorously oppose gay marriage or draconian positions on abortion.

    Not a word about his promise to be a war criminal by torturing people "because they deserve it", or unconstitutionally banning entry to the US on religious grounds or his support for the idea of rendering the press vulnerable to lawsuits under brand spanking new libel laws.

    The guy has come out brazenly in support of attitudes that the GOP has been covertly dog-whistling about for years, and now they're panicking.

    Embracing him as their candidate destroys the brand.

    Torpedoing his candidacy by deploying internal party shenanigans either in the remaining days of the campaign and/or at the convention will fracture the party.

    All the people who Trump has excited with his "he's just saying what people are really thinking" meme are sure as hell not going to just roll over and let their hero "be robbed" of the nomination. And you can bet that's how, with Donald's help, they will see it.

    SundridgePete -> John Dagne, 2016-02-28 19:16:32
    Supporting war in Iraq was spectacularly I'll judged. But I'd rather have someone who once made a mistake than a psychopath.
    ClaudeNAORobot, 2016-02-28 19:15:15
    Trump's game seems to have been to use The Republican Party's machinery to boost himself, aware that his appeal to the populace is that he is counter the old guard, awaiting that old guard's attempt to ditch him and then becoming his own man with his own party. That would split the GOP's ranks; if, having only, say, half its voters so not winning this time, he will have sown the seed in his long game to win next time.
    RealSoothsayer, 2016-02-28 19:14:54
    When Trump was still normal, he left The Reform Party because David Duke from the KKK had joined it. Now, he says doesn't know David Duke, not even the KKK!!!!
    Vintage59, 2016-02-28 19:07:42
    As Cruz desperately tries to salvage something before slithering under the exit door Rubio keeps insisting that he will keep receiving participation ribbons just for showing up and they will add up to victory.
    benbache, 2016-02-28 18:58:44
    Trump looks more and more like the mature actor in the room. From lunatic insider to the presumptive candidate for the republican party in about 6 months. Pretty impressive. The voters will flock to Trump, who in the end will do what all presidents do and screw the voters and support the rich. Both parties do it to the voters, but the voters never learn.
    bcarey -> SuchArticleSoComment, 2016-02-28 18:55:51
    Hillary doesn't exist politically. It is a front for banks and foreign investments. A sham.
    JonnyNoone, 2016-02-28 18:47:47
    This is awesome, America is embarking on a long overdue conversation. The Republicans are now using tax returns to play the 1% card on Trump, yes they hate those richer than themselves as well as poorer. You wonder why they bother, and I'm sure some of them are. So hate it will be from the Republicans and 'love and kindness' from Hillary. It's mapping out.

    [Feb 26, 2016] A Unified Theory of Trump by Timothy Egan

    NYT is pro-Hillary neocon establishment influenced rag. One apt observation from NYT comments: "Trump's assertions about sleep should be taken with the grain of salt that all his other grandiose proclamations deserve. I suspect he makes those claims just to prove what an exceptional human he is. He doesn't even need to sleep much!" Trumps come and go, but the deluded, totally brainwashed electorate will stay. That's the real problem. Degradation of democracy into oligarchy (the iron law of oligarchy) is an objective process. Currently what we see is some kind revolt against status quo. that's why Trump and Sanders get so many supporters.
    Another one from comments: "Over the years, Pew surveys show that at least 60% of those polled can't name two branches of the government. Current campaigns, including that of Sanders, imply that the POTUS has a wide range of powers that are to be found nowhere in the Constitution." So none of Repug candidates understand this document. And still I must admit that "Trump is the best in breed when it comes to this GOP dog show." I agree that "Trump punches above his weight in debates "
    NYT will never tell you why Hillary will be even more dangerous president.
    Only a sleep disorder physician following a full-night study could tell us whether the diagnosis is clinically sound. This guy from NYT is a regular uneducated journo, not a certified physician. Why insult people who truly suffer from sleep deprivation? So all of them are obnoxious maniacs? To me a large part of his behavior is a typical alpha-male behavior. There are, in fact, a number of brilliant, driven alpha-males who function well with a bare amount of sleep. That may be an evolutionary trait that help them to achieve dominance. For example, Napoleon rarely slept more than 2-3 hours per 24-hour period, according to several historians. Churchill stayed up several nights in a row reading Hansard in his formative years and he was a gifted orator, one of the sharpest wits. He also was an alcoholic. Several famous famous mathematicians were among sleep deprived people. Like photographic memory this is a unique idiosyncrasy that is more frequent in alpha-males, not necessary a disease. BTW Angela Merkel is noted for her ability not to sleep for several nights, wearing her opponents into shreds via sleep deprivation and enforcing her decisions over the rest. That was last demonstrated in Minsk were she managed even to get Putin to agree on her terms.
    He mentions this term "alpha male" despite the fact that it provides an alternative explanation. Also as one reader commented "So please explain the positions (and behaviors ) of Ayatollah Cruz and rubber man Rubio." Those two backstabbing pseudo-religious demagog got implicit support from the article.
    How about this from sleep deprived person vs one definitely non-sleep deprive person (Jeb!): "Donald Trump joins the fight to release the secret 28 Pages of the 9/11 Report."
    Notable quotes:
    "... This is Time's contribution to the growing movement to discredit Trump. Every candidate can be similarly eviscerated for their weaknesses, including character flaws. The problem is that our American system of electing leadership is deeply flawed and easily manipulated by advertising. The humiliating process of campaigning drives away our best prospects, leaving the country with weak, inconsistent leadership. ..."
    "... gemli, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton pursued a regime change in Libya, Syria and Ukraine. They got away with their foolish adventure by saying that Gaddafi was a bad guy, Assad is a bad guy and Putin is a bad guy. ..."
    "... Mr. Trump is the sole American politician who is willing to say that we should cooperate with Putin. He is the only Republican to be open to single payer health care, the only Republican to say something good about Planned Parenthood and the only Republican to say that Bush should have been impeached for the Iraq war. ..."
    "... Hillary Rodham and Marco Rubio are so awful that we would be better off with a nasty, sleep-deprived Trump. Besides, there is still a much better alternative: the irascible Bernie Sanders. He may be angry, but you would have to be crazy to not be angry with the mess we now have to live with: a rigged economy, free trade , politics corrupted by money, and an insatiable Military Industrial Complex. ..."
    "... A lot of people are angry and Trump is channeling that anger. Sanders is channeling a different anger but he is too nice, and will lose to Mrs. Clinton who is supported by the establishment. ..."
    "... He, I believe is also the first American politician to say openly that we have to cooperate with Russia if we are really serious about taking on ISIS. Mr. Obama, with his Harvard education, has NO idea what to do about the ME and is floundering around. Meanwhile Russia and Assad and the Kurds are taking the lead, and our allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actually undermining the war against ISIS. ..."
    "... I would not vote for Trump but if he does become president, we might actually have peace in the Middle East and we might actually have single payer health care. On the second, almost all the Democrats will support him and so will at least some Republicans. ..."
    "... Trump is not a nice man but he might not be a disaster as president. ..."
    "... Trump is right about one thing, He does make your head spin. ..."
    "... I just finished reading 4 opinion columns by Bruni, Brooks, Krugman and lastly Tim Egans, all published on Feb 26th. (May the last be first and the first last.) I hope Kasich wins to invoke a civil exchange of ideas in American politics, but I will vote for Bernie ..."
    "... I imagine the Asians and/or Europe all laughing at us now, but at least there not shouting and acting like children. Help me, Im drowning. Give me a leader who can compromise in that great noble tradition which benefits everyone. Its called compassion for the global family. ..."
    "... Ambler in Background to Danger has a small meditation about politics being not much of anything other than a face behind which the true story goes on, one of big business interests--or in general, economic interests. ..."
    "... With Donald Trump the Republican party in the U.S. seems to have dropped the politics mask -- you have a combination of business and fascistic impulses. The question however, is why. Could it be because now all nations in the world find themselves hemmed, with a landlocked feeling like Germany had prior to outbreak of WW2? These business/authoritarian impulses today are not confined to the U.S. alone. ..."
    "... how to satisfy in simple basics the restless masses of millions upon millions of people, everything else, not to mention culture, just collapsing in a crowd discussion of who gets what, when, where, why, and how. ..."
    "... Whats defective about Trump? He is obviously doing very well for himself - he is the likely Republican nominee and is not exactly starving despite multiple bankruptcies. ..."
    "... There are real problems with politics in the US and Trump is getting support partly because he at least shows some signs, however delusionary, of addressing the concerns of the 99%. ..."
    "... Why are Democrats so concerned that Donald Trump might be the Republican Partys nominee for President that the NY Times trots out editorials psychobabbling about his sleep deprivation? ..."
    "... Trump may be all that the intellectual elite deride him for. Guess what? The people who support him dont care. They are tired of being told how to think by people who suppose themselves to be their betters. They will cast their votes and throw their support behind whomever they please, thank-you very much. ..."
    "... And really, does Timothy Egan really believe Donald Trump doesnt know what hes doing or saying? Because of sleep deprivation? Note to Mr. Egan: Whatever is Trumps sleep schedule, it seems to be working well for him. Hes winning. ..."
    "... Trump functions well enough to understand this: (1) The media is deceptive with an agenda of its own. (2) Big donors and big money control the career politicians. 93) Politicians can talk talk talk and make plans and policy and get nothing done. ..."
    "... Trump and his supporters are on to all this now. The corrupt media, the corrupt big money and the all talk no action politicians. That is functioning well enough. Trump does not need to function beyond that. His supporters know it and he knows it. ..."
    "... So far the best and the brightest highly educated intellectuals have let the USA down . Trump has a certain kind of intelligence that might be just what we need. He effectively cut through a crowded Republican field packed with ideological purists like a knife through butter. He is a very talented New Yorker who grew up in the 60s and went to Fordham before he went to Wharton. If you want to stick your finger in the collective eye of the elite . vote for Trump. ..."
    "... The republican party is the reactionary party. They are a little like the Sicilians described in the novel The Leopard where it is said that In Sicily it doesnt matter whether things are done well or done badly; the sin which we Sicilians never forgive is simply that of doing at all. ..."
    "... The Taibbi piece can be found here at this link: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-... ..."
    "... Better a sleep deprived bully than a well rested one, which what the rest of the bunch are. They clearly know exactly how to ruin the country and antagonize our allies. ..."
    "... As you are reading this, recall how a stressful event in your own life interfered with your sleep. Well, given the frantic nature of the current Republican primary season, the travel, the debates, the probing press, the TV interviews, the speeches, the insults and whats at stake, all of the candidates must be sleep deprived. If they were not they wouldnt be human. Donald will do just fine once he becomes president and gets use to the job (or not). ..."
    "... But what about those who hold those same obnoxious ideas arguably sans sleep deprivation? Palin, Cruz, Carson? Please do a series of columns linking the apparent absence of reason in many of the GOP candidates with the current DSM. ..."
    "... I used to ridicule President Reagans legendary afternoon naps. Now I am the age Reagan was as president, and I dont think I could function without napping when I dont get enough sleep at night. ..."
    "... What is happening now is not about Trump. Its about what he represents. I dont normally read Peggy Noonan but she nails it today. There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully. ..."
    Feb 26, 2016 | The New York Times
    michael kittle
    vaison la romaine, france 17 hours ago

    This is Tim's contribution to the growing movement to discredit Trump. Every candidate can be similarly eviscerated for their weaknesses, including character flaws. The problem is that our American system of electing leadership is deeply flawed and easily manipulated by advertising. The humiliating process of campaigning drives away our best prospects, leaving the country with weak, inconsistent leadership.

    The founding fathers rejected a parliamentary system because it was like England's, but history indicates America could have avoided many political debacles if it had been easier to remove incompetent presidents when their decisions threatened the country. Modernizing our electoral system, shortening the campaign time, and raising the level of debate could improve the choices Americans are given.

    Rohit
    New York 8 hours ago

    gemli, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton pursued a regime change in Libya, Syria and Ukraine. They got away with their foolish adventure by saying that Gaddafi was a bad guy, Assad is a bad guy and Putin is a bad guy.

    And maybe they are right about these people being bad guys. But the regime change policy has been a disaster. WE did not spend a trillion dollars and no AMERICAN troops died. But hundreds of thousands of Syrians are dead, millions knocking at Germany's door and Greece is overwhelmed with refugees. This was all the doing of the "Obama team".

    Mr. Trump is the sole American politician who is willing to say that we should cooperate with Putin. He is the only Republican to be open to single payer health care, the only Republican to say something good about Planned Parenthood and the only Republican to say that Bush should have been impeached for the Iraq war.

    YOU just see a nasty man in the Republican debates who talks nonsense and has no trouble lying. And that nasty mean does seem to be there, although given Trump, the nasty man might well be a façade who will vanish as soon as he faces the general election.

    And you need to be aware of the fact that some of his positions are actually sensible and he is the only politician who has all these positions.

    Unfortunately you guys hate Republicans so much that you see red any time you see one and that red in your eyes prevents you from seeing clearly.

    Timothy Bal

    Central Jersey 16 hours ago
    A sleep-deprived Trump is still much better than a fully rested tool of the elites from either political party.

    Hillary Rodham and Marco Rubio are so awful that we would be better off with a nasty, sleep-deprived Trump. Besides, there is still a much better alternative: the irascible Bernie Sanders. He may be angry, but you would have to be crazy to not be angry with the mess we now have to live with: a rigged economy, "free trade", politics corrupted by money, and an insatiable Military Industrial Complex.

    Rohit, New York 9 hours ago
    A lot of people are angry and Trump is channeling that anger. Sanders is channeling a different anger but he is too nice, and will lose to Mrs. Clinton who is supported by the establishment.

    Trump is mean enough to take on the establishment, and win. And he is the first Republican brave enough to say that Planned Parenthood DOES do some good work. Like him, I do NOT think they should receive federal funding but that some or most of their work is actually health related is a fact.

    He, I believe is also the first American politician to say openly that we have to cooperate with Russia if we are really serious about taking on ISIS. Mr. Obama, with his Harvard education, has NO idea what to do about the ME and is floundering around. Meanwhile Russia and Assad and the Kurds are taking the lead, and our "allies" Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actually undermining the war against ISIS.

    I would not vote for Trump but if he does become president, we might actually have peace in the Middle East and we might actually have single payer health care. On the second, almost all the Democrats will support him and so will at least some Republicans.

    Trump is not a nice man but he might not be a disaster as president.

    Bob SE PA 6 hours ago

    Mr. Egan, Donald Trump may or may not suffer from sleep deprivation. He definitely suffers from something called NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He has the classic symptoms which are described as follows, according to the Mayo Clinic http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-d... :

    "DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:

    1. Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
    2. Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
    3. Exaggerating your achievements and talents
    4. Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
    5. Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people
    6. Requiring constant admiration
    7. Having a sense of entitlement
    8. Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
    9. Taking advantage of others to get what you want
    10. Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
    11. Being envious of others and believing others envy you
    12. Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner"

    bill b new york 16 hours ago

    Trump is right about one thing, He does make your head spin.

    Paul Greensboro, NC 11 hours ago

    I just finished reading 4 opinion columns by Bruni, Brooks, Krugman and lastly Tim Egan's, all published on Feb 26th. (May the last be first and the first last.) I hope Kasich wins to invoke a civil exchange of ideas in American politics, but I will vote for Bernie or Hilary assuming an asteroid does not hit the earth before then.

    I imagine the Asians and/or Europe all laughing at us now, but at least the're not shouting and acting like children. Help me, I'm drowning. Give me a leader who can compromise in that great noble tradition which benefits everyone. It's called compassion for the global family.

    Daniel12 Wash. D.C. 14 hours ago

    Donald Trump?

    I'm on a project to read four (the four I could find so far) of the six Eric Ambler novels written prior to WW2. I'm on the second, "Background to Danger", now. Ambler in "Background to Danger" has a small meditation about politics being not much of anything other than a face behind which the true story goes on, one of big business interests--or in general, economic interests.

    With Donald Trump the Republican party in the U.S. seems to have dropped the politics mask -- you have a combination of business and fascistic impulses. The question however, is why. Could it be because now all nations in the world find themselves hemmed, with a landlocked feeling like Germany had prior to outbreak of WW2? These business/authoritarian impulses today are not confined to the U.S. alone.

    Worse, the opposition to big business, the other big economic theory of past decades, the socialistic/communistic trend, has been seen in practice whether we speak of Cuba or the Soviet Union or Venezuela or China. It seems all the masks of politics are coming off, all the ideals such as democracy, rights, communism, what have you and instead the argument is turning to actual and naked discussion of interests pure and simple, right and left wing economics, how to satisfy in simple basics the restless masses of millions upon millions of people, everything else, not to mention culture, just collapsing in a crowd discussion of who gets what, when, where, why, and how.

    The open boat.

    skeptonomist is a trusted commenter Tennessee 11 hours ago

    What's defective about Trump? He is obviously doing very well for himself - he is the likely Republican nominee and is not exactly starving despite multiple bankruptcies.

    What needs analysis is why so many people support Trump - what's up with them? And what defects in the establishments of both parties cause so many people to reject their selected dynastic picks.

    There are real problems with politics in the US and Trump is getting support partly because he at least shows some signs, however delusionary, of addressing the concerns of the 99%.

    Beachbum Paris 14 hours ago

    This is all thanks to Rupert Murdoch

    S.D.Keith Birmigham, AL 7 hours ago

    Why are Democrats so concerned that Donald Trump might be the Republican Party's nominee for President that the NY Times trots out editorials psychobabbling about his sleep deprivation?

    This is hilarious stuff. Trump may be all that the intellectual elite deride him for. Guess what? The people who support him don't care. They are tired of being told how to think by people who suppose themselves to be their betters. They will cast their votes and throw their support behind whomever they please, thank-you very much. That, much to the chagrin of the Progressive idealists who always believe they know better what people should need and want, is democracy in action. It may be ugly at times, but it is much preferred over every other form of governance.

    In fact, articles like this, while red meat for establishmentarian dogs, serve only to strengthen Trump's bona fides among his supporters.

    And really, does Timothy Egan really believe Donald Trump doesn't know what he's doing or saying? Because of sleep deprivation? Note to Mr. Egan: Whatever is Trump's sleep schedule, it seems to be working well for him. He's winning.

    J. San Ramon 9 hours ago

    Trump functions well enough to understand this: (1) The media is deceptive with an agenda of its own. (2) Big donors and big money control the career politicians. 93) Politicians can talk talk talk and make plans and policy and get nothing done.

    Trump and his supporters are on to all this now. The corrupt media, the corrupt big money and the all talk no action politicians. That is functioning well enough. Trump does not need to function beyond that. His supporters know it and he knows it.

    Scott, NYC 7 hours ago

    Another cheap hit piece by the Times. Just to fact check Mr. Egan. Trump just did very, very well with Hispanics in Nevada. So who's delusional?

    AVT, Glen Cove, NY 7 hours ago

    So far the best and the brightest highly educated intellectuals have let the USA down . Trump has a certain kind of intelligence that might be just what we need. He effectively cut through a crowded Republican field packed with ideological purists like a knife through butter. He is a very talented New Yorker who grew up in the 60s and went to Fordham before he went to Wharton. If you want to stick your finger in the collective eye of the "elite". vote for Trump. This message brought to you by a hugely "bigly" educated Queens lawyer. go Redmen

    Excellency, is a trusted commenter Florida 9 hours ago

    The republican party is the reactionary party. They are a little like the Sicilians described in the novel "The Leopard" where it is said that" In Sicily it doesn't matter whether things are done well or done badly; the sin which we Sicilians never forgive is simply that of 'doing' at all."

    Imagine a man of action like Trump navigating that population, from which great jurists like Scalia emerge, and you have Trump behaving much as Egan describes and succeeding. Indeed, in that same novel it is said that "to rage and mock is gentlemanly, to grumble and whine is not."

    S.R. Simon, Bala Cynwyd, Pa. 9 hours ago

    Matt Taibbi's pitch-perfect HOW AMERICA MADE DONALD TRUMP UNSTOPPABLE (Rolling Stone, Feb. 24) says it all, and to perfection. The Taibbi piece can be found here at this link: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-...

    Nora01, New England 9 hours ago

    Better a sleep deprived bully than a well rested one, which what the rest of the bunch are. They clearly know exactly how to ruin the country and antagonize our allies.

    nzierler, New Hartford 9 hours ago

    Ever wonder why Trump invokes the name of Carl Ihkan every chance he gets? Both engage in hostile takeovers. That's the predatory side of business. But how does that qualify Trump to be the Commander-In-Chief? I would not be surprised if a frustrated President Trump threatened to punch Vladimir Putin in the face. The very thought of President Trump is a nightmare, but no less a nightmare than President Cruz or President Rubio.

    Dan Weber, Anchorage, Alaska 9 hours ago

    John Kenneth Galbraith, who was in parts of his career intimate with government (including being American ambassador to India during the 1962 China-India War) said in his autobiography that sleep deprivation was the least-appreciated weakness of high-level decision makers in times of crisis.

    Somewhere I've read of an experiment that concluded that someone who hasn't slept for 36 hours is as dysfunctional as if he were legally intoxicated. And I recall Colin Powell praising Ambien as the only thing that allowed him to travel as he had to. That's interesting, given Ambien's well-known potential amnesic side-effects.

    Mike, San Diego 9 hours ago

    As you are reading this, recall how a stressful event in your own life interfered with your sleep. Well, given the frantic nature of the current Republican primary season, the travel, the debates, the probing press, the TV interviews, the speeches, the insults and what's at stake, all of the candidates must be sleep deprived. If they were not they wouldn't be human. Donald will do just fine once he becomes president and gets use to the job (or not).

    Carrollian, NY 9 hours ago

    But what about those who hold those same obnoxious ideas arguably sans sleep deprivation? Palin, Cruz, Carson? Please do a series of columns linking the apparent absence of reason in many of the GOP candidates with the current DSM.

    Richard Grayson, Brooklyn, NY 11 hours ago

    Good call, though I suspect most presidential candidates need a lot more sleep. A friend of mine who lived near Michael Dukakis saw him a few weeks after the 1988 election, and he recounted that the Democratic presidential candidate said he was now sleeping so much better, that in the hectic pace of a campaign, he wasn't able to take the time to learn "what was really going on" and to process everything.

    I used to ridicule President Reagan's legendary afternoon naps. Now I am the age Reagan was as president, and I don't think I could function without napping when I don't get enough sleep at night.

    There's a campaign trope about who you want to be in the White House when an emergency call about a serious world crisis comes in at 3 a.m. I want him or her to be someone who didn't just go to sleep at 2 a.m.

    CNNNNC, CT 11 hours ago

    What is happening now is not about Trump. It's about what he represents. I don't normally read Peggy Noonan but she nails it today. "There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.

    The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful-those who have power or access to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are protected from the world they have created."

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-rise-of-the-unprotected-145644...

    Making the election about Trump personally conveniently ignores this new reality.

    [Feb 25, 2016] A Letter to Tony Blair

    Notable quotes:
    "... But if the alternative is to try and elect leaders from the centre who will do nothing to confront these great issues, and will instead cut spending, accept stagnation and wait for the next financial crisis, is it any wonder that many people would rather take their chance with someone different? ... ..."
    "... Rather than celebrating the enthusiasm and interest of the many young people that have recently joined (even if they regard some of their aspirations as naive), and who will be vital in future election campaigns, this overtly anti-Corbyn group seem to regard them as a threat. ... ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    From Simon Wren-Lewis:
    A letter to Tony Blair : Dear Mr. Blair

    We have not met, but I have talked to your former colleague Gordon a few times and I did some academic work on his 5 tests for Euro entry. I saw a report that you were mystified by the popularity of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders. I have an article today in The Independent that might help you understand your puzzle.

    I know you find it strange that people that appear to you like those your predecessor Neil Kinnock did battle with over the future of the Labour Party in the 1980s are now running the party. It must also seem strange that in the US where socialism once seemed to be regarded as a perversion, large numbers should be supporting a socialist candidate. You suggest some explanations, but you do not mention the power of finance, inequality and the senselessness of austerity. You say that these new leaders will not be electable. But if the alternative is to try and elect leaders from the centre who will do nothing to confront these great issues, and will instead cut spending, accept stagnation and wait for the next financial crisis, is it any wonder that many people would rather take their chance with someone different? ...

    There are many Labour MPs and left leaning journalists who seem to share your puzzlement, and have decided that they have to fight again the battles of the 1980s by doing everything to undermine their new Labour leadership. ...

    Rather than celebrating the enthusiasm and interest of the many young people that have recently joined (even if they regard some of their aspirations as naive), and who will be vital in future election campaigns, this overtly anti-Corbyn group seem to regard them as a threat. ...

    Please tell them to stop. I fear they need someone they respect like you to point out the foolishness of their actions.

    Yours

    Simon Wren-Lewis

    [Feb 25, 2016] The Insanity of American Foreign Policy CIA-Backed Rebels Are Fighting Pentagon-Backed Rebels

    Notable quotes:
    "... Furqa al-Sultan Murad receives weapons from the U.S. and its allies as part of a covert program, overseen by the CIA , that aids rebel groups struggling to overthrow the government of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, according to rebel officials and analysts tracking the conflict. ..."
    "... If indeed 'buzzfeed" has there story correct then Russia will be continuing the campaign of kicking our fucking asses in new innovative ways that were never thought possible! ..."
    "... I happen to believe that like the Seymour Hersh PR psyops stunt of a story about DOD not following orders from the Commander-in-Chief and "going rogue" on him in those Countries they already destroyed is still committing treason no matter how you slice it . ..."
    "... In short the CIA is at the head of the MIC always has been and always will be until it's time of death which may be coming sooner than we think! ..."
    "... The invisible hand of the market applied to mayhem - US style? ..."
    "... The US Doesn't have a Foreign Relations policy, it's Israel's foreign relations policy installed on US soil. ..."
    "... But it looks like the YPG in northeast Syria (where the US spec ops where deployed) is the favorite since they seem to have gotten the advanced Javelin anti tank missile while the moderate Jihadists only got the not as effective TOW. Video and photo at RT. ..."
    "... Pictures have emerged on social media which appear to show Syrian Kurds with an advanced US-produced anti-tank missile. A video allegedly shows a rocket blowing up an Islamic State truck. Washington has denied "providing the YPG with weapons." ..."
    "... The FGM-148 Javelin is a portable anti-tank missile, which was developed by the United States. It is able to lock on to potential targets using infrared imaging, which makes it a lot more effective than the TOW missile system, which militias fighting against IS had been using, as the TOW is heavier and requires a portable power supply ..."
    "... "Also, Javelin launchers and missiles are rather expensive. In 2002, a single Javelin command launch unit cost $126,000, and each missile cost around $78,000." ..."
    "... You have to love the MIC! ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by George Washington on 02/24/2016 12:35 -0500

    Buzzfeed notes :

    Officials with Syrian rebel battalions that receive covert backing from one arm of the U.S. government told BuzzFeed News that they recently began fighting rival rebels supported by another arm of the U.S. government.

    The infighting between American proxies is the latest setback for the Obama administration's Syria policy and lays bare its contradictions as violence in the country gets worse.

    The confusion is playing out on the battlefield - with the U.S. effectively engaged in a proxy war with itself.

    ***

    Furqa al-Sultan Murad receives weapons from the U.S. and its allies as part of a covert program, overseen by the CIA , that aids rebel groups struggling to overthrow the government of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, according to rebel officials and analysts tracking the conflict.

    The Kurdish militants, on the other hand, receive weapons and support from the Pentagon as part of U.S. efforts to fight ISIS. Known as the People's Protection Units, or YPG, they are the centerpiece of the Obama administration's strategy against the extremists in Syria and coordinate regularly with U.S. airstrikes.

    (And see this story from the Telegraph.)

    The Daily Beast also reports that U.S. allies are fighting CIA-backed rebels. The U.S. is supporting the Kurds, who are the best on-the-ground fighters against ISIS … yet America's close ally Turkey is trying to wipe out the Kurds . Moreover, the U.S., Turkey and Saudi Arabia are all using the Incerlik air base in Adana, Turkey , on the border with Syria to launch military operations in Syria. The U.S. is using Incerlik to SUPPORT the Kurds, but Turkey is using the EXACT SAME air base to BOMB the Kurds . In addition, the U.S. is supporting Shia Muslims in Iraq … but supporting their arch-enemy – Sunnis Muslims – in neighboring Syria.

    And the U.S. claims to be fighting the war on terror AGAINST the exact same groups – ISIS and Al Qaeda – that our closest allies are SUPPORTING . Absolutely insane …

    Unless the U.S. is really pursuing an agenda in which chaos is the goal .

    Son of Captain Nemo

    GW

    If indeed 'buzzfeed" has there story correct then Russia will be continuing the campaign of kicking our fucking asses in new innovative ways that were never thought possible!

    I happen to believe that like the Seymour Hersh PR psyops stunt of a story about DOD not following orders from the Commander-in-Chief and "going rogue" on him in those Countries they already destroyed is still committing treason no matter how you slice it .... is all simply a way of attempting to draw Russia in closer to get intel on them while they continue to work miracles on our "proxies" which is depleting our stable of Mercs R' Us day by day.

    The event that took place this past weekend in Homs and Damascus is indicative of just that. And if Russia did indeed make the mistake of giving too much information out to Uncle Sam, the U.S. military and Langley won't be enjoying that luxury again!...

    I'm pretty certain that "Winter Soldier" Kerry's desire to carve up Syria should the cease fire aka Plan B not come to fruition... It was always the Only Option on the table for Langley and the Pentagon!!

    In short the CIA is at the head of the MIC always has been and always will be until it's time of death which may be coming sooner than we think!

    Bear

    "The Insanity of American Foreign Policy: CIA-Backed Rebels Are Fighting Pentagon-Backed Rebels"

    Makes for great US Arms industry ... Go Syria

    ptoemmes

    The invisible hand of the market applied to mayhem - US style?

    JailBanksters

    The US Doesn't have a Foreign Relations policy, it's Israel's foreign relations policy installed on US soil.

    Consuelo

    +1000

    The 'insouciant' Goyim remain mesmerized under the spell of entertainment and Political-Correctness gone mad. Hence, unable are they to mount any sort of opposition to this 'soft takeover' of their nation.

    Tigermoth

    But it looks like the YPG in northeast Syria (where the US spec ops where deployed) is the favorite since they seem to have gotten the advanced Javelin anti tank missile while the moderate Jihadists only got the not as effective TOW. Video and photo at RT.

    https://www.rt.com/usa/333468-javelin-missile-kurds-usa/

    Pictures have emerged on social media which appear to show Syrian Kurds with an advanced US-produced anti-tank missile. A video allegedly shows a rocket blowing up an Islamic State truck. Washington has denied "providing the YPG with weapons."

    If the video, believed to have been filmed near the Syrian town of Shaddadi, is authenticated it would show that Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) forces have been given an upgrade in technology. The footage shows a truck allegedly belonging to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) on the receiving end of a direct hit from the missile.

    The FGM-148 Javelin is a portable anti-tank missile, which was developed by the United States. It is able to lock on to potential targets using infrared imaging, which makes it a lot more effective than the TOW missile system, which militias fighting against IS had been using, as the TOW is heavier and requires a portable power supply

    "Assuming he's not firing from the side of a mountain or on top of a compound, it's definitely a Javelin," Corporal Thomas Gray, a former Marine Javelin gunner who watched the video told the Washington Post.

    However John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, said that he was unable to confirm whether the image was authentic and that "nothing has changed about our policy of not providing the YPG with weapons."

    From wikipedia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

    "Also, Javelin launchers and missiles are rather expensive. In 2002, a single Javelin command launch unit cost $126,000, and each missile cost around $78,000."

    You have to love the MIC!

    [Feb 17, 2016] Bigger Than Watergate - Hillary Clinton And The Syrian Bloodbath

    While we would be the first to admit that Jeffrey Sachs was the godfather of "shock therapy" (aka "the economic rape of Russia" and several other xUSSR republics), he is right as for the ongoing Syria bloodbath which has come to define the geopolitical situation for the past 3 years. And how this is an event that would "surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment" if the truth were fully known, we agree 100 percent.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead. ..."
    "... As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria. ..."
    "... And Israeli right-wingers are naďve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists. ..."
    "... Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad. ..."
    "... When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change. ..."
    "... Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called "Friends of Syria" to back the CIA-led insurgency. ..."
    "... This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations. ..."
    "... And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection , in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people). ..."
    "... Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today. ..."
    "... Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria. ..."
    "... She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to serve in any government capacity - EVER. ..."
    "... Well said. Hillary is a warmonger neocon just like Bush/McCain/Graham/Cheney. Trump and Bernie are not. ..."
    "... Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless. ..."
    "... It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency? ..."
    "... The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure. How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know. ..."
    "... Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want her to be president? Hello? ..."
    "... More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that Hillary was not. ..."
    "... she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain, and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being. ..."
    "... Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world. ..."
    "... Where & Why was Obama & Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs & stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed. power & indifference of those before him. ..."
    "... The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution, ..."
    "... That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US master plan that mainly supports the US's goal. ..."
    "... what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie. ..."
    "... They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers... ..."
    "... years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much for women by their gender alone saving the world. ..."
    "... But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary Clinton's at The State Department. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine: ..."
    "... Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations ..."
    "... Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes! ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care. ..."
    "... Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as we had up here! ..."
    www.huffingtonpost.com

    In the Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution on a Syrian ceasefire:

    But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together.

    This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton's role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.

    In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton's insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.

    As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason.

    Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria.

    This idea is incredibly naďve. Iran has been around as a regional power for a long time--in fact, for about 2,700 years. And Shia Islam is not going away. There is no way, and no reason, to "defeat" Iran. The regional powers need to forge a geopolitical equilibrium that recognizes the mutual and balancing roles of the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and Iran. And Israeli right-wingers are naďve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists.

    Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad.

    When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change.

    In early 2011, Turkey and Saudi Arabia leveraged local protests against Assad to try to foment conditions for his ouster. By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed insurrection against the regime. On August 18, 2011, the US Government made public its position: "Assad must go."

    Since then and until the recent fragile UN Security Council accord, the US has refused to agree to any ceasefire unless Assad is first deposed. The US policy--under Clinton and until recently--has been: regime change first, ceasefire after. After all, it's only Syrians who are dying. Annan's peace efforts were sunk by the United States' unbending insistence that U.S.-led regime change must precede or at least accompany a ceasefire. As the Nation editors put it in August 2012:

    The US demand that Assad be removed and sanctions be imposed before negotiations could seriously begin, along with the refusal to include Iran in the process, doomed [Annan's] mission.

    Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called "Friends of Syria" to back the CIA-led insurgency.

    The U.S. policy was a massive, horrific failure. Assad did not go, and was not defeated. Russia came to his support. Iran came to his support. The mercenaries sent in to overthrow him were themselves radical jihadists with their own agendas. The chaos opened the way for the Islamic State, building on disaffected Iraqi Army leaders (deposed by the US in 2003), on captured U.S. weaponry, and on the considerable backing by Saudi funds. If the truth were fully known, the multiple scandals involved would surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment.

    The hubris of the United States in this approach seems to know no bounds. The tactic of CIA-led regime change is so deeply enmeshed as a "normal" instrument of U.S. foreign policy that it is hardly noticed by the U.S. public or media. Overthrowing another government is against the U.N. charter and international law. But what are such niceties among friends?

    This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations.

    Removing a leader, even if done "successfully," doesn't solve any underlying geopolitical problems, much less ecological, social, or economic ones. A coup d'etat invites a civil war, the kind that now wracks Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It invites a hostile international response, such as Russia's backing of its Syrian ally in the face of the CIA-led operations. The record of misery caused by covert CIA operations literally fills volumes at this point. What surprise, then, the Clinton acknowledges Henry Kissinger as a mentor and guide?

    And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection, in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people).

    Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today.

    It takes great presidential leadership to resist CIA misadventures. Presidents get along by going along with arms contractors, generals, and CIA operatives. They thereby also protect themselves from political attack by hardline right-wingers. They succeed by exulting in U.S. military might, not restraining it. Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government.

    Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria.


    Steven Beliveau, Northeastern University
    The people of the United States do not want that woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton to have relations with the people of the United States. She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to serve in any government capacity - EVER.
    Matt Hemingway
    Simple equation....war=money=power. Perpetual warfare is the post 911 gold rush and every establishment politician in every country is the snake oil salesman pushing this through. The people on the top make money and the rest of us get killed and go broke.
    Max South
    Not only the root cause, but also to-ols are important: now Western media/StateDep try depict what happens in Syria as sectarian, all while majority of both Syrian army and government are Sunni (even Assad's wife is Sunni) -- secular ones.

    Syrian government is only hope for them, as well as for Christians, Kurds and all other ethnic and religious minorities that fight against Wahhabi/Salafist jihadists.

    Ram Samudrala, Professor and Chief, Division of Bioinformatics at SUNY Buffalo
    Sanders' platform is expansive and IMO he has provided the most detail on how he will get things done, which anyone can find out with a bit of investigation (http://berniesanders.com/issues/). But all of it doesn't matter since you can't predict how events will unfold. In this regard, I trust Sanders more than anyone else to decide what is best for all people in the the country (and even the world). I personally will do well with anyone but I think Sanders is looking out for the average person more than anyone else.
    Charles Hill, Works at Seif employed
    Well said. Hillary is a warmonger neocon just like Bush/McCain/Graham/Cheney. Trump and Bernie are not.
    Masha Manning, Houston, Texas
    Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless.
    Eric Smith, Burlington, Vermont
    It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency?
    Bijan Sharifi
    as an iranian-american (and veteran), i appreciate sen sanders bringing this up in the debate.
    Eric Smith, Burlington, Vermont
    Bijan Sharifi Indeed. The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure. How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know.
    Timothy Francis, Project Manager at CHC Consulting
    Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want her to be president? Hello?
    Dianne Primmer, Houston, Texas
    This is the much vaunted foreign policy that Hillary's supporters think qualify her for the presidency. That's a disaster waiting to happen.

    Christopher Head, Lighting Designer at Freelance Lighting Designer

    More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that Hillary was not. As soon as she returns to office expect more of her warfare first and diplomacy 'meh'.
    Gary Pack
    Ignacio, she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain, and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being.
    Sheia Mahone
    This is what Trump has been alluding to in re Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world.

    Where & Why was Obama & Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs & stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed. power & indifference of those before him.

    Ronald Burker, Boonsboro Senior High
    James Elliott cheerleading will not get anything done, I don't think Bernie understands how to get things done in our system, reality is 40 years of bad will not be fixed in even 4 years.

    The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution, vote every election you are alive and you will let your children and their children a better life.

    Harvey Riggs
    That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US master plan that mainly supports the US's goal.

    More messes in this world has been started with covert means in order to get what we want and millions upon milllions are suffering and the rest of the world countries 1'%ers who run those countries are scared to stand up aguinst the US and lose that under the table support.

    Robert Chan
    what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie.
    Kathleen Lowy, MSW: Rutgers
    They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers...

    Additionally, years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much for women by their gender alone saving the world.

    Sheila Rajan
    Looking at the various misguided US excursions over the past 2 decades from outside of America, this comes as no surprise. Clinton's deep involvement in these venal adventures comes as no surprise either. Bill Clinton may have been adored in liberal America, but he was NOT, outside of your borders. To us he appeared as just another one in a long line of Presidents under the sway of the arms manufacturers, CIA, banks and financiers. Hillary Clinton is just an offshoot.
    Charlene Avis Richards, Works at Self-Employed
    Excellent article.

    But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary Clinton's at The State Department.

    Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine:

    See More

    Leo Myers, Univ. of Minnesota
    Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations as an official policy using drones, black ops, spec ops, military "contractors", hired mercenaries, war lord militias and the like; the illegal and immoral acts of war cloaked in the Israeli framed rubric of "national defense".

    Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes!

    James Aliberti, Wentworth Institute of Technology
    Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care.

    Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as we had up here!

    [Feb 13, 2016] US intelligence chief: we might use the internet of things to spy on you

    Notable quotes:
    "... The American public has been living under collective Stockholm syndrome. The have secretly been deceived and betrayed while our freedoms, rights and national security has been compromised. The surveillance state was never for our protection. ..."
    "... Various rogue agencies have intentionally and illegally subverted our constitution, rights and freedoms while secretly targeting Americans committing various crimes, including murder. ..."
    "... When Clapper says "they might" then they are already doing so. ..."
    "... Tea party never was. It always was promoted by the media and big business. Financed by the same. Look at the coverage: Occupy was ridiculed by big Media into no existence. Not the same at all. ..."
    "... USSR has won! Now we treat our people the same way they did. Soon we can blackmail everyone into compliance. And we can easily plant evidence should we not find any - if they're in they can do anything they want. ..."
    "... She is an opportunist, not a feminist. ..."
    "... Ban Ki Moon and the Pope saying capitalism is destroying the life AND economy of the entire fricken globe, may be an opportunity for a popular movement, and this Bernie thing has the potential to be part of a wake up moment. ..."
    "... I said I wouldn't ever do that again after O'bummer, but as Woodie Guthrie said, Hope is what makes us human and is the driver of evolution. Or something like that. ..."
    "... You lost me on "equality is women having all the same opportunities as men". Actually many of us want entirely different "opportunities" and these women who play the patriarch, like Thatcher and Rice, and Shillary, do not represent the diverse and rich culture of "feminism" that is enmeshed in people's real lives. ..."
    "... I'm an aussie and I can tell you America Bernie Sanders is what you need to keep you guys from becoming a laughing stock. Hillary, trump is on the same brush as the elitist of your country. Bernie may or not be able to do what he wants to as he will get stonewalled but if everyone is united and keeps fighting with him they will have no choice to implement some of them. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    Fgt 4URIGHTS, 2016-02-09 22:59:16
    The American public has been living under collective Stockholm syndrome. The have secretly been deceived and betrayed while our freedoms, rights and national security has been compromised. The surveillance state was never for our protection.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg1-vao5Ta8

    Various rogue agencies have intentionally and illegally subverted our constitution, rights and freedoms while secretly targeting Americans committing various crimes, including murder.

    YeeofLittleFaith -> Individualist , 2016-02-09 22:37:44
    I'll say this, if this inevitable surveillance can prevent actual criminals from committing actual crimes, it might be useful.

    And I'll say this: if that is the intention of these devices - and if your bog-standard criminal is ever caught using them - I'll eat your smart fridge.

    neiman1 -> JinTexas , 2016-02-09 22:29:54
    When Clapper says "they might" then they are already doing so.
    Hillary Assad , 2016-02-09 22:26:15
    Surveillance video of San Bernardino released on 01/05/16 Enjoy!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHH7gvHXLzQ
    mirandawest -> Dan B , 2016-02-09 22:20:40
    Tea party never was. It always was promoted by the media and big business. Financed by the same. Look at the coverage: Occupy was ridiculed by big Media into no existence. Not the same at all.
    mirandawest -> John Leehane , 2016-02-09 22:15:38
    USSR has won! Now we treat our people the same way they did. Soon we can blackmail everyone into compliance. And we can easily plant evidence should we not find any - if they're in they can do anything they want.
    bcarey -> harrywarren , 2016-02-09 20:53:30

    She is an opportunist, not a feminist.

    Absolutely correct.
    (And a panderer.)

    Lisa Wood -> kirili, 2016-02-10 07:17:32
    Hear ya, I plan to hold him to the fire. I'm a realist, and married to an uber realist, so not gonna argue with ya here, but, as this article actually says really well, is that the holistic embrace of all inequity opens the landscape to the big conversations we do Need to have right now.

    I know i know, the UN is at one hand a weak tool and on the other a NWO franchise, but Ban Ki Moon and the Pope saying capitalism is destroying the life AND economy of the entire fricken globe, may be an opportunity for a popular movement, and this Bernie thing has the potential to be part of a wake up moment.

    I have let my Hope thing vibrate a bit, and I said I wouldn't ever do that again after O'bummer, but as Woodie Guthrie said, Hope is what makes us human and is the driver of evolution. Or something like that.

    Lisa Wood -> MajorMalaise , 2016-02-10 07:08:42
    You lost me on "equality is women having all the same opportunities as men". Actually many of us want entirely different "opportunities" and these women who play the patriarch, like Thatcher and Rice, and Shillary, do not represent the diverse and rich culture of "feminism" that is enmeshed in people's real lives.
    keepinitreal2000, 2016-02-10 06:12:18
    I'm an aussie and I can tell you America Bernie Sanders is what you need to keep you guys from becoming a laughing stock. Hillary, trump is on the same brush as the elitist of your country. Bernie may or not be able to do what he wants to as he will get stonewalled but if everyone is united and keeps fighting with him they will have no choice to implement some of them.

    As an Aussie it is important that his message is heard and implemented as America can then show the world there is good in the world and that we all can live in a fair, just and equal world. Something America has stopped showing for a very longtime. This hopefully will filter down to other countries as America rightly or wrongly leads the world and many countries do follow suit.

    [Feb 13, 2016] The Obama Administration Recklessly Escalates Confrontation With Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia will certainly react, probably by moving more of its own heavy weapons, including advanced missiles, to its Western borders, possibly along with a number of tactical nuclear weapons. Indeed, a new and more dangerous US-Russian nuclear arms race has been under way for several years, which the Obama administration's latest decision can only intensify. ..."
    "... Astonishingly, these potentially fateful developments have barely been reported in the US media, and there's been no public discussion, not even by the current presidential candidates during their debates. ..."
    "... Every presidential candidate and the other leaders of both parties, as well as the editors and writers in the mainstream media who profess to be covering the 2016 campaign, the state of our nation, and world affairs are professionally and morally obliged to bring these dire developments to the fore. Otherwise, they will be harshly judged by history-if anyone is still around to write it. ..."
    The Nation

     he Obama administration has just recklessly escalated its military confrontation with Russia. The Pentagon's announcement that it will more than quadruple military spending on the US-NATO forces in countries on or near Russia's borders pushes the new Cold War toward actual war-possibly even a nuclear one.

    The move is unprecedented in modern times. With the exception of Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union, Western military power has never been positioned so close to Russia. The Obama administration's decision is Russian roulette Washington-style, making the new Cold War even more dangerous than the preceding one. Russia will certainly react, probably by moving more of its own heavy weapons, including advanced missiles, to its Western borders, possibly along with a number of tactical nuclear weapons. Indeed, a new and more dangerous US-Russian nuclear arms race has been under way for several years, which the Obama administration's latest decision can only intensify.

    The decision will also have other woeful consequences. It will undermine ongoing negotiations between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the Ukrainian and Syrian crises, and it will further divide Europe itself, which is far from united on Washington's increasingly hawkish approach to Moscow.

    Astonishingly, these potentially fateful developments have barely been reported in the US media, and there's been no public discussion, not even by the current presidential candidates during their debates. Never before in modern times has such a dire international situation been so ignored in an American presidential campaign. The reason may be that everything related to the new Cold War in US-Russian relations since the Ukrainian crisis erupted in November 2013 has been attributed solely to the "aggression" of Russian President Vladimir Putin or to "Putin's Russia"-a highly questionable assertion, but long the media's standard policy narrative.

    Every presidential candidate and the other leaders of both parties, as well as the editors and writers in the mainstream media who profess to be covering the 2016 campaign, the state of our nation, and world affairs are professionally and morally obliged to bring these dire developments to the fore. Otherwise, they will be harshly judged by history-if anyone is still around to write it.

    [Feb 13, 2016] Democratic debate: the five biggest moments

    Notable quotes:
    "... Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS Frontline . It specifically states that during the 2007 Surge to stabilize an Iraq that had been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor of ISIS, the Sunni Sons of Iraq . ..."
    "... The unintended consequences of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those consequences ; Clinton, the old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them. ..."
    "... Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger? Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either ..."
    "... I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running, for people to know what she said. ..."
    "... Sanders catches Clinton on her advice from Henry Kissinger , Hillary doubles down on her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get advice from Josef Mengele about Health care shed do that too? ..."
    "... Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a majority of women on stage . Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you said majority of straight people on stage . You come across like some gender supremacist. ..."
    "... Im sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton one of the most accomplished women in the world ? ..."
    "... She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions and persona to become the political wife so the man she married could have the career he wanted, then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal) U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens) in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she distinguished herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for the rest of her life, and no, I dont mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)... ..."
    "... Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow a good thing. ..."
    "... Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones. ..."
    "... Faux-identity politics has run its course. ..."
    "... Really believe Republicans havent changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is help the rich . ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades. ..."
    "... And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obamas Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal - all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.) ..."
    "... The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves. ..."
    "... Ill take Sanders proven judgment over Clintons shoot first; ask questions later approach. ..."
    "... Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldmans workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis. ..."
    "... For some reason I have a feeling that the big banks wouldnt be asking Mr . Sanders to speak at their events. ..."
    "... So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... she voted for gw bushs disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, thats just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam. ..."
    "... This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words Commander in Chief, it made me feel she couldnt wait to get her fingers on the button. ..."
    "... Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton. ..."
    www.theguardian.com
    smkngman, 2016-02-13 00:55:28
    Please!

    The biggest moment was when Bernie responded to,
    "Journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is."

    Aside from the "Journalists have asked" bull, his reply was most certainly the biggest moment of the entire debate!

    "Well it ain't Henry Kissinger,"

    According to Google, this moment created the BIGGEST spike of internet searches during the debate.

    RobertHickson2014, 2016-02-12 22:57:04
    Hypothetically, if Hillary is 500 delegates short of winning the nomination, while Bernie is only short 200, and 600 of the 700 Supers break her way....

    A scenario like that could very well happen; the DNC needs to abolish the Super Delegates once and for all to remove the prospect of a rigged nomination process.

    EDVDGN -> imipak, 2016-02-12 18:45:58
    Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS' "Frontline". It specifically states that during the 2007 "Surge" to stabilize an Iraq that had been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor of ISIS, the Sunni "Sons of Iraq".

    The "unintended consequences" of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those "consequences"; Clinton, the old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them.

    Of course, daughter Chelsea, didn't have to get all dirty and bloody herself by going to fight her mother's war, but your sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers did. Vote for more of that with Clinton.

    "Losing Iraq", PBS, "Frontline", 7/29/14, 1 ˝ hours
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/losing-iraq /

    uples, 2016-02-12 18:20:20
    Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger? Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either
    kattw -> dochi1958, 2016-02-12 17:00:19
    I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running, for people to know what she said.

    ... ... ...

    Marcedward, 2016-02-12 16:18:17
    Big Moments:

    1) Hillary tries to mention a local African American killed by police, forgets the name mid sentence and struggles to get it out of her mouth. Came across as very rehearsed, especially when it turns out the victims mom was in the audience, being used by the Clinton Campaign for an obvious photo opportunity. Clinton wins the HAM HANDED Award.

    2) Hillary tries to go after Sanders for disagreeing with Obama and comes across like an inside the beltway clueless blithering idiot. She claims progressive creds, but she's totally unaware of how disappointing Obama has been to the Left. Hillary exposed as another Washington Insider, again.

    3) Sanders command of the agenda while all Clinton could do is follow his lead quipping "me too!" Clearly Sanders is in control of this race, Clinton is not, one is a leader, one is not. Hillary should just step down for the good of the country and the party

    4) Sanders catches Clinton on her "advice from Henry Kissinger", Hillary doubles down on her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get advice from Josef Mengele about Health care she'd do that too?

    5) Hillary wearing what looked to be a Star Trek (the original series) Admiral's uniform - was that a nod to trekkies? I couldn't tell if it was a Star Fleet or a Romulan top. Anyway, cred for Hillary for shouting out to Trekkies.

    6) Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a "majority of women on stage". Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you said "majority of straight people on stage". You come across like some gender supremacist.

    SocalAlex -> kattw, 2016-02-12 15:13:11

    of one of the most accomplished women in the world

    I'm sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton "one of the most accomplished women in the world"?

    She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions and persona to become the "political wife" so the man she married could have the career he wanted, then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal) U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens) in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she "distinguished" herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for the rest of her life, and no, I don't mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)...

    Sorry, Clinton may well be an intelligent and competent woman, but by what stretch of the imagination is she "one of the most accomplished women in the world"? The U.S. perhaps - through arguably not even - but the world? Seriously? And then you have the gall to claim Sanders supporters are delusional?

    Women like Angela Merkel or Christine Lagarde (like them or loathe them) could and would eat the likes of Clinton for breakfast, and they accomplished what they have without any husband's help!

    om Voloshen, 2016-02-12 15:12:45
    1. Killary plays the sex card.
    2. Killaty says little about her famaly's policy toward jailing nearly a third of all black men and foreclosing on so many of their homes due to Bill's passing GlassSteagall.
    3. Killary conveniently leaves out the fact that all key Latino and minority interest groups supported Bernie's no vote.
    4. Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow a good thing.
    5. Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones.
    ocalAlex -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 14:55:18
    Both Cruz and Rubio are as white as Clinton and Sanders. And having parents who were part of the upper-class who fled Cuba after the Revolution doesn't remotely reflect the personal histories of the vast majority of Hispanic-Americans. (Nor, for that matter, does being the son of a wealthy Kenyan student and middle-class white mother reflect the reality of 99% of African-Americans.)

    Faux-identity politics has run its course. It was never as instrumental in Obama's election(s) as was made out in the first place, and many of the minority for whom it was have learned their lesson.

    As the Republicans are painfully aware and Clinton is learning, blacks and Latinos and women and young people aren't stupid - they will ultimately rather vote for the "old white man" who represents their interests than the person they have slightly more of a genetic or cultural link to who doesn't!

    RobertHickson2014, 2016-02-12 14:33:36
    Hillary learned her lessons well from that douche bag, Henry Kissinger. Here are some of his 'foreign policy' quotes.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/here-are-the-top-10-most-callous-and-inhumane-henry-kissinger-quotes /

    SocalAlex -> Adrian, 2016-02-12 14:30:17
    Well, Sanders was the first Senator to announce he was boycotting Netanyahu's speech to Congress last year, and while he's certainly adopted a more mainstream line towards Israel in recent years, he's still never spoken at or accepted support from AIPAC and makes it quite clear in his policy brief that he believes Israel needs to end the siege of Gaza and withdraw from the West Bank .

    Clinton, on the other hand, is an AIPAC darling who doesn't even "believe" Gaza is under siege and merely has some mealy-mouthed platitudes to offer about how settlement expansion in the West Bank is not "helpful". (And one of her largest individual campaign donors is an Israeli-American billionaire who she has assured she will, if elected, do everything in her power to crack down on the BDS movement!)

    At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly how they deserved.

    You mean even more $100s of billions in U.S. "aid" than they were already getting and complete diplomatic cover for their assault on Gaza and other assorted war crimes? If you think that's tough love, I'd hate to see how your children turn out!

    *For more background see thisAl-Jazeera English piece or the Electronic Intifada's exhaustive coverage.

    Sanders is far from perfect on this issue, but he's about as "progressive" as it is possible for any high-profile U.S. politician to be. (And I really hope you weren't implying the fact that he is Jewish makes him more likely to be pro-Israel - that is precisely the kind of crap which helps those opposed to Palestinian rights paint all of us campaigning for them in a bad light...)

    nnedjo -> kattw, 2016-02-12 14:26:01

    Of course, Clinton distances herself from her supporters by running a tight campaign

    Of course, that's the way how it works, Clinton left to her supporters to do the dirty work, and then she distances herself from them, and continue to play an angel.
    newellalan -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 14:21:17
    Really believe Republicans haven't changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is "help the rich".
    mouchefisher -> kattw, 2016-02-12 14:12:57
    You either misunderstood my comment, or you're being disingenuous.

    What I find strange is The Guardian's evident pro-Clinton bias, even though it pretends to be a progressive paper. Sanders is obviously the true progressive, not Clinton. So yes, it does make me (and many, many other readers of The Guardian) wonder.

    ajreddish, 2016-02-12 14:12:07
    Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades.

    At least when Bernie Sanders opens his mouth on any issue, there's no puppet strings moving furiously up and down in the background.

    SocalAlex -> DennisLaw , 2016-02-12 14:10:16
    What foreign policy credentials/experience did Obama have? (Or W. Bush or Bill Clinton for that matter?)

    And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obama's Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal - all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.)

    Agi Tater -> imipak , 2016-02-12 14:03:26
    The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves.

    Sanders' one weakness is he does not articulate a clear foreign policy. On the other hand, these are complex issues that can't be reduced to talking points. Further, Sanders' voting record on these issues is solid. Unlike Clinton he did vote against the war in Iraq. And he predicted the unintended consequence of instability and thus ISIS. Clinton has far more experience but she pretends her vote for a disastrous war in Iraq has no connection to ISIS. That's a serious lack of judgment and/or honesty on her part.

    I'll take Sanders' proven judgment over Clinton's "shoot first; ask questions later" approach.

    Agi Tater, 2016-02-12 13:38:25
    This article is not balanced and thus disappointing. Same with Graves' opinion piece stating that Sanders "squandered" his lead. Absurd.

    Everything that comes out of Clinton's mouth is a strategic ploy for votes. She will say whatever she and her advisors think she must say to get elected. If she is elected, she will maintain the status quo, at least when it comes to the economy and campaign financing. Those are the two areas that must be reformed before we can see any real progress.

    Anyone who believes that Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street criminals are funding Clinton's campaign because she's going to follow through with the real economic reforms that she's now promising (copying Sanders) and that will eliminate their fraudulent business models is a fucking idiot. What Wall Street type is going to donate to a candidate who's going to level the playing field and thus destroy their business model? Are people really that stupid? (rhetorical question) Let's see those transcripts from her speeches that she clearly does not want voters to see.

    The truth is, Clinton's talking points have shifted and evolved to match Sanders' positions that voters find attractive. This is a matter of record. She's an Establishment politician and will be to the end. Sander is the real deal.

    Murphy1983, 2016-02-12 13:36:57
    From Politico Feb. 9, 2016:

    NEW YORK - "When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.

    "Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

    "'It was pretty glowing about us," one person who watched the event said. "It's so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.' "

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969#ixzz3ztCCKaHe

    sharethewealth -> kattw, 2016-02-12 13:34:37
    It's a tough question to ask, given the American track record on foreign policy. Who would you listen to? American interests overseas have never been, shall we say, altruistic; more self serving and clandestine. It's no wonder Bernie is focusing his attention on the national socio/political climate. It seems ironic to think that any government can influence foreign policy in a positive way while issues such a racism and a living wage are so rampantly out of balance in their own nation.
    Elfeesh, 2016-02-12 13:29:10
    So your "5 things we learned" is actually "A positive spin on 4 things about Clinton and one thing Sanders said", whilst totally failing to mention the fact that Clinton outright lied about things that Bernie had said in an attempt to make it seem like he actively opposes Obama, or that she said, verbatim, that she wouldn't allow child refugees to settle in the US and to send them back AS A MESSAGE.

    This paper's coverage is getting more and more biased by the minute as its journalists realise that "kooky old Sanders" is actually getting some traction with the American people. That article by Lucia Gravesis a disgrace and cherry picks the one liners Sanders came back to Hillary's attacks with, as though its somehow terrible for someone to defend themselves with witty and quick comebacks.

    Just FYI Guardian, your readership is actually half intelligent and can see through your biased BS, just as the general electorate can see through the crappy CNN and PBS coverage given to Sanders. You say that Clinton "won" the debate, yet it seems that most people disagree(Note the person saying this is an Associated Press journalist) and there is more than one source to suggest that, in Nevada a focus group say Sanders' won by a 25-9 margin and even Chris Matthews, who for the longest time has been struggling to say "Bernie Sanders" without the "Democratic Socialist" prefix, says that Bernie beat Hillary at her own game. Finally, and I'm afraid I don't have a link for this one, CNN and PBS' own coverage of the debate cut to a room in South Carolina filled with a focus group of women of mixed age and race. (Please note SC is supposed to be Clinton's version of New Hampshire where she'll stomp all over Sanders) Almost all people in the group said Bernie had done the best in the debate, and the one black woman they interviewed (again, black women is supposedly Clinton's demographic) said that Sanders was the most convincing out of the two, though she remained undecided.

    People would start taking this paper seriously again if you guys actually paid attention to whats going on, instead of just closing your eyes to all the evidence and continuing to hammer out ridiculous articles bigging up your chosen candidate. There's a reason people aren't even bothering to read your coverage anymore, and instead go straight to the comments to see what people are actually thinking.

    DrKropotkin -> Serv_On , 2016-02-12 13:19:41
    "Bernie should give a pledge that he will never take a red cent for a speech ever ever ever"

    It's not about cents - it's hundreds of thousands per hour and behind closed doors, which is an unsubtle way to bribe a future president. Sanders did give a speech recently to a University that paid him $1,800. Transcripts are available and he donated all of the money to charity.

    Anatoliy Asanov -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 13:13:08
    For some reason I have a feeling that the big banks wouldn't be asking Mr . Sanders to speak at their events.
    Zendjan -> elterrifico, 2016-02-12 13:12:17
    She makes Lucrezia Borgia look like Mother Teresa.
    DrKropotkin -> Reality_Man, 2016-02-12 13:08:57
    In both primaries Sanders beat the polls by 5-8%. Nationally he is now just 2 points off Clinton according to the latest poll.

    The MSMBS has created a reality bubble around Clinton, but nobody takes print media or TV news seriously anymore, everybody knows they have to use multiple sources online to get a real balanced picture. So everyday more and more people are learning about Sanders and liking what they see - a consistent advocate for progressive policies even when it was neither profitable nor popular to be one.

    In particular voters are learning about his anti segregation campaigning in the 1960's and his pro gay rights positions in the 1980's. When they look at Clinton's past they see a calculating fair weather supporter on these issues, possibly based on the latest polling.

    Also, her pockets full of Wall Street money is really damaging her and when she tries to defend it she comes across as disingenuous (at best).

    ouKnightedStates -> EbenezerSeattle, 2016-02-12 13:04:38
    It's amazing. Three articles in the Guardian praising her "vote in 2002 not a plan for ISIS 2016" line as a winner. Vote in 2002 caused ISIS in 2016!
    Stetson Meyers, 2016-02-12 12:58:36
    She is hiding behind Obama. Defending him while bringing up the fact that he took Wall Street money does nothing to endear me to you. It makes me angry at Obama.
    elterrifico, 2016-02-12 12:55:25
    If Hillary wants low blow then let's talk about

    The rose law firm and the missing subpoenaed files that a cleaning crew found in the living quarters while slick Willie Clinton was president.

    Cattlegate and how Hillary claims she made millions on cattle futures from a wall street article that the wall street journal said didn't exist.

    Lets talk about all the people how suspiciously died who were connected to the Clinton's and who had information to Clinton wrong doings.

    I bet that would shut Hillary's sleazy mouth

    DrKropotkin, 2016-02-12 12:49:52
    From ATL:

    "Clinton dropped this critique on the senator from Vermont: "Journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is." "

    Let me finish the Guardian's reporting for them:

    Sanders quickly responds "Well it ain't Henry Kissinger" - the audience applauds and laughs.

    Janosik53 -> UNOINO, 2016-02-12 12:27:30
    Exactly. ISIS is part of the unintended consequences that were created by the West's Middle East adventure. "Blowback" as the security services have it. The same thing could be said about the U.S. backing of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the better to scupper the Soviets. Elements of the mujahadeen morphed into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden was a CIA asset at one time.

    Bernie remembers what happened, Hillary dismisses it with the "2002 vote" quip. Hillary is a tactician, Bernie is a strategist. I think a moral strategist makes a better C-in-C than a bought and paid for tactician.

    pretzelattack -> Yunnaan, 2016-02-12 12:08:39
    the point is electing a republican lite to deal with republican intransigence makes no sense whatever. she will work with them to advance the neoliberal austerity agenda, which hurts the middle class, and everybody else but the kind of people who pay her so much money to give a canned speech.
    nnedjo, 2016-02-12 12:03:37
    Let me get this straight. You have politicians who all his life was not afraid to swim against the mainstream, neither he worried that it could jeopardize his political career.

    And on the other hand, you have a careerist politician, which the whole of her life was "turning with the wind", climbed the ladder of political power, both in its Democratic Party and in the state too, and finally ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars on her private account, gained thanks to its political influence.

    So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton.

    Anatoliy Asanov -> SenseCir, 2016-02-12 12:01:54
    The same plan she and the establiment was shoving down our throats and digging in in our pockets... And Putin wouldn't be Putin if US weren't prowling around the world. Why is Saudi Arabia is our ally?
    mouchefisher, 2016-02-12 11:45:30
    I think I'll soon just start skipping The Guardian's articles completely, and head straight to the comments.
    The articles read like pro-Clinton adverts, which seems strange coming from a self-proclaimed progressive news source...
    Fortunately, we do have The Nation, The Atlantic, Salon, Alternet, etc.
    Adrian, 2016-02-12 10:29:34
    Am I the only one who's wondering why Bernie Sanders is not being asked a single question about his position on the Palestinian problem, on the recent events involving Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby in the USA trying to derails the Iran nuclear deal and so on?

    I don't think we need now at the White House someone willing to follow Netanyahu's lead in the Middle East... At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly how they deserved.

    devin42 -> Marcedward, 2016-02-12 09:50:47
    Hey, Guardian writers. I don't know if you ever come into the comments - but realise this. We aren't morons. This isn't the Mail. We can see through it. A great many of us watched the debates, follow the campaigns, know the facts from other sources. The internet is great like that, as corporate media no longer has an exclusive stranglehold on framing and spin.

    The constituents of your 'paper' are not easily hoodwinked and most, as you can see, find the spin disgusting. You're going to keep haemorrhaging readers unless you either refocus on integrity in journalism (unlikely, considering who's on the board), or fully commit to being a pseudo-intellectual Buzzfeed. Best of luck.

    pretzelattack -> Philman, 2016-02-12 09:43:42
    she voted for gw bush's disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, that's just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam.
    EDVDGN, 2016-02-12 09:23:32
    The American Public Broadcasting System's (PBS) "NewsHour" reports:*

    In other news, some of Clinton's speaker fees from Wall Street, 2013-15**:

    TOTAL: $2,935,000

    Thus, our health care system is expensive and sub-par, but a resounding and understandable "No, we can't" from Clinton on universal health care, and many other issues.
    _____________________________________
    *"Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries", PBS
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries /
    **"Hillary Clinton Got Paid More for 12 Speeches to Wall Street Banks than Most Americans Make in a Lifetime",
    http://humansarefree.com/2016/01/hillary-clinton-got-paid-more-for-12.html

    FeatherWood, 2016-02-12 09:19:32
    This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words "Commander in Chief," it made me feel she couldn't wait to get her fingers on the button.

    When Hillary praised President Obama and criticized Bernie for some mild critiques he'd made of the president, it was an utterly transparent ploy for the votes of African-Americans in South Carolina. So obvious that I was a bit disgusted. Hillary and President Obama have a rocky history. Any comments Bernie has made are tame compared to the stuff Hillary said about him during the 2008 campaign. I really wonder if people will buy Hillary trying to wrap herself so closely with Obama.

    Sandra Bowen -> CDKBM180715, 2016-02-12 09:03:56
    Hillary wears a new outfit every campaign day. Sanders' has 2 suits, 1 blazer. Looks say a lot about a person
    SirWillis -> CDKBM180715, 2016-02-12 08:30:10
    At least try to understand what he is saying. He's saying her smile is false, he's not commenting on her looks. Her smile is false, it's not natural, and I have no doubt she was coached to smile in the way focus groups decided was the most electable. Trouble is a genuine smile is hard to fake.

    Please try to understand these things, context is everything.

    CanadianAtheist, 2016-02-12 08:19:57

    Clinton drops a well-tuned response to Sanders' criticism of her vote in support of the Iraq war: "I don't believe that a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat Isis in 2016."


    But it is a reflection of her judgement. We condemn Republicans, journalists, academics, etc. who supported the Iraq War, but we are supposed to give Clinton a pass? Let's also not forget that she supported the troop increase in Afghanistan and pushed for military action in Libya.
    CanadianAtheist -> crap_in, 2016-02-12 08:14:00
    According to congress.gov Sanders has sponsored 780 pieces of legislation and cosponsored 5428.
    noraak15 -> noraak15, 2016-02-12 06:50:20
    To be clear this is in relation to this being Obama's fault.

    As for the Dems doing their best to lose a winnable election you may be right but Sanders really has hit the nail on the head. It doesn't matter who wins no change will occur until the big money and special interests are reined in and that won't happen unless and until there is a president backed by a movement of ordinary people demanding change that is so large and undeniable that politicians in Washington realize that unless they accede to the people's demands (as presented by the President) and get behind the President in respect of such change they will actually lose their seats... only incumbents fearful of losing their seats will vote for anything other than what the lobbyists tell them to. Only then will change happen. I'd bet there is more certainty that won't happen then Villa making a surprising comeback and not being relegated.

    noraak15 -> EssoBlue, 2016-02-12 06:38:54
    For the same reason they voted for Blair and Bush Dubya and Clinton and Bush Sr... Poor people, the same people I honestly want to help as a responsible socialist democrat, are essentially stupid and generally vote against their own interests hence the number of blue collar workers in the US flocking to Donald Trump rallies. It defies belief but there it is, that and the fact that smart people who aren't only out for themselves have better things to do like discover gravitational waves, perform your surgery, teach and other less snazzy things then simply make money.
    Peter Kinnaird -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 06:35:45
    On the contrary. The economy crashed because the unfettered free markets failed. You don't need someone who "understands" or in other words supports the free market status quo, you need someone who understands the flaws of the markets and the need for regulation.
    noraak15 -> Serv_On, 2016-02-12 06:31:26
    Uh? You do realize it was the deregulation of Wall Street that led to the collapse right? You do realize Wall Street aready leads the government by the nose don't you (the very reason Sanders quite rightly states that any reform will be impossible no matter who is elected President unless they have a groundswell of popular support beneath them)? You are aware that laws and trade agreements are written by Wall Street lawyers and that Wall Street is regulated by Wall Street lawyers due to the continuous rotating door between government agencies and Wall Street? You do understand that QE and bailouts were at the behest of and in the interest of Wall Street bound to create asset bubbles they can make a lot of money insider trading on then exit and leave pension funds on the hook and not designed to save the economy don't you?

    Oh why do I bother you believe in "continuous growth" generated by perfect rationale markets and of course unicorns and leprechauns waiting with your pot of gold.

    EssoBlue, 2016-02-12 05:30:29
    Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton.

    Lest we forget, in 2008 Hillary Clinton ran as a gun-loving churchgoer against Barack Obama.

    PlayaGiron, 2016-02-12 05:20:01
    Only the graun can make the exposure of Clinton's ties to the butcher Kissinger into a win for Team Hillary.

    Watch the video and you will the crowd totally backs Sanders during the exchange

    Nice to see the Guardian still has war criminal Kissinger's back.

    Too bad we are seeing through your corporatist propaganda.

    joeblow9999, 2016-02-12 05:09:13
    Hillary appeared desperate and her attacks came off as unimaginative and sleazy. More and more she is appearing to be a liability to the nomination.

    [Feb 12, 2016] Theres A Special Place at The Hague for Madeleine Albright

    Notable quotes:
    "... Too bad she is a neocon monster. ..."
    "... Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous side of American foreign policy. She neither came down wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan politics and not due to any actual concern for the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright stated that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to American sanctions was justified. ..."
    "... From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide ..."
    "... Unlike Rwanda, Albright was involved in every step of Clinton's Balkan policy, although she was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that, she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served as president of the Center for National Policy . She is a former student of Zbigniew Brzezinski . ..."
    "... Albright actively advocated policies that led to American military action in 1999, and placed all of the blame for the situation on the Belgrade government . (Does that ring a bell?) Albright's contention was that "a little bombing" would encourage Milosevic to sign Rambouillet Peace Accords, which would allow for the NATO occupation of Kosovo. ..."
    "... The Clinton Administration demanded Milosevic's removal from power , and in 2000, Albright rejected Vladimir Putin's offer to try to use his influence to defuse the situation. ..."
    "... War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American ambassador torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in 1995, was blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia. ..."
    "... Albright has never wavered from her stance on the Balkans. In 2012, she got into a shouting match with pro-Serbian activists over her role in that conflict , calling the protesters "dirty Serbs." ..."
    russia-insider.com

    Madeleine Albright proves to the young, aspiring women of America that warmongering psychopathy has no glass ceiling.

    Former U.S. Secretary of State under Bill Clinton Madeleine Albright thinks there is "a special place in hell" for young women if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton.

    Despite overwhelming evidence that most young American women who still plan to remain involved in the electoral process would rather go to hell than vote for Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, from her seat of war criminal wisdom, has informed the naive lasses that support for Bernie Sanders will land them in the VIP room in a superstitious underground torture chamber.

    By repurposing her own original quote, Albright has proven yet once again that she is an expert on hell's admission standards because she's probably going there.

    Of course it should come to no surprise that Albright is stumping for Hillary Clinton. After all, she was Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, the first female to hold the office. And sure, Albright has an interesting bio. She and her family, fleeing Czechoslovakia from approaching German army, escaped to Serbia, and she survived the Nazi Blitzkrieg of London.

    Too bad she is a neocon monster.

    Although she personally experienced the horrors of WWII, and had family members who died in the Nazi death camps, Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous side of American foreign policy. She neither came down wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan politics and not due to any actual concern for the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright stated that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to American sanctions was justified.

    When is genocide justified? Or when does it simply not matter?

    Let's ask the Rwandans.

    Although the Clinton Administration's stated purpose for intervening in the Balkans was to stop genocide, the Rwandan genocide in 1994 continued unabated. From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide:

    "Rather than respond with appropriate force, the opposite happened, spurred by the murders of the Belgian Blue Berets and Belgium's withdrawal of its remaining troops. Exactly two weeks after the genocide began – following strenuous lobbying for total withdrawal led by Belgium and Britain, and with American UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright advocating the most token of forces and the United States adamantly refusing to accept publicly that a full-fledged, Convention defined genocide was in fact taking place – the Security Council made the astonishing decision to reduce the already inadequate UNAMIR force to a derisory 270 men" (10.11)

    "The lesson to be learned from the betrayal at ETO and other experiences was that the full potential of UNAMIR went unexplored and unused, and, as result, countless more Rwandans died than otherwise might have. If anyone in the international community learned this lesson at the time, it was not evident at the UN. For the next six weeks, as the carnage continued, the UN dithered in organizing any kind of response to the ongoing tragedy. The Americans, led by US Ambassador Madeleine Albright, played the key role in blocking more expeditious action by the UN.[18] On May 17, the Security Council finally authorized an expanded UNAMIR II to consist of 5,500 personnel.[19] But there is perhaps no distance greater on earth than the one between the Security Council chambers and the outside world. Once the decision to expand was finally made, as we will soon show in detail, the Pentagon somehow required an additional seven weeks just to negotiate a contract for delivering armed personnel carriers to the field; evidently it proved difficult to arrange the desired terms for "maintenance and spare parts."[20] When the genocide ended in mid-July with the final RPF victory, not a single additional UN soldier had landed in Kigali." 10.16

    Unlike Rwanda, Albright was involved in every step of Clinton's Balkan policy, although she was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that, she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served as president of the Center for National Policy. She is a former student of Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    Not only did Albright support Clinton's bombing, she was a key figure in the conflict and in the ousting of Slobodan Milosevic. Time went so far as to call the Balkan campaign "Madeleine's War." Despite her assertions that the bombing of Yugoslavia was a humanitarian mission, it is irrefutable at this point in history that the U.S. pretext for military intervention was fabricated.

    Albright actively advocated policies that led to American military action in 1999, and placed all of the blame for the situation on the Belgrade government. (Does that ring a bell?) Albright's contention was that "a little bombing" would encourage Milosevic to sign Rambouillet Peace Accords, which would allow for the NATO occupation of Kosovo.

    The Clinton Administration demanded Milosevic's removal from power, and in 2000, Albright rejected Vladimir Putin's offer to try to use his influence to defuse the situation.

    War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American ambassador torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in 1995, was blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia.

    Albright has never wavered from her stance on the Balkans. In 2012, she got into a shouting match with pro-Serbian activists over her role in that conflict, calling the protesters "dirty Serbs."

    Dirty Serbs, huh? And she wants to tell idealistic young American women, who still believe in the American democratic process, how to vote? Yay, feminism!

    [Feb 10, 2016] Theres a special place in hell for women who have the blood of children on their hands.

    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg

    Re: Albright – There's a special place in hell for women who have the blood of children on their hands.

    Jim Haygood

    Meanwhile, the kids she hasn't 'neutralized' yet scream when they see Albright's ghoulish visage, calling in another drone strike:

    https://griid.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/albright_at_war-thumb.jpg

    One word, Madeleine: Nuremberg.

    sleepy , February 9, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    Clinton campaigned in 2008 on the notion of inevitability. When that inevitability showed cracks, she failed. She has campaigned in 2016 on the notion of inevitability. Same result.

    In 2016 as in 2008 she has no alternative game plan other than to react with childish insults, as if the thought of having a real challenger was never considered. Must be that famous legend in her own mind at work. Another example of poor judgment.

    NotTimothyGeithner , February 9, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Inevitability is a nice way to put entitlement. "I'm with Hillary" says the campaign is about Hillary's personal success. She could have run a unity campaign about electing more Democrats and just ignored a challenger.

    Jim Haygood , February 9, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    Not to mention that her HillaryCare celebrity tour of six Congressional committees in 1993-94 also was premised on inevitability.

    Results : (1) not a single committee reported out a bill; (2) the Democratic party lost its majority in the House for the first time in forty years.

    How many times do we have to watch this boring movie … especially with such dismal casting?

    ekstase , February 9, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    Perhaps we should be grateful for the blind spots. They're a big part of karma's delightful unfolding.

    [Feb 07, 2016] Sanders v. Clinton Democratic Debate: Corruption, Health Care and Theories of Change

    Notable quotes:
    "... of Corrente . ..."
    "... "She's a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that system and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because, well, it's true. It's not that she's been bought, it's that she bought in "One problem afflicting our online discourse is that many of her dimmer fellow liberals in the press keep being baffled at Clinton opposition from leftists who extensively criticize the institutions of American liberalism." ..."
    "... She's a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that system and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because, well, it's true. It's not that she's been bought, it's that she bought in. ..."
    "... Clintonsomething ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    by Lambert Strether of Corrente .

    I can't break out my Magic Markers™ for the Sanders v. Clinton debate last Thursday because there's not enough time in the world. So I want to look at three seemingly distinct topics: corruption, health care, and what the smart people who ride the Acela call "theories of change." For each topic, I will compare and contrast Sanders and Clinton; and I'll weave the three topics together at the end.

    Before I begin, though, let me set the context for the ( "truly great" ) debate: Elite panic at Clinton's performance. McClatchy :

    Dick Harpootlian, a prominent criminal defense lawyer in Columbia, South Carolina, and former chair of that key Southern state's Democratic Party, said the addition of more debates reflects panic among Clinton and Democratic figures who support her in the wake of Sanders' unexpectedly strong challenge.

    "Hillary was against having more debates, now she's for debates," Harpootlian told McClatchy. "This is what's wrong with our party. The minute she's in trouble, they decide they need more debates. If she had done much better in Iowa, there wouldn't be more debates."

    Others agree. The Los Angeles Times uses more measured language than (Sanders supporter (!)) Harpootlian, which is not hard, but the conclusion is the same:

    The fact the session took place at all was a reflection of the changed nature of the contest. Originally, Clinton agreed to just six debates sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee, which has weathered criticism it tried to shelter the party's front-runner and stave off a serious challenge.

    Her willingness to join Sanders onstage - and agree to later debates in Michigan and California - was just one sign the race has grown much tougher than Clinton and her supporters had hoped.

    Now, I'm assuming Wasserman-Schulz is still di– messing around with the schedule, and so a viewership ranked 17 of 19 debates, equivalent to a Republican undercard debate , wasn't a bug, but a feature. If that's true, I'd argue that the Clinton campaign hoped both to keep Clinton wrapped in tissue paper and land a knockout blow in the form of an admission or a gaffe suitable for YouTube; Clinton's diatribe on "If you've got something to say, say it directly" looks a lot like a setup for such a punch. If so, Sanders didn't fall for it and wasn't rattled, and he wins by not losing. (In fact, the Sanders campaign landed a solid counterpunch of its own, as we shall see under "Corruption," below, and enabled Sanders himself to stay on the high road. That's how it's done.)

    Corruption

    Our famously free press doesn't like to use the word "corruption" - that's Third World stuff - but let's go ahead and call things by their right names. From the debate transcript at the Washington Post:

    SANDERS: What being part of the establishment is, is, in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests.

    To my mind, if we do not get a handle on money in politics and the degree to which big money controls the political process in this country, nobody is going to bring about the changes that is needed in this country for the middle class and working families.

    CLINTON: Yeah, but I - I think it's fair to really ask what's behind that comment. You know, Senator Sanders has said he wants to run a positive campaign. I've tried to keep my disagreements over issues, as it should be.

    But time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth, which really comes down to - you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought.

    And I just absolutely reject that, Senator. And I really don't think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough. If you've got something to say, say it directly.

    But you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received .

    CLINTON: So I think it's time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out

    Shorter Clinton: "You say I'm corrupt. Prove it!" In longer form, Clinton makes the strong claim that "you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received." This claim can be disproved with a single example. Here ya go.

    Let's look at what Elizabeth Warren has to say on Clinton and the bankruptcy bill; note the appeal to those burdened with student loans. (Many of you may have seen this, but it's well worth a second look. The video was "blasted out" to the press "almost instantaneously" by the Sanders campaign , to whom we should give credit both for being both better at oppo and more agile than we might think.) Here it is:

    From the 2004 transcript at Bill Moyers :

    ELIZABETH WARREN: One of the first bills that came up after she was Senator Clinton was the bankruptcy bill. This is a bill that's like a vampire. It will not die. Right? There's a lot of money behind it, and it

    BILL MOYERS: Bill, her husband, who vetoed

    ELIZABETH WARREN: Her husband had vetoed it very much at her urging.

    BILL MOYERS: And?

    ELIZABETH WARREN: She voted in favor of it.

    BILL MOYERS: Why?

    ELIZABETH WARREN: As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It's a well-financed industry. You know a lot of people don't realize that the industry that gave the most money to Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals. It was consumer credit products. Those are the people. The credit card companies have been giving money, and they have influence.

    BILL MOYERS: And Mrs. Clinton was one of them as Senator.

    ELIZABETH WARREN: She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency.

    Well, so much for "artful smear." (I saw that one go by on the Twitter, and thought "Uh oh," but then it suddently died, as if some decision had been made no longer to propagate it. Perhaps this video was why.)

    Note how narrow Clinton's definition of corruption is: Money in exchange for a vote. That is the criminal definition of corruption - the quid pro quo - as we've seen from Zephyr Teachout, but corrupton as the Framers understood it , as an infection in the body politic, has a far broader definition: "The self-serving use of public power for private ends."[1] Clearly, using one's official position as a former Secretary of State and a likely future President to collect $675,000 from Goldman is exactly that. And I'm amazed how many Clinton supporters, at least on the Twitter, simply refuse to see this. Do they believe, as Yves asks, that Goldman is investing in Clinton with no thought of return? If so, I've got a campaign headquarters I'd like to sell. Transpose the example from high politics to local politics. Assume Clinton's running for re-election as dog-catcher. She gives a speech at Premier EZ Catch, Inc. for $675, and then later awards Premier EZ Catch the contract for dog catching nets. Am I entitled to call that corrupt? Of course; Clinton would never have been offered the $675 had she not been, as a public official, in a position to award the contract. Would I vote to re-elect Clinton as dogcatcher? Of course not.

    And now to compare Clinton to Sanders: Things are a lot simpler with Sanders; his net worth is $419,000 [2]. Let me break out my calculator And so his lifetime accumulation of wealth is $256,000 less than the $675,000 Clinton made for three speeches at Goldman. And then there's the campaign fundraising model: 70 percent small donors. "[T]he $20 million it reports to have raised in January came almost exclusively from online donations averaging $27 a piece." So, with Sanders, even if we use Clinton's definition of corruption, the question of quid pro quo doesn't arise. There's not enough quid.

    Health Care

    To health care. Rather than shredding Clinton's false claims about Sanders on health care policy, I want to compare and contrast their health care policy successes. First, Clinton. The transcript :

    CLINTON: Before it was called Hillarycare - I mean, before it was called ObamaCare it was called Hillarycare because we took them on, and we weren't successful, but we kept fighting and we got the children's health insurance program . Every step along the way I have stood up, and fought, and have the scars to prove it.

    With "kept fighting," Clinton is being a little disingenuous. The Clinton administration began their effort in 1993, and the "Health Security Act" was deep-sixed by the leadership in 1994. The State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was only proposed in 1997; it's not part of the Health Security Act's legislative history at all. That said, it's a good program, and Hillary Clinton can take some of the credit for passing it. From Factcheck.org :

    Hillary Clinton took a major role in translating the new law into action. The program leaves to the states the job of setting up coverage and getting children enrolled, a task that continues to be a struggle to this day. In April that year the first lady gave a speech saying nearly 1 million children had been enrolled during the previous year, but that increasing the figure was "one of the highest priorities" of her husband's administration. She said the president would seek $1 billion to fund a five-year "outreach" effort, with a goal of increasing enrollment to 5 million by 2000. Our conclusion: Clinton is right [to take credit].

    In 2014, over 8 million children were enrolled in CHIP .

    Second, Sanders. The transcript :

    SANDERS: And let me just say this. As Secretary Clinton may know, I am on the Health Education Labor Committee. That committee wrote the Affordable Care Act. The idea I would dismantle health care in America while we're waiting to pass a Medicare for All is just not accurate.

    So I do believe that in the future, not by dismantling what we have here - I helped write that bill - but by moving forward, rallying the American people, I do believe we should have health care for all.

    Sanders, with "I helped write that bill," is claiming at once too much and too little. Too much, because - thank heavens - Sanders didn't architect or draft the ACA; that was a job for Max Baucus and the insurance companies. Too little, because what Sanders did do was get Community Health Centers into the bill:

    However, as negotiations were in their final stage, Sanders successfully pushed for the inclusion of $11 billion in funding for community health centers, especially in rural areas. The insertion of this funding helped bring together both Democratic lawmakers on the left and Democrats representing more conservative, rural areas.

    "There was no one who played a more important role than Sen. Sanders" in securing that funding, Daniel Hawkins, vice president of the National Association of Community Health Centers, told the Intercept last year. (Sanders' camp forwarded PolitiFact the Intercept article as evidence for his statement.)

    Community Health Centers, too, are a good program :

    The new law provides an additional $9.5 billion in operating costs and $1.5 billion for new construction. With this additional funding, community health centers will be able to double the number of patients they serve to up to 40 million annually by 2015.

    Now let's step back and compare and contrast Clinton and Sanders:

    1) Sanders, just like Clinton, is capable of being "pragmatic," if that's defined as settling for a partial good. Clinton got CHIP initiated; Sanders got CHC expanded.

    2) If we take coverage numbers as a metric, Sanders is a more successful pragmatist than Clinton; 6 million covered by Clinton, vs. 20 million covered by Sanders.

    3) Sanders is most certainly capable not only of legislative achievement but of coalition-building. In a time of divided government and partisanship even more ruthless than under the Clintons, Sanders could "bring together both Democratic lawmakers on the left and Democrats representing more conservative, rural areas."[3]

    So one could certainly make the case - at least in health care - that Sanders is a more effective politician, and a more effective pragmatist, than Clinton. (Of course, Sanders didn't have to cope with the reputational effects of the HillaryCare debacle. So there's that.) Why would that be? I think there are two reasons (and I'll get to the second in the next section). First, Sanders had set high goals in the beginning of the legislative process. He didn't negotiate with himself, or start from the perspective that he had to ask for half a loaf because that's all we was going to get. Politifact summarizes the legislative history :

    Still, when Sanders says he "helped write" the bill, it would be reasonable to imagine that Sanders was an integral player in the crafting of the bill over a long period of time - an insider in the process. And that's not the reality.

    Before the final bill was enacted, Sanders and his allies on the party's left flank regularly expressed frustration at the concessions they had to make during the legislative process.

    "Public-option proponents, including Sanders and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, say they already have given up enough," Politico reported in late November 2009. "They agreed to forgo a single-payer system. They decided not to push a government plan tied to Medicare rates. And they accepted (Harry) Reid's proposal to include the opt-out provision. That's it, they say."

    Politico went on to quote Sanders saying, "I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed."

    If Sanders had started from Clinton's perspective of fear of "contentious debate" and what is "achievable," and made his first offer his final offer, would he and his allies have achieved even as much as the CHC? I doubt it.

    Theory of Change

    Elsewhere, I contrasted Clinton's theory of change as "trench warfare" with Sanders' theory of change as "breakthrough." Here, I want to weave together theories of change with corruption, using health care as an example. Above, I presented one reason that Sanders is an effective and pragmatic politician: He set high goals. (Clinton characterizes having a high goal as an initial offer as "Making promises you can't keep.") Here's the second reason: He had the right kind of outside pressure to help him. To see this, let's look at the what happened to single payer advocacy in the HillaryCare debacle. From Vicente Navarro, who was inside the process :

    Jesse Jackson, Dennis Rivera (then president of Local 1199, the foremost health care workers union), and I went to see Hillary Clinton. We complained about the commitment to managed care competition without due consideration of a single-payer proposal supported by large sectors of the left in the Democratic Party. We emphasized the need to include this proposal among those to be considered by the task force. Mrs. Clinton responded by asking Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition to appoint someone to the task force with that point of view. And this is how I became a member of the White House task force. I later found out that there was considerable opposition from senior health advisors, including Starr and Zelman, to my becoming part of the task force. According to a memo later made public and published in David Brock's nasty book The Seduction of Hillary Clinton, Starr and Zelman disapproved of my appointment "because Navarro is a real left-winger and has extreme distaste for the approach we are pursuing"– which was fairly accurate about my feelings, but I must stress that my disdain for managed competition and the intellectuals who supported it did not interfere with my primary objective: to make sure that the views of the single-payer community would be heard in the task force. They were heard, but not heeded. I was ostracized, and I had the feeling I was in the White House as a token - although whether as a token left-winger, token radical, token Hispanic, or token single-payer advocate, I cannot say. But I definitely had the feeling I was a token something.

    (If only Jesse Jackson had run, and not Michael Dukakis!) This is the inside game: "appoint someone to the task force" Then comes the outside pressure :

    It was at a later date, when some trade unions and Public Citizen mobilized to get more than 200,000 signatures in support of a single-payer system, that President Clinton instructed the task force to do something about single-payer. From then on the battle centered on including a sentence in the proposed law that would allow states to choose single-payer as an alternative if they so wished.

    Now let's contrast the outside pressure - considering national union leadership as outsiders, for the sake the argument - for single payer when ObamaCare was being passed. There were petition drives, and also (some) unions, like National Nurses United, though shamefully not the SEIU. But there were also these forms of elite reaction to outside pressure (somewhat reformatted):

    (1) The Democratic nomenklatura , which censored single payer stories and banned single payer advocates from its sites , and refused even to cover single payer advances in Congress , while simultaneously running a "bait and switch" operation with the so-called "public option," thereby sucking all the oxygen away from single payer;

    (2) Democratic office holders like Max Baucus, the putative author of ObamaCare - Liz Fowler, a Wellpoint VP, was the actual author - who refused to include single payer advocates in hearings and had protesters arrested and charged ;

    (3) and Obama himself , who set the tone for the entire Democratic food chain by openly mocking single payer advocates ( "got the little single payer advocates up here" ), and

    (4) whose White House operation blocked email from single payer advocates , and

    (5) went so far as to suppress a single payer advocate's question from the White House live blog of a "Forum on Health Care." (Granted, the forums were all kayfabe, but even so.) As Jane Hamsher wrote, summing of the debacle: "The problems in the current health care debate became apparent early on, when single payer advocates were excluded [note, again, lack of agency] from participation."

    (It looks like the lesson the Democratic establishment took from the HillaryCare debacle was not to appoint single payer advocates at all, instead of putting them on committees and then shunning them.) All these examples exhibit outside pressure exerted by single payer advocates on elites in the Obama administration and its allies in the political class. Now review Navarro's narrative. Do you see any similar examples there? (It's possible that such examples did happen - readers? - but it seems unlikely to me that Navarro would not have mentioned them). It could be that I'm too close to the single payer battle to be objective, but this is a distinction. I don't recall people getting arrested on behalf of single payer in Senate hearing rooms when HillaryCare was going down, for example. So that, to me, is the second reason for Sanders success with CHC.

    And where, pray tell, would such outside pressure on the political class come from, in a Sanders administration? Well, that would be the political revolution that Sanders constantly speaks of:

    SANDERS I'm running for president because I believe it is just too late for establishment politics and establishment economics. I do believe we need a political revolution where millions of people stand up and say loudly and clearly that our government belongs to all of us and not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors.

    And is there an example in recent history of a movement that could perform this task? Why yes. Yes there is. It was called Obama for America, and it was highly effective in 2008. Here's what happened to it:

    As Jessica Shearer, a top Obama field organizer in 2008, who managed nine key states for the campaign, said a year ago at our PDF symposium on networked organizing after the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, the Obama team had basically "kneecapped" their grassroots after the 2008 victory. "If Dean had been put in charge of the Democratic Party after that election, that list might have really built the democracy. It might have built a party. It might have allowed people a place to engage. Instead, it was this weak echo chamber, where they couldn't be one step to the left or one step to the right of anything the president said."

    Marshall Ganz, who initiated and organized Obama for America, agrees with Shearer :

    President Obama, Ganz says ruefully, seems to be "afraid of people getting out of control." He needed the organizing base in 2008, but he and his inner circle were quick to dismantle it after the election. Yes, Ganz concedes, they kept Organizing for America, with its access to the vast volunteer databases, alive; but they made a conscious decision to neuter it, so as to placate legislators who were worried about the independent power base it could give Obama. Following a meeting of key members of the transition team, they placed it under the control of the Democratic National Committee.

    So a Sanders theory of change doesn't have to be that hard: Don't replicate the Democrat's strategic failure - I'm being very charitable here - of gutting a movement once built. We know how to do the right thing; so do it. Change is hard; but the theory of change is not hard.

    And this brings me right back round to corruption. The Democrat Party and, more importantly, its voters and constitutents, are not faced with a choice between Clinton's incremental, insider-driven trench warfare strategy, and Sanders' breakthrough, outsider, movement strategy. The first cannot work; the second can. Why?

    The insider strategy founders on corruption. You saw that in Warren's video on Clinton and the bankruptcy bill. When Clinton's private interests changed after her transition from First Lady to Senator, she flipped on policy to favor her new Wall Street contributors constituents; "the self-serving use of public power for private ends." And exactly the same thing will happen with any insider strategy today; corruption will defeat it.

    A movement strategy is the only way forward. And we already know how to do it!

    NOTES

    [1] Under oligarchy, we might ask ourselves if corruption is the normal - indeed, normative - interface between state and civil society, at least for elites.

    [2] I know that's way above average for the United States; it seems like a lot to me. But it's way below average for Presidential candidates and Senators . Sanders is the 86th poorest Senator in a Senate where the median net worth is about $2.8 million . Clinton's net worth is estimated at 50 times greater than Sanders .

    [3] So put that in your "electable" pipe and smoke it. Yves Smith , February 7, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    If you want to depict NC as having a house position, it is that Clinton 1. Has a vastly overblown track record (as in she's held plummy jobs but either accomplished little or had negative accomplishments at each of them and 2. She and Bill are hopelessly corrupt, going back to the late 1970s (!!!) commodity trades, which became public only after Bill became president.

    So we are solidly anti-Clinton. I still have reservations about Sanders despite his successes so far and him having a much better economic policy and foreign policy position than she does (as in he is merely not very enthusiastic about moar warz, as opposed to against them).

    If you say nice stuff re Trump you will get shot at in a big way. Honestly, I don't see how anyone with an operating brain cell can have any enthusiasm for any of the leading Republican candidates.

    diptherio, February 7, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    Interesting that OFA was gutted because the status quo types were worried about Obama having an "independent" power base. And Obama seems to have been more than happy to go along and let his independent base be dismantled.

    Someone had a quote from Michael Hudson the other day (citation needed) about how he was told that he wouldn't be successful running for office because the elite king-makers won't back anybody without some kind of dirt on them, to ensure their tractability. This OFA things sounds to me like Obama rolling over and showing the power-structure his tummy. "Don't worry, I'm a submissive lapdog. I won't bite anybody you don't tell me to."

    jo6pac, February 7, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    Yep, he's in it for the speaking fees, private jet rides, and golf. Oh and the most important a lieberry built on public land.

    Thanks Lambert and it is fun to watch Bernie give her a run for their money.

    DakotabornKansan, February 7, 2016 at 2:12 pm

    Lambert, excellent post to be chewed and digested thoroughly!

    Glenn Greenwald also points to a passage in Alex Pareene's "Hillary Clinton Has a Henry Kissinger Problem" that captures a key part of Clinton v. Sanders that many pundits haven't grasped

    "She's a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that system and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because, well, it's true. It's not that she's been bought, it's that she bought in

    "One problem afflicting our online discourse is that many of her dimmer fellow liberals in the press keep being baffled at Clinton opposition from leftists who extensively criticize the institutions of American liberalism."

    http://gawker.com/hillary-clinton-has-a-henry-kissinger-problem-1757313187

    MikeNY , February 7, 2016 at 8:19 pm

    She's a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that system and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because, well, it's true. It's not that she's been bought, it's that she bought in.

    This.

    Great post, Lambert.

    ian , February 7, 2016 at 2:49 pm

    I keep seeing the $675K in speaking fees, what hasn't gotten enough attention is the total that the Clintons have received: over $150M (Bill and Hillary). Sure, they are doing what others have done, but they have been doing it on an industrial scale.

    Dugh , February 7, 2016 at 9:01 pm

    How much do Blankfein and other big, insider players have in the HillBilly son-in-law's loser hedge fund?

    fresno dan , February 7, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    "Note how narrow Clinton's definition of corruption is: Money in exchange for a vote. That is the criminal definition of corruption - the quid pro quo - as we've seen from Zephyr Teachout, but corrupton as the Framers understood it, as an infection in the body politic, has a far broader definition: "The self-serving use of public power for private ends."[1] Clearly, using one's official position as a former Secretary of State and a likely future President to collect $675,000 from Goldman is exactly that."

    Wonderful analysis.
    I would just note that it seems to me that the Clintons and their ilk epitomize modern corruption – The Clintons don't change their views because of bribes. A Rhodes scholar doesn't need to get a brown paper bag stuffed with hundreds to do what his client wants. The client does what Clinton wants. It just so happens that the Clintons and the bankers are of the same Davos Man elite, and share the same world and policy views. The Clintons don't have to be paid to try and make Goldman Sachs richer – they already believe that!
    The Clintons are much more like consultants anticipating what political issues could come up, and through a comprehensive program of appointments, alliances (including marriage), and preemptive attacks, neutralization of any anticipated problems, as well as providing insights into future opportunities. Indeed, the Clintons get hired by Goldman for exactly the same reason that Goldman gets hired by the market. Goldman's insider knowledge and connections make them more valuable.

    Goldman has so many employees who have been Treasury secretaries well, because they love America? Well, of course they love America – it works great for them. And for anyone who is smart, hard working, and plays the game the way it IS SUPPOSE TO BE PLAYED. And they, and their defenders, certainly don't want it changing in ANY substantive way that could possibly make them poorer, OR even reduces the RATE that their wealth ever increases. Nothing so crass or venal as bribes have to happen. You just have to understand who your friends are, and what you do for them. A really expensive prostitute never takes the cash in advance – the clients want to enumerate them generously. And at this level of "service" the provider truly wants a happy client .win-win as they say in Davos.

    I am sure in the mind of Hillary that she honestly believes she is serving Goldman Sachs honestly, honorably, and to the best of her ability. She believes that the "Davos Man" elite view provides the framework for great material growth – she understands not to even ASK if the growth is equitable.

    Their are plenty of lawyers, economists, and policy elites that can marshal "sophisticated" arguments for such a viewpoint. The fact that this viewpoint has guided US policy for near 50 years, and that corresponds exactly to the diminution of the middle class, is something that Hillary Clinton could not accept. The Clintons, like many successful people who get rich who attribute their good fortune to diligence, hard work, and upstanding moral behavior, instead of because of the true reason – – luck, brown nosing, and unabashed grandstanding, will like most humans be incapable of facing that their beliefs are wrong and the people they have allied themselves with are self promoters and sycophants, and bad.

    divadab , February 7, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    good addition to the thread, Fresno Dan. I think you put your finger on something important- Hillary Clinton believes herself to be a good person doing good work. And she believes also that her view of the realities of elite class political life is pragmatic and furthermore she succeeds within that world by dint of hard work and diligence and therefore has achieved and deserves wealth.

    I think she's deeply insulted to be accused of corruption. However, is she deliberately blind to the systematic corruption of the political process?

    JTMcPhee , February 7, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    "As senator, Wall Street was part of my constituency." Or word to that effect. Believes she is doing good in a good system? Really? "We came, we saw, he died" cue the Monte Burns cackle

    fresno dan , February 7, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/everyone-hates-martin-shkreli-everyone-is-missing-the-point

    But was Shkreli's performance actually more objectionable than that of the legislators who were performing alongside him? Elijah Cummings, of Maryland, is the ranking Democrat on the committee, and he used his allotted time to deliver a scolding. "Somebody's paying for these drugs, and it's the taxpayers that end up paying for some of them," he said. "Those are our constituents." In fact, it's hard to figure out exactly who is paying what for Daraprim. Shkreli and Turing have claimed that hospitals and insurance companies will pay, while patients who can't afford it will get a discount, or get it for free. And Nancy Retzlaff, Turing's chief commercial officer, told the committee about her company's efforts to get the drug to people who can't afford it. The arrangement she described sounded like a hodge-podge, an ungainly combination of dizzyingly high prices, mysterious corporate bargaining, and occasional charitable acts-which is to say, it sounded not so much different from the rest of our medical system.

    Even so, Cummings acted as if Shkreli were the only thing preventing a broken system from being fixed. "I know you're smiling, but I'm very serious, sir," he said. "The way I see it, you can go down in history as the poster boy for greedy drug-company executives, or you can change the system-yeah, you." Cummings has been in Congress since 1996, and he is a firm believer in the power of government to improve industry through regulation. And yet now he was begging the former C.E.O. of a relatively minor pharmaceutical company to "change the system"? It seemed like an act of abdication.

    ..
    One of the strangest things about the anti-Shkreli argument is that it asks us to be shocked that a medical executive is motivated by profit. And one of the strangest things about Shkreli himself is that he doesn't seem to be motivated by profit-at least, not entirely. Last fall, Derek Lowe, a chemist and blogger affiliated with Science, criticized Shkreli's plan to raise prices as a "terrible idea," not least because such an ostentatious plan posed "a serious risk of bringing the entire pricing structure of the industry under much heavier scrutiny and regulation." He called on the pharmaceutical industry to denounce Shkreli as a means of protecting its own business model; from an economic point of view, Shkreli's strategy seemed self-defeating. At least one person close to Shkreli seems to have agreed. One of the most revealing documents uncovered by the committee showed an unnamed executive imploring him not to raise the price of Daraprim again, saying that the risk of another media firestorm outweighed the benefit. "Investors just don't like this stuff," the e-mail said. Shkreli's response was coolly noncommittal: "We can wait a few months for sure."

    A truly greedy executive would keep a much lower profile than Shkreli: there would be no headline-grabbing exponential price hikes, just boring but reliable ticks upward; no interviews, no tweeting, and absolutely no hip-hop feuds. A truly greedy executive would stay more or less anonymous. (How many other pharmaceutical C.E.O.s can you name?) But Shkreli seems intent on proving a point about money and medicine, and you don't have to agree with his assessment in order to appreciate the service he has done us all. By showing what is legal, he has helped us to think about what we might want to change, and what we might need to learn to live with.

    ===================================
    Reminds me very much of a movie were the "good" vampires have to kill a "rogue" vampire who is just sucking up way more blood than he needs or deserves. Because the villagers apparently are willing to give up a few people as the normal course of events
    Of course, the hardest thing to take is the unbelievable rationalization proffered by FDA officials (at the behest of their bosses, congress of course) to prevent willing buyers from buying from willing sellers .because those sellers are in those hell holes of filth and decomposition like Germany, Switzerland, and France. Funny how wonderful the market is .except when it isn't. So much better that people go without heat than risk buying prescription drugs from Europe because our government is SO CONCERNED about their health.

    Amateur socialist , February 7, 2016 at 4:03 pm

    I know many NC readers are also fans of Harry Shearer's weekly radio show/podcast Le Show . This week's episode features a delicious segment of Clintonsomething wherein Hillary and Bill discuss what the new think tank should be named. Priceless and available for free (eventually) at http://harryshearer.com/le-show/ or other podcast servers (i.e. iTunes etc.)

    TedWa , February 7, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    Forced myself to watch a HRC townhall this morning and she was again harping on Sanders wanting to get rid of the ACA and start over and how we'll lose the ACA in a huge fight in Congress. Add to that her pollsters that are push polling with questions like "Do you want Sanders single payer health care that's going to cost $20 trillion or HRC's improvement of the ACA?" and you know she's in trouble, and it's just started. Sanders can be one smart politician and I think she's in over her head as she can't see beyond the "corruption is normal" framework she's coming from. Talk about being compromised – wow

    Carolinian , February 7, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    Pat Lang asks if she really expects us to believe that she's going to lower the boom on her own son in law.

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/02/httpwwwcelebritynetworthcomrichest-businessmenwall-streetmarc-mezvinsky-net-worth.html

    wally , February 7, 2016 at 7:08 pm

    It's really hard to see the point of this sort of thing. So her son-in-law has money or works in banking so what? Do you really think Bernie, as President, is somehow going to ride in and take trillions of dollars from the wealthy and spread them around? There seems to be a huge amount of fantasy and unreality afoot a sort of George McGovern idealism that somehow pushing a 'pure' candidate for President will change the world, or even change a significant number of mind in the US or even make any difference at all. Well, except end us up with a 6-3 conservative majority on the Court. Now, THAT would be an important change. You want that?

    auntienene , February 7, 2016 at 8:05 pm

    Your anti-purity, fantasy, unreality statement insults the intelligence of everyone who wants a return to human decency in government. No president has ever changed things alone and never will. If Bernie wins, it's because he will have inspired us to form a movement for change. Just like Reagan and movement conservatism. They succeeded and so can we.

    Pookah Harvey , February 7, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    Krugman's latest hit piece on Bernie's electability has pissed me off. Here was my comment:

    Here is something another political scientist has discovered:
    "Interviewing a roomful of undeclared voters recently, Neil Levesque, executive director of Saint Anselm College's New Hampshire Institute of Politics, asked which presidential candidate they were most likely to support when the state holds the country's first primary in two weeks. The majority of these New Hampshire voters, he said in a phone interview from Manchester, cited the Republican real estate developer, Donald Trump. Their second choice? Bernie Sanders, the self-styled social democratic senator from Vermont."
    How many "undecideds" do you think will flock to Clinton if Trump loses the nomination? Who really has a better chance to win the national election?

    http://www.thestreet.com/story/13431907/1/who-do-undecided-voters-prefer-trump-or-sanders-sounds-crazy-but-here-s-why.html

    This is one of the few times I have seen the pollster ask who would be your second choice without limiting it to party, as in who is your second choice among the Republican candidates?

    hreik , February 7, 2016 at 9:49 pm

    Fantastic piece. Thank you.

    [Feb 04, 2016] Pitchfork Time Elites Have Lost Their Healthy Fear Of The Masses

    An interesting, but not a deep, discussion about the possibility of uprising against the neoliberal elite in the current circumstances...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet? ..."
    "... With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of global capitalism, today's elites have lost the sense of fear that inspired a healthy respect for the masses among their predecessors . Now they can despise them as losers, as the aristocracy of ancien régime France despised the peasants who would soon be burning their châteaux. Surely today's elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of wealth and power. ..."
    "... will goldman sucks n shitty bank loan me money to purchase a pitchfork? http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/03/update-fec-informs-ted-cr... ..."
    "... It really doesn't matter what *ism society embraces. What matters more is is the power elite greedy enough to sell out their own kind? ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    The following reader comment, posted originally in the FT is a must read, both for the world's lower and endangered middle classes but especially the members of the 1% elite because what may be coming next could be very unpleasant for them.

    Elites have lost their healthy fear of the masses

    Sir, Martin Wolf (" The losers are in revolt against the elite ", Comment, January 27) and Andrew Cichocki ("Elites are listening to the wrong people ", Letters, January 29) skirt the key issue: global elites have lost a healthy sense of fear.

    From the time of the French Revolution until the collapse of communism, what successive generations of elites had in common was a sense of fear of what the aggrieved masses might do . In the first half of the 19th century they worried about a new Jacobin Terror, then they worried about socialist revolution on the model of the Paris Commune of 1871. One reason for the first world war was a growing sense of complacency among European elites. Afterwards they had plenty to worry about in the form of international communism, which remained a bogey until the 1980s.

    With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of global capitalism, today's elites have lost the sense of fear that inspired a healthy respect for the masses among their predecessors . Now they can despise them as losers, as the aristocracy of ancien régime France despised the peasants who would soon be burning their châteaux. Surely today's elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of wealth and power.

    Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet?

    h/t @ WallStCynic

    Looney

    Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet?

    Oh, honey, I thought you'd never ask… ;-)

    Goliath Slayer

    How they turned us into Pavlov Dogs >> http://wp.me/p4OZ4v-1zD

    Stuck on Zero

    It's hard to get rid of most of the elites because they have tenure.

    tarabel

    And most people wouldn't have the faintest idea of where to buy, or more probably rent, a pitchfork anyhow. As for torches? What, are you crazy? Those things are dangerous and would void our insurance policy.

    bamawatson

    will goldman sucks n shitty bank loan me money to purchase a pitchfork? http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/03/update-fec-informs-ted-cr...

    AldousHuxley

    It really doesn't matter what *ism society embraces. What matters more is is the power elite greedy enough to sell out their own kind?

    Future Jim

    If you think that freedom is just another ism, then you have been played.

    It is not about greed. It is about power and control. Money is just a means to that end.

    Their own kind? You mean their own race ... their own nation ... their own religion ... ?

    Cadavre

    And a roasting spit and rope to tie em by the ankle to the cherry trees lining the national mall, Musollini style. Urinals hanging from cherry trees. Only in America.

    One does wonder how inbreds surrounded by expensive advisors so easily lost any shred of fight-o-flight survival skills. Guess the extra bling allows them to dream false dreams.

    eforc

    The ones who think they are 'top dog' are about to find out the hard way, there is something much bigger at work...

    "6. The people, under our guidance, have annihilated the aristocracy, who were their one and only defense and foster-mother for the sake of their own advantage which is inseparably bound up with the well-being of the people. Nowadays, with the destruction of the aristocracy, the people have fallen into the grips of merciless money-grinding scoundrels who have laid a pitiless and cruel yoke upon the necks of the workers.

    7. We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces - socialists, anarchists, communists - to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule (of the solidarity of all humanity) of our social masonry. The aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy, and strong. We are interested in just the opposite - in the diminution, the killing out of the goyim. Our power is in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this implies he is made the slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength or energy to set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings.

    8. By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way."

    --The Protocols

    freak of nature

    Fear might be masked, but it's still there.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/30/angela-merkel-caught-on-...

    Memedada

    http://www.rense.com/general45/proto.htm - they're fake.

    Mr. Universe

    The thing is that there are going to be a LOT of folks who thought they were elites. Instead they will be thrown under the bus of the approaching hoards to slow them down while the real elites make sure no one escapes that shouldn't be.

    They no longer fear the masses as they control the cops and the narrative. What will really work and is almost unstoppable is the ghost in the machine. Seemingly random acts of sabotage, just think if the internet went down for even 2 or 3 days. Who would it hurt most, average folk or ? I have a dream...

    wildbad

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USk-ECjYEhI

    Lorca's Novena

    Lol those guys are so blackwater.... It is illegal to have a standing "army" on 'murrican soil. Private for hire jagoffs arent. And no, it wasnt the national guard.

    Chris Dakota

    60% of the people who live in Burns work for the BLM.

    Looney

    Oops! ;-)

    alexcojones

    I think Pitchforks are way too tame. If this patriot lived today he would be decalared a TERRORIST

    The First Hero of the American Revolution

    Mark Mywords

    " Surely today's elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of wealth and power."

    Surely, you jest. The proles won't attack the elites. They won't be able to find them, or get to where they live.

    Tyler(s), you need to stop posting such meaningless tripe. When the serfs rise up, they will attack what is around them. As always.

    bbq on whitehou...

    The internet doesnt forget or forgive transgressions. Sins of the father shall be paid for by their sons.
    "Where are you going to run, where are you going to hide; no where because there is no where left to run to." - Body snatchers

    tarabel

    I think you are correct so far as you take your argument. Yes, they will START on their own neighborhoods. The depth of the fall can be graphed against how far they will go afterwards.

    El Vaquero

    Then we just cut their supply lines.

    knotjammin2

    It is our son's and daughter's who protect the elitist assholes. We know where they built their bugouts and landing strips. We built them. We know where the air vents are for their underground bunkers. We built them. We know where the diesel tanks are to power their generators and you can't hide solar panels. No, we know where there going and how to get to them. Soon!!

    Mr. Universe

    Now you know why the hawaiian's, when they sent a worker down the side of a cliff to bury the chiefs bones in that space reserved for the Ali'i, they "accidently" let go of the rope while he was climbing back up...oopppps, sorry bout 'dat brah.

    indygo55

    "The proles won't attack the elites. They won't be able to find them, or get to where they live."

    Oh you mean like the French Revolution or the Chinese Revolution? Like that?

    HardAssets

    No, the proles do little of substance. But, the time is reached when even their paid off guard dogs will be tired of the insanity that destroys their own extended families. (The psychopaths can't help but push it to the extremes. That is their egotistical nature. Theyve been indulged since they were infants.) When that day of reckoning comes, the criminals will be very afraid.

    The EU 'leadership' bringing in massive outside foreign populations to destroy the existing culture and nation-state is a potential match for the fuse of anger. We see police carrying out orders, but what do they really think ? How bad will they let it get ? Even the Red Army troops refused to go along with it all when the grandmas scolded them for taking part in rolling the tanks toward their own people. And those troops said "Nyet, no more of this." And the USSR was no more.

    conraddobler

    Maybe they haven't played a lot of sims?

    I used to love the old sims of feudal japan where you could set your tax rate at whatever you wanted but the higher you set it the more likely you would get a peasant revolt.

    What's going on is precisely this:.....

    They have learned how to set the tax rate at whatever percentage won't cause utter chaos and then absolve themselves from said taxes through loopholes AND THEN add on top stealth taxes in the form of currency debasement AND THEN on top of all this they've built a ponzi scheme debt based fiasco that is entirely unsustainable.

    I gotta hand it to them they have managed so far to avoid the ire of the peasant class, however methinks that once this shit show rolls into town and starts playing nightly as in reality comes a callin then these same folks are going to need to hide off planet.

    Seriously I'd advise them to look into space travel.

    DipshitMiddleCl...

    The elites today were related to the elites of yesterdays revolutions. They have learned and are keeping track of everything and with the advent of big data and lots of computing power, they know how much time they have before SHTF. They have quants assessing risk daily, and not just market risk..geopolitical and other stuff.

    They dont fear us because they know they can keep ramping up poisoning of our food and other stupid social media gimmicks.

    If all else fails, the jackboots will come out in full force.

    They've been testing and training these detention methods for close to 100 years. From the gulags of Russia to the West Bank / Gaza strip today of Israel.....its being tried and trued.

    And we're next!

    ~DipshitMiddleClassWhiteKId

    carlnpa

    The past nine months have set record monthly background checks. I believe we as a "group" know and feel our existence is in danger, and are responding accordingly.

    alexcojones

    Certainly a patriot CANNOT do it through the ballot box,

    Iowa: Days before the Iowa caucuses in 2012, Ron Paul held a commanding lead in the polls and all the momentum, with every other candidate having peaked from favorable media coverage and then collapsed under the ensuing scrutiny. Establishment Republicans, like Iowa's Representative Steve King (R), attempted to sabotage Paul's campaign by spreading rumors he would lose to Obama if nominated. . . Iowa Governor Terry Barnstad told Politico , "[If Paul wins] people are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire". The message from the Iowa Governor to voters of his state was: a vote for Ron Paul was a wasted vote.

    How t he Republican Party Stole the Nomination from Ron

    August

    The RNC and their minions would have prevented a Ron Paul presidential nomination, by any means necessary - up to and including a terrible, just terrible, plane crash. All those lives lost....

    pipes

    They DID prevent the nomination by any means necessary...and did so, short of crashing a plane. The underhanded shit they pulled in '12 sealed their fate.

    Kirk2NCC1701

    In that case, the Libertarian Party needs to go "full Zio-mode": Take no BS and no prisoners.

    Problem is, they are too "individualistic" (divided, heterogenous), and too 'Christian' (raised in "Religion of Serfs") to create another American or French Revolution, or bring about real change.

    Note that in the American Revolution, its Founders realized that the influence of Clerics needed to be curtailed, and so they invented the "Seperation of Church and State". The French, OTOH, called a spade a spade, and got rid of the Church completely.

    Amerika: Where kids are taught by their parents to believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus -- all the while they believe in "Santa for Grownups", i.e. Winged Nordic Humans (Angels) and a Sky God.

    I have ZERO faith that Libertarians will do anyting, other than talk, blog, hold meetings, conventions, have weekend warrior games, or buy any number of Doomsday Products and Services. IOW.. they'll do anything and everything, but March or Protest en mass. They won't even do TV program, much less do a leveraged buyout of a TV channel.

    Like I said: "Too individualistic, to truly matter to TPTB". I WISH it were not to, but I'm just calling it as I see it. Alas. If I'm wrong, I'll jump for joy and click my heels.

    alexcojones

    BTW - Fuck Iowa

    And thank you Stanford for Stomping them in the Rose Bowl

    Pitchfork Voting Machines

    all-priced-in

    Do they have to get off the sofa or can they just send it in on Instagram?

    [Feb 03, 2016] Lies of the Neocons From Leo Strauss to Scooter Libby

    Notable quotes:
    "... A superb account of the ideas of Strauss, his followers and his influence is to be found in The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (hereafter PI) and Leo Strauss and The American Right (hereafter AR), both by Shadia Drury, professor of politics at the University of Calgary. Her account of Strausss ideas and the prominence they play in American politics today will give you chills or nausea, perhaps both. As she says in PI (p.xii), Strauss is the key to understanding the political vision that has inspired the most powerful men in America under George W. Bush. In my view men who are in the grip of Straussian political ideas cannot be trusted with political power in any society, let alone a liberal democracy. This book explains why this is the case. ..."
    "... So the covert elite must be certain that myths like religion or the glory of the nation are not weakened for these are among the best ways to rule over the ignorant herd and lead it into war. (Note that the Straussians themselves are not religious. They are above religion, capable of dealing with tough truths like mans mortality. But in their view, religion is a crucial factor in governing in their view. Irving Kristol, following Strauss, tells us that religion is far more important politically than the Founding Fathers believed and that to rescue America it is necessary to breathe new life into the older, now largely comatose religious orthodoxies. (AR, p. 148). ..."
    "... But useful lies of the grand sort like religious myth or blind nationalism need support by lesser lies at crucial moments. And so we go to the smaller lies like weapons of mass destruction, the smoking gun that comes in the form of the mushroom cloud. And here too the elite has a role to play. They are to use their superior rhetorical skills to make the weak argument seem stronger. In other words the cabal not only has to protect myths and manufacture lies but go to work in selling them. What Strauss called rhetoric, we call spin. ..."
    "... All of this comes down to one word: lying. But for Strauss, these lies are necessary for the smooth function of society and triumph of ones own nation in war. Hence for Strauss, the lie becomes noble. This phrase Strauss borrows and distorts from Plato who meant by a noble lie a myth or parable that conveyed an underlying truth about morality or nature. But in Strausss hands the noble lie becomes a way of deceiving the herd. Strausss noble lies are far from noble. They are intended to dupe the multitude and secure power for a special elite (AR, p. 79). ..."
    OpEdNews
    All governments lie as I. F. Stone famously observed, but some governments lie more than others. And the neocon Bush regime serves up whoppers as standard fare every day. Why this propensity to lie? There are many reasons, but it is not widely appreciated that the neocons believe in lying on principle. It is the "noble" thing for the elite to do, for the "vulgar" masses, the "herd" will become ungovernable without such lies. This is the idea of the "noble lie" practiced with such success and boldness by Scooter Libby and his co-conspirators and concocted by the political "philosopher" Leo Strauss whose teachings lie at the core of the neoconservative outlook and agenda, so much so that they are sometimes called "Leocons."

    Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was a Jewish-German émigré from the Nazi regime who eventually landed at the University of Chicago where he developed a following that has achieved enormous prominence in American politics. Among his students were Paul Wolfowitz who has openly acknowledged that he is a follower of Straus as has the godfather of neconservatism, Irving Kristol. Irving Kristol begat William Kristol, the director of operation for the DC neocons, editor of the Weekly Standard and "chairman" of the Project for the New American Century, which laid out the plans for the Iraq War. (PNAC also opined in 2000 that a Pearl Harbor-like event would be necessary to take the country to war, and one year later, presto, we had the strange and still mysterious attack of September 11.) For his part Paul Wolfowitz begat Libby, in the intellectual sense, when he taught Libby at Yale. Others stars in the necon firmament are Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and lesser figures like Abram Shulsky, director of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, created by Donald Rumsfeld. Shulsky, also a student of Strauss, was responsible for fabricating the lies masquerading as intelligence that were designed to get the U.S. into the war on Iraq. While the neocons have a passion for the Likud party and Zionism, they also count among their number not a few pre-Vatican II Catholics and an assortment of cranks like Newt Gingrich and John Bolton and crypto fascists like Jeanne Kirkpatrick. The list goes on and Justin Raimondo has documented it in great detail over the years on Antiwar.com. But it is enough to note that Cheney's alter ego was Libby, and Rumsfeld's second in command until recently was Wolfowitz. So both Cheney, the de facto president with an apparently ill perfused cerebrum, and the geezer commanding the Pentagon have been managed by younger and very prominent Straussians for the past five years.

    A superb account of the ideas of Strauss, his followers and his influence is to be found in The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (hereafter PI) and Leo Strauss and The American Right (hereafter AR), both by Shadia Drury, professor of politics at the University of Calgary. Her account of Strauss's ideas and the prominence they play in American politics today will give you chills or nausea, perhaps both. As she says in PI (p.xii), "Strauss is the key to understanding the political vision that has inspired the most powerful men in America under George W. Bush. In my view men who are in the grip of Straussian political ideas cannot be trusted with political power in any society, let alone a liberal democracy. This book explains why this is the case."

    For those who wish to understand the neocon agenda, Drury's books are essential reading. She is clear and thorough.

    Of pertinence to "Scooter's" case and the pack of lies he was concealing is Strauss's idea that a "philosopher elite" (i.e., Straussians) must rule. Moreover they must do so covertly. As someone remarked before last Friday, "Who ever heard of I. Lewis Libby?" a man who shunned the spotlight and operated behind the scenes. The reason for such covert rule, or cabal, is that the "vulgar" herd, as Strauss liked to call the rest of us, cannot appreciate "higher truths" such as the inevitability and necessity of wars in relations between states and even the utility of wars in governing a state.

    So the covert elite must be certain that myths like religion or the glory of the nation are not weakened for these are among the best ways to rule over the ignorant herd and lead it into war. (Note that the Straussians themselves are not religious. They are "above" religion, capable of dealing with tough truths like man's mortality. But in their view, religion is a crucial factor in governing in their view. Irving Kristol, following Strauss, tells us that religion is "far more important politically" than the Founding Fathers believed and that to rescue America it is necessary "to breathe new life into the older, now largely comatose religious orthodoxies." (AR, p. 148). Any religion will do except perhaps Islam, which is more or less verboten, given the affinity of all leading neocons for Israel. Hence the neocons readily embrace the ideology and leadership of Christian fundamentalism which can keep the crowd under control and get them to march off to war and death. The neocons are mainly interested in foreign policy, as was Strauss, but in exchange for the support of the religious Right in foreign affairs, the neocons line up behind the domestic program of the fundamentalists. It's a win win situation, from their point of view

    But useful lies of the grand sort like religious myth or blind nationalism need support by lesser lies at crucial moments. And so we go to the "smaller" lies like "weapons of mass destruction," the "smoking gun that comes in the form of the mushroom cloud." And here too the elite has a role to play. They are to use their "superior rhetorical skills" to make the weak argument seem stronger. In other words the cabal not only has to protect myths and manufacture lies but go to work in selling them. What Strauss called "rhetoric," we call spin.

    All of this comes down to one word: lying. But for Strauss, these lies are necessary for the smooth function of society and triumph of one's own nation in war. Hence for Strauss, the lie becomes "noble." This phrase Strauss borrows and distorts from Plato who meant by a "noble lie" a myth or parable that conveyed an underlying truth about morality or nature. But in Strauss's hands the "noble lie" becomes a way of deceiving the herd. Strauss's "noble lies are far from "noble." They are intended to "dupe the multitude and secure power for a special elite" (AR, p. 79).

    One other idea of Strauss's bears on the situation of "Scooter" Libby. How is the Straussian philosophical elite going to get from the halls of academe to the corridors of power? This depends on good luck and the "chance" encounter between the powerful and the Straussian. Here the contemporary neocons go beyond Strauss and leave nothing to chance. It would even appear that they look for the stupid, gullible or those who are mentally compromised. So William Kristol becomes Vice President Quayle's chief of Staff, and Libby becomes the right hand man to the addled Cheney as well as assistant to the Quayle-like Bush. And there are many more.

    Finally, Drury makes the point the Strauss and the neocons are not really conservative at all. They are radicals, at war with the entire modern enterprise which makes them turn to the ancients for their inspiration and even there they need to distort the teachings of Socrates or Plato to make their case. But the Enlightenment comes to us with the advance of science to which Strauss is also hostile. He says that he is not against science as such "but popularized science or the diffusion of scientific knowledge.Science must remain the preserve of a small minority; it must be kept secret from the common man" (PI, p. 154). But this is impossible. Science by its very nature is a vast social enterprise requiring the widest possible dissemination of its findings. Any society that puts a lid on this will fail, and so by natural selection, the Straussian project is doomed to fail.

    But before that happens the Straussians can do a lot of damage. As Drury says, they "cannot be trusted with political power." But we can learn from them the importance of boldness, not in the pursuit of the "noble lie" but of the truth. And we must be certain that we are vigorous as we hunt them down and get them out of power. In that effort Shadia Drury has done us a great service.

    John Walsh can be reached at [email protected].

    He thanks Gary Leupp a regular on CounterPoint.com for pointing him to Shadia Drury's books.

    [Feb 03, 2016] The Gloating of the Neocons

    Notable quotes:
    "... The greatest crime of the twenty-first century so far was the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. ..."
    "... First Bush and Cheney (and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Rice) made the decision to go to war. Then they sat down and carefully invented the reasons ..."
    "... On Sept. 11, 2001 Bush asked his counterterrorism advisor Richard A. Clarke, who had warned him in early 2001 about an "immanent al-Qaeda threat" (warnings Clarke alleges Bush "ignored") to produce a report blaming Iraq for the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. ..."
    "... In his own account Clarke says: "I said, Mr. President. We've done this before." (Meaning, we've explored the possibility of ties between Baghdad and al-Qaeda before.) "We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There is no connection." ..."
    "... Meanwhile Secretary of "Defense" Donald Rumsfeld advocated - from day one - attacks on Iraq as a response to 9/11. Clarke has stated that he assumed Rumsfeld was joking when he first suggested, immediately after the event, that since Afghanistan had "no good targets" the U.S. should proceed to bomb the totally un-related country. But he soon learned that Rumsfeld and his staff headed by Paul Wolfowitz were in deadly earnest. ..."
    "... Some are describing Obama's renewed bombing of Iraq, and the strikes on Syrian targets, as a new "neocon moment." ..."
    "... Recall how, in late 2003, as it became embarrassingly evident that Iraq had had no weapons of mass destruction, Wolfowitz in Iraq tried to change the subject entirely. Who cares about weapons of mass destruction? he told a reporter. The Iraqi people want to reconstruct their country, he declared (as though the question of the war's legitimacy was an irrelevant detail). Having acknowledged some "intelligence flaws" (attributing them to the CIA, rather than to themselves-despite what we know of the unprecedented Cheney-Libby visits to the Pentagon to browbeat the intelligence professionals to include their bullshit into official reports), Cheney and his neocon camp changed the subject. ..."
    "... No, it wasn't about the announced reasons: weapons of mass destruction, or al-Qaeda ties. Nor was it about U.S. Big Oil (which hasn't profited from the Iraq War, the big contracts going to China and Russia). Nor was it about permanent military bases; the Iraqis have successfully rejected them. What does that leave us with? ..."
    "... A war pushed by the neocons to destroy a foe of Israel. It succeeded, surely, but only to produce a vicious Sunni successor state in Anbar Province potentially far more threatening to Israel than Saddam ever was. ..."
    October 31, 2014 | counterpunch.org

    The greatest crime of the twenty-first century so far was the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Broadly conceived by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney immediately after 9/11, it initially lacked a coherent justification . But as Condoleezza Rice noted at the time, the tragedy brought "opportunities." (People in fear can be persuaded to support things policy-makers long wanted, but couldn't quite sell to the public.)

    First Bush and Cheney (and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Rice) made the decision to go to war. Then they sat down and carefully invented the reasons for their war.

    On Sept. 11, 2001 Bush asked his counterterrorism advisor Richard A. Clarke, who had warned him in early 2001 about an "immanent al-Qaeda threat" (warnings Clarke alleges Bush "ignored") to produce a report blaming Iraq for the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

    In his own account Clarke says: "I said, Mr. President. We've done this before." (Meaning, we've explored the possibility of ties between Baghdad and al-Qaeda before.) "We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There is no connection."

    But Clarke's recollection of the event continues:

    "He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report. It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. … Do it again.'"

    Few policy decisions in modern history can rival the evil of that demand that the U.S. intelligence community deliberately contrive a false historical narrative, to justify a war that has destroyed a country and killed half a million people.

    Meanwhile Secretary of "Defense" Donald Rumsfeld advocated - from day one - attacks on Iraq as a response to 9/11. Clarke has stated that he assumed Rumsfeld was joking when he first suggested, immediately after the event, that since Afghanistan had "no good targets" the U.S. should proceed to bomb the totally un-related country. But he soon learned that Rumsfeld and his staff headed by Paul Wolfowitz were in deadly earnest.

    The Powell UN speech, demanding global support for an attack on a threatening, al-Qaeda aligned Iraq, in fact bombed. But more than that, key U.S. allies-NATO heavies France and Germany among them-refused to get on board the program. This occasioned an amazing campaign of vilification of France, best symbolized by Congress's decision to rename "French fries" "freedom fries" in the Congressional cafeteria. An asinine book trashing France as "our oldest enemy" became a best-seller.

    ... ... ...

    Republican presidents, Democratic presidents. All on the same page when it comes to maintaining what Wolfowitz termed "full-spectrum dominance" in the post-Cold War world. Now as it all falls apart-as ISIL expands its "caliphate," as the Syrian Baathists hold out against both U.S.-backed and other Islamists, as Iran gains respect as a serious negotiator in the Geneva talks, as China rises, as Russia thwarts NATO expansion, as U.S.-Israeli ties fray, as a multi-polar world inevitably emerges- what triumphs can the neocons claim?

    Once flushed with history, proclaiming the "end of history" with the triumph of capitalist imperialism over Marxist socialism and other competing ideologies, they have only a handful of successes they can claim.

    Oilmen Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush (and Rice who has an oil tanker named after her) lusted after oil profits. They lusted too for an expansion of U.S. military power in the "Greater Middle East." They were less concerned with Israel. But Israel's survival as a specifically "Jewish" state, with a subject Arab population that must never become demographically threatening-and blow the whole Zionist project by forcing a one-state multi-ethnic solution-is the central neocon concern. They will not say this, of course; Leo Strauss students like Wolfowitz and Shulsky believe in the need for deception to get things done. But this was the minimal objective of the neocons' response to 9/11: to use the event to advantage Israel.

    Recall how, in late 2003, as it became embarrassingly evident that Iraq had had no weapons of mass destruction, Wolfowitz in Iraq tried to change the subject entirely. Who cares about weapons of mass destruction? he told a reporter. The Iraqi people want to reconstruct their country, he declared (as though the question of the war's legitimacy was an irrelevant detail). Having acknowledged some "intelligence flaws" (attributing them to the CIA, rather than to themselves-despite what we know of the unprecedented Cheney-Libby visits to the Pentagon to browbeat the intelligence professionals to include their bullshit into official reports), Cheney and his neocon camp changed the subject.

    The real issue, they now averred, was creating "democracy" in the Middle East. Condi Rice happily connived with this strategy, arguing dramatically that it was as wrong to deny people in the Middle East their freedom as it had been to deny black people in her home of Birmingham, Alabama their right to vote. Suddenly special diplomats were dispatched to Arab countries to lecture skeptical, sometimes glowering audiences on the advantages of the U.S. political system.

    Under great pressure, some Arab countries somewhat expanded their parliamentary processes. The effort backfired as Islamists were elected in Egypt, Hizbollah made advances in Lebanon, and Hamas won a majority in the first free Palestinian election (in 2006). The "terrorists" were winning elections! The State Department denounced such results and has since shut up about "democracy" in the Middle East.

    No, it wasn't about the announced reasons: weapons of mass destruction, or al-Qaeda ties. Nor was it about U.S. Big Oil (which hasn't profited from the Iraq War, the big contracts going to China and Russia). Nor was it about permanent military bases; the Iraqis have successfully rejected them. What does that leave us with?

    A war pushed by the neocons to destroy a foe of Israel. It succeeded, surely, but only to produce a vicious Sunni successor state in Anbar Province potentially far more threatening to Israel than Saddam ever was.

    But Binyamin Netanyahu doesn't see it that way. He has repeatedly dubbed Iran as a greater threat than ISIL. Having predicted since 1992 that Iran is close to developing a nuclear bomb; having repeatedly demanded (echoed by prominent U.S. neocons such as Norman Podhoretz) that the U.S. bomb Iran (to prevent a "nuclear holocaust"); having angrily dismissed U.S. intelligence assessments that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, Netanyahu wants Obama to focus on destroying the Iranian regime.

    GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion.

    [Feb 03, 2016] Neoconservatives as neoliberals with a gun

    Notable quotes:
    "... In short, unless the semi-free democratic society is strong, and not only ready to defend itself but also willing to go on the offensive in support of its system abroad, it will perish. The neocon view is that either you're willing to export liberal democracy or it will be crushed by all kinds of barbaric global groups. ..."
    "... They too believe – some of them because they were taught it by Strauss Co – that their most important values are best advanced and preserved in a relatively free society, provided such a society is strong and wields power wisely, both at home and abroad. ..."
    "... Neoconservatives are neoliberals with a gun, changing Al Capone maxim into You can get much farther with a neoliberal recommendations and a gun than you can with a neoliberal recommendation (as in Washington consensus) alone. Kind of attack dogs of neoliberalism. ..."
    "... The failure of the Weimar regime to prevent the rise of fascism, in his view, resided in its failure to put power into the hands of the strong and good, who inevitably, unable to acquire popular support through honest methods, should (like their Nazi adversaries) have cleverly used Big Lies (towards good ends) to nudge the people towards those ends. Only wise men, acting in secrecy, can do that. ..."
    "... As Hersh points out, the neocons (just about a dozen officials-including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton, Abrams - operating in concert with the oil-baron contingent in the administration-Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Bush-and providing them with intellectual guidance) refer to themselves (with smug amusement) as a cabal (a word with an interesting etymology). ..."
    "... That seizure is still in progress, messily, untidily, brutally and illegally, and with results no cabal, however wise, can really predict. Among the results might be a growing revulsion among the American people themselves at the neocons misanthropic arrogance, and perhaps (much though it should be regretted and fought) anti-Semitism. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    R Walter, 02/03/2016 at 6:43 pm
    Neoconservatives follow the philosophy of Leo Strauss, the father of the neoconservative movement. Whether is has been bad or good, hard to know. A little bit and a good read about the neoconservatives and Leo Strauss:

    "Neoconservatives hold the view that 'American' is the best bet for the world – America's institutional set-up is a very useful combination of modern elements, having to do with the sovereignty of individuals together with the older idea of a substantial role for government – and that this is an idea that needs to be widely promulgated. Indeed, without its promulgation there can arise and persist major threats to the countries which do embrace this set up, such as the United States of America. In short, unless the semi-free democratic society is strong, and not only ready to defend itself but also willing to go on the offensive in support of its system abroad, it will perish. The neocon view is that either you're willing to export liberal democracy or it will be crushed by all kinds of barbaric global groups.

    Now let us return to Strauss. Recall his prudential endorsement of classical liberalism as the best bet for philosophy. (Just exactly why philosophy ought to be cherished is not made clear by Strauss & Co; and their implicit or explicit nihilism calls the merit of philosophy into serious question.) Strauss's embrace of classical liberalism – or at least a watered down version of it, as per liberal democracy – did appear to influence the neocons. They too believe – some of them because they were taught it by Strauss & Co – that their most important values are best advanced and preserved in a relatively free society, provided such a society is strong and wields power wisely, both at home and abroad."

    https://philosophynow.org/issues/59/Leo_Strauss_Neoconservative

    For what it's worth.

    likbez, 02/03/2016 at 7:16 pm
    "Neoconservatives follow the philosophy of Leo Strauss, the father of the neoconservative movement."

    No. They follow the philosophy of Leo Trotsky with "proletariat" replaced by "international elite" and global corporations.
    http://softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/neocons.shtml

    Neoconservatives are neoliberals with a gun, changing Al Capone maxim into "You can get much farther with a neoliberal recommendations and a gun than you can with a neoliberal recommendation (as in Washington consensus) alone." Kind of attack dogs of neoliberalism.

    Using deception as a smoke screen in politics was actually introduced by Machiavelli, not by Leo Strauss; that's why Bush II administration was called Mayberry Machiavelli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayberry_Machiavelli)

    What Leo Strauss introduced and what is used in neoconservative/neoliberal discourse is the concept of "noble lie" (which includes "false flag" operations; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag). Here is how Professor of History at Tufts University Gary Leupp defines their behavior:

    == quote ==
    Hersh notes the critical influence of the philosopher Leo Strauss (d. 1973) on Wolfowitz's thinking. His article stimulated, among other articles, a substantial piece on Strauss by Jeet Heer in the Boston Globe (May 11), and another by William Pfaff in the International Herald Tribune (May 15), the latter noting that "Strauss's thought is a matter of public interest because his followers are in charge of U.S. foreign policy." Strauss, of German Jewish origins who taught for many years at the University of Chicago, mentoring Wolfowitz among others, was a brilliant man. No question about that. But also a man profoundly hostile to the modern world and to the concept of rule by the people. He believed it was the natural right of the wise and strong to lead societies to the fulfillment of their wise aims, using subterfuge when necessary, because speaking the naked truth won't get the job done.

    Strauss's point of departure is Socrates, who in Plato's Republic denounces Athenian democracy (the rule of the untutored masses) and instead promotes government by "philosopher-kings." Strauss had experienced the Weimar Republic (one of the more democratic experiments in modern history) and seen Germany fall into the hands of the Nazis. He understandably opposed the latter, but he derived some lessons from their methodology.

    The failure of the Weimar regime to prevent the rise of fascism, in his view, resided in its failure to put power into the hands of the strong and good, who inevitably, unable to acquire popular support through honest methods, should (like their Nazi adversaries) have cleverly used Big Lies (towards good ends) to nudge the people towards those ends. Only wise men, acting in secrecy, can do that.

    As Hersh points out, the neocons (just about a dozen officials-including Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton, Abrams - operating in concert with the oil-baron contingent in the administration-Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Bush-and providing them with intellectual guidance) refer to themselves (with smug amusement) as a "cabal" (a word with an interesting etymology).

    They have contempt for the masses, and feel utterly justified in wisely misleading those masses into a roadmap for global peace on their terms. That meant, initially, using 9-11 to produce support for the seizure of Iraq,

    That seizure is still in progress, messily, untidily, brutally and illegally, and with results no cabal, however wise, can really predict. Among the results might be a growing revulsion among the American people themselves at the neocons' misanthropic arrogance, and perhaps (much though it should be regretted and fought) anti-Semitism. The latter might be provoked by the fact that persons inclined to embrace the most extreme factions in the Israeli political apparatus are disproportionately represented in the neocons' cabal, and while the general movement of U.S. foreign policy is driven by broad geopolitical concerns, rather than the alliance with Israel, the neocons' allegiance to what they perceive to be the interests of Sharon's Israel is highly conspicuous.
    == end of quote ==

    See also

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/31/the-gloating-of-the-neocons/

    [Jan 31, 2016] Jesses Café Américain Deep State Inside Washingtons Shadowy Power Elite

    Notable quotes:
    "... But, like virtually every employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the culture of the institution I worked for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are, to quote George W. Bush, the deciders. ..."
    "... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called groupthink , the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the towns cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. ..."
    "... As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. ..."
    jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    "Our plutocracy, whether the hedge fund managers in Greenwich, Connecticut, or the Internet moguls in Palo Alto, now lives like the British did in colonial India: ruling the place but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; to the person fortunate enough to own a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension, and viable public transportation doesn't even compute. With private doctors on call and a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?"

    ― Mike Lofgren, The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government

    "Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise.

    But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

    Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Princeton 2014

    "As a congressional staff member for 28 years specializing in national security and possessing a top secret security clearance, I was at least on the fringes of the world I am describing, if neither totally in it by virtue of full membership nor of it by psychological disposition.

    But, like virtually every employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the culture of the institution I worked for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are, to quote George W. Bush, 'the deciders.'

    Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called groupthink, the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive.

    As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.'"

    Mike Lofgren

    [Jan 31, 2016] Deep State Inside Washingtons Shadowy Power Elite Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... how is it that partisan gridlock has seemingly jammed up the gears (and funding sources) in Washington, yet the government has been unhindered in its ability to wage endless wars abroad, in the process turning America into a battlefield and its citizens into enemy combatants? ..."
    "... The Washington Post ..."
    "... Congressional Record ..."
    "... Federal Register ..."
    "... The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA shattered his brains into a thousand pieces. ..."
    "... The Deep State is a troika of the Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street and the Spooks who spy on everyone. The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you. ..."
    "... The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state. ..."
    "... Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State ..."
    "... There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. ..."
    "... Who rules America? ..."
    "... Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called Fourth Estate -the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika. ..."
    "... The Deep State controls Wall Street? No, indeed. Wall Street controls the Deep State and makes its very existence possible. The Deep States job is to do Wall Streets dirty work, so Wall Street can continue to live off their tax and debt-peons from Arlington to Athens. ..."
    "... it is kind of a chicken and egg thing, the way it could be posed either way. i go with the theory that any collection of people in the pursuit of similar goals will conspire (make deals) to collaborate, ah hem. ..."
    "... Weve been taken over. Weve been co-opted. In place of the organic leadership has been placed these people who I call the servitors of empire. ..."
    "... Thats a midpoint between servants and … the wielders of true power–the great Anglo-American families. ..."
    "... Oligarchy , government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes. Aristotle used the term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by bad men unjustly. ..."
    "... the Deep State is no different than the Praetorian Guard in Rome, who basically ran the show for the last 200 years of the Roman Empire ..."
    "... Eventually, the Praetorian Guard basically sold the Emperor position to the highest bidder. They became nothing but common thieves. The same thing is happening in the USA ..."
    "... The Washington Post ..."
    "... You must realize that most of these contract personnel are former military or civilian employees who have gone private in order to escape federal salary limits. They are still permanent, long-term employees of their departments, only outside the federal personnel system and paid a great deal more. They are the entrenched experts who cannot be replaced because there arent a whole lot of them in any particular area. ..."
    "... Once such a person becomes entrenched, competitors are not welcome and alternative points of view are squashed. As a result, the U.S. Deep State perpetuates one of the most expensive and incompetent intelligence services in the world. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    As we previously concluded , for all intents and purposes, the nation is one national "emergency" away from having a full-fledged, unelected, authoritarian state emerge from the shadows. All it will take is the right event-another terrorist attack, perhaps, or a natural disaster-for such a regime to emerge from the shadows.

    As unnerving as that prospect may be, however, it is the second shadow government, what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren refers to as " the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power ," that poses the greater threat right now.

    Consider this: how is it that partisan gridlock has seemingly jammed up the gears (and funding sources) in Washington, yet the government has been unhindered in its ability to wage endless wars abroad, in the process turning America into a battlefield and its citizens into enemy combatants?

    The credit for such relentless, entrenched, profit-driven governance, according to Lofgren, goes to " another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue , a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose."

    This " state within a state " hides "mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day," says Lofgren, and yet the "Deep State does not consist of the entire government."

    Rather, Lofgren continues:

    It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies : the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street.

    All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. Also included are a handful of vital federal trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of Manhattan, where sensitive proceedings in national security cases are conducted.

    The final government component (and possibly last in precedence among the formal branches of government established by the Constitution) is a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional leadership and some (but not all) of the members of the defense and intelligence committees. The rest of Congress, normally so fractious and partisan, is mostly only intermittently aware of the Deep State and when required usually submits to a few well-chosen words from the State's emissaries.

    In an expose titled " Top Secret America ," The Washington Post revealed the private side of this shadow government, made up of 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, "a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government."

    Reporting on the Post's findings, Lofgren points out :

    These contractors now set the political and social tone of Washington, just as they are increasingly setting the direction of the country, but they are doing it quietly, their doings unrecorded in the Congressional Record or the Federal Register , and are rarely subject to congressional hearings…

    The Deep State not only holds the nation's capital in thrall, but it also controls Wall Street ("which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater") and Silicon Valley.

    As Lofgren concludes:

    [T]he Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change … If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent, uninterrupted cash flow and the confidence that things will go on as they have in the past. It is even willing to tolerate a degree of gridlock: Partisan mud wrestling over cultural issues may be a useful distraction from its agenda.

    Remember this the next time you find yourselves mesmerized by the antics of the 2016 presidential candidates or drawn into a politicized debate over the machinations of Congress, the president or the judiciary: it's all intended to distract you from the fact that you have no authority and no rights in the face of the shadow governments.

    seek

    25+ years ago (fuck I'm getting old), there was a database on CD that did just that, put out by by what would be considered a conspiracy theory researcher, Daniel Brandt. It was called namebase, and you could pretty much look up any name mentioned in the news and play 7 degrees with it. Most of the times I played that game, the roads led back to the CIA, usually in just one hop. Even for seemingly petty local things, like utility commissioners or board members of local electric utilities.

    There's similar research today on the commercial side -- google "interlocking directorates" and you'll quickly find there's a core corporate power elite.

    I don't think I've ever seen someone combine the two. I suspect that's something that will get your Mercedes wrapped around a tree. Safe to say today, compared to 25 years ago, even though the internet is more pervasive and more information is available, there's actually less consolidation and research in this area than there was long ago, which in and of itself is kind of suspect.

    The actual list, if someone compiled it, would be shockingly short. I doubt the key individuals would amount to more than a couple thousand.

    SHRAGS Sun, 01/31/2016 - 02:07

    Namebase is still there: http://www.namebase.org/n2search.html

    Here's the interlocking directorship shortlist: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power_elite/interlocks_and_interact...

    JustObserving

    The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA shattered his brains into a thousand pieces.

    The Deep State is a troika of the Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street and the Spooks who spy on everyone. The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you.

    The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon recognition" any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the US government." It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch (including the White House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives and Senate (members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to, the Supreme Court)."

    The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/09/13/surv-s13.html

    Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State

    There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.

    http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

    Who rules America?

    The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies, and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide the military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these state agencies have no legal right to possess.

    Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called "Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/06/10/pers-j10.html

    Niall Of The Ni...

    The Deep State controls Wall Street? No, indeed. Wall Street controls the Deep State and makes its very existence possible. The Deep State's job is to do Wall Street's dirty work, so Wall Street can continue to live off their tax and debt-peons from Arlington to Athens.

    besnook

    it is kind of a chicken and egg thing, the way it could be posed either way. i go with the theory that any collection of people in the pursuit of similar goals will conspire (make deals) to collaborate, ah hem.

    bunnyswanson

    UC Davis Professor Hamamoto Exposes the NWO

    "The very fields that I helped to pioneer have been visited by the Rockefeller Foundation boys and the Gates Foundation," Hamamoto remarks concerning the subversion of genuine activist-oriented and propelled scholarship. "This is what happens. You do pioneering work, and then you get the knock on the door and the invitation to be brought in to the fold. Ethnic Studies and Asian American Studies in particular have had those visits. We've been taken over. We've been co-opted. In place of the organic leadership has been placed these people who I call the 'servitors of empire.'

    "That's a midpoint between servants and … the wielders of true power–the great Anglo-American families."

    "Now here is some meat:

    ""Concerning deep agendas involving modern eugenics, Hamamoto observes, "Just like I got to see more [students] coming in on psychotropic drugs, I've been able to see the greater feminization of the male population over the years. I wanted to ask questions why. It didn't take too long to figure out that the male species in the Western world and places like Japan and South Korea, and definitely Southeast Asia, are being purposely re-engineered into a new type of gender orientation. The university," Hamamoto continues, "has purposely come up with this whole LGBT intellectual, scholarly, and student services agenda to act as a smokescreen for a more fundamental and nefarious attempt to engage in a massive eugenics exercise in effecting human reproduction."

    http://www.evilyoshida.com/thread-7197.html

    MASTER OF UNIVERSE

    UC Davis is the back door of the Central Intelligence Agency. And the CIA is, and always will be, my bitch. Frankly, the Deep State is bankrupt just like Wall Street, and the USA, and UC DAVIS, plus Professor homophobe Hamamoto, and the MIC.

    wankers all.

    James TraffiCan't

    Walk Quietly and Carry a Big Stck! Theodore Roosevelt

    Oligarchy , government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes. Aristotle used the term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by bad men unjustly. Britannica.com
    Father Thyme

    A History of Bad Men.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=oolwsWexSzQ

    flyonmywall

    So the "Deep State" is no different than the Praetorian Guard in Rome, who basically ran the show for the last 200 years of the Roman Empire.

    Notice how well that one worked out. Eventually, the Praetorian Guard basically sold the Emperor position to the highest bidder. They became nothing but common thieves. The same thing is happening in the USA.

    The government makes "rules" which are enforced by the "enforcers", but the rules and the enforcers are nothing but common thieves. Look what happened to various Central and Latin American countries. 41 out of the top 50 most violent cities in the world are in Latin America. 4 are in the USA. More to come for sure.

    Faeriedust

    " The Washington Post revealed the private side of this shadow government, made up of 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, "a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government."

    You must realize that most of these "contract personnel" are former military or civilian employees who have gone private in order to escape federal salary limits. They are still permanent, long-term employees of their departments, only outside the federal personnel system and paid a great deal more. They are the entrenched "experts" who cannot be replaced because there aren't a whole lot of them in any particular area.

    Of course, because there are so few of them in any field, there is very limited control on their personal biases and self-interests, which are often highly skewed.

    Once such a person becomes entrenched, competitors are not welcome and alternative points of view are squashed. As a result, the U.S. Deep State perpetuates one of the most expensive and incompetent intelligence services in the world.

    [Jan 30, 2016] Iowa: Des Moines Register poll sets up a mad Saturday night – campaign live

    Notable quotes:
    "... If youre relying on seeing your favorite candidates name the most times in a Google search, do keep in mind that only young low information voter relies on technology to determine whos popular. The old folks still rely on talk radio. ..."
    "... Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate of the Military Industrial Complex ..."
    "... Trump says insane things, of course every news outlet covers him, I dont really think he counts. MSNBC is by far the worst of the lot when it comes to spoon feeding. I dont like FOX any better when they bring on their Holy band of extreme right commentators either. ..."
    "... As a young female undecided voter, its hard not to be fooled by the celebrity game show host. And on the other hand, its hard not to support my fellow gender and vote Hillary (until you look at the baggage). Now, if I listen to my brain as opposed to emotions, the common sense of Bernie on the one side or Rand Paul on the other has a distinct appeal. Theyre quite interesting to listen to and they do it without invoking terror, hatred, scare tactics or even biblical quotes. How refreshing! ..."
    "... The bankruptcy argument is a bunch of bs. Hes a billionaire now. If I could become a billionaire by going bankrupt Id do it in a heartbeat. The truth is that he figured out how to rise out of bankruptcy and is now financing a presidential campaign and manhandling his opponents who have received millions in contributions. ..."
    "... Ive been a democrat all my life and hope that Sanders wins. But if it comes down to Hillary and Trump, Im voting Trump. If it comes down to Hilary and any republican not named Trump, Ill hold my nose and vote for Hilary. I really dont care for her. ..."
    "... Its heartening to see that Clinton is polling lower than Sanders when it comes to young women, perhaps indicative of the post-sexism ideal were going for; younger women are judging the candidates on their actual policies and character, as opposed to being swayed by the infantile because shes a woman appeal. ..."
    "... Given TTP and TTIP, NAFTA, the actions of the IMF and World Bank, the moves by the EU and Anglosphere away from social democracy and the continuing prescription of liberal economic policy for all states, deregulation, plans to expand recourse to investor-state dispute settlement courts, and the overall small state philosophy, often enforced by military interventionism or sanctions, it seems as if pro-capital policy, deregulation and the resulting inequality havent obtained a status quo that will be maintained under Hilary or the GOP so much as an agenda that has been pushed globally, and will go further in the direction that many voters on the left and centre of politics and even the traditional conservative right and far-right, probably the majority of Americas and the worlds population, oppose. ..."
    "... The Guardian and the rest of the UK media are giving Trump the same treatment as they gave Arthur Scargill in the 1980s. ..."
    "... The UK Establishment and media and their overseas supporters (in the other direction) and we all know who that is. are schit scared in case Trump gets in. The British establishment has been bought. British 'informed democracy', is dead. Censorship, is rife. And the British People know it. ..."
    "... Does any of this really matter? The United States is an empire and, regardless of who is anointed President by the Koch brothers and the rest of the American aristocracy, the empire will still require a military budget of at least $500,000,000,000 and American jobs will still go to China because that's profitable for the corporations and for the aristocrats who own and run those corporations. ..."
    "... The far-left attacks again, well I have to give them credit, they are really trying harder than ever. Anyway, these polls are always adulterated by special interests ..."
    "... We do not have a democracy. Freedom of speech democratic freedom of thought, yes. Democracy is an unfulfilled philosophical idea and wishful thinking. For decades, we have been under the total rule of organized business - as are many developed nations. ..."
    "... I have been a lifelong Democrat and my first choice is Bernie Sanders. With my meagre income I will continue to contribute to his campaign. My alternate choice is, anyone but Hillary Clinton. For the life of me, I cannot imagine anyone who reads the news can vote for this Wall St. puppet. ..."
    "... Be that as it may, the US average voter owes to Donald Trump for standing up to the corporate media that we always criticise for influencing elections, while other candidates of both parties bend over backwards to curry their favor. ..."
    "... Yes, the corporate media as a result are going after him, but he still gets votes. This election, the case the US Voter vs. Corporate Media, the Voter won thanks to Trump. ..."
    "... People have unfavourable opinions of politicians they actually vote for. Nearly all Repubs will vote for trump if he is the nominee and whether it's Hillary or Sanders, a fair size of one time Obama voters are switching to the Repubs because they want action taken against the rapid erosion of what they consider to be American values. ..."
    "... It appears that the Guardian continues to show it's bias toward Clinton. How about being balanced and reporting the news instead of trying to create the news and influence the outcome. If we want bias we can drift over to Fox Fake news ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton is not on the left. She is right center. ..."
    "... Cruz is genuinely dangerous. A religious zealot and a war monger, it would be a massive step back for America and the world if this man became president. ..."
    "... It's because many people who are centrist or left leaning have a sense of morality and principles.. It's not about voting for who stinks less.. It's about standing up for what you consider right and if you can't do that during the election process then what's the bloody point of democracy.. Take the case of Occupy Wall Street.. supported by most left leaning people. ..."
    "... the media wants us to frame everything into left wing or right wing. However I don't buy into that paradigm anymore. When Clinton was about to send the jobs away, I saw effectively Pat Buchanan (staunch conservative but poplulist) effectively joining forces with Ralph Nader (perhaps as far left as anyone can go but still populist). You think any democrat would be better than any republican. I think that if we don't fix something soon, this whole thing is going to collapse. For my money only 3 candidates are actually pledging to fix something (Sanders, Paul and Trump). ..."
    "... Remember that socialist is a dirtier word in much of the U.S. than neo-liberal is in Western Europe. There's also the very pertinent question of whether the U.S. is ready to elect a Jewish president. ..."
    "... Obama came in surrounded by Wall Street execs and stooges and from the outset had no intention of challenging the power of the capitalist class or affecting change that was anything other than rhetorical in nature. ..."
    "... Clinton is the one candidate who can lose to Trump, and if she win's she will govern like Bush. It's disgusting how the establishment is pushing her so hard, but it does inform us that we should reject her. Clinton is a candidate like Obama - runs on hope and change, than nothing changes - same old attitude that Government exists to protect the profits of the 1% and **** Working Class Americans ..."
    "... Sanders' mild social democratic policies - which require moderate and easily affordable sacrifices on the part of the rich - are of course very realistic and practical. Or at least they are realistic in countries that are at least reasonably politically sane. But since US politics is the very definition of insanity, Sanders policies are not realistic . ..."
    The Guardian

    sdkeller72 -> SeanThorp 30 Jan 2016 21:10

    Let's not forget Bill Clinton's brother Roger's involvement in the Iran Contra affair. Clinton's have been involved in drugs and gun running for a long time.

    skipsdad -> André De Koning 30 Jan 2016 21:03

    Putin did more damage to Isis in 6 weeks, than Obama and Nato did in six years.

    The Turkish fox, is in the Nato chicken coop. Turkey has been getting oil from Syria for years. Obama knew about it. The Russians were threatening to reveal the deceit, and that's why their plane was shot down.

    Now Turkey is claiming another Russian violation. The fox is looking to start WWIII.

    Obama has been dealing with 'moderate terrorists' for years, and Putin exposed him.

    Obama and the US - Running with the foxes, and hunting with the hounds.

    Trump will clean that cesspit of corruption out.

    johnf1 30 Jan 2016 20:58

    Who in God's name cares what anyone in Iowa thinks about who should be president. As far as I know neither Iowa nor New Hampshire has ever been important in any presidential election. Pennsylvania, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, the voters in those states are important.

    nnedjo 30 Jan 2016 20:56

    The former first lady run in the elections for the Democratic presidential candidate for the second time, and claims to have a trump cards for it; "Only she is able to defeat Trump!"

    However, the problem is that in addition to trump cards Hillary also has Trump's money. You remember that she took the money from Trump, as a fee for coming to his wedding.

    Now it raises a hypothetical question: What if in the middle of the election campaign Trump decides to pay Clinton a little more than before, as "a fee for the lost elections"?

    So, in my opinion it is not unthinkable at all that Hillary could sell elections to Trump in exchange for a certain sum of money, the only question is how much money would that be.

    And after all, Trump himself has already stated that he is looking forward to get Hillary Clinton as an opponent in the presidential race, so draw your own conclusions?

    André De Koning -> skipsdad 30 Jan 2016 20:50

    Pity we only get a silly picture of Putin via western media. Reading his speeches, especially the last one at the UN (28th Sept.), he was the clearest and summed up the issues of western caused chaos with its invasions and claim of 'being special'(US, especially hypocritical and doing the opposite of what it preaches). Putin is thoughtful, strategic and a leader, while in the US there are no leaders and even more is done by the so-called intelligence agencies' that by the Russian FSB (more control over them than over the NSA). One debate with Putin would be more interesting than any of this American waffle that has never changed their superficial, cruel foreign policies. I discovered this by reading other literature about Putin than you can ever find in the misleading demonization of any leader who is opposed to US policies. The press lied about Gadaffi too, so take some trouble to find out what these so-called enemies are actually about.

    RusticBenadar -> carson45 30 Jan 2016 20:42

    Actually, if you had done your due diligence and researched Bernie's track record you would see he is a master of bipartisan success; it was said of his mayorship that he "out republicaned the republicans" achieving all the fiscal objectives they had long sought in Butlington but failed to accomplish until Bernie came along.

    TettyBlaBla 30 Jan 2016 20:39

    I find all the predictions of who will win the General Election in November quite amusing. Primary elections haven't even started and neither major political party has declared which candidates in the present fields will represent them. The choice of Vice Presidential candidates could well change the scenarios many are now presenting.

    If you're relying on seeing your favorite candidate's name the most times in a Google search, do keep in mind that only young low information voter relies on technology to determine who's popular. The old folks still rely on talk radio.

    atkurebeach 30 Jan 2016 20:34

    if the democrats vote for Hillary, who is tight with Wall Street money, especially when there is such a clear alternative for the poor, to me that means there is no difference between the two parties. I might as well vote for Trump, at least he is less likely to start a war.

    digitalspacey -> Calvert 30 Jan 2016 20:32

    As an outsider looking in (from Australia) what you describe actually works in favour of the Democrats.

    Think about it.

    An intransigent Republican party continually blocks what the President wants to do. Now I'm assuming that if people vote in Bernie it's because they actually want what he has to sell.

    So if the Republicans keep playing this game it's really gonna start to grate on people.

    There will come a tipping point where people will say 'enough!' and the removal of the Republicans will commence.

    It may take several terms but the Republicans are in egret signing their own death warrant.

    Merveil Meok -> Logicon 30 Jan 2016 20:12


    There are very powerful forces in America that would NEVER let Bernie Sanders win the White House. He has said stuff that has disqualified him (in the eyes of those forces) for the role of president.
    You can't run against the military, cops, oil companies, Wall Street, the richest people on the planet, big pharma, and win. That only happens in movies.

    SeniorsTn9 30 Jan 2016 20:09

    The U.S. campaign is nearly over and two choices remain. Everyone knows America is broken. Candidates promoting staying the course and being politically correct have no place in America's future. They broke the America we have today. The realities are obvious; Clinton is to the past as Trump is to the future. After all the campaigning dust settles, Americans who want American back will vote for Trump. Trump will make America great again. It really is that simple.

    redwhine -> Merveil Meok 30 Jan 2016 20:01

    It's good that they have to win over people in Iowa and New Hampshire, and I say this as a Californian who only ever hears of politicians visiting my state to raise money at the homes of rich people before leaving the same day. The point is that politicians need to show that they are willing to work for their votes. They need to hit the pavement. They need to convince people to vote for them even if they know that the votes in those states don't amount to much. If politicians only campaigned in California, New York, Texas, and Florida and then skipped the rest, I'd see no evidence of grit and determination, just lazy opportunism.

    ID4352889 30 Jan 2016 19:56

    Clinton is a deeply unpleasant character, but Americans will vote for her over the decent Sanders. It's just the way they do things in the US. Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate of the Military Industrial Complex and will take the cake. Bernie is just there to make people think they have a choice. They don't.

    redwhine consumerx 30 Jan 2016 19:52

    Plenty of people have inherited millions and still ended up penniless. You can't call Trump an idiot even if you maintain that he could have become a billionaire merely by putting all his daddy's money into the bank and leaving it there (which we know he didn't, because he's built at least a dozen skyscrapers and golf courses). By the way, Fred Trump (Donald's dad) was rich but he was not astronomically rich. As for his lawyers, plenty of lawyers of rich men have done worse; in trying to denigrate Trump people are reflexively making his dad into some sort of financial wizard and everyone around Trump to magically have helped him in every step of the way like guardian angels surrounding him his whole life. It just doesn't work like that.


    Merveil Meok 30 Jan 2016 19:42

    The political system allows two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) to dictate the future the country. Some candidates are forced to quit after one or two Caucuses (as money sponsors quit on them), even if, only God knows, they could have picked up steam later.

    I would be in favor of adding three or more states in the first round of the caucuses so that most of America is represented, not states which have no real power in American daily life - economically and otherwise.

    These two states represent 1.5% of America's population and a ridiculously low percentage of national GDP.


    ChiefKeef 30 Jan 2016 19:39

    Sanders will be the best president theyve ever had. The lefts popularity is rocketing across the west in response to austerity and the endless cycle of imperialism and international crisis. A new generation of activists, unencumbered by the diminished confidence of past defeats, have risen spectacularly in defense of equality against the attacks of the right.


    Steven Wallace 30 Jan 2016 19:33

    Hillary is a devout psychopath whereas Trump is a total doughnut ,seriously who the hell would vote for these animals ?


    Pinesap -> TaiChiMinh 30 Jan 2016 19:31

    Trump says insane things, of course every news outlet covers him, I don't really think he counts. MSNBC is by far the worst of the lot when it comes to spoon feeding. I don't like FOX any better when they bring on their Holy band of extreme right commentators either. Like I've said before when your in the middle like me, your screwed. NO news outlets and NO candidates that could win. Screwed like deck boards I tell you.


    WarlockScott -> carson45 30 Jan 2016 19:31

    Sorry who was president before Bush? Bill Clinton? and who was Bush running against? Central figure in the Clinton administration Al Gore?.... oh, woops.
    Experience as secretary of state? US foreign policy has got much better since Kerry took over. Healthcare? the woman that takes bundles of money from Big Pharma, who is now saying that UHC is fundamentally a pipe dream for the US?

    She's a poor choice compared to Sanders imo, If she was running against Biden or another centrist democrat yeah sure but against a Sanders figure? nah


    Jill McLean 30 Jan 2016 19:28

    As a young female undecided voter, it's hard not to be fooled by the celebrity game show host. And on the other hand, it's hard not to support my fellow gender and vote Hillary (until you look at the baggage). Now, if I listen to my brain as opposed to emotions, the common sense of Bernie on the one side or Rand Paul on the other has a distinct appeal. They're quite interesting to listen to and they do it without invoking terror, hatred, scare tactics or even biblical quotes. How refreshing!

    redwhine -> consumerx 30 Jan 2016 19:26

    The bankruptcy argument is a bunch of bs. He's a billionaire now. If I could become a billionaire by going bankrupt I'd do it in a heartbeat. The truth is that he figured out how to rise out of bankruptcy and is now financing a presidential campaign and manhandling his opponents who have received millions in contributions.

    redwhine 30 Jan 2016 19:19

    I've been a democrat all my life and hope that Sanders wins. But if it comes down to Hillary and Trump, I'm voting Trump. If it comes down to Hilary and any republican not named Trump, I'll hold my nose and vote for Hilary. I really don't care for her.

    JoePomegranate 30 Jan 2016 19:17

    It's heartening to see that Clinton is polling lower than Sanders when it comes to young women, perhaps indicative of the post-sexism ideal we're going for; younger women are judging the candidates on their actual policies and character, as opposed to being swayed by the infantile "because she's a woman" appeal.

    Logicon 30 Jan 2016 19:08

    Bernie has to win the ticket -- the 'best' revolutionary will win the general election:

    Trump vs Clinton = trump wins
    Trump vs bernie = bernie wins

    Cafael -> ponderwell 30 Jan 2016 19:06

    Given TTP and TTIP, NAFTA, the actions of the IMF and World Bank, the moves by the EU and Anglosphere away from social democracy and the continuing prescription of liberal economic policy for all states, deregulation, plans to expand recourse to investor-state dispute settlement courts, and the overall 'small state' philosophy, often enforced by military interventionism or sanctions, it seems as if pro-capital policy, deregulation and the resulting inequality haven't obtained a status quo that will be maintained under Hilary or the GOP so much as an agenda that has been pushed globally, and will go further in the direction that many voters on the left and centre of politics and even the traditional conservative right and far-right, probably the majority of America's and the world's population, oppose.

    Patrick Ryan 30 Jan 2016 18:58

    Most polls are shite as extrapolating from relatively small samples never tells you the true story.... We'll know better after the Caucuses.... the fear factor and the worries of a nation will play a big part in the selective process - This is not a sprint and race is only beginning... Having Trump in the mix has shaken up system and he has clearly got the super conservative media's knickers in a twist...

    skipsdad 30 Jan 2016 18:54

    The Guardian and the rest of the UK media are giving Trump the same treatment as they gave Arthur Scargill in the 1980s.

    The UK Establishment and media and their overseas supporters (in the other direction) and we all know who that is. are schit scared in case Trump gets in. The British establishment has been bought. British 'informed democracy', is dead. Censorship, is rife. And the British People know it.


    Douglas Lees 30 Jan 2016 18:53

    The is only one decent candidate and that's Bernie Sanders. The others are a collection of fruit loops and clowns (all deranged and dangerous) with the exception of Clinton who is experienced intelligent and totally corrupt. She will cause a war with Iran... Let's hope it's Bernie maybe a hope for some changes. The last 36 years have been fucked

    Canuck61 30 Jan 2016 18:45

    Does any of this really matter? The United States is an empire and, regardless of who is anointed President by the Koch brothers and the rest of the American aristocracy, the empire will still require a military budget of at least $500,000,000,000 and American jobs will still go to China because that's profitable for the corporations and for the aristocrats who own and run those corporations. Enjoy the show, but don't assume that it actually means anything.


    LeftRightParadigm 30 Jan 2016 18:35

    The far-left attacks again, well I have to give them credit, they are really trying harder than ever. Anyway, these polls are always adulterated by special interests, just look in the UK at IPSOS MORI with CEO who worked for the cabinet office - no bias there! IPSOS said the majority of British people want to remain in the EU... LOL

    Trump is the best candidate, all the others are untrustworthy to the extreme due to who's funding them, namely Goldman Sachs.

    ponderwell -> thedono 30 Jan 2016 18:35

    We do not have a democracy. Freedom of speech & democratic freedom of thought, yes. Democracy is an unfulfilled philosophical idea and wishful thinking. For decades, we have been under the total rule of organized business - as are many developed nations.

    jamesdaylight 30 Jan 2016 18:28

    i so hope trump or sanders wins. the establishment needs a new direction.

    AdrianBarr -> ID7004073 30 Jan 2016 18:26

    I have been a lifelong Democrat and my first choice is Bernie Sanders. With my meagre income I will continue to contribute to his campaign. My alternate choice is, anyone but Hillary Clinton. For the life of me, I cannot imagine anyone who reads the news can vote for this Wall St. puppet. The recent Guardian article by a Wall St. insider about Hillary's connections and the money she had received from Wall St. should make anyone shudder of her presidency. Let alone the money the Clinton Foundation had received from other countries when Hillary was the Secy. of State.

    Be that as it may, the US average voter owes to Donald Trump for standing up to the corporate media that we always criticise for influencing elections, while other candidates of both parties bend over backwards to curry their favor.

    Yes, the corporate media as a result are going after him, but he still gets votes. This election, the case the US Voter vs. Corporate Media, the Voter won thanks to Trump.

    If Bernie is cheated out of the nomination process that the DNC had worked from the beginning to crown Hillary. I will vote for Trump to save what is left (pun intended) of the Democratic party. Hillary way far right of Trump. Hillary was a Goldwater Republican, while Trump is a Rockefeller REpublican. Take your !

    elaine layabout -> sammy3110 30 Jan 2016 18:18

    He doesn't care about them so long as they are unsubstantiated allegations. When the FBI announces the result of their investigation, he will give his opinion, so long as it is relevant to the welfare of the American people.

    But using mid-investigation rumors and allegations against an opponent to distract the American people from the actual, fact-based issues is hardly a failing. I would say it demonstrates Sanders' commitment to fairness and truth and the best interests of the American people.

    elaine layabout -> Philip J Sparrow 30 Jan 2016 18:12

    That would be news to the folks in Burlington, who elected Bernie Sanders to 4 terms as mayor, during which time he cut their budget, streamlined city services, revitalized their commercial district and restored their lakefront, AND he was judged one of the top 20 mayors in the country.

    The folks in the State of Vermont would also be surprised to hear this about the man who served them in the House of Representatives for 16 years. During that time, when the extreme right wing of the Republican party ruled Congress, Bernie (an Independent) passed more legislative amendments than any other congressman, even the Republicans themselves. And this was not watered-down legislation, it was pure, progressive gold.

    Those same folks would be surprised to hear this about the Senator whom they last re-elected with 71% of their votes. I guess that they were thinking of his ability to, again, passed a series of progressive amendments in a Republican-controlled Congress, including the first-ever audit of the Federal Reserve -- you know that thing that Ron Paul had been trying to do for decades. And then there was the Veterans Administration Bill that Republican Jack Reed said would never have passed without Bernie Sanders' ability to build bi-partisan coalitions.

    Bringing 30 Jan 2016 18:12

    People have unfavourable opinions of politicians they actually vote for. Nearly all Repubs will vote for trump if he is the nominee and whether it's Hillary or Sanders, a fair size of one time Obama voters are switching to the Repubs because they want action taken against the rapid erosion of what they consider to be American values.

    OurPlanet -> eveofchange 30 Jan 2016 18:06

    "Does corporate supported Clinton, support gun/missile/bomb "control" of the Army, Police and state apparatus,or just ordinary people ?"

    Took the words out of my mouth. I wonder if those folks who are thinking of voting for her will stretch their brain capacity to think seriously about the consequences of voting for her. Do they want more of their tax $ spent on even more wars?

    peacefulmilitant 30 Jan 2016 17:50

    But it's simple enough to point out that a minority of Americans are Republicans, and that even among Republicans about 30% have a negative opinion of Trump. You can see where the 60% might come from.

    This is true but those 30% of Republicans who don't like Trump are nearly canceled by the 20% of Democrats who are considering defecting to vote for him.

    WillKnotTell -> Fentablar 30 Jan 2016 17:50

    The Kochs will forward his thoughts along to him in time.

    Harry Bhai 30 Jan 2016 17:48

    meanwhile: Iowa's long-serving senior senator, Chuck Grassley, who last weekend popped up at a Trump event

    Rats are coming out of holes to pay respect to Trump the cat.

    ID7004073 30 Jan 2016 17:46

    It appears that the Guardian continues to show it's bias toward Clinton. How about being balanced and reporting the news instead of trying to create the news and influence the outcome. If we want bias we can drift over to Fox Fake news

    Bernie has solutions that Fox feels is too boring but solutions about economic and national security are what America and our world needs. Boats that won't float right and F35 billionaire toys dressed up as the ultimate killing machine will never make America and our world strong. Economic policies that Bernie promotes that actually employ more people is the only solutions.

    TaiChiMinh -> TheAuthorities 30 Jan 2016 17:36

    Hillary Clinton is not "on the left." She is right center. Your attempt to put the debate between her advocates and those of Sanders into the realm of Stalin-Spanish Republicans-etc is delusional. Maybe, just maybe the people having this discussion are engaged in real disagreements, not dogmatic and factional maneuvering.

    nnedjo 30 Jan 2016 17:08

    Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whose once-mighty lead in the Hawkeye state has narrowed to paper-thin margins, is focusing on rival Bernie Sanders' complicated history on gun control in the final days of the Iowa campaign. The former secretary of state will be joined by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a survivor of a 2011 mass shooting that claimed the lives of six people.

    Hillary stands for a gun control in order "to disarm" Bernie, but voters say they would not vote for Hillary even if someone put a gun to their forehead.
    The reason for this is obvious, she is able to exploit even the survivors of the mass shooting, just to satisfy her own selfish political interests.

    Saltyandthepretz -> MasonInNY 30 Jan 2016 16:47

    Except a circus is funny. The anti-human, repugnant policies put forward by these two are in fact quite serious. Trump is crazy, of the A grade variety, but Cruz is genuinely dangerous. A religious zealot and a war monger, it would be a massive step back for America and the world if this man became president.

    Fentablar -> turnip2 30 Jan 2016 16:21

    Rubio is terrible, he's pandering even more than Hillary does (well, if nothing else he does it just as much) and I'm not sure anyone knows what he actually stands for, even himself.

    loljahlol -> godforbidowright 30 Jan 2016 16:15

    Yeah, the Libyan people thank her

    PlayaGiron -> SenseCir 30 Jan 2016 16:11

    aka Wall Street's "progressive" voice as opposed to the Wall Street Journal its "conservative" voice. In the end two sides of the same neo-liberal beast. "There is no alternative"! Your corporatist elites have spoken!

    elaine layabout -> greven 30 Jan 2016 16:05

    True that.

    Wall Street and it's lackey pols are playing with fire, because although many Americans had savings and assets and/or family members with savings and assets and/or access to the beneficence of local churches and charities, we are all tapped out.

    The next time we fall, we fall hard. And we will be taking Wall Street down with us.

    vishawish -> TheAuthorities 30 Jan 2016 15:53

    It's because many people who are centrist or left leaning have a sense of morality and principles.. It's not about voting for who stinks less.. It's about standing up for what you consider right and if you can't do that during the election process then what's the bloody point of democracy.. Take the case of Occupy Wall Street.. supported by most left leaning people.

    The only candidate who would support and encourage that is Sanders. So how do you expect people not to support him and go out to support someone who is basically a quasi republican?

    Principles and ideologies matter.

    marshwren -> GaryWallin 30 Jan 2016 15:19

    Uh, it's not as if Iowans haven't had at least eight months to make up their minds, even with the advantage of being able to see ALL of the candidates up close and personal, unlike those of U.S. in late states (such as NJ, where i live, on June 7th or so). Besides, when people vote in primaries on machines, they have 2-3 minutes to mull things over in the booth.

    I appreciate your disdain, but caucus season in IA is like beach season in NJ--a tiresome inconvenience, but an economic necessity given how many non-residents arrive to spend their money. And you only have to put up with it once every four years, while ours is an annual event.


    curiouswes MartinSilenus 30 Jan 2016 15:14

    Personally, I would prefer not to sit in either, wouldn't you?

    Thanks for being logical. Now, the media wants us to frame everything into left wing or right wing. However I don't buy into that paradigm anymore. When Clinton was about to send the jobs away, I saw effectively Pat Buchanan (staunch conservative but poplulist) effectively joining forces with Ralph Nader (perhaps as far left as anyone can go but still populist). You think any democrat would be better than any republican. I think that if we don't fix something soon, this whole thing is going to collapse. For my money only 3 candidates are actually pledging to fix something (Sanders, Paul and Trump). Cruz says he wants to fix everything by using that same old tired republican bs, so he isn't really planning on fixing anything. Basically he is Steve Forbes without glasses and with a face lift. Paul would actually try to fix something, but at this stage, he is a long shot and barring any 11th hour surge, I don't need to discuss him much at this time. I would classify Trump as a populist, but a loose cannon that isn't "presidential".

    Voting for Trump is sort of an act of desperation. It isn't quite like being a suicide bomber, but more like going all in just prior to drawing to an inside straight. Sanders is a populist also. Some people think we can't afford his programs. However the reason the nation is broke (financially) is because it is broke (as in broken). Sanders has vowed to fix this (it won't be easy but with the people standing behind him, it is possible). The rest of the candidates won't fix anything (just try to move the nation either to the left or the right as it continues it's downward spiral.

    We have to stop that downward motion or it won't matter whether we move to the left or right. Unfortunately everybody doesn't see stopping this downward motion as job one.

    For example: take Greece and their financial troubles. Even though our debt is higher, we aren't in as bad shape as the Greeks, however we really need to stop the bleeding. We really need to get a populist in there. I'm no economist but according to my understanding, there is this thing called the money supply which is a bit different than the money itself. While the government controls the money, it doesn't control the money supply. It needs to control both or else we are just one "bad" policy away from economic disaster because whoever controls the money supply controls the economy. If you remember in 2008 the credit dried up and that can happen again if somebody isn't happy.


    WarlockScott 30 Jan 2016 14:33

    Can any Clinton supporter cogently argue why they've plumped for her over Bernie? He's far closer to the social democracy the Democrats espouse (albeit have rarely put into action since 1992), polls show him to be more electable than Clinton, he has a far greater chance of passing his programs for numerous reasons (better bargaining position, not as hated by opposition, running a proactive rather than defensive campaign) and he has the popular touch... Which even Hillary would admit she lacks. I'm hoping perhaps vainly the first answer won't be about her gender.


    TheAuthorities -> NotYetGivenUp 30 Jan 2016 14:12

    I'm guessing you don't have a lifetime's experience observing U.S. presidential elections.

    Sanders does well in the polls you cite because, so far, the Republicans haven't even begun to attack him. In fact, they're positively giddy that Clinton looks to be faltering and that Sanders actually seems closer to the nomination today than anyone would have thought 6 months ago. Nothing will make GOP strategists sleep more soundly than the prospect of a Sanders nomination.

    In the still-unlikely event that Sanders gets the Democratic nomination, the Republicans will turn their heavy artillery on him and -- you can trust me on this -- the end result won't be pretty. Actually, I think it may not even take that much from the Republican character assassins to convince most Americans not to vote for someone with Sanders's convictions and political record. Remember that "socialist" is a dirtier word in much of the U.S. than "neo-liberal" is in Western Europe. There's also the very pertinent question of whether the U.S. is ready to elect a Jewish president.

    Again, if you're unfamiliar with the American electoral process, you've never seen anything like the Republican attack machine. ESPECIALLY if your reference point is a British election. It's like comparing a church picnic with a gang fight.

    Another factor to consider is that, just as the GOP establishment is trying to undercut Trump, so the Democratic Party leadership could possibly draft somebody else to run (Biden?) if Clinton does go down in flames.


    TaiChiMinh -> Winner_News 30 Jan 2016 14:06

    Obama came to office basically bragging that he had the key to a post-partisan, collaborative way of governing - above the issues, above parties, above rancor. During the crucial period, when he had momentum and numbers, he trimmed on issue after issue - starting with single payer. The Tea Party was perhaps an inevitable response but its strength, and the success of the intransigents in Congress, were not inevitable. But the Tea Party began with a protest of floor traders against protections for people in mortgage trouble - but its momentum really came with the movement against the ACA and in the off-year elections in 2010. A strong president reliant on a mobilized coalition of voters - rather than a pretty crappy deal maker (who liked starting close to his opponents' first offer) backed by corporate elites - would perhaps have seen different results. Obama never gave it a go. And here we are . . . I imagine that I join eastbayradical in some kind of astonishment at the extent to which "progressives" want to keep at what has shown itself a losing proposition . .

    westerndevil -> Martin Screeton 30 Jan 2016 13:50

    I spent 18 months in my twenties as a debt collector for people who defaulted on student loans...a soul crushing job. Virtually everybody who defaulted either...

    We need to encourage more young people to work as electricians, plumbers, machinists and in other blue-collar occupations.

    GaryWallin 30 Jan 2016 13:49

    April Fool's Day comes two months early here in Iowa this year. The Iowa Presidential Caucuses are one of the greatest Political Hoaxes of all time. They are filling our newspapers, radio, and neighborhoods with an all time record appeal to nonsense.

    As Iowan's we've had the endure nearly a full year of lying and misleading politicians, newspapers that give us the latest spin on the political horse-race (under the guise of journalism), phone calls from intrusive pollsters and political operatives, emails from assorted special and political interests; and we've even had to watch our mail carriers burdened with the task of delivering many oversized junk mail advertising pieces.

    Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to political parties holding caucuses. I think it is a good idea for them to get together in formal and informal settings: caucuses, parties, picnics, and civic observances. But I think the choice for our next President is too important to be left to a voter suppressing, low turn-out, media event such as the Iowa Presidential Caucuses. The goal should be to be inclusive of all Iowans; not to have a record (but suppressed) turnout.

    We've had to endure this nonsense for months, while the politicians are given multiple and varied means to get their message out. But the voters get only an hour or so to make their decisions, and even then in my party, the so-called 'Democratic' one, they don't even get the right to a secret ballot, or the right to cast an absentee ballot if they cannot attend. Instead of including all Iowans, this Circus gives special interests, establishment political operatives, and elites an unfair advantage. This is voter suppression and manipulation. Too few care if there might be a snow storm coming, or someone has to be up early the next morning for surgery at a local hospital, or if someone has to make a living by working at the time of the caucus. In this circus-like atmosphere it is all too important to our elites to bring in the millions of dollars in advertising money that this charade provides to local media. Dollars come before democratic principles.

    I certainly hope that my party, the Democrats, have the courage to reject all delegates chosen by this non-democratic process when the National Convention comes around. It is time for Party members outside of Iowa to stand up for real democracy, free and fair candidate selection with secret ballots, and inclusive party processes that expand and grow the Political Party.

    In Iowa we need to make a few changes. I suggest a few:

    Requiring every television station, radio station, and newspaper to give daily public updates on how much and who bought political advertising.

    Requiring every piece of political advertising mailed to people in Iowa to have the cost of that item listed on the mailing.

    Requiring all politicians, political parties, and PACs to honor the 'Do Not Call' list. I often tell these callers I will not vote for anyone who annoys me with a phone call, but this seems to have little deterrence value to phone centers and robo-calls.

    Requiring that all major political parties in the state give voters the right to choose candidates by secret ballot. No more forcing people to publicly declare for one candidate or another. People should have the right to make their individual choices known if they so choose; or keep them private if that is what they want.

    Gary Wallin, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 30 Jan 2016

    eastbayradical -> Winner_News 30 Jan 2016 13:16

    The capitalist system will surely attempt to "brick wall" any authentic attempt at change Sanders might try to implement.

    But to compare him to Obama is off.

    Obama came in surrounded by Wall Street execs and stooges and from the outset had no intention of challenging the power of the capitalist class or affecting change that was anything other than rhetorical in nature.

    The Republicans' "brick walling" of his agenda was made far, far easier because he didn't articulate, let alone mobilize around, one that named the enemy and communicated specific progressive changes he sought to achieve.

    This was seen vividly during the fight over health care reform, where Obama, in the face of widespread support for single-payer health care, took single-payer off the table from the outset and negotiated away the public option for nothing of substance in return. This allowed the Republicans an open field to attack his reform's unpopular and unprogressive features--the mandate and the general complexity of a system that retained the insurance cartel's power over health care.

    Marcedward 30 Jan 2016 13:11

    Clinton is the one candidate who can lose to Trump, and if she win's she will govern like Bush. It's disgusting how the establishment is pushing her so hard, but it does inform us that we should reject her. Clinton is a candidate like Obama - runs on hope and change, than nothing changes - same old attitude that "Government exists to protect the profits of the 1% and **** Working Class Americans"

    JoePomegranate 30 Jan 2016 13:09

    The feting of Clinton over a genuine, principled and subversive politician like Sanders - when subversion is exactly what is needed - reveals the complete paucity of argument behind so much "progressive" thought nowadays.

    The idea that the lying, the patronisation, the cynicism, the cronyism and the ghastly thirst for power by any means can be simply offset by the fact that she's a woman is appalling. It's retrograde, sexist bollocks.

    Sanders is the candidate people need and his nomination would put down a marker for real disenfranchised and impoverished Americans to fix their country. How anyone who purports to call themselves liberal or reformist can opt for Hillary over him, I have no idea.

    James Eaton -> CurtBrown 30 Jan 2016 13:02

    The myth of "American Exceptionalism" is cracking. Many folks are actually able to see how things work in other places around the globe and not simply react with the knee jerk "it ain't gonna work here, this is 'Murica!"


    eastbayradical 30 Jan 2016 12:49

    The NY Times' argument that Sanders' proposals for achieving change are unrealistic suggests that the differences between him and Clinton are chiefly tactical in nature.

    This is a clever dodge that relieves the Times of the need to address the fact that, far from being an agent of change, Clinton, like her husband and Obama--both of whom it supported--has a consistent record of carrying water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security/police-state apparatus, one that that she will undoubtedly carry on as president if elected.

    Madibo 30 Jan 2016 12:17

    Sanders' mild social democratic policies - which require moderate and easily affordable sacrifices on the part of the rich - are of course very realistic and practical. Or at least they are realistic in countries that are at least reasonably politically sane. But since US politics is the very definition of insanity, Sanders policies are "not realistic".

    [Jan 29, 2016] Trump just proved: its possible to win a debate you didnt attend by Richard Wolffe

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bland, clichéd, and frankly boring. ..."
    "... Spot on. The Republican party is about corporatism and the "1%". They are irrelevant to nearly all the American public apart from democrat haters. The GOP might as well be a corpse. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's always going on and on about her "Proven track record" at the State Dept....where she set Libya on fire, for example.....unlike her competitor, Bernie Sanders. ..."
    "... Dear Lord, please let the American people not vote in anyone from the GOP side as president in 2016 ..."
    "... Okay, my prayer skills are a bit rusty, I admit, but you get the idea. ..."
    "... Anyhow, Donald Trump reminds me more and more of Italy's media mogul/politician Silvio Berlusconi -- maybe it's just my eyes playing tricks on me, but he is even starting to LOOK more and more like that man, what with the many faces he makes and the populist theatricality and all. Trump offers no substance in terms of policy, but he clearly has an intuitive grasp of how the major media outlets will respond to and cover his every move. ..."
    "... I wonder if this column was written before or after the subject events. It is so trite meaningless and predictable he must have written it in his sleep. ..."
    "... Trump is a centre-right, and possibly even slightly left candidate. His grandstanding is for the core base. All candidates walk back toward the middle once they have to appeal to the national electorate. He's far more liberal than Cruz, who, I assure you, will set about undoing every last bit of progress for working people and women that managed to creep forward over the last eight years, starting with health care, Medicare, and Social Security. ..."
    "... You have to separate out Trump's grandstanding with his east coast New York roots. It's actually Trump who has brought up single-payer health care and some brutal talk about Wall Street. I would wager a month's salary that Trump and Mrs Clinton are not too far apart on how they would govern. And you forget that Congress is involved as well. ..."
    "... The hyperbole is meaningless. So far, Jeb Bush's brother and his Vice President have done more damage to the US and the world than I would guess Trump would do in 20 years. ..."
    "... And do remember on whose watch NAFTA, that infamous "ending welfare as we know it", the equally infamous DOMA, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for The Big Short were passed: dear old Bill Clinton. ..."
    "... The media is trusted by the public about as much as bankers and politicians. Trump sticking it to FOX not only didn't get him "sidelined" it probably increased his support among the Republican base. ..."
    "... Translation: Trump knows he already has the nomination locked up. Why should he give Cruz and Rubio an opportunity to attack him in a live debate? He made the smart move. Since 9/11 and the buildup to the war in Iraq, the media's only real job is political propaganda. ..."
    "... As far as I know, Trump, Sanders and Obama were equally resentful because American businessmen are moving production abroad, thus leaving American workers out of work, and the state budget deprived of taxes that go also to foreign countries instead of remaining in the US. ..."
    "... In addition, Trump also stands for a kind of economic protectionism, particularly in relation to China, bearing in mind "the urgent need to reduce the trade deficit with China", which is now about $ 500 billion a year, if I remembered well. ..."
    "... So, it is interesting that the current as well as two of the possible future US presidents are pushing for some kind of protectionism of domestic production and economic isolationism that are completely contrary to previous commitment of the United States to free markets and free flow of capital in the world.However, taking into account the current economic crisis in the world, that from acute increasingly turns into some kind of chronic phase, it is perhaps not so surprising. ..."
    "... The vast majority of the political elite, from Bush to Clinton, are there to further the agenda, as well as their own careers. In this way, you have Obama brought into to finish by proxy what Bush started by direct force. I.e the wrecking of any Nation State that opposes the neo-liberal economic system. ..."
    "... They only exist in the spotlight for as long as they are tolerated in terms of their persona, until the public wise-up. It is then they go into their background role; the cushy and lucrative 'consulting' jobs they have been promised by the special interest 'think tanks' they already belong to; be it the Council of Foreign Relations, or the Bilderberg group; all funded by international banking cartels. ..."
    "... Supposed 'right' or supposed 'left' of the mainstream media are just part and parcel of the same ultimate deception. ..."
    "... Trump, although not perfect in his persona, is certainly a problem for the agenda: thus their attack dogs in the media have been called to take him out. ..."
    "... It's amusing to see the attacks on Trump; who just for speaking his mind is starting to steadily resonate with a growing demographic, both at home and abroad. ..."
    "... You'd never hear about it here of course; but he harshly denounced the invasion of Iraq, and was a big critic of Bush. ..."
    "... He also seems to be the only one who understands that the majority of Americans needs real jobs – not some laughable concept of an 'ideas economy.' and is willing to fight for them on a trade level to ensure this. ..."
    "... He is also the least likely to drag the US into dangerous conflicts, (proxy or otherwise) with those such as Russia – Sadly I can see some Guardian commentators already gunning for that. ..."
    "... He is also not controlled by the usual financial ties to banking elites: Goldman & Sachs just gave Hillary $3 million – what's that then? Just pocket money? ..."
    "... America isn't better than this - this IS America. The land of political dynasties and limitless corporate donations. Where a movie star became the President and a body builder a Governor. It doesn't even have a one-man-one vote voting system for heavens sake. ..."
    "... It's kind of like Iranian 'democracy', where the Ayatollah picks out and approves 4-5 candidates, and then the Iranian people get to 'vote' for them. We do it a bit differently, in a society where we have freedom of speech, but the outcome always ends up the same, with 2 establishment, corporate, Wall street, military industrial complex, globalist 'free trade' choices for president. All approved by corporate America, our corporate and mainstream media and by Wall street, it always ends up like that. Like right now, there is no difference between Hillary, and establishment corporate Democrats like the Clintons, and the establishment Republicans like Rubio, Kasich or Bush, on all those really big and truly important issues. ..."
    "... That thing about Cruz labelling Trump a Democrat is interesting. I'm sure most Democrats would be understandably offended by the suggestion, and I'm pretty sure Cruz doesn't actually believe it either. I haven't been following Trump's statements on policy closely at all, but from my general impression of him over the years, I always thought that, although he was clearly a dyed in the wool capitalist, he probably wasn't a social conservative. ..."
    "... I can't help thinking he's just another wealthy, metropolitan businessman who probably didn't give a single toss about immigration, gay marriage, Islam or any of it, and if you pushed him probably would have been completely relaxed about all those issues. ..."
    "... Tough for any GOP candidate to avoid the flip flops in fairness. Pro life gun nuts, military spending addicted defecit hawks, die hard defenders of the Constitution hell bent on removing church/state separation, defenders of the squeezed middle sucking on the teat of Murdoch and the Koch brothers.... A very high and skinny tight rope.... ..."
    "... Trump won because these people have nothing people want to listen to. Nobody cares about Rubio or Bush flip flopping on immigration, because they have decided not to vote for them. ..."
    "... People care about jobs and their dwindling opportunities. Trump talks populism. He talks about tariffs on manufacturers who moved jobs overseas. People like that. He said he thinks the US should have left Saddam Hussein in power. Every rational person today agrees with that. He says the US should have left Gaddafi in power. While not too many people think about that too much, if they do, they agree with that too. Especially once they learn about the domino effect it has had, such as the attack on the coffee shop in Burkina Faso a week ago or so. ..."
    "... People have grown tired of war. All of the mainstream candidates want war because their campaigns depend on it. Bush's family has massive investment in the Carlisle Group and other players in the MIC. ..."
    "... Trump made his money in real estate, not war. ..."
    "... Not a Trump fan, but it is great to see someone with enough nous to tell Fox to go bite their bum. Good on him. We know from past experience what a sleazy old fart Rupert is and his fellow travelers in Fox are a good fit. The "moderators" are third rate journo's out to polish their image and try the bigmouth on the guy that 'may' become President. No need for Trump to take that kind of crap off of those sort of people. ..."
    "... Cruz was attacked, got flustered and blew his opportunity. Trump's judgement turned out to be vindicated in not attending. Trump is currently the front runner and bearing in mind that the entire West is moving to the right it is quite likely that by the time of the election Trump may turn out to be closer to the mainstream. If there are further Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil then this will likely be a certainty. ..."
    www.theguardian.com


    TheBorderGuard 29 Jan 2016 12:58

    You could tell the Trumpless debate was an almost normal presidential event by the nature of the closing statements.

    Bland, clichéd, and frankly boring.


    Zetenyagli -> benbache 29 Jan 2016 11:49

    Trump won because these people have nothing people want to listen to.

    Spot on. The Republican party is about corporatism and the "1%". They are irrelevant to nearly all the American public apart from democrat haters. The GOP might as well be a corpse.


    tonybillbob -> Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 11:31

    Trump is currently the front runner and bearing in mind that the entire West is moving to the right it is quite likely that by the time of the election Trump may turn out to be closer to the mainstream.

    Mainstream of what? The conservative movement? America? The globe?


    tonybillbob 29 Jan 2016 11:25

    Jeb Bush insisted several times that he had "a proven record", begging the question why he needed to mention such a proven thing quite so many times.

    Yeah!!! How come those who have a "proven track record" always have to remind folks that they have a proven track record and usually follow that claim with "unlike my competitor"?

    Hillary Clinton's always going on and on about her "Proven track record" at the State Dept....where she set Libya on fire, for example.....unlike her competitor, Bernie Sanders.

    And her "hands on experience" reforming banks....."Cut that out!!!!" ...another something she has over Bernie Sanders. Another thing Clinton can say about herself is that she's made a huge pile of 'speakin' fees' dough rubbin' elbows with bankers.....another something that Bernie can't say about himself. And don't forget: Hillary's gonna color inside the lines because she's a realist.

    She knows what Wall Street will approve of and what Wall Street won't approve of......Hillary's unique in that regard....at least she thinks so, and claims that's why we should vote for her....because she already knows what Wall Street will and won't allow a president to do.


    simpledino 29 Jan 2016 11:23

    Okay, Ted Cruz -- I'll gladly pray on the nation's decision. (Kneeling humbly): "Dear Lord, please let the American people not vote in anyone from the GOP side as president in 2016. Lord, hear my prayer -- let them choose either HIllary Clinton or Bernie Sanders (or even thy faithful and honorable servant Martin O'Malley, who doesn't have a chance in .... oh never mind, Lord...)."

    Okay, my prayer skills are a bit rusty, I admit, but you get the idea.

    Anyhow, Donald Trump reminds me more and more of Italy's media mogul/politician Silvio Berlusconi -- maybe it's just my eyes playing tricks on me, but he is even starting to LOOK more and more like that man, what with the many faces he makes and the populist theatricality and all. Trump offers no substance in terms of policy, but he clearly has an intuitive grasp of how the major media outlets will respond to and cover his every move.

    Lafcadio1944 29 Jan 2016 11:15

    I wonder if this column was written before or after the subject events. It is so trite meaningless and predictable he must have written it in his sleep.

    Cranios 29 Jan 2016 11:13

    I was never warmly disposed toward Trump, but the more I hear him annoying the news media by refusing to be frightened and dance to their tune, the more I am starting to like him.

    tklhmd 29 Jan 2016 11:11

    Managing to outfox Fox news is no mean feat, I'll give him that.


    Tearoutthehairnow -> hawkchurch 29 Jan 2016 11:11

    Trump is a centre-right, and possibly even slightly left candidate. His grandstanding is for the core base. All candidates walk back toward the middle once they have to appeal to the national electorate. He's far more liberal than Cruz, who, I assure you, will set about undoing every last bit of progress for working people and women that managed to creep forward over the last eight years, starting with health care, Medicare, and Social Security.

    You have to separate out Trump's grandstanding with his east coast New York roots. It's actually Trump who has brought up single-payer health care and some brutal talk about Wall Street. I would wager a month's salary that Trump and Mrs Clinton are not too far apart on how they would govern. And you forget that Congress is involved as well.

    The hyperbole is meaningless. So far, Jeb Bush's brother and his Vice President have done more damage to the US and the world than I would guess Trump would do in 20 years.

    And do remember on whose watch NAFTA, that infamous "ending welfare as we know it", the equally infamous DOMA, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for The Big Short were passed: dear old Bill Clinton.

    Try analysis instead of hyperbole. It works wonders.

    Tearoutthehairnow -> lefthalfback2 29 Jan 2016 11:06

    I have been nonplussed from this end of things by how lackluster J. Bush's performance has been - I can only assume that unconsciously, he really doesn't want it - because no one who really wants it and has the advantage of his experience, access, and background, could possibly be turning in this deadly a performance. It reeks of self-sabotage in the name of self-preservation. At of course a huge cost in funds . . .


    Tearoutthehairnow 29 Jan 2016 11:02

    I was able to catch some US news - Trump not only wasn't "sidelined" as the other Guardian article on last night's debate proclaimed, firstly he walked out of his own accord, and second, he cut FOX's debate audience in half. Last night's debate attracted the lowest audience ratings of all the Republican debates so far - approximately 11-12 million as opposed to the approximately 23 million the debates attracted when he participated. CNN did quite well covering the "other" event.

    And he's still leading in the polls among Republicans - including among Republican women according to CNN, so the Guardian's recent article on these parties' only audience being "angry white men" was, again, off the mark by including Trump and the US Republicans.

    The media is trusted by the public about as much as bankers and politicians. Trump sticking it to FOX not only didn't get him "sidelined" it probably increased his support among the Republican base. Jeb Bush is still pretending to be a candidate as is Ben Carson, and Cruz in the spotlight reinforced his reputation as so nasty a human being that even if he gets into the Oval Office, no one, including those on his own side of the aisle, will want to work with him.

    It would be refreshing to see the media try to report rather than shape the news to its own liking.


    JackGC -> ACJB 29 Jan 2016 10:34

    Keeping people "scared" is a full time job for the government. It would be impossible to have a war without the "scared" factor.

    "We are a nation in grave danger." George Bush.

    In 'Merica, people need their guns just in case ISIS invades their town. It's like War of the Worlds only with Muslims, not Martians. That was a REALLY scary flick back in the 30s. 'Mericans really didn't know if New Jersey had been invaded and Christie is the guv. of Jersey.

    Trump is a New Yorker, so those two are on the front lines of any potential outer space invasion. War of the Worlds II. 'Merica is ready.


    Harry Bhai 29 Jan 2016 10:27

    Be like......

    This is Ted Cruz.
    Cruz is a world-class question-dodger
    When Cruz is asked about his votes against defense budgets, he launches into an extended diatribe against Barack Obama's defense budgets.
    When Cruz is asked about his own position on issues, he talks about his idol: Ronald Reagan.
    When Cruz is asked about why he flip-flopped on his feelings towards Trump, he pretends that he was asked to insult Trump

    Cruz is a flip-flop politician.
    Be like Cruz, NOT.


    JackGC N.M. Hill 29 Jan 2016 10:22

    Translation: Trump knows he already has the nomination locked up. Why should he give Cruz and Rubio an opportunity to attack him in a live debate? He made the smart move. Since 9/11 and the buildup to the war in Iraq, the media's only real job is political propaganda.


    N.M. Hill 29 Jan 2016 09:48

    Trump just proved: it's possible to win a debate you didn't attend

    Translation: Media more obsessed with Trump than actual issues.


    MeereeneseLiberation -> LiamNSW2 29 Jan 2016 09:24

    he was chastised for saying he'd stop Muslims from entering the US

    Because Muslim immigration is really the one thing that affects ordinary Americans the most. Not affordable health care, wealth distribution, labour rights ... Muslim immigration. Especially of those few thousand Syrian refugees that are vetted over months and months. (But oh yes, "the Muslims" hate the West, each and every one. Especially if he or she is fleeing from ISIS terror, I guess.)


    Sweden, that paragon of migrant virtue

    Sweden, like all Scandinavian countries, has extremely restrictive immigration and asylum policies. Calling Sweden a "paragon of migrant virtue" is about as accurate as calling Switzerland a 'paragon of banking transparency' (or the US a 'paragon of gun control').


    nnedjo -> RusticBenadar 29 Jan 2016 08:59

    Just curious, can anyone share some actual substance concerning any of Trump's policy plans?

    As far as I know, Trump, Sanders and Obama were equally resentful because American businessmen are moving production abroad, thus leaving American workers out of work, and the state budget deprived of taxes that go also to foreign countries instead of remaining in the US.

    In addition, Trump also stands for a kind of economic protectionism, particularly in relation to China, bearing in mind "the urgent need to reduce the trade deficit with China", which is now about $ 500 billion a year, if I remembered well.

    So, it is interesting that the current as well as two of the possible future US presidents are pushing for some kind of protectionism of domestic production and economic isolationism that are completely contrary to previous commitment of the United States to free markets and free flow of capital in the world.However, taking into account the current economic crisis in the world, that from acute increasingly turns into some kind of chronic phase, it is perhaps not so surprising.


    SeniorsTn9 29 Jan 2016 08:44

    UPDATE: 2016/01/29 Trump won the debate he didn't even participate in. No surprise here.

    Which debate will you focus on, the elephant walk or Trump? If you want to hear positive messages listen to Trump. Trump stood his ground. Trump is definitely different. When we look at the options there is simply no alternative. I prefer to watch the next president of the United States of America. I was on the fence but how I am definitely a Trump supporter. Trump will make America great again.

    There is a personality conflict here and everyone knows it. This reporter definitely has a hate on for Trump. Trump was right to not participate in this debate. Replace the so called bias reporter. Fox News could have fixed this but choose not to. Call Trump's bluff and he will have no choice but to join the debate. This is not and should not be about reporters. The press, for some reason, always plays into Trump's hand. This is another Trump strategic move to force the debate to focus on him first. Seriously just look at what has already happened, All Trump's opponents and the media are talking about now is the fact that Trump is not participating in the debate. Brilliant!

    Trump has changed the debating and campaigning rules. Trump will or will not be successful based on his decisions and his alone. Trump now has the focus on him and the debates haven't even startled. Trump is now winning debates he isn't even participating in. This has got to be a first in successful political debating strategies! Amazing! A win win for Trump. Smart man! Smart like a Fox.


    ID0020237 -> NYcynic 29 Jan 2016 08:25

    Methinks all this debate and chatter are nothing but distractions for the masses so those behind and above the scene can carry out their hidden agendas. Debates are like more opium for the masses, it keeps their brains churning while other issues are burning. I see no problems being solved here with all the empty rhetoric.


    kaneandabel -> kodicek 29 Jan 2016 07:45

    Well kodi, your comments are valid in it that ALL of these candidates are part of the revolving door irrespective of the supposed 'right' or supposed 'left'. Clinton is as much a compromised candidate as the entire bunch of the republican team. Trump may appear to be a different kind but that that's only because he is a good "talker" who seems to give 2 hoots to the establishment. But thats only talk. He would turn on a cent the moment he becomes President. A perfect example of that is Barack Obama. He talked the sweet talk and made people think a new dawn is coming in American politics. But as it turned out.... zilch!

    But there is a slight ray of hope, a thin one. With Sanders. As he has walked the talk all along! Otherwise you van be sure to be in the grip of the wall street scamstars and plutocrats for the next decade.

    RusticBenadar B5610661066 29 Jan 2016 06:02

    Plutocracy; and all candidates are millionaires or billionaires being hoisted upon Americans by the establishment media/business/banks/politics- all, that is, with the single exception of Bernie Sanders, who alone has managed not to enrich himself with special interest bribery or financial exploitation during his unparalleled 45+ years of outstanding common sense public service.

    kodicek -> LazarusLong42 29 Jan 2016 05:52

    The vast majority of the political elite, from Bush to Clinton, are there to further the agenda, as well as their own careers. In this way, you have Obama brought into to finish by proxy what Bush started by direct force. I.e the wrecking of any Nation State that opposes the neo-liberal economic system.

    They only exist in the spotlight for as long as they are tolerated in terms of their persona, until the public wise-up. It is then they go into their background role; the cushy and lucrative 'consulting' jobs they have been promised by the special interest 'think tanks' they already belong to; be it the Council of Foreign Relations, or the Bilderberg group; all funded by international banking cartels.

    Supposed 'right' or supposed 'left' of the mainstream media are just part and parcel of the same ultimate deception.

    Trump, although not perfect in his persona, is certainly a problem for the agenda: thus their attack dogs in the media have been called to take him out.

    This is what first raised my suspicions: I thought for myself, rather than double clicking on a petition.

    Best Regards, K


    kodicek 29 Jan 2016 05:19

    It's amusing to see the attacks on Trump; who just for speaking his mind is starting to steadily resonate with a growing demographic, both at home and abroad.

    You'd never hear about it here of course; but he harshly denounced the invasion of Iraq, and was a big critic of Bush.

    Despite all the allegations of racism, he has the largest support amongst the Black and Latino community; and is the most popular Republican candidate with Women.

    He also seems to be the only one who understands that the majority of Americans needs real jobs – not some laughable concept of an 'ideas economy.' and is willing to fight for them on a trade level to ensure this.

    He is also the least likely to drag the US into dangerous conflicts, (proxy or otherwise) with those such as Russia – Sadly I can see some Guardian commentators already gunning for that.

    He is also not controlled by the usual financial ties to banking elites: Goldman & Sachs just gave Hillary $3 million – what's that then? Just pocket money?

    We always drone on about democracy etc, but when someone is actually popular, from Corbyn to Trump, we denounce them and ridicule their supporters.

    Funny thing is; if it wasn't for all these attacks I might never have noticed!


    TheChillZone -> SteelyDanorak 29 Jan 2016 05:05

    America isn't better than this - this IS America. The land of political dynasties and limitless corporate donations. Where a movie star became the President and a body builder a Governor. It doesn't even have a one-man-one vote voting system for heavens sake. The rise of Trump makes perfect sense - most of American culture has been relentlessly dumbed down; now it's Politics turn.


    europeangrayling -> shaftedpig 29 Jan 2016 04:40

    It's kind of like Iranian 'democracy', where the Ayatollah picks out and approves 4-5 candidates, and then the Iranian people get to 'vote' for them. We do it a bit differently, in a society where we have freedom of speech, but the outcome always ends up the same, with 2 establishment, corporate, Wall street, military industrial complex, globalist 'free trade' choices for president. All approved by corporate America, our corporate and mainstream media and by Wall street, it always ends up like that. Like right now, there is no difference between Hillary, and establishment corporate Democrats like the Clintons, and the establishment Republicans like Rubio, Kasich or Bush, on all those really big and truly important issues.


    fanfootbal65 29 Jan 2016 04:20

    At least with Trump you know where he stands unlike most politicians who just tell the voters what they want to hear. Then after getting elected, these lip service politicians just go off on their own agenda against the wishes of the people that voted for them.


    SamStone 29 Jan 2016 03:55

    Haha, Trump is tremendously astute and clever when it comes to tactics. It will be awesome if he actually becomes president.


    boldofer 29 Jan 2016 03:46

    That thing about Cruz labelling Trump a Democrat is interesting. I'm sure most Democrats would be understandably offended by the suggestion, and I'm pretty sure Cruz doesn't actually believe it either. I haven't been following Trump's statements on policy closely at all, but from my general impression of him over the years, I always thought that, although he was clearly a dyed in the wool capitalist, he probably wasn't a social conservative.

    I can't help thinking he's just another wealthy, metropolitan businessman who probably didn't give a single toss about immigration, gay marriage, Islam or any of it, and if you pushed him probably would have been completely relaxed about all those issues. But I guess what he is above all else is a power hungry narcissist and a showman, and if he feels he needs to push certain buttons to get elected...


    SGT123 29 Jan 2016 03:29

    "Megyn Kelly, the Fox News anchor whose participation in the debate led to Trump's boycott, referred to him as "the elephant not in the room".

    Which is both quite funny and accurate. I can see why Donald was so frightened of her!


    Blaaboy 29 Jan 2016 03:03

    Tough for any GOP candidate to avoid the flip flops in fairness. Pro life gun nuts, military spending addicted defecit hawks, die hard defenders of the Constitution hell bent on removing church/state separation, defenders of the squeezed middle sucking on the teat of Murdoch and the Koch brothers.... A very high and skinny tight rope....


    benbache 29 Jan 2016 02:22

    Trump won because these people have nothing people want to listen to. Nobody cares about Rubio or Bush flip flopping on immigration, because they have decided not to vote for them. And despite the press, no one I know cares about terrorism in the US. No one ever brings it up in any conversation, despite constant fear mongering.

    People care about jobs and their dwindling opportunities. Trump talks populism. He talks about tariffs on manufacturers who moved jobs overseas. People like that. He said he thinks the US should have left Saddam Hussein in power. Every rational person today agrees with that. He says the US should have left Gaddafi in power. While not too many people think about that too much, if they do, they agree with that too. Especially once they learn about the domino effect it has had, such as the attack on the coffee shop in Burkina Faso a week ago or so.

    People have grown tired of war. All of the mainstream candidates want war because their campaigns depend on it. Bush's family has massive investment in the Carlisle Group and other players in the MIC.

    Trump made his money in real estate, not war.

    ID1569355 29 Jan 2016 01:53

    I have no vote in the U.S.A. I greatly respect it's people and achievements. President Obama has been a big disappointment to me. I really thought he could make some good changes for his citizens. Should Mr Trump actually win the Presidency life for many will be very, very interesting, perhaps not in a good way. Then again perhaps his leadership might be just what America needs.

    A few years of Mr Trump as leader of the world's greatest super-power may give us all a new outlook on life as we know it, help us adjust our personal and National priorities. Give him the power as the Supreme Commander of Military Forces and we can all learn some lessons about the consequences of Americans votes on everyone else's lives. Americans may learn a thing or two also........Go Trump !

    Oboy1963 29 Jan 2016 01:37

    Not a Trump fan, but it is great to see someone with enough nous to tell Fox to go bite their bum. Good on him. We know from past experience what a sleazy old fart Rupert is and his fellow travelers in Fox are a good fit. The "moderators" are third rate journo's out to polish their image and try the bigmouth on the guy that 'may' become President. No need for Trump to take that kind of crap off of those sort of people.

    Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 01:32

    Cruz was attacked, got flustered and blew his opportunity. Trump's judgement turned out to be vindicated in not attending. Trump is currently the front runner and bearing in mind that the entire West is moving to the right it is quite likely that by the time of the election Trump may turn out to be closer to the mainstream. If there are further Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil then this will likely be a certainty.

    [Jan 29, 2016] financing Koch brothers convene donor retreat as dark money spending set to soar

    Notable quotes:
    "... For sale, cheap, one POTUS puppet, strings firmly attached. Keep the kiddies entertained, good for four years worth of distraction. ..."
    "... Where does most of the money, dark or obvious, go? Answer: The Main Stream Media (I include the Guardian in this). Do you now understand why they're all having a bob-each-way? Morals, journalistic integrity, decency or the welfare of the public be damned, it's raining wads of cash. ..."
    "... Because of the SCOTUS Citizens united decision, it is just fine to bribe politicians IN PUBLIC. How could SCOTUS and the GOP do this to the United States. It is destroying our Democracy. ..."
    "... Let the ass-kissing and groveling begin ..."
    "... The undue influence of the rich over American politics is an absolute disgrace. How can those who claim to be conservatives justify their destruction of democratic processes? They conserve nothing but their own power. Traitors! ..."
    "... I'm afraid that the soul of America was lost with the scotus ruling. Corporations are just that, corporations. They are not people. They already had a disproportionate say in politics because of lobbying money. ..."
    "... Now the princes of darkness have descended on the land like perpetual night. Leaving the populace longing for the light! The Kochs and their ilk are slaves to their ideology which is to destroy the federal government, destroy all social safety net's, even privatize our military. All this for the ideology of the extreme right wing corporate fascism. ..."
    "... All Hail the Deep State! ..."
    "... Check this out...It will blow you away: 'Dark Money: Jane Mayer on How the Koch Bros. & Billionaire Allies Funded the Rise of the Far Right' http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/dark_money_jane_mayer_on_how ..."
    "... "Dred Scott turned people into property....Citizens United turned property into people." ..."
    "... One of the great sources of Trump's appeal has been the perception of his independence from the Kochs and other corporate manipulators. If he gets the nomination, they will of course attempt to co-opt him just as they did the tea party. It will be interesting to see how he responds. ..."
    "... The Kochs didn't co-opt the Tea Party--they created it. They brainstormed it, branded it, funded it, propped it up, bought positive news coverage for it, and pulled its strings to keep the GOP voting base at a full boil for the fall elections in 2010. ..."
    "... This was tactically necessary to enable them to take full advantage of the gorgeous opportunity John Roberts had created for them earlier that spring with Citizens United, rushed through precisely to help the oligarchs buy themselves Congress and as many state houses and governor's mansions as they could reap. ..."
    "... The best government money can buy...... Since the Supreme Court ruled unlimited corporate bribes to politicians would be considered "free speech" in the eyes of the law, people lost any chance they had of representation based on what's best for average citizen. It's -ALL- about big money now, a literal Corporatocracy. The idea that government should be "Of the people, by the people and for the people" is long lost, RIP. ..."
    "... Dark money = Corruption.....period..!! Just because its not illegal doesn't make it right. What it is, is the continual demolition of democracy in the US where whoever has the biggest cheque-book has an advantage over everyone else. Totally wrong and the slippery slope to an end of 'government by the people'... ..."
    "... And the theft of the Presidency is underway. Does anyone not think that allowing millions, even a billion dollars to be donated to campaigns with the donor kept secret is a problem? Heck, foreign government can contribute to get the candidate that they want. So.......Who will be the one to kiss Koch butt? ..."
    "... Hey look, they're trying to buy the elections again. No surprises there... ..."
    "... Not trying. Succeeding. The Koch brothers own many, many politicians who are beholding to Koch and will vote any way Koch wants. ..."
    "... Their intentions are now plain: they aim the overthrow of democracy and the establishment of a modern feudal state/oligarchy. ..."
    "... If money didn't work, people would not be spending over a billon dollars on the election. Of course money works. Think of it this way: The Koch brothers give almost a billion dollars to support most of the GOP candidates. Regardless of who wins, they will be completely owned by the Koch brothers. It doesn't matter who you vote for if they are all owned by Koch. ..."
    "... Moneylenders own the temple. ..."
    "... Not to mention that in their own minds and mirrors, the money-lenders are the temple. ..."
    "... "The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." ..."
    "... The pendulum has swung too far - the rich are too rich, and the poor are too poor. The Emperor we have been told has beautiful clothes will soon be found to have none. ..."
    "... Or that famous Apalachin, NY, meeting of the five families in 1957. One difference: I bet the FBI won't be raiding the Koch compound, forcing all the big dogs to flee into the woods. More likely, the feds will be providing protection, writing down the license plate numbers of everyone who might object to billionaires dividing up their 'turf' in America. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    Dark money is the name for cash given to nonprofit organizations that can receive unlimited donations from corporations, individuals and unions without disclosing their donors. Under IRS regulations these tax-exempt groups are supposed to be promoting "social welfare" and are not allowed to have politics as their primary purpose – so generally they have to spend less than half their funds directly promoting candidates. Other so-called "issue ads" paid for by these groups often look like thinly veiled campaign ads.

    The boom in dark money spending in recent elections came in the wake of the supreme court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which held that the first amendment allowed unlimited political spending by corporations and unions. That decision and other court rulings opened the floodgates to individuals, corporations and unions writing unlimited checks to outside groups, both Super Pacs and dark money outfits, which can directly promote federal candidates. Dark money spending rose from just under $6m in 2006 to $131m in 2010 following the decision, according to the CRP.

    kus art , 2016-01-30 01:11:10
    Well, there you have it. In the USA you can actually buy yourself a president. But for Real! No underhanded bribes, but openly buying. Would you like fries with that...? And here's the kicker - Everyone, from media outlets all the way down to the 'person on the street' just accepts it as is without any real protestations...
    GeorgiaTeacher , 2016-01-30 00:22:27
    Why is the left so afraid of these guys?

    Look at the Billary Wall Street fund raisers. http://freebeacon.com/politics/all-hillary-clinton-wall-street-fundraisers /

    I am sure all this money is legit, right?

    (I know, I know feel the bern. He doesn't accept it. And unless there is an indictment he won't win)

    Suga , 2016-01-30 00:08:59
    Learn how Citizens United has allowed Billionaires like the Koch's to rabble-rouse, whip into a frenzy and influence one-half of America to vote against their own best interest!

    The Billionaires' Created Tea Party : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKH2gRDkC5s

    Itsrainingtin , 2016-01-30 00:01:51
    For sale, cheap, one POTUS puppet, strings firmly attached. Keep the kiddies entertained, good for four years worth of distraction.

    ps

    Where does most of the money, dark or obvious, go? Answer: The Main Stream Media (I include the Guardian in this). Do you now understand why they're all having a bob-each-way? Morals, journalistic integrity, decency or the welfare of the public be damned, it's raining wads of cash.

    babymamaboy , 2016-01-29 23:52:10
    Until we have a system that makes sense, I guess we can only hope someone realizes that if they just paid a reasonable tax rate it would cost them less than funding Super PACs. Then again, money doesn't make you smart -- they just might spend a billion to save a million. Can we give crowd sourcing political decisions a chance?
    MtnClimber , 2016-01-29 23:10:59
    Because of the SCOTUS Citizens united decision, it is just fine to bribe politicians IN PUBLIC. How could SCOTUS and the GOP do this to the United States. It is destroying our Democracy.
    woodyTX , 2016-01-29 22:36:47
    Let the ass-kissing and groveling begin
    kriss669 , 2016-01-29 22:30:41
    The undue influence of the rich over American politics is an absolute disgrace. How can those who claim to be conservatives justify their destruction of democratic processes? They conserve nothing but their own power. Traitors!
    blueterrace , 2016-01-29 22:09:26
    America, get a good look at your "democracy" in action.
    woodyTX blueterrace , 2016-01-29 23:30:44
    Need infra-red night vision goggles to see it.
    Washington1776 , 2016-01-29 21:55:40
    Waste your blood money. This is a revolution.
    Siki Georgevic , 2016-01-29 21:53:15
    I'm afraid that the soul of America was lost with the scotus ruling. Corporations are just that, corporations. They are not people. They already had a disproportionate say in politics because of lobbying money.

    Now the princes of darkness have descended on the land like perpetual night. Leaving the populace longing for the light! The Kochs and their ilk are slaves to their ideology which is to destroy the federal government, destroy all social safety net's, even privatize our military. All this for the ideology of the extreme right wing corporate fascism.

    kevink , 2016-01-29 21:45:09
    All Hail the Deep State!
    Suga , 2016-01-29 21:30:47
    Thank you, Peter Stone! So few Americans even know this is happening.
    Check this out...It will blow you away: 'Dark Money: Jane Mayer on How the Koch Bros. & Billionaire Allies Funded the Rise of the Far Right'
    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/dark_money_jane_mayer_on_how

    Please Wake Up America.....Citizens United is the Mirror Image of Dred Scott.

    "Dred Scott turned people into property....Citizens United turned property into people."

    hardlyeverclever , 2016-01-29 21:27:13
    Give Karl Rove the money: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/08/15007504-karl-roves-election-debacle-super-pacs-spending-was-nearly-for-naught
    Stafford Smith , 2016-01-29 21:25:14
    One of the great sources of Trump's appeal has been the perception of his independence from the Kochs and other corporate manipulators. If he gets the nomination, they will of course attempt to co-opt him just as they did the tea party. It will be interesting to see how he responds.
    oldamericanlady Stafford Smith , 2016-01-29 21:41:28
    The Kochs didn't co-opt the Tea Party--they created it. They brainstormed it, branded it, funded it, propped it up, bought positive news coverage for it, and pulled its strings to keep the GOP voting base at a full boil for the fall elections in 2010.

    This was tactically necessary to enable them to take full advantage of the gorgeous opportunity John Roberts had created for them earlier that spring with Citizens United, rushed through precisely to help the oligarchs buy themselves Congress and as many state houses and governor's mansions as they could reap.

    Trump is a different matter. They can't invent Trump the same way they invented the so-called Tea Party.

    What they can do is flatter him and wheedle him and beguile him in hopes of making him more receptive to little things like, for instance, their nominations to the federal bench.

    This, given Trump's pathetic grasp of reality and his monumental ego, shouldn't actually prove too complicated a feat for the Kochs and their worker bees to pull off.

    After all, all Marla Maples had to do was say "Donald Trump--best sex I ever had" on Page 6 at the Post and she got to marry the schlub: the Kochs will surely be equally adept at figuring out the wizened, soulless old billionaire version of this time-honored tactic.

    woodyTX Stafford Smith , 2016-01-29 23:37:23
    The Donald is one of the oligarchs but with an immense ego. Instead of playing the political puppets from behind the curtain as the Koch's do, he thought he'd become the puppet show himself.

    An oligarch in politician's clothing attempting to persuade America that he's on our side. How very Putinesque.

    revelationnow Stafford Smith , 2016-01-30 00:31:06
    They won't be able to co-opt Trump because he is only guided by his ego.
    str8vision , 2016-01-29 20:56:28
    The best government money can buy...... Since the Supreme Court ruled unlimited corporate bribes to politicians would be considered "free speech" in the eyes of the law, people lost any chance they had of representation based on what's best for average citizen. It's -ALL- about big money now, a literal Corporatocracy. The idea that government should be "Of the people, by the people and for the people" is long lost, RIP.
    Christopher Aaron Jones , 2016-01-29 20:45:39
    "How can we override the people's needs with money and influence?"
    UzzDontSay Christopher Aaron Jones , 2016-01-30 01:42:36
    Help pol get registered, informed & get you & those you have influenced to vote in EVERY ELECTION!!!
    Totoro08 , 2016-01-29 20:37:46
    Dark money = Corruption.....period..!! Just because its not illegal doesn't make it right. What it is, is the continual demolition of democracy in the US where whoever has the biggest cheque-book has an advantage over everyone else. Totally wrong and the slippery slope to an end of 'government by the people'...
    MtnClimber , 2016-01-29 20:35:03
    And the theft of the Presidency is underway. Does anyone not think that allowing millions, even a billion dollars to be donated to campaigns with the donor kept secret is a problem? Heck, foreign government can contribute to get the candidate that they want. So.......Who will be the one to kiss Koch butt?
    Whatsup12 , 2016-01-29 20:29:52
    Hey look, they're trying to buy the elections again. No surprises there...
    MtnClimber Whatsup12 , 2016-01-29 20:54:23
    Not trying. Succeeding. The Koch brothers own many, many politicians who are beholding to Koch and will vote any way Koch wants.
    catch18 , 2016-01-29 20:27:51
    Coming on pitchfork time.
    Anthony Caudill , 2016-01-29 20:25:43
    Their intentions are now plain: they aim the overthrow of democracy and the establishment of a modern feudal state/oligarchy.
    UzzDontSay Anthony Caudill , 2016-01-30 01:45:53
    Question is are we going to let them?
    centerlane , 2016-01-29 20:11:43
    Dark money cannot compete with the elephant on the block, the electorate. If any one has the finances to buy the oval office and or Congress it is "citizens united" ten dollars ahead should do it.
    Anthony Caudill centerlane , 2016-01-29 20:30:12
    What you are failing to reckon with is the scale of their organization and its capacity. This retreat probably has a trillion dollars backing it. That's a lot of high paying jobs...
    MtnClimber centerlane , 2016-01-29 20:37:53
    If money didn't work, people would not be spending over a billon dollars on the election. Of course money works. Think of it this way: The Koch brothers give almost a billion dollars to support most of the GOP candidates. Regardless of who wins, they will be completely owned by the Koch brothers. It doesn't matter who you vote for if they are all owned by Koch.

    So, no, the power does NOT lie with the voters. SCOTUS has stolen our democracy and has given it to the richest 100 people in the US.

    marshwren Anthony Caudill , 2016-01-29 20:46:05
    And what you're failing to recognize is the scale and capacity of the internet--the people's MSM and Super PAC. Whatever the outcome of this year's election, the Sanders' campaign is creating the template by which guerrilla/insurgent campaigns will be modeled for the next 20 years or longer...depending on if and when the Kochs et al finally get to end net neutrality.
    SiriErieott , 2016-01-29 20:05:00
    Dark money - it's the undetectable dark matter of politics that bends and motivates political stars to the black hole of government. Ordinary people can't detect it or see it, but it's effect is to control the movement of money to the star clusters (otherwise known as tax havens).
    groovebox1 , 2016-01-29 19:58:12
    The Koch Brothers heads belong on a stick.
    MtnClimber groovebox1 , 2016-01-29 20:38:32
    I believe that would be a pike. It's also a great idea.
    mikedow , 2016-01-29 19:53:45
    Moneylenders own the temple.
    marshwren mikedow , 2016-01-29 20:42:48
    Not to mention that in their own minds and mirrors, the money-lenders are the temple.
    onevote , 2016-01-29 19:48:14
    Citizen's United, the gift that keeps on giving...

    Sanders, 2016
    One Person : One Vote

    Gramercy , 2016-01-29 19:38:31
    The Kochs are concentrating on State legislatures, the key to amending the Constitution.
    By the time they're finished, the President will have less power than the Queen.
    mikedow Gramercy , 2016-01-29 19:56:57
    Hand in hand with ALEC.
    Anthony Caudill Gramercy , 2016-01-29 20:31:42
    Looks like Roberts is gonna have to decide whether or not he wants to endure the humiliation of having the next majority overturn his ruling.
    JulianTurnbull , 2016-01-29 19:28:16
    These people laugh in the face of democracy. I like particularly this quote - if I remember it correctly - by Lily Tomlin:

    "The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat."

    The pendulum has swung too far - the rich are too rich, and the poor are too poor. The Emperor we have been told has beautiful clothes will soon be found to have none.

    RedPanda JulianTurnbull , 2016-01-30 01:57:06
    The Republicans moan, the Republicans bitch: The rich are too poor and the poor are too rich.
    pconl , 2016-01-29 19:27:20
    A genuine, and possibly naive, question. Is this reported in the States? If so, does anyone notice?
    widdak pconl , 2016-01-29 19:42:35
    Not really and definitely not.
    sour_mash pconl , 2016-01-29 19:55:10
    "A genuine, and possibly naive, question. Is this reported in the States?"

    Yes. With few exceptions, the only bad question is the one not asked.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/01/29/koch-brothers-push-poverty-education-societal-change--initiative-republican/79468744 /

    Voltairine pconl , 2016-01-29 19:58:19
    I'm a U.S. citizen, and I don't know because I stopped watching U.S. "news" although I'm not sure how much better The Guardian is the people in comments seem a tad nicer better grammar and spelling did I answer the questions? Oh, a butterfly!
    lefthalfback2 , 2016-01-29 19:22:03
    They are already spending their money on negative ads against- wait for it- Hillary Clinton. They know who that have to beat- and it ain't Bernie.
    marshwren lefthalfback2 , 2016-01-29 20:40:59
    Good--let them blow billions (more) attacking Clinton; it'll only be more delicious when they find out they should have spent it against Sanders. You better hope Clinton wins IA big, because if she doesn't, she just might jump-start the process by which she loses the nomination. Like last time.
    lefthalfback2 marshwren , 2016-01-29 20:49:48
    could happen. I could live with Bernie as the nominee. Krugman had an interesting slant on it today in NYT.
    callaspodeaspode , 2016-01-29 19:20:59
    Several Koch network donors have voiced strong concerns about the rise of Trump, raising doubts about his conservative bona fides and his angry anti-immigrant rhetoric, which they fear could hurt efforts by the Koch network and the Republican party to appeal to Hispanics and minorities.

    I wonder if they also worry about their lavishly-funded support of theocratic loudmouth Republican lunatics such as Tom Cotton, Sam Brownback and Joni Ernst potentially alienating moderate Christians or, heaven (literally) forbid, non-believers?

    Only joking. No.

    Apollo_11 , 2016-01-29 19:06:22
    Don't let nobody give your guns to shoot down your own brother
    Don't let nobody give your bombs to blow down my sweet mother
    Tell me are you really feeling sweet when you sit down to eat
    You eating blood money you spending blood money
    You think you're funny living off blood money
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anjkSBQDRjc
    snakeatzoes , 2016-01-29 19:01:31
    Its funny to see them without Trump. You are so mesmerised by Trump and his hair that you haven't noticed what an incredibly weird looking bunch the rest are. Not that it matters given Bernie will *ump them all anyway -- :)
    Whitt , 2016-01-29 18:56:52
    "Several Republican congressional incumbents and candidates facing tough races are slated to attend the Koch retreat this weekend, and, if recent history is a guide, are expecting to gain support from Koch-backed dark money groups."
    *
    For some reason I'm reminded of the opening scene of The Godfather where supplicants meet with Don Corleone and present their requests on the occasion of his daughter's wedding, kissing his hand at the end.

    Can't imagine why.

    lefthalfback2 Whitt , 2016-01-29 19:23:02
    "...Give this to Clemenza. Tell him to send responsible people. We don't want things to get out of hand...".
    MtnClimber Whitt , 2016-01-29 20:45:10
    That's exactly what it is. The Koch Brothers will own most of the GOP politicians. It doesn't matter which one you vote for because that person will likely be owned by Koch and will do their bidding.
    NYbill13 Whitt , 2016-01-29 20:46:55
    Or that famous Apalachin, NY, meeting of the five families in 1957. One difference: I bet the FBI won't be raiding the Koch compound, forcing all the big dogs to flee into the woods. More likely, the feds will be providing protection, writing down the license plate numbers of everyone who might object to billionaires dividing up their 'turf' in America.

    [Jan 29, 2016] US government finds top secret information in Clinton emails

    Notable quotes:
    "... Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary. We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done. ..."
    "... fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it. "She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, "The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something that appears to be a serious breach of security." ..."
    "... Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking it in a file cabinet... ..."
    "... In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924 of the US Criminal Code. ..."
    "... The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked." ..."
    "... According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for convenience." ..."
    "... Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee, irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal effects." ..."
    "... As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited." ..."
    "... Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........ ..."
    "... Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record. ..."
    "... What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails, doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture? ..."
    "... Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better. ..."
    "... Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security. ..."
    "... It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall). ..."
    "... Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away to acknowledge this. ..."
    "... yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor. ..."
    "... Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and the third for accountability. ..."
    "... You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress.. ..."
    "... If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good -- ..."
    "... It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a barrel". ..."
    "... It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant has enough sense to come in out of the rain. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The Obama administration confirmed for the first time on Friday that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained some of the US government's most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes just three days before the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.


    jrhaddock -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 23:04

    Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary. We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done.

    And she's not just some low level clerk who doesn't understand what classified material is or how it is handled. She had been the wife of the president so is certainly well aware of the security surrounding classified material. And then she was Sec of State and obviously knew what kind of information was classified. So to claim that the material wasn't marked, and therefore she didn't know it was classified, is simply not credulous.

    Berkeley2013 29 Jan 2016 22:46

    And Clinton had a considerable number of unvetted people maintain and administer her communication system. The potential for wrong doing in general and blackmail from many angles is great.

    There's also the cost of this whole investigation. Why should US taxpayers have to pick up the bill?

    And the waste of good personnel time---a total waste...

    Skip Breitmeyer -> simpledino 29 Jan 2016 22:29

    In one sense you're absolutely right- read carefully this article (and the announcement leading to it) raises at least as many questions as it answers, period. On the other hand, those ambiguities are certain not to be resolved 'over-the-weekend' (nor before the first votes are cast in Iowa) and thus the timing of the thing could not be more misfortunate for Ms. Clinton, nor more perfect for maximum effect than if the timing had been deliberately planned. In fact I'm surprised there aren't a raft of comments on this point. "Confirmed by the Obama administration..."? Who in the administration? What wing of the administration? Some jack-off in the justice dept. who got 50,000 g's for the scoop? The fact is, I'm actually with Bernie over Hilary any day, but I admit to a certain respect for her remarkable expertise and debate performances that have really shown the GOP boys to be a bunch of second-benchers... And there's something a little dirty and dodgy that's gone on here...

    Adamnoggi dusablon 29 Jan 2016 22:23

    SAP does not relate to To the level of classification. A special access program could be at the confidential level or higher dependent upon content. Special access means just that, access is granted on a case by case basis, regardless of classification level .


    Gigi Trala La 29 Jan 2016 22:17

    She is treated with remarkable indulgence. Anywhere with a sense of accountability she will be facing prosecution, and yet here she is running for even higher office. In the middle of demonstrating her unfitness.


    eldudeabides 29 Jan 2016 22:15

    Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing, based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now and the lack of indications that she intended to break any laws.

    since when has ignorance been a defence?


    nataliesutler UzzDontSay 29 Jan 2016 22:05

    Yes Petraeus did get this kind of scrutiny even though what he did was much less serious that what Clinton did. this isn't about a rule change. And pretending it is isn't going to fool anyone.


    Sam3456 kattw 29 Jan 2016 21:18

    Thats a misunderstanding on your part First lets look at Hillary's statement in March:

    "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I'm certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."

    She later adjusted her language to note that she never sent anything "marked" classified. So already some Clinton-esque word parsing

    And then what people said who used to do her job:

    fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it.
    "She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, "The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something that appears to be a serious breach of security."

    It is a view shared by J. William Leonard, who between 2002 and 2008 was director of the Information Security Oversight Office, which oversees the government classification system. He pointed out that all government officials given a security clearance are required to sign a nondisclosure agreement, which states they are responsible if secrets leak – whether the information was "marked or not."

    Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking it in a file cabinet...

    beanierose -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 21:08

    Yeah - I just don't understand what Hillary is actually accused of doing / or not doing in Benghazi. Was it that they didn't provide support to Stevens - (I think that was debunked) - was it that they claimed on the Sunday talk shows that the video was responsible for the attack (who cares). Now - I can think of an outrage - President Bush attacking Iraq on the specious claim that they had WMD - that was a lie/incorrec/incompetence and it cost ~7000 US and 200K to 700K Iraqi lives. Now - there's a scandal.

    Stephen_Sean -> elexpatrioto 29 Jan 2016 21:07

    The Secretary of State is an "original classifier" of information. The individual holding that office is responsible to recognize whether information is classified and to what level regardless if it is marked or not. She should have known. She has no true shelter of ignorance here.

    Stephen_Sean 29 Jan 2016 21:00

    The Guardian is whistling through the graveyard. The FBI is very close to a decision to recommend an indictment to the DOJ. At that point is up to POTUS whether he thinks Hillary is worth tainting his entire Presidency to protect by blocking a DOJ indictment. His responsibility as an outgoing President is to do what is best for his party and to provide his best attempt to get a Democrat elected. I smell Biden warming up in the bullpen as an emergency.

    The last thing the DNC wants is a delay if their is going to be an indictment. For an indictment to come after she is nominated would be an unrecoverable blow for the Democrats. If their is to be an indictment its best for it to come now while they can still get Biden in and maintain their chances.

    Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 20:57

    In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924 of the US Criminal Code.

    According To § 793 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who willfully retains, transmits or causes to be transmitted, national security information, can face up to ten years in prison.

    According To § 1924 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who removes classified information " with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location," can face up to a year in prison.

    The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked."

    According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for convenience."

    Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee, irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal effects."

    As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited."

    kus art 29 Jan 2016 20:54

    I'm assuming that the censored emails reveal activities that the US government is into are Way more corrupt, insidious and venal as the the emails already exposed, which says a lot already...

    Profhambone -> Bruce Hill 29 Jan 2016 20:53

    Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........


    PsygonnUSA 29 Jan 2016 20:44

    Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record.


    USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:41

    Sorry to be ranting but what does it say about a country - in theory, a democracy - that is implicated in so much questionable business around the world that we have to classify mountains of communication as off-limits to the people, who are theoretically sovereign in this country?

    We've all gotten quite used to this. In reality, it should freak us out much more than it does. I'm not naive about what national security requires, but my sense is the government habitually and routinely classifies all sorts of things the people of this country have every right to know.

    Assuming this is still a democracy, which is perhaps a big assumption.


    Raleighchopper Bruce Hill 29 Jan 2016 20:40

    far Left sites like the Guardian:

    LMAOROFL
    Scott Trust Ltd board
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited

    FirthyB 29 Jan 2016 20:36

    Hillary is in that class, along with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bush, Cheney etc.. who believe the rule of law only pertains to the little guys.


    MooseMcNaulty -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 20:28

    The spying was illegal on a Constitutional basis. The Fourth Amendment protects our privacy and prevents unlawful search and seizure. The government getting free access to the contents of our emails seems the same as opening our mail, which is illegal without a court order.

    The drone program is illegal based on the Geneva accords. We are carrying out targeted killings within sovereign nations, usually without their knowledge or consent, based on secret evidence that they pose a vaguely defined 'imminent threat'. It isn't in line with any international law, though we set that precedent long ago.


    makaio USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:08

    What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails, doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture?

    Those were just starter questions. I'm sure I missed things.


    Raleighchopper -> Popeia 29 Jan 2016 20:05

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-clinton-idUSN2540811420080326


    Rowan Walters 29 Jan 2016 19:51

    Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better.

    As an IT professional the repeated use of a phrase like that is a red flag - it's like when people who don't know what they're talking about latch on to a phrase which sounds technical because it contains jargon or technical concepts and they use it to make it sound like they know what they're talking about but it doesn't actually mean anything unless the context is clear and unambiguous.

    The phrase is obviously being repeated to convey the impression of supreme negligence - that sensitive state secrets were left defenceless and (gasp!) potentially accessible by anyone.

    Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security.

    Does this term "unsecured" mean the data on the server was not password-protected, does it mean it was unencrypted, does it mean that it was totally unprotected (which is extremely unlikely even if it was installed by an ignorant Luddite given that any modern broadband modem is also a hardware firewall), and as for the "server" was it a physical box or a virtual server?

    It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall).

    And regarding the "unsecured" part, how was the network accessed?
    There are a huge number of possibilities as to the actual meaning and on its own there is not enough information to deduce which - if any - is correct.

    I suspect that someone who knows little to nothing about technology has invented this concept based on ignorance a desire to imply malfeasance because on its own it really is a nonsense term.


    seanet1310 -> Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 19:37

    Nope. Like it or not Manning deliberately took classified information, smuggled it out and gave it to foreign nationals.
    Clinton it would appear mishandled classified material, at best she failed to realise the sensitive nature and at worst actively took material from controlled and classified networks onto an unsecured private network.


    dusablon 29 Jan 2016 19:28

    Classified material in the US is classified at three levels: confidential, secret, and top secret. Those labels are not applied in a cavalier fashion. The release of TS information is considered a grave threat to the security of the United States.

    Above these classification levels is what is as known as Special Access Program information, the release of which has extremely grave ramifications for the US. Access to SAP material is extremely limited and only granted after an extensive personal background investigation and only on a 'need to know' basis. You don't simply get a SAP program clearance because your employer thinks it would be nice to have, etc. In fact, you can have a Top Secret clearance and never get a special access program clearance to go with it.

    For those of you playing at home, the Top Secret SAP material Hillary had on her server - the most critical material the US can have - was not simply 'upgraded' to classified in a routine bureaucratic exercise because it was previously unclassified.

    Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away to acknowledge this.

    What the Feds did in Hillary's case in making the material on her home-based server Top Secret SAP was to bring those materials into what is known as 'accountability .'

    That is, the material was always SAP material but it was just discovered outside a SAP lock-down area or secure system and now it must become 'accountable' at the high classification level to ensure it's protected from further disclosure.

    Hillary and her minions have no excuse whatsoever for this intentional mishandling of this critical material and are in severe legal jeopardy no matter what disinformation her campaign puts out. Someone will or should go to prison. Period.

    (Sorry for the length of the post)


    Sam3456 -> Mark Forrester 29 Jan 2016 19:22

    yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor.

    Within weeks of taking the position JK implemented the OIG task forces recommendations to streamline the process and make State run more in line with other government organizations. I think John saw the "Sorry it snowed can't have you this info for a month" for what it was and acted out of decency and fairness to the American people. I still think he looks like a hound and is a political opportunist but you can't blame him for shenanigans here


    chiefwiley -> DoktahZ 29 Jan 2016 19:18

    The messages were "de-papered" by the staff, stripping them from their forms and headings and then scanning and including the content in accumulations to be sent and stored in an unclassified system. Taking the markings off of a classified document does not render it unclassified. Adding the markings back onto the documents does not "declare" them classified. Their classified nature was constant.

    If you only have an unsecured system, it should never be used for official traffic, let alone classified or special access traffic.

    dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:05

    Give it up.

    She used a private server deliberately to avoid FOIA requests, she deleted thousands of emails after they were requested, and the emails that remained contained Top Secret Special Access Program information, and it does not matter one iota whether or not that material was marked or whether or not it has been recently classified appropriately.


    chiefwiley -> Exceptionalism
    29 Jan 2016 19:04

    18USC Section793(f)

    $250,000 and ten years.

    dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:00

    False.

    Anything related to a special access program is classified whether marked as such or not.

    dalisnewcar 29 Jan 2016 18:58

    You would figure that after all the lies of O'bomber that democrats might wake up some. Apparently, they are too stupid to realize they have been duped even after the entire Middle Class has been decimated and the wealth of the 1% has grown 3 fold under the man who has now bombed 7 countries. And you folks think Clinton, who personally destroyed Libya, is going to be honest with you and not do the same things he's done? Wake up folks. Your banging your head against the same old wall.

    fanUS -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:46

    She is evil, because she helped Islamic State to rise.


    Paul Christenson -> Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:45

    20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.

    21 - Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.

    22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton 's advisory council personally treated Clinton 's mother, stepfather and Brother.

    23 - Barry Seal - Drug running TWA pilot out of Mean Arkansas , death was no accident.

    24 - John ny Lawhorn, Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.

    25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.

    26 - Hershel Friday - Attorney and Clinton fundraiser died March 1, 1994, when his plane exploded.

    27 - Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the two boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. The initial report of death said their deaths were due to falling asleep on railroad tracks and being run over. Later autopsy reports stated that the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.

    THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:

    28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.

    29 - Keith McMaskle - Died, stabbed 113 times, Nov 1988

    30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.

    31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989. (Coroner ruled death due to suicide)

    32 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to natural causes"?

    33 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.

    34 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives/Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.

    THE FOLLOWING CLINTON PERSONAL BODYGUARDS ALL DIED OF MYSTERIOUS CAUSES OR SUICIDE
    36 - Major William S. Barkley, Jr.
    37 - Captain Scott J . Reynolds
    38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
    39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
    40 - Major General William Robertson
    41 - Col. William Densberger
    42 - Col. Robert Kelly
    43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
    44 - Steve Willis
    45 - Robert Williams
    46 - Conway LeBleu
    47 - Todd McKeehan

    And this list does not include the four dead Americans in Benghazi that Hillary abandoned!


    Paul Christenson Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:42

    THE MANY CLINTON BODY BAGS . . .

    Someone recently reminded me of this list. I had forgotten how long it is. Therefore, this is a quick refresher course, lest we forget what has happened to many "friends" and associates of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

    1- James McDougal - Convicted Whitewater partner of the Clintons who died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.

    2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown (Washington, D. C.). The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment by Clinton in the White House.

    3 - Vince Foster - Former White House Councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock 's Rose Law Firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide. (He was about to testify against Hillary related to the records she refused to turn over to congress.) Was reported to have been having an affair with Hillary.

    4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also died. A few days later the Air Traffic controller committed suicide.

    5 - C. Victor Raiser, II - Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.

    6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock on September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "dear friend and trusted advisor".

    7 - Ed Willey - Clinton fundraiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day His wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.

    8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock .. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock . Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton . He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.

    9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people which contained names of influential people who visited Prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas

    10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to the Clintons ' Whitewater deals.

    11 - Kathy Ferguson - Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson , was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones Lawsuit, and Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.

    12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancée of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancée, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancée.

    13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton 's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client, Dan Lassater, was a convicted drug distributor.

    14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal, Mena , Arkansas Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot Wounds.

    15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died Of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a Suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.

    16 - Paula Grober - Clinton 's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.

    17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter who was Investigating the Mean Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.

    18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mean Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993, in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death. (May have died of poison)

    19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington , Virginia apartment balcony August 15,1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guaranty scandal.

    Thijs Buelens -> honey1969 29 Jan 2016 18:41

    Did the actors from Orange is the New Black already endorsed Hillary? Just wondering.

    Sam3456 -> Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:35

    Remember as soon as Snowden walked out the door with his USB drive full of secrets his was in violation. Wether he knew the severity and classification or not.

    Think of Hillary's email server as her home USB drive.

    RedPillCeryx 29 Jan 2016 18:33

    Government civil and military employees working with material at the Top Secret level are required to undergo incredibly protracted and intrusive vetting procedures (including polygraph testing) in order to obtain and keep current their security clearances to access such matter. Was Hillary Clinton required to obtain a Top Secret clearance in the same way, or was she just waved through because of Who She Is?

    Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:32

    Just to be clear, Colin Powell used a private email ACCOUNT which was hosted in the cloud and used it only for personal use. He was audited (never deleted anything) and it was found to contain no government records.

    Hillary used a server, which means in electronic form the documents existed outside the State Department unsecured. Its as if she took a Top Secret file home with her. That is a VERY BIG mistake and as the Sec of State she signed a document saying she understood the rules and agreed to play by them. She did not and removing state secrets from their secure location is a very serious matter. Wether you put the actual file in your briefcase or have them sitting in electronic version on your server.

    Second, she signed a document saying she would return any and ALL documents and copies of documents pertaining to the State Department with 30 (or 60 I can't remember) of leaving. The documents on her server, again electronic copies of the top secret files, where not returned for 2 years. Thats a huge violation.

    Finally, there is a clause in classification that deals with the information that is top secret by nature. Meaning regardless of wether its MARKED classified or not the very nature of the material would be apparent to a senior official that it was classified and appropriate action would have to be taken. She she either knew and ignored or did not know...and both of those scenarios don't give me a lot of confidence.

    Finally the information that was classified at the highest levels means exposure of that material would put human operatives lives at risk. Something she accused Snowden of doing when she called him a traitor. By putting that information outside the State Department firewall she basically put peoples lives at risk so she could have the convenience of using one mobile device.


    Wallabyfan -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:10

    Sorry you can delude yourself all you like but Powell and Cheney used private emails while at work on secure servers for personal communications not highly classified communications and did so before the 2009 ban on this practice came into place . Clinton has used a private unsecured server at her home while Sec of State and even worse provided access to people in her team who had no security clearance. She has also deleted more than 30,000 emails from the server in full knowledge of the FBI probe. You do realise that she is going to end up in jail don't you?

    MtnClimber -> boscovee 29 Jan 2016 18:07

    Are you as interested in all of the emails that Cheney destroyed? He was asked to provide them and never allowed ANY to be seen.

    Typical GOP

    Dozens die at embassies under Bush. Zero investigations. Zero hearings.
    4 die at an embassy under Clinton. Dozens of hearings.

    OurNigel -> Robert Greene 29 Jan 2016 17:53

    Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and the third for accountability.

    Serious breach of protocol I'm afraid.

    Talgen -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 17:50

    Department responses for classification infractions could include counseling, warnings or other action, officials said. They wouldn't say if Clinton or senior aides who've since left government could face penalties. The officials weren't authorized to speak on the matter and demanded anonymity."

    You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress..

    Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 17:50

    No one here seems to be able to accept how serious this is. You cant downplay it. This is the most serious scandal we have seen in American politics for decades.

    Any other US official handling even 1 classified piece of material on his or her own unsecured home server would have been arrested and jailed by now for about 50 years perhaps longer. The fact that we are talking about 20 + (at least) indicates at the very least Clinton's hubris, incompetence and very poor judgement as well as being a very serious breach of US law. Her campaign is doomed.

    This is only the beginning of the scandal and I predict we will be rocked when we learn the truth. Clinton will be indicted and probably jailed along with Huma Abedin who the FBI are also investigating.


    HiramsMaxim -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 17:50

    http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf


    OurNigel 29 Jan 2016 17:42

    This is supposed to be the lady who (in her own words) has a huge experience of government yet she willingly broke not just State Department protocols and procedures, by using a privately maintained none secure server for her email service she also broke Federal laws and regulations governing recordkeeping requirements.

    At the very least this was a massive breach of security and a total disregard for established rules whilst she was in office. Its not as if she was just some local government officer in a backwater town she was Secretary of State for the United States government.

    If the NSA is to be believed you should presume her emails could have been read by any foreign state.

    This is actually a huge story.


    TassieNigel 29 Jan 2016 17:41

    This god awful Clinton family had to be stopped somehow I suppose. Now if I'd done it, I'd be behind bars long ago, so when will Hillary be charged is my question ?

    Hillary made much of slinging off about the "traitor" Julian Assange, so let's see how Mrs Clinton looks like behind bars. A woman simply incapable of telling the truth --

    Celebrations for Bernie Sanders of course.


    HiramsMaxim 29 Jan 2016 17:41

    They also wouldn't disclose whether any of the documents reflected information that was classified at the time of transmission,

    Has nothing to do with anything. Maybe the author should read the actual NDA signed by Mrs. Clinton.

    http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf


    beneboy303 -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 17:18

    If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good !


    In_for_the_kill 29 Jan 2016 17:15

    Come on Guardian, this should be your lead story, the executive branch of the United States just confirmed that a candidate for the Presidency pretty much broke the law, knowingly. If that ain't headline material, then I don't know what is.


    dusablon -> SenseCir 29 Jan 2016 17:09

    Irrelevant?

    Knowingly committing a felony by a candidate for POTUS is anything but irrelevant.

    And forget her oh-so-clever excuses about not sending or receiving anything marked top secret or any other level of classification including SAP. If you work programs like those you know that anything generated related to that program is automatically classified, whether or not it's marked as such. And such material is only shared on a need to know basis.

    She's putting out a smokescreen to fool the majority of voters who have never or will never have special access. She is a criminal and needs to be arrested. Period.

    Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 17:00

    It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a barrel".

    DismayedPerplexed -> OnlyOneView 29 Jan 2016 16:40

    Are you forgetting W and his administration's 5 million deleted emails?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/03/12/the_george_w_bush_email_scandal_the_media_has_conveniently_forgotten_partner/

    Bob Sheerin 29 Jan 2016 16:40

    Consider that email is an indispensable tool in doing one's job. Consider that in order to effectively do her job, candidate Clinton -- as the Secretary of State -- had to be sending and receiving Top Secret documents. Consider that all of her email was routed through a personal server. Consider whether she released all of the relevant emails. Well, she claimed she did but the evidence contradicts such a claim. Consider that this latest news release has -- like so many others -- been released late on a Friday.

    It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant has enough sense to come in out of the rain.

    [Jan 27, 2016] In the Age of Trump, Will Democrats Sell Out More, Or Less Rolling Stone

    The truth is the Democratic Party is dominated by neoliberals and became just a left wing of Republican party. They sold themselves to Walll street and now they despite common folk much like republicans do. As gore vidal aptly noted: "There is one political party in this country, and that is the party of money. It has two branches, the Republicans and the Democrats, the chief difference between which is that the Democrats are better at concealing their scorn for the average man."
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Washington Post. ..."
    "... Meet the Press ..."
    www.rollingstone.com

    "Donald Trump is Democrats' greatest gift," applauded The Globalist, via Salon. "As Donald Trump surges in polls, Democrats cheer," countered The Washington Post. Even before Trump surged in the polls, Democrats were smacking their lips, a la DNC spokeswoman Holly Schulman, who cheekily applauded Trump for bringing "seriousness" to the Republican debate.

    ... ... ...

    But it turns out that mainstream Democrats believe just the opposite – that with the GOP spiraling, the party should now brook even less dissent within their ranks. They'd like a primary season with no debate at all, apparently.

    We saw a preview of how this rotten dynamic will work last week, when former Democratic congressman and current Signature Bank board member Barney Frank wrote a piece for Politico entitled "Why Progressives Shouldn't Support Bernie."

    This isn't about Hillary. The lesser evil argument has been a consistent feature of Democratic Party thought dating all the way back to the late Reagan years, long before Hillary Clinton was herself a candidate. The argument always hits the same notes:

    Frank hit all of these notes in his piece, with special emphasis on point #3. He insisted that people like Hillary, John Kerry and Joe Biden didn't mean it when they voted for the Iraq War, that they only did it out of political expediency. "I regard liberal senators' support for the Iraq War as a response to a given fraught political situation," Frank wrote, "rather than an indication of their basic policy stance."

    ... ... ...

    It's not an accident that The Daily Show turned into the most trusted political news program in America during the Bush years. When the traditional lefty media became so convinced by the "lesser evil" argument that it lost its sense of humor about the Democratic Party, people had to flee to comedy shows for objective news.

    Even worse, a lot of Democratic-leaning campaign reporters are to this day so convinced by the lesser evil argument that they go out of their way to sabotage/ridicule candidates who don't fit their idea of a "credible" opponent for Republicans.

    I've seen this countless times, usually with candidates like Dennis Kucinich who didn't have a real chance of winning the Democratic nomination (although early 2004 frontrunner Howard Dean also fell into this category). Sanders, who was ludicrously called the Trump of the left by bloviating Meet the Press hack Chuck Todd last week, is another longshot type getting the royal treatment by "serious" pundits now.

    But framing every single decision solely in terms of its utility in beating the Republicans leads to absurdities. Not every situation is a ballot with Ralph Nader on it.

    The Democrats insisted they had to support the Iraq War in order to compete with Bush, but they ended up not competing with Bush anyway and supporting a crappy war that no sane person believed in. All it won Democratic voters in the end was a faster trip into Iraq, and the honor of having supported the war at the ballot box.

    When the Democrats had a legitimate electoral threat in the Republicans to wave in front of their voters, they used that as currency to buy their voters' indulgence as they deregulated Wall Street, widened the drug war, abandoned unions in favor of free-trade deals and other horrors, and vastly increased the prison population, among innumerable other things.

    But now that the rival electoral threat is mostly gone, they want permission to take the whole primary season off so they can hoard their money for massive ad buys targeting swing votes in Tennessee or whatever. In other words, even though the road ahead is easier for them, they want increased latitude to take their core voters for granted.

    The Democrats could take this godsend of a Trump situation and use it as an opportunity to finally have a healthy primary season debate about what they want to stand for in the future. But nah to that. They'll probably just hoover donor cash and use press surrogates to bash progressives the way they always have. Trump or no Trump, if politicians don't have to work for your vote, they won't.

    [Jan 27, 2016] The Implications of Foreign Minister Lavrovs Snub of Victoria Nuland

    naked capitalism
    timbers, January 27, 2016 at 9:30 am

    "…the US need not push Russia into a corner, market forces are doing that work far more efficiently."

    I think you're confusing markets with the US government.

    It is the fall in the price of oil in part caused by political decisions, and partly Obama's illegal economic sanctions on Russia and US lies and propaganda and regime change directed at Russia that are "efficiently" doing what they're doing.

    Would be very surprised if Washington is successful with any of it's "market forces" regarding Russia because Russia knows if it loses this matchup in Syria and retreats, the part that comes next is it Uncle Sam funding ISIS like terrorists on Russian soil instead of Syria as it is now. And if Russia can free itself of Western economic orthodoxy and dump the dollar, it will never fear a falling Rubble so much ever again. Lets hope Putin orders a moving away of short term Russian dollar holdings, so that a deliberate Russian default sees the West lose more in lost Russian payments than it can seize in Russian assets held in their countries.

    Then who would "market forces be efficiently working for"?

    In broad simplified stroke, Russia is fighting on the side of the angels and US is the Darth Vader of the world. The U.N. has said we have the biggest refugee crisis since WWII and the refugees are all coming from nations the US is or has done regime change in. Aside for this meaning Obama is directly responsible for the suffering if tens of millions of families and deaths of hundreds of thousands, it also is producing maybe dangerous right wing political reactions in Europe.

    The Russians are smart enough to know the difference between economic sanctions and military threats and US funded/promoted terrorism. I've watched their actions long enough to trust them to make sound, intelligent responses (though was disappointed Lavrov agreed to allow Obama&Co funded Al-qaeda like terrorists to be included as legitimate political opponents of Assad in the peace talks).

    hidflect, January 27, 2016 at 6:56 am

    Why the hell should he shake her hand? She's an ideological, irrational hate-monger who despises Russia. Kerry was an ass for bringing her along.

    susan the other, January 27, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    Kerry was probably disciplining her or rehabilitating her; there musts be a tempered new consensus at State. You're coming with me Vicki and you are going to behave like a rational, sincere diplomat because you've got some big fences to mend.

    ltr, January 27, 2016 at 8:01 am

    Victoria Nuland is a monstrous diplomat who has soufght to cause or caused untold harm in American-Russian relations. She reflected Hillary Clinton's thinking and evidently reflects John Kerry's and ultimately the President's thinking.

    ltr, January 27, 2016 at 10:17 am

    Correcting and adding:

    Victoria Nuland is a monstrous diplomat who has sought to cause or caused untold harm in American-Russian relations. She reflected Hillary Clinton's thinking and evidently reflects John Kerry's and ultimately the President's thinking. (I could care less about the shaking or not shaking. Nuland's presence is a sign of disrespect to Russia and the Russians know that perfectly well. This post is needed and excellent.)

    susan the other, January 27, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    I think her presence and her humiliation (notice Kerry left the room) are the equivalent of an apology to Lavrov and Russia for her dingbat, destructive role in Ukraine.

    McKillop, January 27, 2016 at 10:55 am

    If Nuland and her posse are as instrumental in the devastation brought to Ukraine as reported then I think she deserves a damned good shaking.

    RUKidding, January 27, 2016 at 11:05 am

    Interesting, thanks. I think the article is worthy. I certainly could not blame Lavrov for snubbing this horrid excuse for a human being. The Kaganate of Nuland represents a portion of Obama's foreign policy and reflects what will be ahead should HRC win the election. The entire Kagan family should not be hired to do this work on behalf of "We the People," but there they are… doing their evil thing.

    oho, January 27, 2016 at 11:06 am

    Bill Kristol and David Brooks cries out wondering where all the conservatives have gone?

    The answer is right there….Nuland, Kristol and Co. have driven the GOP base who are even mildly aware of foreign affairs to Trump's camp.

    Gaylord, January 27, 2016 at 12:41 pm

    Nuland was not even appropriately dressed for a diplomatic meeting IMO.

    shinola, January 27, 2016 at 1:45 pm

    I guess I'll never be a diplomat.

    I would have spit on her (& I'm Amurkin)

    Wat, January 27, 2016 at 2:24 pm

    Perhaps Nuland thought Lavrov was a subject of some kind. She's probably too arrogant and stupid to figure it out, but she has now encountered a legitimate opponent. When the day of reckoning comes for her, she may learn what responsibility is.

    [Jan 25, 2016] Congress is Writing the President a Blank Check for War by Ron Pau

    Notable quotes:
    "... The senior Senator from Kentucky is scheming, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, to bypass normal Senate procedure to fast-track legislation to grant the president the authority to wage unlimited war for as long as he or his successors may wish. ..."
    "... The legislation makes the unconstitutional Iraq War authorization of 2002 look like a walk in the park. It will allow this president and future presidents to wage war against ISIS without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of ground troops. ..."
    "... President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush, in taking the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. ..."
    "... Instead of impeachment, which he deserved for the disastrous Libya invasion, Congress said nothing. House Republicans only managed to bring the subject up when they thought they might gain political points exploiting the killing of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi. ..."
    "... Vice President Joe Biden said that if the upcoming peace talks in Geneva are not successful, the US is prepared for a massive military intervention in Syria. Such an action would likely place the US military face to face with the Russian military, whose assistance was requested by the Syrian government. In contrast, we must remember that the US military is operating in Syria in violation of international law. ..."
    "... At the insistence of Saudi Arabia and with US backing, the representatives of the Syrian opposition at the Geneva peace talks will include members of the Army of Islam, which has fought with al-Qaeda in Syria. Does anyone expect these kinds of people to compromise? Isn't al-Qaeda supposed to be our enemy? ..."
    "... The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the Executive branch's power. The Founders understood that an all-powerful king who could wage war at will was the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why they created a people's branch, the Congress, to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful autocrat to drag the country to endless war. Sadly, Congress is surrendering its power to declare war. ..."
    January 24, 2016 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
    While the Washington snowstorm dominated news coverage this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was operating behind the scenes to rush through the Senate what may be the most massive transfer of power from the Legislative to the Executive branch in our history. The senior Senator from Kentucky is scheming, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, to bypass normal Senate procedure to fast-track legislation to grant the president the authority to wage unlimited war for as long as he or his successors may wish.

    The legislation makes the unconstitutional Iraq War authorization of 2002 look like a walk in the park. It will allow this president and future presidents to wage war against ISIS without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of ground troops. It is a completely open-ended authorization for the president to use the military as he wishes for as long as he (or she) wishes. Even President Obama has expressed concern over how willing Congress is to hand him unlimited power to wage war.

    President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush, in taking the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. In 2011 the president invaded Libya, overthrew its government, and oversaw the assassination of its leader, without even bothering to ask for Congressional approval. Instead of impeachment, which he deserved for the disastrous Libya invasion, Congress said nothing. House Republicans only managed to bring the subject up when they thought they might gain political points exploiting the killing of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi.

    It is becoming more clear that Washington plans to expand its war in the Middle East. Last week the media reported that the US military had taken over an air base in eastern Syria, and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said that the US would send in the 101st Airborne Division to retake Mosul in Iraq and to attack ISIS headquarters in Raqqa, Syria. Then on Saturday, Vice President Joe Biden said that if the upcoming peace talks in Geneva are not successful, the US is prepared for a massive military intervention in Syria. Such an action would likely place the US military face to face with the Russian military, whose assistance was requested by the Syrian government. In contrast, we must remember that the US military is operating in Syria in violation of international law.

    The prospects of such an escalation are not all that far-fetched. At the insistence of Saudi Arabia and with US backing, the representatives of the Syrian opposition at the Geneva peace talks will include members of the Army of Islam, which has fought with al-Qaeda in Syria. Does anyone expect these kinds of people to compromise? Isn't al-Qaeda supposed to be our enemy?

    The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the Executive branch's power. The Founders understood that an all-powerful king who could wage war at will was the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why they created a people's branch, the Congress, to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful autocrat to drag the country to endless war. Sadly, Congress is surrendering its power to declare war.

    Let's be clear: If Senate Majority Leader McConnell succeeds in passing this open-ended war authorization, the US Constitution will be all but a dead letter.


    Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Jan 24, 2016] I Ramped Up My Internet Security, and You Should Too by Julia Angwin

    Actually you should use separate PC for you banking transaction and taxes. this can be older PC or a cheap laptop bought specifically for this purpose, or at least a VM. But it should be a separate operating system from OS that you use to browse internet. Doing such things on Pc you use for regular internet browsing is playing with fire.
    Notable quotes:
    "... mmmm missed the best security resolution of all: go to 2-Factor Authentication (2FA) for all email financial services accounts: gmail, schwab, paypal, etc, etc - makes 30 character passwords much less important ..."
    "... if a financial service provider does not have 2FA, then drop them for incompetence ..."
    "... one of the best advise i received is; when doing banking on your PC make sure that is the only page open ..."
    "... The main issue with a full Linux system is you need a technical support person to back you up if you're not doing it yourself. Linux had the most CVE vulnerabilities after OS X ..."
    "... We really don't need more kooks thinking their messages to Aunt Tillie need strong encryption. ..."
    Jan. 20, 2016 | ProPublica

    Next up is ditching old, unused or poorly maintained software. Using software is a commitment. If you don't update it, you are wearing a "hack me" sign on your forehead. So if there are programs or apps that you don't use, delete them.

    This year, I decided to ditch my instant messaging client Adium. I was using it to enable encrypted chats. But like many cash-strapped open source projects, it is rarely updated and has been linked to many security vulnerabilities.

    m krosse, 4 days ago
    mmmm missed the best security resolution of all: go to 2-Factor Authentication (2FA) for all email & financial services accounts: gmail, schwab, paypal, etc, etc - makes 30 character passwords much less important

    if a financial service provider does not have 2FA, then drop them for incompetence

    Fred Garven

    one of the best advise i received is; when doing banking on your PC make sure that is the only page open (actually you should have a separate Pc for such transactions, or at least a VM -- NNB) the only item running on your PC at the time no other software or open web page should be running, because those other open software can possible view your account info.
    gilbert satchell , 4 days ago
    The greatest thing I did to upgrade my security was to dump anything and everything related to apple. Moved on over to open source Linux Mint and yes, I still use Tor.
    JV -> gilbert satchell, 4 days ago
    The main issue with a full Linux system is you need a technical support person to back you up if you're not doing it yourself. Linux had the most CVE vulnerabilities after OS X: http://www.cvedetails.com/top-...

    Jonathan

    So for Mr & Ms Average Internet user you are going to suggest they switch to Tor and the dark web? Before they worry about password security? Perhaps for a journalist anonymity is paramount but most folks are only going to expose themselves to even more malware down that path. Better to suggest that users switch to a browser that autoupdates itself and install the HTTPS Everywhere plugin. We really don't need more kooks thinking their messages to Aunt Tillie need strong encryption.

    Gordon Bartlett

    Sorry, but it's not clear what you mean by "updating your software." Try giving specific examples of, say, what a person running Windows on their PC or Android on their mobile phone would do on their own to upgrade, assuming, as you do, that the patches we periodically receive from MSFT, etc. are inadequate.

    JSF

    I am a retired IT professional from a federal government agency. Most of our users who needed secure communication were rather techno phobic. Try Explaining public/private keys. I have tried some programs like signal, PGP etc. They all require the recipient to use the same software. Signal said "invite your contacts" I am pretty sure any one getting this invite would consider it spam, pfishing or a virus.

    The sender might not know where the recipient is located. If the Corp locks their users machines it requires IT intervention to install anything which could be days or longer not really conducive to time sensitive information. We need to develop better technical solutions for people who are not tech savvy


    [Jan 20, 2016] Facebook the new social control paradigm

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Filter Bubble ..."
    "... Facebook and Your Marriage ..."
    "... In a presentation titled Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids at the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Rosen presented his findings based on a number of computer-based surveys distributed to 1,000 urban adolescents and his 15-minute observations of 300 teens in the act of studying. ..."
    "... Some of the negative side effects of Facebook use for teens that Rosen cited include: ..."
    "... Development of narcissism in teens who often use Facebook; ..."
    "... Presence of other psychological disorders, including antisocial behaviors, mania and aggressive tendencies, in teens who have a strong Facebook presence; ..."
    "... Increased absence from school and likelihood of developing stomach aches, sleeping problems, anxiety and depression, in teens who overdose in technology on a daily basis, including Facebook and video games; ..."
    "... Lower grades for middle school, high school and college students who checked Facebook at least once during a 15-minute study period; ..."
    "... Lower reading retention rates for students who most frequently had Facebook open on their computers during the 15-minute study period. ..."
    Zero Hedge

    We ARE what we THINK - not what we look at, or what we look like, or what we think we look like. In fact, the visual cortex can be highly deceptive when it comes to the functioning of the brain. Optical illusions exploit this brain trick.

    Most practically, overloading of the visual cortex reduces higher brain function to nearly zero. It's a very subtle process, not understood by many TV watchers. TV makes you stupid by overloading your visual cortex, at a certain Hz frequency, which affects your reptilian brain. This is why you get the munchies when you watch TV, or laugh without reason. Facebook is a lot more effective at this because the associations are stronger (i.e. your friends) and it's interactive - making the users feel as if they are controlling their reality.

    The fact is that users are not controlling Facebook - Facebook is controlling you. They have set the stage which is limited, and allow users few useful tools to manage this barrage on your mind. The only way to really stop this invasive virus from spreading: turn it off!

    Reasons to delete your Facebook:

    No one can argue that Facebook has provided families with means of keeping in touch at long distances. Many grandparents wouldn't otherwise see photos of their growing grandchildren. But there are hundreds of other social networks, private networks, and other methods, of doing the same thing - without all the 'crap' that comes with Facebook. Remember the days when we would email photos to each other? We'd spend time even cropping photos and choosing the best one. Now, users on Facebook will even snap away photos of their daily dinner, or inform the world that they forgot to wash their socks. Facebook users who engage in the practice of 'wall scanning' have little room in their brains for anything else.

    Children are also a consideration with Facebook. Web Filters actually block facebook the same way they block other illicit sites. Parents can probably relate to this article more than the average user. Average users have accepted spam crap as part of life. It's in our mailboxes, it's on billboards on our highways, it's everywhere. But really - it's not!

    Facebook has been banned in corporate networks, government offices, schools, universities, and other institutions. Workers at times would literally spend all day posting and reading Facebook. It's as useless as TV - but much more addicting. From Psychology Today:

    Below we review some research suggesting 7 ways that Facebook may be hurting you.

    1. It can make you feel like your life isn't as cool as everyone else's. Social psychologist Leon Festinger observed that people are naturally inclined to engage in social comparison. To answer a question like "Am I doing better or worse than average?" you need to check out other people like you. Facebook is a quick, effortless way to engage in social comparison, but with even one glance through your News Feed you might see pictures of your friends enjoying a mouth-watering dinner at Chez Panisse, or perhaps winning the Professor of the Year award at Yale University. Indeed, a study by Chou and Edge (2012) found that chronic Facebook users tend to think that other people lead happier lives than their own, leading them to feel that life is less fair.
    2. It can lead you to envy your friends' successes. Did cousin Annabelle announce a nice new promotion last month, a new car last week, and send a photo from her cruise vacation to Aruba this morning? Not only can Facebook make you feel like you aren't sharing in your friends' happiness, but it can also make you feel envious of their happy lives. Buxmann and Krasnova (2013) have found that seeing others' highlights on your News Feed can make you envious of friends' travels, successes, and appearances. Additional findings suggest that the negative psychological impact of passively following others on Facebook is driven by the feelings of envy that stem from passively skimming your News Feed.
    3. It can lead to a sense of false consensus. Sit next to a friend while you each search for the same thing on Google. Eli Pariser, author of The Filter Bubble (2012), can promise you won't see the same search results. Not only have your Internet searches grown more personalized, so have social networking sites. Facebook's sorting function places posts higher in your News Feed if they're from like-minded friends-which may distort your view of the world (Constine, 2012). This can lead you to believe that your favorite political candidate is a shoe-in for the upcoming election, even though many of your friends are saying otherwise…you just won't hear them.
    4. It can keep you in touch with people you'd really rather forget. Want to know what your ex is up to? You can…and that might not be a good thing.Facebook stalking has made it harder to let go of past relationships. Does she seem as miserable as I am? Is that ambiguous post directed at me? Has she started datingthat guy from trivia night? These questions might better remain unanswered; indeed, Marshall (2012) found that Facebook users who reported visiting their former partner's page experienced disrupted post-breakup emotional recovery and higher levels of distress. Even if you still run into your ex in daily life, the effects of online surveillance were significantly worse than those of offline contact.
    5. It can make you jealous of your current partner. Facebook stalking doesn't only apply to your ex. Who is this Stacy LaRue, and why is she constantly "liking" my husband's Facebook posts? Krafsky and Krafsky, authors of Facebook and YourMarriage (2010), address many common concerns in relationships that stem from Facebook use. "Checking up on" your partner's page can often lead to jealousy and even unwarranted suspicion, particularly if your husband's exes frequently come into the picture. Krafsky and Krafsky recommend talking with your partner about behaviors that you both consider safe and trustworthy on Facebook, and setting boundaries where you don't feel comfortable.
    6. It can reveal information you might not want to share with potential employers. Do you really want a potential employer to know about how drunk you got at last week's kegger…or the interesting wild night that followed with the girl in the blue bikini? Peluchette and Karl (2010) found that 40% of users mention alcoholuse on their Facebook page, and 20% mention sexual activities. We often think these posts are safe from prying eyes, but that might not be the case. While 89% of jobseekers use social networking sites, 37% of potential employers do, as well-and are actively looking into their potential hires (Smith, 2013). If you're on the job market, make sure to check your privacy settings and restrict any risqué content to "Friends Only", if you don't wish to delete it entirely.
    7. It can become addictive. Think society's most common addictive substances are coffee, cigarettes, and alcohol? Think again. The DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) includes a new diagnosis that has stirred controversy: a series of items gauging Internet Addiction. Since then, Facebook addiction has gathered attention from both popular media and empirical journals, leading to the creation of a Facebook addiction scale (Paddock, 2012; see below for items). To explore the seriousness of this addiction, Hofmann and colleagues (2012) randomly texted participants over the course of a week to ask what they most desired at that particular moment. They found that among their participants, social media use was craved even more than tobacco and alcohol.

    Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids

    The highlights of a Facebook study via endgadget article:

    In a presentation titled "Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids" at the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Rosen presented his findings based on a number of computer-based surveys distributed to 1,000 urban adolescents and his 15-minute observations of 300 teens in the act of studying.

    Some of the negative side effects of Facebook use for teens that Rosen cited include:

    Facebook will cause lower grades for students, but it's OK for adults? hmm...

    Facebook (FB) Investment Advice

    It's just a matter of time when this will result in a major scandal, FB stock will crash, and class action investigations will pile up. Lawyers will have to hire companies that automate workflow just to deal with the huge amount of securities class action settlements for this case. The Facebook (FB) IPO disaster was a telling sign about this issue. Sell it, block it, delete it, disgard it. Facebook is a bunch of trash. There's no technology behind it. There are a huge amount of struggling companies that have developed really ground breaking technology that will change the life of humans on this planet earth. Facebook (FB) is not one of those companies. Facebook (FB) is a disaster waiting to happen. It's a liability. And it's unsolveable.

    Delete your Facebook account, sell your Facebook stock if you have it - it's guaranteed that by doing so, you can grow your portfolio, increase your IQ and overall well being. Save your business, save your family, save your life - and delete this virus!

    [Jan 18, 2016] US will eventually bomb Iran as it bombed others - foreign policy expert by William Blum

    Looks like Iran if far from safe even after sanctions were lifted...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The idea that were the exceptional nation and have something very important to impart to the rest of the world, our marvelous values, American exceptionalism... Each party believes in that very strongly. They dont argue about that at all, except through their campaign debate, theyll take certain opposing views just to appear different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – world domination. ..."
    "... NATO is just an arm of the U.S. foreign policy, theres no point actually in making a distinction between US foreign policy and NATO policy – they are the same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO, US is its main supporter and financial source, theres no distinction between US and NATO, and they share the same view of American world domination. So, it doesnt matter whether Iran is doing this or that – they know that Iran is not a lover of an Empire, and anyone whos not a lover of the Empire has a short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you love Empire or not. ..."
    "... Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which Washington cannot tolerate: one, it has very powerful military capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washingtons policy, it is not a great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. Thats all it takes: you dont admire us and have military force – thats all it takes to be an enemy of Washington. ..."
    "... Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for domination, and if they can achieve domination peacefully – thats fine. If they cant, theyll use war. Its that simple. ..."
    "... They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making sure that Assad will not come back to power. They are bombing places all over Syria, which can be useful militarily to Syria. They have not forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or yesterday it is something different. You cant just look at today and say "theyre not fighting here and there" and think "Oh, Washington has finally found peace". No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow, or next year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination. ..."
    "... The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, there were four major states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya and overthrew that secular government. Then its been in the process now, for some years, attempting to overthrow the secular government in Syria. Theres no wonder that Middle East and South Asia have been taken over by religious fanatics: all the possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped out by Washington. Why will they stop now? ..."
    "... Well, I could say "yes", except that the US will cheat. They will use the same force to attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the same force to help overthrow Assad, and they will use the same force to suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America. They cannot be trusted, thats the problem. When they start to use force, theres no holding them back, and they dont care about the civilians. The civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria and Iraq is unlimited. So, for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world. ..."
    Apr 17 , 2015 | RT - SophieCo

    Obama's time as leader of the US is coming to an end - his term concludes next year. Wannabe presidents have already joined the race to the White House. And as President Obama goes through the final year of his rule, Washington suddenly changes its tone – now Iran is an appropriate nation to talk to, and it's okay to meet with Cuban and Venezuelan leaders. But what is in that change? Has Washington finally dropped its previous policies? What does Obama want to achieve? And will the new, as yet unknown, leader of America make any difference? We pose these questions to prominent historian, author of bestsellers on US foreign policies, William Blum, who is on Sophie&Co today.

    Sophie Shevardnadze :William Blum, historian and author of bestsellers like "Rogue State" and "America's Deadliest Export", welcome to the show, it's great to have you with us. Now, Hillary Clinton has announced she's running to become the Democrats' presidential candidate; Jeb Bush is also likely to put his bit forward for the Republicans. Now, Bush, Clinton – we've been here before. Who would be better candidate do you think? Not just for the U.S., but also for the world, like, global peace efforts, for instance?

    William Blum: I don't think US foreign policy will change at all, regardless of who is in the White House, Bush or Clinton, or who else is running. Our policy does not change... I can add Obama to that. It wouldn't even matter which party it is, Republican or Democrat, they have the same foreign policy.

    SS: Why do you think it's the same policy for both parties? Why do you think they are not different from each other?

    WB: Because America, for two centuries has had one basic, overriding goal, and that is world domination, at least from 1890s if not earlier, one can say that. World domination is something which appeals to both Republicans and Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives. The idea that we're the exceptional nation and have something very important to impart to the rest of the world, our marvelous values, American exceptionalism... Each party believes in that very strongly. They don't argue about that at all, except through their campaign debate, they'll take certain opposing views just to appear different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – world domination.

    SS: Now back in 2009 President Obama made it clear that the missile shield in Europe would no longer be necessary if the threat from Iran was eliminated – and nuclear deal with Iran was struck. Now, historic deal is close, but NATO is saying there will be no change in missile shield plans – why not?

    WB: Because NATO shares America's desire to dominate the world. NATO is just an arm of the U.S. foreign policy, there's no point actually in making a distinction between US foreign policy and NATO policy – they are the same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO, US is its main supporter and financial source, there's no distinction between US and NATO, and they share the same view of American world domination. So, it doesn't matter whether Iran is doing this or that – they know that Iran is not a lover of an Empire, and anyone who's not a lover of the Empire has a short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you love Empire or not.

    SS: But, can we be a little bit more precise about this "domination" theory – NATO has been strengthening its eastern borders with military building up on Russia's doorsteps, and a rapid reaction force to include 30,000 personnel – why this deployment? Who is it aimed against?

    WB: It is aimed against Russia. The US cannot stand anyone who might stay in the way of the Empire's expansion – and Russia and China are the only nations which can do that. Other nations, like Cuba or Iran or Venezuela are regarded as enemy just as well, because they have the polity influence: Cuba has influence over all of the Western hemisphere. That makes them a great enemy. But the basic criteria of Empire's expansion is whether you support Empire or not, and that excludes all the countries I've named – from Cuba to Russia.

    SS: Do you think U.S. would go as far as using force against its enemies?

    WB: Well, the US has used force against its enemies on a regular basis for two centuries. Of course they would use force! They've used force against Cuba, they invaded Cuba and they've supported Cuban exiles in all kinds of violent activities for 60 years. Violence is never far removed from the U.S. policy. Let me summarize something for the benefit of listeners: since 1946 the US has attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments. In the same time period it has attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders. It has bombed the people of 30 countries, it has suppressed revolutionary parties in at least 20 nations – and I forgot other factors on my list. This is a record unparalleled in all of human history, and there's no reason to think it is changing of will change, except if some superior force comes on a scene, that can actually defeat U.S.

    SS: But, you know, French intelligence – and France seems to be an ally of the U.S. - the French intelligence chief has recently said that they found no evidence of Russia planning to invade Ukraine. So why has NATO been pressing these claims of an imminent invasion so hard and for so long?

    WB: Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which Washington cannot tolerate: one, it has very powerful military capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washington's policy, it is not a great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. That's all it takes: you don't admire us and have military force – that's all it takes to be an enemy of Washington.

    SS: The problem is, there's a ceasefire that seems in place, right? But US paratroopers have arrived in Ukraine to train forces in the country, and it's not the first such deployment we've seen. So, with ceasefire agreement and peace deal on the way, why is Washington sending troops now?

    WB: They know very well that Ukraine is not...or those who live in Ukraine and support Russia, Washington knows very well that these people are not on their side, and will not be on their side, and there's no way to make them on our side, so, US is expecting to wipe them out militarily at some point in the near future. As soon as they can get all the politics in place, there's no backtracking from these policies. I must repeat myself again: Washington wants to dominate the world and anyone, including people in the south-eastern part of Ukraine, who don't share that view, they are enemies, and at some point they may be met with military force.

    SS: So are you saying that America doesn't want peace in Ukraine, because US is sending military personnel to Ukraine – like I've said – while Europeans are negotiating peace without America's involvement?

    WB: Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for domination, and if they can achieve domination peacefully – that's fine. If they can't, they'll use war. It's that simple.

    SS: So, like you've said, America is one of the main financiers of NATO; there's also Estonia and they meet NATO's funding goals. Why are the rest of its members lagging behind? Isn't the alliance important to them as well?

    WB: They have their own home politics that they deal with, they each have their own financial needs to deal with, they each have their own relation with Washington to deal with, it varies. It is not exactly the same in these countries, but overall, no member of NATO is going to fight against Washington. No member of NATO was going to support the insurgence in Ukraine – not one. So there's no need to go upon who is not paying and who is paying – none of them will ever go against Washington's policies in Ukraine or elsewhere.

    SS: Now, on the other hand, Europe, U.S. and Russia – they share similar security threats, issues like Syria, Islamic State, there's Afghanistan, and they are not going anywhere. Can these states work together if it is absolutely necessary, for example?

    WB: They don't have the same security threats. Washington just announces that people of various countries are enemies of the U.S. - that doesn't make them a threat. Syria, for example, is no threat to the U.S. Neither was Iraq, neither was Libya. U.S. invades one country after another, totally independent of whether they are threat or not. As long as they don't believe in the Empire, as long as they are helping enemies of the Empire. I mean, what threat was Libya to Washington? NATO invaded them without mercy, bombed them out of existence, they are a failed state now. What was their threat? There's no threat. If Russia doesn't announce Libya as a threat, it's not because Russia has a different foreign policy – it's because Russia is not so paranoid as the U.S., and Russia is not looking for world domination.

    SS: Russia has been criticized many times for its decision to supply air defense missile systems to Iran. Now, why is America so worried about anti-air missile defense Iran may get from Russia? It's not like Washington got plans to bomb Iran, right?

    WB: Of course they do, and so does Israel. You can't put aside those fears. Washington, as I mentioned before, has bombed more than 30 countries. Why would they stop now? Iran is a definite target of the U.S. and Israel, and it's very understandable that Iran would want to have advanced missile defense systems.

    SS: But look: US is staying out of Yemen now, it's not willing to commit ground troops to Iraq or get involved in Syria. It sometimes looks like Washington is growing weary of foreign interventions, lately.

    WB: They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making sure that Assad will not come back to power. They are bombing places all over Syria, which can be useful militarily to Syria. They have not forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or yesterday it is something different. You can't just look at today and say "they're not fighting here and there" and think "Oh, Washington has finally found peace". No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow, or next year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination.

    SS: Now, you've written in one of your books, the "Rogue State" that if you were President, you'd end all US foreign interventions at once. Can the US do that? Is it that simple? I mean, US left Iraq and look what happened.

    WB: If I were a President, yes, that's what I would do. And then I add, to the portion you've quoted, I add at the end of paragraph, on my fifth day in the office I would be assassinated. So, that's what happens to people who want to challenge the Empire's policies. But I would have great time for the first few days.

    SS: But can the US realistically do that? End all of their foreign interventions at once? Because, we see an example of Iraq, once they left, ISIS spread.

    WB: The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, there were four major states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya and overthrew that secular government. Then it's been in the process now, for some years, attempting to overthrow the secular government in Syria. There's no wonder that Middle East and South Asia have been taken over by religious fanatics: all the possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped out by Washington. Why will they stop now?

    SS: I see your point. While Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be exactly described as victories for American troops, I mean, the invasions have also resulted, for instance, in girls being able to go to school in Afghanistan, or Kurds finally having a state in Iraq, for instance.

    WB: I must tell you something and all your listeners. At one time, in 1980s, Afghanistan had a progressive government, where women had full rights; they even wore mini-skirts. And you know what happened to that government? The US overthrew it. So please, don't tell me about US policy helping the girls or the women of Afghanistan. We are the great enemy of females of Afghanistan.

    SS: You've also said that an end to US interventions would mean an end to terror attacks. What makes you think Islamic State and Al-Qaeda and other terror groups would cease to exist – and I'm talking about right now, I am not talking about "if America hadn't invaded them back then". Right now, if American interventions cease, what makes think that these terrorist groups would cease to exist as well?

    WB: It may be too late now. When I wrote that, it was correct. It may be too late now. After what we've done to all secular governments in the Middle East and in South Asia, after all that, I am not sure I would say the same thing again. We've unleashed ISIS, and they're not going to be stopped by any kind words or nice changes of policy by Washington. They have to be wiped out militarily. They are an amazing force of horror, and the U.S. is responsible for them, but the barn door may be closed, it may be too late now to simply change our policy.

    SS: So do you think US should use military force to eradicate these terrorist groups?

    WB: Well, I could say "yes", except that the US will cheat. They will use the same force to attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the same force to help overthrow Assad, and they will use the same force to suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America. They cannot be trusted, that's the problem. When they start to use force, there's no holding them back, and they don't care about the civilians. The civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria and Iraq is unlimited. So, for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world.

    SS: When I listen to you, it sounds like America overthrows all these governments and bombs all these countries, and makes revolutions – from people's point of view, revolutions and overthrows are really impossible if they are not conducive to people's moods on the ground. So you're saying the foreign policy has greatly contributed to the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East, but I wonder – don't locals have control over their own direction at all?

    WB: The locals had no say whatsoever on whether the US would bomb or not, they had no say whatsoever on whether the US would overthrow governments chosen by the people, often – they have no say in these things. Now, they may hate ISIS, or some of them might hate ISIS, but it's too late. They can't do anything about it. The world is in terrible position. The world had a chance, 30-40 years ago, to stop the US from all of these interventions. If NATO had been closed, the way the Warsaw Pact was closed, the Soviet Union closed the Warsaw Pact with the expectation that NATO will also go out of business – but the US did not do that, and it's too late now. I don't know what to say, what will save the world now.

    SS: You've mentioned Cuba and Venezuela in the beginning of the programme. Now, we witnessed several historic meetings recently, between President Obama and Cuba's President Raul Castro, also Obama's meeting with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – why is Obama now talking with states the US has long considered arch-enemies?

    WB: You must keep in mind, first of all, that nothing whatsoever has changed, as of this moment nothing has changed. We have to wait and see what happens, and I'm very sceptical. For example, with Cuba, the main issue is the US sanctions which have played havoc with Cuban economy and society. That has not changed, and I don't think it is going to change even in my lifetime. So, you can't apply some kind of changes taking place. Why Obama is saying these things he's saying now may have to do with his so-called "legacy". He knows his time is very limited, and he knows he has many enemies amongst progressives in the US and elsewhere. He may want to cater to them for some reason. I don't know, neither do you know, no one knows exactly why he's saying these things – but they don't mean anything yet. Nothing has changed whatsoever.

    SS: So you're saying there's really no substance in those meetings... Now, looking back, what would you call Obama's biggest achievements of his two terms - I mean, people say there's been a reconciliation with Cuba, with Iran, there's an earnest attempt to end US deployment in Iraq and in Afghanistan, he didn't move troops into Syria. Would you disagree with all of that?

    WB: Yes, all of that. There's no accomplishment whatsoever. He didn't move troops into Syria because of Russia, and not because of him making any change. He was embarrassed in that. John Kerry made a remark about "it would be nice if Syria would get rid of its chemical weapons – but that's not going to happen" he said, and then foreign minister Lavrov of Russia jumped in and said "Oh really? We'll arrange that" - and they arranged Syria to get rid of chemical weapons. That was, yes, a slip of the tongue by John Kerry, and he was embarrassed to challenge Lavrov. We can say the same thing about any of the things you've mentioned. There's no substance involved in any of these policies. The US has not relented at all over Syria. As I've mentioned before, they are bombing Syria's military assets, they are killing civilians every day. Syria is still a prime target of Washington, and they will never escape.

    SS: Thank you very much for this interesting insight, we were talking to William Blum, historian and author of bestsellers "Rogue State" and "America's Deadliest Export" discussing matters of the US foreign policy and what would happen if the US decides to end all of its foreign interventions at once. That's it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see you next time.

    [Jan 12, 2016] Deep State controls that county. Voting Is for Chumps

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny. ..."
    "... In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." ..."
    "... There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy. ..."
    "... "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey. ..."
    "... And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power. ..."
    "... The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. ..."
    "... It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide. ..."
    "... US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad. ..."
    "... @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus. ..."
    "... The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington). ..."
    "... The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump). ..."
    "... Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan. ..."
    "... "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen. ..."
    "... Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ..."
    "... Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest. ..."
    "... The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says. ..."
    "... You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign. ..."
    "... This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas. ..."
    "... Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle. ..."
    "... The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state. ..."
    "... Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Lone Wolf | Jan 11, 2016 3:56:12 PM | 9

    For all of those who keep on arguing about the benefits of one US candidate over the other, they could save their energy for more constructive efforts.

    Voting Is for Chumps: Veteran Congressional Staffer Says 'Deep State' Already Controls America

    You still have to pay your taxes, though

    One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny.

    In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."

    Then in October of the same year, a Tufts University professor published a devastating critique of the current state of American democracy, "National Security and Double Government," which catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term "double government": There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.

    The Boston Globe's write-up of the book was accompanied by the brutal headline, "Vote all you want. The secret government won't change." Imagine a headline like that during the Hope and Change craze of 2008. Yeah, you can't. Because nobody's that imaginative.

    Yes, people are beginning to smell the rot - even people who watch television in hopes of not having to confront the miserable reality that awaits them once they turn off their 36-inch flatscreens. In September, Jimmy Carter warned Oprah Winfrey:

    "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey.

    The live audience were probably hoping for free Oprah cars. Instead, an ex-president told them that their democracy is in the gutter. What a bummer.

    The latest canary in the coal mine is none other than ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling author Mike Lofgren, whose new book, "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government," confirms what is already painfully apparent:

    The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country. You have this enormous disparity of rich and poor; and you have this perpetual war, even though we're braying about freedom. We have a surveillance state, and we talk about freedom. We have internal contradictions. Who knows what this will fly into? It may collapse like the Soviet Union; or it might go into fascism with a populist camouflage.

    Some excerpts from Salon's recent interview with Lofgren:

    On how the deep state operates:

    Well, first of all, it is not a conspiracy. It is something that operates in broad daylight. It is not a conspiratorial cabal. These are simply people who have evolved [into] a kind of position. It is in their best interest to act in this way.

    And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power.

    On who (and what) is part of the deep state:

    The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. And you got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership, defense and intelligence committees who kind of know what's going on. The rest of Congress doesn't really know or care; they're too busy looking about the next election.

    Lofgren goes on to explain that the private sector works hand-in-hand with the deep state, regardless of which "party" is in power. According to Lofgren, "There are definable differences between Bush and Obama. However, the differences are so constrained. They're not between the 40-yard lines; they are between the 48-yard lines."

    Of course, millions of Americans will still enjoy rooting for the candidate whom they would most enjoy drinking Bud Lite Lime with, but probably deep in their hearts they all know they're doomed.

    The End.

    lysias | Jan 11, 2016 4:05:02 PM | 10

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?

    john | Jan 11, 2016 4:31:03 PM | 12

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?

    well, there's always this

    Zapruder Film Slow Motion (HIGHER QUALITY) - YouTube

    lysias | Jan 11, 2016 4:41:29 PM | 14

    @12, Only a coward would submit to such a threat, instead of regarding it as a challenge to be defied. If the worst came to the worst, one would at least have died heroically. And such a president, if he did die, could have taken steps before he died to make sure the public would learn how and why he died. So it would not be a death without purpose.

    How does the deep state ensure that only cowards become president?

    Lozion | Jan 11, 2016 4:58:21 PM | 15

    @10 Blackmail?
    Don't know if true but I remember reading something to the effect that after Obama was sworn in, he met with Bush sr. and co who told him that he now worked for them with threats to his family if he wouldn't submit..

    Lone Wolf | Jan 11, 2016 5:22:54 PM | 17

    @lysias@10

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?

    It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide.

    US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad.

    That, in a nutshell, is how the Deep State works.

    Bluemot5 | Jan 11, 2016 5:23:42 PM | 18

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?
    ...and then there is this... https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1024-tjeerd-andringa-exposes-the-kakistocracy/

    NotTimothyGeithner | Jan 11, 2016 5:45:15 PM | 23

    @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus.

    People hate being conned more than con men, and they concoct rationalizations for being duped that often defy logic.

    jo6pac | Jan 11, 2016 6:22:07 PM | 25

    For everyone on deep state there is this.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/guest-post-obama-team-feared-revolt-if-he-prosecuted-war-crimes.html

    #21 yep maybe the next pm for England. The candidate like obomber from the cia/m16.

    #11 I Agree

    jfl | Jan 11, 2016 7:00:06 PM | 28

    @10 'What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?'

    1. DS vets prospective candidates beforehand, only allowing candidates aligned with deep state authorities to begin with.
    2. DS doesn't make the payoff until successful applicants have left office with an 'acceptable' record.
    3. Assassination is always an option in extreme cases, real or imagined.

    ....

    fast freddy | Jan 11, 2016 7:46:05 PM | 33

    The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington).

    Now, if you want to be President, you've got to have "experience" in Congress or in state gubmint.

    The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump).

    juliania | Jan 11, 2016 8:50:00 PM | 37

    Lone Wolf @ 9

    That is a very good explanation of 'Deep State'. My only caveat is that it doesn't completely describe the oligarchy because it leaves out the corporate component. When money became speech a huge mountain of power devolved to the rich. They'd always had clout as the graphs describing the separation of the rich from the not-so-well off and the rest of us have made clear - but now the ugly truth is unavoidable and it all goes together to produce what President Carter described.

    It's just plain awful.

    ben | Jan 11, 2016 10:04:10 PM | 42

    An excellent site with a deep look at the deep state: http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/UNWELCOME_GUESTS

    V. Arnold | Jan 11, 2016 9:57:24 PM | 41

    Lone Wolf @ 9 & 17: Yep, that about covers it. Thanks.

    Stir this into the mix, and basically, America's system of governance is a fraud.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14545

    fast freddy | Jan 11, 2016 10:05:02 PM | 43

    Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan.

    "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0

    Susan Sunflowe r | Jan 11, 2016 10:54:55 PM | 49

    Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ... It looks to be another corker ...

    Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest.

    The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says.

    Many of the families owned businesses that clashed with environmental or workplace regulators, come under federal or state investigation, or waged battles over their tax bills with the Internal Revenue Service, Ms. Mayer reports. The Kochs' vast political network, a major force in Republican politics today, was "originally designed as a means of off-loading the costs of the Koch Industries environmental and regulatory fights onto others" by persuading other rich business owners to contribute to Koch-controlled political groups, Ms. Mayer writes, citing an associate of the two brothers.

    NYT: Father of Koch Brothers Helped Build Nazi Oil Refinery, Book Says .

    ... ... ...

    Yeah, Right | Jan 12, 2016 3:13:58 AM | 63

    @10 "What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?"

    Money.

    You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign.

    Without that largess you are not going to get elected, and people who have $billions are the going to be the very same people who make up the Deep State.

    So you either get with the program or you get.... nothing. Not a cent. Not a hope.

    This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas.

    Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle.

    Which, basically, is this: why are you bothering with any of these chattering monkeys? Their votes will end up belonging to people like me anyway, so you may as well just cut out the middle-man.

    jfl | Jan 12, 2016 3:30:05 AM | 64

    Great story chipnik ... you should continue in that vein more often.

    lysias @10 ... from guest77s recommended read ... @55 in the previous open thread ...

    The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government , chapter 10

    Eisenhower's innate midwestern sense of decency initially made him recoil from backing Britain's colonial siege of Iran. He rebuffed the Dulles brothers' advice, suggesting that it might be a better idea to stabilize Mossadegh's government with a $100 million loan than to topple it. If Eisenhower had followed through on his original instincts, the bedeviled history of U.S.-Iran relations would undoubtedly have taken a far different course.

    Realizing that Eisenhower was not inclined to defend British imperial interests, the Dulles brothers reframed their argument for intervention in Cold War terms. On March 4, 1953, Allen appeared at a National Security Council meeting in the White House armed with seven pages of alarming talking points. Iran was confronted with "a maturing revolutionary set-up," he warned, and if the country fell into Communist hands, 60 percent of the free world's oil would be controlled by Moscow. Oil and gasoline would have to be rationed at home, and U.S. military operations would have to be curtailed.

    In truth, the global crisis over Iran was not a Cold War conflict but a struggle "between imperialism and nationalism, between First and Third Worlds, between North and South, between developed industrial economies and underdeveloped countries dependent on exporting raw materials," in the words of Ervand Abrahamian.

    The author pours it on thick with zero references but, overall ...

    1. The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state.

    2. Ike came cheap. He felt it was his duty to help out if the people he looked up to thought he was the right man at the right time.

    3. Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike.

    The DS uses the same M.O. ... O tempora, o mores ... mutatis mutandis.

    [Jan 12, 2016] Deep State controls that county. Voting Is for Chumps

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny. ..."
    "... In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." ..."
    "... There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy. ..."
    "... "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey. ..."
    "... And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power. ..."
    "... The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. ..."
    "... It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide. ..."
    "... US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad. ..."
    "... @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus. ..."
    "... The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington). ..."
    "... The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump). ..."
    "... Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan. ..."
    "... "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen. ..."
    "... Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ..."
    "... Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest. ..."
    "... The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says. ..."
    "... You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign. ..."
    "... This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas. ..."
    "... Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle. ..."
    "... The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state. ..."
    "... Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Lone Wolf | Jan 11, 2016 3:56:12 PM | 9

    For all of those who keep on arguing about the benefits of one US candidate over the other, they could save their energy for more constructive efforts.

    Voting Is for Chumps: Veteran Congressional Staffer Says 'Deep State' Already Controls America

    You still have to pay your taxes, though

    One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny.

    In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."

    Then in October of the same year, a Tufts University professor published a devastating critique of the current state of American democracy, "National Security and Double Government," which catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term "double government": There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.

    The Boston Globe's write-up of the book was accompanied by the brutal headline, "Vote all you want. The secret government won't change." Imagine a headline like that during the Hope and Change craze of 2008. Yeah, you can't. Because nobody's that imaginative.

    Yes, people are beginning to smell the rot - even people who watch television in hopes of not having to confront the miserable reality that awaits them once they turn off their 36-inch flatscreens. In September, Jimmy Carter warned Oprah Winfrey:

    "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey.

    The live audience were probably hoping for free Oprah cars. Instead, an ex-president told them that their democracy is in the gutter. What a bummer.

    The latest canary in the coal mine is none other than ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling author Mike Lofgren, whose new book, "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government," confirms what is already painfully apparent:

    The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country. You have this enormous disparity of rich and poor; and you have this perpetual war, even though we're braying about freedom. We have a surveillance state, and we talk about freedom. We have internal contradictions. Who knows what this will fly into? It may collapse like the Soviet Union; or it might go into fascism with a populist camouflage.

    Some excerpts from Salon's recent interview with Lofgren:

    On how the deep state operates:

    Well, first of all, it is not a conspiracy. It is something that operates in broad daylight. It is not a conspiratorial cabal. These are simply people who have evolved [into] a kind of position. It is in their best interest to act in this way.

    And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power.

    On who (and what) is part of the deep state:

    The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. And you got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership, defense and intelligence committees who kind of know what's going on. The rest of Congress doesn't really know or care; they're too busy looking about the next election.

    Lofgren goes on to explain that the private sector works hand-in-hand with the deep state, regardless of which "party" is in power. According to Lofgren, "There are definable differences between Bush and Obama. However, the differences are so constrained. They're not between the 40-yard lines; they are between the 48-yard lines."

    Of course, millions of Americans will still enjoy rooting for the candidate whom they would most enjoy drinking Bud Lite Lime with, but probably deep in their hearts they all know they're doomed.

    The End.

    lysias | Jan 11, 2016 4:05:02 PM | 10

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?

    john | Jan 11, 2016 4:31:03 PM | 12

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?

    well, there's always this

    Zapruder Film Slow Motion (HIGHER QUALITY) - YouTube

    lysias | Jan 11, 2016 4:41:29 PM | 14

    @12, Only a coward would submit to such a threat, instead of regarding it as a challenge to be defied. If the worst came to the worst, one would at least have died heroically. And such a president, if he did die, could have taken steps before he died to make sure the public would learn how and why he died. So it would not be a death without purpose.

    How does the deep state ensure that only cowards become president?

    Lozion | Jan 11, 2016 4:58:21 PM | 15

    @10 Blackmail?
    Don't know if true but I remember reading something to the effect that after Obama was sworn in, he met with Bush sr. and co who told him that he now worked for them with threats to his family if he wouldn't submit..

    Lone Wolf | Jan 11, 2016 5:22:54 PM | 17

    @lysias@10

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?

    It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide.

    US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad.

    That, in a nutshell, is how the Deep State works.

    Bluemot5 | Jan 11, 2016 5:23:42 PM | 18

    What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?
    ...and then there is this... https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1024-tjeerd-andringa-exposes-the-kakistocracy/

    NotTimothyGeithner | Jan 11, 2016 5:45:15 PM | 23

    @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus.

    People hate being conned more than con men, and they concoct rationalizations for being duped that often defy logic.

    jo6pac | Jan 11, 2016 6:22:07 PM | 25

    For everyone on deep state there is this.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/guest-post-obama-team-feared-revolt-if-he-prosecuted-war-crimes.html

    #21 yep maybe the next pm for England. The candidate like obomber from the cia/m16.

    #11 I Agree

    jfl | Jan 11, 2016 7:00:06 PM | 28

    @10 'What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?'

    1. DS vets prospective candidates beforehand, only allowing candidates aligned with deep state authorities to begin with.
    2. DS doesn't make the payoff until successful applicants have left office with an 'acceptable' record.
    3. Assassination is always an option in extreme cases, real or imagined.

    ....

    fast freddy | Jan 11, 2016 7:46:05 PM | 33

    The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington).

    Now, if you want to be President, you've got to have "experience" in Congress or in state gubmint.

    The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump).

    juliania | Jan 11, 2016 8:50:00 PM | 37

    Lone Wolf @ 9

    That is a very good explanation of 'Deep State'. My only caveat is that it doesn't completely describe the oligarchy because it leaves out the corporate component. When money became speech a huge mountain of power devolved to the rich. They'd always had clout as the graphs describing the separation of the rich from the not-so-well off and the rest of us have made clear - but now the ugly truth is unavoidable and it all goes together to produce what President Carter described.

    It's just plain awful.

    ben | Jan 11, 2016 10:04:10 PM | 42

    An excellent site with a deep look at the deep state: http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/UNWELCOME_GUESTS

    V. Arnold | Jan 11, 2016 9:57:24 PM | 41

    Lone Wolf @ 9 & 17: Yep, that about covers it. Thanks.

    Stir this into the mix, and basically, America's system of governance is a fraud.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14545

    fast freddy | Jan 11, 2016 10:05:02 PM | 43

    Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan.

    "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0

    Susan Sunflowe r | Jan 11, 2016 10:54:55 PM | 49

    Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ... It looks to be another corker ...

    Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest.

    The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says.

    Many of the families owned businesses that clashed with environmental or workplace regulators, come under federal or state investigation, or waged battles over their tax bills with the Internal Revenue Service, Ms. Mayer reports. The Kochs' vast political network, a major force in Republican politics today, was "originally designed as a means of off-loading the costs of the Koch Industries environmental and regulatory fights onto others" by persuading other rich business owners to contribute to Koch-controlled political groups, Ms. Mayer writes, citing an associate of the two brothers.

    NYT: Father of Koch Brothers Helped Build Nazi Oil Refinery, Book Says .

    ... ... ...

    Yeah, Right | Jan 12, 2016 3:13:58 AM | 63

    @10 "What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state decides?"

    Money.

    You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign.

    Without that largess you are not going to get elected, and people who have $billions are the going to be the very same people who make up the Deep State.

    So you either get with the program or you get.... nothing. Not a cent. Not a hope.

    This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas.

    Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle.

    Which, basically, is this: why are you bothering with any of these chattering monkeys? Their votes will end up belonging to people like me anyway, so you may as well just cut out the middle-man.

    jfl | Jan 12, 2016 3:30:05 AM | 64

    Great story chipnik ... you should continue in that vein more often.

    lysias @10 ... from guest77s recommended read ... @55 in the previous open thread ...

    The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government , chapter 10

    Eisenhower's innate midwestern sense of decency initially made him recoil from backing Britain's colonial siege of Iran. He rebuffed the Dulles brothers' advice, suggesting that it might be a better idea to stabilize Mossadegh's government with a $100 million loan than to topple it. If Eisenhower had followed through on his original instincts, the bedeviled history of U.S.-Iran relations would undoubtedly have taken a far different course.

    Realizing that Eisenhower was not inclined to defend British imperial interests, the Dulles brothers reframed their argument for intervention in Cold War terms. On March 4, 1953, Allen appeared at a National Security Council meeting in the White House armed with seven pages of alarming talking points. Iran was confronted with "a maturing revolutionary set-up," he warned, and if the country fell into Communist hands, 60 percent of the free world's oil would be controlled by Moscow. Oil and gasoline would have to be rationed at home, and U.S. military operations would have to be curtailed.

    In truth, the global crisis over Iran was not a Cold War conflict but a struggle "between imperialism and nationalism, between First and Third Worlds, between North and South, between developed industrial economies and underdeveloped countries dependent on exporting raw materials," in the words of Ervand Abrahamian.

    The author pours it on thick with zero references but, overall ...

    1. The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state.

    2. Ike came cheap. He felt it was his duty to help out if the people he looked up to thought he was the right man at the right time.

    3. Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike.

    The DS uses the same M.O. ... O tempora, o mores ... mutatis mutandis.

    [Jan 12, 2016] M of A - The Saudi War On Everything Iran May Bounce Back As New Houthi Missile

    Notable quotes:
    "... The world is awash in blood because two sociopathic brothers (Dulles Brothers) took over US foreign policy and eventually killed a President. ..."
    "... There is reasonable possibility that the decision by the Saudi dictatorship to execute the high profile Shiite Sheikh Nimr may have been motivated, at least in part, by the desire to deflect the probability of retribution by the Shiite-hating Islamic State since the majority of the 47 executed along with Nimr were comprised of violent, hard-core Sunni devotees of ISIS. ..."
    "... No political system is exempt from corruption and in my opinion this outcome might even be somehow inexorable due to the nature of a state based polity. ..."
    "... there is a conflict at the top in saudi arabia and only a matter of time where one or the other goes? it seems that since Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud was given the position of 2nd in command in sa (and minister of defense responsibility), a lot of shite has hit the fan... this began with the war on yemen in march 26 2015 and continues on in everything else ..."
    "... Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    The BS nuclear deal between US and Iran was to get Iran to massively reduce its nuclear capabilities, which except for a war which the US is no way near ready for, So sophisticated subversion and sanction pressure was used instead.
    And those corporations wanting access to Iran now what access to extract from Iran, not contribute to it's economy.

    All the huffing and puffing by the Israeli state terrorists and Saudi tyranny about that deal, simply betrays their brutal idiotic methods, compared to more sophisticated methods to the US empire is capable of.

    And The US already set up the war showdown between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with its divide and conquer policy, and its massive sales of weapons to the Saudi tyranny. That war is just A matter of time. It's proxies first and then it's full scale engagement between those two states.

    tom | Jan 4, 2016 2:22:50 PM | 2
    Unless you know something and are not sharing this article is speculation. Arming the Houthi's would, in my opinion, be about as intelligent as was arming the Taliban in the 1980's. The armed Houthi's may take care of the Saudi's (just like the Taliban took care of the Russians in that case) but then who would take care of the Houthi's? and what other havoc would they cause? Different players here but the tactic would be similar and have the same potential of backfiring in the long run.
    Khalid Shah | Jan 4, 2016 2:24:45 PM | 3
    B, from what you are saying your 'smart move by KSA' is looking more and more like another dumb move by KSA... If the Saudis had executed just 'al-Qaeda types' and put out a press release showing how they are cracking down on terrorism the kingdom would be attracting support from their allies right now--"Those Saudis are brutal but at least they know how to get the job done." Of course, it's unclear how much right wing/Islamic State backlash they might have gotten domestically but I suspect it would have been minimal as long as the unofficial KSA paychecks to the terrorists kept coming.
    WorldBLee | Jan 4, 2016 2:28:11 PM | 4
    There is another reason why Saudi Arabia created a crisis just after the killing of Alloush.

    Saudi Arabia has failed to set a serious Syrian opposition group. It has just lost its strongest ally, Alloush, the leader of the militias it has been supporting for years. It now worries that the other side, the Syrian government will win an overwhelming diplomatic victory if the planned meeting in Geneva takes place. Therefore it is doing all it can to prevent that meeting to happen. The execution of Sheikh Nimr and the subsequent rupture of the diplomatic relation with Iran is the first move. More of these desperate gesticulation are necessary. But as they'll fail to change much of Iran and Russia's determination to move on on Syria, it will only confirm to the whole world that it is not Bashar al Assad and his government that are weak, isolated and on the defensive, but rather Saudi Arabia and its inept and amateurish leadership.

    virgile | Jan 4, 2016 4:09:26 PM | 12
    #12 -- ""Saudi Arabia has failed to set a serious Syrian opposition group. It has just lost its strongest ally, Alloush, the leader of the militias it has been supporting for years. ""

    good, excellent point ... this execution could simply have been payback ... and/or "dog ate my homework" excuse providing for why they're going to, say, no-show in Vienna ...

    Susan Sunflower | Jan 4, 2016 4:17:10 PM | 14
    It could be that the killing of Sheikh Nimr is to the Saudis what the shooting of the Russian plane has been to the Turks: a provocative blunder with unexpected consequences.
    The two Sunni leaders, Erdogan and King Salman are very close to loose the 4 years old game of toppling Bashar al Assad. In these desperate moves, are they hoping to reshuffle the cards by provoking Syria's allies?
    virgile | Jan 4, 2016 4:28:01 PM | 18
    Andoheb,

    They are Quahir1 missiles. While the Yemeni Forces claim they are upgraded , obsolete Soviet ballistic missiles, re-engineered in Yemen,

    Visual identification suggests that they are ancient, obsolete SAM-3 antiaircraft missiles, ( which the Yemen Army had thousands), with a new warhead and a guidance system conversion to make them ballistic missiles.

    To date, Iran has supplied nothing to the Ansrallah Movement, other than kind words,.....

    And a single shipment of Humanitarian aid to Yemeni NGO's.

    Brunswick | Jan 4, 2016 4:57:38 PM | 23
    Sunni Islam is actually more democratic than Shia Islam. The Wahabist strain is just such a huge departure from traditional Sunni values. I wish I saved all my conversations with a Muslim friend about these issues. We boiled it down to making a comparison that Christians can understand. Sunni Islam is similar to Protestantism is that it is highly decentralized. Anyone that reaches that status of Iman (Minister) can issue a religious ruling (fatwa). Shia are similar to Catholics. The Grand Ayatollahs are bishops but in the Iranian government the Grand Ayatollah is the Pope.

    The Wahabist are....I do not know how to properly describe them.

    Sunni have a natural inclination to a democratic government (I'm not saying that Shia do not, 1954...). Western Imperialism has prevented every moderate attempt. The only place left for Muslims to organize is in radical religious groups. All other modes of reform have been destroyed. We are all witnessing the children of the Dulles era CIA The world is awash in blood because two sociopathic brother's (Dulles Brothers) took over US foreign policy and eventually killed a President.

    AnEducatedFool | Jan 4, 2016 5:11:46 PM | 24
    I still find it very interesting that everyone seems to think that these "smart, stupid" whatever you want to call them are actually KSA independent choices

    Lol they are flying the worlds most expensive toys in Yemen and getting their asses handed to them. Trust me when i tell you this. Saudis and Emirate Arabs in general are nothing but Bedouin desert dwellers or as the line from titanic goes "new money"

    If people are too blind to see the British/US/Israeli hands in this then go ahead and keep debating about the smoke screen or the true colour of wool being pulled over your eyes.

    Saudis and Bahrain are not independent states. They are military bases for the US against Iran, Rusia, China grabbing control of the rest of the middle east.

    Executing "rabble rousing" Nimr , will in turn be the downfall of KSA and all these "Analysts" think tanks and what not will finally realize that the ME is not what it always seems

    Deebo | Jan 4, 2016 5:33:05 PM | 29
    Iraq Says Mosque Bombings Were False Flag ISIS Attacks
    "An Iraqi official blamed the Islamic State group on Monday for the bombing of two Sunni mosques in a predominantly Shiite city in southern Iraq the previous night, saying the militant group seeks to stoke sectarian tensions," AP reports. ISIS "did this to inflame sectarian strife in the country," provincial security official Falah al-Khafaji contends.

    ZeroHedge speculates:

    Taking it a step further, one has to wonder whether there's a larger plan here. That is, if we assume ISIS, like the multitude of other Sunni extremist groups operating in the region, is taking its cues from handlers and benefactors, it's not difficult to imagine that "someone" could be attempting to create an excuse for an intervention in Iraq.
    Jackrabbit | Jan 4, 2016 6:07:47 PM | 33
    Save that date -- the next installment of Syrian peace negotiations:
    "[Staffan] De Mistura is due to launch peace talks between Assad's government and the opposition in Geneva on January 25, but it remained unclear whether the Iran-Saudi crisis would have an impact on that plan.

    De Mistura has flown to Ryadh and is due to then visit Tehran ... Yeah, I can't see these two parties sharing a table ....

    ""UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "deeply dismayed" by the Saudi execution of 47 people including prominent Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, who has been critical of the Sunni royal family and was a driving force behind anti-government protests in 2011. snip

    In his talks with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Jubeir, Ban urged Saudi Arabia "to renew its commitment to a ceasefire" in Yemen after the Riyadh-led coalition announced on Sunday that it was ending the truce with Iran-backed rebels in the country.[yemen]

    The U.N. envoy for Yemen, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, was to hold talks in Riyadh on Wednesday to push for a renewed ceasefire.

    Alaraiya.net

    It was a brilliant move in an effort to hit "re-set back to nil" at a moment when "progress" might appear on the far horizon.

    Susan Sunflower | Jan 4, 2016 7:10:48 PM | 34
    @12 virgile '... it is not Bashar al Assad and his government that are weak, isolated and on the defensive, but rather Saudi Arabia and its inept and amateurish leadership.'

    Yes. Solid observation. How come their best friends in USrael didn't warn them of that particular aspect of their stupid act?

    @24 AEF ' The world is awash in blood because two sociopathic brother's (Dulles Brothers) took over US foreign policy and eventually killed a President. '

    Ain't that the truth. Because of those two and their succeeding stream of 'investment bankers' at the CIA

    @33 SS from your link 'UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "deeply dismayed" by the Saudi execution of 47 people including prominent Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, who has been critical of the Sunni royal family and was a driving force behind anti-government protests in 2011.'

    Ban Ki-moon is a US poodle, so this further indicates to me that USrael wouldn't mind at all if there were a change in management in Saudi Arabia ... and if the place goes up for grabs, why they - NATO - will just have to step in to provide 'stability'.

    jfl | Jan 4, 2016 7:47:02 PM | 36
    SS@34

    Iran is not known to allow irate citizens to run amuck so it might be a planned Basij attack on the KSA Embassy, they certainly came prepared to torch the place and met little resistance from Iranian security.

    Wayoutwest | Jan 4, 2016 8:03:51 PM | 39
    @24 AnEducatedFool,

    Would the Wahhabis be equivalent to a Christian Reconstructionist movement gone militant with state funding?

    @39 ATH,

    I don't see how we can say policies are decided at the ballot box unless they can recall their "representatives" as easily as they can elect them. It's part of the weak-mindedness of liberal society that management somehow equals democracy.

    Jonathan | Jan 4, 2016 8:09:21 PM | 41
    @Wayoutwest

    "Iran is not known to allow irate citizens to run amuck so it might be a planned Basij attack on the KSA Embassy..."

    The same can be said about any country in the world and there is no need for a militia to do that. It is a well known facts, maybe not by you but among those who are following the real news, that the more than 10 or so Iranian embassies and consulates ransacked et pillaged during the 80's in the European cities were all done under the complacent eyes and noses of the security services of the protecting states. In actuality I believe doing it the Iranian way, i.e. keeping a façade of deniability, is more honorable that what the European state did... and for some are still doing.

    ATH | Jan 4, 2016 8:16:38 PM | 43
    @44 ATH,

    I'm uneasy about Rouhani's rapprochement with the usurious Western financial sector[1], but from a systems standpoint I'm more worried about corruption in the assemblies than the figureheads. The usual failure mode of republics is that there is nothing binding the alleged "representative" to the popular will post-election and no effective means to stop disloyalty in progress. In the US, especially, we've had ample experience with "representatives" who, as an assembly, invariably take on some sacred duty of delivering concrete material benefits to elites while delivering excuses and pat stories (according to their Party's mythology) to their constituents. The question always on my mind is, how to prevent the color of public interest from enabling disproportional private benefit?

    It could be that I'm not thinking Islamically enough with respect to the roles of citizens within an Islamic society. But if Iran has a system that guarantees sturdy alignment of policy outcomes with citizens' collective interests, even against vested interests of state officials, I'd love to hear it.

    [1] Islamic finance on Wall Street would mean dropping shock troops onto one end and chopping every right hand down to the other end. I doubt I will be seeing this in the near future.

    Jonathan | Jan 4, 2016 9:42:01 PM | 51
    @44 ATH,

    I'm uneasy about Rouhani's rapprochement with the usurious Western financial sector[1], but from a systems standpoint I'm more worried about corruption in the assemblies than the figureheads. The usual failure mode of republics is that there is nothing binding the alleged "representative" to the popular will post-election and no effective means to stop disloyalty in progress. In the US, especially, we've had ample experience with "representatives" who, as an assembly, invariably take on some sacred duty of delivering concrete material benefits to elites while delivering excuses and pat stories (according to their Party's mythology) to their constituents. The question always on my mind is, how to prevent the color of public interest from enabling disproportional private benefit?

    It could be that I'm not thinking Islamically enough with respect to the roles of citizens within an Islamic society. But if Iran has a system that guarantees sturdy alignment of policy outcomes with citizens' collective interests, even against vested interests of state officials, I'd love to hear it.

    [1] Islamic finance on Wall Street would mean dropping shock troops onto one end and chopping every right hand down to the other end. I doubt I will be seeing this in the near future.

    Jonathan | Jan 4, 2016 9:42:01 PM | 51
    @Lone Wolf

    "Pariah status" or "rebuilding" a presumed broken relations "with the world" is what you have been made to believe by the MSM. Iran is actually reducing tension in the nuclear dossier to better work out its strategic realignment that are based on sovereignty and political independence. The first sign of which has already appeared in a strategic alliance in Syria.

    ATH | Jan 4, 2016 9:57:05 PM | 55

    There is reasonable possibility that the decision by the Saudi dictatorship to execute the high profile Shiite Sheikh Nimr may have been motivated, at least in part, by the desire to deflect the probability of retribution by the Shiite-hating Islamic State since the majority of the 47 executed along with Nimr were comprised of violent, hard-core Sunni devotees of ISIS.

    From the Saudi prism, the orgy of executions was on the one hand, a performance intended to downplay growing criticism of the kingdom's funding of the globally despised ISIS and on the other end, an act of appeasing ISIS by killing this highly popular Shiite leader. Nimr's execution could have been intended to mitigate the group's rage and reduce the potential to target Saudi institutions instead of Shiite mosques as they have done in the past.

    metni | Jan 4, 2016 10:11:51 PM | 58
    @Jonathan

    This sounds off topic but for the sake of a reply,

    No political system is exempt from corruption and in my opinion this outcome might even be somehow inexorable due to the nature of a state based polity. The difference between the Iranian political scaffolding and the European systems in particular but also, at the limit, the American one is that the former is based on a younger society and still in formation while the latters have already passed the middle-age period in their life cycle.

    And to answer your question: "how to prevent the color of public interest from enabling disproportional private benefit?" the only way for this to be possible in my opinion is the breakdown of states with globalist reach into local and regional states with decision-making being directly made by citizens... a Helvetic kind of confederation.

    ATH | Jan 4, 2016 10:18:09 PM | 59
    Not to forget, nearly a thousand Iranians died during the hajj in Mecca:

    The 2015 Mina Crush disaster has increased tensions in the already-strained relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran, led to calls from politicians in a number of Muslim nations for changes in oversight of Mecca and the Hajj, and bolstered opposition to King Salman among the senior members of the Saudi Arabian royal family.

    Oui | Jan 4, 2016 10:51:34 PM | 63
    how many think like this author - michael krieger from sept 30th 2015, that there is a conflict at the top in saudi arabia and only a matter of time where one or the other goes? it seems that since Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud was given the position of 2nd in command in sa (and minister of defense responsibility), a lot of shite has hit the fan... this began with the war on yemen in march 26 2015 and continues on in everything else ..

    i don't know who is doing what inside the sa hierarchy, but it sure comes across as chaotic and troublesome.. regime change is a distinct probability! which guy goes? the old guy, or the young guy? scary either way..

    james | Jan 5, 2016 12:10:18 AM | 70
    A couple of assassins and mass-murderers who are grateful for the chance to compare themselves to the Saudis and find the Saudis lacking ...

    US warned Saudis of Nimr's execution in advance

    "There have been direct concerns raised by US officials to Saudi officials about the potential damaging consequences of following through on the execution, on mass executions, in particular, the execution of" al-Nimr, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Monday.
    Turkey: Politics behind Nimr's execution
    Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus told a press conference on Monday that the execution did not have Ankara's support.

    "We are against all instances of capital punishment, especially when it is politically motivated," he said.

    Both had meetings with the Saudis before their mass beheading festival and could have saved the Saudi junior woodchuck if they wanted to. I wonder what's in the collapse of the present Saudi regime for them? Control of orphaned Saudi oilfields in the one case and of orphaned Saudi Mamluk terrorists in the other?
    jfl | Jan 5, 2016 2:48:31 AM | 71
    The Real Reason Why Saudi Arabia Executed Sheikh Nimr

    by Shireen Hunter

    http://lobelog.com/the-real-reason-why-saudi-arabia-executed-sheikh-nimr/

    Nor is this mere speculation. Saudi Arabia for some time has been trying to provoke Iran. First there was the Saudi military intervention in Bahrain. Then there were Saudi efforts to topple the Assad regime. These were followed by the bombing of the Iranian embassy in Beirut in 2013, which killed a number of Lebanese as well as Iran's cultural attaché. More recently, during the Haj ceremonies, Saudi authorities harassed two Iranian youth and a large number of Iranian pilgrims died as well. The Saudi government, moreover, created many difficulties for Iranian officials trying to locate, identify, and transfer the bodies of the victims to Iran. And of course Saudi Arabia launched a full-scale war in Yemen against what it claimed were Iranian-backed rebels.

    Another provocation came last month when Nigerian authorities arrested the country's Shia leader, Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaki, and the Nigerian army killed close to a thousand Shias for spurious reasons. Following Sheikh Zakzaki's arrest Saudi King Salman reportedly congratulated Nigeria's president for dealing effectively with terrorism (the king's definition of terrorism apparently extends to the peaceful observance of religious rituals). Meanwhile, the abuse of the Shias in other countries, notably Azerbaijan, continued as did their indiscriminate killing by Saudi- influenced groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as illustrated by the beheading in November of a nine-year-old Hazara girl in Afghanistan.

    virgile | Jan 5, 2016 9:38:11 AM | 75
    One also shouldn't forget that there's struggle going on between the "Group Abdullah" and the "Group Salman".

    Abdullah was the former king and Salman is the current king of Saudi Arabia. Former king Abdullah and his "followers" did A LOT OF things to reduce the influence/power of the "Group Salman". E.g. Abdullah appointed his followers to influential positions.

    But now with Salman on the throne, Salman is doing the same thing with his followers. Appoint as much of followers to influential positions as possible. And it seems the struggle is far from over.

    And Saudi Arabia is in "not the best of financial shapes". No surprise there. A combination of:
    - Falling/Fallen oil prices.
    - VERY large military expenses (Yemen, Syria).
    - Increased expenses for the saudi population. Saudi Arabia increased payments to its citizens to bribe them into not revolting during & after the "Arab Spring" in 2011.
    - ((Very) large) subsidies for Healthcare, electricity, gasoline.

    Recently the saudi government increased the price of gasoline by 50% (!!!!) from 15 cents to 22 cents. Outrageous !!!!!!!!

    Willy2 | Jan 5, 2016 9:38:47 AM | 76
    @onatan@73

    Aircraft keep falling out of the sky over Yemen quite regularly. They are always described as the result of 'technical reasons'. That covers a whole range of possibilities from engine failure to back end of aircraft disappearing after missile strike.

    Here is a report on a recent incident (30 Dec) involving a Bahraini F-16.

    Thanks for those links, it's been my impression Yemen army/Houthis have no flak capability, hence the Saudis control of the skies, and the carnage on civilians/damage to infrastructure.

    I have read news of Saudi fighter jets downed over Yemen due to "technical failure" as you mentioned, that could or could not be the Houthis/Yemen army. I certainly hope they develop AA defenses, as the Vietnamese progressively did, that would help diminish the carnage and will give the Saudis a pause in their impunity.

    Lone Wolf | Jan 5, 2016 11:57:11 AM | 83
    The U.S. Doesn't "Need" to "Stand With" the Saudis

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-u-s-doesnt-need-to-stand-with-the-saudis/

    D | Jan 5, 2016 7:59:23 PM | 94
    Yesterday, I saw a headline on (I think) RT that said the US was "standing with the Saudis"
    Today, I saw this.

    Bloomberg oah Feldman: U.S. Can Afford to Side With Iran Over Saudis

    To be sure, the Iranian government is a complex organism with many moving parts, and the whole response likely wasn't planned or coordinated by a single actor. But the result was highly effective. It showed the Saudis that Iran took the execution as directed toward it. And it simultaneously gave other countries the cover they would need to side with Iran.

    The Americans, rather remarkably, took the Iranian side. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry let it be known that he was talking to his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif. In the past, a U.S. secretary of state would've reached out solely to the Saudi foreign minister, not least because there were no official diplomatic ties to Iran. Meanwhile, a former deputy CIA director, Michael Morell, publicly praised the Iranians for their handling of the situation in Tehran. This was downright astonishing, given Americans' historical associations with embassy occupation there.
    bqqTo be sure, the Iranian government is a complex organism with many moving parts, and the whole response likely wasn't planned or coordinated by a single actor. But the result was highly effective. It showed the Saudis that Iran took the execution as directed toward it. And it simultaneously gave other countries the cover they would need to side with Iran.

    The Americans, rather remarkably, took the Iranian side. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry let it be known that he was talking to his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif. In the past, a U.S. secretary of state would've reached out solely to the Saudi foreign minister, not least because there were no official diplomatic ties to Iran. Meanwhile, a former deputy CIA director, Michael Morell, publicly praised the Iranians for their handling of the situation in Tehran. This was downright astonishing, given Americans' historical associations with embassy occupation there.

    Susan Sunflower | Jan 6, 2016 1:50:10 AM | 97
    metni says:

    Further efforts devoted at tightening our embrace of the House of Saud is less a choice than a consummation of an existing Faustian bargain

    Faustian bargain? it's fucking national security doctrine .

    Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force

    john | Jan 6, 2016 9:05:15 AM | 99
    @Lozion@96

    Can any of you recommend a good blog/site following the events in Yemen? With the media blackout it is very hard to find out was is really going on on the ground.. Txs.

    Try the Russian Defense Forum, they have two sections on Yemen, Yemeni Conflict: News, and Yemeni Conflict: News #2.

    There is very little news on Yemen, and I don't know of any bloggers following Yemen per se. Hope that helps.

    [Jan 11, 2016] Obama seeks Silicon Valley aid to spy on social media

    Notable quotes:
    "... New spy programs launched by the administration will seek to collect and analyze data from social media networks and develop covert operations that allow the government to use the networks for its own counter-radicalization schemes, the US officials said. ..."
    "... The events of the past decade-and-a-half have made clear that the entire corporate and political establishment favors an agenda of police-state spying on the American population. ..."
    "... The NSA has been privatized. All American institutions are now dedicated to our destruction. ..."
    www.wsws.org
    During the tech summit, the White House delegation circulated proposals calling for tech firms to develop tools to "measure radicalization" levels among different populations ... the White House announced new programs against "violent extremism" in the United States, including the establishment of a new Countering Violent Extremism task force

    ... [which] ... will seek to "integrate and harmonize" the operations of "dozens of federal and local agencies," ... [which] ... will "coordinate all of the government's domestic counter-radicalization efforts,"

    ... The State Department will also create a new Global Engagement Center to coordinate US government social media work internationally, a White House statement said.

    New spy programs launched by the administration will seek to collect and analyze data from social media networks and develop covert operations that allow the government to use the networks for its own counter-radicalization schemes, the US officials said.

    Media reports this week highlighted one recent contribution, ludicrously titled "ISIS in America: From Retweets to Raqqa," published in December 2015 by George Washington University's "Program on Extremism."

    The events of the past decade-and-a-half have made clear that the entire corporate and political establishment favors an agenda of police-state spying on the American population.

    jfl | Jan 9, 2016 7:25:14 AM | 66

    He'll get it, too. Google, Facebook, the whole parasitic silicon valley culture is on board since the passage of the omnibus budget act in the last dark days of December 2015, bearing DIVISION N-CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2015 within. The NSA has been privatized. All American institutions are now dedicated to our destruction.

    I have an email account at posteo.de . How much longer can it be before a similar effort is mounted outside the USA to take over the search function and social media on the internet? If it's 'free' - you're the product.

    This should write the end to American technical dominance of the internet. I hope it will. American based TNCs, operating under American 'law', now working hand-in-glove with the American government simply cannot be trusted.

    And they wrote the law that granted them immunity for betraying their 'customers and supported it. They're on board for our betrayal and destruction. Always have been.

    [Jan 10, 2016] Neoliberalism Raises Its Ugly Head in South America: Washington Targets Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina by Jack Rasmus

    Notable quotes:
    "... The USA used to complain about Japan Inc. Of course now it's USA as Neolibraconia Inc. and it's business is war along all lines : military, economic, environmental, social ... ..."
    www.counterpunch.org

    After 9-11, the United States focused its most aggressive foreign policy on the Middle East – from Afghanistan to North Africa. But the deal recently worked out with Iran, the current back-door negotiations over Syria between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and the decision to subsidize, and now export, U.S. shale oil and gas production in a direct reversal of U.S. past policy toward Saudi Arabia – together signal a relative shift of U.S. policy away from the Middle East.

    With a Middle East consolidation phase underway, U.S. policy has been shifting since 2013-14 to the more traditional focus that it had for decades: first, to check and contain China; second, to prevent Russia from economically integrating more deeply with Europe; and, third, to reassert more direct U.S. influence once again, as in previous decades, over the economies and governments in Latin America.

    ... ... ...

    Argentina & Brazil: Harbinger of Neoliberal Things to Come

    Should the new pro-U.S., pro-Business Venezuela National Assembly ever prevail over the Maduro government, the outcome economically would something like that now unfolding with the Mauricio Macri government in Argentina. Argentina's Macri has already, within days of assuming the presidency, slashed taxes for big farmers and manufacturers, lifted currency controls and devalued the peso by 30 percent, allowed inflation to rise overnight by 25 percent, provided US$2 billion in dollar denominated bonds for Argentine exporters and speculators, re-opened discussions with U.S. hedge funds as a prelude to paying them excess interest the de Kirchner government previously denied, put thousands of government workers on notice of imminent layoffs, declared the new government's intent to stack the supreme court in order to rubber stamp its new Neoliberal programs, and took steps to reverse Argentine's recent media law. And that's just the beginning.

    Politically, the neoliberal vision will mean an overturning and restructuring of the current Supreme Court, possible changes to the existing Constitution, and attempts to remove the duly-elected president from office before his term by various means. Apart from plans to stack the judiciary, as in Argentina, Venezuela's new business controlled National Assembly will likely follow their reactionary class compatriots in Brazil, and move to impeach Venezuela president, Maduro, and dismantle his popular government – just as they are attempting the same in Brazil with that country's also recently re-elected president, Rousseff.

    What happens in Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil in the weeks ahead, in 2016, is a harbinger of the intense economic and political class war in South America that is about to escalate to a higher stage in 2016.

    jfl | Jan 8, 2016 6:08:12 PM | 10

    The USA used to complain about Japan Inc. Of course now it's USA as Neolibraconia Inc. and it's business is war along all lines : military, economic, environmental, social ... Jack Rasmus has an excellent survey at Neoliberalism Raises Its Ugly Head in South America: Washington Targets Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina .

    The war on the homefront seems won as far as Neolibraconia is concerned, at least the lock-up, see A Minimal Demand: Roll Back Incarceration to 1970 Levels , and here are pictures: animated and still .

    That report from FARS seems worrisome indeed.

    Our man b called Merkel's move for what it was before it was : After Creating Migration Flood Merkel Throws Up Emergency Dikes .

    I'm still unconvinced that 1,000 rapists ran rampant in Cologne on New Years Eve. Where's Penelope and her fraud analysis when it seems most needed?

    2016 will be the year when all this comes to a head. Perhaps Russia and the BRICS should preemptively repudiate their dollar denominated debts? It all seems to be going south at this particular point in time anyway.

    jfl | Jan 8, 2016 6:45:14 PM | 11

    Trying to follow nmb's link @1 without actually being shortened and sold myself led me to Pepe Escobar of 29 Dec

    The lame duck Obama administration – whatever rhetorical and/or legalistic contortions – still sticks to the Cold War 2.0 script on Russia, duly prescribed by Obama mentor Dr. Zbigniew "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski.

    That follows a "tradition" Bill Blum , for instance, has extensively documented, as since the end of WWII Washington attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments – the absolute majority full democracies; dropped bombs on the civilian population of over 30 nations ; attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders ; attempted to suppress nationalist movements in 20 nations ; interfered on countless democratic elections; taught torture through manuals and "advisers"; and the list goes on.

    The key front though is the Russian economy; sooner or later there's got to be a purge of the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry, but Putin will only act when he has surefire internal support, and that's far from given.

    The fight to the death in Moscow's inner circles is really between the Eurasianists and the so-called Atlantic integrationists, a.k.a. the Western fifth column. The crux of the battle is arguably the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry – where some key liberalcon monetarist players are remote-controlled by the usual suspects, the Masters of the Universe.

    The same mechanism applies, geopolitically, to any side, in any latitude, which has linked its own fiat money to Western central banks. The Masters of the Universe always seek to exercise hegemony by manipulating usury and fiat money control.

    So why President Putin does not fire the head of the Russian Central Bank, Elvira Nabiulina, and a great deal of his financial team - as they keep buying U.S. bonds and propping up the U.S. dollar instead of the ruble? What's really being aggressed here if not Russian interests?

    [Jan 10, 2016] Engineered Migration as a Coercive Instrument: The 1994 Cuban Balseros Crisis

    "... I suppose you could say the migration was engineered in both the Cuban and Turkey cases, with the US and US/EU/Turkey creating the migrants and Castro and Erdogan, respectively, acting as gatekeepers. ..."
    "... The difference is that the migrants are not Turks, in Erdogan's case, but his prey, the people of Syriaq. And the people of the EU, of course. ..."
    moonofalabama.org
    jfl | Jan 9, 2016 9:30:54 PM | 100

    #87 juliania

    Somebody provided a link to a pdf of a Kathy Greenhill's paper. Although I have the pdf, I only find the paper in html now ...

    Engineered Migration as a Coercive Instrument: The 1994 Cuban Balseros Crisis

    Abstract: This paper presents a case study of the August 1994 Cuban "balseros"-i.e. rafters-crisis, commonly known as Mariel II, during which over 35,000 Cubans fled the island and headed towards Florida. This paper argues that Castro launched the crisis in an attempt to manipulate the US's fears of another Mariel boatlift, in order to compel a shift in United States (US) policy, both on immigration and on a wider variety of issues. As the end of the crisis brought with it a radical redefinition of US immigration policy toward Cuba, the paper further contends that from Castro's perspective, this exercise in coercion proved a qualified success-his third such successful use of the Cuban people as an asymmetric political weapon against the US.
    ... one of the few arrows in Castro's quiver, he used it effectively. The article is about the 1994 Balseros Crisis, but Greenhill recounts : The Camarioca Crisis, 1965; The Mariel Boatlift, 1980; and The August 1994 Balseros Crisis. The Mariel Boatlift was 'the big one' : 125,000 Cubans. Dwarfed by Erdogan. A million in Germany alone.

    I suppose you could say the migration was engineered in both the Cuban and Turkey cases, with the US and US/EU/Turkey creating the migrants and Castro and Erdogan, respectively, acting as gatekeepers.

    The difference is that the migrants are not Turks, in Erdogan's case, but his prey, the people of Syriaq. And the people of the EU, of course.

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

    This is the review of the book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government by one of Moon of Alabama readers.
    Looks like the course on making The USA imperial power (which was related later in Washington consensus and Wolfowitz doctrine) was taken directly after WWII. Cold War was just a smoke screen under which the USA tried to establish hegemony over the world. Both documents could well be written by Alan Dulles himself.
    Any president who dare to deviate from this is ostracized , impeached or killed. So the political role of intelligence agencies since their establishment by Truman was to serve as the brain center if USA imperial beuracracy (as well as the tools for projecting it abroad)
    The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for wars and for expanding the US influence abroad for multinationals, and that is what they have done for 70 years (Dulles came from Wall Street). Among other things it deliberately creates small wars just to demonstrate the US military might. Neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."
    Another book deserves to mentioned here too here too. Prouty book The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World (which was suppressed in 1973 when irt was published and did not see shelves before republishing in 2011) is described like the the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy conducted by CIA has finally provoked a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans
    U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve our goals. ..."
    "... Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969. ..."
    "... the ruling elite of the US was deeply split. ..."
    "... A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!). ..."
    "... And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. ..."
    "... Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    guest77 | Jan 9, 2016 3:28:12 AM | 55

    I just finished listening to the audio book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government . It was very good I think.

    I'll spare you a full review, but the Dulles era has some very important and interesting similarities with our own (in fact, the ties are most certainly those first formed during the Dulles brothers tenure at State and CIA). Talbot doesn't delve deeply into these more recent aspects, but he does acknowledge them. And the similarities are quite clear. We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve our goals.

    Initially I had heard that it was a Allen Dulles biography, and though there is a lot of detail about his personal life, his marriage, and even his kids, I would say it strays from what one might consider a "standard" biography and is more about Dulles and his times. For instance, there are a couple of chapters devoted just to the Kennedy Assassination, another on Oswald, and one on the "Generals' putsch" in France in '61. Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969.

    Talbot uses Dulles life as the base to build up the important (and to my mind misunderstood and misconstrued) stories in recent US history. That story is, of course, the following: despite the impression most Americans have of our country fighting the ultimate "good war" against universally despised enemies - that fact is that the ruling elite of the US was deeply split.

    A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!).

    And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. And Talbot tracks this key figure's fascist ties as he rises in the US power structure from his early years as an OSS man wheeling and dealing with Nazi generals in Bern, Switzerland and on through Dulles' creation and/or support of fascist governments in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa during the Cold War. Talbot covers the events surrounding Dulles life excellently. Especially moving was his chapter on Guatemala - the tragedy of the Arbenz family as a mirror of the tragedy of Guatemala is covered through the eyes of the grandson of Arbez.

    Talbot covers the horror stories of the results of America working closely with dictators like Trujillo, the Shah, Mobutu Sese Seko, and Batista (he misses Indonesia though, an operation that caused the death of 1,000,000 Indonesians). But of course, as an American, the most important question to Talbot is that of Dulles role in the Kennedy assassination. Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia.

    guest77 | Jan 9, 2016 4:08:48 AM | 59

    https://blogs.princeton.edu/mudd/2008/01/allen-dulles-papers-released-by-cia-to-princeton-are-now-online/
    Allen Dulles papers released by CIA to Princeton are now online
    Posted on January 23, 2008 by Dan Linke

    The Central Intelligence Agency has released to Princeton University some 7,800 documents covering the career of Allen W. Dulles, the agency's longest-serving director, which now can be viewed online at http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/st74cq497

    Dulles (1893-1969), a Princeton alumnus who headed the CIA from 1953 to 1961, was renowned for his role in shaping U.S. intelligence operations during the Cold War. Last March, the CIA released to Princeton a collection of letters, memoranda, reports and other papers - some still redacted - that the agency had removed from Dulles' papers after his death and before their transfer to the University in 1974.

    [Jan 09, 2016] Sheikh Nimr: Martyr of World War III

    Notable quotes:
    "... "WikiLeaks cables (see below) show that the US has been tracking, and exploiting, the rise of ISIS since 2006, when the organisation first appeared in Iraq as a direct result of the Bush-Blair invasion. Like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, ISIS are the mutations of a western state terror dispensed by a venal imperial elite undeterred by the consequences of actions taken at great remove in distance and culture. Their culpability is unmentionable in "our" societies." ..."
    "... The WikiLeaks revelations tell of former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas' statements on this too. What he revealed is that Britain basically made plans for the Syria disaster years ago. ..."
    journal-neo.org

    Lone Wolf | Jan 9, 2016 8:18:11 PM | 95

    Saudi Arabia is in dire trouble today as the outcry over recent executions mounts. The execution of Shia Sheikh Nimr Baqr al-Nimr in the most brutal day of executions in the country in three decades has now sparked violence across the region. If Saudi Arabia is destabilized, the Middle East could easily turn into a bloodbath of biblical proportions. This begs the big question, "What is really behind these apparently symbolic executions?" [...]

    [...] In the Shadow of Machiavelli

    The best clue as to "who stands behind" this new Saudi-Iran crisis comes to us from the Washington Post. For anyone still unaware, this Amazon owned media outlet is the perfect barometer of what is NOT true in the world of international affairs these days. Using "reverse news" psychology here, the article by Karen DeYoung tells us all we need to know about al-Nimr's execution. If you will allow me this quote:

    "Obama administration officials expressed deep concern Sunday that the abrupt escalation of tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran could have repercussions extending to the fight against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the diplomatic efforts to end Syria's civil war, and wider efforts to bring stability to the Middle East."

    Citing unnamed officials in Barack Obama's administration has become the guiding principle of corporate media in America these last few years, and the Washington Post misdirects have never been more transparent than today. This piece is misleading, supportive of Saudi and US disruption in the region, and anti-Iranian to the extreme. The author continues using another source who is a "authorized to convey Saudi thinking on the condition of anonymity," if you can imagine such a conveyance. According to the WP, Saudi Arabia is framed as the only nation "doing something", and I quote:

    "Tehran has thumbed its nose at the West again and again, continuing to sponsor terrorism and launch ballistic missiles and no one is doing anything about it."

    Then BAM! Steve Bezos' newspaper barks the real intent of this propaganda bit bringing Russia into the fray with:

    " Iran, along with Russia, is the leading backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a member of a minority Shiite sect, and Riyadh views the civil war as part of Iran's fight for sectarian dominance."

    As I type this from our offices in Germany, US F-15 and F-16 fighters fly overhead in a continuous stream from the US air base at Spangdahlem Air Base. I mention this only because 2 years ago we seldom if ever heard fighter aircraft overhead. These days even locals wonder if the flyovers have a purpose beyond intimidation, or at least some residents have expressed this to me personally. The current undeclared war of resolve, it bears witnessing and a focus on all these events in the Middle East. My point being, Riyadh's actions of the last few days are part of an overall western strategy of unrest. If the Washington Post tells you Obama's White House is worried over something, you can count on the Washington having been part of the cause of the event. In this case we see the "never say die" war against Assad and Russia in the works. It is a crazy bit of irony that WP's editor Karen DeYoung was once quoted as saying; "We are inevitably the mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power."

    Meanwhile, at the newspaper (The Wall Street Journal) owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch (who has energy investments in the region) we have another indicative report, or should I say "counter indicative?" Jay Solomon reports on the weeping sadness of Barack Obama that his non-existent peace plan for Syria may be derailed by Riyhad's decision to sever ties with Iran. Within this report the "real" mission of the Saudis, and Washington's current administration is revealed. I'll rely on another quite to clue the reader. Referring to the John Kerry brokered "plan" the Wall Street Journal writer inadvertently betrays the Obama administration with:

    "Under the deal, Iran in the coming months is set to receive as much as $100 billion in frozen oil revenues, which could be used to support its proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen."

    To sum up here, the goal all along has been misdirect from Obama's team. The Iran deal, the parlaying at various peace accords, all the State Department's efforts have been designed to frame the United States as peace loving, with the teddy bear John Kerry as a sort of Mother Teresa of détente. Has anyone noticed yet how every deal the man makes goes south in the end? Now Iran coming out of decades of useless sanctions is on the rocks, as was planned so it appears. The WSJ piece further implicates (by inaccuracy) the White House's Machiavellian strategies with.

    " As the conflict deepened over the weekend, with Saudi Arabia officially severing ties with Iran, U.S. officials expressed skepticism over how much influence Washington had in heading off a conflict based on centuries-old religious divisions."

    It is with this, and with the ad nauseam with which mainstream media parrots State Department rhetoric we find the true backers of terrorism and strife in the Middle East. The statement misleads readers into believing the situation in the Middle East is "out of the control" of Obama and Washington, when the reverse is absolutely true. The story goes on to plant the seed of military support for Saudi Arabia should the situation escalate, which it is certain to with the help of the lame duck Obama.

    When all is said and done, Nimr Baqr al-Nimr was a man of peaceful advocacy for the people of his belief and his region of Saudi Arabia. There is literally no proof to the contrary, yet he was summarily executed by a regime notorious for beheading its citizens. The Unites States of America has not only backed this regime, but has aligned herself in an auspicious manner over the years essentially using the Saudis as a vassal for regional control. This section of a WikiLeaks cable damns the Saudis for helping create the mess in Syria and elsewhere:

    "The USG engages regularly with the Saudi Government on terrorist financing. The establishment in 2008 of a Treasury attache office presence in Riyadh contributes to robust interaction and information sharing on the issue. Despite this presence, however, more needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups, including Hamas, which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources, often during Hajj and Ramadan. In contrast to its increasingly aggressive efforts to disrupt al-Qa'ida's access to funding from Saudi sources, Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT-groups that are also aligned with al-Qa'ida and focused on undermining stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

    Revelations Verse 19:11

    The cable is from the US State Department to various offices of the Saudi government, that of the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar. This cable, along with dozens of other revelations about the backers of terror in the world, leaves no room for ambiguity. But what's far more disturbing is the way Washington, London and to a lesser extent Brussels are portraying current unrest as some type of religious war. The Christian-Jew-Muslim aspects of these crises are being used to hide the real cause of corporate governments supplanting rights and freedoms. This is a larger argument, but the correct one at this stage. What the world suffers from now is a hell bent effort by the godless of the world (elite bankers) to once again spark crusades for the purposes of strategy and profit. Most people reading this fully understand this, even though the exact culprits may be obscure.

    The summary of this story is fairly easy to parlay. Saudi Arabia just made a play for the neocons in Washington, the bankers in London, and for the Tel Aviv instigators who have so far remained in the shadows in all this. They created a martyr who may well serve their utterly evil needs, to set the world on fire one more time. Let me leave you with the most damning quote I have yet found. It is from WikiLeaks, and implicates the Obama and previous US administrations:

    "WikiLeaks cables (see below) show that the US has been tracking, and exploiting, the rise of ISIS since 2006, when the organisation first appeared in Iraq as a direct result of the Bush-Blair invasion. Like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, ISIS are the mutations of a western state terror dispensed by a venal imperial elite undeterred by the consequences of actions taken at great remove in distance and culture. Their culpability is unmentionable in "our" societies."

    Make no mistake here, America and Britain created this mess in the world, with the help of profiting allies like Saudi Arabia. The WikiLeaks revelations tell of former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas' statements on this too. What he revealed is that Britain basically made plans for the Syria disaster years ago. What we are witnessing is a last ditch effort to counter Vladimir Putin's play in the region, and to either win a new Syria partitioning, or else burn the deserts in total. This is a world war in the making, and the man on the pale horse seems evident now, the leader of the faithful and true. God help us all.

    [Jan 09, 2016] Lets not forget that the Syrian refugee migration is a manufactured crisis

    www.moonofalabama.org
    Jackrabbit | Jan 9, 2016 10:01:45 AM | 75

    Lets not forget that the Syrian refugee migration is a manufactured crisis - as b pointed out early on when he noted that it fuels calls that "something must be done!" about Assad/Syria.

    EU President Donald Tusk has talked publicly of this :

    "For the first time in my political career I have heard politicians openly declaring that the refugees heading to Europe are their method of getting (us) [the EU] to act a certain way,"

    [Jan 09, 2016] There are indications that some in Saudi Arabia are on a mission to drag the entire region to conflict

    www.moonofalabama.org

    harry law | Jan 9, 2016 6:22:57 AM | 64

    Can't disagree with this message from the Iranian Foreign Minister..

    "Saudi Arabia can either continue supporting extremist terrorists and promoting sectarian hatred, or it can opt for good neighborliness and play a constructive role in promoting regional stability, however; Iran hopes that Saudi Arabia will be persuaded to heed the call of reason,"

    Zarif said that there are indications that some in Saudi Arabia are on a mission to drag the entire region to conflict; fearing that removal of the smokescreen of the manufactured Iranian nuclear threat would expose the real global threat posed by extremists and their sponsors, according to IRNA.

    The Iranian foreign minister recalled that those involved in extremist carnage and most members of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIL and Al-Nusra Front being either Saudi nationals, or otherwise brainwashed by petro-financed demagogues, who have promoted an anti-Islamic message of hatred, exclusion and sectarianism across the globe for decades.

    http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=248972&cid=19&fromval=1&frid=19&seccatid=32&s1=1

    [Jan 09, 2016] The Bizarre Need to Take Sides and Our Foreign Policy Debates

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hawks often "adopt" a faction or government and then fault the U.S. for "failing" to do enough to help "our" side. Refusing to take a side is portrayed as "abdication" of "leadership" or otherwise pilloried as too passive, and the bias in favor of action in our debates helps to make it harder to advocate against taking sides. ..."
    "... The U.S. cannot expect and does not receive the sort of automatic support and cooperation from so-called "allies" that many hawks expect the U.S. to provide to them, but it is often assumed that the U.S. would be "abandoning" the so-called "ally" if it chose not to take their side against a regional rival. For some reason, many Americans forget that the relationship with an "ally" exists to advance our interests and not so that our government can indulge theirs in its vendettas and obsessions. When U.S. interests are no longer served by such a relationship (if they ever were), the U.S. doesn't need and shouldn't want to keep it the way it is. ..."
    "... But when you live your life with a Manichean Worldview–then you have to pick a side.. because it is always good vs. evil… ..."
    "... From a cold realist position, why do we cafe if we keep Saudi oil flowing when we could always turn the Iranian spigots on? From a liberal interventionist position, Saudi Arabia has a far worse record than Iran of foreign aggression, sponsorship of terrorism, and human rights violations at home. If we have to be someone's ally over there, we should be Iran's. ..."
    "... That being said, I agree that we should not take sides in a spat between regional rivals, especially when an ancient theological blood feud is at the heart of the spat. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia allows us access to their oil resources on our terms, and to be more specific, Saudi Arabia does us the very kind favor of denominating all of her oil transactions in dollars, requiring every other country on Earth to maintain huge reserves of dollars and US debt. If Iran was in the driver's seat they would never sustain the petrodollar. ..."
    "... now would be a good time to disabuse that 30-year-old deputy crown price of the notion that we'll be there for him no matter how audacious and emboldened he becomes. I don't really expect a rational mindset to prevail, of course, but in my mind, that would be true "leadership" on our part. ..."
    The American Conservative

    There is a strong bias against neutrality in our foreign policy debates. Not taking sides in this or that conflict is rarely taken seriously as an appropriate response. Instead of asking whether the U.S. should even take a side, it is taken for granted that the U.S. "must" choose one or the other, and the main debate concerns only how much and what kind of support to provide. This is a recurring problem in debating the proper response to conflicts inside countries as well as rivalries between them. One reason for this is that U.S. interests and the interests of another state or faction within a state are conflated from the beginning, and this is done to make it much more difficult to recognize that the U.S. doesn't actually have interests in the conflict or rivalry in question. Hawks often "adopt" a faction or government and then fault the U.S. for "failing" to do enough to help "our" side. Refusing to take a side is portrayed as "abdication" of "leadership" or otherwise pilloried as too passive, and the bias in favor of action in our debates helps to make it harder to advocate against taking sides.

    Today's Fareed Zakaria column shows how difficult it is for most pundits to do this. Even when arguing for steering clear of regional sectarian rivalry, Zakaria can't avoid endorsing U.S. support for the Saudis:

    In general, the United States should support Saudi Arabia in resisting Iran's encroachments in the region, but it should not take sides in the broader sectarian struggle.

    But it is not possible to support an overtly sectarian Saudi government in its preoccupation with opposing Iranian influence without being pulled into the "broader sectarian struggle," in no small part because the Saudis define their resistance to Iran's supposed "encroachments" in terms of religious sect. The Saudis falsely claim that their war on Yemen is aimed at "resisting Iran's encroachments," and the U.S. has been supporting their campaign from the start, and in so doing it is helping to fuel sectarian hatreds in Yemen and beyond. Zakaria correctly recognizes the pitfalls of being pulled into sectarian conflicts in the region, but won't acknowledge that the U.S. is caught up in them because of the support it provides to sectarian governments. He specifically mentions the growing sectarianism in Yemen, but doesn't make the connection with U.S. support for the Saudi-led intervention there. Despite explicitly saying that the U.S. shouldn't take sides in "someone else's civil war," he approves of doing just that by accepting that the U.S. should keep supporting the Saudis.

    One of the most common arguments for siding with the Saudis in their hostility towards Iran is that they are our "ally," and therefore the U.S. should automatically support the position of its "ally." This overlooks that the U.S. has no treaty obligations to the kingdom, and ignores that the so-called "ally" does virtually nothing for us. The U.S. cannot expect and does not receive the sort of automatic support and cooperation from so-called "allies" that many hawks expect the U.S. to provide to them, but it is often assumed that the U.S. would be "abandoning" the so-called "ally" if it chose not to take their side against a regional rival. For some reason, many Americans forget that the relationship with an "ally" exists to advance our interests and not so that our government can indulge theirs in its vendettas and obsessions. When U.S. interests are no longer served by such a relationship (if they ever were), the U.S. doesn't need and shouldn't want to keep it the way it is.

    Prof. Woland, January 8, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    But when you live your life with a Manichean Worldview–then you have to pick a side.. because it is always good vs. evil…

    Ian G., January 8, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    I pull my hair out when seemingly reasonable people like Zakaria don't even bother asking why Saudi Arabia is our "ally". From a cold realist position, why do we cafe if we keep Saudi oil flowing when we could always turn the Iranian spigots on? From a liberal interventionist position, Saudi Arabia has a far worse record than Iran of foreign aggression, sponsorship of terrorism, and human rights violations at home. If we have to be someone's ally over there, we should be Iran's.

    That being said, I agree that we should not take sides in a spat between regional rivals, especially when an ancient theological blood feud is at the heart of the spat.

    jamie, January 8, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    From a cold realist position, why do we cafe if we keep Saudi oil flowing when we could always turn the Iranian spigots on?

    Saudi Arabia allows us access to their oil resources on our terms, and to be more specific, Saudi Arabia does us the very kind favor of denominating all of her oil transactions in dollars, requiring every other country on Earth to maintain huge reserves of dollars and US debt. If Iran was in the driver's seat they would never sustain the petrodollar.

    There's also very little question of Saudi regime's oil resources falling in the hands of populist or democratic elements that might use oil to overtly embarrass or destabilize the United States - the Saudi's bleed us dry, but subtlety and in a way that US voters are unlikely to punish their leaders for.

    Jon Lester, January 8, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    American neutrality might be the very thing needed to keep the conflict contained, and now would be a good time to disabuse that 30-year-old deputy crown price of the notion that we'll be there for him no matter how audacious and emboldened he becomes. I don't really expect a rational mindset to prevail, of course, but in my mind, that would be true "leadership" on our part.

    [Jan 08, 2016] Contrary To Media Claims U.S. Always Sides With Its Saudi Clients

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Obama administration has since March provided expedited arms sales, logistics support, targeting intelligence, air refueling and combat search and rescue for the Saudi war on Yemen. Its navy helps with the blockade of the Yemeni coast. How can the Obama administration be sharply critical of the Saudi war on Yemen when it provides the critical means for that war? ..."
    "... I doubt that we will hear any sharply critical condemnation of that bombing of civilian infrastructure from U.S. officials. ..."
    "... In the Saudi-Iran proxy conflicts the U.S. supports and urges the Saudis on because it is in its geopolitical interest . Saudi financed jihadist have been helpful in achieving U.S. geopolitical goals in the 1980s in Afghanistan against the Soviets, in Yugoslavia, in Chechnya as now in Syria against the Russians and in Xinjiang against the Chinese. There is no room for human rights or other concerns within that framework. There is room though for billions of weapon sales and millions given by the Saudis to U.S. and UK politicians as well as for public relations . ..."
    "... That is utter bullshit. The U.S. is working on regime change in Syria at least since 2006 . The U.S. is enabling the clear and present danger posed by Islamist terrorists through its alliance with al-Qaeda . It always had and has the choice to cease and desist from meddling in the Middle East and elsewhere to the benefit of the average U.S. citizen as well as to the benefit of the people living in the Middle East. ..."
    "... U.S. media lie when they depict the U.S. as a benevolent entity that stumbles through the Middle East and other areas misled in the dark by Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is the U.S. that is the ruthless superpower that solely enables those barbaric entities to exist. ..."
    "... The US government is beholden to lobby groups interested in feathering their nests and getting their way. US foreign policy has also been consistent from one presidential administration to the next. ..."
    "... The fact that US foreign policy has been consistent from George W Bush to Barack Obama could say a great deal about the style of Obamas presidency. What has Obama been able to achieve in the 8 years he has been POTUS that has been positive and which has given his presidency a particular distinction and flavour that represent the mans character and personality? I submit not much at all. The impression I get (btw, I live on the other side of the Pacific Ocean from the US) is that Obama is a weak leader who has never been able to control and rein in particular members of his cabinet like his previous Secretary of State, much less the ideologue she brought with her who planned and carried out the coup that deposed President Yanukovych in Ukraine in February 2014, and who handpicked the fellow who is currently that nations prime minister. I might also suggest that George W Bush was a weak leader who did as he was told. ..."
    "... The neo-cons are the establishments political death-squads, the sinister arm of the executive who resorts to them whenever the establishment/Deep State need to eliminate anyone considered an enemy of the empire, followed by an installation of puppets. ..."
    "... Neo-cons are in close coordination with CIAs clandestine/black operations branch, working together all aspects of any operation at hand, the CIA with the operative/military goons, the neo-cons with the political crooks. A typical example was in Banderastan, where the CIA had been actively recruiting/training the nazi bastards for years, ready for the Maidan, ehem, revolution, with the neo-cons putting together the political puppets ( I think Yats is the guy ) who would become the facade of the nazi takeover. ..."
    Jan 05, 2016 | M of A

    The "western" public, especially in Europe , now prefers good relations with Iran over relations with Saudi Arabia. It is a natural development when one considers that jihadi terrorism is a real concern and that the people involved in most international terrorist incidents follow variants of the Saudi spread Wahhabi ideology.

    This is now developing into a problem for the U.S. administration. Saudi Arabia, as other Gulf statelets, is a U.S. client state. Without U.S. support it would have ceased to exist a long time ago. The Saudis are made to pay for U.S. protection by buying overpriced U.S. weapon systems for tens of billion dollars per year. They also finance joint projects like the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan and currently the U.S. regime change war on Syria.

    U.S. relation with Iran have become somewhat better due to the nuclear deal. But the Islamic Republic of Iran will never be a U.S. client state. Seen from the perspective of the global strategic competition it is in the same camp as the U.S. foes Russia and China. Unless the U.S. ceases to strive for global dominance it will continue to support its proxies on the western side of the Persian Gulf rather then the Iranians of the eastern side.

    The changed public view, very much visible after the recent Saudi execution of Nimr Baqr al-Nimr, necessitates to mask the real U.S. position by claiming that it is opposed to Saudi Arabian policies. The stenographers in U.S. media are always willing to help their government when such a cover up for a shoddy position is needed.

    In the Washington Post Karen De Young supports the administration by providing this lie:

    The United States has long joined international human rights organizations and other Western governments in criticizing Saudi human rights abuses ..

    Her colleague David Sanger at the New York Times is debunks that nonsense point with a rare reference to reality:

    The United States has usually looked the other way or issued carefully calibrated warnings in human rights reports as the Saudi royal family cracked down on dissent and free speech and allowed its elite to fund Islamic extremists.

    Sanger then replaces the "U.S. supports human-rights in Saudi Arabia" lie with another blatant one:

    the administration has [..] been sharply critical of the Saudi intervention in Yemen

    The Obama administration has since March provided expedited arms sales, logistics support, targeting intelligence, air refueling and combat search and rescue for the Saudi war on Yemen. Its navy helps with the blockade of the Yemeni coast. How can the Obama administration be "sharply critical" of the Saudi war on Yemen when it provides the critical means for that war?

    Since Sunday there have been at least 11 Saudi air attacks on Yemen's capital Sanaa. Last night another wedding hall, the Commerce Chamber and the AlNoor Centre for the Blind were destroyed by U.S. provided Saudi bombs. I doubt that we will hear any "sharply critical" condemnation of that bombing of civilian infrastructure from U.S. officials.

    In the Saudi-Iran proxy conflicts the U.S. supports and urges the Saudis on because it is in its geopolitical interest . Saudi financed jihadist have been helpful in achieving U.S. geopolitical goals in the 1980s in Afghanistan against the Soviets, in Yugoslavia, in Chechnya as now in Syria against the Russians and in Xinjiang against the Chinese. There is no room for human rights or other concerns within that framework. There is room though for billions of weapon sales and millions given by the Saudis to U.S. and UK politicians as well as for public relations .

    The New York Times editors falsely claim there is no choice for the U.S. other then to do what it does:

    The tangled and volatile realities of the Middle East do not give the United States or the European Union the luxury of choosing or rejecting allies on moral criteria. Washington has no choice but to deal with regimes like those in Tehran [..] or in Riyadh to combat the clear and present danger posed by Islamist terrorists or to search for solutions to massively destabilizing conflicts like the Syrian civil war.

    That is utter bullshit. The U.S. is working on regime change in Syria at least since 2006 . The U.S. is enabling "the clear and present danger posed by Islamist terrorists" through its alliance with al-Qaeda . It always had and has the choice to cease and desist from meddling in the Middle East and elsewhere to the benefit of the average U.S. citizen as well as to the benefit of the people living in the Middle East.

    U.S. media lie when they depict the U.S. as a benevolent entity that stumbles through the Middle East and other areas misled in the dark by Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is the U.S. that is the ruthless superpower that solely enables those barbaric entities to exist.

    Au | Jan 5, 2016 11:03:32 AM | 1

    "The Western public now prefers good relations w/ Iran over relations w/ Saudi Arabia" I can't speak for everyone in the West but that is my sentiments exactly. Iran has been the center of deep state propaganda for so long that we have failed to realize - the Saudi's are more in need of a regime change then anyone in that region. Ultimately, screw them all, except for Syria - i'll never forget what Saudi Arabia and Turkey / western cohorts did to Syria - I hope it comes back to nest in Saudi Arabia..

    Bluemot5 | Jan 5, 2016 11:31:19 AM | 4

    Pat Buchanan article questioning current USA alliances.... http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/saudi-recklessness-exposes-our-own/

    harry law | Jan 5, 2016 1:18:56 PM | 9

    Pleased that you included that excellent link from the Intercept, this from 'rrheard' in the comments section, it was so good I do hope he does not mind me posting part of it here. "America's foreign policy relationship with Saudi Arabia is based on exactly two things historically–Saudi's willingness to be a US proxy against communism in the region and the oil and weapons trade.

    And that says all you need to know about America's moral compass as well. I love the idea of my country, and absolutely detest what its leaders have done since WWII in service if its elites perceived "interests". Because I can guaranfuckingtee you that America's foreign policy over the last 60 years has nothing to do with the "best interests" of the American people, humanitarianism, human rights or the "interests" of any other people on the planet despite the cradle to grave propaganda apparatus in America that has a significant majority of American's believing such transparent twaddle as "American exceptionalism" or "we are always well intentioned, we just make mistakes" when it comes to the mass slaughter of non-Americans all over the globe.

    There hardly a fucking dictator on the planet that hasn't been backed by the American government and its business elites, politically and/or economically, so long as they are pliant when it comes to towing the line on America's "interests"."

    tom | Jan 5, 2016 2:12:32 PM | 10

    Agree with B, except with popular opinion. Most of the Western public so politically unprincipled and cowardly that they can be swayed quite easily to western imperial propaganda. It's just a matter of when the media turned on the hate/fear switch up to 2/10.

    Just look at the reminder in Congo genocide, with the people couldn't give a fuck, and is one of the worst genocides since World War II. Or the Rwandan genocide, with the propaganda that turned most of the victims into the guilty party and then lead genocidedal maniac - Paul Kagame, as the "sympathetic" president -now for life - thanks to the evil US empires evil media.

    Blaming the Russians for the plane crash over Ukraine, gas attacks blamed on Assad. And then you can count thousands of examples where people in the west vote or support policies that are against their own health, social and political interests.
    No, most Western people are willing to place the jackboot gladly under their neck, till they realise it's too late.

    Jen | Jan 5, 2016 2:49:13 PM | 15

    To Dan @2 and Jackrabbit @5:

    In an odd way, you are both right. The US government is beholden to lobby groups interested in feathering their nests and getting their way. US foreign policy has also been consistent from one presidential administration to the next.

    Think of the US government as several psychopaths working together. Psychopaths basically only care about looking out for No 1. If two or more psychopaths discover that working together allows them to fulfill their individual goals quicker than if they worked separately, then they'll co-operate.

    The fact that US foreign policy has been consistent from George W Bush to Barack Obama could say a great deal about the style of Obama's presidency. What has Obama been able to achieve in the 8 years he has been POTUS that has been positive and which has given his presidency a particular distinction and flavour that represent the man's character and personality? I submit not much at all. The impression I get (btw, I live on the other side of the Pacific Ocean from the US) is that Obama is a weak leader who has never been able to control and rein in particular members of his cabinet like his previous Secretary of State, much less the ideologue she brought with her who planned and carried out the coup that deposed President Yanukovych in Ukraine in February 2014, and who handpicked the fellow who is currently that nation's prime minister. I might also suggest that George W Bush was a weak leader who did as he was told.

    In short, if the oil lobby, the pro-Israeli lobby, other industry and country lobbies in the US government find that their interests coincide, they'll work as one through Congress and the various federal government departments.

    harry law | Jan 5, 2016 3:42:05 PM | 19

    Lysias@18 Trump: 'I would want to protect Saudi Arabia' he goes on, "That's phase one - to go into Saudi Arabia and, frankly, the Saudis don't survive without us. And the question is, at what point do we get involved and how much will Saudi Arabia pay us to save them?"
    This is exactly what the Mafia say to their victims.

    Oui | Jan 5, 2016 4:13:45 PM | 21

    Trump speaks the lingo of the House of Saud, well at least of Prince Bandar, now deposed of his key role to influence the West. Wasn't it Bandar who offered a terror free Sochi games for Assad's head on a platter. Putin must have calmly replied if any harm comes to Russia in the period of the Olympic Winter games, Saudi Arabia may just lose one of it's cities.

    Blair and now Cameron deal with Saudi Arabia to exchange modern weapons for protection from AQ terror in the UK. It's the British (and French) who were willing to join Obama in bombing Assad's Syria in September 2013. Now it's the British and Americans who offer intelligence and logistic support to KSA and the GCC allies in bombing Yemen back to deeper medieval times. AQAP will use this to their advantage.

    Obama 'Connived' with Neocons for a Bashar Replacement

    Kooshy | Jan 5, 2016 4:44:08 PM | 26

    The DC rag WP is really craving for a good, big sectarian regional war in ME, I am afraid they are not going to get it, Iranian have been acting responsibly not letting US, Israel, and their Arab insecure clientele wishes come

    Through. Never the less WP editors would want their readers believe Iranian protestors meant to attack a SUNNI embassy, and not the Embassy of Saudi Arabia who was responsible for executed an innocent Shia high clergy.

    "The execution of Shiite cleric Nimr Baqr al-Nimr by Saudi Arabia has sparked a furor in the Middle East along sectarian lines. In Iran, the regional Shiite superpower, the Sunni embassy was ransacked and burned."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/01/05/5-facts-about-sunnis-and-shiites-that-help-makes-sense-of-the-saudi-iran-crisis/

    Lone Wolf | Jan 5, 2016 5:25:51 PM | 28

    @Oui@21

    Obama 'Connived' with Neocons for a Bashar Replacement

    Very good points, Oui. The neo-cons are the establishment's political death-squads, the sinister arm of the executive who resorts to them whenever the establishment/Deep State need to eliminate anyone considered an "enemy" of the empire, followed by an installation of puppets.

    Neo-cons are in close coordination with CIA's "clandestine/black operations" branch, working together all aspects of any operation at hand, the CIA with the operative/military goons, the neo-cons with the political crooks. A typical example was in Banderastan, where the CIA had been actively recruiting/training the nazi bastards for years, ready for the Maidan, ehem, "revolution," with the neo-cons putting together the political puppets ("I think Yats is the guy") who would become the facade of the nazi takeover.

    Syria, on the other hand, was a hard nut to crack, the neo-cons and the CIA made severe mistakes underestimating Assad and the resistance of the Syrian people. US/UK/NATO were announcing the fall of Assad every other day, and while many of those Western "leaders" are gone, Assad has survived all their ill-predictions. Neo-cons/CIA are fuming at the mouth constantly looking for a way to reverse their losses, and starting a little war between KSA-Iran is not such a bad idea, neo-cons swim like fish in chaos.

    They are getting set for another defeat by old Persian wisdom.

    Noirette | Jan 6, 2016 2:35:19 PM | 47

    Dan at 2. There is no single cohesive policy. Only selfishness

    The USA attacks militarily directly, or by overt other means (economic), or behind the curtain:

    1. those that challenge it even in the imagination, provided small and pretty powerless
    2. countries, groups, that have a 'socialistic' bent, try to do well for their citizens, and/or espouse some ideology that appears, *on the face of it*, anti-capitalistic, nationalistic, or pan-national (e.g. Communism in the past, Baath party, Arab nationalism, Cuba.)
    3. those who try to annul or wash away ethnic, racist, religious, and so on differences in favor of some kind of 'universality', a citizen status, mandate - this goes against the colonialist model, abroad and at home, in which ppl are sand niggers, blacks, etc. The US support for equality thus turns to trivia, gay marriage, quarrels about abortion, etc.
    4. Energy rich countries who won't open up to US corps, domination. (ex. Venezuela), or won't permit US type banking system in their country, or aren't subservient enough on a host of points (ex. Syria, Lybia) or somehow manage to cozy and then resist for a long while (ex. Iraq)
    5. Those who are involved massively with illegal and dubious trade - human trafficking, organ sales, child forced prostitution, drugs, illegal arms, condoned murder of rivals, vicious internal repression, heavy torture, prisons, etc. are generally supported, but on occasion they rebel or try for other, which is not to be allowed (ex. Afghanistan)
    6. Anyone that can be attacked on any grounds, opportunistically, to racketeer fines, big sums of money, such as in the banking sector.
    7. Countries it pretends to admire who are secretly dominated by them and only escape ostracism, sanctions or bombs or more by subservience, and a 'belonging to a controlled block' (EU.) Sweden and the Netherlands come to mind.
    8. Other.

    That is a lot countries, people, all together. The foreign policy is not cohesive, I agree, it is simply all over the board, adjusted all the time, based on ad hoc criteria, racist supremacy, capitalistic short term profiteering, snobby disapproval, empty rage, power plays, sectorial interests, corporate meddling, personal arm-twisting and blackmail, deals with foreign potentates, arms production and selling which needs war, and on and on.

    [Jan 07, 2016] Obama as yet another neocon president

    Notable quotes:
    "... Never liked the guy, knew the hopium and changium memes and slogans were a big scam! Worse than Bush, because you at least knew where Bush stood. Obama is a fraudster of the worse kind! ..."
    "... Obama has done a lot of his slaughtering under the radar with drones and assassination teams and, being a black guy with a funny name, this is not sufficient to make many feel safe . ..."
    "... All these factors lead us to see Obama as a dubious or awful president ..."
    "... I think most of us who find Obama seriously wanting are more objectively correct than those who excuse what we see as his deliberate malfeasance. ..."
    "... the critique of Obama because sometimes it gives off the angry white guy vibe that can be ugly and render your criticisms suspect. ..."
    "... . Youd think that a nation that adores England would note how the British Empire decayed and how the north of England was a swath of poverty and degradation well into the 1960s. ..."
    "... You may know that some interpretations of the Pandoras Box myth have the release of Hope at the very end not as a type of relief, but as a final scourge. ..."
    "... Obama came in with Democratic majorities in both houses. Why does he always get a free pass to blame obstructionist Republicans? People were begging for a change in direction. Truly mediocre status quo writ large. ..."
    "... Obama has a lot of enablers. I think the little good things he does (Iran negotiations, baby steps to curb climate change, nods to growing prison population, etc) are just palliatives to shut up the progressive opposition, to the extent that even exists. ..."
    "... Obama blew that majority as quickly as he could. Democrats were happy to lose majorities because they no longer had to produce results and could say the Republicans made me do it. ..."
    "... Democrats would have passed an omnibus budget reconciliation with a big jobs program. They could have done this with simple majorities in both houses ..."
    "... TPP is the big tell for Obama. Hes fighting for that like nothing else. ..."
    "... ACA belongs in the Failures column, at least for anyone who cares about the cost of healthcare and understands single payer. Stopping the Great Recession belongs in the Central Banks column, they put $13T on their balance sheets and the bill just has not come due yet. ..."
    "... Diplomacy? Bombing 7 nations with no declaration of war does not count as diplomacy ..."
    "... Obama wins my coveted Worst_President_Ever award ..."
    "... Can we also mention the $100M he spent on personal Versailles-style vacations? Cmon people…we know a good president when we see one, or even a marginal one…and O is at the other end of the spectrum. ..."
    "... I live in Australia and people often ask me what I think of Obama. My reply: I think hes a war criminal, a corporo-fascist, a hypocrite, a liar, and a fraud. But hes got a passable jump shot, so theres that . ..."
    "... Its hard to imagine anyone whos a liberal or a progressive looking at the Obama years as anything other than a huge bust. ..."
    "... Obama has said he aspires to follow in Lincolns footsteps. However, the closest analogy is Buchanan, who thought the way to handle the slavers power was to appease it, just like Obama appeared to think the way to handle corporate power was to appease it. And like Buchanan turned out to be the agent of the slavers power, Obama is the agent of corporate power. ..."
    "... The same exact script that we had under Bill Clinton. It turns out when you give people hope, they come out to vote for you. ..."
    "... Obama doesnt care about building a majority any more than the Clintons did. He cares about his personal power, perception, and ultimately his own wealth. ..."
    "... Sure looks like an Obot, tuned down to soft sell mode. ..."
    "... I dont believe that he is the sociopath that some on the left think he is ..."
    "... I think Obama is, quite simply, not as bright as everyone assumes. ..."
    "... Quite simply, I think Obama isnt bright enough to realise that a clever political compromise is not the same thing as a good policy. He is surrounded by too many privileged people to realise that the consensus among privileged smart people is one distorted by deeply conservative and regressive assumptions. ..."
    "... he genuinely believes deep in his guts that if the self-identified smart people have a consensus, then its the right thing to do. ..."
    "... I find it shocking and dismaying at just how regressive and damaging Obama has been. If you compare him to another very conservative Dem – LBJ – the comparison is particularly stark. LBJ, in the face of huge odds and his own natural political proclivities, did quite amazing things in terms of Civil Rights and protecting the poor. Obama has, in my view, made things even worse, in a much more favourable political environment. ..."
    "... I think hes ultimately just plain cynical. ..."
    "... I recall seeing the German film Mephisto, with Klaus Maria Brandauer. Brandauers artist was a well-meaning, left-leaning guy who slowly went along with the Nazis, since it was beneficial to his career. ..."
    "... Truth be told, Obama has grown very creepy to me. More than a few of us have vivid images of him with that deck of playing cards of those on the kill list. I am not charmed by his appearances with media darlings like Jerry Seinfeld and Marc Maron, who, perhaps unwittingly, legitimize the great droner. ..."
    "... I found part of his writing quite moving, but I always felt there was something calculated about it, something that didnt feel quite right. Even reading about his academic career, he always struck me as someone always so careful to quote and study the right philosophers and writers and past politicians, reminiscent of those post grad students I know always careful to modulate their writings to their Professors prejudices. ..."
    "... in his foreign affairs his understanding has always seemed to me to be shockingly shallow ..."
    "... he let the same old neo-imperialist playbook work itself out there, with a constant undermining of democratic centre left governments in the region. ..."
    "... He could, for example, have simply refused to give in to Hilarys idiotic tilt to the Pacific policy which is stupidly tin eared about Chinas genuine geopolitical concerns. ..."
    "... He could have said no to the Saudis idiotic attack on Yemen. ..."
    "... He could have stopped the meddling in the Ukraine and tried to understand Russias genuine local concerns better without necessarily sucking up to Putin. ..."
    "... He could have stood up to Turkeys meddling in Syria and Iraq (not to mention the Gulf States support for Islamacists). ..."
    "... These are all things he could have done within his powers and with little real political cost, but he didnt do them. These, to me, are all evidence of someone out of his depth rather than someone who is a complete cynic. ..."
    "... PK, your analysis is certainly fascinating, in particular the portrait of Obama as the teachers pet. My brother-in-law completed both a PhD in philosophy and a law degree. He equates his academic career to glorified clerking, more than an investment in the life of the mind. ..."
    "... Obama seems to have just the right combination of intelligence, political correctness, breeding, and a conformist streak to thrive as a full-fledged member of the elite, whether in academia or in Washington. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism generally also includes the belief that freely adopted market mechanisms is the optimal way of organising all exchanges of goods and services (Friedman 1962; 1980; Norberg 2001). Free markets and free trade will, it is believed, set free the creative potential and the entrepreneurial spirit which is built into the spontaneous order of any human society, and thereby lead to more individual liberty and well-being, and a more efficient allocation of resources (Hayek 1973; Rothbard [1962/1970] 2004). Neoliberalism could also include a perspective on moral virtue: the good and virtuous person is one who is able to access the relevant markets and function as a competent actor in these markets. He or she is willing to accept the risks associated with participating in free markets, and to adapt to rapid changes arising from such participation (Friedman 1980). Individuals are also seen as being solely responsible for the consequences of the choices and decisions they freely make: instances of inequality and glaring social injustice are morally acceptable, at least to the degree in which they could be seen as the result of freely made decisions (Nozick 1974; Hayek 1976). If a person demands that the state should regulate the market or make reparations to the unfortunate who has been caught at the losing end of a freely initiated market transaction, this is viewed as an indication that the person in question is morally depraved and underdeveloped, and scarcely different from a proponent of a totalitarian state (Mises 1962). – Joe Firestone ..."
    "... incompletes ..."
    "... I recall a profile of Obama in the New Yorker that referred to him as a Javanese prince, a pregnant metaphor, given his background. ..."
    "... I think that Obama is detached, which has meant that he is inured to the suffering of others. ..."
    "... There have been repeated complaints from congressional reps that he doesnt call. Not even colleagues in his own party. ..."
    "... He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done. ..."
    "... He went to an elite high school, an elite college, and an elite law school (where he has the distinction of being an editor of a law review yet, again, never publishing). The detachment is internal and external–an empty suit, a child of privilege, no understanding of the consequences of wielding power. ..."
    "... I recall Angela Merkel complaining about how cold Obama is. She argued that at least Bush seems to connect on a personal level. Merkel and other world leaders were surprised at his unwillingness to socialize. ..."
    "... He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done. ..."
    "... failing upwards has been part of Barrys compensation package. ..."
    "... Its part and parcel of the US clepto-chrony-capitalist system. And the best is yet to come, just you wait until he vies with Bubba for being the richest ex-president… ..."
    "... all of Bubbas charisma couldnt overcome Barrys shtick in 2008. Barry left them all in the dust in fundraising, and a large chunk of that came from Wall Street. So unless there is no honor amongst thieves, Barry will get his payday. ..."
    "... some of us who have always seen Obama as a total narcissist ..."
    "... A true narcissist wouldnt be as obviously thin-skinned as Obama is. If he was narcissistic he might actually have been a better president, narcissists dont back down at the first obstacle the way he constantly seems to do. ..."
    "... Narcissists are thin-skinned. Unflattering feedback is met with narcissistic rage. ..."
    "... Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, which is a perceived threat to a narcissists self-esteem or self-worth. Narcissistic injury (or narcissistic scar) is a phrase used by Sigmund Freud in the 1920s; narcissistic wound and narcissistic blow are further, almost interchangeable terms.[1] The term narcissistic rage was coined by Heinz Kohut in 1972. ..."
    "... Obama like Clinton before him has no sense of the large picture, his own power, and any particular plans beyond Presidentin. ..."
    "... I voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary because I did not want another Bill Clinton administration. What I got was another Bill Clinton administration–the same advisors and staff, whose advice Obama followed, especially economic advice. Obama is a lawyer by training, no numbers required. ..."
    "... Two bumper stickers I wrote for my car– Drone bomb Obamas kids, as he drone bombs the kids of others and Hillary and Barack are war criminals . ..."
    "... America! Locked in Lovers of making decisions based on two and only two choices by the time tested means of blind rage and blind team loyalty to raw ignorance. ..."
    "... Concussions – USA ..."
    "... Concussions – USA ..."
    "... He is the designated spokesmodel for the love me Im a liberal wing of the power duopoly (as opposed to the proud to be an asshole wing) ..."
    "... Obamas disastrous, failed presidency should have been a wake up call for Democrats and liberals. Instead theyre doubling down on neoliberalism, militarism and Wall St toadyism in the form of Hillary Clinton. Their delusion that demographics and progress on social wedge issues will rescue them from the Republican dominance at the state and local level resulting from the disenchantment of voters with their party and candidates (case in point – losing the Maryland governorship to a Republican real-estate hack mostly because of low turnout in Dem strongholds) seems to be unshakeable. They dont seem to get that its not enough to not be the Republicans or to be only slightly less worse than them. ..."
    "... Oh, and another tell that this is conventional writing from conventional propaganda is the phrase Russias land grab in Ukraine. No, there was a coup in Kiev helped by 5 Billion US dollars. Right wing thugs forced the elected President to flee. Then all kinds of crazy statements about banning the Russian language in Ukraine and Russian speakers being sub human made it pretty easy for Crimea which Krushchev had ceded to Ukraine in 1954 to vote to go back to Mother Russia in an election. It was a defensive move not a grab . ..."
    "... Her husband is Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Incredible damage Kagan engineered. Hard to fathom how Nuland made it into a BO admin., much less in position to craft US Ukraine (the coup) policy. ..."
    "... In truth, Obama and Eric Holders inaction on the prosecution of white collar criminals has highlighted the undeniable two-tiered justice system ..."
    "... I often wondered as he was led to the stage for his inauguration if someone didnt point out the snipers and hand him a script. ..."
    "... Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, listened too much to the neocon advisors ( including HRC) on foreign policy and Holder and Rahm on domestic issues. At that point, hope and change went out the window. What happened: prosecution of whistleblowers, more black inmates, affordable housing programs cut, Guantanamo stays open, schools turn private, environmental regs are not enforced, progressive voices are ignored. Not what most of us voted for. ..."
    "... Obama is best understood as a CIA project since his early teens. hes been groomed ..."
    "... I said early on in other blogs years ago that Obama is easily the most right wing President in history, and soon after said he was the worst President in history. ..."
    "... TPP alone (Modified Feudalism. Thats more right wing than even the Tea Party – am I right?) makes Obama the most right wing President in history and its not even close. And the reason I called him the worst, is because of the Trojan Horse Affect he has being an enemy behind the oppositions lines or what Glenn Greenwald expressed by saying Obama may not be more evil than Bush, but he is the more effective evil. By occupying the party that is supposed to be liberal when he is not, he can more effectively and quickly pass right wing change from within than could the most right wing of all right-wingers in the other party. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Winston Smith , January 2, 2016 at 4:12 am

    If I was passing out grades, with the TPP project, Obama gets a big fat F-

    Never liked the guy, knew the hopium and changium memes and slogans were a big scam! Worse than Bush, because you at least knew where Bush stood. Obama is a fraudster of the worse kind!

    Jill Stein's got my vote if Uncle Bernie isn't on the ticket! In my humbe opinion of course!

    James Levy , January 2, 2016 at 6:19 am

    Almost all commentary in the US mass media (which Alternet is on the fringes of) has as basic assumptions two memes: "compared to the Republicans" and "in the real world." I think if we want to be honest that we must say compared to a President Cruz or President Santorum, Obama looks fairly good. And as the commenter notes about Paris, in "the real world" tens of millions of Americans take it for granted that the job of the President is to "keep us safe" by slaughtering foreigners in sufficient numbers so that they fear us. Obama has done a lot of his slaughtering under the radar with drones and assassination teams and, being a black guy with a funny name, this is not sufficient to make many feel "safe".

    Here, our criteria are different. We have both a broader picture of what is happening, what was and is possible (we could be wrong about the extent of what's possible, but that's another argument), and what the potential options are. All these factors lead us to see Obama as a dubious or awful president (opinions differ, even around here). Objectively, I think most of us who find Obama seriously wanting are more objectively correct than those who excuse what we see as his deliberate malfeasance.

    On a personal note, all this horror is affecting me personally and sending me into flights of rage. This also hurts the critique of Obama because sometimes it gives off the "angry white guy" vibe that can be ugly and render your criticisms suspect. I know that global warming and gun violence have me so upset that my own judgment is at times distorted, although I can't have much truck with anyone who isn't deeply upset by these phenomena. And the old academic stance of radical objectivity and dispassion really can be a pose and socially sterile–leadership and mobilizing people is rarely all about dispassionate objectivity and pulling one's punches with neutral language. It all leaves me baffled as to the way ahead.

    DJG , January 2, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    Jim Levy: An excellent comment. As always, you argue carefully and even use unfashionable words like "dispassionate." (And how many blogs these days have commenters who might use the word "probity?")

    On a personal note: I don't believe in hope, which is a theological virtue. By and large, it serves Christian eschatology, which is why I became suspicious of the decidedly un-religious Obama and his use of it. (Not right away. It took me till after the first inauguration and the Cabinet of re-treads.) And I am not persuaded the arc of history bends toward justice in the United States of America, which may be what makes the country exceptional. American crassness has defeated even its greatest prophets, not just Martin Luther King but Walt Whitman, Abraham Lincoln, Jane Addams, and Sinclair Lewis.

    Yesterday, I had an open house to begin the year, and we touched on insurance. Many of my friends are free lances or self-employed owners of small businesses. We touched on what has happened here in Illinois, collectively blanched, and then discussed the fact that after 19 years of free lance I took a job. It is a plum job, and it has health benefits. ACA is going to grind down the middle class, and the happy talk of extended coverage doesn't talk about the crappiness, the insulting crappiness, of the policies.

    I suspect that major change with regard to global warming, peace, and conversion to a new economy will not come from the United States . You'd think that a nation that adores England would note how the British Empire decayed and how the north of England was a swath of poverty and degradation well into the 1960s. So the solutions are going to come from smaller, odder places, just as mammals were a small and odd group when they arose, years ago. Portugal is intriguing, as is Norway. Sweden is trying in ways that the U.S. just won't do. And even Japan changes in remarkable ways. And I would never rule out Brazil.

    Recommended reading: It may be the moment for Cavafy, who knew about decadent societies and the feeling of loss. See "Waiting for the Barbarians" and "Ithaca."

    Yves Smith Post author , January 2, 2016 at 11:29 pm

    DLG,

    You may know that some interpretations of the Pandora's Box myth have the release of "Hope" at the very end not as a type of relief, but as a final scourge.

    sd , January 2, 2016 at 6:21 am

    Obama came in with Democratic majorities in both houses. Why does he always get a free pass to blame "obstructionist" Republicans? People were begging for a change in direction. Truly mediocre status quo writ large.

    Inverness , January 2, 2016 at 8:01 am

    You got it. Obama has a lot of enablers. I think the little "good things" he does (Iran negotiations, baby steps to curb climate change, nods to growing prison population, etc) are just palliatives to shut up the progressive opposition, to the extent that even exists.

    Steven D. , January 2, 2016 at 10:34 am

    Obama blew that majority as quickly as he could. Democrats were happy to lose majorities because they no longer had to produce results and could say the Republicans made me do it.

    If they were serious, the Democrats would have passed an omnibus budget reconciliation with a big jobs program. They could have done this with simple majorities in both houses . It's the lack of good jobs that is causing the implosion of society. And that's on Obama and the Democrats who didn't turn things around when they had the chance.

    TPP is the big tell for Obama. He's fighting for that like nothing else.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , January 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    All of the "Incompletes" belong in the "Failures" column. And the "Successes"? ACA belongs in the "Failures" column, at least for anyone who cares about the cost of healthcare and understands single payer. Stopping the Great Recession belongs in the "Central Banks" column, they put $13T on their balance sheets and the bill just has not come due yet.

    Diplomacy? Bombing 7 nations with no declaration of war does not count as "diplomacy" , recall that Jimmy Carter went 4 whole years without a single shot fired in anger, now THAT's diplomacy. And please point me to one single solitary foreign policy "success", I suppose you'd have to mention Cuba and Iran, Cuba was a gimme and it's far from clear that the Iran rapprochement has succeeded and is a net "win" for the US given the witches brew of the ME.

    Obama wins my coveted "Worst_President_Ever" award , and yes I'm counting Andrew Johnson and Millard Fillmore. He simply normalized everything we hated about Bush, from Permanent War to unbridled corporo-fascism to a free pass for Wall St to unlimited spying that would make the Stasi drool. And no mention of the War on Whistleblowers. Can we also mention the $100M he spent on personal Versailles-style vacations? C'mon people…we know a "good" president when we see one, or even a marginal one…and O is at the other end of the spectrum.

    I live in Australia and people often ask me what I think of Obama. My reply: "I think he's a war criminal, a corporo-fascist, a hypocrite, a liar, and a fraud. But he's got a passable jump shot, so there's that".

    david s , January 2, 2016 at 6:14 pm

    It's hard to imagine anyone who's a liberal or a progressive looking at the Obama years as anything other than a huge bust.

    Steven D. , January 2, 2016 at 8:45 pm

    Obama has said he aspires to follow in Lincoln's footsteps. However, the closest analogy is Buchanan, who thought the way to handle the slavers' power was to appease it, just like Obama appeared to think the way to handle corporate power was to appease it. And like Buchanan turned out to be the agent of the slavers' power, Obama is the agent of corporate power.

    Larry , January 2, 2016 at 8:11 am

    The same exact script that we had under Bill Clinton. It turns out when you give people hope, they come out to vote for you.

    Especially at a time of economic crisis. But then when you deliver nothing for the largest block of voters, you quickly disenfranchise them and they either change their vote or don't bother to vote at all. The Senatorial elections in Massachusetts were a good barometer for Obama's quick loss of appeal. We had a tightly contested race between our former Attorney General, Martha Coakley, and Scott Brown for senate. Coakley was an awful candidate who was a somewhat effective AG, but had no personality or desire to run a strong campaign. Scott Brown was a fluff candidate who had been a local state representative.

    When the race was clearly close due to the democrats failed policy and the potential for Scott Brown to be a deciding vote against Obamacare, Obama himself came and stumped for Coakley. A sitting president who had won an overwhelming majority of the vote in Massachusetts could do little to bring up Coakley's flagging campaign.

    Scott Brown was elected and had a largely feckless few years in office. Now look who sits in that Senate seat. Elizabeth Warren, who one could say has stood up to Obama's largest policies and is by no means a democratic insider. So this is to say that most democrats or temporary Obama supporters were quickly disillusioned when the president they got didn't match the marketing promises they received on TV. But Obama doesn't care about building a majority any more than the Clintons did. He cares about his personal power, perception, and ultimately his own wealth.

    craazyboy , January 2, 2016 at 6:26 am

    Sure looks like an Obot, tuned down to soft sell mode. The "failures and incompletes" remind me of GWB's aweshucks moments. Iran needs to be moved from the Big Successes category to the aweshucks column now. Because, aweshucks, furry faced crazy mullahs. If only they were more like bankers, corporate America and the security state – where we could control them better?

    PlutoniumKun , January 2, 2016 at 6:52 am

    A few months ago on a thread here I asked generally what people thought actually motivated Obama – what makes him tick as a person – he clearly isn't a narcissist like Clinton, or a captive of his upbringing like Bush. I got some really interesting answers, its a pity I can't find them now. I don't believe that he is the sociopath that some on the left think he is – there is enough evidence from the first 2 years or so of his presidency that he was genuinely trying to do the right thing by the economy and in the Middle East, but the speed with which he retreated into an establishment shell at the first sign of trouble was remarkable and disturbing. I suspect that for someone thought of as a 'thinker', he seems to have a lack of real self awareness.

    I'm less cynical than some about his motives with Obamacare, drones and TPP. I think Obama is, quite simply, not as bright as everyone assumes. I've met very educated, progressive-minded people, who will defend strongly some very regressive policies on the basis that 'yes, they are not ideal, but they are a step in the right direction, anything else is not politically feasible'. And yes, I used to think like that (NC being one of my big educators). It sounds pretentious to say people like that are not 'enlightened' yet, but to an extent it is true. It took me many years to shake off the assumptions of my own education (conservative) and upbringing (conservative). Quite simply, I think Obama isn't bright enough to realise that a clever political compromise is not the same thing as a good policy. He is surrounded by too many privileged people to realise that the consensus among privileged smart people is one distorted by deeply conservative and regressive assumptions. You can see it in his pre-presidential writings – he genuinely believes deep in his guts that if the self-identified 'smart' people have a consensus, then its the right thing to do.

    But back to the point – I agree with Yves that this article is surprisingly generous to Obama, and given that it comes from the left, it shows that his natural charm works even on people who should know better. I find it shocking and dismaying at just how regressive and damaging Obama has been. If you compare him to another very conservative Dem – LBJ – the comparison is particularly stark. LBJ, in the face of huge odds and his own natural political proclivities, did quite amazing things in terms of Civil Rights and protecting the poor. Obama has, in my view, made things even worse, in a much more favourable political environment. I'm particularly horrified at his supposed environmentalism – he has done absolutely nothing that he wasn't dragged kicking and screaming into doing. I believe that deep down he has a natural distaste for 'regular folks'. In theory he wants to help them, but he can't help wishing they didn't actually exist. I've met a lot of people like him – many come from privilege, many do not – the fact that they think they bootstrapped themselves up makes their contempt even stronger.

    Inverness , January 2, 2016 at 8:33 am

    Yet, I do think Obama is quite bright, with a subtle wit and a profound understanding of oppression. I read parts of one of his books, and his poetic way of exploring how the poor on Chicago's South side live was truly moving. Which makes his transition to the dark side even more troubling.

    That's why I think he's ultimately just plain cynical. What makes him tick? He's one of the most powerful men in the world, and he has plenty of enablers in the "intelligentsia" and on media outlets like NPR and the New York Times to convince him that he's some sort of great compromiser, a martyr for the Middle Path. I really do think Obama thinks he's just so damn reasonable, if only he didn't have to content with Congress and "bitter working class people." Ha. You're right, when he had both houses, he didn't exactly push for Wall Street prosecutions and regulations, did he? But why would he invest emotionally in that version of himself, which is the highly unflattering portrait of somebody who sold his soul?

    After awhile, you buy into the narrative which both enables, and is flattering, to you. And I don't think brilliance makes you immune to that, not when you have access to all of that power. The mind is a flexible thing, and even smart people can just create new stories which are validating.

    I recall seeing the German film "Mephisto," with Klaus Maria Brandauer. Brandauer's artist was a well-meaning, left-leaning guy who slowly went along with the Nazis, since it was beneficial to his career. I wouldn't underestimate what access to power and money can do. I suspect that Alexis Tsipras wanted to sincerely help his fellow Greeks out of economic devastation. However, the Troika has way more goodies to give him, than Greece ever could. So, why wouldn't he be seduced?

    Truth be told, Obama has grown very creepy to me. More than a few of us have vivid images of him with that deck of playing cards of those on the kill list. I am not charmed by his appearances with media darlings like Jerry Seinfeld and Marc Maron, who, perhaps unwittingly, legitimize the great droner. To me, his chilling asides (like droning rivals to his daughter's favourite pop group, sharing his contempt for the angry poors, or his story about decrepit world leaders peeing themselves) reveal somebody who has lost touch with his humanity and has become dangerously self-satisfied. Jerry Seinfeld shared that "power corrupts." Did Obama recognize himself in that equation? Does he even care anymore? Either way, he has a very lucrative future career in speeches and publishing, so I think he'll be just fine. Leave it to the plebes, those pesky consciences.

    PlutoniumKun , January 2, 2016 at 9:07 am

    @inverness, I think you are generally right about that. I found part of his writing quite moving, but I always felt there was something calculated about it, something that didn't feel quite right. Even reading about his academic career, he always struck me as someone always so careful to quote and study the 'right' philosophers and writers and past politicians, reminiscent of those post grad students I know always careful to modulate their writings to their Professors prejudices. But I've always suspected this was instinctual rather than calculated with Obama, but its hard to be sure. But one thing that immediately struck me when I was reading his books was his huge lack of curiosity about economics and science – there was nothing, absolutely nothing to indicate he gave any thought whatever to those subjects.

    I do think that he (along with his close advisors) see themselves as 'the grown-ups in the room' and bulwarks against 'the crazies'. Supporting drone strikes can be seen as 'grown up' policy when you are constantly dealing with hawks. But in his foreign affairs his understanding has always seemed to me to be shockingly shallow . As an obvious example where he could have made a very real difference without too much political issues, he could have reached out more to progressive governments in South and Central America, but he let the same old neo-imperialist playbook work itself out there, with a constant undermining of democratic centre left governments in the region.

    • He could, for example, have simply refused to give in to Hilary's idiotic "tilt to the Pacific' policy which is stupidly tin eared about China's genuine geopolitical concerns.
    • He could have said 'no' to the Saudi's idiotic attack on Yemen.
    • He could have stopped the meddling in the Ukraine and tried to understand Russia's genuine local concerns better without necessarily sucking up to Putin.
    • He could have stood up to Turkeys meddling in Syria and Iraq (not to mention the Gulf States support for Islamacists).

    These are all things he could have done within his powers and with little real political cost, but he didn't do them. These, to me, are all evidence of someone out of his depth rather than someone who is a complete cynic.

    Inverness , January 2, 2016 at 9:25 am

    PK, your analysis is certainly fascinating, in particular the portrait of Obama as the teacher's pet. My brother-in-law completed both a PhD in philosophy and a law degree. He equates his academic career to glorified clerking, more than an investment in the life of the mind.

    Obama seems to have just the right combination of intelligence, political correctness, breeding, and a conformist streak to thrive as a full-fledged member of the elite, whether in academia or in Washington. He certainly lacks the iconoclastic/rebellious streak which you see in brilliant minds like Noam Chomsky, unless he's disciplined enough to keep that under wraps for opportunistic reasons.

    Left in Wisconsin , January 2, 2016 at 11:39 am

    Obama seems to have just the right combination of intelligence, political correctness, breeding, and a conformist streak to thrive as a full-fledged member of the elite, whether in academia or in Washington.

    Well said.

    skippy , January 2, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    Methinks this describes Obama to a 'T'

    "Neoliberalism generally also includes the belief that freely adopted market mechanisms is the optimal way of organising all exchanges of goods and services (Friedman 1962; 1980; Norberg 2001). Free markets and free trade will, it is believed, set free the creative potential and the entrepreneurial spirit which is built into the spontaneous order of any human society, and thereby lead to more individual liberty and well-being, and a more efficient allocation of resources (Hayek 1973; Rothbard [1962/1970] 2004). Neoliberalism could also include a perspective on moral virtue: the good and virtuous person is one who is able to access the relevant markets and function as a competent actor in these markets. He or she is willing to accept the risks associated with participating in free markets, and to adapt to rapid changes arising from such participation (Friedman 1980). Individuals are also seen as being solely responsible for the consequences of the choices and decisions they freely make: instances of inequality and glaring social injustice are morally acceptable, at least to the degree in which they could be seen as the result of freely made decisions (Nozick 1974; Hayek 1976). If a person demands that the state should regulate the market or make reparations to the unfortunate who has been caught at the losing end of a freely initiated market transaction, this is viewed as an indication that the person in question is morally depraved and underdeveloped, and scarcely different from a proponent of a totalitarian state (Mises 1962)." – Joe Firestone

    Skippy…. a product of environmental conditioning which was mentored in the early stages of political – life – by where the currant paradigm could be extended and advanced.

    sd , January 2, 2016 at 10:54 am

    Instead, one of his earliest initiatives – and remember, this marks the use of his earliest political capital in May 2009 – indefinite detention. I was beyond horrified and have regretted voting for him since that day.

    Indefinite Detention = the real Barack Obama.

    1 Kings , January 2, 2016 at 12:09 pm

    Or siding with the telecoms sanctioning surveillance the first week he was official. Or Summers and Geithner. Or the great O-Care insurance sell out. Or pretending he was going after the banksters. Or Fracking. Or, Or, Or.

    By the way, "The Great Droner' by one of the commenters above is genius. Certainly applies in a multitude of ways.

    participant-observer-observed , January 2, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Notice your litany of or, or, or-s exemplify how nearly all of the so-called incompletes are actually failures (although we can count Congress and Senate as whole class failures).

    I couldn't even read about the so-called economic recovery and bank bailouts by holding my nose. NC readers would need Dramamine (polite way if saying it).

    Nevertheless, I have had a few dreams about informal meetings with Bho, and while i seem to have tried to give him some guidance, he was always charming and amicable…maybe simple good manners is enough to score with excellence.

    DJG , January 2, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    PK and Inverness: Astute comments, very thought provoking. I recall a profile of Obama in the New Yorker that referred to him as a Javanese prince, a pregnant metaphor, given his background. I believe, though, that the writer was referring to ceremonial kingship. Obama as embodying a symbolic kind of power.

    I think that Obama is detached, which has meant that he is inured to the suffering of others. Surely, the video-kill of Osama bin Laden is detached (and immoral, but let's not go there yet)–especially publishing photos of the control room. This detachment evidently continues into retail politics. If he isn't giving a grand speech, he doesn't want to have to shake hands. There have been repeated complaints from congressional reps that he doesn't call. Not even colleagues in his own party.

    The detachment devolves into a certain designed lack of excellence. He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done. The endless droning about his background as a professor of constitutional law (it's an article of faith among his fan club) is belied by his policies (Guantanamo, drone killings, the extrajudicial killing and disposal of OBL). Yet he was so detached as a con law prof that he neglected to publish articles or books about the U.S. Constitution. Who did he influence? No one is ever quoted as saying that the class was good or that Obama has any kind of constitutional theories. Again, he's the Javanese prince, ceremonial, detached, waiting to rule. He's like an ever-shiny-and-new M.B.A.

    He went to an elite high school, an elite college, and an elite law school (where he has the distinction of being an editor of a law review yet, again, never publishing). The detachment is internal and external–an empty suit, a child of privilege, no understanding of the consequences of wielding power.

    I owe Geraldine Ferraro an apology–isn't she the one who was hushed for saying something like, So he gave one good speech? And the whole kerfuffle about the location of the Obama library, with the many sites? Isn't the presidential library supposed to be at the person's "home," and does Obama have a home?

    Inverness , January 2, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    I recall Angela Merkel complaining about how cold Obama is. She argued that at least Bush seems to connect on a personal level. Merkel and other world leaders were surprised at his unwillingness to socialize. When Europeans, in particular Germans, find you too reserved…this also speaks to your theory of detachment, albeit on a social level.

    Martha Retallick , January 2, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    Wait a minute. Did I just read that? Angela Merkel complaining about how cold Obama is? Yeesh!

    OIFVet , January 2, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    "He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done." Yet, like many business people, failing upwards has been part of Barry's compensation package.

    It's part and parcel of the US clepto-chrony-capitalist system. And the best is yet to come, just you wait until he vies with Bubba for being the richest ex-president…

    optimader , January 2, 2016 at 6:35 pm

    Clinton's natural skill has been his adept, and presumably disingenuous ability to insightfully focus and project empathy toward people, make them think he has their interests. Combined with an ability to triangulate opportunity, this is why he is such a excellent grifter BClinton's naturally ability to interact and ingratiate seems to me to be exactly the skillset BHO is utterly void of.

    I think IN GENERAL, one on one most people have a hard time not liking BClinton. It is what it is.

    OTOH, other than BHO's true believers, most of whom probably are of relatively modest means other than the Hollywood liberal dilettante sort that want the superficial interaction w/ the first half black POTUS, I don't really see BHO pulling off a BClinton scale payday..do you?

    His narcissistic nature will inhibit that. So ok some BOD opportunity, maybe some foundation at UofC?, but who in the serious old money crowd will want to engage him as a peer and for what reason?

    He kinda has the charisma of a POTUS version of Alberto Gonzalez.

    OIFVet , January 2, 2016 at 6:59 pm

    You may be right, but then again all of Bubba's charisma couldn't overcome Barry's shtick in 2008. Barry left them all in the dust in fundraising, and a large chunk of that came from Wall Street. So unless there is no honor amongst thieves, Barry will get his payday.

    And FWIW, 'serious old money' looks like a pittance compared to the serious new money whose bacon Barry saved. Besides, I don't really see Bubba rolling with the old fogies club, I see him hobnobbing with Bono. In any case, we shall find out soon enough just how much Barry's service is worth.

    Optimader , January 2, 2016 at 8:06 pm

    Serious old money is a misnomer indeed, makes that serious money, that said i doubt Bono lets a nickel go too easily. Wall st looks to future opportunity will be yesterdays fish wrapper in a year. On 2098, that's a pretty good surrogate for HRC charm. I just dont see BHO being a wheeler dealer which in the end is about all BClinton has to offer anyone,

    Still such a shame Chicago is BHO last known address

    OIFVet , January 2, 2016 at 8:37 pm

    "such a shame Chicago is BHO last known address" Dude, this fact harshest my mellow every time. Throw in the inevitability of His lie-Barry coming to the neighborhood and I completely crumple into a bottomless pit of self-pity. The thought of the hordes of 0bots making the pilgrimage to Hyde Park in the coming years is simply unbearable.

    Sam Adams , January 2, 2016 at 9:01 am

    What motivates Obama? I'd venture his upbringing as a half black outsider licking the Windows who now sees himself at the main house dining room table.

    Carolinian , January 2, 2016 at 9:46 am

    he clearly isn't a narcissist like Clinton

    You're kidding, right? Of course some of us who have always seen Obama as a total narcissist could be wrong, but "clearly isn't"–where does that come from? In fact I'll just quote you later in your comment.

    he can't help wishing they didn't actually exist. I've met a lot of people like him – many come from privilege, many do not – the fact that they think they bootstrapped themselves up makes their contempt even stronger.

    Narcissist.

    PlutoniumKun , January 2, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    A true narcissist wouldn't be as obviously thin-skinned as Obama is. If he was narcissistic he might actually have been a better president, narcissists don't back down at the first obstacle the way he constantly seems to do.

    Carolinian , January 2, 2016 at 2:30 pm

    To punish Narcissus, the avenging goddess Nemesis made Narcissus fall hopelessly in love with his own beautiful face as he saw it reflected in a pool. As he gazed in fascination, unable to remove himself from his image, he gradually pined away. At the place where his body had lain grew a beautiful flower, honoring the name and memory of Narcissus.

    –MS Encarta

    If it quacks like a duck…..

    nycTerrierist , January 2, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    Narcissists are thin-skinned. Unflattering feedback is met with 'narcissistic rage'.

    from wiki:

    "Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, which is a perceived threat to a narcissist's self-esteem or self-worth. Narcissistic injury (or narcissistic scar) is a phrase used by Sigmund Freud in the 1920s; narcissistic wound and narcissistic blow are further, almost interchangeable terms.[1] The term narcissistic rage was coined by Heinz Kohut in 1972.

    Narcissistic injury occurs when a narcissist feels that their hidden 'true self' has been revealed. This may be the case when the narcissist has a fall from grace, such as when their hidden behaviors or motivations are revealed or when their importance is brought into question. Narcissistic injury is a cause of distress and can lead to dysregulation of behaviors as in narcissistic rage.

    Narcissistic rage occurs on a continuum from instances of aloofness, and expression of mild irritation or annoyance, to serious outbursts, including violent attacks and murder…

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 2, 2016 at 10:29 am

    Obama isn't just the object if the Obot devotion, he is the biggest Obot of them all.

    Obama like Clinton before him has no sense of the large picture, his own power, and any particular plans beyond Presidentin'.

    Universal health care was never an end goal for either President. Being put in the history books as a bipartisan hero was their goal. Healthcare was a means to an end. They picked what they perceived as the easiest path to what they could call change. Bill handed off responsibility to his never elected wife with no relevant back ground in hopes no one would attack her. The difference between Bill/Obama and other narcissists (even Bernie is full of himself. He thinks he can have George Washington's old job) is they don't grasp the difference between quality and brand.

    Jim Haygood , January 2, 2016 at 11:45 am

    Big incompletes : playing more rounds of golf during two terms than any other president.

    FORE!

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , January 2, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    He has a place in the history books as "the first black president" nevermind that he was a complete disaster. Next up we will have "the first woman president", same outcome (hopefully not much worse, that would be difficult but given her politics and her backers she's already in the runner-up spot for my "Worst_President_Ever" award..

    verifyfirst , January 2, 2016 at 7:11 am

    I voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary because I did not want another Bill Clinton administration. What I got was another Bill Clinton administration–the same advisors and staff, whose advice Obama followed, especially economic advice. Obama is a lawyer by training, no numbers required.

    As a professor of constitutional law, I would have guessed Obama would have at least been strong on civil liberties, but he was not.

    Two bumper stickers I wrote for my car–"Drone bomb Obama's kids, as he drone bombs the kids of others" and "Hillary and Barack are war criminals".

    Sorry if these are "too weak".

    They are magnetic, so I can take them off when others are in the car with me–I worry about being attacked by an enraged Prius driver here in "progressive" Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Brooklin Bridge , January 2, 2016 at 7:59 am

    A long post could be done on the subject of American sports, football in particular, as self mandated training wheels to our corresponding political duopoly; America! Locked in Lovers of making decisions based on two and only two choices by the time tested means of blind rage and blind team loyalty to raw ignorance. For short, we could call it, Concussions – USA .

    The pluses this author attributes to a morally and ethically bankrupt individual who with overwhelming shock and awe provided by the system described above, Concussions – USA , conned Americans into making him president of their sometime democracy would simply dissolve into public ridicule and laughter under any other system (unless it had America's big gun pointed right at it's head).

    Kokuanani , January 2, 2016 at 8:25 am

    I'm curious – but too lazy to go over there & find out - how regular Alternet readers are replying to this fluff.

    diptherio , January 2, 2016 at 9:48 am

    Reaction there is largely similar to that here: Obama is a failure on nearly every count, is actually a conservative, and this "report card" is giving him too much of a pass. Encouraging!

    Here's a representative comment from dave3137:

    Oh, yes, and let's not forget the guy who stood by his Wall Street pals (Geithner, et al.) and told the banksters "help me to help you," while letting "Main Street" drown in the crisis they did NOT create. And let's not forget how this administration let people go because Breitbart and Fox threw up a smokescreen. And let's not forget that this administration is trying desperately to shove a "trade deal" (or three) down our throats that have almost zero advantages for ordinary Americans. And let's not forget how this Administration's justice department failed to prosecute ANY banksters but managed to exact a few minutes' worth of profits as "fines" - while bragging these were "record-breaking." Oh, and remember how Obama spoke out so forcefully against the "death panel" crap? And remember how "single payer" disappeared after big pharma had a White House meeting? And remember ending "endless war"? Closing Guantanamo? And oh yeah, let's not forget to give "credit" for "the most transparent administration in US history."

    Llewelyn Moss , January 2, 2016 at 8:27 am

    Obamacare, a Big Success. hahaha.
    It mandated participation in a system that is based on horrific price gouging.

    Stopping the great recession, a Big Success.
    Yeah the Morbidly Rich did nicely by transferring their losses to the taxpayers. Thanks Bush-Bama.

    After those two, I can't take the list seriously.

    It's either Bernie or I go full Green Party from here on out.

    Glen , January 2, 2016 at 8:54 am

    I don't consider Obamacare or our "economic" recovery to be successes unless, 1) you're rich enough not to need Obamacare and 2) you're rich enough to benefit from the "economic" recovery. Nobody else benefited aside from those using the Medicare expansion, not the middle class, and most definitely not the poor.

    Anybody who still votes Democratic based on "this is the best we can get" is admitting that our democracy is broke and they are getting screwed. One of the required actions to fix our democracy is to quit voting for the Democratic party based on that self defeating rational. I will vote for Bernie, I will not vote for Hillary.

    Arizona Slim , January 2, 2016 at 10:11 am

    I'm with you, Glen and Lleweyen.

    And I'm meeting quite a few Republicans who don't care for Hillary or Trump. Tells me that the Sanders campaign has a huge opportunity to pick up votes.

    mad as hell. , January 2, 2016 at 8:58 am

    You won't find a better entertainer than B.O. I think in the last week I saw references to him hiking on some travel channel and also doing a segment with Jerry Seinfeld. Come on folks he's giving America what it wants in it's screen captured environment

    I'll never forget the time my wife and I were sitting in a restaurant and across from me was a family or I at least assume it was a family of father, son and daughter. Teenage Son was playing some game on a hand held device. Early twenty something daughter was texting on a smart phone. Old school pop had his head tilted up and watching some show on the tv. I did not hear one word uttered that entire time by the Screen family.

    Obama knows we are a nation of screen watchers and being the entertainer that he is covers the part exceptionally well. Although I have lost interest in watching his shtick anymore.

    Carolinian , January 2, 2016 at 10:11 am

    He is the designated spokesmodel for the "love me I'm a liberal" wing of the power duopoly (as opposed to the "proud to be an asshole" wing) , and as reward for staying on script he gets to enjoy the considerable privileges of office–privileges that, according to plugged in commentators like Pat Lang, he enjoys greatly.

    Obama's only noteworthy accomplishment is providing the country with it's first African American President and for that he will always deserve some credit. He himself may be a big phony, but the pride this accomplishment has given to many black people isn't. One can also say that in a long line of Presidential mediocrities Obama is merely the latest. Clearly it's our American system that is deeply flawed and unable to cope with ever more serious problems.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 2, 2016 at 11:57 am

    Obama loves the limelight, but he's going on shows, not drawing the crowds himself. Jerry Seinfeld isn't edgy or provocative (not that there's anything wrong with that), and he can't say no to the President, in a way a Carlin might, more mock the person to their face the way a Colbert might if he were so motivated. I didn't watch the Seinfeld appearance, but I've heard he is the nicest celebrity to meet.

    Obama has recognized that the screens which once featured him are no longer tuned in and he's searching for attention. Every Presidential candidate is inherently an anti-Obama candidate.

    roadrider , January 2, 2016 at 9:48 am

    Yeah Yves I almost lost my lunch when I read this on Alternet yesterday. But I guess its par for the course from the Dem/liberal establishment. For better or worse, Obama is their guy, just like Hillary will be their girl and IOKIADDI (its OK if a Democrat does it). Neoliberal Heritage Foundation/Romney health insurance "reform"? No problem! It's a "Big Success"! Turning a blind eye to the largest, most destructive white-collar crime wave in our history? Well, he had "no choice". "Foaming the runway" for the Wall St perps while screwing ordinary workers, distressed homeowners and fraud victims? File it under 'saving the economy". Continuity (and worse) with the Bush/Cheney foreign policy and "War on Terrah"? Well, that's just "keeping use safe from the 21st century boogey-men that fuel the MIC and the warfare consensus among the "serious people". And I haven't even gotten to economic inequality remaining the same (or even worsening), the TPP, persecution of whistle blowers, inaction of student loans, promotion of Arctic oil drilling while pretending to be serious about climate change and on and on.

    Obama's disastrous, failed presidency should have been a wake up call for Democrats and liberals. Instead they're doubling down on neoliberalism, militarism and Wall St toadyism in the form of Hillary Clinton. Their delusion that demographics and progress on social wedge issues will rescue them from the Republican dominance at the state and local level resulting from the disenchantment of voters with their party and candidates (case in point – losing the Maryland governorship to a Republican real-estate hack mostly because of low turnout in Dem strongholds) seems to be unshakeable. They don't seem to get that its not enough to not be the Republicans or to be only slightly less worse than them.

    Until the Dem/liberal establishment wakes up I'm afraid that not much will change. I think its better to focus less on worrying about which establishment apparatchik will win the presidency to changing the electoral process so that more voices are heard (opening up the debates) which I hope will get more voters engaged in participating. That's the only way to take down the establishment that produces empty suit infotainment candidates like Obama and Clinton (not to mention the GOP troglodytes).

    Jim McKay , January 2, 2016 at 9:52 am

    Seems we/U.S. has become content grading our leaders withing paradigms of mediocrity. Seems like yesterday, the 2k election mess… recounts in Florida, Jeb's state troopers impeding black voters getting to voting booths, the black box voting machines producing more votes in Repub precincts then there were registered voters, Kathryn Harris (was Jeb "doing her"?) exerting "authority" ignoring law….

    Scotus' decision remanding consideration of Florida recounts back to Florida Supreme Court was a calculated political decision to run out the legal clock, as several key SCOTUS members have explicitly and implicitly acknowledged. And then Tom Delay's illegal thugs bused into Florida on Tax Payer's dime, to thwart recounts.

    BushCo and winger chest thumping but blind bravado intimidating their way to an election "victory" demonstrated the same blindness they executed in their other disasters: ignoring Enron, the lies behind Iraq, "Mushroom Clouds" and Israel's crimes levelling Lebanon, bailing out Banks while U.S. economy crumbled….

    This was biggest political wakeup call of my life, and now 15+ years in the rear view mirror. AFAIC, the influences that allowed that to happen have gone unchanged. The U.S. tail still wags the dog. The Bush years were an illusory horror, setting the U.S. and world back in almost unfathomable ways.

    Obama was elected with Bush approval ratings the lowest of ANY president in history. Many of the hardest of hard right wingers I knew who treated their neighbors who criticized Bush as moral enemies, had come around to grudingly acknowledge he was an…. asshole.

    Obama had a mandate. He had an opportunity to change directions hugely had he the courage, vision and grasp of reality many "hoped". Despite many capable economic advisers after he won but before the inauguration, my heart sank when he announced nomination of Geithner: eg. someone guaranteed to "fix" things by moving piles of money around, but not remove the people who stole so much and deceived (literally) the world banking system. He instead gave them a get out of jail card, and re-filled their bank accounts and "trusted" them to "fix" things.

    This is my take on BO's "hope".

    He has done little more then continue in Bush's worst foibles, and in many ways looks to me like the world is worse off now then when he arrived. The ME mess has grown, and false premises under lie our disastrous polices there. In both US media and current candidates, these delusions seem to be accepted fact.

    I take issue with author's (similarly assumed untruth) "Russia's land grab in Ukraine": that utterly ignores all the other forces (US and Israel policy especially) at play there with no regard for local interests: another example of "US Interests", no matter how selfish or destructive to a given area… if expressed by the White House, it must be so.

    WRT authors bullet points, I take issue with 2 items in particular:

    • – Energy: BO nominated the right guy (Dr. Chu): he knew the "territory" and was on the cutting edge of the science… both from climate aspect and energy generation alternatives. Obama ignored him, subjugated Chu's best advice to "more pressing" issues dominated by Geithner recommendation ("we can't afford energy until economy is fixed"). But there was no hope of "fix", and "kicking the can" down the road on clean energy is the same as learning to "live with cancer". Chu left quietly, no wonder.
    • – Embracing Diplomacy: I'm glad he did Cuba… didn't see that coming. Decades overdue. But… despite our cascading disasters in ME, BO has learned little. Putin is the "threat", when evidence is overwhelming Russia's efforts in Syria are turning the tide there. Biggest contributors to Syria mess have been Turkey and Saudi Arabia (they've funded ISIS): US policy ignores this. Putin has reached out… repeatedly. Love to see Putin and BO (or next president) together, in public… for a week: open, frank discussions where the public can decide, not "policy makers" and advisers looking for an advantage for their petroleum client. Seems backroom discussions on Kerry's latest tour are moving towards some acknowledgment of this, but just as crooks on wall street still run the show, we'll never root out biggest cause of foolish Sunni/Shia endless conflicts without acknowledging those who fuel it. Again, worst players in this arena: Saudis and Turkey (Ergodan).

    I guess I'll just leave it there… could write a book on this, but so what? I think BO had one of greatest opportunities to change course of America in huge ways, and in ways that were badly needed for US' and world's future. He missed most of them.

    And at the risk of sounding racist, I'm disappointed at so many of our High Profile African Americans so many look up to (Oprah, Denzell…) who speak of BO with pride seemingly on advancement socially we could elect a Black president, but have ignored these larger issues. I think they could have done far better, to press him.

    When it's all said and done, from where I site, we and the world are moving far too slowly and blindly to do what's needed to ensure a bright future for a lot more people. Our most pressing problems have been kicked down the road, and hardly acknowledged. I see not one current candidate even close to addressing things the way that's needed.

    Just not enough courage, clarity and truth… period.

    wbgonne , January 2, 2016 at 10:19 am

    At a moment of historical inflection, when the fate of the entire world was to be determined, Barack Obama deceived the American people into believing he would usher in the systemic change needed after the collapse of conservatism. Instead, Obama revealed himself as a neoliberal ideologue who attempted to destroy progressivism and, in doing so, revived conservatism. Obama's deceit squandered the last good chance for the nation and humanity to roll back global warming. For that alone, history will condemn him.

    As for his "substantive accomplishments," the only one even worth considering is his use of diplomacy. But, as usual with Obama, there is sleight of hand. Yes, he has shown reluctance to enter shooting wars. But at the same time, he doesn't hesitate to use drones and economic weapons to inflict untold punishment and generate evermore strife and create new generations of people who hate America. Which brings me to another point about Obama: apart from achieving his neoliberal dystopia, Obama's primary goal appears to be that he look good and be respected. (That weakness is why the Democrats and the Left might have inhibited Obama had they not defended and enabled him.) From Obamacare to fracking to economic royalism to race relations, Obama wants credit now and doesn't care that everything he has set in motion is a ticking time bomb.

    All things considered, Obama is the worst president in American history. He was supposed to be the corrective, like FDR, showing the genius once again of the American Experiment. Obama had the mandate and he had the power but he was a liar and a fraud. Obama is an historical failure, one from which I'm not sure we can recover.

    roadrider , January 2, 2016 at 10:40 am

    At a moment of historical inflection, when the fate of the entire world was to be determined, Barack Obama deceived the American people into believing he would usher in the systemic change needed after the collapse of conservatism.

    He never wanted to change the system – he merely wanted to be the guy who presided over it.

    Ché Pasa , January 2, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    +1

    People who were paying attention, which I guess weren't a whole lot, saw pretty early that Obama was running to the right of Hillary. There was never much of a systemic "change" promise in what he had to offer.

    He offered a change from W's bloody bluster and hope of escape from Cheney's visceral contempt for basic decency, and sure enough… that's about as far as the Hope and Change thing went.

    Policy-wise, millions of Americans were forced into poverty from which most will never emerge. That was true under W and that is true under Obama. Economic policies are approximately consistent, favoring the financial sector at the expense of workers and social services. The Obamacare insurance scam might well have been implemented by a Republican president with or without a Democratic congress.

    Foreign policy is different, but mostly because the failures of the Bush/Cheney model were monumental and unsustainable. Foreign policy is marginally less terrible, marginally less bloody, but it's no less imperialist, no less absurd, no less foolhardy.

    Ché Pasa , January 2, 2016 at 12:42 pm

    Obama is the worst president in American history

    Oh fer gawdssake. Everybody knows that W was the worst president in American history, "all things considered." Obama is merely the worst since W.

    Feh.

    wbgonne , January 2, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    I disagree. Bush was an abject failure in large part because he was pursuing a doctrine that was dead. Conservatism was spent yet Bush insisted upon it until it failed floridly. But we've had other failed presidents in out history and we've recovered. In a democracy like ours, the ballot is supposed to provide the corrective to such political failure. And that's exactly what Obama promised. Hope and change, remember that? But Obama lied - utterly and fundamentally - and, in doing so, Obama wrecked what remained of the Democratic Party, sent our polity into a tailspin and - most ominously - set us on a likely irreversible course of calamitous global warming. All things considered, that makes Obama the worst president in American history, IMNSHO.

    Ché Pasa , January 2, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    Bush/Cheney were not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. They were radicals, especially Cheney, who saw that his mission in life was to redeem the legacy of the Nixon-Ford debacle - by killing and displacing millions in Mesopotamia and Afghanistan, creating as much chaos overseas as he could, and destroying what was left of a semi-egalitarian economy.

    Pleased and proud of his accomplishments he is to this day. At least for his part W knows better than to crow.

    MaroonBulldog , January 2, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    By increasing the population covered by health insurance, Obamacare also increases demand for physicians to treat the additionally covered. Where are all those physicians going to come from?

    Last year, the primary care physician who had been treating me for ten years resigned from the practice group, and I received a letter asking me to select a physician from new members of the practice group, who were now accepting patients. When I called, I was given a list of six young physicians to choose from: three graduated fromf medical schools in India, one from Pakistan, one from Colombia, and one from a local osteopathic medical school here in the United States.

    Apparently, once consequence of Obamacare is a brain drain of medical practitioners from the rest of the world, mostly trained at the rest of the world's expense.

    frosty zoom , January 2, 2016 at 10:52 am

    first, a big shout out to our buddies at the nsa! happy new year, guys!

    now, how could someone as evil as barack obama receive anything but an expulsion from the high school of human governance?

    if only he'd stick to doodling on his desk..

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 2, 2016 at 10:53 am

    Emotional attachment, and breaking away from the pack is hard. I never liked the President. I thought his speeches were word salad and his books were boring and full of conventional wisdom. I have no problem pointing out his mistakes. If you thought the Preside the was a once in a lifetime figure in 2004, how would you feel if you decided to read his 2004 DNC speech?

    -Plenty of Democrats don't want to become "racist unicorn chasers who want equality today" or acknowledge that the people they said were loons in 2009 for suggesting Obama didn't pass rainbows after eating were right and received undue criticism. There was a considerable amount of nastiness directed towards Obama critics who dared point out that guys like Rahm Emmanuel were disasters waiting to happen.

    There is a good element of the population who has internalized an acceptable left-center-right view of politics. For them judging Obama as a failure would mean judging the left and center as failures. They have lives where they might not know the name and general background of every Senator and just hear a simple Republican/Democrat pie fight. They then assume he GOP is dastardly clever to have foiled Obama and his wonderful plans. Obama critics and even potential critics were drowned out for so long the echo chamber doesn't repeat a narrative of the Team Blue Reagan admirer desperately wants to be a Republican.

    montanamaven , January 2, 2016 at 11:12 am

    Oh, and another "tell" that this is conventional writing from conventional propaganda is the phrase "Russia's land grab in Ukraine." No, there was a coup in Kiev helped by 5 Billion US dollars. Right wing thugs forced the elected President to flee. Then all kinds of crazy statements about banning the Russian language in Ukraine and Russian speakers being sub human made it pretty easy for Crimea which Krushchev had ceded to Ukraine in 1954 to vote to go back to Mother Russia in an election. It was a defensive move not a "grab".

    DJG , January 2, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Yep. That was one point in the article where I checked out mentally. The writer never heard of Victoria Nuland?

    Jim McKay , January 2, 2016 at 7:58 pm

    The writer never heard of Victoria Nuland?

    Her husband is Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Incredible damage Kagan engineered. Hard to fathom how Nuland made it into a BO admin., much less in position to craft US Ukraine (the coup) policy.

    tegnost , January 2, 2016 at 11:30 am

    Successes? 1.) medicaid clawbacks 2.)trillions instead of billions for wall st. 3.)reproductive rights for same sex couples 4.)drone diplomacy 5.)ice free passage through the arctic
    Looks an awful lot like the "failures" list are the successes, no need to comment further
    Incomplete 11.) more people living in tents, true, but not everyone yet 12.) H1b, H2b 13.) less gun violence, yep mm hmmm 14.) shoot the potentially violent 15.) go on a congressional junket to israel, but then come back to the house of reps, don't like, stay there forever, what would that accomplish?
    tegnost reporting from LJ, the land of no (well, extremely lame) public transportation and unabashed HRC supporters. Think I'll sit outside the breakers and watch the world go by…

    blurtman , January 2, 2016 at 11:41 am

    The president repeatedly lied to Americans early on in his first term when he said that the banks had committed no crimes. The president's failure was not merely a failure in prosecuting and jailing bankers, it was much more:

    1.) illustrating to all the undeniable existence of a two-tiered justice system. There are folks doing time for money laundering, you know.
    2.) not re-establishing faith in the US financial system.

    Perhaps it was a designed plan to shine a light on the corruption and hypocrisy that is Amerika, but I kind of doubt it.

    Warf Rat , January 2, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    In truth, Obama and Eric Holders inaction on the prosecution of white collar criminals has highlighted the undeniable two-tiered justice system ……….too bad nobody is paying attention. One could say that all the failures of Obama's presidency have done a good job shinning a light on all that is wrong with our country.

    Chauncey Gardiner , January 2, 2016 at 6:23 pm

    The terminology "Coddling corporate America" under the "Big Failures" list is much too charitable to this administration. This hasn't been about inviting a big campaign contributor to a sleepover at the White House, and the issues are ongoing.

    TedWa , January 2, 2016 at 11:59 am

    More succinctly, he's the Wall St Manchurian candidate and any benefits we the people have derived from his Presidency have only been "trickle down" at best. He lied at every turn to the American people to become President in 2008 all the while knowing that once in office his masters on Wall St would be well served. He's smart enough to fool everyone that voted for him – is that ever worthy of praise by Democrats? No – only by the Republicans that he had emboldened. They must have been laughing their arses off when they saw how this hope and change Presidency was unfolding in the 1st week and every week since. He had exposed his Achilles heel the 1st week in office, appointing one Wall St veteran after the other and the REpugs saw this and attacked. The Republican party was on it's way out, their President had lied us into wars and into invading other countries, torture and war crimes. But Barack alone saved them from their fates, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. No, nothing about BO should get a passing grade. As he said to Hillary in 2008, the Presidency is just a figure head office (not an office for a leader). Figure head and trickle down voodoo economics, that's about all we the people got. Oh yeah, and don't forget all the Republican victories over the last 8 years that never should have happened.

    CraaaaaaaazyChris , January 2, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    As I look back on the Obama presidency, his primary domestic achievement seems to be "Gay Lives Matter".

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 2, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    After major pressure and defeats in court. DADT was struck down before it was repealed, and Obama came out for gas marriage after fighting efforts against an anti-gay referendum in North Carolina.

    James Housel , January 2, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    I often wondered as he was led to the stage for his inauguration if someone didn't point out the snipers and hand him a script. After all, Kennedy was killed for not following his…We have been captive of the "deep state" for a long time. The business of America is the enabling of a global looting. Always has been, always will be.

    It was obvious from the appointment of Eric(Pardon Me)Holder, Timmy (what tax?)Geithner and Robert Gates that nothing was going to change and that hope had left the building. Maybe that was the point, that it was pointless to hope.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 2, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    Or he was a pronounced Reagan admirer and claimed the right to bomb anywhere on the planet whenever he felt like it all along and you didn't listen?

    James Housel , January 2, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    Well,

    I confess I voted for him in 2008 (with reservations). The "lesser of two weevils". And perhaps seduced by "Dreams from my Father". I didn't expect revolution, but I also allowed "hope" for a moment. I voted for Jill Stein in 2012. And I vote in EVERY election. But I can't forget Emma Goldman's wisdom, "If elections changed anything, they would make it illegal".

    TedWa , January 2, 2016 at 3:36 pm

    Don't forget all the Republican victories over the last 8 years that never would have happened if he had been a man of his word. He owns those too. If the scale is A to F, I'd give him a G.

    wbgonne , January 2, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    I often wondered as he was led to the stage for his inauguration if someone didn't point out the snipers and hand him a script.

    I was and I remain astonished at how Obama metamorphasized immediately after he won in 2007. I listened to a lot of Obama speeches in 2007 and I read his books and that Obama never stepped inside the White House. This transformation being so exquisitely executed, a suspicious mind might consider an orchestrated conspiracy. Maybe a rational mind, too, because the alternative explanation proves elusive.

    Oregoncharles , January 2, 2016 at 6:19 pm

    Alternative explanation: he's a skilled con artist.

    montanamaven , January 2, 2016 at 7:30 pm

    Long before his inauguration, he was a made man. Ken Silverstein in Harper's wrote "Barack Obama Inc" back in 2006. Black Agenda Report and Paul Street knew him from Chicago. Adolph Reed Jr wrote earlier than that and then repeated it in 2008 in The Progressive.

    He's a vacuous opportunist.I've never been an Obama supporter. I've known him since the very beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district in Chicago. He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how to make white liberals like him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political center of gravity, beneath an empty rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal. – See more at: http://progressive.org/mag_reed0508#sthash.hEiRFBaY.dpuf

    There was information early that he was the corporate pick, but people chose to put their fingers in their ears. It was the most frustrating time for me in my sojourn into politics. And it continues. I just had a new acquaintance tell me that Obama will go down as one of the great presidents. Sad.

    James Housel , January 2, 2016 at 9:10 pm

    There was a devastating piece in the Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/ before the election that laid out the corruption…Not exactly Breitbart. The story sank w/o a trace

    sid_finster , January 2, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    I don't know how many O voters lurk here, but let me ask you this:

    When you voted for Obama in 2008, is this really what you expected?

    Steve from CT , January 2, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Three things stand out for me from Obama's first couple of months in office that indicated what kind of President he would be.

    1. Appointments. Rahm Emanuel, Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, Eric Holder and Arne Duncan. I would also throw in Sebelius as well. What did we expect from this crew of neoliberal thinkers. We got no prosecutions of Bush war criminals or Wall St criminals, bailout of banks but not Main St, "never let a crisis go to waste," privatization of schools, a health reform that will ultimately self destruct and many others mentioned here.
    2. Disappearance of the famed Obama multi million person mailing list which could have maybe made a huge impact on the next few Congressional and Senate elections. Why did this list go into hiding for way too many years.
    3. Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, listened too much to the neocon advisors ( including HRC) on foreign policy and Holder and Rahm on domestic issues. At that point, hope and change went out the window. What happened: prosecution of whistleblowers, more black inmates, affordable housing programs cut, Guantanamo stays open, schools turn private, environmental regs are not enforced, progressive voices are ignored. Not what most of us voted for.

    And he didn't play golf with Speaker Boehner!!!!

    Pavel , January 2, 2016 at 9:15 pm

    Well I unsubscribed from that Obama list about 3 months into his first term, already pissed off and disillusioned - Rahm's appointment and some other decision at the time was the prompt.

    However somehow Hillary's PAC got my name off it, and I got repeated donation requests from the Ready For Hillary people, without an "unsubscribe" option, which to me makes it borderline illegal spam.

    And recently I got an email from Harry Reid's group, on the same address. All very fishy, and extremely annoying.

    stinky , January 2, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    Obama is best understood as a CIA "project" since his early teens. he's been groomed

    timbers , January 2, 2016 at 4:22 pm

    I said early on in other blogs years ago that Obama is easily the most right wing President in history, and soon after said he was the worst President in history.

    Some posting here ridiculed me at the time on those other blogs for those statements. Now many comments sometimes paraphrase the same thought.

    TPP alone (Modified Feudalism. That's more right wing than even the Tea Party – am I right?) makes Obama the most right wing President in history and it's not even close. And the reason I called him the worst, is because of the Trojan Horse Affect he has being an enemy behind the oppositions lines or what Glenn Greenwald expressed by saying "Obama may not be more evil than Bush, but he is the more effective evil." By occupying the party that is supposed to be liberal when he is not, he can more effectively and quickly pass right wing change from within than could the most right wing of all right-wingers in the other party.

    Oregoncharles , January 2, 2016 at 5:41 pm

    That article reminds me of the reason I left Alternet. FWIW, I used to be a dedicated commenter there. But during the campaign in 2012, they systematically rigged their coverage (coverage is far more important than endorsements), suppressing anything that made Obama look bad – more than any other liberal site I followed. The final straw was when a good article by one of their own writers was unceremoniously removed from the front page and relegated to a cubbyhole where you wouldn't find it unless you were looking for it. That made it clear there was an editorial judgement (probably by the publisher) to censor their reporting.

    I thought that was unforgivable, so when the election was past I made a fuss in as many comments as I could and then abandoned the site. They sell ads, so clicks are worth money to them, and I was providing a lot of clicks. At this point, I visit it only when NC provides a link I want to read. I doubt the publisher has changed.

    This article goes beyond "cautious" to the sort of coverup they committed in 2012 (personally, I don't think much of Rosenfeld). I'm not criticizing Yves for posting it – it's a good example of something or other, and generated a lot of discussion. But mainly, it's an example of the difference between NC and in-the-bag sites like Alternet or Salon, where I sometimes post links to NC articles just to be difficult. Did it today, on the article on Obamacare by Paul Rosenberg. Remarkably, that elicited a plug for NC from the author (Rosenberg – boy are those names easy to confuse)!

    Lambert Strether , January 2, 2016 at 11:01 pm

    Ah yes. I remember Open Left from 2009 – 2010 very well… Just another career "progressive" site suppressing single payer advocacy because Obama. Of course, if they'd gone full on for single payer then, the ground would be prepared now for the real solution. So their tactics did real damage.

    Humanbean , January 2, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    Hi Yevs,

    Happy! New Year. How about this assessment of Obama years in the Oval Office? I agree with what Thomas Frank has to say in this piece 100%

    http://www.salon.com/2015/01/11/its_not_just_fox_news_how_liberal_apologists_torpedoed_change_helped_make_the_democrats_safe_for_wall_street/

    [Jan 06, 2016] Pray For Us Libya Issues Cry For Help As ISIS Advances On Oil Fields

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late." ..."
    "... ''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot' ..."
    "... You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed. ..."
    "... What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you know better, but choose dishonesty ..."
    "... I mean shit the Bush family tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist. Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler. ..."
    "... Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important resources. ..."
    "... ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities can be pilfered safely. ..."
    "... In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War". (Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well). ..."
    "... Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls. ..."
    Zero Hedge

    "We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late."

    That's from Libya's National Oil Corp and as you might have guessed, it references the seizure of state oil assets by Islamic State, whose influence in the country has grown over the past year amid the power vacuum the West created by engineering the demise of Moammar Qaddafi.

    The latest attacks occurred in Es Sider, a large oil port that's been closed for at least a year.

    Seven guards were killed on Monday in suicide bombings while two more lost their lives on Tuesday as ISIS attacked checkpoints some 20 miles from the port. "Es Sider and Ras Lanuf, Libya's biggest oil ports, have been closed since December 2014," Reuters notes . "They are located between the city of Sirte, which is controlled by Islamic State, and the eastern city of Benghazi."

    ISIS also set fire to oil tanks holding hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude. "Four tanks in Es Sider caught fire on Tuesday, and a fifth one in Ras Lanuf the day before," Ali al-Hassi, a spokesman for the the Petroleum Facilities Guard told Bloomberg over the phone.

    Ludovico Carlino, senior analyst at IHS Country Risk says the attacks are "likely diversionary operations" during Islamic State's takeover of the town of Bin Jawad, a seizure that may enable the group to expand and connect "its controlled territory around Sirte to the 'oil crescent.'"

    Islamic State is pushing east from Sirte in an effort to seize control of the country's oil infrastructure, much as the group has done in Syria and Iraq. As Middle East Eye wrote last summer, "the desert region to the south of the oil ports has been strategically cleared in a series of attacks by IS militants on security personnel and oil fields, where employees have been killed and kidnapped, and vehicles and equipment seized."

    "I expect they will try and take Sidra and Ras Lanuf and the oil fields on the west side of the oil crescent," one oil worker said. "There are few people left to protect the oil fields apart from local security from isolated towns."

    macholatte

    CHANGE YOU BETTER BEIEVE IN

    Flashback 2011: Hillary Clinton Laughs About Killing Moammar Gaddafi: "We Came, We Saw, He Died!"

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/19/flashback_2011_hillary...

    KnuckleDragger-X

    Libya was Hillary's special project.

    SmedleyButlersGhost

    This is good a place as any for a tale of Yale's very own John Kerry. Want to know the true measure of Kerry - Google his Cookie franchise at Faneuil Hall (David's Cookies is the guy he ripped off) before he married ketchup money. Further, way back when, an Aunt of mine had a Summer job at the airport cafe that serves Martha's Vinyard - also before Kerry got Heinz' dough.

    The fuk Congressman Kerry would be there sucking up to MA money. On the return flight he would hit the cafe - without fail he would have an order that came out to about a nickel short of an even dollar amount - say $3.95. The fuk would always throw $4 on the table when she was out of sight and slink off. Not like he couldn't afford it - the guy was a Congressman. What a cheap slime ball

    fleur de lis

    Someone once said, money doesn't make you a better or worse person. It only magnifies the personality you already have.

    John Kerry has no class an never did. He went to big schools but so what. Has anyone seen his transcript? Does he strike anyone as smart? He just got hooked into the connected circles.

    Soros is a billionaire. Does he strike anyone as refined or classy? Of course not. He was grimy riff raff all his life and today he's just riff raff with too much money and using it to drag entire societies down to his gutter level. He's what they called years ago, a beggar on horseback.

    They're all the same. Nuland/Nudelman/Neudelmann or whatever her name is brings wreck and ruin to everything she touches. For all her money she doesn't even look groomed and sometimes she looks dirty.

    No amount of money can ever polish them up. You can take them out of the slums but generations later you can't take the slums out of them. They use money and power to drag us all down to their mental levels. They were born philistines and they will die philistines.

    Lumberjack

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-water-wars-and-gaddafis-great-man-ma...

    I do not endorse anyone but...

    https://sites.tufts.edu/reinventingpeace/2012/12/19/the-african-union-an...

    __Usury__

    Darwin..

    ''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot' '....

    Blankone

    You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed.

    It should be no surprise that now the ISIS army or the US/Israel wants to take control or the resources.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, did Russia vote FOR the no fly zone or just abstain and thus give consent for the destruction.

    Volkodav

    What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you know better, but choose dishonesty

    froze25

    Adolf was a person with no business experience, a socialist, a bad artist, but the man had charisma. Trump has charisma but that is where the similarities stop. Not letting in Muslim Refugees with out proper vetting is reasonable, being politically correct is self enforced mind control bullshit, the boarder with Mexico needs to be controlled and immigration law needs to be enforced is also reasonable. The "he" is the next Hitler line needs to stop, I mean shit the Bush family tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist. Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler.

    kita27

    Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important resources.

    ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities can be pilfered safely.

    Bastiat

    And central banking -- remember when in the very early days of the "revolution," the mercenaries formed a central bank? Who ever heard of such a thing? I don't supposed that central bank immediately removed all of Libya's gold? Naaaaahh.

    Hohum

    Who is responsible for this? (Hillary Clinton, in part)

    Sanity Bear

    In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War". (Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well).

    Jack Burton

    First comes NATO bombers. Then Comes ISIS. Where? Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya. The West runs ISIS's Air Force for them, opening the invasion routes by destroying local resistance or army forces. Russia stepped in and cut short the NATO/ISIS alliance in Syria.

    Jack Burton

    Hillary Clinton's Greatest success? Clearing the way for ISIS to invade and conquer Libya, and using Libya arms to arm the ISIS in Syria. Where today, Bulgaria has stated an emergency air lift of Soviet era weapons to ISIS in Turkey and Syria. These Soviet weapons may be old, but function in perfect order, just as they were designed to. Especially the Anti Tan Guided Missiles. Bulgaria is launching an emergency airlift of 7,000 ATGM to ISIS, at the request of NATO.

    falak pema

    well played Pax Americana : you promised them Disneyland after Q-Daffy's demise.

    And they get : ISIS --

    Wow, just wow -- From Charybdis to Scylla! The Pax Americana way.

    trader1

    we came, we saw, ...

    TeaClipper

    So that is what Obama meant when he commended the Libyans on their three years of independence

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/28/obama-boasts-libya...

    replaceme

    We came, we saw, he died. Hillary C

    She was secretary of state, which makes her ever so qualified to be commander in chief. Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls.

    RevIdahoSpud3

    I don't see the problem here. It was none other than a former Secretary of State who recited, "We came, we saw, he DIED"! (cackle, cackle, cankles cackeling)That was the solution then and now, as has been shown over and over ISIS, IS, ISIL...ISOUR (US) asset! We trained, we funded, we unleashed! Our very own CIA has the plug and if they don't pull it all must be well? The new complication will be getting the oil to Turkey which would no doubt ship in Burak Erdogan's tankers. After refining in Turkey move it to Israel and blend with world supplies. Everyone gets rich! Erdogan's get rich, ISIS gets funded, Clinton Foundations get funded, Israel get rich, and special interests in the US, London, France, Germany, Switzerland...they all get rich as well. Stolen oil has higher octane!

    Duc888

    Good thing Hillary "fixed" Libya

    "We came, we saw , we killed" Yup, just the kinds of ASSHOLE we need for President.

    jldpc

    What a joke. If the US wanted to stop ISIS making money on selling oil which goes by tanker or pipeline, all they have to do is threaten destruction of same, and the insurers will shut it down overnight. No oil money = no more ISIS on the warpath. Simple. And best of all no American soldier's lives lost. Can you say CinC is a stupid shit? Or how about the oil brokers and end buyers? Even I could threaten their asses with serious shit and get them to stop. So could any of you. Guess what the USA is not serious about stopping them. Gee who could have figured that out on their own?

    BarkingCat

    Lets see if I understand the plan.

    Step 1) Secretly ferment dissent against the local government.

    Step 2) Push the dissent into armed rebellion.

    Step 3) Use governments reaction to get involve own military to protect civilians.

    Step 4) Protection of civilians as cover, the military attacks government's armed forces tipping the scales of conflict in favor of the rebellion.

    Step 5) Watch the rebells kill the leaders of the nation and take control.

    Step 6) Watch the nation fall into complete turmoil and become home to groups of terrorists and other barbarians.

    When steps above are completed and enough time has passed:

    Step 7) Use own military to bring peace to a troubled nation. Also take over anything that has value ....oil production for example.

    [Jan 01, 2016] Daniel Ellsberg US Military-Industrial Complex Also Includes Big Corporations and Congress

    Notable quotes:
    "... "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in," noted the whistleblower who leaked "The Pentagon Papers." ..."
    "... Yet Ellsberg also warns that it is possible to overstate the importance of the U.S. military, because the military, Congress, and the various U.S. national security agencies all serve interests outside a sitting administration. ..."
    "... "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in, and the law firms that represent those companies," he said. ..."
    "... The United States claims to support democracy throughout the world, but, Ellsberg said: "That is false. That is a cover story." ..."
    "... If anyone comes to power that opposes U.S. interests, American forces can overthrow them, Ellsberg argues. Washington's relationships with other nations are not democratic, he says, but imperial, as much as they were in the time of Sargon, the world's first emperor, who Ellsberg introduced in Chapter 1 of this series. As a result, U.S. foreign policy has supported torturers and war crimes for over a century. ..."
    "... Philip Agee, the CIA's highest ranking defector, always said CIA stands for Capitalism' Invisible Army ..."
    "... Ellsberg is exactly right. The US is not a democracy. The US regime is the enforcement wing of multi-national capital. It is a wholly captured government by captialists. ..."
    "... There's nothing new about the claim that Eisenhower deleted the reference to Congress just before his far-famed farewell speech. This has been well-known for decades. ..."
    28 December 15 | readersupportednews.org

    By Mint Press News

    "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in," noted the whistleblower who leaked "The Pentagon Papers."

    In the second chapter of his extended conversation with Arn Menconi, Daniel Ellsberg describes how, after his trial for leaking the Pentagon Papers, he began to realize that the Vietnam War was not an "aberration" but a representation of standard U.S. foreign policy.

    "The big difference was the Vietnamese resisted us," Ellsberg explained. He says learned more about the nature of the U.S. military-industrial complex as he dug deeper into the origins of the conflict.

    On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave a famous farewell address which popularized the term "military-industrial complex," but Ellsberg says the outgoing president had originally intended to refer to the "military-industrial-congressional complex," only to drop the reference to Congress at the last minute. The whistleblower explains that allies of the military and nuclear scientists in Congress blocked Eisenhower's efforts to create a nuclear test ban treaty with Russia, inspiring Eisenhower's speech, which warned the American public to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

    Yet Ellsberg also warns that it is possible to overstate the importance of the U.S. military, because the military, Congress, and the various U.S. national security agencies all serve interests outside a sitting administration.

    "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in, and the law firms that represent those companies," he said.

    The United States claims to support democracy throughout the world, but, Ellsberg said: "That is false. That is a cover story."

    Instead, he explained that the U.S. supports whatever leaders will support the country's covert foreign policy. In addition to carrying out assassinations and interfering in those countries' elections, the U.S. forms "close relationships with their military which we achieve through a combination of training them … promoting the people we like, direct bribery, arms sales, arms grants - giving them toys in other words - and helping them against dissidents."

    If anyone comes to power that opposes U.S. interests, American forces can overthrow them, Ellsberg argues. Washington's relationships with other nations are not democratic, he says, but imperial, as much as they were in the time of Sargon, the world's first emperor, who Ellsberg introduced in Chapter 1 of this series. As a result, U.S. foreign policy has supported torturers and war crimes for over a century.

    Key policies the U.S. supports on behalf of Wall Street include "holding down the wages and selling the local resources at very low value," according to Ellsberg, who added that the governments which support these policies "could not stay in power in democratic elections, so we are against democracy in those countries."

    Even in places where the U.S. supports democracy, he says, such as Europe, Washington cooperates with the elite in those countries to discourage candidates that support real change. America's leaders in the military-industrial complex believe "[w]e run [foreign countries] better than they would run themselves."

    But Washington is increasingly unable to run itself, Ellsberg notes, citing the nation's rapidly failing infrastructure.

    "Can we fix those things while maintaining the military investments …? Even we can't do that," he concluded.

    Listen to Chapter 2 | Looking beyond Eisenhower's military-industrial complex:

    RMDC 2015-12-28 18:04

    "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in, and the law firms that represent those companies,"

    Yes, of course. It was wall street tycoons and lawyers who created the OSS and CIA They all had huge investments in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and they wanted to be sure WW II was fought with their financial interests foremost. These corporate lawyers were used to overthrowing government around the world for their wall street clients. Donavan, the Dulles Brothers, Wisner, and the like were world class cutthroats. They moved into the government and took it over.

    Philip Agee, the CIA's highest ranking defector, always said CIA stands for Capitalism' Invisible Army. This is important. They CIA scours the earth doing the dirty work of Wall Street. When needed, the Pentagon is called in.

    Ellsberg is exactly right. The US is not a democracy. The US regime is the enforcement wing of multi-national capital. It is a wholly captured government by captialists.

    goodsensecynic 2015-12-29 00:07

    There's nothing new about the claim that Eisenhower deleted the reference to Congress just before his far-famed farewell speech. This has been well-known for decades.

    What needs to be added, however, is that the elements of ruling class domination are even more extensive and far more complex.

    We should be discussing the military-industrial-congressional-financial-commercial-ideological-technological complex (with the possibility of adding more pieces such as the agricultural, chemical, pharmaceutical and, perhaps, many, many more).

    Although the particular connections among them may be shifting and almost kaleidoscopic, basic patterns of economic, political and social dominance will always emerge.

    By "ideological," of course, I mean the combination of the corporate media, the allegedly "social" media, "official" education, and whatever passes for religion - especially in its "fundamentalist " aberrations in the Abrahamic cultures.

    And, a final caveat: the above merely identify aspects of the "domestic" power structure. It is also replicated globally with many of the same "players" shifting natural resources, information technology, capital and currency around in a way that may be permanently beyond the reach of the governments of even the most powerful semi-sovereign nations.


    anarchteacher 2015-12-29 00:55

    What Daniel Ellsberg, Dwight Eisenhower, C. Wright Mills, and numerous others have outlined is what the incomparable Peter Dale Scott now describes as the deep state:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/charles-burris/the-american-deep-state/ The American Deep State

    http://archive.lewrockwell.com/burris/burris10.html Hidden History: Where Organized Crime and Government Meet

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/charles-burris/the-deep-state-3/ The Deep State and the Hughes-Nixon-La nsky Connection

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/12/charles-burris/coup-detat-1963/ Dallas '63: A Brilliant Synthesis Regarding the November 22, 1963 Coup d'état

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/deep-state-november-22-1963-coup-detat/ The Deep State and the November 22, 1963 Coup d'état

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/bill-moyers-time-come-clean/ Bill Moyers: It Is Time To Come Clean

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/allen-dulles-fascist-spymaster-deep-state-architect/ Allen Dulles: Fascist Spymaster and Deep State Architect

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/dull-duller-dulles-select-bibliography/ Dull, Duller, Dulles: A Select Bibliography

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/licio-gelli-p2-power-elite-analysis/ Licio Gelli, P2, and Power Elite Analysis

    http://www.amazon.com/The-American-Deep-State/lm/R10Z1J3CVNOAY1/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full/lewrockwell The American Deep State -- an Amazon book list

    bullslam 2015-12-29 03:42

    Nowhere do I see reference to John Perkins, the author of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." Perkins lays all of this out clearly and concisely, and includes the World Bank and The WMF, (The World Monetary Fund).

    One of their tactics is to loan an emerging nation huge amounts of money which they can never pay back. In return they will allow Western bank and oil interests, pharmaceuticals , bio-tech, copper, etc. whatever natural resources that Western Capitalists want to exploit. Perkins is sent in to meet with the leaders. He tells them the money is theirs to do whatever they like. Use it for their country or for themselves.

    Some of the leader are actually honorable and refuse the money. Perkins then pulls out the big warning: Take the money or die by assassination. Some leaders refused. Within six months the Capitalists sent in what Perkins calls "the jackals". The honorable leader is assassinated.

    There are people even now, doing what he did.

    Activista 2015-12-29 12:51

    1 trillion + military waste is corrupting/destroying USA. We need to get rid of this burden.

    Vardoz 2015-12-29 14:57

    We are being systematically impoverished and destroyed by corporate interests. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are the only senators who do not vote against our better interests and want to protect the health, safety and welfare of the 99%. As Biden once called it we the people are being subjected to economic terrorism.

    judithehrlich 2015-12-29 17:27

    If you'd like to know more about Daniel Ellsberg please see the website for our Oscar-nominated film, "The Most Dangerous Man in American, Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers", www.mostdangerousman.org . Edward Snowden was inspired to act after seeing the film.

    [Dec 17, 2015] US militarism is Alice in Wonderland

    economistsview.typepad.com
    anne, December 17, 2015 at 11:50 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/world/asia/navy-seal-team-2-afghanistan-beating-death.html

    December 16, 2015

    Navy SEALs, a Beating Death and Complaints of a Cover-Up
    By NICHOLAS KULISH, CHRISTOPHER DREW and MATTHEW ROSENBERG

    U.S. soldiers accused Afghan police and Navy SEALs of abusing detainees. But the SEAL command opted against a court-martial and cleared its men of wrongdoing.

    ilsm said in reply to anne...

    Too much training to send to jail.

    While E-4 Bergdahl does in captivity what several hundred officers did in Hanoi and gets life!

    US militarism is Alice's Wonderland!

    [May 23, 2015] Ukraines Bloody Civil War No End in Sight

    Notable quotes:
    "... is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security. ..."
    Mar 31, 2015 | The National Interest

    The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.


    The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters, the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.

    Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.

    ... ... ...

    Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive "within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.

    ... ... ...

    Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.

    This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties - to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass - despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington - is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security.

    James Carden is a contributing editor for The National Interest.

    Igor

    Wow! Who is allowed to publish this article in the Western free press? Who allowed the journalist of National Interest go to Moscow and to Donetsk!? And what about the story about invisible Russian army? :-))) James Carden is real hero! :-))) Western press need 1 year for understanding of simple things...

    Imba > Igor

    Psst, don't scare them with your sarcasm. I'm sure author feels like a pioneer on Wild West, while writing such articles. You can scare him away and we will have to read again dull and boring articles about invasions, annexation, tattered economy, moscovites eating hedgehogs and so on.
    Please respect him ;)

    Dima Lauri > Imba

    I am sure authors who does not accept the version of Washington will be soon labeled by "Putin troll", "Payed KGB agent", "Drunk/Stupid" or whatever verbal distortion.

    folktruther

    a good article for a change. the Ukraine coup engineered by Washington was the worst event of Obama's administration, and may perhaps turn out to be worse that Bush jr's invasion of Iraq. Washington simply wants a war, cold or hot, to disconnect Europe from Russia. hopefully Europe, especially Germany and france, will rebel against Washington policy like they did the Chinese bank, averting a war among nuclear powers. but the issue is currently in doubt.

    [May 10, 2015] The New York Times does its government s bidding Here s what you re not being told about US troops in Ukraine

    Notable quotes:
    "... American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts. ..."
    "... Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia. ..."
    "... Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border? ..."
    "... And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect. ..."
    "... Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless. ..."
    "... Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential. ..."
    "... Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.) ..."
    "... In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed. ..."
    "... The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers." ..."
    "... He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it. ..."
    May 09, 2015 | NYTimes.com

    Reprinted from May 07, 2015 article at Salon.com

    As of mid-April, when a Pentagon flack announced it in Kiev, and as barely reported in American media, U.S. troops are now operating openly in Ukraine.

    Now there is a lead I have long dreaded writing but suspected from the first that one day I would. Do not take a moment to think about this. Take many moments. We all need to. We find ourselves in grave circumstances this spring.

    At first I thought I had written what newspaper people call a double-barreled lead: American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts.

    Wrong. There is one fact now, and it is this: Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia.

    One cannot predict there will be one. And, of course, right-thinking people hope things will never come to one. In March, President Obama dismissed any such idea as if to suggest it was silly. "They're not interested in a military confrontation with us," Obama said of the Russians-wisely. Then he added, unwisely: "We don't need a war."

    Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border?

    The pose of American innocence, tatty and tiresome in the best of times, is getting dangerous once again.

    The source of worry now is that we do not have an answer to the second question. The project is plain: Advance NATO the rest of the way through Eastern Europe, probably with the intent of eventually destabilizing Moscow. The stooges now installed in Kiev are getting everything ready for the corporations eager to exploit Ukrainian resources and labor.

    And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect.

    In the past there were a few vague mentions of an American military presence in Ukraine that was to be in place by this spring, if I recall correctly. These would have been last autumn. By then, there were also reports, unconfirmed, that some troops and a lot of spooks were already there as advisers but not acknowledged.

    Then in mid-March President Poroshenko introduced a bill authorizing-as required by law-foreign troops to operate on Ukrainian soil. There was revealing detail, according to Russia Insider, a free-standing website in Moscow founded and run by Charles Bausman, an American with an uncanny ability to gather and publish pertinent information.

    "According to the draft law, Ukraine plans three Ukrainian-American command post exercises, Fearless Guardian 2015, Sea Breeze 2015 and Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident 2015," the publication reported, "and two Ukrainian-Polish exercises, Secure Skies 2015, and Law and Order 2015, for this year."

    This is a lot of dry-run maneuvering, if you ask me. Poroshenko's law allows for up to 1,000 American troops to participate in each of these exercises, alongside an equal number of Ukrainian "National Guardsmen," and we will insist on the quotation marks when referring to this gruesome lot, about whom more in a minute.

    Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless.

    It was a month to the day after Poroshenko's bill went to parliament that the Pentagon spokesman in Kiev announced-to a room empty of American correspondents, we are to assume-that troops from the 173rd Airborne were just then arriving to train none other than "National Guardsmen." This training includes "classes in war-fighting functions," as the operations officer, Maj. Jose Mendez, blandly put it at the time.

    The spokesman's number was "about 300," and I never like "about" when these people are describing deployments. This is how it always begins, we will all recall. The American presence in Vietnam began with a handful of advisers who arrived in September 1950. (Remember MAAG, the Military Assistance Advisory Group?)

    Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential.

    I am getting on to apoplectic as to the American media's abject irresponsibility in not covering this stuff adequately. To leave these events unreported is outright lying by omission. Nobody's news judgment can be so bad as to argue this is not a story.

    Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.)

    To cross the "i"s and dot the "t"s, as I prefer to do, the Times did make two mentions of the American troops. One was the day of the announcement, a brief piece on an inside page, datelined Washington. Here we get our code word for this caper: It will be "modest" in every mention.

    The second was in an April 23 story by Michael Gordon, the State Department correspondent. The head was, "Putin Bolsters His Forces Near Ukraine, U.S. Says." Read the thing here.

    The story line is a doozy: Putin-not "the Russians" or "Moscow," of course-is again behaving aggressively by amassing troops-how many, exactly where and how we know is never explained-along his border with Ukraine. Inside his border, that is. This is the story. This is what we mean by aggression these days.

    In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed.

    At this point, I do not see how anyone can stand against the argument-mine for some time-that Putin has shown exemplary restraint in this crisis. In a reversal of roles and hemispheres, Washington would have a lot more than air defense systems and troops of whatever number on the border in question.

    The Times coverage of Ukraine, to continue briefly in this line, starts to remind me of something I.F. Stone once said about the Washington Post: The fun of reading it, the honored man observed, is that you never know where you'll find a page one story.

    In the Times' case, you never know if you will find it at all.

    Have you read much about the wave of political assassinations that erupted in Kiev in mid-April? Worry not. No one else has either-not in American media. Not a word in the Times.

    The number my sources give me, and I cannot confirm it, is a dozen so far-12 to 13 to be precise. On the record, we have 10 who can be named and identified as political allies of Viktor Yanukovych, the president ousted last year, opponents of a drastic rupture in Ukraine's historic relations to Russia, people who favored marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of the Nazis-death-deserving idea, this-and critics of the new regime's corruptions and dependence on violent far-right extremists.

    These were all highly visible politicians, parliamentarians and journalists. They have been murdered by small groups of these extremists, according to reports readily available in non-American media. In my read, the killers may have the same semi-official ties to government that the paramilitary death squads in 1970s Argentina-famously recognizable in their Ford Falcons-had with Videla and the colonels.

    The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers."

    Kindly place, Kiev's parliament under this new crowd. Washington must be proud, having backed yet another right-wing, anti-democratic, rights-trampling regime that does what it says.

    And our media must be silent, of course. It can be no other way. Gutless hacks: You bet I am angry.

    * * *

    I end this week's column with a tribute.

    A moment of observance, any kind, for William Pfaff, who died at 86 in Paris late last week. The appreciative obituary by the Times' Marlise Simons is here.

    Pfaff was the most sophisticated foreign affairs commentator of the 20th century's second half and the first 15 years of this one. He was a great influence among colleagues (myself included) and put countless readers in a lot of places in the picture over many decades. He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it.

    Pfaff was a conservative man in some respects, which is not uncommon among America's American critics. In this I put him in the file with Henry Steele Commager, C. Vann Woodward, William Appleman Williams, and among those writing now, Andrew Bacevich. He was not a scholar, as these writers were or are, supporting a point I have long made: Not all intellectuals are scholars, and not all scholars are intellectuals.

    Pfaff's books will live on and I commend them: "Barbarian Sentiments," "The Wrath of Nations," "The Bullet's Song," and his last, "The Irony of Manifest Destiny," are the ones on my shelf.

    Farewell from a friend, Bill.

    Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter, @thefloutist. More Patrick L. Smith.

    [Aug 18, 2008] McCain's Mob Connections by Michael Collins Piper

    Aug 18, 2008 | www.americanfreepress.net

    Now It's The Post Covering Up John McCain's Mob Connections

    AN AFP EXCLUSIVE

    IF YOU STILL DOUBT that the big media is determined to keep under wraps the organized crime origins of the $200 million fortune of John McCain and his wife Cindy, take note of how the prestigious Washington Post touched on the issue in its July 22 edition. Rather, instead, note how the Post covered up the matter.

    The Post reported: Cindy Lou Hensley grew up as an only child, and a privileged one, in a large rancher in an upper-class section of Phoenix. Her dad, Jim Hensley, founded what became a large Anheuser-Busch distributorship, and her mom, Marguerite, was a proper belle who emphasized impeccable manners.

    The Post also added, almost discretely, that Mrs. McCain's wealth "may" exceed $100 million (although most sources estimate it is worth $200 million or more) and -- for the record -- that "she was the apple of her father's eye."

    The Post did not mention that Mrs. McCain's father was a highly-placed fixture in the Arizona branch of the national organized crime syndicate: He was the chief henchman of the late Kemper Marley, Arizona point man for infamous mob chief Meyer Lansky and his powerful partners-in-crime, the super-rich Bronfman family of Montreal.

    In that capacity -- for 40 years until his death in 1990 -- Marley was undisputed political boss of Arizona, acting as the behind-the-scenes power over both the Republican and Democratic parties.

    As such, his wealth and connections played the primary role in advancing John McCain's political career from the start.

    Although some Democrats have muttered that Mrs. McCain's business interests could impact on her husband's decision-making as president, none has dared cross the line and make reference to the fact this vast wealth was spawned by what others have indelicately (although quite correctly) called "the Jewish Mafia."

    Correspondents for American Free Press have repeatedly referenced the McCain fortune's ties to the Lansky-Bronfman syndicate going back to 2000 when McCain first ran for president. Most recently, in its July 14/21 issue AFP reported the story again. At that time, AFP pointed out that in its June 30 edition, Newsweek (owned by the Washington Post's parent company) also suppressed McCain's mob link.

    Newsweek said Mrs. McCain's family "was deeply rooted in Arizona," and that her father "was one of the most prominent men in the state," who was "a World War II bombardier . . . shot down over the English channel," -- in other words, a war hero like McCain.

    Newsweek did not mention (or even hint of) the racketeering, corruption and murder associated with Hensley and his patrons.

    Newsweek said Hensley "borrowed $10,000 to start a liquor business" which became one of the largest Anheuser-Busch distributorships in the country and pointed out that the vast Hensley influence and fortune "got [McCain] access to money and connections" after he divorced his ailing first wife and married his then mistress, Cindy Hensley, and settled in Arizona where he first ran for office in 1982. But there was much more to the story.

    Newsweek did not mention what AFP had reported and which is republished here in order to keep this important story before the American public:

    To repeat: McCain's father-in-law was the top

    lieutenant for Kemper Marley, the Lansky syndicate's chief Arizona operative who acted, in turn, as the front man for the Bronfman family -- key players in the Lansky syndicate.

    During Prohibition, the Canadian-based Bronfmans supplied -- and thus controlled -- the "spigot" of liquor funneled to Lansky syndicate functionaries in the United States, including Al Capone in Chicago.

    After Prohibition, Lansky-Bronfman associates such as Marley got control of a substantial portion of liquor (and beer) distribution across the country. Marley's longtime public relations man, Al Lizanitz, revealed that it was the Bronfmans who set Marley up in the alcohol business.

    In 1948, 52 of Marley's employees (including Jim Hensley, the manager of Marley's company) were prosecuted for federal liquor violations. Hensley got a six month suspended sentence and his brother Eugene went to prison for a year.

    In 1953 Hensley and (this time) Marley were prosecuted by federal prosecutors for falsifying liquor records, but young attorney William Rehnquist acted as their "mouthpiece" (as mob attorneys are known) and the two got off scot-free. Rehnquist later became chief justice of the Supreme Court and presided over the "fix" that made George W. Bush president in a rightly disputed election.

    Arizona insiders say Hensley "took the fall" for Marley in 1948 and Marley paid back Hensley by setting him up in his own beer distribution business.

    Newsweek implied Hensley's company was a "mom and pop" operation that became a big success, but the real story goes to the heart of the history of organized crime.

    Hensley's sponsor, Marley, was also a major player in gambling, a protégé of Lansky associate Gus Greenbaum who, in 1941, set up a national wire for bookmakers. After Lansky ordered a hit on his own longtime partner, Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel, who was stealing money from the Flamingo Casino in Las Vegas -- which was financed in part by loans from an Arizona bank chaired by Marley -- Greenbaum turned operations of the wire over to Marley while Greenbaum took Siegel's place in tending to Lansky's interests in Las Vegas.

    In 1948 Greenbaum was murdered in a mob "hit" that set off a series of gang wars in Phoenix, but Marley survived and prospered as did Jim Hensley, who sponsored McCain's rise to power.

    McCain's father-in-law also dabbled in dog racing and expanded his fortune by selling his track to an individual connected to the Buffalo-based Jacobs family, key Prohibition-era cogs in the Lansky network as distributors of Bronfman liquor.

    Expanding over the years, buying up race tracks and developing food and drink concessions at sports stadiums, Jacobs enterprises were described as being "probably the biggest quasi-legitimate cover for organized crime's money-laundering in the United States."

    In 1976, Hensley's mentor -- Marley (at the height of his power) -- was the key suspect behind the contract murder of journalist Don Bolles who was investigating the mob in Arizona, but Marley was never prosecuted.

    Since McCain's career was sponsored by the Lansky-Bronfman syndicate, it is no coincidence McCain recently traveled to London where Lord Jacob Rothschild of the international banking empire raised money among American expatriates on McCain's behalf.

    Rothschild has long been allied with the Bronfman family as major patrons of Israel.

    A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of Final Judgment , the controversial "underground bestseller" documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War , The New Jerusalem , Dirty Secrets , The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within and The Golem: Israel's Nuclear Hell Bomb . All are available from AFP: 202-547-5585. He has lectured on these topics in places as diverse as Malaysia, Japan, Iran, Canada, Russia and the United Arab Emirates.

    (Issue # 33, August 18, 2008)

    Please make a donation to American Free Press

    Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

    Recommended Links

    Google matched content

    Softpanorama Recommended

    Top articles

    [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA Published on Oct 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Oct 16, 2017] Governing is complicated as laws and policies affect a diverse spectrum of people and situations. The average person, in my experience, is not inclined to spend the time necessary to understand good laws/policy in a complex society. The one safety check on mob rule is that most people don't become politically active until their situation is relatively dire Published on Oct 16, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com

    [Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class Published on Oct 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

    [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia Published on Dec 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    [Oct 12, 2016] NSA whistleblower says DNC hack was not done by Russia, but by US intelligence Published on Oct 12, 2016 | theduran.com

    [Sep 14, 2016] The story of Chile s popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today s must-read, and provides unsettling similarities to current events Published on Sep 14, 2016 | September 12, 2016 at 8:58 am

    [Jul 11, 2016] 5 Reasons The Comey Hearing Was The Worst Education In Criminal Justice The American Public Has Ever Had by Seth Abramson Published on www.huffingtonpost.com

    [Jul 06, 2016] FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook by Andrew C. McCarthy Published on National Review

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons Published on www.moonofalabama.org

    Oldies But Goodies

    [Dec 19, 2017] Do not Underestimate the Power of Microfoundations

    [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

    [Oct 16, 2017] Governing is complicated as laws and policies affect a diverse spectrum of people and situations. The average person, in my experience, is not inclined to spend the time necessary to understand good laws/policy in a complex society. The one safety check on mob rule is that most people don't become politically active until their situation is relatively dire

    [Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class

    [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon

    [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

    [Oct 16, 2017] Governing is complicated as laws and policies affect a diverse spectrum of people and situations. The average person, in my experience, is not inclined to spend the time necessary to understand good laws/policy in a complex society. The one safety check on mob rule is that most people don't become politically active until their situation is relatively dire

    [Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class

    [Oct 12, 2016] NSA whistleblower says DNC hack was not done by Russia, but by US intelligence

    [Sep 14, 2016] The story of Chile s popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today s must-read, and provides unsettling similarities to current events

    [Jul 11, 2016] 5 Reasons The Comey Hearing Was The Worst Education In Criminal Justice The American Public Has Ever Had by Seth Abramson

    [Jul 06, 2016] FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook by Andrew C. McCarthy

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

    [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater

    [Dec 31, 2017] Where's the Collusion

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

    [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou

    [Dec 28, 2017] The CIA as Organized Crime How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World

    [Dec 28, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIA s Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras

    [Dec 28, 2017] From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media

    [Dec 28, 2017] On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.

    [Dec 27, 2017] Mueller investigation can be viewed as an attempt to avoid going after Clinton and hide the fact that a corrupted intelligence service worked to derail Sanders

    [Dec 27, 2017] Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt

    [Dec 23, 2017] Russiagate as bait and switch maneuver

    [Dec 22, 2017] Beyond Cynicism America Fumbles Towards Kafka s Castle by James Howard Kunstler

    [Dec 22, 2017] Rosenstein knew that he is authorizing a fishing expedition against Trump, so he is a part of the cabal

    [Dec 21, 2017] The RussiaGate Witch-Hunt Stockman Names Names In The Deep State's Insurance Policy by David Stockman

    [Dec 19, 2017] Do not Underestimate the Power of Microfoundations

    [Dec 18, 2017] The Scary Void Inside Russia-gate by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Dec 16, 2017] The U.S. Is Not A Democracy, It Never Was by Gabriel Rockhill

    [Dec 14, 2017] With the 2018 midterms on the horizon, Moscow proposed a sweeping noninterference agreement with the United States. The Trump administration said no

    [Dec 13, 2017] All the signs in the Russia probe point to Jared Kushner. Who next?

    [Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

    [Dec 11, 2017] Strzok-Gate And The Mueller Cover-Up by Alexander Mercouris

    [Dec 10, 2017] blamePutin continues to be the media s dominant hashtag. Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time

    [Dec 10, 2017] When Washington Cheered the Jihadists Consortiumnews

    [Dec 10, 2017] Russia-gate s Reach into Journalism by Dennis J Bernstein

    [Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal

    [Dec 03, 2017] Islamic Mindset Akin to Bolshevism by Srdja Trifkovic

    [Dec 01, 2017] NSA hacks system administrators, new leak reveals

    [Dec 01, 2017] Neocon Chaos Promotion in the Mideast

    [Dec 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura

    [Nov 30, 2017] Heritage Foundation + the War Industry What a Pair by Paul Gottfried

    [Nov 28, 2017] The Duplicitous Superpower by Ted Galen Carpenter

    [Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

    [Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    [Nov 04, 2017] Who's Afraid of Corporate COINTELPRO by C. J. Hopkins

    [Oct 31, 2017] Above All - The Junta Expands Its Claim To Power

    [Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Oct 25, 2017] Tomorrow Belongs to the Corporatocracy by C.J. Hopkins

    [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

    [Oct 17, 2017] The Victory of Perception Management by Robert Parry

    [Oct 16, 2017] Governing is complicated as laws and policies affect a diverse spectrum of people and situations. The average person, in my experience, is not inclined to spend the time necessary to understand good laws/policy in a complex society. The one safety check on mob rule is that most people don't become politically active until their situation is relatively dire

    [Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

    [Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class

    [Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick

    [Oct 09, 2017] After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry by Scott Ritter

    [Oct 09, 2017] Autopilot Wars by Andrew J. Bacevich

    [Oct 03, 2017] Russian Ads On Facebook A Click-Bait Campaign

    [Sep 30, 2017] Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet by Glenn Greenwald

    [Sep 27, 2017] Come You Masters of War by Matthew Harwood

    [Sep 26, 2017] Is Foreign Propaganda Even Effective by Leon Hadar

    [Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed

    [Sep 24, 2017] How Sony, Obama, Seth Rogen and the CIA Secretly Planned to Force Regime Change in North Korea by Tim Shorrock

    [Sep 24, 2017] Mark Ames When Mother Jones Was Investigated for Spreading Kremlin Disinformation by Mark Ames

    [Sep 19, 2017] Neoliberalism: the deep story that lies beneath Donald Trumps triumph: How a ruthless network of super-rich ideologues killed choice and destroyed people's faith in politics by George Monbiot

    [Sep 16, 2017] Virginia Scraps Electronic Voting Machines Hackers Destroyed At DefCon

    [Sep 23, 2017] The Exit Strategy of Empire by Wendy McElro

    [Sep 23, 2017] Welcome to 1984 Big Brother Google Now Watching Your Every Political Move

    [Sep 20, 2017] The Politics of Military Ascendancy by James Petras

    [Sep 18, 2017] Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish partnerships with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

    [Sep 18, 2017] How The Military Defeated Trumps Insurgency

    [Sep 18, 2017] The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia by Rober Parry

    [Sep 17, 2017] The So-called Russian Hack of the DNC Does Not Make Sense by Publius Tacitus

    [Sep 17, 2017] Empire Idiots by Linh Dinh

    [Sep 16, 2017] Empire of Capital by George Monbiot

    [Sep 13, 2017] A despot in disguise: one mans mission to rip up democracy by George Monbiot

    [Sep 13, 2017] Neo-liberalism is intristically connected with technological advances such as Internet, smartphones by George Monbiot

    [Sep 05, 2017] Is the World Slouching Toward a Grave Systemic Crisis by Philip Zelikow

    [Aug 30, 2017] The President of Belgian Magistrates - Neoliberalism is a form of Fascism by Manuela Cadelli

    [Aug 27, 2017] Manipulated minorities represent a major danger for democratic states>

    [Aug 25, 2017] Some analogies of current events in the USA and Mao cultural revolution: In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined

    [Aug 08, 2017] The Tale of the Brothers Awan by Philip Giraldi

    [Jul 30, 2017] the Ukrainingate emerging from the evidence on Hillary campaign sounds like a criminal conspiracy of foreign state against Trump

    [Jul 30, 2017] Fascism Is Possible Not in Spite of [neo]Liberal Capitalism, but Because of It by Earchiel Johnson

    [Jul 29, 2017] Ray McGovern The Deep State Assault on Elected Government Must Be Stopped

    [Jul 28, 2017] Perhaps Trump asked Sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions refused?

    [Jul 26, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIAs Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras

    [Jul 26, 2017] US Provocation and North Korea Pretext for War with China by James Petras

    [Jul 25, 2017] Oligarchs Succeed! Only the People Suffer! by James Petras

    [Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military – Wall Street Defense by James Petras

    [Dec 31, 2017] Anti-Populism Ideology of the Ruling Class by James Petras

    [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

    [Jul 13, 2017] Progressive Democrats Resist and Submit, Retreat and Surrender by James Petras

    [Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce

    [Jul 01, 2017] MUST SEE video explains the entire 17 Intelligence Agencies Russian hacking lie

    [Jun 30, 2017] Elections Absenteeism, Boycotts and the Class Struggle by James Petras

    [Jun 26, 2017] The Soft Coup Under Way In Washington by David Stockman

    [Jun 17, 2017] The Collapsing Social Contract by Gaius Publius

    [Jun 15, 2017] Comeys Lies of Omission by Mike Whitney

    [May 23, 2017] CIA, the cornerstone of the deep state has agenda that is different from the US national interest and reflect agenda of the special interest groups such as Wall Street bankers and MIC

    [May 23, 2017] Trumped-up claims against Trump by Ray McGovern

    [May 23, 2017] Are they really out to get Trump by Philip Girald

    [May 21, 2017] What Obsessing About Trump Causes Us To Miss by Andrew Bacevich

    [May 21, 2017] WhateverGate -- The Crazed Quest To Find Some Reason (Any Reason!) To Dump Trump by John Derbyshire

    [May 21, 2017] Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

    [May 20, 2017] Invasion of the Putin-Nazis by C.J. Hopkins

    [Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

    [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!

    [Jan 16, 2017] Gaius Publius Who is Blackmailing the President Why Arent Democrats Upset About It by Gaius Publius,

    [Mar 12, 2018] The USA has become completely an oligarchy run by a convoluted mix of intellignce agences and various lobbies with a fight going now on at the top (mafia 1 vs. mafia 2) for grabbing the leftovers of power, revenue, war spoils, etc

    [Mar 18, 2018] Powerful intelligence agencies are incompatible with any forms of democracy including the democracy for top one precent. The only possible form of government in this situation is inverted totalitarism

    [Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap

    [Dec 29, 2018] -Election Meddling- Enters Bizarro World As MSM Ignores Democrat-Linked -Russian Bot- Scheme -

    [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon

    [Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray

    [Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Dec 16, 2018] The 'Integrity Initiative' - A Military Intelligence Operation, Disguised As Charity, To Create The Russian Threat

    [Dec 14, 2018] MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given

    [Dec 14, 2018] Vetting NYT materials by CIA reflects full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger – between our the government and the neoliberal MSM

    [Dec 14, 2018] The dirty propaganda games NYT play

    [Dec 10, 2018] One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did

    [Dec 09, 2018] Die Weltwoche Weltwoche Online – www.weltwoche.ch Tucker Carlson Trump is not capable Die Weltwoche, Ausgabe 49-2018

    [Dec 08, 2018] Internet as a perfect tool of inverted totalitarism: it stimulates atomizatin of individuals, creates authomatic 24x7 surveillance over population, suppresses solidarity by exceggerating non-essential differences and allow more insidious brainwashing of the population

    [Dec 08, 2018] Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games

    [Dec 07, 2018] Brexit Theresa May Goes Greek! by Brett Redmayne

    [Dec 05, 2018] Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly against a Trump threat to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate by Philip Giraldi

    [Dec 05, 2018] Who are the Neocons by Guyenot

    [Dec 02, 2018] Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski Wins 2018 Sam Adams Award by Ray McGovern

    [Dec 02, 2018] Muller investigation has all the appearance of an investigation looking for a crime

    [Nov 30, 2018] US Warlords now and at the tome Miill's Poer Elite was published

    [Nov 27, 2018] The political fraud of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal"

    [Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders

    [Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi

    [Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda

    [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

    [Nov 24, 2018] Now we know created MH17 smear campaign, who financial Steele dossier and created Skripal affair ;-)

    [Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also.

    [Nov 23, 2018] Sitting on corruption hill

    [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power

    [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power

    [Nov 12, 2018] The Democratic Party long ago earned the designation graveyard of social protest movements, and for good reason

    [Nov 12, 2018] The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Nov 12, 2018] Obama s CIA Secretly Intercepted Congressional Communications About Whistleblowers

    [Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore

    [Nov 09, 2018] Globalism Vs Nationalism in Trump's America by Joe Quinn

    [Nov 07, 2018] America's Vote of No Confidence in Trump by Daniel Larison

    [Nov 05, 2018] Bertram Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer

    [Oct 20, 2018] Cloak and Dagger by Israel Shamir

    [Oct 16, 2018] Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon

    [Oct 10, 2018] A Decalogue of American Empire-Building A Dialogue by James Petras

    [Oct 08, 2018] Hacking and Propaganda by Marcus Ranum

    [Oct 04, 2018] Brett Kavanaugh's 'revenge' theory spotlights past with Clintons by Lisa Mascaro

    [Oct 02, 2018] Recovered memory is a Freudian voodoo. Notice how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged

    [Oct 02, 2018] I m puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?

    [Sep 29, 2018] The Schizophrenic Deep State is a Symptom, Not the Disease by Charles Hugh Smith

    [Sep 29, 2018] Trump Surrenders to the Iron Law of Oligarchy by Dan Sanchez

    [Sep 27, 2018] Hiding in Plain Sight Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us

    [Sep 27, 2018] The power elites goal is to change its appearance to look like something new and innovative to stay ahead of an electorate who are increasingly skeptical of the neoliberalism and globalism that enrich the elite at their expense.

    [Sep 24, 2018] Given Trumps kneeling to the British Skripal poisoning 'hate russia' hoax I suspect there is no chance he will go after Christopher Steele or any of the senior demoncrat conspirers no matter how much he would love to sucker punch Theresa May and her nasty colleagues.

    [Sep 21, 2018] One party state: Trump's 'Opposition' Supports All His Evil Agendas While Attacking Fake Nonsence by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Sep 16, 2018] Looks like the key players in Steele dossier were CIA assets

    [Sep 16, 2018] Perils of Ineptitude by Andrew Levin

    [Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal.

    [Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone

    [Sep 03, 2018] www.informationclearinghouse.info/50168.htm In Memoriam by Paul Edwards

    [Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan

    [Aug 28, 2018] A Colony in a Nation by Chris Hayes

    [Aug 24, 2018] The priorities of the deep state and its public face the MSM

    [Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Aug 22, 2018] Facebook Kills "Inauthentic" Foreign News Accounts - US Propaganda Stays Alive

    [Aug 18, 2018] Corporate Media the Enemy of the People by Paul Street

    [Aug 18, 2018] MoA - John Brennan Is No Match For Trump

    [Aug 18, 2018] Sanders behaviour during election is suspect, unless you assume he acted as sheep dog for hillary

    [Aug 17, 2018] What if Russiagate is the New WMDs

    [Aug 14, 2018] I think one of Mueller s deeply embedded character flaw is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed

    [Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov

    [Aug 13, 2018] Imperialism Is Alive and Kicking A Marxist Analysis of Neoliberal Capitalism by C.J. Polychroniou

    [Aug 11, 2018] President Trump the most important achivement

    [Aug 08, 2018] Christopher Steele, FBI s Confidential Human Source by Publius Tacitus

    [Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography

    [Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake.

    [Aug 05, 2018] How identity politics makes the Left lose its collective identity by Tomasz Pierscionek

    [Jul 31, 2018] Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community?

    [Jul 28, 2018] American Society Would Collapse If It Were not For These 8 Myths by Lee Camp

    [Jul 23, 2018] The Prophecy of Orwell's 1984. Totalitarian Control and the Entertainment Culture that Takes Over by Edward Curtin

    [Jul 23, 2018] Chickens with Their Heads Cut Off, Coming Home to Roost. The "Treason Narrative" by Helen Buyniski

    [Jul 22, 2018] Tucker Carlson SLAMS Intelligence Community On Russia

    [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer

    [Jul 20, 2018] What exactly is fake news caucus99percent

    [Jul 20, 2018] Doubting The Intelligence Of The Intelligence Community by Ilana Mercer

    [Jul 20, 2018] Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace With Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jul 17, 2018] I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn t hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked.

    [Jul 15, 2018] What Mueller won t find by Bob In Portland

    [Jul 13, 2018] False flag operation covering DNC leaks now involves Mueller and his team

    [Jul 16, 2018] Putin Claims U.S. Intelligence Agents Funneled $400K To Clinton Campaign Zero Hedge

    [Jul 15, 2018] Something Rotten About the DOJ Indictment of the GRU by Publius Tacitus

    [Jul 15, 2018] As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians?

    [Jul 03, 2018] Russia has a lot of information about Lybia that could dig a political grave for Hillary. They did not release it

    [Jul 03, 2018] Musings II The "Intelligence Community," "Russian Interference," and Due Diligence

    [Jun 21, 2018] The neoliberal agenda is agreed and enacted by BOTH parties:

    [Jun 18, 2018] American Pravda The JFK Assassination, Part I - What Happened, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review

    [Jun 17, 2018] Mattis Putin Is Trying To Undermine America s Moral Authority by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Jun 17, 2018] the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia

    [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern

    [Jun 06, 2018] Neoliberal language allows to cut wages by packaging neoliberal oligarchy preferences as national interests

    [Jun 13, 2018] How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today by Philip M. GIRALDI

    [Jun 12, 2018] The real reason for which 'information apocalypse' terrifies the mainstream media

    [Jun 10, 2018] Trump and National Neoliberalism by Sasha Breger Bush

    [Jun 10, 2018] Trump and National Neoliberalism, Revisited by Sasha Breger Bush

    [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare

    [May 31, 2018] Journalists and academics expose UK's criminal actions in the Middle East by Julie Hyland

    [May 24, 2018] Most probably Veselnitskaya was a false flag operation to entrap Trump campaign played by British intelligence

    [May 24, 2018] Most probably Veselnitskaya was a false flag operation to entrap Trump campaign played by British intelligence

    [May 24, 2018] The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy

    [May 23, 2018] Mueller role as a hatchet man is now firmly established. Rosenstein key role in applointing Mueller without any evidence became also more clear with time. Was he coerced or did it voluntarily is unclear by Lambert Strether

    [May 23, 2018] If the Trump-Russia set up began in spring 2016 or earlier, presumably it was undertaken on the assumption that HRC would win the election. (I say "presumably" because you never can tell..) If so, then the operation would have been an MI6 / Ukrainian / CIA coordinated op intended to frame Putin, not Trump

    [May 22, 2018] Cat fight within the US elite getting more intense

    [May 04, 2018] Media Use Disinformation To Accuse Russia Of Spreading Such by b

    [May 03, 2018] Alert The Clintonian empire is still here and tries to steal the popular vote throug

    [May 03, 2018] Mueller's questions to Trump more those of a prosecuting attorney than of an impartial investigator by Alexander Mercouris

    [May 03, 2018] Despite all the propaganda, all the hysterical headlines, all the blatantly biased coverage, the British haven't bought it

    [Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice

    [Apr 30, 2018] Neoliberalization of the US Democratic Party is irreversible: It is still controlled by Clinton gang even after Hillary debacle

    [Apr 27, 2018] A Most Sordid Profession by Fred Reed

    [Apr 22, 2018] The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite

    [Apr 21, 2018] On the Criminal Referral of Comey, Clinton et al by Ray McGovern

    [Apr 17, 2018] Poor Alex

    [Apr 11, 2018] Female neocon warmongers from Fox look like plastered brick walls – heartless and brainless.

    [Apr 09, 2018] Ghouta is Arabic for Reichstag Fire by Publius Tacitus

    [Apr 09, 2018] When Military Leaders Have Reckless Disregard for the Truth by Bruce Fein

    [Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov

    [Apr 01, 2018] Big American Money, Not Russia, Put Trump in the White House: Reflections on a Recent Report by Paul Street

    [Apr 01, 2018] Does the average user care if s/he is micro-targetted by political advertisements based on what they already believe?

    [Mar 31, 2018] FBI Director Mueller testified to Congress that Saddam Hussein was responsible for anthrax attack! That was Mueller's role in selling the "intelligence" to invade Iraq.

    [Mar 31, 2018] RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past

    [Mar 31, 2018] RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past

    [Mar 28, 2018] Deep State and False Flag Attacks

    [Mar 27, 2018] Let's Investigate John Brennan, by Philip Giraldi

    [Mar 25, 2018] Cambridge Analytica Scandal Rockets to Watergate Proportions and Beyond by Adam Garrie

    [Mar 24, 2018] Why the UK, the EU and the US Gang-Up on Russia by James Petras

    [Mar 24, 2018] Did Trump cut a deal on the collusion charge by Mike Whitney

    [Mar 22, 2018] I hope Brennan is running scared, along with Power. It's like the Irish Mafia.

    [Mar 21, 2018] Former CIA Chief Brennan Running Scared by Ray McGovern

    [Mar 21, 2018] Washington's Invasion of Iraq at Fifteen

    [Mar 21, 2018] Whataboutism Is A Nonsensical Propaganda Term Used To Defend The Failed Status Quo by Mike Krieger

    [Mar 21, 2018] How They Sold the Iraq War by Jeffrey St. Clair

    [Mar 16, 2018] Corbyn Calls for Evidence in Escalating Poison Row

    [Mar 16, 2018] NATO to display common front in Skripal case

    [Mar 16, 2018] Are We Living Under a Military Coup ?

    [Mar 16, 2018] Will the State Department Become a Subsidiary of the CIA

    [Mar 14, 2018] UNSC holds urgent meeting over Salisbury attack

    [Mar 14, 2018] Jefferson Morley on the CIA and Mossad Tradeoffs in the Formation of the US-Israel Strategic Relationship

    [Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin

    [Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin

    [Mar 11, 2018] Washington s Century-long War on Russia by Mike Whitney

    [Mar 11, 2018] Reality Check: The Guardian Restarts Push for Regime Change in Russia by Kit

    [Mar 11, 2018] I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian

    [Mar 10, 2018] Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko s death.

    [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this

    [Mar 10, 2018] Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in Obama policy and HRC campaign long before any Steele s Dossier. This was a program ofunleashing cold War II

    [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

    [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this

    [Mar 08, 2018] We don t have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn t found it yet! is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there s that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found

    [Mar 08, 2018] Cue bono question in Scripal case?

    [Mar 08, 2018] In recent years, there has been ample evidence that US policy-makers and, equally important, mainstream media commentators do not bother to read what Putin says, or at least not more than snatches from click-bait wire-service reports.

    [Mar 08, 2018] Given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence

    [Mar 08, 2018] A key piece of evidence pointing to 'Guccifer 2.0' being a fake personality created by the conspirators in their attempt to disguise the fact that the materials from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' were obtained by a leak rather than a hack had to do with the involvement of the former GCHQ person Matt Tait.

    [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

    [Mar 06, 2018] The U.S. Returns to 'Great Power Competition,' With a Dangerous New Edge

    [Mar 06, 2018] The current anti-Russian sentiment in the West as hysterical. But this hysteria is concentrated at the top level of media elite and neocons. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided within themselves due to the crisis of neolineralism.

    [Mar 02, 2018] Contradictions In Seth Rich Murder Continue To Challenge Hacking Narrative

    [Feb 28, 2018] Perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others is a new tool of justice in a surveillance state

    [Feb 26, 2018] It looks like Christopher Steele's real role was laundering information which had been obtained through continued Inquiries of the NSA mega-file by our Ambassador to the UN

    [Feb 26, 2018] Democrat Memo Lays Egg by Publius Tacitus

    [Feb 25, 2018] Democracies are political systems in which the real ruling elites hide behind an utterly fake appearance of people power

    [Apr 17, 2019] Deep State and the FBI Federal Blackmail Investigation

    [Feb 23, 2018] NSA Genius Debunks Russiagate Once For All

    [Feb 22, 2018] Bill Binney explodes the rile of 17 agances security assessment memo in launching the Russia witch-hunt

    [Feb 20, 2018] For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia

    [Feb 20, 2018] Russophobia is a futile bid to conceal US, European demise by Finian Cunningham

    [Feb 19, 2018] Nunes FBI and DOJ Perps Could Be Put on Trial by Ray McGovern

    [Feb 19, 2018] The Russiagate Intelligence Wars What We Do and Don't Know

    [Feb 19, 2018] Russian Meddling Was a Drop in an Ocean of American-made Discord by AMANDA TAUB and MAX FISHER

    [Feb 18, 2018] This dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia is extremely lucrative for the war profiteers, the retired generals intelligence members who prostitute themselves as media pundits, the members of Congress who get $$$ from the war profiteers, and the corporate media which thrives on links to the war profiteers as well as on war reporting

    [Feb 16, 2018] The Deep Staters care first and foremost about themselves.

    [Feb 12, 2018] I am wondering why it is that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing

    [Feb 15, 2018] Trump's War on the Deep State by Conrad Black

    [Feb 14, 2018] Recused Judge in Flynn Prosecution Served on FISA Court

    [Feb 14, 2018] The Anti-Trump Coup by Michael S. Rozeff

    [Feb 14, 2018] The FBI and the President – Mutual Manipulation by James Petras

    [Feb 12, 2018] The Age of Lunacy: The Doomsday Machine

    [Feb 12, 2018] Ike's Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex Is Alive and Very Well by William J. Astore

    [Feb 12, 2018] I am wondering why it is that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing

    [Feb 11, 2018] How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war

    [Feb 10, 2018] The generals are not Borgists. They are something worse ...

    [Feb 10, 2018] More on neoliberal newspeak of US propaganda machine

    [Feb 08, 2018] Disinformation Warfare

    [Feb 08, 2018] Control of narrative means that creation of the simplistic picture in which the complexities of the world are elided in favor of 'good guys' vs. 'bad guys' dichotomy

    [Jan 28, 2018] Russiagate Isn t About Trump, And It Isn t Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone

    [Jan 28, 2018] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Russiagate Isn't About Trump, And It Isn't Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone

    [Jan 27, 2018] As of January 2018 Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump should have done sooner.

    [Jan 27, 2018] In a Trump Hunt, Beware the Perjury Trap by Pat Buchanan

    [Jan 26, 2018] Warns The Russiagate Stakes Are Extreme by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jan 25, 2018] Russiagate as Kafka 2.0

    [Jan 24, 2018] Destroying, suppressing evidence is FBI standard procedure by James Bovard

    [Jan 24, 2018] The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate by Ray McGovern

    [Jan 24, 2018] Whistleblower Confirms Secret Society Meetings Between FBI And DOJ To Undermine Trump

    [Jan 24, 2018] Brazen Plot To Exonerate Hillary Clinton And Frame Trump Unraveling, Says Former Fed Prosecutor

    [Jan 22, 2018] Joe diGenova Brazen Plot to Frame Trump

    [Jan 22, 2018] The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear compromised

    [Jan 22, 2018] If Trump is an authoritarian, why don t Democrats treat him like one? by Corey Robin

    [Jan 22, 2018] Clapper may have been the one behind using British intelligence to spy on Trump.

    [Jan 22, 2018] The Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Justice has given congressional investigators additional text messages between FBI investigator Peter Strzok and his girlfriend Lisa Page. The FBI also told investigators that five months worth of text messages, between December 2016 and May 2017, are unavailable because of a technical glitch

    [Jan 20, 2018] What Is The Democratic Party ? by Lambert Strether

    [Jan 19, 2018] #ReleaseTheMemo Extensive FISA abuse memo could destroy the entire Mueller Russia investigation by Alex Christoforou

    [Jan 16, 2018] The Russia Explainer

    [Jan 13, 2018] The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate by Ray McGovern

    [Jan 12, 2018] The DOJ and FBI Worked With Fusion GPS on Operation Trump

    [Jan 08, 2018] Someone Spoofed Michael Wolff s Book About Trump And It s Comedy Gold

    [Jan 07, 2018] CONFIRMED: CLINTON OPERATIVES IN FBI MANUFACTURED RUSSIAGATE by Roger Stone

    [Jan 06, 2018] Russia-gate Breeds Establishment McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

    [Jan 02, 2018] The Still-Missing Evidence of Russia-gate by Dennis J. Bernstein

    [Jan 02, 2018] Neocon warmongers should be treated as rapists by Andrew J. Bacevich

    [Jan 02, 2018] What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears

    [Jan 02, 2018] Jill Stein in the Cross-hairs by Mike Whitney

    [Dec 31, 2017] Maybe Trump was the deep state candidate of choice? Maybe that s why they ran Clinton against him rather than the more electable Sanders? Maybe that s why Obama started ramping up tensions with Russia in the early fall of 2016 – to swing the election to Trump (by giving the disgruntled anti-war Sanders voters a false choice between Trump or war with Russia?

    [Dec 31, 2017] Brainwashing as a key component of the US social system by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

    [Apr 21, 2019] Deciphering Trumps Foreign Policy by Oscar Silva-Valladares

    [Apr 21, 2019] Special Counsel Mueller -- Disingenuous and Dishonest by Larry C Johnson

    [Apr 21, 2019] Whenever someone inconveniences the neoliberal oligarchy, the entire neoliberal MSM mafia tells us 24 x7 how evil and disgusting that person is. It's true of the leader of every nation which rejects neoliberal globalization as well as for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

    [Apr 21, 2019] George Papodopoulus was entrapped by individuals linked to British MI-6 and the CIA with offers to provide meetings with Russians and Putin. The Mueller account is a lie

    [Apr 20, 2019] Sure, blame those guys over there for Hillary fiasco and hire Mueller to get the goods . That s the ultimate the dog ate my homework excuse.

    [Apr 20, 2019] Trump has certainly made the world safer

    [Apr 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard: People get into a lot of conversations about political strategies I might get in trouble for saying this, but what does it matter if we beat Donald Trump, if we end up with someone who will perpetuate the very same crony capitalist policies, corporate policies, and waging more of these costly wars?

    [Apr 17, 2019] Haspel is not the "underling". Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy.

    [Apr 17, 2019] The media's interest in the well-being of a foreign population is directly proportional to the West's interest in toppling its government, while editorial standards are inversely proportional to its enemy status

    [Apr 17, 2019] Six US Agencies Conspired ...

    [Apr 17, 2019] Deep State and the FBI Federal Blackmail Investigation

    [Apr 17, 2019] Did CIA Director William Casey really say, We ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false

    [Apr 16, 2019] The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and flourishing careers. Now they re angling for war with Iran.

    [Apr 16, 2019] CIA Director Used Fake Skripal Incident Photos To Manipulate Trump

    [Apr 15, 2019] Do you need to be stupid to support Trump in 2020, even if you voted for him as lesser evil in 2016

    [Apr 13, 2019] Russophobia, A WMD (Weapon Of Mass Deception) by Jean Ranc

    [Apr 12, 2019] Putin was KGB agent crowd forgets that Bush Sr was long time senior CIA operative and the director of CIA

    [Apr 10, 2019] Habakkuk on cockroaches and the New York Times

    [Apr 10, 2019] A demoralized white working and middle class was willing to believe in anything, deluding themselves into reading between the barren eruptions of his blowzy proclamations. They elevated him to messianic heights, ironically fashioning him into that which he publicly claims to despise: an Obama, a Barry in negative image, hope and change for the OxyContin and Breitbart set

    [Apr 09, 2019] The ruthless neo-colonialists of 21st century

    [Apr 08, 2019] Aaron Maté Was Also Right About Russiagate

    [Apr 07, 2019] Nunes The Russian Collusion Hoax Meets An Unbelievbable End

    [Apr 06, 2019] The Magnitsky Act-Behind the Scenes ASEEES

    [Apr 06, 2019] Trump is for socialism but only when it comes to funding US military industry Tulsi Gabbard

    [Apr 04, 2019] How Brzezinski's Chessboard degenerated into Brennan's Russophobia by Mike Whitney

    [Apr 04, 2019] Was John Brennan The Russia Lie Ringleader

    [Apr 03, 2019] What We Can Learn From 1920s Germany by Brian E. Fogarty

    [Apr 02, 2019] Requiem to Russiagate by CJ Hopkins

    [Apr 02, 2019] 'Yats' Is No Longer the Guy by Robert Parry

    [Apr 01, 2019] Amazon.com War with Russia From Putin Ukraine to Trump Russiagate (9781510745810) Stephen F. Cohen Books

    [Mar 31, 2019] Because of the immediate arrival of the Russia collusion theory, neither MSM honchos nor any US politician ever had to look into the camera and say, I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump

    [Mar 31, 2019] What is the purpose of Russiagate hysteria?

    [Mar 30, 2019] The Real Costs of Russiagate

    [Mar 30, 2019] You don't like Trump? Bolton? Clinton? All of these people who are in or have passed through leadership positions in America are entirely valid representatives of Americans in general. You may imagine they are faking cluelessness to avoid acknowledging responsibility for their crimes, but the cluelessness is quite real and extends to the entire population.

    [Mar 29, 2019] Trumps billionaire coup détat: Donald Trump is about to break the record of withdrawing his promises faster than any other US president in history

    [Mar 25, 2019] Russiagate was never about substance, it was about who gets to image-manage the decline of a turbo-charged, self-harming neoliberal capitalism by Jonathan Cook

    [Mar 25, 2019] Spygate The True Story of Collusion (plus Infographic) by Jeff Carlson

    [Mar 25, 2019] Another SIGINT compromise ...

    [Mar 24, 2019] The accountability that must follow Mueller's report

    [Mar 24, 2019] "Russia Gate" investigation was a color revolution agaist Trump. But a strnge side effect was that Clintons have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug to the status of some kind of martyr.

    [Mar 24, 2019] With RussiaGate Over Where's Hillary

    [Mar 24, 2019] One could wish that DOJ IG Horowitz could investigate and sanction British Intelligence for its use of official and non-official officials in starting this debacle.

    [Mar 24, 2019] The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken, did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.

    [Mar 24, 2019] One thing left out is the ability of readers to call BS on a story i.e. a robust comment section for debates.

    [Mar 23, 2019] Brennan pipe dream obliterated. The color revolution against Trump failed

    [Mar 23, 2019] Mueller stopped following the money the moment he realized it was all leading back to Israel.

    [Mar 22, 2019] Glenn Greenwald on Twitter The Mueller investigation is complete and this is a simple fact that will never go away

    [Mar 18, 2019] Journalists who are spies

    [Mar 18, 2019] FULL CNN TOWN HALL WITH TULSI GABBARD 3-10-19

    [Mar 18, 2019] Doublethink and Newspeak Do We Have a Choice by Greg Guma

    [Mar 18, 2019] The Why are the media playing lapdog and not watchdog – again – on war in Iraq?

    [Mar 17, 2019] Mueller uses the same old false flag scams, just different packaging of his forensics-free findings

    [Mar 17, 2019] VIPS- Mueller's Forensics-Free Findings

    [Mar 11, 2019] Bruce Ohr, Liar or Moron by Larry C Johnson

    [Mar 07, 2019] Are you ready? Here is all the data Facebook and Google have on you by Dylan Curran

    [Mar 05, 2019] The Shadow Governments Destruction Of Democracy

    [Feb 27, 2019] Their votes mean absolutely nothing, and that the entire American electoral system is just a simulation of democracy

    [Feb 26, 2019] Neoliberalism by Julie Wilson

    [Feb 24, 2019] David Stockman on Peak Trump : Undrainable swamp (which is on Pentagon side of Potomac river) and fantasy of MAGA (which become MIGA -- make Israel great again)

    [Feb 22, 2019] Neo-McCarthyism is used to defend the US empirical policies. Branding dissidents as Russian stooges is a loophole that allow to suppress dissident opinions

    [Feb 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard kills New World Order bloodbath in thirty seconds

    [Feb 19, 2019] Warmongers in their ivory towers - YouTube

    [Feb 18, 2019] Do You Believe in the Deep State Now by Robert W. Merry

    [Feb 18, 2019] Joe Rogan Experience #1170 - Tulsi Gabbard

    [Feb 17, 2019] Was Trump was a deep state man from day one, just like Obama, Bush, Clinton and all the rest?

    [Feb 17, 2019] Trump is Russian asset memo is really neocon propaganda overkill

    [Feb 17, 2019] The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives

    [Feb 16, 2019] MSM Begs For Trust After Buzzfeed Debacle by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Feb 16, 2019] Death Of Russiagate: Mueller Team Tied To Mifsud s Network

    [Feb 13, 2019] MoA - Russiagate Is Finished

    [Feb 13, 2019] Making Globalism Great Again by C.J. Hopkins

    [Feb 13, 2019] Stephen Cohen on War with Russia and Soviet-style Censorship in the US by Russell Mokhiber

    [Feb 10, 2019] Pussy John Bolton and His Codpiece Mustache by Fred Reed

    [Feb 08, 2019] To understand Steele and the five eyes involvement in the Russia hoax you need to go to the library

    [Feb 05, 2019] The neocon s strategy

    [Feb 04, 2019] Trump s Revised and Rereleased Foreign Policy: The World Policeman is Back

    [Jan 29, 2019] After hiring Abrams the next logical step would be hiring Hillary or Wolfowitz. WTF Is Trump Thinking

    [Jan 29, 2019] Guardian became Deep State Guardian

    [Jan 26, 2019] Can the current US neoliberal/neoconservative elite be considered suicidal?

    [Jan 21, 2019] Beyond BuzzFeed The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing US Media Failures On The Trump-Russia Story by Glenn Greenwald

    [Jan 19, 2019] According to Wolin, domestic and foreign affairs goals are each important and on parallel tracks

    [Jan 15, 2019] Apparently, the FBI, and not the CIA, are the real government.

    [Jan 14, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard, A Rare Anti-War Democrat, Will Run For President

    [Jan 13, 2019] As FBI Ramped Up Witch Hunt When Trump Fired Comey, Strzok Admitted Collusion Investigation A Joke

    [Jan 11, 2019] New Documents Reveal a Covert British Military-Intelligence Smear Machine Meddling In American Politics by Mark Ames

    [Jan 11, 2019] How President Trump Normalized Neoconservatism by Ilana Mercer

    [Jan 11, 2019] Facts does not matter in the current propoganda environment, the narrative is everything

    [Jan 08, 2019] Shock Files- What Role Did Integrity Initiative Play in Sergei Skripal Affair- - Sputnik International

    [Jan 08, 2019] Skripal spin doctors- Documents link UK govt-funded Integrity Initiative to anti-Russia narrative

    [Jan 08, 2019] No, wealth isn t created at the top. It is merely devoured there by Rutger Bregman

    [Jan 06, 2019] British elite fantasy of again ruling the world (with American and Zionist aid) has led to a series of catastrophic blunders and overreaches in both foreign and domestic policies.

    [Jan 02, 2019] Russian bots - How An Anti-Russian Lobby Creates Fake News

    [Jan 02, 2019] The Only Meddling "Russian Bots" Were Actually Democrat-Led "Experts" by Mac Slavo

    [Jan 02, 2019] Did Mueller Patched Together Much of His Indictment from 2015 Radio Free Europe Article ?

    [Jan 02, 2019] That madness of the US neocons comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of groupthink, and manipulating the language. Simply put, you don't know anymore what's what outside of the narrative your group pushes. The manipulators ends up caught in their lies.

    Sites

    ...



    Etc

    Society

    Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

    Quotes

    War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

    Bulletin:

    Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

    History:

    Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

    Classic books:

    The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

    Most popular humor pages:

    Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

    The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


    Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

    FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

    This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

    You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

    Disclaimer:

    The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

    Last modified: September, 13, 2020